298 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 152. 



exchequer, with a gratuity of 5001. besides), I can 

 give the following information. John Leyburn 

 was consecrated, at Rome, Bishop of Adrumetum, 

 and invested with the title and power of Vicar- 

 Apostolic. He arrived in England towards the 

 end of 1685, and had an apartment assigned him 

 in St. James's Palace. In 1688, three other Vicars- 

 Apostolic were consecrated. In the month of 

 April Dr. Bonaventure Giffard, " of the GISards 

 of Wolverhampton," a man of some learning and 

 of many amiable and Christian virtues, whom the 

 king had lately chosen to be one of his chaplains 

 and preachers, was raised to the dignity of Vicar- 

 Apostolic, with the title of Bishop of Madaura. 

 Next month two more Vicars- Apostolic were ap- 

 pointed : Philip Ellis, also chaplain and preacher 

 to the king, who was the son of John Ellis, rector 

 of Waddesdon in Bucks, and had been educated 

 at Westminster School, was consecrated May 6 th, 

 at St. James's ; James Smith was consecrated May 

 23d, in the Queen Dowager's Chapel at Somerset 

 House. 



The kingdom was now divided into four dis- 

 tricts. Leyburn resided in London on the south, 

 Smith went to the north, Ellis to the west, and 

 Giffard took the midland district. On the Revo- 

 lution, Leyburn and Giffard were put into con- 

 finement ; but on giving assurance of peaceable 

 conduct, they were shortly after released. Smith 

 retired from York to a gentleman's seat in the 

 country, while Ellis withdrew with his royal mas- 

 ter to St. Germains, and subsequently obtained a 

 bishopric in Italy. Dr. Stonor, Bishop of Thespla, 

 was vicar of the midland district after 1716 : and 

 his cotemporarles were Bishop Petre, and his 

 assistant Dr. Challoner, in the south ; in the north, 

 Dr. George WItham, Father Williams, and, after 

 him, Mr. DIcconson ; In the west Father Pritchard 

 and Father Yorke, the one a Franciscan, the 

 other a Benedictine. My authority for the prin- 

 cipal part of these statements is a tract in the 

 Christiaiis Miscellany by the Rev. Leicester Dar- 

 wall, M.A., giving an outline of the ecclesiastical 

 transactions and government of the English Ro- 

 manists. He quotes from Berlngton. E. II. A. 



WOLSET AND HIS POBTRAITS. 



(Vol. vi,, pp. 149. 278.) 



I seem to have a vague recollection of having 

 seen some cotemporary authority for the state- 

 ment, that Cardinal Wolsey had but one eye, 

 having lost the other by discreditable indulgences; 

 but I cannot remember who or where ; and, as 

 your excellent correspondent Me. Singer is silent, 

 I suppose there is none. The cardinal's old enemy 

 John Skelton does, however, furnish matter for 

 founding the statement upon, amply sufficient to 

 vindicate it from the charge of being a modern 



invention. In his fierce denunciation of the car- 

 dinal, in "Why come ye nat to Court?" (lines 

 1162. &c., Dyce's edit, of Skelton's Worhs, vol. ii. 

 pp. 62-3.) he says : 



" This Namun Sirus, 

 So fell and so irons, 

 So full of nialencoly, 

 With a flap afore his eye. 

 Men wene that he is pocky. 

 Or els his surgions they lye. 



Now all his trust hangis 



In Balthasor 



Balthasor that helid Domingo's nose 



Now with his gummys of Araby 



Hath promised to heal our Cardinal's eye ; 



Yet some surgions put a dout 



Lest he will put it clene out." 



This shows not only that the scandalous reason 

 is not a later invention, but that, at least during 

 the period of his greatest power and prosperity 

 (the poem was written, as Mr. Dyce states, in 

 1522), the cardinal did wear a flap over his eye, 

 a circumstance which (if even he did not lose his 

 eye, as Skelton implies was expected) might, with 

 a man of the cardinal's temper, be sufficient to 

 render him averse to having himself painted so 

 as to exhibit the flap, and thus perpetuate the 

 scandal. J- Th. 



Kennington. 



SMOTHEBING HTDaOPHOBIC PATIENTS. 



(Vol. v., p. 10. ; Vol. vl., pp. 110. 206.) 



Allusion is made in Number 148. to a popu- 

 lar belief amongst the poorer classes, that patients 

 suffering in the last stage of hydrophobia are 

 sometimes suffocated. I held a curacy in a some- 

 what uncivilised and rough district in the north : 

 I know that this belief existed among the poor of 

 that district, and I have little doubt from allthat 

 I could gather on the subject, that the act itself 

 had been occasionally put into practice. One of 

 ray parishioners, then a young man of twenty-five, 

 had a large scar on his cheek. Asking him how it 

 occurred, he stated in answer, that he had been 

 bitten by a mad dog; that the bitten flesh had 

 been cut out, and that the wound had left the scar. 

 He added, that notwithstanding this cautionary 

 proceeding he had been seized with hydrophobia ; 

 had contrary to all expectation recovered, and 

 owed his life to the determination and love of his 

 father. Upon inquiry, he explained that in his 

 worst paroxysms he was conscious of what was 

 passing around him, and that when all hope seemed 

 over, a consultation was held by the neighbours at 

 his bedside, which resulted in a determination to 

 smother him, to "put him out of his misery.'' 



