into parishes, is thus related by Joscelin, in his lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury; "Neque solum episcopos tanquam superiores turrium custodes ecclesiæ superimposuit, sed etiam provinciam suam primus in parochias dividens, inferiores ministros ordinavit." If the author means here the limits assigned to the clergy, whom the bishop, at stated times sent from his cathedral to preach within the bounds of his diocese, then Honorius was not the first that made this division of them. These parochiæ, or circuits of preaching, which the Bishop appointed to his clergy, who usually resided with him at his cathedral, were almost as old as bishoprics, and were certainly coeval with churches, which, it is plain, were erected in England before the time of Honorius. If parochie be supposed to mean the limits of parishes, as they are now bounded, both in regard of the revenue, and the residence and function of the incumbent, this is plainly repugnant both to the community of ecclesiastical revenues, and the manner of the bishop and his clergy living together, which, as appears from Bede, continued in England after the death of Honorius. Nevertheless, it may be properly said, that Honorius was the first under whom this province was divided into such parochiæ, or bishoprics; because, except Canterbury, London, and Rochester, which were founded nearly at the same time, there were no other episcopal sees in his province, till, under him, Birinus was made first bishop of the West Saxons, aud Felix appointed first bishop of the East Angles. The erecting these two sees, of which there had been no example in the province of Canterbury from the death of Augustine till the time of Honorius, was probably the cause why Honorius is said to have first divided his province into parishes. And, indeed, if we were to suppose, that he first instituted parishes, according to the modern acceptation of the word, this regulation could not be extended to many of those parts of the kingdom which are now included in the province of Canterbury. For example, Christianity was not received in the kingdom of Sussex till the year 679, when that small kingdom was first converted by Wilfred, the first Bishop of Selsey.

I am yours, Newport, Shropshire, July 3, 1772. 1772, July.

S. W.

LXXII. On Sirnames.

1. Cursory Observations on Sirnames deduced from Names of Places.

MR. Camden will inform you, in his "Remains concerning Britain," that a large part of our Sirnames are borrowed from names of places. At first they were written, Robert de Marisco, Anthony a Wood or at Wood (whence our names of Wood and Atwood) Richard de Gravesend, &c. In process of time, the preposition, or connecting particle, was dropt, for the sake of currency and expedition, both in speaking and writing; and hence there has arisen a degree of obscurity in respect of this species of Sirnames; for, as these additional distinctions were sometimes taken from obscure villages, (obscure at least now) and known but to few, the original of the names of many persons is grown to be very intricate, and, indeed, entirely unknown to those who are not attentive to this mode of derivation. The following short list of Sirnames deduced from names of places, (short indeed, being only intended as a specimen, and containing only a few in each letter of the Alphabet) will be abundantly sufficient, both to explain my meaning, and to shew, that certain of our Sirnames, in appearance very singular, and even uncouth, have, nevertheless, a most natural and easy original, and also very obvious to those who happen to live near, or to be acquainted with the names of, the respective places.

It is possible, indeed, that, in here and there an instance, the village may take its name from the proprietor, quite contrary to the position laid down above; but this, I apprehend, happens very rarely, the names of the owners being usually conjoined with that of the village, being sometimes prefixed, and sometimes postponed, as Monks Risborough, Newport Pagnel, &c.

I observe, again, that some of our Sirnames or Surnames (for the word is written both ways) are taken from places abroad, Percy, Danvers, Daws, &c. others (though not many) from villages in Scotland or Ireland, which, nevertheless, are now become right and legitimate English Sirnames; but these I do not concern myself with at present, intending the list shall extend only to English towns and villages.

It may be observed, lastly, that, in all probability, the stocks of such families as are denominated from places, were all once formerly growing at the respective places

whose names they bear; and, consequently, that such families sprung originally from thence.

Aislabie, York.

Heath, York.

Aglionby, Cumb.

Barrowby, Leic.

Biddulph, Staff.

Beresford, Staff.

Blackburn, Lanc.

Bowes, York.

Bernardiston, Suff.

Horsemondon, Kent.

Hawkesworth, Nott.

Hooker, Lanc.
Ince, Chesh.
Islip, Oxon.
Ingleby, Linc.
Irby, Linc.
Inglefield, Berks,
Ireton, Derbysh.
Kirby, passim.
Kettlewell, York.
Kenton, Middlesex.
Kennet, Wilts.

Ketleby, Linc.
Kimber, Bucks.
Leak, Nott.
Layland, Lanc.
Lydgate, Suff.
Lumley, Durham.
Ladbroke, Warw.

Lee, passim.

Milton, passim.
Middleton, passim.
Markham, Nott.

Dalton, passim.

Dacre, Cumb.

Danby, York.

Dart, Dev.

Emerton, Bucks.

Eden, passim.

Egerton, Kent.

Elton, passim.

Fazakerly, Lanc.

Manby, Linc.

Farewell, Staff.

Marsh, passim.

Fetherstonhaugh, North,

Norton, passim.

Feckenham, Worc.

Newton, passim.

Frampton, Dorset.

Newbold, passim.

Fulham, Middlesex.

Newdigate, Surry,

Gisborne, Lanc

Newnham, Gloc.

Gray, Essex.

Narborough, Norf.

Goring, Sussex.

Otley, York.

Green, passim,

Oldham, Lanc.

Musgrave, Westm.

*N. B. Passim is here used generally, to signify that the name is com

mon to all counties.

§ 2. Origin of Sirnames farther illustrated. MR. URBAN,

I AM now going to point out to you another fruitful source of our present English Sirnames, viz. of Christian names converted, by the omission of Filius the Latin, and Fitz the French, into common Sirnames. These are, properly, what the Greeks and Romans called Patronymics; at least they possess much of the nature of them : and there are some of them very singular and uncouth to us at this day, insomuch that many are really at a loss for the original, and the etymology, of such grotesque appellations as Godscalch, Bagot, Thurstan, &c. The Saxons, our ancestors, made little use of Scripture names, John, Thomas, &c. so that their Christian names are extremely numerous, much more so than ours; and they seldom called a son by the name of his father, which was a right measure, as it prevented confusion of persons in many cases. Godwin, Earl of Kent, had six, or, according to some authors, seven sons, and yet not one of them bore his name. This circumstance, again, occasioned a further variety of names amongst them.

The next observation is, that, in regard to the difference of orthography, some persons writing Surname, and others Sirname, they are both right, though not in the same respect. I shall explain this in few words: those who write the term Surname, allege, and they have reason, that this form, from the French Surnome, must be the true orthography; because this distinguishing name, which became perfectly necessary after the use of Scripture Christian names was introduced, and there were many Johns and Thomas's in the same place, was originally written over the Christian name, or added to it; either of which well justifies the sense of the prefix, Sur; and for this custom they vouch many instances from old rolls and records. Others, however, are equally right in giving it Sirname, or Sirename; because this so well expresses the nature of the thing, wherever the appellation comes from the name of the Sire, or ancestor, with Fitz or Son understood. Both, therefore, are proper, but upon different considerations. But you will say, are we, in writing correctly, to be always at the trouble of recollecting the original, and the nature of the name, when we are to express this addition, and to be perpetually considering whether we ought to write Sirname or Surname? I answer, there will be no occasion for this, gentlemen being at liberty to use which they please, since it will be always understood what it is they mean. Besides, that figure which we call Catachresis, or an abuse of words, is readily admitted in all languages, and, in this case, is not only pardonable, but even reasonable. I shall add, thirdly, that many of the Sirnames, which I shall produce, appearing very odd and singular, those gentlemen that bear them, and have not thought upon the subject, will not be displeased, I flatter myself, to see these appendages, so intiimately united to themselves and their own persons, clearly decyphered, and, as it is hoped, in such manner, as may both gratify their curiosity and procure their amusement. And whoever, fourthly, will please to recollect what pains have been taken by Sigonius, Salmasius, Rosinus, and others, in regard to the Roman names, will incline to think, that no apology need be made for our producing the assemblage comprized in the following alphabet to the public; especially when it is remembered, that many Roman Sirnames, as we may stile them, were formed, as the antiquaries tell us, from their prænomina, as is exactly the case here; and that Mr. Camden, in his Remains, has actually omitted this large tribe of English Sirnames. J add, lastly, that, in names that are not very obvious (I speak