LONDON, SATURDAY, JANUARY 9, 1897.

CONTENT S.-N° 263. NOTES:-Horne Tooke's Diary, 21-The Guillotine, 22— Law Stationer-An Anomalous Parish, 24-Weather Folklore-Dialect-Jean Etienne Henry-"Hummer Nick": "Humbug," 25-Portrait of Robert Harley-Rousseau and Hudibras'-Letheringham Priory- Tom Brown's Schooldays'-Evening Services, 26.

QUERIES:-Eagles Captured at Waterloo-Thomas BolasNelson-Matagon-Cupplestown-Earl of Annandale Laurence Litchfield-Church of Scotland-"Fasesying," 27 -J. G. Whittier - The Germanic Diet-Retort-Robert Browning-Pope's Epitaph on Mrs. Corbet-Cagots-Clarel -Statistics of Imposture-Westchester-Places in Stoke St. Gregory, 28-Hannah More-Ritchie of CraigtownRobert Hales-Proverb, 29.

"

Nepean. Chuse my place of Confinement.

Monday, May 19. To Tower.

Tuesday, 20. Hunter asks me to write to Nepean. Kinghorn refused pen & ink.

Wednesday, 21. Newspapers, &c., forbidden.

Thursday, 22. Kinghorn will answer me from Governour about care of my family.

Friday, 23. He will answer in a few days. Iron bars put up at the Window. Felix Vaughan has order from Privy Council to see me in prescence of Gaoler; King. horn being absent he saw me in prescence of Capt. Bruhl of the guards in garrison.

Sat., May 24. I received from Vaughan's servant by order of Privy Council Pens, Ink, Paper, Tea, Sugar, Lozenges for my cough. Lodgings at Burford's. N.B. Government allows 13s. 4d. per week.

Mon., May 26. N.B. Governour opened my child's letter (Charlotte's) & sent it open by Kinghorn. Nepean would not open. Two new Warders, Bouguette & Pearson. F. Vaughan paid me a visit of an hour. Kinghorn's watch in his hand. I gave him my Keys. Mr.

Fotes.

HORNE TOOKE'S DIARY.

I lately had entrusted to me an interleaved copy of the first edition of the 'Diversions of Parley,' with notes and emendations for the second edition in the author's handwriting. The most interesting feature in the book, however, lay in a rough diary, kept by Horne Tooke from May to October, 1794, whilst he was a prisoner in the Tower, awaiting his trial for high treason, extracts from which I now give for the readers of ' N. & Q.' Since the author's death the volume remained confinuously in the possession of his descendants or kinsmen till some fifteen years ago, when it passed by will to the late owner, whose executor kindly at it to me. The writing is in places somewhat abbed and difficult to decipher :Thursday, May 15. Dine at Pearson's. Joyce's May 16, 1794. Friday at Noon apprehended bwift, Police Officer, Marlborough Street, Glitton, Thornton, clerk, & 3 constables, Kennedy one of At the Treasury at 3. Nepean's civility. Reeves hang me; but wished I might live afterwards. y Council at past 8. Privy Council before whom Id-Dundas, Grenville, Buckingham, Amherst, um, Staffordshire, Chancellor & 2 or 3 othersFawkener, Ford, &c.

Indas "It is conceived," &c., "constitutional & correing societies, of both of which you are an active ading member," &c. My answer, "Refuse to be med except some charge."

Tuesday, May 27. My apartment changed from Burforde's where I had a walk on the wall of 8 yards by 14 for the air: and I was escorted by gentleman Gaoler, 2 Warders & a file of Musqueteers to Mould's house. Burford & Mould both are Warders. I understand all the other prisoners have one Warder; but I have always Two, besides the Warder of the House, and a Centinel always at the door. The two Warders always sit in the same room with me; & always lie all night in the same room with me. I am daily visited twice: i. e., morning & evening by Kinghorn, Gentleman Gaoler, once by the Officers of the Garrison, & three times by a Serjeant sometimes four times. For my Close Stool I had an order from Privy Council, the same for my snuff, the same for my shirts, stocks, stockings and handkerchiefs. [N.B. I learn (from Vaughan) that London Ev Post of Monday May 27, says" that the Prisoners in the Tower This falsehood is probably inserted in other papers.] have each a Counsel & Solicitor permitted to see them." N.B. GIBBS.

Wednesday, May 28. Vaughan visited me the 3rd time. Kinghorn sat close. He says he has the Governor's order to hear every syllable that passes. Vaughan returned me key of my linen drawers: Ford kept key of bookcases, &c., & would return them tomorrow. He took away about thirty of my private letters (amongst which one to me from Cowper) most of them dated 1792, a letter signed Regulus, &c. The closet where executorship papers, Sir Robt Bernard's, & my large travelling trunk, were, was locked up by Ford & the key taken away by Mr. Ford. Mr. Vaughan said Mr. Ford had dismissed Thornton (the Police Officer) from my house. So that Constables held possession of my house & slept there twelve days & eleven nights. N.B. Ford did not confine himself to papers of treason; for finding nothing of the kind or about Convention, he took away about thirty insignificant private letters. Mr. Ford said, he would apply to Privy Council that Warder should not sleep in the same room with me. That I might give Kinghorn something to carry for his listening, I told Vaughan in the broad terms-that the Ministry might kiss This night Kinghorn locked the Warder & me at ten o'clock into the chamber, so that if the Warder had had the cholic, he must in the

room for my regale-as had nearly happened to Dixon the warder who attends Thelwall,

Thursday, May 29, 1794. Warder & I rose at 5 o'clock; but being locked in could get no fire or breakfast till 7 o'clock.

Friday, May 30. F. Vaughan visited me 4th time, told me that Frost was taken last night, at my house at Wimbledon (so that my family are now left defenceless again for Frost kindly went there to protect them). T. Williams the wine merchant is taken. Hardy was brot yesterday to the Tower. Five persons, I know not whom, are sent to Newgate. Privy Council return my keys to Vaughan. By their direction Vaughan offers keys to me. I refuse to touch them, bid him keep them for the present, & take out some title deeds, and my will, which on General Murray's death, the Duke of Athol had caused Mr. Squire to return to me. Kinghorn, when Vaughan was going, interfered about my keys, which he wanted Vaughan to deliver to him, said he had been reported & blamed for suffering Vaughan to receive them before-acknowledges he had not been reported, but had mentioned it himself. This Kinghorn is Gaeler, but not Gentleman Gaoler. He has uniformly given me fawning words & most savage treatment. Vaughan says Mr. Ford would obtain from Privy Council (order) to remove Warder from sleeping in my room, but wished I would apply. N.B. My confinement in King's Bench ruined my Boy. God send that the Tower produces no future mischief to my Girls. Before my apprehension by Dundas's warrant, I had slept out of my house but one night (at Margate) for the last seven years. Vaughan retained Gibbs for me yesterday.

Saturday, May 31. Iron bars put up at window: the 5th time of performing ceremony. Martin the Attorney brot to the Tower: put in a miserable apartment at Jackson's the Warder, a relation of Kinghorn's? At ten o'clock this night, Kinghorn says, he has just received order to remove the Warder's bed into adjoining room.

Sunday, June 1, 1794. Warder's bed removed to adjoining room. I walked upon the Leads twice for 20 minutes, each time, attended by two Warders and a Centinel with bayonet fixed, lat time whilst my bed was turned up and the room swept; the 24 time whilst my bed was making for the night.

Monday, June 2. This morning at six o'Clock, the Yeoman Porter (a naturalised Frenchman or Swiss, who had been a servant of Lord Shipbrook, General Vernon's brother, the L governour of the Tower) found great fault with Bouguet, the Warder, for permitting me to walk upon the Leads. N.B. I have now been this day at noon, 17 days & nights in close custody, without any hint or conjecture what action or crime can be laid to my charge. I recd for 24 week 13s. 4d. government maintenance of a prisoner; so that they have at last found out a method to make me a pensioner against my will. F. Vaughan visited me 5th time. He had received from B- £50. He gave me £20 & will give F. Wildman to pay Mrs. Hart £10 due to her the 1st of May, 1794. N.B. Mr. Tooke gave my girls £10 10 May 24. Two new Warders, Finney, La Cornwallis's servant, Lockit, Abp. (?) Cornwallis's cook.

Tuesday, June 3, 1794. Half a pound of Snuff sent by Mr. Vaughan was turned out of the paper & examined by Kinghorn. At noon Kinghorn bro a half sieve sent by my girls, with gooseberries, pease, strawberries. It was opened and in it was a Letter from Charlotte which Kinghorn took to carry to the governour Mr. York. At ten at night (for I stand up to read it) Kinghorn brought it back to me, open. [N.B. This is the second time the governor has opened and read my girl's letters, and sent them back to me open, so that Gaoler, & if he pleased, the whole Garrison might read them,

A very little delicacy or even reflection would lead a governour (if he did break open letters from a prisoner's family) at least to inclose them in a sealed note from himself, that the prisoner might know his private affairs were open only to the governour himself & not to every fellow. I had permission to send some strawberries by one of the Warders to Bonney. G. J. W.

(To be continued.)

THE HISTORY OF THE GUILLOTINE.

(See my Note on Louis XVI.' &c., 8th 8. x. 249; also 8th S. x. 195, 298.) The guillotine has already been many times discussed in 'N. & Q.'; but as I find nothing new in any of the notes, all of which I have read, and nothing in any way bearing on the history of the guillotine as I shall give it, I see no reason for giving a list of them. My account is borrowed, as I said in my note above quoted that it would be, from the 'Mémoires des Sanson' (Paris, 1862–3). It may, of course, be inaccurate; but as one of the Sanson family had much to do with the introduction of the instrument, there is much ground for believing in its accuracy.

Dr. Guillotin (strangely enough called Dr. Guillotine in the generally accurate account in the ninth edition of the Encycl. Brit.') had, as early as 21 January, 1790, three years to the day before the execution of Louis XVI., proposed that the execution of every one condemned to death should be by decapitation, and that this should take place "par l'effet d'un simple mécanisme " This motion was referred to a com(iii. 390). mittee of seven, and did not become law till 1791 (the Encycl.' says on 6 October), and in the mean time it had been so modified that all that was stated with regard to the mode of execution was that "tout condamné à mort aurait la tête tranchée," without any mention of the instrument. This alarmed C. H. Sanson, and he presented a memoir to the Minister of Justice, in which he pointed out

"toutes les difficultés de la décollation par l'épée : la nécessité d'une fermeté et d'un courage qu'on ne rencontre point chez tous les patients:† l'impossibilité des

* According to the Encycl.' he brought forward this motion on 1 December, 1789, at the same time that he proposed that all offenders and criminals should be punished in precisely the same manner, no matter what their rank or station. But, according to Sanson, this last motion was brought forward on 28 November, and was carried on 1 December, 1789; whilst the other motion was not proposed till 21 January, 1790, as I have stated above. See vol. iii. pp. 387, 388.

† He might have added, nor in all executioners. Decapitation by the sword was not at that time much practised in France, as it was reserved for those of high rank. But even when it was frequently resorted to, as in the days of Richelieu, it was often unskilfully performed. Thus we learn from i. 86 that the head of De Thou was not completely severed until the eleventh stroke owing to the agitation of the executioner.

་

The account given by the Encyl. Brit.' accords, as I have said, pretty nearly with what I have narrated, and yet the writer of the article did not consult Sanson's Mémoires.' As, however, among the books quoted I notice one by Louis Dubois, entitled 'Recherches Historiques et Physiologiques sur la Guillotine et Détails sur Sanson,' I am inclined to believe that the writer of the article was almost as much indebted to Sanson as I have been. As for J. W. Croker's book, I have not seen it; but, to judge from the numerous quotations I have seen from it in N. & Q.,' the information given can scarcely be remarkable for its accuracy.

In conclusion, I may say that the guillotine which is exhibited in the Chamber of Horrors at Madame Tussaud's is stated to be the very one which served for the execution of Louis XVI. Now, this latter guillotine was removed as early as 30 April, 1793, from the Place de la Révolution (now the Place de la Concorde), where it had been standing ever since the 21st of the preceding January (the date of the king's execution), and a new one was substituted for it, in which many modifications deemed necessary by Sanson for the successful performance of several successive executions had been carried out under his direction (see vol. iv. p. 82). It is, therefore, quite possible that the Tussaud family really did obtain possession of the original machine, for I believe that they already had an exhibition at Paris at the time of, and indeed some time before, the death of Louis XVI. And as but few heads had fallen under the knife* of that guillotine, one would expect to see it in good condition.

Sydenham Hill.

F. CHANCE.

LAW STATIONER.-'The Century Dictionary' has this description: "A stationer who keeps on sale the articles required by lawyers, such as parchment, tape, foolscap, brief-paper, &c., and who sometimes, in England, takes in drafts or writings to be fairly copied or engrossed for lawyers." I disagree with this; it should be "one who in England takes in drafts or writings to be either fair copied or engrossed for lawyers, and who sometimes keeps on sale," &c.

Though only a change in the order of the sentences, the difference in the description is great, in fact the difference between right and wrong.

It would almost seem, from what is said in pp. 77, 78, that the knife which cut off Louis' head was never used again. At all events, it was very quickly changed.

Mr. Whitney writes "fairly copied." You would never hear such a thing in a lawyer's office nor in a law stationer's. It may be bad grammar, but lawyers always say, "Take that to be fair copied," or, "Make a fair copy by such a time." Again, Mr. Whitney says, "fairly copied or engrossed," as if they were the same thing; but they are not. If I say, "Take this to the stationer to be fair copied," it comes back fair copied on paper, as a draft to be reread and finally corrected. I then send the fair copy as a draft to the stationer to be engrossed; it then comes back better and more carefully written and ready for signature.

I have left in the words "in England but I imagine they would not be necessary for a dictionary published in England. Why has Mr. Whitney been so particular? Are there no law stationers in America? I understand there will not be any or many left in England soon, as the type-writer is improving them off the face of the earth. So, then, to "go with the times," the law stationer now sets up as a type-writer, and starts a shop and sells things, as per Mr. Whitney's description (which in times to come will probably be more accurate than mine), and then in his shop window adds cycles (generally ladies') to the other miscellaneous articles.

Under "Engross" The Century' has a correct description, with what I contend is an incorrect or misleading illustration from the Tale of a Tub.' Swift says, "Jack had provided a fair copy of his father's will, engrossed in form upon a large skin of parchment. 19 With the word "fair," the description is overdone; omit it and then the sentence will read correctly, and as I believe Swift would have written it had he been acquainted with the practice of English lawyers (i.e. solicitors). I should think it must have been a rather excep tional thing even in Swift's time to have a will engrossed on parchment for signature by a testator. It would be interesting to know when the practice (if it ever was one) ceased. I never saw a will on parchment, though I never saw a probate" of a will on anything else.* I think Swift has made a mistake from always seeing the parchment probates of wills. Parchment was much more commonly used in early days; no doubt it was even thirty years ago more used than now. I have searched in all sorts of books, but can find nothing upon the subject of parchment wills. RALPH THOMAS.

AN ANOMALOUS PARISH.-Baker mentions in his History of Northamptonshire' (A.D. 1822-36) that Stotesbury, or Stottesbury, near Brackley, presents the singular anomaly of a parish without

Original wills are not handed about like deeds, but are lodged in the registries, unless, indeed, they relate solely to realty, in which case they are the same as deeds: they do not require probate, which is only given for personalty.