May 1. 1852.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



423 



warrant, and of course communicated to the un- 

 fortunate delinquent. 



A case somewhat similar to the Winchester one 

 ■was told me bj an old and respectable inhabitant 

 of AVorcester, who was himself cognisant of the 

 circumstance, and had frequently seen the convict. 

 It occurred in the gaolership of the father of the 

 present governor of the city gaol. A boy of only 

 thirteen or fourteen had been convicted of some 

 capital oflence, but on account of his youth was 

 respited indefinitely. He remained in the gaol, 

 was found to be a docile lad, and much liberty 

 was accorded to him; the authorities expecting 

 that he would receive a pardon. Time flew on, 

 many months — I think my informant said nearly 

 two years elapsed, and his case seemed forgotten. 

 If he was not actually sent on errands out of the 

 gaol, so loose was his captivity, that he might 

 easily have slipt away at any time, and been 

 .scarcely missed. In fact, he had the full run of 

 the prison, and was a great favourite with the 

 xlebtors, whose sports and amusements he joined 

 in, for discipline was very la.x in those days. He 

 was playing at balLone day in the yard with some 

 debtors, full of life and glee, when suddenly, to 

 the utter astonishment of the gaoler, and the awe 

 of his associates, there came an order from London 

 for his execution. Why he had remained so long 

 forgotten, or why such extreme severity fell on 

 him so unexpectedly at last, none could tell ; but 

 his case was considered a very hard one, and was 

 commiserated by the whole city. My informant 

 Saw the poor boy conducted to execution. The 

 old citizen who gave me this account is dead, or I 

 could have recovered the date of its occurrence. 

 Ambkose Florence. 



Worcester. 



I observe that the substance of M. W. B.'s Note 

 has been rej>rinted in a mutilated form in several 

 newspapers ; his preliminary remark, and con- 

 cluding Query, being omitted ! The effect of this 

 is to circulate as a fact what your correspondent 

 himself questions. ]\Iy object however in this 

 communication, is not so much to draw attention 

 to the injurious effects of partial quotation, as to 

 point out what, in my opinion, renders the occur- 

 rence of an execution under the circumstances 

 detailed a manifest impossibility. I believe I am 

 correct in stating that there never was, nor is 

 tliere now (out of London), such a thing as a 

 warrant for the execution of a criminal. At the 

 close of each Assize, a fair copy of the Calendar, 

 with the sentences in the margin, is signed by the 

 Judges, and left with the sheriff; this is the only 

 authority he has given him ; and in the event of a 

 sentence of death, he has no alternative but car- 

 rying it into effect, unless he receives from the 

 Crown a pardon, a reprieve, or a warrant com- 

 muting the sentence. Blachstone observes upon 

 this: 



" It may afford matter of speculation, that in civil 

 causes there should be such a variety of writs of exe- 

 cution to recover a trifling debt, issued in the king's 

 name, and under the seal of the court, without which 

 the sheriff cannot legally stir one step ; and yet that 

 the execution of a man, the most important and terrible 

 task of any, should depend upon a marginal note." 



J. B. COLMAS. 



Eye. 



DUCHESS OF LANCASTER. 



(Vol. v., p. 320.) 



Your correspondent is alarmed lest the honour 

 he claims for the Lancastrians should be denied 

 them, because it has been " discovered that Wil- 

 liam in. never created himself Duke of Lan- 

 caster." Where is it asserted that either he or 

 any other of our sovereigns ever did? When 

 Henry of Bolingbroke merged the lesser name of 

 duke in the greater name of king, he was no more 

 Duke of Lancaster than he was Earl of Derby 

 or Duke of Hereford; but the title of Duke of 

 Lancaster he willed not to be lost altogether as 

 the others were, and therefore by an act of par- 

 liament (1 Hen. IV., Art. 81.) it was enacted 

 Que le Prince porte le nom de Due de Lancastre. The 

 act, after reciting that " our said Lord the King, 

 considering how Almighty God of his great grace 

 had placed him in the honorable Estate of King, 

 and nevertheless he cannot yet for certain cause 

 bear the name of Duke of Lancaster," then or- 

 dains that " Henry his eldest son should have and 

 bear the name of Duke of Lancaster, and that he 

 be named Prince of Wales, Duke of Aquitaine, of 

 Lancaster, and of Cornwall, and Earl of Chester." 

 The fact is, that the King or Queen of England 

 cannot be Duke or Duchess in the realm of Eng- 

 land. Our kings have held inferior titles drawn 

 from other kingdoms, as Duke of Normandy and 

 Earl of Anjou ; but Lord Coke says the sovereign 

 cannot be rex and dux in the same realm. The 

 Queen, as queen, holds her palatinate of Lancaster, 

 and the other duchy lands and franchises ; but she 

 holds them jure dueatus, so distinguished from 

 those estates which she holds jure corona;. She 

 cannot however properly be styled Duchess of 

 Lancaster. W. H. 



In your last Number (\"ol. v., p. 320.) is an 

 inquiry on the Duchess of Lancaster. The best 

 answer to this is to be found in a book, 8vo., en- 

 titled Harrison on Crown Revenues, or a Memoir, 

 ^c. respecting the Revenues of the Duchies of Com- 

 rvall and Lancaster: no dale or printer's name. 

 I purchased a copy at a sale a short time ago. 

 Everything will be ascertained here perhaps better 

 than any where else. J> D- 



Is Queen Victoria the possessor of this title ? 

 It would appear so. Sir N. Harris Nicolas, in his 



