Replies.

PARISH REGISTERS.—RIGHT OF SEARCH.

In Vol. iv., p. 473. a Query on this subject is inserted, to which, in Vol. v., p. 37., Mr. Chadwick replied.

The question, one of great importance to the genealogist, has recently been the subject of judicial decision, in the case of Steele v. Williams, reported in the 17th volume of the Jurist, p. 464. (the Number for Saturday, 28th May).

At the opening of the argument, the Court of Exchequer decided that the fees, &c. are regulated by the 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 86., "An Act for registering Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England," which in the 35th section enacts—

"That every rector, vicar, curate, and every registrar, registering officer, and secretary, who shall have the keeping, for the time being, of any register book of births, deaths, or marriages, shall at all reasonable times allow searches to be made of any register book in his keeping, and shall give a copy, certified under his hand, of any entry or entries in the same, on payment of the fee hereinafter mentioned; that is to say, for every search extending over a period not more than one year, the sum of 1s., and 6d. additional for every additional year; and the sum of 2s. 6d. for every single certificate."

Mr. Chadwick seemed to consider this section only applied to "civil registration;" but this view is, I apprehend, now quite untenable.

The case was, whether a parish clerk had a right to charge 2s. 6d., where the party searching the register did not require "certified copies," but only made his own extracts; and it is decided he has no such right.

Mr. Baron Parke in his judgment says:

"I think this payment was not voluntary, because the defendant" [the parish clerk] "told the plaintiff, that if he did not pay him for certificates, in all cases in which he wanted to make extracts, he should not make a search at all. I think the plaintiff had at all events a right to make a search, and during that time make himself master, as he best might, of the contents of the book, and could not be prevented from so doing by the clerk in whose custody they were; who in the present case insisted that if he wanted copies he must have certificates with the signature of the incumbent. For the 1s. he paid, the applicant had a right to look at all the names in one year. He had no right to remain an unreasonable time looking at the book; nor perhaps, strictly speaking, was the parish clerk bound to put it into his hands at all: for the clerk has a right to superintend everything done, and might fairly say to a man, 'Your hands are dirty: keep them in your pockets.' The applicant could therefore only exercise his right of search during a reasonable time, and make extracts that way. If a man insists on taking himself a copy of anything in the books, that case is not provided for by the statute: but if he requires a copy certified by the clergyman, then he must pay an additional fee for it.

"It was consequently an illegal act in the defendant to insist that the plaintiff should pay 2s. 6d. for each entry in the book, of which he might choose to make an extract," &c.

Mr. Baron Martin says:

"With respect to the statute, counsel (Mr. Robinson) says, because taking extracts is not mentioned in the statute, it is competent for a parish clerk to take an extra payment for allowing them to be made. Where a man is allowed by statute to receive money, it is, as it were, by virtue of a contract that the statute makes for him, and he cannot make a contract for a different sum. The defendant here is bound by the entirety of the statute; he may be paid for a search, or for a certified copy, but there is no intermediate course."

This decision will, I hope, have the effect of removing the difficulties so often experienced in making searches for genealogical purposes. At all events, the person making such search can now safely make his own notes, none daring lawfully to make him afraid. I have to apologise for the length of this letter.

G. Brindley Acworth.

12. King's Bench Walk, Temple.

THE HONOURABLE MISS E. ST. LEGER, A FREEMASON.

(Vol. iv., p. 234.)

There is an inquiry in Vol. iv., p. 234., as to whether there is any truth in the story, that the Honourable Miss E. St. Leger was made a freemason; and as no account of the circumstances has yet appeared in your pages, I send you the following statement, which has been extracted from The Patrician. Apart from its value as a record of this singular fact, it contains other particulars which you may deem worthy of preservation in "N. & Q."

"The Hon. Elizabeth St. Leger as the only female who was ever initiated into the ancient and honourable mystery of Freemasonry. How she obtained this honour we shall lay before our readers, having obtained the only genuine information from the best sources.

"Lord Doneraile, Miss St. Leger's father, a very zealous mason, held a warrant, and occasionally opened Lodge at Doneraile House, his sons and some intimate friends assisting; and it is said that never were the masonic duties more rigidly performed than by the brethren of No. 150, the number of their warrant.

"It appears that previous to the initiation of a gentleman to the first steps of masonry, Miss St Leger, who was a young girl, happened to be in an apartment adjoining the room generally used as a lodge-room; but whether the young lady was there by design or accident, we cannot confidently state. This room at the time was undergoing some alteration: amongst other things, the wall was considerably reduced in one part, for the purpose of making a saloon.

"The young lady having heard the voices of the Freemasons, and prompted by the curiosity natural to all, to see this mystery so long and so secretly locked up from public view, she had the courage to pick a brick from the wall with her scissors, and witnessed the ceremony through the first two steps. Curiosity gratified, fear at once took possession of her mind; and those who understand this passage, well know what the feelings of any person must be who could unlawfully behold that ceremony. Let them then judge what were the feelings of a young girl, under such extraordinary circumstances.

"Here was no mode of escape except through the very room where the concluding part of the second step was still being solemnised; and that being at the far end, and the room a very large one, she had resolution sufficient to attempt her escape that way, and with light but trembling step glided along unobserved, laid her hand on the handle of the door, and gently opening it, before her stood, to her dismay, a grim and surly tiler, with his long sword unsheathed. A shriek that pierced through the apartment alarmed the members of the lodge, who all rushing to the door, and finding that Miss St. Leger had been in the room during the ceremony, in the first paroxysm of their rage, it is said, her death was resolved upon; but from the moving and earnest supplication of her younger brother, her life was spared, on condition of her going through the two steps of the solemn ceremony she had unlawfully witnessed. This she consented to do, and they conducted the beautiful and terrified young lady through those trials which are sometimes more than enough for masculine resolution, little thinking they were taking into the bosom of their craft a member that would afterwards reflect a lustre on the annals of Masonry.

"Miss St. Leger was directly descended from Sir Robert De St. Leger, who accompanied William the Conqueror to England, and was of that high repute that he, with his own hand, supported that prince when he first went out of his ship to land in Sussex.

"Miss St. Leger was cousin to General Anthony St. Leger, Governor of St. Lucia, who instituted the interesting race and the celebrated Doncaster St. Leger stakes.

"Miss St. Leger married Richard Aldworth, Esq., of Newmarket, a member of a highly honourable and ancient family, long celebrated for their hospitality and other virtues. Whenever a benefit was given at the theatres in Dublin or Cork for the Masonic Orphan Asylum, she walked at the head of the Freemasons, with her apron and other insignia of Freemasonry, and sat in the front row of the stage box. The house was always crowded on those occasions.

"The portrait of this estimable woman is in the lodge room of almost every lodge in Ireland."

Henry H. Breen.

St. Lucia.

WEATHER RULES.

(Vol. vii., p. 522.)

Your correspondent J. A., jun., invites further contributions on the subject to which he refers. Though by no means infallible, such prognostics are not without a measure of truth, founded as they are on habits of close observation:

Rendered thus:

To this I may add the French adage:

From a MS. now in my possession, dating two centuries back, I extract the following remarks on "Times and Seasons," as not wholly unconnected with the present subject:

"Easter-day never falleth lower than the 22nd of March, and never higher than the 25th of April."

"Shrove Sunday has its range between the 1st of February and the 7th of March."

"Whit Sunday between the 10th of May and the 13th of June."

"A rule of Shrovetide:—The Tuesday after the second change of the moon after New Year's-day is always Shrove Tuesday."

To these I may perhaps be permitted to add certain cautions, derived frown the same source:

"The first Monday in April, the day on which Cain was born, and Abel was slain.

"The second Monday in August, on which day Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

"The 31st of December, on which day Judas was born, who betrayed Christ.

"These are dangerous days to begin any business, fall sick, or undertake any journey."

We smile at the superstition which thus stamps these several periods as days of ill omen, especially when we reflect that farther inquiry would probably place every other day of the week under a like ban, and thus greatly impede the business of life—Friday, for instance, which, since our Lord's crucifixion on that day, we are strongly disinclined to make the starting-point of any new enterprise.

In many cases this superstition is based on unpleasing associations connected with the days proscribed. Who can wonder if, in times less enlightened than our own, undue importance were attached to the strange coincidence which marked the deaths of Henry VIII. and his posterity. They all died on a Tuesday; himself on Tuesday, January 28, 1547; Edward VI. on Tuesday, July 6, 1553; Mary on Tuesday, November 17, 1558; Elizabeth on Tuesday, March 24, 1603.

John Booker.

Prestwich.

It is a saying in Norwich,—

I think the observation is tolerably correct.

Anon.

SCOTCHMEN IN POLAND.

(Vol. vii., p. 475.)

In the debates about a union with Scotland in 1606, the "multiplicities of the Scots in Polonia" formed one of the arguments of the opposing party, who thought that England was likely to be overrun in a similar fashion. According to Wilson (Hist. of James I., p. 34.), the naturalisation of the Scots—

"Was opposed by divers strong and modest arguments. Among which they brought in the comparison of Abraham and Lot, whose families joining, they grew to difference, and to those words, 'Vade tu ad dextram, et ego ad sinistram.' It was answered, That speech brought the captivity of the one; they having disjoined their strength. The party opposing said, If we admit them into our liberties, we shall be overrun with them; as cattle, naturally, pent up by a slight hedge, will over it into a better soil; and a tree taken from a barren place will thrive to excessive and exuberant branches in a better,—witness the multiplicities of the Scots in Polonia.

"To which it was answered, That if they had not means, place, custom, and employment (not like beasts, but men), they would starve in a plentiful soil, though they came into it. And what springtide and confluence of that nation have housed and familied themselves among us, these four years of the king's reign? And they will never live so meanly here as they do in Polonia; for they had rather discover their poverty abroad than at home."

This last "answerer" was Lord Bacon. In his speech "Of general Naturalisation" (Works, vol. v. p. 52.), he asserts that the "multiplication of Scots in Polonia" must of necessity be imputed

"To some special accident of time and place that draws them thither; for you see plainly before your eyes, that in Germany, which is much nearer, and in France, where they are invited with privileges, and with this very privilege of naturalisation, yet no such number can be found; so as it cannot either be nearness of place, or privilege of person, that is the cause."

What these "special accidents" were, it would be interesting to ascertain. Large bodies of men were levied in Scotland during the latter half of the sixteenth century, for the service of Sweden, and employed in the Polish wars. Can these have turned merchants, or induced others to follow them? In 1573, Charles de Mornay brought 5000 Scots to Sweden. In 1576, whilst they were serving in Livonia, a quarrel broke out between them and a body of Germans also in the Swedish pay, and 1500 Scots were cut down. (Geiger, ch. xii.)

I believe Mr. Cunningham will find some notices of Scottish merchants in Poland in Lithgow's Travels, which I have not at present by me.

Richard John King.

MR. JUSTICE NEWTON.

(Vol. vii., p. 528.)

Sir Richard Newton was Chief Justice of the Common Pleas from 1438 to 1444, and died Dec. 13th, 1444, and was buried in a chapel of Bristol Cathedral. (Collins's Baronage, vol. iii. p. 145.) He assumed the name of Newton, instead of Caradoc, from Newton in Powysland. (Collinson's Somersetshire, East Harptrie); and, as Camden, p. 60., says, the Newtons "freely own themselves to be of Welsh extraction, and not long ago to have been called Caradocks." These Caradocs were descended from the ancient kings of Wales. Sir Richard Newton was twice married: 1. to a daughter of Newton, of Crossland; and 2. to Emmett, daughter of John Harvey, of London, according to a MS. in the British Museum; but, according to Somersetshire and Gloucestershire Visitations, to Emma, daughter of Sir Thomas Perrott, of Islington. He had issue by both marriages, and from the second descended Sir John Newton, who was created a baronet 12 Car. II., and died in 1661. The baronetcy was limited in remainder, at its creation, to John Newton, of Hather, in Lincolnshire, and he became the second baronet. There are several pedigrees tracing the descent from Sir Richard to the first baronet; but I have not yet seen the descent to the second baronet, though there can be no doubt that he was also descended from Sir Richard, otherwise the baronetcy could not have been limited to him; and probably he was the next male heir of the first baronet, as that is the usual mode of limiting titles. In the Heralds' College there is a pedigree of Sir Isaac Newton, signed by himself, in which he traces his descent to the brother of the ancestor of the second baronet. It should seem, therefore, that Sir Isaac was himself descended from the Chief Justice. It would confer a great obligation on the writer if any of your readers could afford any assistance to clear up the pedigree of the second baronet.

As to the representatives of Sir Richard, I doubt whether his heir is discoverable, although there are many descendants now living who trace their descent through females.

C. S. G.

THE MARRIAGE RING.

(Vol. vii., p. 332.)

I cannot agree with the answer given, under the above reference, to the question of J. P.: "How did the use of the ring, in the marriage ceremony, originate?" The answer given is taken from Wheatly's Rational Illustration, &c., and is in substance this:—The ring anciently was a seal, and the delivery of this seal was a sign of confidence; and as a ceremony in marriage, its signification is, that the wife is admitted to the husband's counsels. From this argument, and the supposed proofs of it, I beg to dissent; and I conceive that Wheatly has not thrown any light upon the origin of this beautiful ceremony. To bear out his view, it would be necessary to prove that a signet ring had originally been used for the wedding ring—a matter of no slight difficulty, not to say impossibility.

What I take to be the real meaning of the ring as a part of the marriage ceremony, I will now give. It has a far higher meaning in the ceremony, and a more important duty to perform than merely to signify the admission of the wife into the counsels of the husband. Its office is to teach her the duty she owes to her husband, rather than the privilege of admission into his counsels. The ring is a preacher, to teach her lessons of holy wisdom referring to her state of life.

A ring, whenever used by the church, signifies, to use the words of liturgical writers, "integritatem fidei," the perfection of fidelity, and is "fidei sacramentum," the badge of fidelity. Its form, having no beginning and no end, is the emblem of eternity, constancy, integrity, fidelity, &c.; so that the wedding ring symbolises the eternal or entire fidelity the wife pledges to her husband, and she wears the ring as the badge of this fidelity. Its office, then, is to teach and perpetually remind her of the fidelity she owes to her husband, and swore to him at the marriage ceremony.

The wedding ring is to the wife precisely what the episcopal ring is to the bishop, and vice versâ. The language used during the ceremony to the one is very similar to that used to the other, as the object of the ceremony and use of the ring is the same. A bishop's ring, as we read, signifies "integritatem fidei," i. e. that he should love as himself the church of God committed to him as his bride. When he receives the ring at his consecration, the words used are, "Accipe annulum, fidei scilicet signaculum, quatenus sponsam Dei, sanctum videlicet ecclesiam, intemerata fide ornatus illibate custodias:" (Receive the ring, the badge of fidelity, to the end that, adorned with inviolable fidelity you may guard without reproach the spouse of God, that is, His Holy Church).

Hence the office of the episcopal ring throws light upon the office of the wedding ring; and there can be no doubt whatever that its real meaning is, in the latter as in the former case, to signify the eternal fidelity and constancy that should subsist between the married couple.

That this is the correct view of the meaning of the wedding ring is farther confirmed by the prayer used in blessing the ring: "Benedic, Domine, annulum hunc ... ut quæ eum gestaverit, fidelitatem integram suo sponso tenens, in pace et voluntate tua permaneat, acque in mutua charitate semper vivat."—Rituale, &c.

Cyrep.

CANADA, ETC.

(Vol. vii., pp. 380. 504.)

My former Note on the origin of this name suggests a question, which, if you think it worthy of a place in "N. & Q.," may interest many besides myself, viz. At what period and by whom was that part of North America called Canada?

To the French it appears always to have been known as "La Nouvelle France." La Hontan, who quitted the country 1690, I think, calls it Canada. Lajitan certainly does, as well as many other old authors.

In a map of North America, date 1769, the tract bordering on the St. Lawrence, lately called Upper and Lower Canada, is designated "The Province of Quebec;" whilst the region to the northward, lying between it and Hudson's Bay, has the word Canada in much larger letters, as if a general name of the whole. That the name is slightly altered from an Indian word is probable, but not so that it was used by the Indians themselves, who, in the first place, were not in the habit of imposing general names on large districts, although they had significant ones for almost every locality; the former were usually denominated the land of the Iroquois, of the Hurons, &c., i. e. of the people dwelling, on, and in possession of it. Even allowing that the Indians may have had a general name for the country, it is very unlikely that one so unmeaning as "Kanata" would have been imposed upon it by a people whose nomenclature in every other case is so full of meaning.

Moreover, although the Mic-macs of Gaspé may have called themselves Canadians according to Lescarbot, yet we are told by Volney, that—

"The Canadian savages call themselves 'Metoktheniakes' (born of the sun), without allowing themselves to be persuaded of the contrary by the Black Robes," &c.—Vol. ii. p. 438.

The following, to the same purpose, is from the Quarterly Review, vol. iv. p. 463.:

"'Tapoy,' which we understand from good authority to be the generic appellation by which the North American tribes distinguish themselves from the whites," &c.

Now I should imagine both Lescarbot and Champlain, knowing nothing of the language, and probably having very bad interpreters, must have made a great mistake in supposing the Gaspésiens called themselves Canadians, for I have questioned several intelligent Mic-Macs on the subject, and they have invariably told me that they call themselves "Ulnookh" or "Elnouiek," "Ninen elnouiek!—We are Men." But Mic-mac? "O, Mic-mac all same as Ulnookh." The latter word strictly means Indian-man, and cannot be applied to a white. Mic-mac is the name of their tribe, and, they insist upon it, always has been. Again, Kanata is said to be an Iroquois word, and, consequently, not likely to have been in use amongst a tribe of the Lenape family, which the Mic-macs are. It does not appear that we have any authority for supposing the country was ever called Canada by the Indians themselves.

It is curious enough that as Canada was said to derive from an exclamation, "Acá nada!" so the capital has been made to take its name from another; "Quel bec!" cried one of Champlain's Norman followers, on beholding Cape Diamond. As in the former case, however, so in this, we have evidence of more probable sources of the name, which I will enumerate as briefly as possible. The first, and a very probable one, is the fact, that the strait between Quebec and St. Levi side of the river, was called in the Algonquin language "Quebeio," i. e. a narrowing,—a most descriptive appellation, for in ascending the river its breadth suddenly diminishes here from about two miles to fourteen or fifteen hundred yards from shore to shore.

The little river St. Charles, which flows into the St. Lawrence on the northern side of the promontory, is called in the Indian language (Algonquin?) Kabir or Koubac, significant of its tortuous course, and it is from this, according to La Potherie, that the city derives its name of Quebec.

Mr. Hawkins, in his Picture of Quebec, &c., 1834, denies the Indian origin of the word, since, as he says, there is no analogous sound to it in any of their languages; and he assumes a Norman origin for it on the strength of "Bec" being always used by the Normans to designate a promontory in the first place; and secondly, because the word Quebec is actually found upon a seal of the Earl of Suffolk, of historical celebrity temp. Hen. V. and VI., which Mr. Hawkins supposes to have been the name of some town, castle, or barony in Normandy.

Such are the pros and cons, upon which I do not presume to offer any opinion; only I would observe, that if there are no analogous sounds in the Indian languages, whence come Kennebec and other similar names?

A. C. M.

Exeter.

Surely in the "inscription on a seal (1420), in which the Earl of Suffolk is styled 'Domine [?] de Hamburg et de Quebec,'" the last word must be a misprint for Lubec, the sister city of Hamburg. Mr. Hawkins's etymology seems to rest on no more substantial foundation than an error of the press in the work, whichever that may be, from which he quotes.

Jaydee.

SELLING A WIFE.

(Vol. vii., p. 429.)

The popular idea that a man may legally dispose of his wife, by exposing her for sale in a public market, may not improbably have arisen from the correlation of the terms buying and selling. Your correspondent V. T. Sternberg need not be reminded how almost universal was the custom among ancient nations of purchasing wives; and he will admit that it appears natural that the commodity which has been obtained "per æs et libram"—to use the phrase of the old Roman law touching matrimony—is transferable to another for a similar consideration, whenever it may have become useless or disagreeable to its original purchaser. However this may be, the custom is ancient, and moreover appears to have obtained, to some extent, among the higher orders of society. Of this an instance may be found in Grimaldi's Origines Genealogicæ, pp. 22, 23. (London, 1828, 4to.) The deed, by which the transaction was sought to be legalised, runs as follows:

"To all good Christians to whom this writ shall come, John de Camoys, son and heir of Sir Ralph de Camoys, greeting: Know me to have delivered, and yielded up of my own free will, to Sir William de Paynel, Knight, my wife Margaret de Camoys, daughter and heiress of Sir John de Gatesden; and likewise to have given and granted to the said Sir William, and to have made over and quit-claimed all goods and chattels which the said Margaret has or may have, or which I may claim in her right; so that neither I, nor any one in my name, shall at any time hereafter be able to claim any right to the said Margaret, or to her goods and chattels, or their pertinents. And I consent and grant, and by this writ declare, that the said Margaret shall abide and remain with the said Sir William during his pleasure. In witness of which I have placed my seal to this deed, before these witnesses: Thomas de Depeston, John de Ferrings, William de Icombe, Henry le Biroun, Stephen Chamberlayne, Walter le Blound, Gilbert de Batecumbe, Robert de Bosco, and others."

This matter came under the cognisance of Parliament in 1302, when the grant was pronounced to be invalid.

Now, we may fondly believe that this transaction, which occurred five hundred and fifty years ago, was characteristic alone of that dark and distant period, and that no parallel can be found in modern times (at least in a decent class of society, and recognised by legal sanction) to justify the lively French dramatists in seizing upon it as a trait of modern English manners. A transaction, however, came before the public eye a month or two ago, which, should you think the following record of it worth preservation as a "curiosity of legal experience," may lead your readers to a different conclusion:

"A young man, named W. C. Capas, was charged at the Public Office, Birmingham, Jan. 31, 1853, with assaulting his wife. The latter, in giving her evidence, stated that her husband was not living with her, but was 'leased' to another female. Upon inquiry by the magistrate into this novel species of contract, the document itself was produced in court, and read. It ran as follows:

"'Memorandum of agreement made and entered into this second day of October, in the year of our Lord 1852, between William Charles Capas, of Charles-Henry Street, in the borough of Birmingham, in the county of Warwick, carpenter, of the one part, and Emily Hickson, of Hurst Street, Birmingham aforesaid, spinster, of the other part. Whereas the said William Charles Capas and Emily Hickson have mutually agreed with each other to live and reside together, and to mutually assist in supporting and maintaining each other during the remainder of their lives, and also to sign the agreement hereinafter contained to that effect: now, therefore, it is hereby mutually agreed upon, by and between the said William Charles Capas and Emily Hickson, that they the said, &c., shall live and reside together during the remainder of their lives, and that they shall mutually exert themselves by work and labour, and by following all their business pursuits, to the best of their abilities, skill, and understanding, and by advising and assisting each other, for their mutual benefit and advantage, and also to provide for themselves and each other the best supports and comforts of life which their means and income may afford. And for the true and faithful performance of this agreement, each of the said parties bindeth himself and herself unto the other finally by this agreement, as witness the hands of the said parties, this day and year first above written."

Here follow the signatures of the consenting parties. The girl Hickson was examined, and admitted that she had signed the document at the office of a Mr. Campbell, the lawyer(!) who prepared it, and that his charge for drawing up the same was, she believed, 1l. 15s. The latter promised her, at the same time, that if the wife of Capas gave her any annoyance he would put in that paper as evidence. The magistrates, considering the assault proved, fined Capas 2s. 6d., and "commented in very strong terms on the document which had that day been brought before them." (See Birmingham Journal, Jan. 5th, 1853.) Has a similar transaction come before the notice of your correspondents?

I may add that we are informed by the Birmingham Argus for March, 1834, that in that month a man led his wife by a halter to Smithfield Market in that town, and there publicly offered her for sale.

William Bates.

Birmingham.

ENOUGH.

(Vol. vii., p. 455.)

This word, when written or pronounced enow, is regarded as a plural, and relates to number. In this sense it is employed in Northampton and other Midland counties, and is found in old writers. If the word was always pronounced enow, it must be long since. The distinction above hinted at prevailed in Waller's time, and he conforms to it in the examples quoted. Butler, in Hudibras, has both:

Again, line 1153. of the same canto:

an apparent exception, but not really such. (See also canto 3. 117. 285., where it rhymes with "off," as also line 809. At line 739. it written enow, and rhymes with "blow.")

And again, 873:

Other examples may be quoted from the same author.

In a song, written upon the Restoration of Charles II., we have the following:

In the Lamentable Tragedy of Cambises, written early in the reign of Elizabeth, the word occurs:

In Lusty Juventus, a Morality, temp. Edward VI., is the following:

Here certainly the distinction disappears, as in the next and last example from Candlemas Day, "Ao. Do. 1512," where Joseph is speaking:

It would seem therefore, that this word has had its present pronunciation about three centuries. Its derivation is directly from the Saxon genoh, but the root is found in many other languages, as the German, Dutch, Danish, &c.

B. H. C.

Mr. Wright supposes there has been a change in the pronunciation of this word, and inquires when it took place. Now, if my conjecture be correct, there may have been no change, and these are two words,—not one pronounced differently. Both the instances quoted by him are in conformity with my opinion, viz. that where the sense is "a sufficient quantity," either in substance, quality, or action, we should make use of enough; yet where a sufficient number is intended, we should pronounce and write enow. I recollect (being a native of Suffolk) that I was laughed at by the boys of a school in a western county, nearly seventy years ago: but I was not then laughed out of my word, nor am I likely now to be argued out of it.

P.S.—I see that Johnson's Dictionary gives the same statement about enough and enow. This answer is therefore superfluous. Johnson gives numerous instances of the use of enow from our best authors.

H. C. R.

PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE.

Mr. Wilkinson's Mode of levelling Cameras.—As you have done me the honour to notice my simple invention for levelling cameras, which I have since had an opportunity of trying in the open air for a week, and find to succeed perfectly, I wish to correct some errors which appeared in the Photographic Journal, from which you copied my remarks, and which arose from the notes being taken down from my verbal observations. The first part is perfectly correct but after l. 9. col. 2. "N. & Q." (Vol. vii., p. 462.) it should read thus:

"The other perpendicular is then sought for; the back or front of the camera being raised or lowered until the thread cuts the perpendicular lines drawn upon the sides of the camera. By this means a perfectly horizontal plane is obtained, as true as with the best spirit-levels, and in less time. By tying three knots in the silk at twelve inches distance from the one bullet and from each other, we have a measure for stereoscopic pictures; and by making the thread thirty-nine inches and two-tenths long from one bullet to the centre of the other, we obtain a pendulum vibrating seconds, which is useful in talking portraits; as it will continue vibrating for ten minutes, if one bullet be merely hung over any point of suspension."

Thus we obtain a levelling instrument, a chronometer, and a measure of distances, at a cost considerably under one penny.

The above will more fully explain to your correspondent Φ. (Vol. vii., p. 505.) my reasons for the length of thread stated; and with respect to the diagonal lines on the ground glass, it is not material what may be the distance of the principal object, whether six feet or six hundred: for if the cross lines, or any other lines drawn on the glass, cut the central object in the picture at any particular part—for example, the window of any particular house, or the branch of any tree,—then the camera may be removed to higher or lower ground, several feet or inches, to the right or to the left, and the same lines be made to cut the same objects, previously noted; the elevation will then be the same, which completes all that is required.

In most stereoscopic pictures, the distances are too wide. For a portrait, two inches and half to three inches, at nine or twelve feet distant, is enough; and for landscapes much less is required than is generally given, for no very great accuracy is necessary. Three feet, at three hundred yards, is quite enough; and four to six feet, at a mile, will do very well. Let experiment determine: for every photographer must learn his profession or amusement; there is no royal road to be depended on. But a small aperture, a quarter of an inch diameter, may be considered a good practical size for a lens of three and a quarter inches, depending on light and time: the smaller the aperture, the longer the time; and no rules can be given by any one who does not know the size and quality of the lenses employed. Every one can make a few trials for himself, and find it out; which will be more satisfactory than any instructions derived from books or correspondence. I obtain all the information I can from every source, then try, and judge for myself. At worst, you only spoil a few sheets of paper, and gain experience.

I perfectly agree with Dr. Diamond, that it is much better not to wash the collodion pictures after developing; but pour on about one drachm of sat. sol. hypo. at once, and then, when clear, plenty of water; and let water rest on the surface for an hour or more, before setting on edge to dry.

Henry Wilkinson.

Collodion Negative.—Can you inform me how a collodion negative may be made? that is, how you can ensure the negative being always of a dense enough character to print from. This is rarely the case.

F. M.

Developing Collodion Process.—I use to develope my collodion pictures M. Martin's plan, i. e. a solution of common copperas made a little acid with sulphuric acid. This answers very well and gives to the pictures, after they have been exposed an hour or two to the atmosphere, a silver-like appearance: but this copperas solution seems to destroy the glass for using a second time, inasmuch as a haziness is cast upon the glass, and its former enamel seems lost, not to be regained even by using acids. The hyposulphite also seems to be affected by this manner of developing the pictures after a short time, which is not the case with pyrogallic acid. The hypo., when thus affected with the copperas, appears also to throw a mist over the picture, which new hypo. does not. I should esteem it a favour if any of your numerous readers could inform me the cause of this.

A. A. P.

An iodizing Difficulty.—May I request the favour, from some one of your numerous photographic correspondents, of a solution to the following apparent enigma, through the medium of "N. & Q."?

Being located in a neighbourhood where there is a scarcity of water in the summer months, I lately took advantage of a pool in a running stream, which ran at the bottom of the grounds of a friend, to soak my calotype papers in, subsequent to having brushed them over with the solution of iodide of silver, according to the process recommended by Sir W. Newton. One-half of the batch was removed in about two hours and a half, being beautifully clean, and of a nice light primrose colour; and in consequence of an unexpected call and detention longer than I had anticipated, the other half was left floating from two o'clock p.m. until seven or eight in the evening (nearly six hours), when, much to my chagrin, I found on their removal that they had all, more or less, become browned, or, rather, had taken on a dirty, deep, nankeen colour, those that had been first floated being decidedly the worst. I had previously thought that the papers must be left at least two and a half to three hours, a longer period having no other effect than that of softening the papers, or, at most, of allowing some slight portion of the iodide to fall off from their surface, whereas, from the above-described discoloration, an evident decomposition must have commenced, which I am quite at a loss to account for; neither can I conjecture what the chemical change can have been. I have several times before prepared good papers in trays filled with water from the same stream, but from the quantity running in the brook in the spring months, I never before have had the chance of floating them in the stream itself.

An explanation of the above difficulty from some obliging and better-informed photographist would be very thankfully received by

Henry H. Hele.

Ashburton, Devon.

P.S.—The pool of water was well shaded, consequently not a ray of bright sunlight could possibly impinge on the papers while floating.

I have always understood that pure iodide of silver was quite insensible to the action of light, or to any other chemical change, as far as the action of atmospheric air was concerned.