2 nd S. IX. April 28. 'GO.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



317 



LOXDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 28. 18G0. 



N». 226.— CONTENTS. 



NOTES • — James I. and the Recusants, 317 — Andrew Mac- 

 donald, 321 — " Burning out the Old Year," 322— Pope 

 Paul IV. and Queen Elizabeth, lb. 



Mixor Notes : — A Modern Batrachyomachia (no Fiction) 

 —The Days of the "Week— Oracles Dumb at the Nativity of 

 Christ — Calcutta Newspapers— Epitaph in Memory of a 

 •Spaniard, 323. 



orERIES: — Macaulay's Earlier Essays — Lord Chatham 

 before the Privy Council —." Mille jugera'"— Wicque- 

 i'ort Manuscripts — Scavenger — Shaftesbury or Rochester 



— Robert Doughty — Whipping the Cat — The Isis and 

 Tamisis mentioned in an Indian Manuscript — Robert 

 Smith — Irish Forfeitures — Knights of the Round Table 

 and Ossian's Poems — Bishop Bedell's Form of Institution 



— John Holt's "Lac Puerorum, or Mylke for Chyldren " 



— Norwegian and the Rose — " Old and New Week's Pre- 

 paration"— Campbell of Monzie — Mourning of Queens 

 for their Husbands— Heraldic Query— "Ride" v. "Drive" 



— Passage in Menander —Robert Robinson of Edinburgh 



— Song Wanted — Huntercombe House, co. Bucks, 324. 



Qr/FBIES with Asswebs: — Home of Ninewells — "Origi- 

 nal Poems," &c — Mrs. Fitzhenry — Uhland's Dramatic 

 Poems, 327. 



REPLIES: — The proposed Taylor Club, 327 — A Book 

 Printed at Holyrood House, 328 — Codex Sinaiticus, 329 — 

 Archbishop King's Burial, lb. — Napoleon III. — Splinter- 

 bar — Tinted Paper — Derivation of Erysipelas — Tromp's 

 Watch — The French Alphabet, a Drama — Anne Boleyn's 

 Ancestry — Saint E-thau or Y-than — Passage from Cole- 

 ri'lare, the Elder — Excise Office: William Robinson— Sir 

 Walter Raleigh's House, &c, 330. 



Notes on Books, &c. 



JAMES I. AND THE RECUSANTS. 



Mr. Jardine once wrote (Archceol. xxix. 80.) 

 that " the mistake of even a small point in history 

 is like inaccurately laying down an angle in sur- 

 veying, where a very slight deviation in setting 

 out may produce unexpected results, and affect 

 property to a serious extent." 



Having detected certain mistakes in the ac- 

 cepted account of the dealings of James I. with 

 the Roman Catholics hefcre the breaking out of 

 the Gunpowder-plot, I hope it will be serviceable 

 to students of that part of our history, if I at- 

 tempt to point out these inaccuracies, into some of 

 which even Mr. Jardine himself has been led in 



the first chapter of his Narrative, apparently trust- 

 ing too much to the statements of others. 



Inaccuracies occurring in such a book as the 

 Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot acquire an addi- 

 tional importance, as they are often copied by 

 succeeding writers, who regard the name of the 

 author as a sufficient guarantee for the correctness 

 of all his statements. One of these mistakes has 

 already found its way into Ranke's new History of 

 England. 



The following is the statement just alluded to 

 (Narrative, p. 19.), that 



" It appears from some notes of Sir Julius Caesar . . . that 

 in the last year of Queen Elizabeth's reign, the sum paid 

 into the receipt at Westminster by and for recusants' 

 fines and forfeitures was 10,333/. 9s. "id. In the next 

 year little more than 300/. was paid at the Exchequer on 

 this account. In the following year, being the second of 

 James's reign, the sum barely exceeded 200/. 



In support of this statement the reader is referred 

 to Lansdowne MS. 153. p. 206. 



On referring to the MS. it will be seen that the 

 sums thus quoted stand in perfectly plain writing 

 as 3677Z. 7s. \\d., and 2104/. 15s. 1\d. 



There are two papers. The first gives the 

 amounts of the fines for the last five years of Eliza- 

 beth only. The second gives the amounts for 

 the first eleven years of James, as well as for the 

 last five years of Elizabeth. The sums in the 

 second paper are always smaller than those given 

 for the same payments in the first. "Whatever the 

 explanation of this may be, it is obvious that for 

 purposes of comparison the sums paid at any two 

 periods must be taken from the same paper. In 

 comparing the amounts paid in the last year of 

 Elizabeth with those paid in the first year of 

 James, Mr. Jardine ought therefore to have sub- 

 stituted the 8832Z. of the second paper for the 

 10,333*. of the first. It may be added that I have 

 compared one or two of the amounts in later 

 years, as they stand in the second paper, with the 

 public accounts preserved in the State Paper Office 

 (Domestic Series, vol. ccxi.), and have found them 

 to agree within a few pounds. 



The following extract from the second paper 

 may be useful : — 



A xliiii' 



A" R» Jacobi 1""> 



j\o 2 d0 



A 3"° 



} 



viii m cc iiii* x vii" xvi d ob 



•m m m vi c Ixxvii" vii' i d ob 



f Pasche iiii ra ex" vi s v d 



(.Micliis iiii m c Ixxvi 1 ' xiiiis xi d ob 

 ( Pasche m m ix c lxi" v v d ~\ 



I Mkhis vii c xvi 1 ' xx 1 ' ob J 



("Pasche vi c iiii" xviii 1 ' xxW) 



< >m m c iiii 1 ' xv' vii a ob 



(.Micliis m iiii c vi u xiii« x d obj 



( Pasche viii c xxiiii :l x s iii d "J 

 ( Micliis v m ccclvii 11 ii» ix d obj 



-vi m ciiii" i u xiii ob 



It appears, therefore, that though Mr. Jardine's 

 ment is erroneous, yet his general argument 



that there was in these years a considerable de- 

 crease in the fines is not affected by the error. 



