Notes and Queries, Number 57, November 30, 1850

    P.P.

There is also a street at Abingdon called "the Vineyard," from the land having been formerly used for that purpose by the Benedictines of Abingdon Abbey. If my memory do not betray me, there is some interesting information on the early cultivation of the vine in England, in an article by Mr. T. Hudson Turner, in the Archæological Journal, which I have not now at hand.

    H.G.T.

There was a vineyard belonging to Ely Place, Holborn: and another probably in the Abbey grounds at Westminster. A portion of the estate of the late Chas. Powell, Esq., of Hinton Court, near Hereford, was called the "Vineyard" and the Vineyard of the Monks of St. Mary's is yet pointed out by the good folks of Beaulieu in Hampshire. The vineyards of Bath are in the heart, not the suburbs of the present town.

    MACKENZIE WALCOTT, M.A.

TREATISE OF EQUIVOCATION

(Vol. ii., p. 168.)

As supplementary to J.B.'s valuable paper on the Treatise of Equivocation, I transcribe the following from the Smith Manuscripts (num. lxix. 5. p. 35.), thinking it may leave an interest for some of your readers:—

"Apud, D.P. 13th of May, 1597.

Gerard the Jesuite, his Defence of Æquivocation.

John Gerard, the Jesuite, being told that, upon the arraignment of Sowthwell the priest of high treason, one of the witnesses being asked upon her oath by one of the judges, in open court, whether Sowthwell were ever in Bellamie's house, said that she had been perswaded by Sowthwell to affirme upon her oath, that she did not see Sowthwell in Bellamie's house and to keep this secret in her mind, of INTENT TO TELL YOU, whereas in truth she had seen him diverse times in Bellamie's house; and Sowthwell being charged therewith, openly confessed the same, and sought to justifie the same by the place out of Jeremie, that a man ought to swear in judicio, justitiá, et veritate. Now, this John Gerrard, being asked what his opinion and judgment was concerning Southwell's opinion above said, said that he was of the same opinion, and seemed to justifie the same by the example of our Saviour Christ, who said to His disciples, that you shall go to Jerusalem, Ego autem non ascendam, keeping this secret to himself, of INTENT TO TELL YOU. And also sayeth that our Saviour Christ said, that the Son of Man did not know of the day of judgment, keeping this secret to himself, OF INTENT TO TELL YOU; for he sayeth, that as he was Son of Man he knew it, and could not be ignorant of any thing: and furder sayeth, that a witness being examined, juridicè and of temporal things, not concerning religion or Catholics, cannot answer with such æquivocation as is above said. And, forasmuch as this opinion and the defence thereof seemed to be damnable and blasphemous, he was required to sett down his own opinion therein, least he should be mistaken; but he denied the same, not because it is untrue, but because he would not publish it. Then being required to subscribe the same, denied the same also.

RICHARD BARKLEY.

WILLIAM WAAD.

EDWARD COOK.

THOMAS FLEMING."

The reference "Apud. D.P.," which stands as I have placed it above, may perhaps enable some of your contributors to point out the source from which this account is derived. The date at the top appears to have been added by a later hand.

    J. SANSOM.
    Oxford, Nov. 1850.

RIOTS IN LONDON

(Vol. ii., pp. 273. 332.)

Will you do me the favour to insert the following attempt to set right and disentangle the thread of my narrative respecting the death of young Allen. Certain it is that I was not "an actor nor spectator," in the riots of 1768, for they occurred some little time before I was born! It is equally certain that a man well remembered by me as our servant, whose name was "Mac," was a soldier concerned in the affair of Allen's death. As all the three soldiers had the prefix of "Mac" to their names, I cannot tell which of them it was, but it was not the man who really shot Allen, and was never again heard of; for "Mac," whom I so well remember, must have lived with my father after the affair of 1768, or I could not have known him. In my youthful remembrance, I have blended the story about him with the riots which I had witnessed in 1780: this is the best and only explanation I can give. Sure I am, that all my father related to me of that man was true. I presume the "Mac" I knew must have been Maclane, as your correspondent E.B. PRICE thinks probable, because of his trial and acquittal, which agrees with my father's statement; and especially as he was singled out and erroneously accused of the crime—as the quotation above referred to states. All I can say is, I can relate no more; I have told the story as I remember it, and for myself can only apologise that (though not so old as to witness the riots of 1768) I am old enough to experience that Time has laid his hand not only on my head to whiten my locks, but in this instance compels me to acknowledge that even the memories of my early days are, like the present, imperfect. The failure is with me, not with my father.

This vindication of my honourable parent's undoubted veracity reminds me of a circumstance that I have read or heard in a trial with regard to a right of way across an inclosure. Several aged men had given their evidence, when one said, "I remember that a public footpath for more than 100 years." "How old are you?" said the counsel. "Somewhere about eighty," was as the reply. "How then do you remember the path for 100 years?" "I remember (said the old man firmly), when a boy, sitting on my father's knee, and he told me of a robbery that took place on that footpath; and so I know it existed then, for my father never told a lie." The point was carried, and the footpath remains open to this day, to tell to all generations the beauty of truth.

    SENEX.

In Malcolm's Anecdotes of the Manners and Customs of London during the eighteenth Century, 4to. 1808, there is a

"Summary of the Trial of Donald Maclane, on Tuesday last, at Guildford Assizes, for the murder of William Allen Jun. on the 10th of May last in St. George's Fields."

Upon the trial mention was made of the paper stuck up against the walls of the King's Bench Prison, from which it appears that it contained the following:

"Let * * * Judges, Ministers combine,
And here great Wilkes and Liberty confine.
Yet in each English heart secure their fame is
In spite of crowded levies at St. J–'s.
Then while in prison Envy dooms their stay,
Here grateful Britons daily homage pay."

The inscription upon the tomb of William Allen was visible in 1817, and in addition to the inscription on the north side, which has already been printed in "NOTES AND QUERIES" (Vol. ii., p. 333), was as follows:—

South Side

"O disembody'd soul! most rudely driven
From this low orb (our sinful seat) to Heaven,
While filial piety can please the ear,
Thy name will still occur for ever dear:
This very spot now humaniz'd shall crave
From all a tear of pity on thy grave.
O flow'r of flow'rs! which we shall see no more,
No kind returning Spring can thee restore,
Thy loss thy hapless countrymen deplore.

East Side

"O earth! cover not thou my blood."—Job. xvi. 18.

West Side

"Take away the wicked from before the King, and His throne shall be established in righteousness."—Prov. xxiii. 5.

Fifteen months afterwards the father of William Allen presented a petition to his majesty for vengeance on the murderers of his son.

    O. SMITH.

Replies to Minor Queries

Osnaburg Bishopric (Vol. ii. p. 358.).—By the treaty of Osnaburg, in 1624, it was stipulated "that the alternate nomination to the Bishopric of Osnaburg should be in the catholic bishops, and in the protestant branches of the house of Luneburg." Thus, the Princes Ernest Augustus, the father of George I., Ernest Augustus, brother of the same monarch, and the late Duke of York, became sovereign-bishops of Osnaburg. But by the treaty of Vienna, in 1815, the bishopric became an integral part of the kingdom of Hanover. (Vide Halliday's House of Guelph, 4to. 1820, pp. 134, 135, 335.)

    F.E.

Death of Richard II. (Vol. ii., p. 391.).—Otterburn tells us (pp. 228, 229.) that Richard II.'s death took place at Pontefract Castle, on St. Valentine's day, and adds, that the body was exposed to public view in all the principal towns through which it passed on the road to London. See also Walsingham (p. 363.):

"Clausitque diem extremum apud castrum de Pontefracto, die Sancti Valentini."

The Keeper of the Wardrobe, moreover, received 100 marks for the conveyance of the king's body from Pontefract to London. (Issue Rolls, 1 Henry IV.)

It was the belief of many contemporaries—and arguments have been adduced by modern writers in support of the supposition—(see a very interesting treatise on the subject in the second volume of Tytler's History of Scotland), that Richard II. escaped from his prison, and lived for several years in Stirling Castle. But be that as it may, Froissart, I think, is clearly wrong in stating that he died in the Tower of London.

    O.P.Q.