gibbeting; the gibbet in this case, as in the two former, serving only as a common gallows, to deprive the party

of life.

Matthew Paris, A. D. 1236, p. 432, speaking of the execution of two men, says, paratum ex horribile [read paratum est horribile] patibulum Londoniis quod vulgus gibe tum appellat." One of them, after he was dead, was hung upon a gibbet, and the other was gibbeted alive, to perish, as we may suppose, both by pain and hunger. These cases seem to come up fully to the point in hand, as the body of the first was put upon the gibbet when dead, in order to be a permanent spectacle of terror; and the other was not to die, as probably being the most guilty, by the mere and simple act of suspension; but by a more lingering, cruel, and terrible kind of death. It is remarkable that the historian uses the word horrible on the occasion, which he forbore to do in his two former instances, as if he intended to express something here of a nature uncommonly shocking and terrifying.

The word gibbet, Sir, I have observed above, is French as well as English; and therefore it may be proper to inquire how matters were carried, in respect to the gibbet in France. Now in Matthew Paris, A.D. 1248, p. 747, the King of France ordered all clippers of the coin, patibulis laqueatos, vento præsentari, that is, to be hanged, and then exposed to the wind; which, though irons be not mentioned, appears to be the very thing we English do now, and to have the same intention.

Du Fresne cites these words from the Chronicon Flandriæ, c. 86: "Et le feit le Roy Phillipe decoler a Paris sur un eschaffaut, et feit le corps pendre au gibet de Montfaucon." "There were six kings of France of the name of Philip, and the last of them reigned from A. D. 1328 to A. D. 1350; but the passage may relate to one of the former, and probably does.

It appears, upon the whole, that gibbeting was used in this country as early as A. D. 1236, in the reign of King Henry III. and that in all probability we derived the custom from our neighbours, the French.

1789, March

SAM. PEGGE..

CXIII. Bull and Gate, Bull and Mouth, Bear and Ragged Staff.

MR. URBAN,

On the 26th of August, 1783, on a tour into Kent, I visited the ancient family mansion of Hardres, near Canterbury, and among a variety of relics which were shewn to me as an attestation of its departed splendor, I was particularly delighted with the sight of a warlike trophy, which the first founder of that family, Sir William Hardres, received from Henry VIII. as an honorary gratuity for his valour at the siege of Boulogne. It was one of the gates of that town, composed of wood, with transverse braces, well studded with iron nails, and a small wicket door connected to it. When I saw it, it stood in the coach-house, by the side of the tattered remains of the body of a very old family coach.

This Sir William Hardres, it should seem from the archives of that family, had received from King Henry the domains on which the mansion was erected, in testimony of his services, perhaps at the above siege, which had continued in succession to the heirs of that family until the time when I visited it; which happened to be at the critical time, when all the old and original furniture, consisting of pictures, chairs, bedsteads, books, &c. were parcelled out for an auction-the Gate of Boulogne was also to be included in the sale; but by whom it was purchased, or where it is deposited, I am now left to find out.

As one of your correspondents appears to be at a loss to account for the origin of the sign of the Bull and Gate, it is probable that he will now perceive that the modern sign is a vulgar etymon of the Boulogne Gate, above described; which, having served to commemorate an action which King Henry VIII. seemed by history to have taken some pains to accomplish, and therefore rendered popular, was made the subject of a sign. Thus the Bull and Mouth is a vulgar corruption of the Boulogne Mouth, or the entrance into the harbour of Boulogne. In like manner, the celebrated corruption of a sign at Chelsea, near the water side, which should represent a groupe of Bacchanals dancing, and now ridiculously metamorphosed into the Bag of Nails.

If these kind of curious inquiries engage the attention of your correspondents, it may not be unacceptable perhaps to suggest a hint for the origin of the sign of the Bear aud Ragged Staff.

In perusing the Memoirs of Philip de Comines, I found the following passage. "I was," he said, "invited by Monsieur de Vancler, to dine with him when I was at Calais; where I found him well attended, with a Ragged Staff of gold upon his bonnet, which was the device of the Earl of Warwick; the rest of the guests had the same device of Ragged Staffs; but they who could not have them of gold, had them of cloth." It was told me at dinner, " that within a quarter of an hour after the messenger was arrived from England with the news, that the whole town had got into his badge." See p. 162. the English edition.

It is not improbable, therefore, that the sign of the Ragged Staff derived its origin from the arms of the Earl of Warwick, who was eternized in the dispute of the houses of York and Lancaster. The bear prefixed to it is doubtless of the same kind of origin; but as I have no book of heraldry immediately at hand to turn to for the application of a device to any of the Earl's followers, I shall leave this investigation for the attention of any other curious correspondent in these kind of researches.

1789, March.

Yours, &c.

J. D.

CXIV. A Passage in Domesday illustrated.

MR. URBAN,

As the following article is not inconsistent with the plan of your Monthly Collection, and may be matter of curiosity at least, if not of use, to some of your antiquarian correspondents, you may communicate it to them, if you think proper, in your next Magazine.

It is noted in Domesday Book, under the article of Kingston upon Thames, that "Humfrid the chamberlain (tenant to the Queen's fee at Cumbe in that parish) had one of the King's villains of that manor under his direction, causa coadunandi lanam Reginæ.”

In another ancient record*, we find that King Henry I. gave Cumbe to the family of Postel, who held it by the same tenure, viz. " per serjentiam colligendi lanam Reginæ.” And lastly, that, in 39 Henry III. Peter Baldwin held it†;

*Testa de Nevil.

Plac. Coron. 59 Hen. IIL ret. 31.

whose son Peter also died seised of it in 27 Edward I.* having both holden it in like manner, 66 per serjentiam colligendi lanam Regina;" to which is added, in the former of

these two,

per

alba***."

Blount, in his Ancient Tenures, p. 79, in order to supply this blank in a place where he confesses that the record was illegible, and that he only does it by guess, puts in the word spinas, and then gives this account of the tenure, viz. that the Queen's tenant here held this little manor by the service of "going a wool-gathering for the Queen among the thorns and briers." And the author of a treatise lately published, called, "Domesday Book illustrated," p. 175, follows Blount, without any other explanation of him, than by translating the words coadunandi lanam Regina, "winding, or mixing, or working up the Queen's wool with other wool, or, gathering wool for the Queen."

Now, the truth is, that "the original revenue of our ancient queens, before and soon after the Conquest, consisted in certain reservations or rents out of the demesne lands of the crown, which were expressly appropriated to her Majesty, distinct from the King. It is frequent, in Domesday Book, after specifying the rent due to the crown, to add likewise the quantity of gold, or other renders, reserved to the queen. These were frequently appropriated to particular purposes; to buy wool for her majesty's use, to purchase oil for her lamps, or to furnish her attire from head to foot+."

This manor of Cumbe then was plainly one of those “reservations or rents out of the demesne lands of the crown,' spoken of by Blackstone, as "expressly appropriated to the queen's use;" and, in the present instance, for the first of the purposes there mentioned, viz. "for buying wool for her majesty's use." Humfrid the chamberlain, who farmed this manor of the queen, by the service of co-adunating, i. e. getting together this wool, might possibly pay it in kind, collecting their respective portions of the several under-tenants. In succeeding times, however, particularly when Postel, and afterwards Baldwin, farmed this manor, the wool-rent was compounded for by the payment of 20s. a year in silver at the Exchequer; and a rent paid in silver was always called alba firma. The blank, therefore, in the abovementioned record of 39 Henry III. is undoubtedly to

Esch. 27, E. I. n. 27.

+ Blackstone's Comment. vol. I, p. 221. and the authorities there cited. among which is the very article in question,

be filled up with the word firmam, whereby the whole will be rendered perfectly intelligible, viz. that Peter Baldwin held the serjeantry in Cumbe by collecting the queen's wool, not "per albas spinas," off the thorns and briers of the manor, but "per albam firmam," i. e. by compositions in silver, to be paid by the respective under-tenants, to the amount of 20s. a year-or, whether he did or not, should at least pay that sum annually himself for the same at the Treasury.

1789, March.

PALEOPHILUS SURR.

CXV. Meretrices-An ancient Tenure investigated and explained.

MR. URBAN,

IN the Gentleman's Magazine for 1773, it is said that, "6 among other strange customs in England, there is one, that, whenever the King comes to Lothesley manor, near Guildford, the Lord is to present his Majesty with three

WHORES."

A correspondent in some measure rectifies the mistake, by informing us that, "instead of Lothesley, it was the manor of Catteshill that was meant ;" and that this manor " was holden by the service of being marshal of the MERETRICES when the King came that way; that it is well known that MERETRIX, in later Latin writers, is equivalent to lavatrir, or lotrix; and, therefore, that these twelve young women (for such, as he observes, they are called, and such is their number said to have been by Blount, in his account of Ancient Tenures, p. 80), were to follow the court in the capacity of laundresses, to be furnished by the Lord of the manor of Catteshill."

Another correspondent carries the custom back again to Lothesley, which, he tells us, "was holden in grand serjeantry by the master of the King's MERETRICES, i. e. (says he) laundresses." Perhaps a more full and accurate account of this matter may not be unacceptable.

You are to understand then, Mr. Urban, that, from the accession of King Henry II. our kings had a mansion house and park at Guildford, where they occasionally resided and kept their court; during which time, certain of the inferior offices of the household were supplied by the tenants of two different estates holden of the crown in this neighbourhood. I. One of these was what is now called the manor of