. N C., FEB. 9. '56.]
NOTES AND QUERIES.
119
rior to the wretchedly incorrect Catalogue issued
by the Society in 1839 and 1850. I would ask,
why is not a good and useful catalogue at once
prepared for the benefit of students ? I do not
mean a senseless collection of copies of title-pages,
but an intelligible list of authors and subjects,
which should enable the inquirer not only to
ascertain whether a book of which he was in
search was included in the catalogue, but also
what books on any art or science were contained
in the library. ARTERUS.
Dublin.
BARONIES BY WRIT.
(1* S. xii. 346.)
I have not been able to find a case that satisfied me, as meeting your Querist's question, which in- volves a point of considerable doubt and difficulty, but one of great interest. My notes, however, refer me to some remarks which struck me (bear- ing upon this subject), imbedded in a note in- serted in the Appendix to- a volume entitled England and France under the House of Lan- caster, 8vo., 1852, a work bearing the stamp of a vigorous mind and legal learning. Having in- truded upon their quietude, I think they may well be transferred to a corner of your pages, where they cannot fail to meet the eye of persons inter- ested in such subjects, and your Querist will be gratified ; for if the work in question is from the pen of a learned and distinguished person, as re- ported, they derive weight and importance, as proceeding from such a source. G.
" Nothing but ignorance, both of our history and our ancient law, would ever have led to any doubt of Sir John Oldcastle's being a peer. In that age the husband of a baroness in her own right was not only in practice sum- moned by writ to sit for her barony, but was held to have a right to the summons (Collins, Bar. by Writ; Maddox, Bar.); and Sir John Oldcastle, having married the heiress of the Cobham barony, was summoned to sit in the four last parliaments of Henry IV., and the first of Henry V. It is now settled law that any one summoned and sitting takes a barony in fee (or rather in fee-tail) ; therefore Sir John Oldcastle had such a barony, whether he took in right of his wife or not ; the only doubt might be whether, had his wife left no issue by him, las barony would have descended to the issue of another marriage ; probably it would not, for the summons calling him by his wife's barony might be supposed to resemble the calling up of an heir apparent by his father's barony, which does not create a new peerage, but only advances a person alioqui successurus. However, this is not the same case, though it may be a similar one to the marital summons, as the party so called is not alioqui successurus. The peerages of which we are speaking were said to be by the courtesy, and, like estates held by that tenure, only vested if there were issue born of the marriage. It must, however, be admitted that the subject is not free from difficulty. But nothing can be more certain than the existence of such peerages, and that Sir John Oldcastle enjoyed one is beyond all possible doubt. Considerable doubt prevailed in Lord Coke's time, and later, as to the
right of persons who had married peeresses in their own
right to a courtesy in these dignities. Lord Coke (Co.
Lift., 29 a.) will not pronounce any opinions, but after
citing two cases, adds, ' Utere tuo judicio, nihil enim im-
pedio.' Hargrave (note, 167.) appears not to have been
aware of the many cases of summoning by the courtesy
to parliament in older times. Lord Hale (MS.) expresses
no doubt of the title by courtesy. Com. (Dig. Estates,
D. 1.) seems to incline to the same opinion, for he speaks
of a dignity as holden by the courtesy, but he cites as the
only authority, Co. Litt., 29. Certain it is that no such
claim has ever been allowed (perhaps none has ever been
made) since Lord Coke's time." England and France,
Notes and Illustrations, Appendix, p. 371.
ALTAR-RAILS.
(2 nd S. i. 95.)
The absence of altar-rails is now (1856) thought to indicate a savouring of Puseyism. Save the mark ! Tcmpora mutantur,- indeed, one may well say, and a good many things besides The Times. In the moral as well as in the physical atmo- sphere
" Above, in the variant breezes,
Numberless noisy weathercocks rattle and sing of muta- tion."
The question of MR. Ac WORTH reminds one of the fitful changes of the popular mind as to ritualism. Archbishop Laud might perhaps have escaped with the cropping of his ears, had not his adversaries brought a railing accusation against him which cost him his head. Listen to the sturdy prelate at the bar of the Star Chamber.. He says :
"The thirteenth innovation is, the placing of the Holy Table altanvise at the upper end of the chancel, that is, the setting of it north and south, and placing a rail before it to keep it from profanation, which, Mr. Burton says, is done to advance and usher in popery. To this I answer, that 'tis no popery to set a rail to keep profanation from the Holy Table ; nor is it any inno- vation to place it at the upper end of the chancel as the altar stood. And this appears both by the practice and by the command and canon of the Church of England." Laud's Speech in the Star Chamber, p. 57., 4to., 1637.
Again, in the case of the Bishop -of Ely :
" He enjoined that there should be a rayl set on the top of the new-raised steps before the Communion Table, so set altarwise as aforesaid, which rayl should reach from the south side of the chancell to the north within, which the minister only should enter, as a place too holy for the people," &c. 'Articles of Impeachment against Matthew Wren, Lord Bishop of Ely.
It must be evident to any one who can count five on his fingers, that it was one of the heaviest charges of those heavy-headed and heavy-hearted folk the Puritans, that altar- rails were flat popery, and that the real, godly, gospel church was one which was railless. The charge was varied, like the counts in an Old Bailey indictment ; but they all came to the same thing in the end. Neal (His- tory of the Puritans, vol. ii. p. 221., edit. 1822),
