Notes and Queries, Number 190, June 18, 1853

"Miss St. Leger was directly descended from Sir Robert De St. Leger, who accompanied William the Conqueror to England, and was of that high repute that he, with his own hand, supported that prince when he first went out of his ship to land in Sussex.

"Miss St. Leger was cousin to General Anthony St. Leger, Governor of St. Lucia, who instituted the interesting race and the celebrated Doncaster St. Leger stakes.

"Miss St. Leger married Richard Aldworth, Esq., of Newmarket, a member of a highly honourable and ancient family, long celebrated for their hospitality and other virtues. Whenever a benefit was given at the theatres in Dublin or Cork for the Masonic Orphan Asylum, she walked at the head of the Freemasons, with her apron and other insignia of Freemasonry, and sat in the front row of the stage box. The house was always crowded on those occasions.

"The portrait of this estimable woman is in the lodge room of almost every lodge in Ireland."

Henry H. Breen.

St. Lucia.

WEATHER RULES

(Vol. vii., p. 522.)

Your correspondent J. A., jun., invites further contributions on the subject to which he refers. Though by no means infallible, such prognostics are not without a measure of truth, founded as they are on habits of close observation:

1. "Si sol splendescat Maria PurificanteMajor erit glacies post festum quàm fuit ante."

Rendered thus:

"When on the Purification sun hath shin'd,The greater part of winter comes behind."2. "If the sun shines on Easter-day, it shines on WhitSunday likewise."

To this I may add the French adage:

"Quel est Vendredi tel Dimanche."

From a MS. now in my possession, dating two centuries back, I extract the following remarks on "Times and Seasons," as not wholly unconnected with the present subject:

"Easter-day never falleth lower than the 22nd of March, and never higher than the 25th of April."

"Shrove Sunday has its range between the 1st of February and the 7th of March."

"Whit Sunday between the 10th of May and the 13th of June."

"A rule of Shrovetide:—The Tuesday after the second change of the moon after New Year's-day is always Shrove Tuesday."

To these I may perhaps be permitted to add certain cautions, derived frown the same source:

"The first Monday in April, the day on which Cain was born, and Abel was slain.

"The second Monday in August, on which day Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

"The 31st of December, on which day Judas was born, who betrayed Christ.

"These are dangerous days to begin any business, fall sick, or undertake any journey."

We smile at the superstition which thus stamps these several periods as days of ill omen, especially when we reflect that farther inquiry would probably place every other day of the week under a like ban, and thus greatly impede the business of life—Friday, for instance, which, since our Lord's crucifixion on that day, we are strongly disinclined to make the starting-point of any new enterprise.

In many cases this superstition is based on unpleasing associations connected with the days proscribed. Who can wonder if, in times less enlightened than our own, undue importance were attached to the strange coincidence which marked the deaths of Henry VIII. and his posterity. They all died on a Tuesday; himself on Tuesday, January 28, 1547; Edward VI. on Tuesday, July 6, 1553; Mary on Tuesday, November 17, 1558; Elizabeth on Tuesday, March 24, 1603.

John Booker.

Prestwich.

It is a saying in Norwich,—

"When three daws are seen on St. Peter's vane together,Then we are sure to have bad weather."

I think the observation is tolerably correct.

Anon.

SCOTCHMEN IN POLAND

(Vol. vii., p. 475.)

In the debates about a union with Scotland in 1606, the "multiplicities of the Scots in Polonia" formed one of the arguments of the opposing party, who thought that England was likely to be overrun in a similar fashion. According to Wilson (Hist. of James I., p. 34.), the naturalisation of the Scots—

"Was opposed by divers strong and modest arguments. Among which they brought in the comparison of Abraham and Lot, whose families joining, they grew to difference, and to those words, 'Vade tu ad dextram, et ego ad sinistram.' It was answered, That speech brought the captivity of the one; they having disjoined their strength. The party opposing said, If we admit them into our liberties, we shall be overrun with them; as cattle, naturally, pent up by a slight hedge, will over it into a better soil; and a tree taken from a barren place will thrive to excessive and exuberant branches in a better,—witness the multiplicities of the Scots in Polonia.

"To which it was answered, That if they had not means, place, custom, and employment (not like beasts, but men), they would starve in a plentiful soil, though they came into it. And what springtide and confluence of that nation have housed and familied themselves among us, these four years of the king's reign? And they will never live so meanly here as they do in Polonia; for they had rather discover their poverty abroad than at home."

This last "answerer" was Lord Bacon. In his speech "Of general Naturalisation" (Works, vol. v. p. 52.), he asserts that the "multiplication of Scots in Polonia" must of necessity be imputed

"To some special accident of time and place that draws them thither; for you see plainly before your eyes, that in Germany, which is much nearer, and in France, where they are invited with privileges, and with this very privilege of naturalisation, yet no such number can be found; so as it cannot either be nearness of place, or privilege of person, that is the cause."

What these "special accidents" were, it would be interesting to ascertain. Large bodies of men were levied in Scotland during the latter half of the sixteenth century, for the service of Sweden, and employed in the Polish wars. Can these have turned merchants, or induced others to follow them? In 1573, Charles de Mornay brought 5000 Scots to Sweden. In 1576, whilst they were serving in Livonia, a quarrel broke out between them and a body of Germans also in the Swedish pay, and 1500 Scots were cut down. (Geiger, ch. xii.)

I believe Mr. Cunningham will find some notices of Scottish merchants in Poland in Lithgow's Travels, which I have not at present by me.

Richard John King.

MR. JUSTICE NEWTON

(Vol. vii., p. 528.)

Sir Richard Newton was Chief Justice of the Common Pleas from 1438 to 1444, and died Dec. 13th, 1444, and was buried in a chapel of Bristol Cathedral. (Collins's Baronage, vol. iii. p. 145.) He assumed the name of Newton, instead of Caradoc, from Newton in Powysland. (Collinson's Somersetshire, East Harptrie); and, as Camden, p. 60., says, the Newtons "freely own themselves to be of Welsh extraction, and not long ago to have been called Caradocks." These Caradocs were descended from the ancient kings of Wales. Sir Richard Newton was twice married: 1. to a daughter of Newton, of Crossland; and 2. to Emmett, daughter of John Harvey, of London, according to a MS. in the British Museum; but, according to Somersetshire and Gloucestershire Visitations, to Emma, daughter of Sir Thomas Perrott, of Islington. He had issue by both marriages, and from the second descended Sir John Newton, who was created a baronet 12 Car. II., and died in 1661. The baronetcy was limited in remainder, at its creation, to John Newton, of Hather, in Lincolnshire, and he became the second baronet. There are several pedigrees tracing the descent from Sir Richard to the first baronet; but I have not yet seen the descent to the second baronet, though there can be no doubt that he was also descended from Sir Richard, otherwise the baronetcy could not have been limited to him; and probably he was the next male heir of the first baronet, as that is the usual mode of limiting titles. In the Heralds' College there is a pedigree of Sir Isaac Newton, signed by himself, in which he traces his descent to the brother of the ancestor of the second baronet. It should seem, therefore, that Sir Isaac was himself descended from the Chief Justice. It would confer a great obligation on the writer if any of your readers could afford any assistance to clear up the pedigree of the second baronet.

As to the representatives of Sir Richard, I doubt whether his heir is discoverable, although there are many descendants now living who trace their descent through females.

C. S. G.

THE MARRIAGE RING

(Vol. vii., p. 332.)

I cannot agree with the answer given, under the above reference, to the question of J. P.: "How did the use of the ring, in the marriage ceremony, originate?" The answer given is taken from Wheatly's Rational Illustration, &c., and is in substance this:—The ring anciently was a seal, and the delivery of this seal was a sign of confidence; and as a ceremony in marriage, its signification is, that the wife is admitted to the husband's counsels. From this argument, and the supposed proofs of it, I beg to dissent; and I conceive that Wheatly has not thrown any light upon the origin of this beautiful ceremony. To bear out his view, it would be necessary to prove that a signet ring had originally been used for the wedding ring—a matter of no slight difficulty, not to say impossibility.

What I take to be the real meaning of the ring as a part of the marriage ceremony, I will now give. It has a far higher meaning in the ceremony, and a more important duty to perform than merely to signify the admission of the wife into the counsels of the husband. Its office is to teach her the duty she owes to her husband, rather than the privilege of admission into his counsels. The ring is a preacher, to teach her lessons of holy wisdom referring to her state of life.

A ring, whenever used by the church, signifies, to use the words of liturgical writers, "integritatem fidei," the perfection of fidelity, and is "fidei sacramentum," the badge of fidelity. Its form, having no beginning and no end, is the emblem of eternity, constancy, integrity, fidelity, &c.; so that the wedding ring symbolises the eternal or entire fidelity the wife pledges to her husband, and she wears the ring as the badge of this fidelity. Its office, then, is to teach and perpetually remind her of the fidelity she owes to her husband, and swore to him at the marriage ceremony.

The wedding ring is to the wife precisely what the episcopal ring is to the bishop, and vice versâ. The language used during the ceremony to the one is very similar to that used to the other, as the object of the ceremony and use of the ring is the same. A bishop's ring, as we read, signifies "integritatem fidei," i. e. that he should love as himself the church of God committed to him as his bride. When he receives the ring at his consecration, the words used are, "Accipe annulum, fidei scilicet signaculum, quatenus sponsam Dei, sanctum videlicet ecclesiam, intemerata fide ornatus illibate custodias:" (Receive the ring, the badge of fidelity, to the end that, adorned with inviolable fidelity you may guard without reproach the spouse of God, that is, His Holy Church).

Hence the office of the episcopal ring throws light upon the office of the wedding ring; and there can be no doubt whatever that its real meaning is, in the latter as in the former case, to signify the eternal fidelity and constancy that should subsist between the married couple.

That this is the correct view of the meaning of the wedding ring is farther confirmed by the prayer used in blessing the ring: "Benedic, Domine, annulum hunc … ut quæ eum gestaverit, fidelitatem integram suo sponso tenens, in pace et voluntate tua permaneat, acque in mutua charitate semper vivat."—Rituale, &c.

Cyrep.

CANADA, ETC

(Vol. vii., pp. 380. 504.)

My former Note on the origin of this name suggests a question, which, if you think it worthy of a place in "N. & Q.," may interest many besides myself, viz. At what period and by whom was that part of North America called Canada?

To the French it appears always to have been known as "La Nouvelle France." La Hontan, who quitted the country 1690, I think, calls it Canada. Lajitan certainly does, as well as many other old authors.

In a map of North America, date 1769, the tract bordering on the St. Lawrence, lately called Upper and Lower Canada, is designated "The Province of Quebec;" whilst the region to the northward, lying between it and Hudson's Bay, has the word Canada in much larger letters, as if a general name of the whole. That the name is slightly altered from an Indian word is probable, but not so that it was used by the Indians themselves, who, in the first place, were not in the habit of imposing general names on large districts, although they had significant ones for almost every locality; the former were usually denominated the land of the Iroquois, of the Hurons, &c., i. e. of the people dwelling, on, and in possession of it. Even allowing that the Indians may have had a general name for the country, it is very unlikely that one so unmeaning as "Kanata" would have been imposed upon it by a people whose nomenclature in every other case is so full of meaning.

Moreover, although the Mic-macs of Gaspé may have called themselves Canadians according to Lescarbot, yet we are told by Volney, that—

"The Canadian savages call themselves 'Metoktheniakes' (born of the sun), without allowing themselves to be persuaded of the contrary by the Black Robes," &c.—Vol. ii. p. 438.

The following, to the same purpose, is from the Quarterly Review, vol. iv. p. 463.:

"'Tapoy,' which we understand from good authority to be the generic appellation by which the North American tribes distinguish themselves from the whites," &c.

Now I should imagine both Lescarbot and Champlain, knowing nothing of the language, and probably having very bad interpreters, must have made a great mistake in supposing the Gaspésiens called themselves Canadians, for I have questioned several intelligent Mic-Macs on the subject, and they have invariably told me that they call themselves "Ulnookh" or "Elnouiek," "Ninen elnouiek!—We are Men." But Mic-mac? "O, Mic-mac all same as Ulnookh." The latter word strictly means Indian-man, and cannot be applied to a white. Mic-mac is the name of their tribe, and, they insist upon it, always has been. Again, Kanata is said to be an Iroquois word, and, consequently, not likely to have been in use amongst a tribe of the Lenape family, which the Mic-macs are. It does not appear that we have any authority for supposing the country was ever called Canada by the Indians themselves.

It is curious enough that as Canada was said to derive from an exclamation, "Acá nada!" so the capital has been made to take its name from another; "Quel bec!" cried one of Champlain's Norman followers, on beholding Cape Diamond. As in the former case, however, so in this, we have evidence of more probable sources of the name, which I will enumerate as briefly as possible. The first, and a very probable one, is the fact, that the strait between Quebec and St. Levi side of the river, was called in the Algonquin language "Quebeio," i. e. a narrowing,—a most descriptive appellation, for in ascending the river its breadth suddenly diminishes here from about two miles to fourteen or fifteen hundred yards from shore to shore.

The little river St. Charles, which flows into the St. Lawrence on the northern side of the promontory, is called in the Indian language (Algonquin?) Kabir or Koubac, significant of its tortuous course, and it is from this, according to La Potherie, that the city derives its name of Quebec.

Mr. Hawkins, in his Picture of Quebec, &c., 1834, denies the Indian origin of the word, since, as he says, there is no analogous sound to it in any of their languages; and he assumes a Norman origin for it on the strength of "Bec" being always used by the Normans to designate a promontory in the first place; and secondly, because the word Quebec is actually found upon a seal of the Earl of Suffolk, of historical celebrity temp. Hen. V. and VI., which Mr. Hawkins supposes to have been the name of some town, castle, or barony in Normandy.

Such are the pros and cons, upon which I do not presume to offer any opinion; only I would observe, that if there are no analogous sounds in the Indian languages, whence come Kennebec and other similar names?

A. C. M.

Exeter.

Surely in the "inscription on a seal (1420), in which the Earl of Suffolk is styled 'Domine [?] de Hamburg et de Quebec,'" the last word must be a misprint for Lubec, the sister city of Hamburg. Mr. Hawkins's etymology seems to rest on no more substantial foundation than an error of the press in the work, whichever that may be, from which he quotes.

Jaydee.

SELLING A WIFE

(Vol. vii., p. 429.)

The popular idea that a man may legally dispose of his wife, by exposing her for sale in a public market, may not improbably have arisen from the correlation of the terms buying and selling. Your correspondent V. T. Sternberg need not be reminded how almost universal was the custom among ancient nations of purchasing wives; and he will admit that it appears natural that the commodity which has been obtained "per æs et libram"—to use the phrase of the old Roman law touching matrimony—is transferable to another for a similar consideration, whenever it may have become useless or disagreeable to its original purchaser. However this may be, the custom is ancient, and moreover appears to have obtained, to some extent, among the higher orders of society. Of this an instance may be found in Grimaldi's Origines Genealogicæ, pp. 22, 23. (London, 1828, 4to.) The deed, by which the transaction was sought to be legalised, runs as follows:

"To all good Christians to whom this writ shall come, John de Camoys, son and heir of Sir Ralph de Camoys, greeting: Know me to have delivered, and yielded up of my own free will, to Sir William de Paynel, Knight, my wife Margaret de Camoys, daughter and heiress of Sir John de Gatesden; and likewise to have given and granted to the said Sir William, and to have made over and quit-claimed all goods and chattels which the said Margaret has or may have, or which I may claim in her right; so that neither I, nor any one in my name, shall at any time hereafter be able to claim any right to the said Margaret, or to her goods and chattels, or their pertinents. And I consent and grant, and by this writ declare, that the said Margaret shall abide and remain with the said Sir William during his pleasure. In witness of which I have placed my seal to this deed, before these witnesses: Thomas de Depeston, John de Ferrings, William de Icombe, Henry le Biroun, Stephen Chamberlayne, Walter le Blound, Gilbert de Batecumbe, Robert de Bosco, and others."

This matter came under the cognisance of Parliament in 1302, when the grant was pronounced to be invalid.

Now, we may fondly believe that this transaction, which occurred five hundred and fifty years ago, was characteristic alone of that dark and distant period, and that no parallel can be found in modern times (at least in a decent class of society, and recognised by legal sanction) to justify the lively French dramatists in seizing upon it as a trait of modern English manners. A transaction, however, came before the public eye a month or two ago, which, should you think the following record of it worth preservation as a "curiosity of legal experience," may lead your readers to a different conclusion:

"A young man, named W. C. Capas, was charged at the Public Office, Birmingham, Jan. 31, 1853, with assaulting his wife. The latter, in giving her evidence, stated that her husband was not living with her, but was 'leased' to another female. Upon inquiry by the magistrate into this novel species of contract, the document itself was produced in court, and read. It ran as follows:

"'Memorandum of agreement made and entered into this second day of October, in the year of our Lord 1852, between William Charles Capas, of Charles-Henry Street, in the borough of Birmingham, in the county of Warwick, carpenter, of the one part, and Emily Hickson, of Hurst Street, Birmingham aforesaid, spinster, of the other part. Whereas the said William Charles Capas and Emily Hickson have mutually agreed with each other to live and reside together, and to mutually assist in supporting and maintaining each other during the remainder of their lives, and also to sign the agreement hereinafter contained to that effect: now, therefore, it is hereby mutually agreed upon, by and between the said William Charles Capas and Emily Hickson, that they the said, &c., shall live and reside together during the remainder of their lives, and that they shall mutually exert themselves by work and labour, and by following all their business pursuits, to the best of their abilities, skill, and understanding, and by advising and assisting each other, for their mutual benefit and advantage, and also to provide for themselves and each other the best supports and comforts of life which their means and income may afford. And for the true and faithful performance of this agreement, each of the said parties bindeth himself and herself unto the other finally by this agreement, as witness the hands of the said parties, this day and year first above written."

Here follow the signatures of the consenting parties. The girl Hickson was examined, and admitted that she had signed the document at the office of a Mr. Campbell, the lawyer(!) who prepared it, and that his charge for drawing up the same was, she believed, 1l. 15s. The latter promised her, at the same time, that if the wife of Capas gave her any annoyance he would put in that paper as evidence. The magistrates, considering the assault proved, fined Capas 2s. 6d., and "commented in very strong terms on the document which had that day been brought before them." (See Birmingham Journal, Jan. 5th, 1853.) Has a similar transaction come before the notice of your correspondents?

I may add that we are informed by the Birmingham Argus for March, 1834, that in that month a man led his wife by a halter to Smithfield Market in that town, and there publicly offered her for sale.

William Bates.

Birmingham.

ENOUGH

(Vol. vii., p. 455.)

This word, when written or pronounced enow, is regarded as a plural, and relates to number. In this sense it is employed in Northampton and other Midland counties, and is found in old writers. If the word was always pronounced enow, it must be long since. The distinction above hinted at prevailed in Waller's time, and he conforms to it in the examples quoted. Butler, in Hudibras, has both:

"This b'ing professed we hope enough,And now go on where we left off.'Part i. canto 2. 44.

Again, line 1153. of the same canto:

"For though the body may creep through,The hands in grate are enough;"

an apparent exception, but not really such. (See also canto 3. 117. 285., where it rhymes with "off," as also line 809. At line 739. it written enow, and rhymes with "blow.")

And again, 873:

"My loss of honour's great enough,Thou needst not brand it with a scoff."

Other examples may be quoted from the same author.

In a song, written upon the Restoration of Charles II., we have the following:

"Were not contented, but grew rough,As though they had not won enough." Loyal Arms, vol. i. p. 244.

In the Lamentable Tragedy of Cambises, written early in the reign of Elizabeth, the word occurs:

"Gogs sides, knaves, seeing to fight ye be so rough,Defend yourselves, for I will give ye bothe inough."

In Lusty Juventus, a Morality, temp. Edward VI., is the following:

"Call them Papistes, hipocrites, and joyning of the plough;Face out the matter, and then good ynough."

Here certainly the distinction disappears, as in the next and last example from Candlemas Day, "Ao. Do. 1512," where Joseph is speaking:

"Take hym in your armys, Mary, I you pray,And of your swete mylke let him sowke inowe,Mawger Herowd and his grett fray:And as your spouse, Mary, I shall go with you."

It would seem therefore, that this word has had its present pronunciation about three centuries. Its derivation is directly from the Saxon genoh, but the root is found in many other languages, as the German, Dutch, Danish, &c.