9*8. XI. FEB. 28, 1903.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
165
Jail-delivery. 1452, i. 244, " he was comyttyd
thidder be the justyseof assyseand gayledelyvere."
J. DORMER. Redmorion, Woodside Green, S.E.
THE ANTIQUITY OF BUSINESSES. The in- teresting reference at 9 th S. x. 503, s.v. 'Opti- cians' Signs,' to the very old firm of Messrs. Newton &, Co., of Fleet Street, and to that of Messrs. Dollond, induces me to suggest an interesting field of inquiry which has not, I think, been hitherto opened out in ' N. & Q.'
I refer to the antiquity and history of some existing firms engaged in trade, or of some practising as solicitors. There are many firms whose history is known since their foundation in the eighteenth century, and some who claim, and probably with justice, to go back to the seventeenth century. The publishing houses of Longmans, Riving- tons, and Murray are instances, and the names of many bankers will immediately occur to many readers; but among wholesale druggists and the analogous trade of dry- saltery there are also a large number. Of the former Messrs. Corbyn (who no longer supply goods by retail) date from earlier than 1730; and of the latter Messrs. Pott, of South- wark, claim to date from 1655 ! In many other of what may be called the old-fashioned trades there are doubtless similar examples tf.gr., Messrs. Twining and Messrs. North, tea dealers.
Several, if not many, firms of solicitors are of equally old standing, though, unless from internal information, it would be difficult to trace them. It would appear to be the cus- tom of the profession to drop the name of such partners as retire or decease and leave no one of their name to succeed, whereas bankers, merchants, and traders are only too glad to have the advantage of the prestige conferred by extended operations under the same well-established name. It is, however, I fear, the tendency of old businesses to be elbowed out of existence by stores, co-operative or private, and for the bulk of trade to gravi- tate to the largest traders. W. C. J.
"BURGLAR." This word arose from the practice, mentioned in the thirteenth century, of levying distraints on the household goods of burgesses, whereas such goods could only lawfully be seized or taken in execution for debts owing to the Crown or to certain privileged persons. In the ' Hundred llolls ' relating to Stamford (i. 355a) we have:
" Dicunt quod cum non fuit licitum ballivis [de Stanforde distringere burgenses ejusdem ville infra domos suas, nisi pro debito domini Regis levando, subballivi, scilicet Nicholaus Pot et Robertus le
Teynturer [et] Ricardus de Nassinton, predicti
Philippi de Scanburn, senescalli domini bomiti
Warran', per preceptum ejusdem Philippi intrant
in domos predictorum burgensium, distrmgendo
ipsos in eisdem pro amerciamentis et ahis quibus-
curuqne defaltis, capientes ollas eneas ultra locum
stantes, ejiciendo ex eisdem legumina eb carries, et
ollas easdem secum asportant, et ubi ollas sic non
inveriiunt capiunt ciphos de maserio stantes super
mesas eorundem burgensium, et eos asportant, et
hujusmodi districctiones [sic] faciunt in domibus die-
tor urn burgensium sepissime per annum, et hoc
faciunt in juste."
For references to burgia domorum, &c., see the 'Hundred Rolls,' i. 125b, 134b, 205a, and 327a. The passage here quoted seems to explain what is meant by burh-bryce in the Anglo-Saxon laws. S. O. ADDY.
SIR WILLIAM WALLACE. In the 'Chronicles of the Mayors and Sheriffs of London A.D. 1188-1274' (civic), we read that "William le Wales was adjudged in the King's Hall at Neuwouttel [?] to be drawn, hanged, be- headed," and so forth, 24 August, in the thirty- third year of Edward I.'s reign, 1304.
The * French Chronicle ' of London has, "At this time William Wales was taken in Scotland and brought to London, on the day of S. Dominic (4th August), and judgment was given against him to be drawn, hanged, beheaded, &c. (24th August)." In a foot-note we learn that the date 4 August "refers apparently to the date of his capture, as he was executed on the 23rd of August, 1305, the day after his arrival in London."
From another source, published by Con- stable, 1830, we gather that on the night of 5 August, 1305, Wallace was betrayed at Robroystone (the historic lands of which have recently been purchased by the Glasgow Corporation), and on the morrow he was hurried to the South.
Belfour's history of Scotland, 1770, when referring to the treaty concluded between the Scotch and English at Stratford on 9 Feb- ruary, 1304, states that in the following year, on 15 October, Edward granted a pardon to those he called traitors, but excluded Wallace.
Major writes that Caxton says " Wallace, in the three-and-twentieth year of Edward's reign, fell into Edward's hands." In a foot- note to Major's history readers are told that Wallace was executed 24 August, 1305. Ty tier's 'Elements of General History ' states that Wallace was put to death in 1304. From the last Marquess of Bute's ' Sir William Wallace ' we learn from the text that Wallace suffered in 1304, and in the corrigendum tins is made 1305.
Recent reading of 'Historical Documents, Scotland, 1286-1306,' brought me in contact
