Page:Notes and Queries - Series 2 - Volume 1.djvu/180

 \

172

NOTES AND QUERIES.

[2nd s. NO 9., MAR. 1. '56.

connected with the countess. I bought it at the sale of the late Mr. Pickering's private collection.

DOOWRIF.

SIR JOHN STICKLING.

In Spehce's Anecdotes, pp. 89 93., the cause of Sir John Suckling's death is stated, on the autho- rity of Pope, to have been a wound in the heel, occasioned by a nail which a servant, who stole his portmanteau, had placed in one of his boots ; hoping by this means to prevent, or delay, pursuit. Regardless of the pain, Sir John is said to have started off immediately upon hearing of his loss, and to have recovered his portmanteau, in which were his money and papers ; but it is added, the wound became inflamed, and brought on a fever, of which he died. This incident is reported to have taken place at Calais.

In a note is Oldys's account of the event, which is, that in going to France, Sir John was robbed by his valet, who poisoned him ; and, to prevent pursuit, stuck the blade of a penknife in his boot besides, which wounded him incurably in the heel.

This relation is qualified by "I tliink," and the precaution said to have been adopted by the valet to prevent pursuit by the master he is alleged to have murdered, looks as if Oldys had been con- fused between two reports as to the cause of death.*

In another note, Malone says : " Aubrey, in his MS. anecdotes of the English poets, says that Suckling was poisoned, and died at Paris."

Aubrey, in his Letters (vol. iii. p. 547.), says :

" Anno .... he (Sir John Suckling) went to France; where, after some time, being come to the bottom of his fund, reflecting on the miserable and despicable condition he should be reduced to, having nothing left to maintain him, he (having a convenience for that purpose, lying at an apothecarie's house in Paris), took poison, which killed him miserably with vomiting. He was buried in the Protestant church-yard."

The short account of his life, prefixed to his

[* In a copy of Langbaine's Dramatick Poets, inter- leaved with MS. notes, occurs the following entry by Oldys : " Recollect where I have set down the story my Lord Oxford told me he had from Dean Chetwood, who had it from Lord Eoscommon, of Sir John Suckling's being robbed of a casket of jewels and gold, when he was going to France, by his valet, who I think poisoned him, and stuck the blade of a penknife in Sir John's boot to prevent his pursuit of him, and wounded him incurably in the 'heel besides. It is in one of my pocket-books, white vellum cover : the white journal that is not gilt." Oldys farther adds : " The largest account of Sir John Suckling is in Lloyd's Memoirs, being near six pages in folio, and not a dozen lines of solid history. The whole beginning is a chain of hyperboles, and the whole life may serve to feed the eyes with a full meal of words, and leave the mind quite hungry for the subject matter."]

works, 1719, merely states that he was seized with a fever, of which he died at twenty-eight years of age. Granger simply says, ob. 1641, aged twenty- eight.

I should like to know whether anything has ever come to light to show which of these reports is correct. Aubrey, if often inaccurate, is, in this instance, so minute in all the particulars, that it is difficult to suppose he wrote his account without, what he considered, sufficient authority.

Both Pope and Oldys profess to have had Lord Oxford for their informant ; and -Pope even af- firmed, that his statement could be proved by original letters in that nobleman's collection. Do the Harleian Papers make any reference to the event ? CHARLES WYLIK.

WHAT CONSTITUTES A LEGAL CONSECRATION OF A CHURCH OR CEMETERY ?

I should feel much obliged if any lawyer or civilian would inform me what constitutes a legal consecration of a church or cemetery ? As ihe Act of Uniformity forbids the use of any rites and ceremonies which are not contained and pre- scribed in and by the Prayer Book, am I right in supposing that the use of the religious services commonly used (for the Archbishop of Dublin uses none, and they differ in different dioceses), believed innocent or even laudable in itself, is, strictly speaking, illegal ? And that the officiat- ing clergy, on such occasions, in using special psalms and lessons, with an appropriate collect and epistle, and gospel, became liable to certain penalties for using these "instead of those" which are prescribed and appointed for the day in the Prayer Book.

Observing that, even in these usual services, the "sentence of consecration" is read by a lay- man, viz. by the chancellor or registrar, and is then signed by the bishop, and by him ordered to be deposited in the registry, I infer that, in the eye of the law, consecration is merely a legal con- veyance of a certain building, or piece of ground, over to the church for holy purposes ; and that, in the eye of the law, the use of various prayers and religious services is mere surplusage, which is not necessary, however proper it may be in itself.

The various fees are paid to the lay officials for the legal business connected with the consecration.

While I shall be truly thankful for any inform- ation, I beg to add, that I do not wish to raise any theological discussion ; and that my Query relates solely to the legal question, and to the existing state of the law.

A COUNTY CLERGYMAN.