NOTES anp QUERIES: 
A MEDIUM OF INTER-COMMUNICATION 
FOR 
LITERARY MEN, ARTISTS, ANTIQUARIES, GENEALOGISTS, ETC. 
“ When found, make a note of.” — Carrain Currie. 
SaturpAy, Marcr 23. 1850. 
Price Threepence. 
Stamped Edition 4d. 
Ne..2ih04 
CONTENTS. 
Notes :— Page 
Early Statistics—Chart, Kent - - - - 329 
“ Bis dat qui citd dat ”’ - - ~, = - 330 
Parallel Passages - - - - - =, 300 
Errors corrected = - - - - - 33h 
Direct and Indirect Etymology - - - - 331 
Errors in Pope’s Homer’s Odyssey - - - 331 
Proverbial Sayings and their Origins, &c. - - 332 
QUERIES :— 
“<The Supper of the Lorde” - - - - 332 
What is a Chapel, by Rev. A. Gatty - - - 333 
Who translated the ‘‘ Turkish Spy,” by E. F. Rim- 
bault, LL.D. - . - - - - 334 
Philalethes Cestriensis— Stephens’ Sermons - - 334 
Minor Queries : Smelling of the Lamp— Gourders of 
Rain— The Temple — Family of Steward, of Bristot 
— Paying through the Nose—Memoirs of an American 
Lady — Bernicia—John Bull - - - - 335 
REPLIEs : — 
Letter attributed to Sir R. Walpole, by Lord Braybrooke 336 
Portraits of Ulrich of Hutten - - - - 336 
Change of Names - - - - - 337 
Queries answered, No. 6., by Bolton Corney - - 337 
Beaver Hats - - = - - = 338 
Replies to Minor Queries:—Anecdote of the Civil 
Wars — Mousetrap Dante— Cromwell’s Estates — Ge- 
nealogy of European Sovereigns —Shipster — Kentish 
Ballad — Bess of Hardwiek — Trophee — Emerald 
—Ancient Motto: Barnacles— Tureen — Hudibrastic 
Couplet — Dr. Hugh Todd’s MSS. - - - 338 
MISCELLANIES : — 
Burnet — Translation from Vinny Bourne— Prince Ma- 
doc— Mistake in Gibbon—Jew’s Harp — Havior, &c. 341 
MIseELLANEOUS : — 
Notes on Books, Sales, Catalogues, &c. - = - 342 
Notices to Correspondents - - = - - 343 
Advertisements - - - - « = 343 
EARLY STATISTICS.—CHART, KENT. 
Perhaps some one of your numerous readers 
will be good enough to inform me whether any 
general statistical returns, compiled from our early 
parish registers, have ever been published. An 
examination of the register of Chart next Sutton 
Valence, in Kent, which disclosed some very cu- 
rious facts, has led me to make this inquiry. They 
seem to point to the inevitable conclusion that the 
disturbed state of England during the period of 
the Great Rebellion retarded the increase of popu- 
lation to an extent almost incredible—so as to 
suggest a doubt whether some special cause might 
not have operated in the parish in question which 
was not felt elsewhere. But, as Iam quite unable 
to discover the existence of any such cause, I shall 
be.glad to learn whether a similar result appears 
generally in other registers of the period above re- 
ferred to. 
The register-book of Chart commences with the 
year 1558, and is continued regularly from that 
time. During the remainder of the sixteenth, and 
for about the first thirty-five years of the seven- 
teenth century, the baptisms registered increase 
steadily in number: from that period there is a 
very marked decrease. For the twenty years com- 
mencing with 1600 and ending with 1619, the 
number is 260; for the twenty years 1620 to 
1639, the number is 246 ; and for the twenty years 
1640 to 1659, the number is only 120. 
No doubt this diminution must be attributed 
partly to the spread of Nonconformity ; but I be- 
lieve that, during the Protectorate, the registra- 
tion of births was substituted for that of baptisms, 
and therefore the state of religious feeling which 
then prevailed bears less directly on the question. 
And even after the Restoration the register exhi- 
bits but a small increase in the number of bap- 
tisms. For the various periods of twenty years 
from that event up to 1760, the numbers range 
from 152 to 195. And, pursuing the inquiry, I 
find that the number of marriages, for any given 
time, varies consistently with that of baptisms. If 
any of your readers can clear up the difficulty, I 
shall feel much obliged for any information which 
may tend to do so. 
Are the following extracts from the register 
above referred to of sufficient interest to merit 
your acceptance ? 
“1648. — Richard, the son of George Juxon, gent., 
and Sarah, his wile, who was slayne 1° Junii at Mayde- 
stone Fight, was buryed on the third daye of June, anno 
predicto.” 
“Joseph, the son of Thomas Daye, and An, hi 
wife, who was wounded at Maydestone Fight 1° Junii, 
was buryed the eleventh daye of June.” 
It is hardly necessary to mention, that the fight 
here referred to took place between the parliamen- 
tary forces under Fairfax, and a large body of 
Kentish gentlemen, who had risen, with their de- 
pendants, in the hope of rescuing the king from 
the hands of the army. After an obstinate en- 
gagement, in which the Kentish men fully main- 
| 
