328 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 260. 



** Strike, Daiyn, strike, the devil's in the 

 Lempe," is the motto attached to our crest, and 

 the story of its origin, as always related in our 

 family, runs as follows. An ancient Deacon, a 

 naval man, and, I believe, either a lieutenant or 

 captain, being in an engagement, his ship was 

 grappled by the enemy, and would have been 

 -captured but for the energy and determined 

 courage of our ancestor, who, hatchet in hand, 

 •was doing his best to sever the bulky hempen 

 cable, and the sailors beginning to despair, gave 

 him all the encouragement their manly English 

 hearts, but rough and ready minds, were able ; 

 and in the excitement of the moment, " Strike, 

 Deacon (or Dakyn), strike, the devil's in the 

 Lemp," was lustily echoed from man to man, 

 until encouraged determination gained the day, 

 the ship was released, and promotion following, 

 he adopted the motto, the substance of which had 

 {so far as the encouragement it gave went) done 

 so much towards gaining his laurels. This is the 

 story I have always heard given as an explanation 

 of the motto, by not only members of our family, 

 but strangers of the same name as myself. This 

 I hope will be a relief to the (doubtless) puzzled 

 brain of your correspondent, whom I dare say was 

 struck with its very ambiguous appearance at first 

 sight. I was not aware of the fact of its being 

 the motto of the Dakyn as well as the Deacon 

 family, but the latter is probably the time-altered 

 of the two, taking the ancient appearance of the 

 former into consideration. Octavius Deacon. 



HANNAH LIGHTrOOT, 



(Vol. vii., p. 595. ; Vol. viii., pp. 87. 281. ; Vol. x., 

 p. 228.) 



Since my communication under this head, I 

 have had an opportunity of referring to that ex- 

 traordinary work, A Secret History of the Court of 

 England, from the Accession of Oeorge the Third 

 to the Death of George the Fourth, 8fc. ; by the 

 Rt. Honble. Lady Anne Hamilton (2 vols. 8vo. ; 

 London, 1832), which was not, at the time of 

 writing, within my reach. I find that the state- 

 ment asserted to have been made by Mr. Beckford, 

 is in the main corroborated. As the book is scarce, 

 having been suppressed, perhaps the following 

 passages may be thought to merit preservation. 



"... His Roj^al Highness, at last, confided his views 

 to his next brotlier, Edward, Duke of York, and another 

 person, who were the only witnesses to the legal marriage 

 of the Prince of Wales to the before-mentioned lady, 

 Hannah Lightfoot, which took place at Curzon-street 

 Chapel, May Fair, in the year 1759. 



" i?hi3 marriage was productive of issue, the particulars 

 of which, however, we pass over for the present, and only 

 look to the results of the union. 



" Shortly after the prince came to the throne . . . 

 Ministers became suspicious of his marriage with the 



Quakeress. At length they were informed of the im- 

 portant fact, and immediately determined to annul it. 

 After innumerable schemes, how they might best attain 

 this end, and thereby frustrate the lying's wishes, they 

 devised the ' Ro}-al Marriage Act,' by which every prince 

 or princess of the blood might not marry, or intermarry, 

 with any person of less degree. This act, however, was 

 not passed till thirteen years after George the Third's union 

 with Miss Lightfoot, and therefore it could not render such 

 marriage illegal. 



" Thus was the foundation laid for this ill-fated prince's 

 future malady ! 



" At this period of increased anxiety to his Majesty, 

 Miss Lightfoot was disposed of during a temporary absence 

 of his brother Edward, and from that time no satisfactory 

 tidings ever reached those most interested in her welfare. 

 The only information that could be obtained was, that a 

 young gentleman named Axford was offered a large 

 amount, to be paid on the consummation of his marriage 

 with Miss Lightfoot, which offer he willingly accepted. 



" The King was greatly distressed to ascertain the fate 

 of his much beloved and legally-married wife, the 

 Quakeress, and entrusted Lord Chatham to go in disguise 

 and endeavour to trace her abode ; but the search proving 

 fruitless, the King was again almost distracted." — Pp. 

 26—30. 



Singularly enough, the assertion made by Mk. 

 Beckford as to the authorship of The Letters of 

 Junius (which I included in my quotation from its 

 interest rather than its relevancy) is also to be 

 found, with corroborative particulars, in the work 

 from which the foregoing extracts have been made. 

 I transcribe the more important passages : 



"Numerous disquisitions have been written to prove 

 the identity of Junius ; but in spite of many arguments 

 to the contrary, we recognise him in the person of the 

 Rev. James Wilmot, D.D., Rector of Barton- on- the- 

 Heath, and Aulcester, Warwickshire, and one of his Ma- 

 jesty's Justices of the Peace for that county. 



" Lord Chatham had been introduced to Dr. Wilmot 

 by the Duke of Cumberland; and it was from these 

 associations with the court, and the members of the several 

 administrations, that the doctor became so competent to 

 write his unparalleled Letters of Junius. 



" We here subjoin an incontrovertible proof of Dr. 

 Wilmot's being the author of the work alluded to : 



"'I have this day completed my last letter of J s, 



and sent the same to Lord S m. J. W. March 17th, 



1772.' 



" This is a fac-simile of the Doctor's handwriting, and 

 must for ever set at rest the long disputed question of 

 'Who was the author of Junius? '" — P. 50. 



I may conclude with the Query, Who was the 

 real author of the Secret History ? 



WiiLiAM Bates. 



Birmingham. 



P. S. — I think it proper to add that, since 

 writing the above, I have been informed by the 

 able and ingenious author of The Identity of 

 Junius with a distinguished living Character esta- 

 blished, that he has examined the document re- 

 ferred to, and considers it, for various reasons, of 

 little or no importance in the controversy. 



May I here repeat the hope, which I have ex- 



