2nd s. N« 94., Oct. 17. '57.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



307 



there from the Midland Counties, either from 

 Lincolnshire or Nottinghamshire.* The parish 

 in whicli he laboured, after completing his uni- 

 versity course, has not been ascertained ; — that it 

 was in Norfolk, near Norwich or Yarmouth, is all 

 that can be gathered from contemporary sources. 

 Joseph Hunter, Esq., F.S.A., has in his Collec- 

 tions, bestowed much inquiry on this point, and 

 has suggested " Mundham in Norfolk as his paro- 

 chial cure," but it has been satisfactorily ascer- 

 tained that this was not the locality. After the 

 resignation of his fellowship in 1604, he proceeded 

 to " Lincolnshire, his county," and afterwards, 

 under the auspices of Mr. Brewster, " a gentle- 

 man of fortune at Scrooby in Norfolk," assisted 

 in the formation of the " first Separatist Church " 

 there, — the " Mother Church of the Pilgrims," — 

 the " Cradle of Massachusetts." Agreeing with 

 the writer of the Memoir, that " the parentage, 

 education, youthful predilections, and exploits of 

 a distinguished man are important to be known," 

 and from the local interest attaching to this place, 

 in connection with the pilgrim band, as the place 

 of their embarkation in 1620, I have the hope that 

 some of the numerous correspondents of " N. & 

 Q." may be able to afford an additional ray of 

 light on the earlier history of Robinson from 

 private records or other documentary evidence 

 hitherto deemed inaccessible. 



HeNEY W. S. TAYIiOB. 



Southampton. 



THE KENTISH HORSE. 



The Horse of Kent is commonly attributed to 

 Hengest and Horsa. But are we sure that this is 

 a true ascription ? I am aware that there is 

 vulgarly supposed to be an affinity between the 

 horse of the Kentish hop-pockets and the horse 

 of the House of Hanover. But again I ask, 

 what is the connection — of cause and effect — 

 between the two horses ? Hengest (slip-slop 

 Hengist) and Horsa were Jutes — in no way con- 

 tributes with Hanoverians of the fifth or any other 

 century. I do not find that any of the Saxon or 

 Angli tribes ever exhibited a horse as an emblem 

 or a cognizance. The symbol (whatever be its 

 meaning) is confined to Kent ; what probable ex- 

 planation can be given of its origin or its adoption 

 in this county ? I think that it has nothing 

 whatever to do with the invaders of the fifth and 

 sixth centuries, whether Jutish, Frisian, Saxon, 



* " Joseph Hall, afterwards Bishop of Norwich .... 

 his contemporary at college, and who became the anta- 

 gonist of Robinson, states that "Lincolnshire was his 

 county." But the Rev. Dr. Lamb, Master of C. C. C, in 

 his edition of Masters' work (published in 1749, and who 

 identifies the above entry with Robinson of Leyden), 

 " substitutes Nottinghamshire for Lincolnshire. The 

 reason for such variation from the register and Masters is 

 not given."— /6id. pp. xiv. xv. 



or Angli. I think that it is the same equine 

 type which Cunobelln mounted on his coins, and 

 is only so far Kentish as (that interesting county 

 being the only part of Britain which had a native 

 coinage) it is to be found on Kentish metal only. 

 On that coinage we find bad, wretchedly bad, re- 

 productions of the Macedonian, perhaps the Car- 

 thaginian, horse, done to the best of the ability of 

 the Cantuarian moneyer. It is beyond doubt that 

 the ante-Roman coins of Britain contain no 

 original type whatever. They are too unmeaning 

 to allow any such supposition. But, on the as- 

 sumption that they are copies of foreign types 

 with which the Britons were familiar through the 

 intercourse of commerce, they are quite as in- 

 teresting as if they were original. Mr. H. Noel 

 Humphx'eys observes, — 



" The monetary issues both of Philip and his son Alex- 

 ander, are known to have spread widely into barbarous 

 nations, and copies of every degree of successive rudeness 

 are found, from many bad imitations to almost indistin- 

 guishable ones." 



Mr. Humphreys farther observes : 



" These coins have neither been collected nor described 

 with the same accuracy and frequency as coins bearing 

 the names of British princes, and as they thus do not 

 play a conspicuous part in scientific works on the subject, 

 they have been proportiouably neglected by ordinary 

 collectors." 



I quote the interesting and excellent work of 

 Mr. Humphreys, published by Bohn in 1853. En 

 Jin I solicit the explanations of your arch aiological 

 and numismatological readers. H. C. C. 



ANONTMOUS BOOKS. 



Who are the authors of these books, &c., now 

 in my. possession ? — 



1 . History of the Commons Warre of England 

 throughout these Three Nations, begun from ] 640, 

 and continued till this present year 1662, 12mo., 

 pp. 140.: London, printed for Joshua Coniers, 

 and are to be sold, &c., 1662. The dedicatory 

 epistle to the Honourable Col. Nevil, signed W. C. 



2. Hexapla Jacobosa. A specimen of loyalty to- 

 wards his present Majesty James II., &c. In 

 six pieces (in Sermons). By an Irish Protestant 

 Bishop, and, as appears from the dedication, E. 

 Bishop of Cork and Ossory. 12mo. Dublin, 1686. 



[By Dr. Edward Wetenhall, Bishop of Cork and Ross, 

 and afterwards of Kilmore and Ardagh.] 



3. A Replie to a Relation of the Conference be- 

 tween William Laude and Mr. Fisher the Jesuite. 

 By a witness of Jesus Christ. (No printer's name 

 or place of publication.) 4to. Imprinted in 1640. 



4. Lord Bishops none of the Lords Bishops. 

 (No printer's name or place of publication.) 4to. 

 Printed in the month of November, 1640. Mr. 

 Petheram attributes this pamphlet to Prynue, It 



