274 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[Oct. 6. 1855. 



(April 26, 1806) the Russian Prince John Baria- 

 tinski, and died the year following. F. J. C. 



Is copying a Sermon Felony ? (Vol. xii., p. 166.). 

 — It is a great error to suppose that copying a 

 sermon is felony. It is not a felony. The pro- 

 position that it is, assumes that the person who 

 copies a sermon steals and carries away some per- 

 sonal chattel belonging to the author, and thereby 

 commits a larceny, which is felony. 



Now the person who copies a sermon uses his 

 own paper, pen, and ink, or he steals those articles ; 

 if he steals them, he is guilty of a larceny of those 

 articles ; but if he uses his own paper, pen, and 

 ink in copying the sermon, he takes nothing, and 

 carries away nothing but what belongs to him. 



The only offence which the copyist commits is 

 the infringement of the author's copyright ; but 

 unless the person who copies the sermon publishes 

 it, or proposes to do so, the author seems to be 

 without remedy. If the transcriber publishes, or 

 proposes to publish the sermon, he may be re- 

 strained by an injunction in Chancery from doing 

 so, and will be answerable in damages for the 

 injury to the author's copyright, to the extent of 

 what he may have published. 



It is obvious that sermons are subject to the 

 same law as other compositions. Applications to 

 the Court of Chancery for injunctions to restrain 

 the publication of pirated works are not unfre- 

 quent ; but whoever heard of an indictment for 

 copying or pirating a sermon, or any other work, 

 or part of a work ? No one. And yet, if an in- 

 dictment would He for such an act — and it would 

 lie if the act were a felony— such a proceeding 

 would often have been resorted to, as much more 

 expeditious and effectual, and infinitely less ex- 

 pensive, than a suit in Chancery. J. G. 



Exon. 

 On the words " Parson" " Clerk" ^c. (Vol. xii., 



S, 160.). — In my remarks on the word " curate," 

 suggested that under the Marquis of Bland- 

 ford's proposed new Act of Parliament, the term 

 ♦' rector " should be applied to the incumbents of 

 old — the " Mother Churches," and that the in- 

 cumbents of newly formed districts should be 

 termed " curates," or " vicars," according to the 

 patronage; while the term "clerk in orders" 

 should be used to express the office of the sti- 

 pendiary assistant. 



On consideration, I think I should correct my- 

 self in one point : viz., in suggesting that all the 

 incumbents of such districts should be termed 

 *' vicars," be the patrons who they may (for after 

 all they are in any case deputies for the rector of 

 the mother church) ; and for this reason, the word 

 " curate " often occurs both in the prayers and in 

 the rubrics of our Prayer-Book to denote the 

 pastor, whether incumbent or curate ; and hence 

 it would be better, in any new use of the term, to 



No. 310.] 



leave the word " curate " gradually to resume its 

 Prayer- Book meaning. 



As to the names of newly formed districts in 

 Lord Blandford's proposed bill, I would submit 

 that the simple use of two terms — " civil parish" 

 and " ecclesiastical parish " — would fully meet 

 the case, and preserve the old landmarks, while 

 giving due effect to ecclesiastical legislation. 



Thus, the " civil parish " of St. George's, Han- 

 over Square, would then comprise the " rectory " 

 of the " ecclesiastical parish " of St. George's, 

 Hanover Square, and the " vicarages " of the 

 " ecclesiastical parishes " of St. Michael's, St. 

 Peter's, &c. C. H. Davis, M.A., Oxon. 



Nailsworth. 



Chancellors under Fifty (Vol. xii., p. 227.). — 

 Many are the chancellors who have been honoured 

 with that dignity before they attained the age of 

 fifty. We may reckon, besides those you have 

 already enumerated, the following : 



•' Chanc. 



or 

 Bom Keeper 



Archbishop Becket 1118 1155 



Geoffrey Plantagenet, Archbishop of York , 1153 1181 

 Thomas de Cantilupe, Bishop of Hereford . 1219 1265 

 Henry de Burghersh, Bishop of Lincoln . 1290 1328 

 Thomas de Arundel, Archbishop of Canter- 

 bury . 1352 1386 



John Kempe, Archbishop of York . . 1380 1426 



Cardinal Wolsey If^l 1M5 



Sir Thomas More 1480 1529 



LordAudley 1488 1532 



Sir Nicholas Bacon 1509 15o8 



Sir Christopher Hatton .... 1540 1587 



Sir John Pickering 1544 1592 



Archbishop Williams 1582 1621 



Bulstrode Whitlocke 1^0^ }ttl 



Francis North, Lord Guilford . . . 1637 1682 



LordCowper 1665 1705 



Lord Talbot 1684 1733 



Lord Hardwicke 1690 1737 



LordThurlow y^O 1778 



June April 



Lord Eldon 1^51 1801 



I have not included many, who, if their birth-date 



could be satisfactorily ascertained, might probably 



be added to the list. Edward Foss. 



[We follow our correspondent's example by adding the 



dates to the six names we mentioned in p. 227. 



Chanc. 

 or 

 Bom Keeper 



William of Wykeham 1324 1367 



Cardinal Beaufort 13^6 1403 



Sir Thomas Beaufort 1377 141U 



Archbishop George Nevil .... 1432 1460 



Lord Coventry 1578 162o 



Lord Clarendon 1608 1657 



Ed. "N. &Q."] 



Old Deeds (Vol. xii., p. 185.). — By all means 

 preserve them ; any one of them may prove to be 

 the centre link of a chain of evidence, hopelessly 

 useless while its extremities are disconnected. 



L. B. L<. 



