2"* S. VIII. Sept. 10. '69.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



217 



Shooting Soldiers: Oak Leaves (2""* S. viii. 156.) 

 — As punishments for wearing oak-leaves cannot 

 have been inflicted within living memory, I crave 

 reference to the books in which they are recorded. 

 Were the soldiers tried by a court-martial on the 

 specific charge of '■ showing an oak-leaf in their 

 fingers ? " As to civilians, wearing oak-leaves is 

 not an offence at common-law, so the infliction of 

 *' imprisonment, whipping, and fine " could be 

 legal only by statute. Was there any such sta- 

 tute ? I think not. I am here without any means 

 of reference except my Prayer-book, in which I 

 find the service for the 29th May as appointed by 

 the Act 12 & 13 Car. II., and which was in full 

 force till the last session. 



I wish to investigate these cases. We know 

 that sometimes people are convicted of one offence 

 and punished for another. Probert was found 

 guilty of stealing a horse, and hanged for killing 

 Weare; and I have seen at Quarter Sessions very 

 severe sentences for very small larcenies, when 

 the convicts were suspected as poachers ; but the 

 only case which has fallen within my reading of a 

 civilian punished for wearing the Jacobite symbol 

 is that of Amos Turner, mentioned in The Me- 

 moirs of P. P. as. "a worthy person, rightly es- 

 teemed for his sufferings, in that he had beeft 

 honoured with the stocks for wearing an oaken 



bough." FiTZHOPKINS. 



Amiens. 



James Anderson (2°'^ S. viii. 169.) — Your cor- 

 respondent 2. 0. will find some notices of James 

 Anderson in Mr. Maidment's Analecta Scotica. 

 But I think every particular may be gleaned from 

 Anderson's own letters preserved in the Advo- 

 cates' Library in Edinburgh. Many of these were 

 addressed to Sir Richard Steele, who was Ander- 

 son's tenant while acting as commissioner for for- 

 feited estates in that city. W. H. W. 



Mowhray Coheirs (P' S. i. 213.) — Collins, in 

 his Peerage of England {qA. 1812, vol. i. p. 18., 

 art. Howard Duke of Norfolk), says that the 

 great partition of the Mowbray estates between 

 Berkeley and Howard as coheirs of Thomas, last 

 duke of that name, took place in the 15th Hen. 

 VII., and refers to the Communia Roll of Easter 

 Term in that year. No. 1. (C. P.), leading to the 

 inference that the partition-deed would be found 

 there enrolled. A querist (G.) in the first vol. of 

 " N. & Q." inquired for the partition, which was 

 not found upon a casual inspection of the roll re- 

 ferred to. A recent examination of the whole rolls 

 of that term induces the conclusion that Collins was 

 mistaken as to the matter, as the only entry referring 

 to Berkeley among the deeds (towards the end of 

 the roll) is a grant and confirmation, dated 20th 

 August, 13th Hen. VII. (1498), from Wm. Denys, 

 son and heir of Sir Walter Denys, Knight, of the 

 half of the manor of Auste, witii lands, &c. in the 



county of Gloucester, and half the manor of Lit- 

 ton, with the patronage of the church of Litton, 

 and the manor of Northberyton, and patronage of 

 the free chapel there, and all lands, &c. to Mau- 

 rice Berkeley, Thomas Berkeley, Robert Green of 

 Coventry, and Thos. Trye. 



The recent search was made in reference to the 

 manor of Bosham in Sussex, jvhich has remained 

 in the Berkeleys to this day, and the result may 

 save future genealogists from repeating the refer- 

 ence of Collins, which is erroneous in relation to 

 the partition of the Mowbray estates. W. D. C. 



Thomas Talbot (2"^ S. viii. 148.) — I find in my 

 manuscript collections on this name, a Thomas 

 Talbot set down at 1630 in Wood's Athence Oxoni- 

 enses, vol. ii. p. 108. ; and a farther notice of him, 

 as at Paris in 1635, occurs in the same work, vol. 

 iii. p. 1224. A reference to this work, which I 

 have not at present near me, will be lilcely to sa- 

 tisfy R. W.'s query. 



A correspondent of this useful periodical has 

 accused me (2""* S. viii. 9.) of anticipating James 

 I. in my Illustrations of James the Second's Irish 

 Army List by a creation of (I believe he said) 

 sundry baronets. As a new enlarged edition of 

 these Illustrations is going to press, I should feel 

 particularly obliged by a communication of ray 

 infringements on the prerogative of royalty, to 

 enable me to correct, in my forthcoming volumes, 

 errors of which I am as yet unconscious. 



John D'Alton. 



Dublin, 48. Summer Hill. 



Hypatia and St. Catherine (2'"^ S. viii. 148.) — 

 There are no grounds whatever for the statement 

 referred to by K. P, D. E. St. Catherine had 

 flourished and suffered martyrdom more than a 

 century before the time of the learned lady Hy- 

 patia. Nor is it just to call her murder a " foul 

 blot on the name of St. Cyril." The venerable 

 hagiographer, Alban Butler, assures us that it was 

 the act of an incensed mob, to the great grief and 

 scandal of all good men, especially of the pious 

 bishop." And he adds this judicious note : — 



"It is very unjust in some moderns to charge him (St. 

 Cyril) as conscious of so horrible a crime, which shocks 

 human nature. Great persons are never to be condemned 

 without proofs which amount to conviction. The silence 

 of Orestes, and the historian Socrates, both his declared 

 enemies, suflSces to acquit him." 



F. C. H. 



Torture (2°"^ S. viii. 176.) — Mr. Carrington is 

 strictly correct in saying that " in Scotland torture 

 was allowed by law until its abolition at the Union 

 in the reign of Queen Anne," but it is worthy of no- 

 tice that in the Claim of Rights made in 1689 by the 

 Scottish Estates of Parliament, it is asserted "that 

 the using of torture without evidence, or in oi'dinary 

 crimes, is contrary to law." This is cautiously 

 expressed, and that it did not imply a protest for 



