Notes and Queries, Number 38, July 20, 1850

Whatever the present practice of the House of Commons with respect to strangers may be, it does not seem probable that it will soon undergo alteration. In the session of 1849 a Select Committee, composed of fifteen members, and including the leading men of all parties, was appointed "to consider the present practice of this House in respect of the exclusion of strangers." The following is the Report of the Committee in extenso (Parl. Pap., No. 498. Sess. 1849):

"That the existing usage of excluding strangers during a division, and upon the notice by an individual Member that strangers are present, has prevailed from a very early period of parliamentary history; that the instances in which the power of an individual Member to exclude has been exercised have been very rare: and that it is the unanimous opinion of your committee, that there is no sufficient ground for making any alteration in the existing practice with regard to the admission or exclusion of strangers."

This Report confirms the statement of Mr. Ross (p. 83., antè), that within his experience of thirty-one years no change has been made in the present rule of the House upon this matter, which, it would seem, dates very far back. The Speaker was the only witness examined before the Committee, and his evidence is not printed.

    Arun.

REPLIES TO MINOR QUERIES

Morganatic Marriage (Vol. ii., p. 72.).—According to M., Ducange has connected this expression with morgingab; but I have looked in vain for such connection in my edition of the Glossary (Paris, 1733). The truth most probably is, that morganatic, in the phrase "matrimonium ad morganaticam," was akin to the Gothic maurgjan, signifying, "to procrastinate," "to bring to an end," "to shorten," "to limit." This application of the word would naturally rise out of the restrictions imposed upon the wife and children of a morganatic marriage.

    C.H.

Umbrellas (Vol. i., p. 415. 436.; ii. 25.).—In Swift's description of a city shower (Tatler, No. 238., October 17. 1710), umbrellas are mentioned as in common use by women:

"Now in contiguous drops the flood comes down,
Threatening with deluge the devoted town;
To shops, in crowds, the daggled females fly,
Pretend to cheapen goods, but nothing buy;
The Templar spruce, while every spout's abroach,
Stays till 'tis fair, yet seems to call a coach;
The tucked-up sempstress walks with hasty strides,
While streams run down her oiled umbrella's sides."

    H.B.C.
U.U. Club, July 2.

Bands (Vol. ii., pp. 23. 76.)—Scarf.—I was glad to read Arun's explanation of the origin of the bands now worn by the clergy; which, however, seems merely to amount to their being an adoption of a Genevan portion of clerical costume. That they are the descendants of the ruff, there can be no doubt, just as wrist-bands have more recently succeeded to ruffles.

I cannot resist mentioning that an ingenious friend suggested to me, that the broad, stiff, laid-down collar, alluded to in the former part of Arun's communication, possibly gave rise to the modern band in the following manner:—When the scarf, still in use, was drawn over the shoulders and hung down in front, that part of the broad collar which was left visible, being divided up the middle, presented a shape and appearance exactly like our common bands. Hence, it was imagined, this small separate article of dress might have originated.

Is it Butler, Swift, or who, that says,

"A Chrysostom to smoothe his band in"?

Whenever this was written, it must have referred to our modern bands.

Who amongst the clergy are entitled to wear a scarf? Is it the badge of a chaplain only? or what circumstances justify its being worn?

    Alfred Gatty.

July 1. 1850.

Bands (Vol. ii., p. 76.).—An early example of the collar, approaching to the form of our modern bands, may be seen in the portrait of Cardinal Beatoun, who was assassinated in 1546. The original is in Holyrood Palace, and an engraving in Mr. Lodge's Portraits. The artist is unknown, but from the age of the face one may infer that it was painted about 1540.

    C.H.

Jewish Music (Vol. ii., p. 88.).—See a host of authorities on the subject of Hebrew music and musical instruments in Winer's Realwörterbuch vol. ii., pp. 120. seq., 3d edit. There is a good abstract respecting them in Jahn's Hebrew Antiquities, sect. 92-96.

    C.H.

North Sides of Churchyards unconsecrated (Vol. ii., p. 55.).—In illustration of, not in answer to, Mr. Sansom's inquiry, I beg to offer the following statement. During a long series of years an average of about 150 corpses has been annually deposited in Ecclesfield churchyard, which has rendered it an extremely crowded cemetery. But, notwithstanding these frequent interments, my late sexton told me that he remembered when there was scarcely one grave to the north of the church, it being popularly considered that only suicides, unbaptised persons, and still-born children ought to be buried there. However, when a vicar died about twenty-seven years ago, unlike his predecessors, who had generally been buried in the chancel, he was laid in a tomb on the north side of the churchyard, adjoining the vicarage. From this time forward the situation lost all its evil reputation amongst the richer inhabitants of the parish, who have almost entirely occupied it with family vaults.

Whether the prejudice against the north side of our churchyard arose from an idea that it was unconsecrated, I cannot tell but I suspect that, from inherited dislike, the poor are still indisposed towards it. When the women of the village have to come to the vicarage after nightfall, they generally manage to bring a companion, and hurry past the gloomy end of the north transept as if they knew

"that close behind
Some frightful fiend did tread."

I cannot help fancying that the objection is attributable to a notion that evil spirits haunt the spot in which, possibly from very early times, such interments took place as my sexton described. As a suggestion towards a full solution of this popular superstition, I would ask whether persons who formerly underwent ecclesiastical excommunication were customarily buried on the north side of churchyards?

    Alfred Gatty.

Ecclesfield, June 28. 1850.

I can only give from recollection a statement of a tradition, that when Jesus Christ died he turned his head towards the south; and so, ever since, the south side of a church has the pre-eminence. There generally is the bishop's throne, and the south aisle of ancient basilicas was appropriated to men. Simple observation shows that the supposed sanctity extends to the churchyard,—for there the tombstones lie thickest.

I find that my source of information for the tradition was Cockerell's last lecture on Architecture, Athenæum for 1843, p. 187. col. 3.

    A.J.H.

"Men are but Children," &c.—R.G. (Vol. ii., p. 22.) will find the line about which he inquires in Dryden's All for Love; or, The World well Lost, Act iv. Sc. 1.

Dolabella (loq.):
"Men are but children of a larger growth,
Our appetites as apt to change as theirs,
And full as craving too, and full as vain."

    J.R.M.
King's College, London, July 12. 1850.

Ventriloquism (Vol. ii., p. 88.).—Mr. SANSOM will find some curious information touching the words [Hebrew: 'or], [Greek: eggastrimuthos], &c., in Dr. Maitland's recent Illustrations and Enquiries relating to Mesmerism, pp. 55. 81. The Lexicons of Drs. Lee and Gesenius may also be consulted, under the word [Hebrew: 'or]. The former of these lexicographers would rank the Pythian priestess with "our modern conjurers."

    C.H.

St. Catharine's Hall, Cambridge.

Cromwell's Estates—Magor (Vol. i., p. 277. 389.).—As the South Wales line is now open as far as Chepstow, it may not be uninteresting to V. to know, that it diverges from the coast between Chepstow and Newport, in order to pass Bishopston and Magor, the last of which he rightly placed in Monmouthshire.

    SELEUCUS.

Vincent Gookin (Vol. i., pp. 385. 473. 492.; Vol. ii. p. 44.) is described in a Narrative of the late Parliament (Cromwell's Parliament, d. 1656), in the Harleian Miscellany, as

"One of the letters of land in Ireland, receiving three hundred pounds per annum."

He and three other Irish members, Colonel Jephson, Ralph King, and Bice, are classed together in this tract, which is hostile to Cromwell, as

"Persons not thought meet to be in command, though they much desire it, and are of such poor principles and so unfit to make rulers of as they would not have been set with the dogs of the flock, if the army and others who once pretended to be honest had kept close to their former good and honest principles."

Vincent Gookin voted for the clause in the "Petition and Advice" giving the title of "King" to Cromwell.