2n<» S. VII. April 23. '59.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



343 



between them and the Reformers. The Bishop's Sermon 

 appears to have been originally preached at St. Paul's 

 Cross on Nov. 26, 1559 (Strype's Grindal, p. 40.). The 

 same Sermon (probably expanded) was preached at Court 

 Mar. 17, 15G0 (Stijpe's Amuds, I. i. p. 298.) ; and again, 

 as on the printed copy, " at Paul's Cross, the Second Sun- 

 day before Easter, 1560." Mr. Le Bas informs as, that 

 "the only immediate effect produced by the Bishop's 

 challenge was a letter from Dr. Henry Cole, late Dean of 

 St. Paul's. The very day after the Sermon [i. e. its 

 second delivery on Mar. 17, 1560] this candid divine ad- 

 dressed the preacher, almost ' with bated breath and 

 whispering humbleness;' abjuring altogether the ofBce 

 of a disputant, and protesting that he wrote 'with no 

 other intent than to be instructed.' To this seemingly 

 courteous application. Jewel, of course, replied with equal 

 courtesy. But, as the correspondence proceeded, the tone 

 of the humble inquirer became more and more sarcastic, 

 intemperate, and disingenuous. At length, Dr. Cole had 

 recourse to a most indefensible proceeding. He dispersed 

 among his own party a letter, which purported to be an 

 answer to one of his antagonists ; but without communi- 

 cating that letter to Jewel himself. On hearing this. 

 Jewel requested Cole to inform him whether or not the 

 paper in circulation was written by him ; in order that 

 he (Jewel) might not be discredited by delaying the 

 replj'. To this application Cole was obstinately silent. 

 Upon this, Jewel published another letter, containing a 

 recapitulation of the whole debate between them ; and so 

 the matter ended."] 



EXECUTION OP DOMESTIC ANIMALS FOR MURDEB. 



(2"*^ S. vii. 278.) 



According to the Roman law, if a man was 

 hurt by a tame animal — as by a vicious horse or 

 a dangerous bull — the owner afforded satisfac- 

 tion by the surrender of the animal, which was 

 called noxcB datio. (See List. iv. 9.) The same 

 rule extended to a man's slave, and also to his 

 son, both of whom were regarded by the Eoman 

 law as his chattels. In the case of a man being 

 killed by a domestic animal, the medieval codes 

 applied the principle of the weregeld, or pecuniary 

 satisfaction for life ; sometimes the entire weregeld 

 was due, sometimes half the weregeld, coupled 

 with the surrender of the animal. The Burgun- 

 dian law enacted that where one tame animal 

 was hurt by another, the offending animal was to 

 be surrendered. 



It was a medieval practice in Germany and 

 Scandinavia to hang wolves and dogs with a 

 criminal, as a symbolical mark of disgrace, and as 

 an aggravation of his punishment. Saxo Gram- 

 maticus states that the association of wolves at 

 the hanging of the criminal was an ancient punish- 

 ment for parricide : and in Germany the custom 

 of hanging dogs with the sufferer was particularly 

 applied to Jews. Grimm cites the following pas- 

 sage from a Frankfort chronicle, of 1499 a. d. : — • 



" Comes de Hanau Judajum propter furtum solenniter 

 inter duos canes, capite transverso, suspendi fecit apud 

 Dornicum." (D. li. A. p. 064. 085.) 



Rorarlus, a papal nuncio at the court of Hun- 

 gary in the sixteenth century, wrote and pub- 

 lished a treatise to prove that animals are rational, 

 and that they make a better use of their reason 

 than man. In this work he stated that it was 

 customary in Africa to crucify lions, in order to 

 deter them from entering towns ; and he had him- 

 self seen two wolves hung from a gibbet in the 

 forest between Cologne and Juliers, as an example 

 to other wolves. See Bayle, Diet. art. Rorarius, 

 note F. Concerning the punishments of animals, 

 see likewise Selden de Jure Nat. et Gent.juxta 

 Disc. Ebr. lib. i. c. 5. The Roman custom of 

 annually crucifying dogs, on account of their 

 failure to give the alarm when the capitol was 

 scaled by the Gauls, must be considered as a 

 commemorative, not a penal infliction. 



It may be observed that animals, though- con- 

 scious of the idea of danger — without which they 

 would not preserve their lives — are destitute of 

 the idea of death ; and that the infliction of death 

 upon one animal would not operate by way of 

 example upon another animal. The same remark 

 may indeed be extended to all punishments in- 

 flicted upon animals. A whipping administered 

 to one dog is no warning to another dog. All 

 punishments of animals must, in order to be 

 operative, be individual ; and hence the capital 

 punishment of an animal is an absurdity, because 

 it extinguishes the life of the only animal upon 

 which the punishment can operate. L. 



OXFORD ALE-WIVES. 



(2°'i S. vii. 275.) 



Of the two Oxford ale-wives, whose names are 

 quoted by Cuthbert Bede, your correspondent 

 gives an account, — but that an interesting one — 

 only of old Mother Louse. Her gossip. Mother 

 George, was, perhaps, more celebrated. After 

 keeping an ale-house in Black Boy Lane, she re- 

 moved to St. Peter's in the Bailey. The latter 

 was an especial favourite and well-frequented 

 house, for old Mother George was as brisk and 

 sparkling as her ale. When she was long past a 

 hundred, she used to thread a needle without the 

 aid of glasses, and presenting the same to her 

 guests as visitors, they offered her a gratuity, or 

 ordered a flask of ale. The older she grew the 

 more crowded was her house, where the lively 

 dame bustled about with all her faculties unim- 

 paired till she attained the age of 120 years ! and 

 even then, a mere accident, and not disease or 

 decay of nature, killed her. Her own opinion was 

 the good, modern opinion, founded on the very 

 best principle, — that people had no business to 

 grow old, and that if they did so, it was entirely 

 their own fault ! And so she remained young till 

 she was six score years old, laughing like Mrs. 



