364 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 207. 



or of Thomas Lovett's wife. I cannot help fancy- 

 ing that Elizabeth Lovett was his only child by 

 one of his wives, and was perhaps heir to her 

 mother. Can one of your contributors bring 

 forward any authority to confirm or disprove this 

 conjecture ? Whilst I am speaking of the Lovett 

 pedigree, I would also advert to two other con- 

 tradictions in the popular accounts of it. That 

 most inaccurate of books, Betham's Baronetage, 

 vol. V. p. 517., says, Giles Pulton, Esq., of Des- 

 borough, married Anne, daughter of Thomas 

 Lovett, Esq., of Astwell : the same author, vol. i. 

 p. 299., calls her Catherine ; which is correct ? 

 JS'either Anne nor Catherine is mentioned in 

 Thomas Lovett the Elder's will {Test. Vetnst., 

 vol. ii. p. 410.). Again, Betham, Burke, and 

 Bridges (Histo7'y of NorthamptonsTiire, " Astwell ") 

 have rolled out Thomas Lovett into two persons, 

 and in fact have made him appear the son of his 

 second wife Joan Billinge, who was not the an- 

 cestress of the Lovett s of Astwell at all. Nor 

 was it possible she could be ; for Thomas Lovett, 

 in his will, dated 1492, speaks of her as "Joan, 

 my wife, late the wife of John Hawys, one of the 

 Justices of the Common Pleas." Now this John 

 Hawys was living in 1487, and Lovett's son and 

 heir, Thomas, was seventeen years old in 1492. 

 The absti-act of Lovett's will in the Test. Vetust., 

 calling Thomas Lovett the Younger " my son and 

 heir by the said Joan my wife," must therefore 

 be manifestly incorrect. I will not apologise for 

 the minuteness of this account, as I believe the 

 correction of detail in published pedigrees to be 

 one of the most valuable features of " N. & Q. ; " 

 but I am almost ashamed of the length of my com- 

 munication, which I hope some of your readers 

 may throw light upon. Tewars. 



The very remarkable distinction between the 

 manner in which English and "Welsh witnesses 

 take the book at the time when they are sworn, 

 has often struck me. An English witness always 

 takes the book with his fingers under, and his 

 thumb at the top of the book. A Welsh witness, 

 on the contrary, takes it with his fingers at the 

 top, and his thumb under the book. How has 

 this singular difference arisen ? I am inclined to 

 suggest that originally the oath was taken by 

 merely laying the hand on the top of the book, 

 without kissing it. Lord Coke (3 Inst. 165.) says, 

 " It is called a corporal oath, because he toucheth 

 with his hand some part of the Holy Scripture." 

 And Jacob {L.D., "Oath"), says it is so called 

 " because the witness, when he swears, lays his 

 right hand tipon, and toucheth the Holy Evan- 

 gelists." And Lord Hale (2 H. P. C. 279.) says, 

 " The regular oath, as is allowed by the laws of 

 England, is ' Tactis sacrosanctis Dei Evangeliis,' " 



and in case of a Jew, " Tacto libro legis Mosaicas :" 

 and, if I rightly remember, the oath as administered 

 in the Latin form at Oxford concludes : " Ita te 

 Deus adjuvet, tactis sacrosanctis Christ! Evan- 

 geliis." In none of these instances does kissing 

 the book appear to be essential. Whereas the 

 present form used in the Courts is, " So help you 

 God, kiss the book;" but still the witness is^ 

 always required to touch the book with his hand, 

 and he is never permitted to hold the book with 

 his hand in a glove. When then did the practice- 

 of kissing the book originate ? And how happens 

 it that the Welsh and English take the book in 

 the hand in the different manners I have de- 

 scribed ? C. S. G. 



THE ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH. 



Powerful as this extraordinary agent has be- 

 come, and incalculably useful as its operation 

 is now found to be, it would appear that the 

 principle of the electric telegraph and its modus' 

 ope7-andi, almost identically as at present, were 

 known and described upwards of a century 

 ago. On the occasion of a late visit to Robert 

 Baird, Esq., of Auchmeddan, at his residence,. 

 Cadder House, near Glasgow, my attention was- 

 called by that gentleman to a letter initialed 

 C. M., dated Renfrew, Feb. 15, 1653, and pub- 

 lished that year in the Scots Magazine, vol. xv^ 

 p. 73., where the writer not only suggests elec- 

 tricity as a medium for conveying messages and 

 signals, but details with singular minuteness the 

 method of opening and maintaining lingual com- 

 munication between remote points, a method 

 which, with only ie,ff improvements, has now been 

 so eminently successful. It is usual to attribute 

 this wonderful discovery to the united labours of 

 Mr. W. F. Cooke and Professor Wheatstone ; but 

 has any one acknowledged the contribution of 

 C. M., and can any of the learned correspondents 

 of " N. & Q." inform me who he was ? 



Inquirendc 



Glasgow. 



Que7-ies relating to the Poi'ter Family. — Above- 

 the inscription on the tablet erected by a devoted 

 friend to the memory of this highly-gifted family 

 in Bristol Cathedral, is a medallion of a portcullis 

 surrounded by the word agincourt, and sur- 

 mounted by the date 1415. — What connexion is- 

 there between Agincourt * and the Porter family ? 



[* It refers to Sir Robert Ker Porter's third great 

 battle-piece, Agincourt : which memorable battle took 

 place October 25, 1415. Sir Robert presented it to tbe 

 city of London, and it is still in the possession of tUe- 



