Notes and Queries, Number 180, April 9, 1853

"If at least I were not prevented by some abler hand, particular by the author of that letter which first gave rise to this debate; and who, it was expected, would have appeared once more upon it, and freed what he had advanced from all exceptions."

    W. Fraser.

[According to the Bodleian Catalogue, it was written by Sir Bartholomew Shower; but we have seen it attributed to William Binkes, the Prolocutor to the Convocation of 1705.]

Nicholas Thane.—Dr. Browne Willis, in his History of the Town of Buckingham, published London, 1755, says (p. 49.):

"About the year 1545, as we are told in the Peerage of England, in the account of the Earl of Pomfret's family, his ancestor Richard Fermour of Easton Neston in Northamptonshire, Esq., had his estate seized on and taken away from him upon his having incurred a præmunire, by relieving one Nicholas Thane, an obnoxious Popish priest, who had been committed a close prisoner to the gaol in the town of Buckingham."

Can any of your readers inform me what crime or offence this "obnoxious priest" had been guilty of, as to be committed a "close prisoner;" and that Richard Fermour, Esq., who had relieved him during his incarceration, should, for this apparently simple act of charity, have incurred a præmunire, for which he was subjected to so heavy a fine as the forfeiture of his estate? I should be glad of any further particulars respecting him, or to be referred to any work in which an account of him is recorded; and also to be informed by whom the Peerage of England, quoted by Dr. Willis, was compiled, when published, and whether it contains a more copious account of this reprehensible ecclesiastic.

    Arthur R. Carter.

Camden Town.

[Richard Fermor was a merchant of the staple at Calais, and having acquired a considerable fortune, located himself at Easton Neston, co. Northampton. Being a zealous Romanist he refused to conform to the Reformed faith, and thus rendered himself obnoxious to the court; and being accused of administering relief to Nicholas Thane, formerly his confessor, who was then a prisoner in Buckingham Castle for denying the supremacy of the king, he was committed to the Marshalsea in July, 1540, and was afterwards arraigned in Westminster Hall, though nothing could be proved against him, except that he had sent 8d. and a couple of shirts to the imprisoned priest. He was adjudged to have incurred a præmunire, whereby all his lands and goods became forfeited, and the rapacious monarch enforced the sentence with the most unrelenting severity. See Baker's Hist. of Northamptonshire, vol. ii. p. 142.; Collins's Peerage, edit. Brydges, vol. iv. p. 199.; and Lipscomb's Buckinghamshire, vol. ii. p. 570.]

Churchwardens, Qualification of.—Can any of your correspondents give the title and price of any work which will define the qualifications requisite for filling the office of churchwarden? The case on which the question has arisen is that of a country parish divided into two townships, each township naming a warden. One of these is a dissenter, and seldom or never attends church; the other is said not to be a householder. Both of these are, by many of the parishioners, considered ineligible, owing to these circumstances. Should any one send the required information, you would oblige by allowing it to appear in the next Number of "N. & Q.," where it would be sure to be seen, and thankfully acknowledged by

    B. B. F. F. T. T.

[Our correspondent will find the required information in Prideaux's Churchwarden's Guide, 5th edit. 1850, price 6s., who has devoted sect. ii. "to the persons liable to be chosen to the office of churchwarden, and the persons disqualified and exempt from serving that office." (Pp. 4-17.) Consult also Cripps's Practical Treatise on the Law relating to the Church and the Clergy, 8vo. 1850, pp. 176-201., price 26s.]

Sir John Powell.—In Vol. vii., p. 262., of "N. & Q." is an inquiry respecting Sir John Powell, and an answer given, in which there must surely be some mistake, or there must have been two Sir John Powells.

I beg to give the following extract from Britton's History and Antiquities of the Abbey Church of Gloucester:

"A full-length marble statue, in judicial robes, erected by John Snell, Esq., to the memory of his uncle, Judge Powell, who in 1685 represented this city, his native place, in parliament. He was successively a Justice of Common Pleas and the King's Bench, and was one of the Judges who tried the seven Bishops, and joined in the declaration against the King's dispensing power. For this, James II. deprived him of his office, July 2, 1688; but William III. created him, first a Baron of the Exchequer, then a Judge in the Common Pleas, and on June 18, 1702, advanced him to the King's Bench, where he sat till his death, June 14, 1713."

I will add, that on the floor near the above monument are inscribed the names, &c., of various members of his family.

Sir John Powell is traditionally said to have lived at an old house called Wightfield in this county, which certainly belonged, at one time, to the above John Snell, who had married the judge's niece, and from whose descendants it was purchased by the grandfather of the present possessor.

Allow me to ask, by-the-bye, if the place, as spelt in your paper, should not be Langharne, or more correctly still, Llangharne?

    F. S.

Gloucestershire.

[There were not only two, but three judges of the name of Powell, who were cotemporaries, viz.—

1. Sir John Powell, mentioned in "N. & Q." (Vol. vii., p. 262.), whose burial-place should have been printed Llangharne, as our correspondent suggests. He was made a Judge of the Common Pleas on April 26, 1686, and a Judge of the King's Bench on April 16, 1687. He was removed on June 29, 1688, on consequence of the resolution he displayed on the trial of the seven bishops; but was restored to the Bench, as a Judge of the Common Pleas, in May, 1689, and continued to sit till his death in 1696.

2. Sir Thomas Powell became a Baron of the Exchequer on April 22, 1687, and was transferred into the King's Bench in June, 1688, to take the seat there left vacant by the removal of the above Sir John Powell. He himself was removed in May, 1689.

3. Sir John Powell, or, as he was then called, John Powell, junior, was made a Baron of the Exchequer on November 10, 1691, removed into the Common Pleas on October 29, 1695, and into the King's Bench in June, 1702, where he sat till his death in 1713. He it was who was buried at Gloucester.

Britton has evidently, as Chalmers and Noble had done before him, commingled and confused the histories of the two Sir Johns.]

S. N.'s "Antidote," &c.—I have just purchased an old book, in small quarto, of which the title is—

"An Antidote or Soveraigne Remedie against the pestiferous Writings of all English Sectaries, and in particular against Dr. Whitaker, Dr. Fulke, Dr. Bilson, Dr. Reynolds, Dr. Sparkes, and Dr. Field, the chiefe upholders, some of Protestancy, some of Puritanisme; divided into three Parts, &c., &c., &c. By S. N., doctour of divinity. Permissu superiorum, MDCXV."

Who is the author S. N., and what other particulars are known respecting it?

    Lewis Kelly.

Leeds.

[Sylvester Norris is the author. There is an edition published in 1622, 4to.]

Beads.—When was the use of beads, for the purpose of counting prayers, first introduced into Europe?

    C. W. G.

[For the repose of a bishop, by Wilfrid's Canons of Cealcythe, A.D. 816, can. X., seven belts of paternosters were to be said; the prayers being numbered probably by studs fixed on the girdle. But St. Dominic invented the rosary, which contains ten lesser beads representing Ave Marias, to one larger standing for a paternoster.]

Replies

BROAD ARROW

(Vol. iv., p. 412.)

With reference to my Note, ascribing a Celtic origin to this symbol, I have just met with somewhat of a curious coincidence, to say the least of it. In Richardson's Travels in the Sahara, &c., vol. i. p. 420., speaking of the camel, he says:

"The camels have all public and private marks, the former for their country, the latter for their owner; and, strange enough, the public mark of the Ghadames camel is the English broad R." &c. [Arrow, he should have said.]

Now, the Celtic ↑ (as before mentioned) is typical of superior holiness, &c. &c.; and it is singular that a city of Marabouts (saints or holy men, such as the Ghadamsee are described to be) should have adopted this symbol as their public (or government) mark. The population of Ghadames is a strange medley of Arabs, Touaricks, negroes, half-breeds of all kinds, &c., and whence their claim to superior sanctity does not appear.

That Celtic tribes once sojourned in Northern Africa is attested by Druidical remains in Morocco and elsewhere. Mr. Richardson mentions the frequent occurrence of pyramidal stones in the Sahara, incidentally, without specifying whether they are rocks in sitû, or supposed to be the work of man's hand. The language of Ghadames is one of the Berber dialects; and according to Mr. Urquhart (Pillars of Hercules, vol. i. p. 383.), these, or some of them, are said to contain so much of the Celtic element, that Highlanders from the garrison of Gibraltar, and the natives about Tangier, can mutually understand each other.

The above, however, are mere speculations; and I would suggest that, previous to further research as to the origin of the broad arrow, it would be as well to ascertain how long it has been used as "the King's mark." I should incline to believe that the earliest mark upon government stores was the royal cipher—ER (with a crown above) perhaps. On old guns of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, we find the rose and crown, but no broad arrow; more frequently Elizabeth's bear her cipher. A few articles I have seen of William III. are stamped with WR (with a crown above): no broad arrow. Nor do I remember having ever seen it upon anything older than George III. This, however, is a question which may interest some gentleman of the Ordnance Department, and induce him to make research where success is most likely to reward his trouble, viz. in the Tower, in the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich, or amongst the ancient records in the Ordnance Office; for I presume there be such.

P. C. S. S. (Vol. iv., p. 371.) says that "he always understood" the broad arrow represented the "Pheon" in the arms of the Sydney family; but, as he quotes no authority, we are at liberty to doubt the adoption and perpetuation of a bearing appertaining to any particular master-general of ordnance as a "king's mark," howsoever illustrious or distinguished he might be.

    A. C. M.

Exeter

ENGLISH COMEDIANS IN THE NETHERLANDS

(Vol. ii., pp. 184. 459.; Vol. iii., p. 21.; Vol. vii., p. 114.)

Returning to this question, I will communicate a few extracts from the Gerechtsdagboeken (Minutes of the Council) of the city of Leyden:—

Sept. 30, 1604.—"Die van de Gerechte opt voorschryven van Zÿne Ex

en versouc van Jan Woodtss, Engelsman, hebben toegelaten ende geconsenteert dat hy geduyrende deze aenstaende jaermarct met zyn behulp zal mogen speelen zeecker eerlick camerspel tot vermaeckinge van der gemeente, mits van yder persoen (comende om te bezien) nyet meer te mogen nemen nochte genyeten dan twaelf penn., ende vooral betaelen tot een gootspenning aen handen van Jacob van Noorde; bode metter roede, vier guld. om ten behouve van de armen verstrect te worden."