Page:Notes and Queries - Series 9 - Volume 6.djvu/526

 438 NOTES AND QUERIES. me s. VI- DEC. 1. ww. language. Every line is composed in allitera- tive measure, anr every attempt which I have witnessed to illustrate it in English is a miserable failure. D. M. R. HAYDON°S PICTURES (9‘*‘ S. vi. 346).-The paragraph from the Standard is a poor jumble. It infers that both pictures named are by Haydon, which is not t ie case. ‘ Lord Nelson on the Victory’ is by C. Lucy, and has been engraved b Sharp. The second one, ‘ Napoleon at St. lilelena, is by Haydon, of which there are three replicas existing. As Messrs. Agnew, of Bond Street, bought both pictures their present whereabouts may easilyatbe traced. W. ROBERTS. 47, nsdowne Gardens, S.W. INSTALLATION or A LIIDWIFE (9'»" S. v. 475 ; vi. 9, 177, 274, 336).-I regret that in con- sequence of other work I have been unable to answer MR. PENNY’s criticisms before this. My opening] statement is stigmatized as guess- work, and e asks for the foundation of my assertion. I assume that he differs from me in the first place in my limitation of the then existing licensing authorities to the uni- versities, guilds, and company mentioned by me, and also questions the nomenclature by which I designated the two latter. In reply I may say that a study of the history of my profession extending over several years led me, by a process of exclusion far removed from guesswork, to the limitation contained in _my openingftatement, and I shall be sur- prised 1 MR. ENNY can produce evidence of the existence of any other licensing authority for medical practitioners as such at the period to which I allude. The powers of the uni- versities I Kass over, since they are beyond rauestion. IR. PENNY asks what I mean by t ie Guild (I wrote Guilds) of Physicians and Surgeons. The physicians of the City of London in 1423 combined with the surgeons in a petition to the Mayor and Aldermen of London to form a conjoint faculty of medicine and surgery. The petition was granted, but the facu ty was short-lived, and the partner- ship was dissolved. The continuit of the craft may be assumed since in 1518 they were incorporated by letters patent of Henry VIII. as the President and College of Physicians of London. The surgeons in 1435 were an estab- lished body with a code of laws and regula- tions. In 1492 they received a grant of arms. The Barbers’ Company received its charter of incorporation in 1462 ; and in 1540, by the union of the surgeons with the barbers, the United _Company of Barber-Surgeons came into existence. (MR. PENNY mixes up the Barbers’ Company with the United Company of Barber-Surgeons, a not unusual error.) Finally, the members of each craft, guild, or company were licensed to practise within the City of London. MR. PENNY suggests that the episcopal power over midwives, barber- surgleons, herbalists, and physicians was due to t e fact that “ up to the sixteenth century nearly all this kind of work was done by the inmates of religious houses.” It is uite possible that t-he episcorial power grantdd by the Act 3 Henry VII ., which makes no reference to midwives, was suggested to the legislature by the fact that the bishops pos- sessed authority over the inmates of re igious houses as such, many of whom practised as physicians. He proceeds: “The ancient cus- tom of ecclesiastical control over medical, scholastic, and legal practitioners had worked well, and there was no good reason for dis- turbing it in the sixteenth century.” It is now my turn to ask MR. PENNY to produce evidence, (1) that any such ecclesiastical con- trol over medical or le al practitioners existed at or about 1500 ; an<P (2) that midwifery and surgery were practised by the inmates of religious houses at or about the same period. He next proceeds flatly to contradict me. “ It is not historically true to speak of an ‘unwarranted assumption of power’ in this connexion ” (i. e., the licensing of midwives, to which my words clearly and unequivocally referred). “ The power was accorded and re- cognized as the best possible arrangement at the time. When it ceased to be the best pos- sible arrangement, a change was made in the law.” MR. PENNY has evidently overlooked the connexion in which my words were used, and therefore his contradiction need not be taken seriously. GEORGE C. PEACHEY. Brightwalton, VVantage. WILLIAM CULPEPER (9"*‘ S. vi. 368).-For the families bearing this name belonging to Wakehurst, Sussex, and Hollingborne, Kent, see ‘ N. & Q.,’ 2'“‘ S. ii. 130, 177. For another branch formerly settled at Feckenham in Worcestershire, see 3"’ S. xii. 43; also the Transactions of the Kent Archaeological Society for a family of Culpepers who pur- chase( Leeds Castle about 1632. EVERARD HOME COLEMAN. 71, Brecknock Road. LIELLARD FAMILY (9'=*‘ S. vi. 210, 278, 352).- Samuel Mellard, of Hulme, cabinet maker, wa.s descended from the Newcastle-under- L me family, and was, I believe, a near cousin ofy the late Alderman William Mellard, several times Mayor of Newcastle. A member of the family, now nearly eighty years old, says that his grandfather llcl ar was a French Pro-