Notes and Queries, Number 189, June 11, 1853

    W. H. Lammin.

Fulham.

Replies

BISHOP BUTLER

(Vol. vii., p. 528.)

"Charity thinketh no evil;" but we must feel both surprise and regret that any one should, in 1853, consider it a doubtful question whether Bishop Butler died in the communion of the Church of England. The bishop has now been in his grave more than a hundred years; but Warburton says truly, "How light a matter very often subjects the best-established characters to the suspicions of posterity—how ready is a remote age to catch at a low revived slander, which the times that brought it forth saw despised and forgotten almost in its birth."

X. Y. Z. says he would be glad to have this charge (originally brought forward in 1767) sifted. He will find that it has been sifted, and in the most full and satisfactory manner, by persons of no less distinction than Archbishop Secker and Bishop Halifax. The strong language employed by the archbishop, when refuting what he terms a "gross and scandalous falsehood," and when asserting the bishops "abhorrence of popery," need not here be quoted, as "N.& Q." is not the most proper channel for the discussion of theological subjects; but it is alleged that every man of sense and candour was convinced at the time that the charge should be retracted; and it must be a satisfaction to your correspondent to know, that as Bishop Butler lived so he died, in full communion with that Church, which he adorned equally by his matchless writings, sanctity of manners, and spotless life.[4 - Your correspondent may be referred to Memoirs of the Life of Bishop Butler, by a connexion of his own, the Rev. Thomas Bartlett, A.M., published in 1839; and to a review of the same work in the Quarterly Review, vol. lxiv. p. 331.]

    J. H. Markland.

Bath.

In reference to the Query by X. Y. Z., as to whether Bishop Butler died in the Roman Catholic communion, allow me to refer your correspondent to the contents of the letters from Dr. Forster and Bishop Benson to Secker, then Bishop of Oxford, concerning the last illness and death of the prelate in question, deposited at Lambeth amongst the private MSS. of Archbishop Seeker, "as negative arguments against the calumny of his dying a Papist."

Than the allegations that Butler died with a Roman Catholic book of devotion in his hand, and that the last person in whose company he was seen was a priest of that persuasion, nothing can be more unreasonable, if at least it be meant to deduce from these unproved statements that the bishop agreed with the one and held communion with the other. Dr. Forster, his chaplain, was with him at his death, which happened about 11 a.m., June 16; and this witness observes (in a letter to the Bishop of Oxford, June 18) that "the last four-and-twenty hours preceding which [i. e. his death] were divided between short broken slumbers, and intervals of a calm but disordered talk when awake." Again (letter to Ditto, June 17), Forster says that Bishop Butler, "when, for a day or two before his death, he had in a great measure lost the use of his faculties, was perpetually talking of writing to your lordship, though without seeming to have anything which, at least, he was at all capable of communicating to you." Bishop Benson writes to the Bishop of Oxford (June 12) that Butler's "attention to any one or anything is immediately lost and gone;" and, "my lord is incapable, not only of reading, but attending to anything read or said." And again, "his attention to anything is very little or none."

There was certainly an interval between this time (June 12) and "the last four-and-twenty hours" preceding his death, during which, writes Bishop Benson (June 17), Butler "said kind and affecting things more than I could bear." Yet, on the whole, I submit that these extracts, if fully weighed and considered with all the attending circumstances, contain enough of even positive evidence to refute conclusively the injurious suspicions alluded to by X. Y. Z., if such are still current.

    J. R. C.

MITIGATION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT TO FORGERS

(Vol. iv., p. 434., &c.)

I have asked many questions, and turned over many volumes and files of newspapers, to get at the real facts of the cases of mitigation stated in "N. & Q." Having winnowed the chaff as thoroughly as I could, I send the very few grains I have found. Those only who have searched annual registers, magazines, and journals for the foundation of stories defective in names and dates, will appreciate my difficulties.

I have not found any printed account of the "Jeannie Deans" case, "N. & Q.," Vol. iv., p. 434.; Vol. v., p. 444.; Vol. vi., p. 153. I have inquired of the older members of the Northern Circuit, and they never heard of it. Still a young man may have been convicted of forgery "about thirty-five years ago:" his sister may have presented a well-signed petition to the judges, and the sentence may have been commuted without the tradition surviving on the circuit. All however agree, that no man who ever sat on the bench deserved the imputation of "obduracy" less than Baron Graham. I should not have noticed the anecdote but for its mythic accompaniments, which I disposed of in "N. & Q.," Vol. v., p. 444.

In Vol. vi., p. 496., W. W. cites from Wade's British History:

"July 22, 1814. Admiral William B–y found guilty of forging letters to defraud the revenue. He was sentenced to death, which was commuted to banishment."

The case is reported in The Sun, July 25, 1814; and the subsequent facts are in The Times, July 30, and August 16 and 20. It was tried before Mr. Justice Dampier at the Winchester Summer Assizes. There were five bills against the prisoner for forgery, and one for a fraud. That on which he was convicted, was for defrauding the post-master of Gosport of 3l. 8s. 6d. He took to the post-office a packet of 114 letters, which he said were "ship letters," from the "Mary and Jane." He received the postage, and signed the receipt "W. Johnstone." The letters were fictitious. The case was fully proved, and he received sentence of death. He was respited for a fortnight, and afterwards during the pleasure of the Prince Regent. He was struck off the list of retired rear-admirals. It was proved at the trial, that, in 1809, he commanded "The Plantagenet;" but, from the unsettled state of his mind, the command had been given up to the first lieutenant, and that he was shortly after superseded. This, and the good character he received, were probably held to excuse the pardon.

I now come to the great case of George III. and Mr. Fawcett. I much regret that Whunside has not replied in your pages to my question (Vol. vii., p. 163.), as I could then have commented upon the facts, and his means of knowing them, with more freedom. I have a private communication from him, which is ample and candid. He objects to bring his name before the public, and I have no right to press that point. He is not quite certain as to the convict's name, but can procure it for me. He would rather that it should not be published, as it might give pain to a respectable family. Appreciating the objection, and having no use for it except to publish, I have declined to ask it of him.

The case occurred in 1802 or 1803, when Whunside was a pupil of Mr. Fawcett. He says:

"Occasionally Mr. Fawcett used to allow certain portions of a weekly newspaper to be read to the boys on a Saturday evening. This case was read to us, I think from the Leeds Mercury; and though Mr. Fawcett's name was not mentioned, we were all aware who the minister was."

Thus we have no direct evidence of the amount of Mr. Fawcett's communications with George III. How much of the story as it is now told was read to the boys, we do not know; but that it came to them first through a weekly paper, is rather against than for it.

We all know the tendency of good stories to pick up additions as they go. I have read that the first edition of the Life of Loyola was without miracles. This anecdote seems to have reached its full growth in 1823, in Pearson's Life of W. Hey, Esq., and probably in the two lives of George III., published after his death, and mentioned by Whunside. Pearson, as cited in "N. & Q.," Vol. vi., p. 276., says, that by some means the Essay on Anger had been recommended to the notice of George III., who would have made the author a bishop had he not been a dissenter; that he signified his wish to serve Mr. Fawcett, &c. That on the conviction of H–, Mr. Fawcett wrote to the king; and a letter soon arrived, conveying the welcome intelligence, "You may rest assured that his life is safe," &c.

It is not stated that this was "private and confidential:" if it was, Mr. Fawcett had no right to mention it; if it was not, he had no reason for concealing what was so much to his honour, and so extraordinary as the king's personal interference in a matter invariably left to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. If, however, Mr. Fawcett was silent from modesty, his biographers had no inducement to be so; yet, let us see how they state the case. The Account of the Life, Writings, and Ministry of the late Rev. John Fawcett: London, 1818, cited in "N. & Q.," Vol. vi., p. 229., says:

"He was induced, in conjunction with others, to solicit the exercise of royal clemency in mitigating the severity of that punishment which the law denounces: and it gladdened the sympathetic feelings of his heart to know that these petitions were not unavailing; but the modesty of his character made him regret the publicity which had been given to this subject."

The fifth edition of the Essay on Anger, printed for the Book Society for Promoting Religious Knowledge, London, no date, has a memoir of the author. The "incident" is said not to have been circulated in any publication by the family; but "it was one of the secrets which obtain a wider circulation from the reserve with which one relator invariably retails it to another." That is exactly my view. Secrecy contributes to diffusion, but not to accuracy. At the risk of being thought tedious, I must copy the rest of this statement:

"Soon after the publication of this treatise, the author took an opportunity of presenting a copy to our late much revered sovereign; whose ear was always accessible to merit, however obscure the individual in whom it was found. Contrary to the fate of most publications laid at the feet of royalty, it was diligently perused and admired; and a communication of this approbation was afterwards made known to the author. It happened some time afterwards, a relative of one of his friends was convicted of a capital crime, for which he was left for execution. Application was instantly made for an extension of royal favour in his behalf; and, among others, one was made by Mr. Fawcett: and his majesty, no doubt recollecting the pleasure he had derived from the perusal of his Essay on Anger, and believing that he would not recommend an improper person to royal favour, was most graciously pleased to answer the prayer of the petition; but as to precisely how far the name of Mr. Fawcett might have contributed to this successful application must await the great disclosures of a future judgment."

The reader will sift this jumble of inferences and facts, and perhaps will not go so far as to have "no doubt."

Whunside tells me, that about 1807 he employed a bookbinder from Halifax; who, on hearing that he had been a pupil of Mr. Fawcett, said he had seen two copies of the Essay on Anger, most beautifully bound, to be sent to the king.

The conclusion to which I come is, that Mr. Fawcett sent a copy of the Essay on Anger to the king; that the receipt of it was acknowledged, possibly in some way more complimentary than the ordinary circular; that a young man was convicted of forgery; that Mr. Fawcett and others petitioned for his pardon, and that he was pardoned. All the rest I hold to be mere rumours, not countenanced by Mr. Fawcett or his family, and not asserted by his biographers.

    H. B. C.

U. U. Club.

MYTHE VERSUS MYTH

(Vol. vii., p. 326.)

Mr. Keightley's rule is only partially true, and in the part which is true is not fully stated. The following rules, qualified by the accompanying remarks, will I trust be found substantially correct.

English monosyllables, formed from Greek or Latin monosyllabic roots,

(1.) When the root ends in a single consonant preceded by a vowel, require the lengthening e.

(2.) When the root ends in a single consonant preceded by a diphthong, or in more than one consonant preceded by a vowel, reject the e.

1. Examples from the Greek:—σχῆμ-α, scheme; λύρ-α (lyr-a), lyre; ζών-η (zon-a), zon-e; βάσ-ις, base; φράσ-ις, phras-e; τρόπ-ος, trop-e. From Latin, ros-a, ros-e; fin-is, fin-e; fum-us, fum-e; pur-us, pur-e; grad-us, grad-e. Compare, in verbs, ced-o, ced-e.

Remarks.—This rule admits of a modification; e.g. we form from ζῆλ-ος zeal (the sound hardly perceptibly differing from zel-e); from ὥρ-α (hor-a), hour; from flos (flor-is), flower and flour (the long sound communicated to the vowel in the other words by the added e, being in these already contained in the diphthong). Add ven-a, vein; van-us, vain; sol-um, soil, &c.; and compare -ceed in proceed, succeed, formed from compounds of ced-o. Some, but not all, of these words have come to us through the French.

2. Examples from the Greek:—ῥεῦμ-α, rheum; χάσμ-α, chasm; μύρρ-α, myrrh; γλῶσσ-α, gloss; νύμφ-η (nymph-a), nymph; δίσκ-ος, (disc-us), disk; πλίνθ-ος, plinth; ψαλμ-ός, psalm. From Latin, fraus (fraud-is), fraud; laus (laud-is), laud; plant-a, plant; orb-is, orb; plumb-um, plumb; long-us, long, flux-us, flux; port-us, port. Compare, in verbs, damn-o, damn; err-o, err; add-o, add; vex-o, vex.

Remarks.—From roots ending in the same consonant doubled, our derived words ordinarily drop one of them; e.g. στέμμ-α, stem; gemm-a, gem; summ-a, sum; penn-a, pen; carr-us, car. (Note this tendency of our language, by comparing our man with the German mann.)

If the root ends in s or v preceded by a diphthong, or in a consonant +s[5 - Except x (=cs). Compare flax, wax, ox.] or +v preceded by a vowel, our derived words add e, as παῦσ-ις (paus-a), paus-e; caus-a, cause-e; næv-a, nav-e; puls-us, puls-e; dens-us, dens-e; ἁψ-ίς, aps-e; laps-us, laps-e; vers-us, vers-e; valv-a, valv-e; nerv-us, nerv-e.[6 - From serv-us (after the French) we form serf.] The cause of this lies in the genius of our language, which totally rejects the ending v, and uses s (single) very sparingly in the singular number, except in the ending ous, the genitive case, the third person of the present tense, the obsolete wis, and was. Other words are, the interjection alas; pronouns or pronominal particles; proper names, as Thomas, Chaos; compounds, as Lammas, Christmas; plural adverbs, as towards, thereabouts; and the (perhaps) plural—it ought to be so—alms.[7 - Rebus, overplus, and surplus may, if not satisfied, take an omnibus, bring their action at the Nisi Prius, and meet there with a nonplus.]

From roots ending in a mute +a liquid, our derived words also end in e, and are then in fact dissyllables; e.g. βίβλ-ος, bible; κύκλ-ος, cycl-e; μίτρ-α, mitr-e; νίτρ-ον, nitr-e; πέτρ-ος, petr-e. In this class of words the final letters (after the analogy of Latin) have sometimes become transposed; e.g. λεπρ-ός, lep-er. So now-a-days, cent-er as well as centr-e. Compare metr-e, diamet-er.

To apply our rules to the words required to be formed in an English shape from μῦθ-ος.

Very few words in our language end in th which are not of purely native growth. Frith is questionable exception. Besides the monosyllable plinth, we have imported from the Greek colocynth, hyacinth, labyrinth, with the proper names Corinth, Erymanth, all terminating in nth.

In the ending the our language does not rejoice. Most of such words are verbs, so distinguished from their cognate substantives, as wreathe from wreath. We have, as substantives, lathe (A.-S. leð), hythe (hyð), scythe (more properly sithe, sıðe), tythe (tyðe); as adjectives, blithe (blıðe), lithe (lıð). There may be one or two more.

In all these the sounds is ð (th in this) not þ (th in thick). This appears worth notice.