212 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2nd S. No 87,, Sept. 13. '56. 



title and value. Date is 1618. On the last page 

 there is an idea, (juaint, but exceedingly illustra- 

 tive of the little pitfolls our early divines stumbled 

 into, with their " similitudes," " parallels," and 

 illustrations." Was this remarkable old bird a fa- 

 vourite figure ? 



"Diuines are wont to shadow our eternitiy, by the si- 

 militude of a little Bird drinking vp a drop of Water out 

 of the Sea; if euery tenne thousand yeares the Bird 

 should come and drinke vp but otia drop, yet the Sea 

 might be drye at length : but yet this' lasting of the Sea 

 is nothing in comparison to the lasting of the glory of 

 Heauen." 



Kael. 



[This work is entitled TTie Principles, or The Patteriie 

 of IVholesome Words ; or a Collection of such Truths as 

 are necessary to be believed unto Salvation. By Nicolas 

 Byfield. Lond. 8vo. 1618. The fifth edition, 1034, con- 

 tains an appendix by Adoniram Byfield, entitled The 

 Summe of the Principles. ] 



Meaning of '■\Attachiatio" — I find in an ancient 

 deed the ^ord attachiacio, "cum attachiacione 

 stagni mei," the meaning of which I cahriot inter- 

 pret. It is, I believe, a, law term, but I have 

 looked in vain for it in Ducange and other au- 

 thorities. Can any of your correspondents help 

 me to its meaning ? J. B. 



[" Attachiatio" is our law term "attachment;" pro- 

 perty is " attached " for debt, &c. The context alone can 

 decide if the term be applicable in this case. There was 

 ati "attachment " frequently under charters of liberties, 

 /. e. a right to' take waste wood, &c. J 



WAS DANIEL WRAY JUNIUS ? 



(2"i S. ii. 164.) 



My attention has been before drawn to Mr. 

 Falconer's theory and to his evidence, which, I 

 aldmit, w6uld go far to decide the question, if it 

 were true. 



Junius did say, as quoted, that Garrick had 

 forced him to break his resolution to write no 

 more; — the editor of the edition of 1812 does say 

 that Junius referred to the 59th letter, with wliich 

 he had intended to conclude; — and Daniel Wray 

 did write to Lord Hardwicke on Sept. 29, and did 

 say, " had I persevered in that wise resolution to 

 write ho m6re ;" biit he added, " till I had some 

 fact of consequeribe to relate, t should have been 

 dumb with my pen till silence would bepome in- 

 decorum," which I take to be an established form 

 of common-place, merely personal, and having no 

 reference whatever io anything but his coTrespon- 

 dence with Lord Hardwicke. 



Now for that " direct evidence " which Mr. 

 Falconer tells us somewhat irreverently, " Whcf 

 doubts would still be doubting though one rose 

 from the dead for his conviction." The last letter, 



the intended last letter, No. 59, says Mr. Falconer, 

 is dated October 5, 1771 : 



" Six days previously (mark that !) Wray writes to 

 Lord Hardwicke . . . 'These proper attentions may satisfy 

 the good people of England for a month, accompanied by 

 the finishing dose of Junius on Saturddi/.' In perfect ac~ 

 cordance with this decided intimation, iY^a mt&w^&k finish- 

 ing dose did appear. The bth of October, 1771, was on a 

 Saturday." 



It is scarcely worth Avhile to observe that the 

 " perfect accordance " is founded on an assump- 

 tion that the date affixed to the letter is the date 

 of publication, and that tlie letter " did appear " 

 on '■^Saturday'" the 5th of October. Nineteen 

 times out of twenty such an assumption would be 

 borne out by the fact — nineteen times out of 

 twenty the date affixed is the date of publica- 

 tion. But unfortunately for Mr. Falconer, in this 

 instance, Junius dated his letter ; it was dated the 

 5th ; but it was not published till the 8th — not 

 published on a Saturday at all, but on a Tuesday, 

 and observe, Wray does not refer either to the 

 5th or the 8th, but to "Junius on Saturday." 



Mr. Falconer tells us that Wray's letter was 

 written " six days previously, mark that," to the 

 5th October — that is on Sunday the 29th. To 

 be sur6 rt was ; and the " finishing dose " on 

 Saturday was the letter to the Duke of Grafton, 

 published on Saturday, the 28th of September, the 

 very day before he wrote. W. D. W, 



DAILY SERVICE. 



(2°i S. ii. 148.) 



Therfe is abundant evidence to show that daily 

 prayers have not only been the rule of the Church 

 since the Reformation, but that also, to a very 

 great extent, they have been carried out in prac- 

 tice. As a proof of this, see Walton's Life of 

 George Herbert, the Life of Nicholas Ferrar, 

 Fell's Life of Hammond, and Nelson's Life of 

 Bull. 



In the Tracts for the Times (No. 84.) is given 

 a list of twenty churches in and about the city of 

 London, wherein daily prayers were said in 1683. 

 And in the Pietas Londinerisis, published at the be- 

 ginning of the eighteenth century, there is a table 

 of Public Services in London ; and the number of 

 churches wherein daily prayers were said was 

 seventy-eight, and this in addition to a large 

 number of cKtirches wt'erein o'ccasioha't services 

 were ,said. , , , 



What A. A. D. considers as an apparent con- 

 tradiction between the rubric he quotes and the 

 14th and 15th Canons, is not so when they are 

 examined arid coiripared together. As respects 

 the 14th Canon, It distinctly states " that all mi- 

 nisters likewise shall observe the Orders, Rites, 

 and Ceremonies prescribed in the Book of Com-> 



