Ja^. 17. 1852.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



57. 



now call a great sensation in the "religious world :" 

 for, sajs our author : 



" Scarce was a pen but what was try'd. 

 And books flew out on every side, 

 Till ev'ry fop set up for wit, 

 And Laud, and Hall, and Heylin writ, 

 And so did Wliite and Montague, 

 And Shelford, Cousins, Watts, and Dow, 

 Lawrence and Forbis, and a crew 

 Whose names would " — - 

 Master Ward did not like these men, and there- 

 fore I omit his rather uncharitable conclusion. 



Is there any record left of this notable quarrel, 

 ■which appears to have engaged the attention and 

 pens of some of the learned men of the age ? 

 Perhaps some of your correspondents at Grantham 

 could throw some light upon this question. 



L. L. L. 

 Kirton-in-Lindsey. 



[This celebrated altar controversy occurred during 

 the reign of Charles L, and its origin will be found in 

 Clarendon's History of the Rebellion. The Puritans 

 contended that the proper place for the table, when 

 the eucliarist was administered, was in the body of the 

 church before the chancel door, and to be placed table- 

 wise, and not altarwise ; that is, that one of the ends of 

 the table was to be placed towards the east, so that one 

 of the larger sides might be to the north, the priest 

 being directed to stand at the north side, and not 

 at the north end of the table. The Church party, 

 on the contrary, contended that as the Injunctions 

 ordered that the table should stand where the altar 

 used to stand, it should consequently be placed as the 

 altar was. This matter was the source of much violent 

 contention, and tracts were published neither remark- 

 able for courtesy of language nor for accurate state- 

 ments of facts. It appears to have originated in a dis- 

 pute between Mr. Titly, the "Vicar of Grantham, and 

 his parishioners, respecting the proper place for the 

 table. The vicar insisted that it ought to stand at the 

 upper end of the chancel, against the east wall. Some 

 of the parishioners contended that it should stand in 

 the body of the church. The vicar removed it from 

 that situation, and placed it in the chancel. The alder- 

 man of the borough and others replaced it in its former 

 situation, when a formal complaint was made to the 

 bishop (Williams). In 1627 the bishop published his 

 judgment on the question, in A Letter to the Vicar of 

 Grantham. The visitation of 1634 tempted Peter 

 Heylyn to republish this Letter, together with an 

 answer under the title of A Coal from the Altar, &c. 

 Williaius replied in 1637 by a treatise entitled The 

 Holy Table, Name and Thing, more anciently and 

 literally used under the New Testament than that of 

 Altar. Heylyn rejoined by his Antidotum Lincolniense ; 

 or an Answer to a Book entitled " The Holy Altar, Name 

 and Thing," ^c. The bishop was preparing for his 

 further vindication, when he was prevented by his 

 troubles in the Star Chamber, in consequence of which 

 his library was seized. " And how," says Hacket, 

 "could he fight without his arms? or, how could the 

 bell ring when they had stolen away the clapper ? " 



During the controversy Dr. Pocklington, Chaplain in 

 Ordinary to the King, published his Altare Chris- 

 tianum ; or, the Dead Vicar's Plea, wherein the Vicar of 

 Grantham being dead yet speaheth, and pleadeth out of 

 Antiquity against him that hath broken down his Altar. 

 4to. 1637. The best historical notice of this contro- 

 versy is given in Hackot's Life of Archbishop Williams, 

 pt. ii. pp. 99 — 109., and was particularly referred to 

 by the counsel on the Cambridge stone .iltar case, 

 1844-1845, as well as by Sir Herbert Jenner Fust in 

 his judgment on it.] 



MEANING OF GKOOM. 



In investigating the descent of two Devonshire 

 families, I have met with four instances of persons 

 designating themselves as groom. They were 

 certainly well connected, and in fortune appa- 

 rently much above the class of people who accept 

 the care of horses in this present day. 



If they were grooms of horses, society was in a 

 very different state from that in which it is at the 

 present day ; if they were not such grooms, what 

 then were they ? I believe they were unmarried 

 persons. First, there is Samuel Weeks, of South 

 Tawton, groom ; will proved in the Archdeacon 

 of Exeter's Court, 1635). His fiither was Richard 

 Weeks, styled gentleman in the parish register ; 

 and Samuel Weeks signs his name in a peculiarly 

 fine Italian hand, that I do not remember to have 

 seen in any instance of that time except in that of 

 a thorough gentleman. 



Francis Kingwell, of Crediton, groom. His will 

 was proved in the Bishop's Court in 1639 ; his 

 sister married a Kichard Hole, of South Tawton, 

 a yeoman of substance ; her second husband was 

 John Weeks, of South Tawton, gentleman, and 

 his sons were gentlemen. These Weekses were, I 

 doubt not, nearly related to the Wykes or Weeks, 

 of North Wyke, in the same parish, a family of 

 great antiquity. 



Thirdly, here is John Hole, of South Tawton, 

 groom, 1640. His inventory is 180Z., of which 41. 

 was for his clothes, whereas a gentleman in one 

 case in this neighbourhood has his clothes valued 

 at ten shillings; Kingwell's inventory was the 

 same. 



Robert Hole, of Zeal Monachorum, groom, is 

 the fourth instance. His will was proved at West- 

 minster in 1654; he was the son of a wealthy 

 yeoman, and his brother, Thomas Hole, was a 

 gentleman. 



I trouble you that I may learn, through your 

 kindness, whether groom, in these instances, was 

 used with the meaning which we attach to it ; or at 

 that time, or in the English language, or the ver- 

 nacular tongue of central Devonshire, meant any- 

 thinjr else. E. Davis Prothekoe. 



