Page:Notes and Queries - Series 12 - Volume 3.djvu/435

 12 S. III. SEPT., 1917.]

NOTES AND QUERIES.

429

From 1784, until the formation of the United States Government under the Constitution framed by the Convention of 1787, the Continental Congress met in New York, which was also the seat of the National Government', part of the time under the Confederation, and part of the time under the new Constitution.

On Saturday, Sept. 13, 1788, the Congress of the Confederation, by an ordinance, resolved that on the first Wednesday of January, 1789, electors should be chosen by the various States which had ratified the Constitution ; that on the first Wednesday in February these electors were to meet and vote for President ; and that on the first Wednesday in March of that year the new Congress was to meet in New York City for commencing proceedings under the new Constitution (' Laws of the U.S.,' i. 60). But there was delay in getting together, and it was not until April 30 that the President took the oath of office.

At the first session of the First Congress, Chap. 55, Laws of 1790, approved July 16, an Act was passed, of which Section 1 accepts the cession by Maryland and Virginia of the present District of Columbia. Section 2 directs the construction of buildings for the accommodation of Congress, of the President, and of the public offices. Section 4 provides that prior to the first Monday of December, 1790, al] offices attached to the seat of government shall be removed to Phila- delphia, there to remain until the first Monday in December, 1800. Section 6 says that on the first Monday of December, 1800, the seat of government of the United States shall be transferred to the district aforesaid.

An Act of April 24, 1800, authorizes the President to remove the offices of the Executive Departments to the City of Washington at any time he thinks proper after the adjournment of the Congress, before the time heretofore appointed by law.

JOHN E. NOKCBOSS.

Brooklyn, New York.

ROUTE OF CHARLES I. FROM NEWCASTLE TO HOLMBY (12 S. iii. 300, 361). The ex- cellent reply of MR. HUMPHREYS, while giving broadly the full itinerary of Charles from Newcastle to Holdenby, is not quite accurate in concluding that " there is no doubt as to the route taken," for it leaves unresolved the doubt expressed in MR. TAYLOR'S query. This may be restated briefly thus : Is there any evidence to confirm the statement quoted by MR.

TAYLOR that in going from Wakefield to Rotherham Charles passed by Burton Grange ? The situation of the latter place is not in any doubt, as MR. FIREBRACE seems to assume ; he also begs the question by adding that it is " close to the road from Wakefield to Rotherham." Is it now ? Was it then ? Even if it could be shown to be the best way now, it by no means proves that it was so in 1647. The fact must not be lost sight of that only those roads which were then in existence were available, and of these it is more than likely that the best, or main, roads would be chosen by a party of nearly a thousand horse. Three routes are possible, all uniting at Brampton - Bierlow, thence via Greas- brough leading to Rotherham, viz. : " 1. Wakefield, Nostell, Kinsley, Hems- worth, Ringstone Hill, Great Houghton, Brampton, &c. This is much the likeliest route, but does not go near Burton Grange.

2. Wakefield, Sandal Three Houses, Roy- ston, Monk-Bretton, Burton Grange, Womb- well, Brampton, &c.

3. Wakefield, via the Wakefield-Barnsley road to Monk-Bretton Smithies ; thence by way of the steep Burton Bank to Monk- Bretton, and forward as in route 2. The fact that Burton Bank would have to be " negotiated " is quite sufficient to make this route highly improbable. The only way to avoid this, having come so far, would be to proceed through Barnsley ; but this is equally improbable, and, besides, Burton Grange would be avoided also.

It must be remembered that eighty-one and a half years had intervened between the occurrence related and the time of its narration. The glazener says " he went along with his father," proving that he was able to walk, and was at least 6 years old. In one particular, at any rate, he exaggerated grossly when he said that " there was a great concourse of people," for as late as 1750 the population of Barnsley (the only place of any importance in the vicinity) was but 1740.

It is curious that Adam Eyre, a captain in the Parliamentary forces, living at Peniston, makes no mention of the event in his ' Dyurnall,' although he spent the period in question at Peniston, Thurlston, and Silkston. and refers to a fall of snow on Jan. 31, "It snowed all day till nighte," and the following day " I stayed at home all this day, by reason it continued snowing still." Hence we conclude that the roads would not be in the best condition for travelling, a sufficient reason for selecting