Nov. 20. 1852.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



479 



Concordia Discors Sixti V. et dementis VIII. 

 circa Hieronymianam editionem, Sfc, 1600, 4to. : 

 but the simple fact of the instant correction of the 

 Sixtus edition of 1590, by that of Clement in 

 1592, refutes the assumption of infallibility im- 

 puted, in this instance, to the Popes, as it is a dis- 

 tinct acknowledgment of the contrary — being the 

 ■work of hands, and not of minds. No book of any 

 extent, whatever may be the printer's boast, ever 

 proceeded faultless, or, as it is termed by the 

 craft, immaculate, from working hands. One error 

 only, it was long affirmed, pulsis for pulses in the 

 preface, impaired the spotless purity of the edition 

 of the New Testament by Robert Stephens in 

 1549. Subsequent editors, however. Mills, Wet- 

 stein, and Griesbach, easily disprove this asserted 

 accuracy ; and Didot, in the preface to the mag- 

 nificent edition of Virgil in 1799, equally denounced 

 the unfounded pretensions of the Glasgow Horace 

 of 1 744, with the edition of Livy by Ruddiman in 

 1752, &c. ; nor have the stereotype publications 

 fulfilled their early promise. Our constantly erring 

 authorised editions of the Scriptures need no 

 mention : they cannot fail to strike every reader. 

 But, reverting to my original purpose, I wish to 

 observe, that, though surprised at such blunders 

 in the admirably conducted Athenceum af first sight, 

 I withheld these animadversions, in expectation of 

 finding the mistakes corrected in the subsequent 

 Numbers of the 16th and 23rd. This omission is 

 the cause of my present address, far prolonged, I 

 am sensible, beyond its direct necessity ; but the 

 collateral subjects into which I have been led or 

 seduced may not be deemed wholly devoid of 

 interest. J. R. (of Cork.) 



KOBES AND FEES IN THE DATS OF KOBIN HOOD. 



The Lytell Geste of Robyn Hode contains a re- 

 markable illustration of the abuse of robes and 

 fees, in the case of Robin's friend the knight, of 

 Uterysdale near Nottingham. 



This knight, called in a subsequent part of the 

 tale Syr Rychard at the Lee, had " set to wedde," 

 or pledged his lands, worth "foure hondred pounde 

 by yere," to the abbot of St. Mary's at York, for 

 a sum of four hundred pounds ; and it seems that, 

 unless the knight either repays the borrowed 

 money, or appears personally at the abbot's court 

 to pray for a longer day, at the expiration of 

 twelve months his lands will be forfeited to the 

 «bbot. 



" But he come this ylke day, 

 Dysherytye shall he be," 

 says the abbot, who, being desirous to obtain per- 

 manent possession of the knight's lands, has taken 

 care to retain the High Justice of England, or, in 

 the words of the ballad, 



" The high justyce of Englonde 

 The abbot there dyde holds." 



" The hye justyce and many mo 

 Had take into their honde 

 Holy all the knyghtes det, 

 To put that knyght to wronge." 



When, therefore. Sir Richard makes his appear- 

 ance on the appointed day, professes that he is not 

 prepared to pay, and formally prays " of a lenger 

 daye," the justice promptly interferes : 



" ' Thy daye is broke,' said the justyce ; 

 ' Londe getest thou none.' " 



Whereupon the knight says, — 



" ' Now, good syr justice, be my frende, 

 And fende me of my fone.' " 



And the High Justice makes the following notable 

 reply : 



" ' I am holde with the abbot,' sayd the justyce ; 

 * Bothe with cloth and fee.' " 



The knight evidently considers this a sufficient 

 and final answer to his appeal to the justice, for 

 he immediately turns to the sheriff with — 

 " ' Now, good syr sheryf, be my frende,' " 



As the writer of TTie Lytell Geste places this in- 

 cident of the abuse of robes and fees by the abbot 

 and justice in the reign of "Edwarde our comly 

 kynge," who, according to the Rev. Mr. Hunter, 

 was Edward II., it may be interesting to inquire 

 whether such an incident can be referred, with any 

 degree of probability, to the reign of this king. 



Turning to the statutes concerning maintenance, 

 I find an ordinance made in the thirty-third year 

 of the reign of Edward I., a.d. 1305, which de- 

 clares that — 



" Conspiratours sount ceux qui receivent 



gentz de pais a leur robes ou a leur feez pur meintenir 

 lour mauveis emprises et pur verite esteindre auxibiea 

 les prenours come les donours." — Statutes of the Realm, 

 vol. i. p. 145. 



" They who receive persons of peace to their robes or 

 to their fees, to maintain their evil undertakings and to 

 stifle truth, are conspirators, as well the takers as the 

 givers." 



This authoritative definition of conspirators, 

 however, seems to have been insufficient to sup- 

 press the abuse ; for several statutes against main- 

 tenance were made in the first, fourth, tenth, and 

 eighteenth years of the reign of Edward III. ; and 

 in the twentieth year of this reign, a.d. 1346, an- 

 other statute occurs wherein robes and fees are 

 expressly mentioned ; it may therefore be reason- 

 ably inferred that the malpractice prevailed in the 

 intermediate reign of Edward II. 



The statute 20 Edward III. c. v. has the follow- 

 ing passage : 



" Item. Por ceo que nos sumes enformez que plusurs 

 mesnours et meintenours des quereles et parties en pais 

 sont maintenuz et covertz par seigneurages, par ont ils 

 sont le plus embaudez de mesprendre et par procure- 



