9* S. IV. Oct. 28, '99.] 349 NOTES AND QUERIES. tioned in the Scottish ' Inquisitions' for 1632 ? Four generations are given in the printed ' Inquisitions,' but possibly further informa- tion would be contained in the manuscripts (? at Edinburgh). I wish to know of what family this John Reid was, and whether there is any connexion with a William Reid, pre- centor of the church at Athelstaneford (near Hailles) in the year 1740. P. Evans Lewin. 14, Gery Street, Bedford. Delorme : Delarge.—Can any reader of
- N. <fe Q.' give information about either of
these old French families, especially the former? A Count Delorme, Chamberlain at the French Court, came to England as a refugee early in the eighteenth century and settled at Chester. Is anything known of him or his descendants 1 What would be a probable cause of his exile at that period 1 R. M. Perkes. Linipstield, Surrey. Judith Frere.—R. L. Stevenson informs us, in his article on 'Beranger' in the 'Encyclopaedia Britannica' that "a friendly hand wearied itself in endeavouring to mend his three bad shirts" during the days of his Sturm und Drang. She remained his faithful companion until her death, three months before the poet's. Was this lady a Jewess 1 Is anything known of her career f M. L. Breslar. " Purism " of Speech.—Can any reader of ' N. & Q.' tell me the names of any " purist" writers of the English tongue that have written during late years, or of any writer (if there be any such) who has devised any list of pure English terms, say, for sciences or grammar? If I remember rightly, there was a gentleman of—I think it was Swansea, who wrote a play in purified English about the year 1897, but I am sorry to say that his name escaped me; possibly some reader of ' N. & Q.' can tell me. For any information on any of the above points I should be ex- tremely thankful. H. E. G. Rope. Shrewsbury. London Churches.—Would some one tell me the titles and authors of books published giving an historical account of the old churches and parishes of London ? T. E. H. Ride from Paris to Fontainebleau.—Who is the Lord P—, a "wild young Irish lord," who, in November, 1754, undertook to ride from Paris to Fontainebleau in a certain number of hours for a wager 1 H. T. B. Replies. "THAT" ELLIPTICAL. (9th S. iv. 49, 176, 255.) John iii. 11: "We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen " (A.V.). The R.V. has " bear witness of that we have seen." " To do always that is righteous in Thy sight" (P. B. Collect). The point at issue is whether in such expressions that is demon- strative or relative. If the former, the rela- tive is omitted; if the latter, the construction omits the demonstrative. W. E. B., who raised the question, inclines to take it as relative, and therefore, as he says, " unemphatic." By this he shows that he means the ordinary restrictive relative that, which, as well as the conjunction that, has a slurred or feebler sound, as distinct from the clear, sharp sound of the demon- strative. Mr. Wilson rightly says that know, and not that, is the emphatic word ; but this remark refers to the sense-emphasis, which is foreign to the question. But besides the awkwardness of pronunciation, this inter- pretation does not suit the second clause of the text. For in the A.V. there would be an ambiguity, as that might be taken for the conjunction, altering the sense; and in the R.V. the construction would be an impossible one, as the restrictive relative that never admits a preposition before it, but only after, as in " the pen that I wrote with." Mr. Wilson also denies that to be demon- strative ; but, further on, he regrets that the R.V. did not substitute what (a change actually made by John Wesley, 1755). This seems to show that he has not in his mind, like W. E. B., the ordinary restrictive relative that, but that rarer and archaic use of it as employed instead of what. This usage is distinctly noticed by Maetzner, and classed as obsolete. In my reply of 26 August I alluded to this older idiom, and at the close gave itasanalternativeexplanation. Whether it is the correct interpretation scholars must decide. Both A.V. and R.V. keep, to some extent, archaic forms of expression ; and if there were no other instances in either ver- sion of the omitted relative, I should be inclined to adopt it; but there is at least one such instance in the A.V.: " Where is then the blessedness ye spake of ?" (Gal. iv. 15.> This use of tlmt = what would still require the same distinct or "emphatic" pronuncia- tion as the demonstrative that, which settles the question as to reading such passages ; for I think I have shown that the ordinary restrictive relative is inadmissible.
