134 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2"d S. VI. 137., Aug. 14. '58. 



and gave it to Pltfield Street, was a poor cow- 

 keeper, who afterwards made a large fortune by 

 the sale of milk. Is this the same person as Sir 

 Charles Pitfield of Hoxton, whose arms are given 

 in Gwillim, p. 158., azure, abend engrailed be- 

 tween two cygnets royal, argent, gorged with 

 ducal crowns, with strings reflexed over their 

 backs, or ? He says Sir Charles " is descended 

 of the ancient family of the Pitfields of Symons- 

 bury, in the county of Dorset." A. A. 



[The amis described by Gwillim are certainly those 

 of Sir Charles Pitfield of Hoxton, who resided there in a 

 large brick house long since demolished ; and who be- 

 queathed, by his will dated October 16, 1680, to the 

 parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, an acre of land for the 

 benetit of the poor, &-c. Now, as Pitfield Street stands 

 upon a portion of the land left by Sir Charles, it most 

 probablj' was so named as a memorial of his pious gift. 

 It seems very doubtful whether Pitfield the cowkeeper 

 was in any way related to the family of Sir Charles ; for 

 this celebrated dairyman was living in 1746, at which 

 time the Hoxton estate had descended to Mary Pitfield, 

 the great-granddaughter of Sir Charles, who subse- 

 quently married Humphrej- Sturt, Esq., M.P. for Dorset- 

 shire. In those blessed old times, when, as Sir John 

 Fortescue has it, " the might of the realm of England 

 standeth upon archers," the lovers of the long bow 

 erected in the Finsbury Fields certain wooden pillars at 

 vai-ying distances, which they called marks. In these 

 marks, and in the privilege of access to them, the Artil- 

 lery Company had a paramount claim. Now in the 

 story of the cowkeeper, as narrated by the Hon. Daines 

 Barrington (^Arcliceolotiia, vii. 56.), there is a little ob- 

 scurity. He tells us that, " so late as 1746, the Artillery 

 Company obliged a cowkeeper of the name of Pitfield to 

 renew one of these marks, and caused it to be inscribed, 

 Pitfield's repentance." We find, however, that one of the 

 marks bearing the name of Pitfield appears in a plan of 

 the Finsbury Fields published in 1737. So that, after all, 

 it would seem that the cowkeeper had defaced a mark 

 erected by some descendant of the family of Sir Charles 

 Pitfield. But this is a point some Toxophilite may be 

 able to clear up.] 



»eplutf. 



FOEGED ASSIGNAT8. 



(2°* S. vi. 70.) 



Some account of this alleged forgery is given in 

 Cobbett's " Paper against Gold," a series of letters 

 written chiefly from Newgate in the years 1810 — 

 11, but not concluded until 1815. About the 

 beginning of May, 1811, reports were circulated 

 that a vast number of forged notes on the Bank 

 of England had been imported from France and 

 Holland, where they were manufactured for the 

 express purpose of deranging our finances. The 

 report was circulated chiefly through the country 

 papers, being carefully excluded from the London 

 daily journals. From this circumstance Mr. Cob- 

 bett takes occasion to justify the French Govern- 

 ment, asserting that our own Government had 

 done the same in 1791, and that this was but a 

 fair reprisal. He then (p. 316.) broadly asserts 



that counterfeit French paper-money was fabri- 

 cated in immense quantities, and alleged that 

 from the speeches in the English Parliament, the 

 Government of England at that time looked upon 

 the debasement of those assignats as the sure 

 means of subverting the new order of things in 

 France. This, however, is only assertion, no proof 

 being brought forward by Cobbett that either of 

 the Governments sanctioned such forgeries ; 

 neither has he given any one particular speech in 

 the house upon the subject. Certain statements, 

 however, had been made upon a trial in 1795, 

 before Lord Kenyon, which at first sight appear 

 indeed to give some foundation to the assertions 

 referred to by E. C. R. ; at all events they show 

 us whence the report had its origin. 



Espina.ise's Reports, Mich. Term, 36 Geo. III. 

 1795, are cited by Cobbett. I give the extract 

 at length : — 



" Strongitharm against Lakyn. Case on a Promissory 

 note. — Mingay and Marryat for the Plaintiff; Erskine 

 and Law for the Defendant. — The acceptance and endorse- 

 ment having been proved, Erskine for the defendant 

 stated his defence to be, that the note was given for the 

 purpose of paying the plaintiff, an engraver, for the en- 

 graving of copper-plates upon which French assignats 

 were to be forged, and contended, that as the considera- 

 tion of the note was a fraud, it contaminated the whole 

 transaction, and rendered the note not recoverable by 

 law. — Caslon, an indorser of the note, called as a witness, 

 proved that the defendant, having it in contemplation to 

 strike oflf impressions of a considerable quantity of as- 

 signats to be issued abroad, applied to him for the pur- 

 pose of recommending an engraver, representing to him 

 that thej' were for the Duke of York's army. He applied 

 to Strongitharm, who at first declined the business 

 totallj', but being assured by the witness that it was 

 sanctioned by Government, at length undertook the 

 work. 



" Lord Kenyon said, if the present transaction was 

 grounded on a fraud, or contrary to the laws of nations, 

 or of good faith, he should have held this note to be void, 

 but it did not appear that there was any fraud in the 

 case, or any violation of positive law. Whether the is- 

 suing of these assignats for the purpose of distressing the 

 enemy was lawful in carrying on the war, he was not 

 prepared to saj' ; or whether it came within the rule an 

 dolens an virtus quis in hoste requisit ? But let that be as 

 it might, it did not apply to the present case. The Plain- 

 tiff supposed that they were circulated by the authority 

 of the higher powers of this country, and he therefore 

 did not question the propriety or legality of the measure. 

 His Lordship declared his opinion therefore to be, that 

 the Plaintiff was entitled to recover. The jury found 

 accordingly." 



Now upon this trial rests the whole case, so far 

 as the charge against the English Government is 

 concerned ; and very insufficient evidence it is to 

 receive such a charge upon ; it was not even at- 

 tempted to be shown on behalf of the plea in de- 

 fence that the employer of the engraver was an 

 accredited or known agent for the Government in 

 any transaction whatever, which is what we may 

 feel assured such a man as Erskine would have at 

 once done, could it have been done. That a vast 



