He witnessed a deed at p. 99 of Clarke’s ‘Hundred of Wanting,’ A.D. 1448.
The church registers commence with 1538, between which date and 1557 no entry has been made. Probably the book was brought into use again in Queen Mary’s reign, and was not used afterwards. It seems as if when this new book was purchased the entries up to 1446 were copied into it from the old book, and that the subsequent records were written as they occurred. Bartholomew Yate, merchant of the Staple of the town of Calais, was probably father or uncle of the Rev. Peter Yate, M.A., the vicar, who was instituted on May 16, 1514, and resigned, his successor being instituted on January 2, 1521.
I presume that this service book would still be legal evidence of the facts it records. It is not often that men can see the actual entries recording the death of ancestors up to twenty, and probably twenty-five generations, as in all likelihood John Hyde (1135) and Rodolph Hyde (1156) were ancestors of Sir Richard Hyde, whose descendant I am.
If any of your readers can give me information respecting John Bernard, John Hyde (1135), and Rodolph Hyde (1156), I shall be greatly obliged. Henry Barry Hyde.
5, Eaton Rise, Ealing, W.
‘The Dictionary of National Biography.’ (See 6th S. xi. 105, 443; xii. 321; 7th S. i. 25, 82, 342, 378; ii, 102, 324, 355; iii. 101, 382; iv. 123, 325, 422.)—If your correspondent W. C. B. will be good enough to look again at my article upon Crabbe, he will see that I have mentioned the poet’s father, George Crabbe, who was the saltmaster at Aldeburgh. I must confess, however, that the passage is a little obscure, owing to the identity of name between the poet, his father, and his grandfather. Whilst I am writing, may I say that I am much obliged to W. C. B. and to other correspondents who have pointed out errata or omissions in the ‘Dictionary’? The errata shall be put right at the first opportunity. In regard to the omissions, I would make another suggestion. It is very difficult to make sure that one has noted all the passages bearing upon any life to which a reference might properly be given. I will confess, for example, that I was not aware that Watts had said anything about Cowley; though I may add that, had I known it, I am not sure that I should have thought it worth mentioning. It would be a great advantage to us if gentlemen would send us beforehand any references which are likely to be overlooked. I would take care they should be properly attended to. We are now employed upon the letter G; but there would also be time to insert references for F, E, or the greater part of D. If, therefore, any one who can give us hints for lives in that part of the alphabet would communicate them to me, or (if you would allow it) to you, for publication in your columns, it would make the book more perfect, and do us a real service. If I remember rightly, Prof. Mayor made such a suggestion in your pages when we were starting, and I should be very glad if it could be taken up. Leslie Stephen.
15, Waterloo Place.
Trees as Boundaries.—In the museum at Carlisle is a small piece of wood labelled “Piece of the last tree of Inglewood Forest, a noble old oak which for upwards of 600 years was recognized as the boundary mark between the manors of the Duke of Devonshire and the Dean and Chapter of Carlisle, also the parishes of Hesket and St. Cuthbert’s, Carlisle.” In the same collection there is also a sketch of the capon tree, a branchless trunk, perfectly bare, and without a twig or leaf. It was situate near to Brampton, and in olden times it was customary for the High Sheriff of Cumberland to meet the Judges of Assize, when they partook of a luncheon beneath its spreading branches. The sketch of the old tree was taken so long since as the year 1833, by the Rev. W. Ford, B.A., the author of ‘Ford’s Guide to the Lakes.’ There can be little doubt but that this practice of defining boundaries is a surviual, or rather a continuation, of customs introduced into this country by the Roman colonists. There is ample testimony in authenticated writings of their surveyors to this fact. Trees were among the objects frequently devoted to terminal uses, and were naturally selected from those in the immediate neighbourhood; for example, at Constantinople, date, almond, and quince were the trees planted, and in Carthage and its vicinity the olive and elder are among those selected. The oak, the yew, and others indigenous to the soil would naturally be those devoted to such a purpose in the province of Britain. An isolated tree would form a terminus; this circumstance would of itself give to it a distinct appropriation. Tree worshipping by the Romans is referred to by many writers of olden time; the superstition has descended, and finds an illustration in the yew tree, so common in the churchyards of our own day. It was ever associated with death and the passage of the soul of the departed to its new abode. The oak is thoroughly our own. It is referred to, with others, in the laws of the Christian emperors. Statius, too, writes
It would be extremely interesting to have a record of other illustrations in this country of the application of trees to such a purpose, for there are doubtless many. John E. Price, F.S.A.
- ↑ ‘Theb.’ lib. 9, v. 585.
