172 NOTES AND QUERIES. 
[204 S. No9.,, Man, 1. °56. 
connected with the countess. I bought it at the 
sale of the late Mr. Pickering's private collection. 
Doowrir. 
Ruerfeg, 
SIR JOHN SUCKLING. 
In Spence’s Anecdotes, pp. 89—93., the cause of 
Sir John Suckling’s death is stated, on the autho- 
rity of Pope, to have been a wound in the heel, 
occasioned by a nail which a servant, who stole 
his portmanteau, had placed in one of his boots ; 
hoping by this means to prevent, or delay, pursuit. 
Regardless of the pain, Sir John is said to have 
started off immediately upon hearing of his loss, 
and to have recovered his portmanteau, in which 
were his money and papers; but it is added, the 
wound became inflamed, and brought on a fever, 
of which he died. This incident is reported to 
have taken place at Calais. 
In a note is Oldys’s account of the event, which 
is, that in going to France, Sir John was robbed 
by his valet, who poisoned him; and, to prevent 
pursuit, stuck the blade of a penknife in his boot 
besides, which wounded him incurably in the heel: 
This relation is qualified by “I think,” and the 
precaution said to have been adopted by the valet 
to prevent pursuit by the master he is alleged to 
have murdered, looks as if Oldys had been con- 
fused between two reports as to the cause of 
death.* 
In another note, Malone says: “ Aubrey, in his 
MS. anecdotes of the English poets, says that 
Suckling was poisoned, and died at Paris.” 
Aubrey, in his Letters (vol. iii, p. 547.), says : 
“Anno... . he (SirJohn Suckling) went to France; 
where, after some time, being come to the bottom of his 
fund, reflecting on the miserable and despicable condition 
he should be reduced to, having nothing left to maintain 
him, he (having a convenience for that purpose, lying at 
an apothecarie’s house in Paris), took poison, which killed 
him miserably with vomiting. He was buried in the 
Protestant church-yard,” 
The short account of his life, prefixed to his 
* In a copy of Langbaine’s Dramatick Poets, inter- 
leaved with MS. notes, occurs the following entry by 
Oldys: “ Recollect where I have set down the story my 
Lord Oxford told me he had from Dean Chetwood, who 
had it from Lord Roscommon, of Sir John Suckling’s 
being robbed of a casket of jewels and gold, when he was 
going to France, by his valet, who I think poisoned him, 
and stuck the blade of a penknife in Sir John’s boot to 
prevent his pursuit of him, and wounded him incurably 
in the heel besides. It is in one of my pocket-books, 
,white vellum cover: the white journal that is not gilt.” 
Oldys farther adds: “The largest account of Sir John 
Suckling is in Lloyd’s Memoirs, being near six pages in 
folio, and not a dozen lines of solid history. The whole 
beginning is a chain of hyperboles, and the whole life 
may serve to feed the eyes with a full meal of words, and 
leave the mind quite hungry for the subject matter.” ] 
2 
works, 1719, merely states that he was seized with 
a fever, of which he died at twenty-eight years of 
aay Granger simply says, ob. 1641, aged twenty- 
eight. 
I should like to know whether anything has 
ever come to light to show which of these reports 
is correct. Aubrey, if often inaccurate, is, in this 
instance, so minute in all the particulars, that it is 
difficult to suppose he wrote his account-without, 
what he considered, sufficient authority. 
Both Pope and Oldys profess to have had Lord 
Oxford for their informant; and Pope even af- 
firmed, that his statement could be proved by 
original letters in that nobleman’s collection. Do 
the Harleian Papers make any reference to the 
event ? Cuartes WYLIE. 
WHAT CONSTITUTES A LEGAL CONSECRATION OF A 
CHURCH OR CEMETERY ? 
I should feel much obliged if any lawyer or 
civilian would inform me what constitutes a legal 
consecration of a church or cemetery? As the 
Act of Uniformity forbids the use of any rites 
and ceremonies which are not contained and pre- 
scribed in and by the Prayer Book, am I right in 
supposing that the use of the religious services 
commonly used (for the Archbishop of Dublin 
uses none, and they differ in different dioceses), 
believed innocent or even laudable in itself, is, 
strictly speaking, egal 2 And that the ofliciat- 
ing clergy, on such occasions, in using special 
psalms and lessons, with an appropriate collect 
and epistle, and gospel, became liable to certain 
penalties for using these “ instead of those” which 
are prescribed and appointed for the day in the 
Prayer Book. 
Observing that, even in these usual services, 
the ‘sentence of consecration” is read by a lay- 
man, viz. by the chancellor or registrar, and is 
then signed by the bishop, and by him ordered to 
be deposited in the registry, I infer that, in the 
eye of the law, consecration is merely a legal con- 
veyance of a certain building, or piece of ground, 
over to the church for holy purposes; and that, 
in the eye of the law, the use of various prayers 
and religious services is mere surplusage, which 
is not necessary, however proper it may be in itself. 
The various fees are paid to the lay officials for 
the legal business connected with the consecration. 
While I shall be truly thankful for any inform- 
ation, I beg to add, that I do not wish to raise 
any theological discussion; and that my Query 
relates solely to the legal question, and to the 
existing state of the law. 
A County CLERGYMAN, 
