Page:Notes and Queries - Series 11 - Volume 3.djvu/99

 us. in. FEB. 4. mi.] NOTES AND QUERIES.

given by "an ancient and grave person, minister of the parish where the murder was committed."

He swore that when the body had been taken out of the grave and laid upon the grass thirty days after death, the four defendants were required to touch the body.

" Okerman's wife fell upon her knees, and prayed God to show tokens of her innocence, or to some such purpose her very words I [i.e. Maynard] have forgot. The appellees did touch the body, whereupon the brow of the dead, which before was a livid and carrion colour, (that was the verbal expression iriterminis of the witness,) began to have a dew or gentle sweat arise upon it, which increased by degrees till the sweat ran down in drops upon the face, the brow turned and changed to a lively and fresh colour, and the dead opened one of her eyes and shut it again, and this

rning the eye was done three several times ; likewise thrust out the ring or marriage finger three several times, and pulled it in again, and the finger dropped blood on the grass."

Sir Nicholas Hyde appeared to doubt this evidence. But the evidence given by the ancient and grave minister was confirmed by his brother, " minister of the parish adjacent," " viz. the sweating of the brow, changing of its colour, opening of the eye, and the thrice motion of the finger, and drawing it in again." Presumably the bleeding was included, as the confirmation was " in every point." " The first witness added, that ' he himself dipped his finger in the blood which came from the dead body, to examine it,' and he swore he believed it was blood."

There was some circumstantial evidence against the grandmother of the child and the two Okermans. All excepting Okerman were found guilty. The grandmother and the father (husband of the dead woman) were executed. Mrs. Okerman was spared, being with child. Maynard adds that he inquired whether the other two confessed anything at their execution, but they did not, as he was told. The case happened in the fourth year of Charles I., i.e., 27 March, 1628, to 26 March, 1629.

In The. Gentleman's Magazine, 1796, part ii. p. 636, among many questions is this : " What grounds are there to imagine that the wounds of a murdered person will bleed on being touched by the murderer ? "

ROBERT PIERPOINT.

SPEAKER'S CHAIR OF THE OLD HOUSE OF COMMONS (US. ii. 128, 177, 218, 331 ; iii. 50). The communication from the Librarian of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, Melbourne, adds increased interest to the subject under consideration ; yet it does not prove that the Melbourne chair is the old

chair used in the House of Commons previous to the fire of 1834. Viscount Canterbury presented the Melbourne chair 39 years after the destruction of the Houses of Parliament, and 34 years after the Duke of Sussex had visited Sunderland, when he sat in the old chair " which was formerly the Speaker's Chair of the old House of Commons, preserved from the fire which destroyed the two Houses of Parliament in 1834." The evidence I have given in my previous communications to * N. & Q.' is associated with the actual individual workers of the period : the Duke of Sussex, uncle to Queen Victoria ; the Earl of Durham, one of the chief promoters of the Reform Bill of 1832 ; and Sir Cuthbert Sharp, historian and antiquary, also a high official under the Crown. Surely such public reports of this visit to Sunderland as I have reproduced would not have been allowed to go un- challenged by such influential personages had they not been correct, especially as they were given only five years after the destruction of the House of Commons, when the investigations by .the Lords of the Council as to the cause of the fire would be fresh in the minds of the public.

It does not follow, however, that Viscount Canterbury, son of the Speaker of the House of Commons, did not present, in 1873, the Speaker's Chair of the temporary House of Commons, used from the time of the fire in 1834 until 4 November, 1852, when the Commons assembled for the[first time in their new House. There would at that time be two Speaker's Chairs : the old one rescued from the fire, and the one used in the temporary building. It is reasonable to suppose that Viscount Canterbury would secure the more modern chair when he decided to make a present to the Common- wealth, for it has great historic interest. I have written to MR. WADSWORTH, asking him to favour me with a copy of his lordship's letter when he made the presentation for the inscription on the chair would be by another hand. From this we shall be better a,ble to judge of the history of the chair his lordship sent to Melbourne, and it will be a valuable addition to the history of our English Parliament. A photograph of the Melbourne chair will enable us to compare the two chairs, and allow them to be examined by experts in old workmanship and designs.

One good result of this investigation has been the discovery that two valuable relics of our national Parliament have been preserved. JOHN ROBINSON.

Delaval House, Sunderland.