2» d S. IX. June 9. '60.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



451 



ever, becomes clear, that Colombiere was not the 

 absolute inventor of the hatchings, although he 

 has had the good fortune that his hatchings have 

 been and still are universally adopted : and this 

 notwithstanding an attempt of Gelenius in 1645 

 to introduce another description of hatching. 



So then, since Frankquart first of all authors 

 with whom I am acquainted published the hatch- 

 ings at Brussels at a German court, I shall consi- 

 der him the inventor of the hatchings, and the 

 invention itself a German invention, until such 

 time as I am informed of the existence of a still 

 earlier author. C. S. P. 



United Universitv Club. 



THE DEBATE OX IMPOSITIONS, 1609-10. 

 (2» d S. ix. 382.) 

 When this debate took place, James White- 

 locke, "the father of the better-known Bulstrode," 

 was member for Woodstock. In his Liber Fame- 

 licus, edited by Mr. Bruce, Whitelocke himself 

 briefly indicates the patriotic share he had in op- 

 posing the king's prerogative. The statute law 

 subjected currants to an import duty of kalf-a- 

 crown per hundredweight. The king arbitrarily 

 added an "imposition" of five shillings to the old 

 duty. The appeal of Bates, a Levant merchant, 

 was overruled by the Exchequei - , which court 

 declared that " the seaports are the king's gates, 

 and he may open and shut them to whom he 

 pleases." This imposition by the king of duty on 

 a merchant's goods without consent of Parliament 

 was presented in the session of February, 1609-10, 

 as a grievance. The prerogative partisans cited 

 the judgment of the Exchequer as deciding the 

 question. " But this, did not satisfy me," says 

 James Whitelocke. "I only" (that is, he alone) 

 "opposed myself at the first to the reciting of if," 

 (the Exchequer judgment,) "and so toke hold a 

 little. It was put off untill another time, and 

 then I toke better hold ; and at the last it came to 

 a dispute in the house manye dayes, whether it 

 should be presented in poynt of right as a gree- 

 vance, and it was concluded " (in the affirmative) 

 " upon full satisfaction by ancient records out of 

 the Tower and Eschequer, and by many sta- 

 tutes." The king sent his inhibition to restrain 

 the House from disputing his right to impose 

 duties without parliamentary consent, and the 

 House answered with a " remonstrance." White- 

 locke refers to his private papers for what he said 

 and did on this occasion. In Mr. Bruce's edition 

 of the Liber Fameliciis, that gentleman has in- 

 cluded, by way of Appendix, a copy of the entry 

 in the register of the Privy Council relative to the 

 causes of Whiteloeke's arrest in 1613. Among them 

 is prominently put forward, that " hee presumed 

 in a verie strange and unfitt manner to make an 

 excursion into a general censure and defyninge 



of his Majestie's power and prerogative," for "clip- 

 ping and impeaching " of which the patriotic law- 

 yer is pronounced worthy of " great and severe 

 punishment." The book so carefully edited by 

 Mr. Bruce justifies Mr. S. R. Gardiner in his 

 praiseworthy attempt to render due honour to the 

 elder Whitelocke, who, it should farther be re- 

 membered, when a judge on the bench, stood 

 alone among his judicial brethren in denouncing 

 the powers of king and council to commit a per- 

 son to prison, on a general warrant, in which the 

 cause of commitment was not named. Lord Camp- 

 bell also makes a note of the fact that James 

 Whitelocke -imbued his son Bulstrode "with the 

 principles of constitutional freedom, then little re- 

 garded among lawyers." John Doran. 



EDGAR FAMILY. 

 (2 nd S. ix. 334. 373. 415.) 



In the last number of " N. & Q." I observed a 

 Query by J. H. which led me to refer to the former 

 numbers alluded to ; and in 2 nd Si ix. 334., I find 

 a statement made by J. F. N. H. which, being 

 very materially incorrect, it may be of use to him 

 (and to C. W., who has however not fallen into 

 such errors), to set the question in a measure right. 



J. F. N". II. says that " the representation of 

 Wedderly devolved on the Edgars of Auchin- 

 grammont." 



There is no proof of this : Alex. Edgar, of Au- 

 chingrammont, having come from Nether houses, 

 and having only acquired the estate of Auchin- 

 grammont late in life, by purchase, I believe. 



Again : "James Handy side Edgar, of Auchin- 

 grammont." This was not the name of the last 

 male Edgar of Auchingrammont. Alexander 

 Edgar of Auchingrammont had three sons and 

 some daughters, whose descendants still exist. 

 The son's names were: 1. "James" (of Auchin- 

 grammont) ; 2. " Alexander," of Wedderly Plan- 

 tation ; 3. (Dr.) " Handyside" Two daughters, 

 " Priscilla" and Susan. All these, except the first 

 and the third, have representatives now living, 

 and numerous. 



Again : " At her decease" (Miss M. Edgar's) 

 the representation of the family devolved on 

 " Captain Henry Edgar" and his brothers and 

 sisters : " the only survivors of which (family) are 

 ' Henry, as aforesaid ; Major James Edgar, 69th 

 Regt. ; and Louisa, wife of the Rev. Sam. Jack- 

 son." The errors here are as follows : — 



Henry, James, and Louisa are not the sole sur- 

 vivors of their family, their father Alexander Ed- 

 gar having had no fewer than eleven children by 

 his wife Ann Gordon, in the following order : 



1. Margaret, born 1798; married Col. H. 

 M c Gregor; issue, a son in the 31st Regt., and a 

 daughter married. She herself being still alive. 



