"Having lately met with an opportunity of paying my Respects to your Lordship, after so long an interval, I presume to trouble you with this letter, which I should scarce have ventured to have done, had I not been Encouraged by the generous protection given to the 'Orphan of China;' which inclines me, as well as the rest of the world, to look upon your Lordship as the patron of polite literature-a noble example much wanted in the present age, tho' likely to find but few followers. Therefore, beg the favour of your Lordship to give me leave to send you a Tragedy called 'Jugurtha,' which you may take into the country with you to peruse at your leisure: and even tho' it should not be so fortunate to meet with your Lordship's approbation, it will afford some pleasure to the Author to have the real opinion of an impartial Judge. The place of my residence this summer being very uncertain, as I probably may have occasion to visit my Estate in the North, if your Lordship gives me leave to send the manuscripts; at my return, I will either do myself the pleasure of waiting on you, or take the liberty of sending you a letter in expectation of an answer, which will be esteemed as a favour

"by your Lordship's

In the second letter, endorsed with the date, Oct. 8, 1762, the writer expresses his rapture at being permitted to lay his book at his Majesty's feet; and says that, if his Lordship approved of the work, the author might venture to print it. Each of these letters is marked "Ignotus," probably in the handwriting of the Earl of Bute.

The allusion in the first of these letters to the writer's estate in the north, seems to indicate Thomas Gilbert, of Skinningrave to have been the author.

One Thomas Gilbert, Esq., died at Kingsland, near London, Oct. 13, 1771 (Gent. Mag., xli. 475). This may have been the gentleman who had been Fellow of Peterhouse.

There was another Thomas Gilbert, Esq., who was M.P. for Newcastle-under-Lyne, and Lichfield, chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, and for some time Comptroller of the Great Wardrobe. He acquired honourable distinction by his efforts to amend the poor laws, and even yet some of his legislative measures are cited by his name. He died Dec. 18, 1798, æt. seventy-nine. (As to him, see Gent. Mag., xxxi. 603; xxxii. 45; xxxiii. 203; lxviii. 1090, 1146. Nichols's Lit. Anecdotes, ix. 203; and Watt's Bibl. Brit., where, however, he is confounded with a naval captain of the same name.)

It may here be noted, that Dr. Gloucester Ridley was author of an unpublished tragedy, entitled 'Jugurtha' (Gent. Mag., xliv. 555).

CROMWELL'S HEAD. (3rd S. v. 119,178.)

I promised to supply some further particulars respecting the head supposed to be that of Cromwell, now in the possession of Mr. Wilkinson, but am diverted from the course I intended to pursue by the remarks of WILLIAM PINKERTON. I cannot but think that if your correspondent had looked carefully over the several articles which have appeared in "N. & Q." he would have adopted a tone more respectful to those who, after much examination of the head, and of the documents relating to it, have arrived at the conclusion that there is strong, if not conclusive evidence, that the head is genuine. MR. PINKERTON reproves the loose method of statement adopted by some writers, and immediately falls into the same error himself; and after occupying above three columns of your valuable space, he tells us that the subject is "beneath criticism." I submit, on the contrary, that the subject is one not unworthy of candid and patient investigation.

It is anything but good taste to employ the designation" the Wilkinson head." Mr. Wilkinson is a high-minded and honourable gentleman, who does not ostentatiously display the head, nor prefer any claim respecting it; nor to my knowledge has he ever expressed an opinion as to its I have given it (3rd S. v. 180), and just as freely genuineness. He gives the history very much as of the other. He has no interest in it beyond that reports the opinions of one side as he does those of arriving at the truth in a matter which has excited much curiosity; and no living person can have any other motive but the very laudable one of settling a point of dispute which unquestionably has an historical value. In fact, no one with whom I am acquainted has written or spoken in PINKERTON himself. I must trouble you with a reference to it in so dogmatic a spirit as MR. few remarks on his article.

MR. PINKERTON confounds the misstatements of the writer in The Queen newspaper with the statements of those who have carefully examined the documentary evidence. This is not very logical, to say the least of it. Whatever may be the defects of the testimony offered, it has been consistent throughout. Temple Bar is an error of Mr. Buckland's, as I have shown; and I have never heard any other place named than Westminster Hall until I saw the extract in "N. & Q." (3rd S. v. 119). The value of the documents in the possession of Mr. Wilkinson are not impaired because Mr. Buckland, along with other errors, has substituted Temple Bar for Westminster Hall. MR. PINKERTON, after making much of this mistake, then tells us that to his certain knowledge, there are 66 many others" i. e. heads of Cromwell. I should have expected from so keen a critic

Sheffield, named Fletcher. The late Mr. James Montgomery, of Sheffield, on one occasion asked his friend Mr. Holland "What has become of Oliver Cromwell's head?" and related that, when he first came to Sheffield, a head so described was in the possession of Mr. Wilson in Pond Street. This was about 1788.

Imagination can easily forge a chain of history out of these facts; so easily, that I need say no more except that the story is related somewhere in Mr. Hunter's MSS. now in the British Museum. H. I. H.

RELIABLE.

(3rd S. v. 58, 85, &c.)

That there are forcible objections to this word appears to be evident to a large number both of writers for the press and others. It has not come to be regarded with general favour, but holds much the same position in the language as the verb to progress, which most persons who are careful as to their style avoid. But the true reason why it is not a word of just English formation, I have not seen fully and clearly given. I would state my objection to it thus: When the passive voice of a verb can be used without a preposition attached to it, it is practicable, si volet usus, to form from it an adjective ending in able or ible; but if a preposition necessarily adheres to the verb in the passive voice, the formation of such adjectives is not allowable. Thus from the active "people credit the story," we form the passive "the story is credited," and can say "the story is credible." So from "to justify,' "to be justified," "justifiable." But from "we depend on the man," ""the man is to be depended on," we cannot form the adjective dependable"; nor from "to trust in," " to be trusted in," can we form "trustable." If we would form words in able and ible from such verbs, we must take in the preposition, as in the odd words, sometimes jestingly used in common conversation, come-atable, get-at-able. Similarly, from "to be relied on," to be depended on,' we should say relionable, dependonable. Also, if we want an adjective from "to get on," with reference to a horse, we must say "the horse is get-on-able;" and if an adjective from "to put on," with reference to a man's hat, we must say "the hat is put-on-able; not the horse is getable, or the hat is putable.

66

66

All this being so evident, I sincerely hope that the word "reliable" will be at length excluded from the pages of our newspapers and magazines, and especially from all books that wish to take an honourable place in English literature.

66

Disposable," which has been adduced to support "reliable," has been tolerated because we can use the verb "to dispose" with or without

a preposition after it. We say "things are disposed in order," and consequently, "things are disposable in order"; and hence " disposable" has been applied by attorneys, auctioneers, and others, to property which may be disposed of. This use of the word is, as I say, tolerated, but is PHILOCALUS. certainly not to be approved.

THE MISSES YOUNG. (3rd S. iv. 417.)

A strong ray of light is shed upon the question of the parentage of these ladies by the statements contained in a Memoir of Barthelemon, the violinist, compiled by his daughter (with the aid of Dr. Busby), and prefixed to some selections from her father's oratorio Jefte in Masfa, which she published in 1827.

Barthelemon, it is stated, was married in 1766 to Mary Young, the vocalist, who is described as the "great-granddaughter of Anthony Young' (for whom the composition of the popular tune, "God save the King" is claimed), and also as the niece of Mrs. Arne and Mrs. Lampe. She is further described as a daughter of Charles Young, Esq., a senior clerk in the Treasury, and sister to Isabella Young, who was married to the Hon. John Scott, brother of the fourth and last Earl of Deloraine." We are further informed that Mrs. Barthelemon was brought up by her aunt, Mrs. Arne (Cecilia Young), who, in her latter years, became an inmate of Barthelemon's house, and so continued until her death. These circumstances must have afforded the memoir-writer opportunities of becoming well acquainted with the family pedigree, and her statements are, on that account, I think, entitled to consideration.

The mystification as to the Young family has extended to other writers besides the two musical historians. Lysons, recording the appearance of the Hon. Mrs. Scott at the Music Meeting at Gloucester in 1763 (History of the Meetings of the Three Choirs, 193), describes her as "the Hon. Mrs. Scott, formerly Isabella Young, daughter of the organist of Catherine-Cree church, a mezzo-soprano voice." Yet the distinction between the two Misses Isabella Young is perfectly clear. The first, probably soon after October, 1737, but certainly in the following year, was married to Lampe the composer, and always afterwards appeared under her married name. She was left a widow in July, 1751. The second came out in 1751 at a concert given on March 18th, "at the New Theatre in the Haymarket "at the Desire of several Ladies of Quality. For the Benefit of Miss Isabella Young, a Scholar of Mr. Waltz, who never appeared before in Publick.”

I think, under all the circumstances, it is warrantable to assume that the pedigree of the Young family stands thus: Anthony Young, successively organist of St. Clement Danes and St. Catherine-Cree church, was father of Charles Young, organist of Allhallows Barking, who was father of the three Misses Young-Cecilia (Mrs. Arne), Isabella (Mrs. Lampe), and Esther (Mrs. Jones);and also of Charles Young, the clerk in the Treasury, who was the father of Isabella (Mrs. Scott) and Mary (Mrs. Barthelemon).

Should this be so, Sir John Hawkins's account is correct; and there is one thing in Dr. Burney's account which seems confirmatory of it-- viz. his description of St. Catherine-Cree church as situated " near the Tower." Now, that church is really situated on the north side of Leadenhall Street, at some distance from the Tower, whilst the church of Allhallows Barking, is situated in Tower Street, almost contiguous to Tower Hill. Burney has evidently confounded Anthony with Charles Young.

The fact of John Frederick Lampe's son having borne in addition to the baptismal names of his father that of Charles (3rd S. v. 185) strengthens the supposition of his mother's having been the daughter of Charles Young.

Can any correspondent furnish evidence on the point which I am compelled to rest on conjecture-the relationship between the two organists Anthony and Charles Young? W. H. HUSK.

A BULL OF BURKE'S (3rd S. v. 212.) The passage here quoted is plainly what Carlyle calls "clotted nonsense," taken by itself, and as it has been handed down to us: and it would be so no

less, even if the word "different was omitted. It is evident that "parts of the same whole" are the parts which make up that whole; and they cannot possibly be identical, either with each other or with the whole. Two joints may make up a tail, and they may be so exactly alike as to be undistinguishable, but they are not identical.

At first sight it is difficult not to suppose that Burke was alluding to Hooker's well-known theory, and that the second clause is a confused and inaccurate way of saying that the Church and the State are 66 the same whole looked at in two different aspects." But this is perhaps made, not more, but less clear, if we take the whole passage together :

"An alliance between Church and State in a Christian Commonwealth is, in my opinion, an idle and a fanciful speculation. An alliance is between two things that are in their nature distinct and independent, such as between two sovereign states. But in a Christian Commonwealth the Church and the State are one and the same thing, being different integral parts of the same whole. For" (the italic is mine)" the Church has been always divided into two parts, the Clergy and the Laity: of which the

Laity is as much an essential integral part, and has as much its duties and its privileges, as the Clerical member."

The whole seems to me inconsequent, especially the last sentence as connected with what precedes. I leave it, however, to the consideration of your readers only suggesting the probability that it is not what Burke really said, or deliberately wrote.

It is at p. 44 of the 10th vol. of the edition of 1818 of which the editor (Bishop King of Rochester) says (Introd. to vol. x., pp. vi. vii. and note before p. 2), that the notes from which the speeches were printed were detached fragments, and in a very confused and illegible state.

LYTTELTON.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF PRIVY COUNCIL (3rd S. v. 193.) The Act of 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 41, added to the Privy Council a body entitled "The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council," consisting of the Keeper of the Great Seal, the Chief Justice of the King's Bench and of the Common Pleas, the Master of the Rolls, the Vice-Chancellor, the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, the Judges of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury and of the High Court of Admiralty, the Chief Judge of the Bankruptcy Court, and all members of the Privy Council who have been presidents of it, or have held the office of chancellor, or any of the before-named offices. Power is also given to the king by his sign manual to appoint any two other persons who are privy councillors to be members of this committee. (Penny Cyclo. xix. 24.) The general duties of privy councillors are to be found in Blackstone (i. 230, 231.) In the Gorham case, the two archbishops and the bishop of London were summoned to be present as assessors. (Memoirs of Bishop Blomfield, ii. 114.) The unsuccessful efforts made in 1848 to 1850 by the Bishop of London to amend the Act of 1833, quoad "questions of doctrine and points of faith," are recorded in Bishop Blomfield's Memoirs. (Vol. ii. ch. vi.).

There is a registrar attached to this Judicial Committee, to whom matters may be referred, as in chancery to a master. As to the summoning officer, he must be under sufficient control to prevent him, for example, selecting Mr. Gladstone or Mr. D'Israeli, in the Gorham case, instead of Archbishops and Bishops, in aid of the Privy Council. The clerk to the Privy Council issues summonses by himself or a subordinate, at the instance of the President, and under the authority of the Sovereign. T. J. BUCKTON,

THE MOZARABIC LITURGY (3rd S. v. 193.)— The following is the passage in Ford's Handbook for Spain, referred to by your correspondent, FRED. E. TOYNE: - "The prayers and collects are so beautiful, that many have been adopted in our Prayer Book." (Part 11. p. 791, ed. London,

1855.) In answer to Mr. TOYNE's inquiry, I believe that Mr. Ford is not correct in his statement. I have examined the Mozarabic Liturgy, such as it is given in Robles and in Dr. Hefele's Life of Cardinal Ximenez, but I can observe no similarity between the collects of the Book of Common Prayer and the Mozarabic Liturgy. It is, however, true, that some of the collects and prayers in the Book of Common Prayer, seem to have been taken from the Roman Missal. Though the ancient Liturgy of the Spanish church agrees, in all essential points, with the Roman Liturgy, yet there is a considerable difference in the prayers and collects. Robles is the great authority on the Mozarabic Rite; his work is entitled, Compendio de la Vida y Hazañas del Cardenal Don Fray Francisco Ximenez de Cisneros; y del Oficio y Missa Muzarabe (Toledo, 1604). I possess a copy of this scarce volume. The original edition of the Mozarabic Liturgy was published by Cardinal Ximenes in 1500. A reprint appeared at Rome, edited by the learned Jesuit, F. Lesley, in 1755; and another edition was published in 1770, in Mexico, by the Archbishop Lorenzana, who afterwards became Archbishop of Toledo, in Spain. J. DALTON.

Norwich.

The resemblance or identity of the English, French, and Spanish Collects in their several liturgies does not arise from any one of them copying the other, but from all of them being derived from a common source.

"Many believe," says Wheatly, "that the collects were first framed by St. Jerome. It is certain that Gelasius, who was bishop of Rome, A.D. 492, ranged the collects, which were then used, into order, and added some new ones of his own (Comber, Hist. Liturg. part ii. § 14, p. 68); which office was again corrected by Pope Gregory the Great in the year 600, whose Sacramentary ⚫contains most of the collects we now use. But our reformers observing that some of these collects were afterwards corrupted by superstitious alterations and additions, and that others were quite left out of the Roman Missals and entire new ones, relating to their present innovations, added in their room, they therefore examined every collect strictly, and where they found any of them corrupted, there they corrected them; where any new ones had been inserted, they restored the old ones; and lastly, at the Restoration, every collect was again reviewed, when whatsoever was deficient was supplied, and all that was but improperly expressed, rectified." (Wheatly's Book of Common Prayer, ch. v. 7. § 2.) T. J. BUCKTON.

There is not a single collect of Mozarabic origin in the Book of Common Prayer. Dr. Neale has pointed out the hopeless error and confusion of the passage concerning the Mozarabic rite in Ford's Handbook of Spain. For the fullest information concerning the Spanish collects and their relation to those of other Western offices, Dr. Neale's Essays on Liturgiology may profitably be consulted. A LONDON PRIEST.

NICEAN BARKS (3rd S. iii. 8, 287.) - I think the conjecture of your correspondent DUBITANS extremely probable; but, this being granted, I must observe that these boats conveyed Alexander himself, with the main body of his army, down the Indus to its mouth; whence they accompanied him, along the sea-coast of Mekkran and Hermaus, to the Persian Gulf, where he considered himself at home. The division under Craterus, with the heavy baggage, elephants, and women (I beg the ladies' pardons), was sent by a more inland route, through Beloochistan and Seïstan; and did not rejoin Alexander till he had nearly, or quite, reached the Gulf. See Arrian's Expeditio Alexandri, and Vincent (Dean), On the Commerce and Navigation of the Ancients, where the line of march, supposed to have been pursued by Craterus, is traced on the second map (vol. i. edit. 1807). My copy of Arrian (Venice, 1535,) is not paged. It was an arduous undertaking, before the invention of the compass, to traverse those wild and desert countries; which, even now, are almost unknown to Europeans. But Craterus was considered the most intelligent of Alexander's generals.

As for the navigation of the fleet, from the mouth of the Indus to the Persian Gulf, our sailors are at a loss to explain how it could be performed during the south-west monsoon.

It is plain that Craterus did not embark at all; excepting once to cross the Indus, and afterwards to recross it. See Vincent, vol. i. p. 141, &c.

W. D.

FITZ-JAMES (3rd S. v. 202.)—The motto of the Duc de Fitz-James, according to the Annuaire de la Noblesse for 1843, is "1689 semper et ubique fidelis 1789." H. S. G.

These

HEMING OF WORCESTER (3rd S. v. 173.)- Although I cannot exactly identify the Brewer mentioned by C. J. R., I think it is probable that he was a member of a civic family of that name, who bore for arms-"Or on a chev. between three lions' heads sa. as many pheons . . arms are assigned by Edmondson to Hening of London, "descended from Worcestershire," and were borne by John Heming, mayor of Worcester, in 1677. The surname is not uncommon in this county. One of the name, Richard Hemming, of Bentley Manor, was high sheriff in the past year; and Walter Chamberlain Hemming, his brother, was also sheriff in 1859. To the late father of these gentlemen, William Hemming of Fox Lydiate House, was granted, in 1846 (the year of his shrievalty), a coat of arms founded on the one I have just described, viz. Arg. on a chev. engrailed, azure, between three lions' heads erased gu., an ostrich with wings endorsed of the first, in the beak a key, between two pheons or. And for crest, An eagle arg. charged on breast with a pheon, supporting a shield, erm.; thereon a pale