452
NOTES AND QUERIES. [9 th s. VIL JUNE 8, 1901.
gatiori, that those who assert Cartwright is
not responsible for * An Admonition to -Par-
liament' did not take sufficient trouble to
examine with care the evidence I now
adduce, if they ever examined it at all.
MR. ARNOTT at the last reference names the ' Dictionary of National Biography ' as one of the "three more authorities." I am tempted to ask if he actually consulted it. If he did he could not avoid noting, as I have, the extraordinary manner in which the article under the letter W is at variance with, if it does not contradict, that under the letter C. In the first we are informed, "Field arid Wilcox were held responsible for it [' An Admonition to Parliament'] by the authori- ties, because they made an attempt to present it to Parliament " (the italics are my own), and we are informed they were committed to Newgate, 7 July, 1572. It will be observed that they were not charged with being the authors. Under the latter letter it is stated 'An Admonition to Parliament' "was the work of two clergymen, Field and Wilcox " So much for the lucidity of the ' Dictionary of National Biography.' Although I was con- vinced both 'Admonitions 1 give evidence, in style, manner of expression, and thought, of having their birth in the same person, yet I have not rested on that alone, but have offered evidence which it will, I think, be difficult to overturn. Nevertheless I am open to correction and conviction when more satisfactory proof is adduced.
ALFRED CHAS. JONAS.
AGE OF ENTRY AT INNS OF COURT (9 tb S. vi. 107, 195, 278, 333 ; vii. 17). It may be beyond the intended scope of the original query, but the following extracts from (Sir Thos. Elyot's 'Governour,' 1531 (ed. H. H. S. Crofts, 1883), seem to touch on the matter from a slightly different point of view the social and are much earlier than the quotation at the first reference, which was from 1593, and about Wentworth :
"Wherefore lete men replie as they list, but, in myne opinion, men be wonderfully disceyued no we A dayes, (I dare nat saye with the persuasion of auarice,) that do put their children at the age of XIII1 or XV yeres to the studie of the lawes of the realme of Englaude" (I.e., i. 132).
"Than children at X11I1 or XV yeres olde, in whiche tynie springeth courage, set all in pleasure, and pleasure is in nothyng that is nat facile or elegaunt, beyng brought to the most difficulte and graue lernyng whiche hath no thinge illecebrouse or delicate to tickyll their tender wyttes and alure them to studie (onles it be lucre, whiche a gentyll witte lytle estemeth,) the more parte, vainquisshed with tediousnesse, do guye them to gamyng and other (as I mought saye) idle busynesse nowe called pastymes ; or els if they be in any wyse therto
constrayned, they apprehendyng a piece therof , as
if they beyng longe in a derke dungeon onely dyd
se by the light of a candell, than if after XX 'or
XXX yeres studie they happen to come amonge
wyse men, hering maters commented of concerning a
publike weale or outwarde affaires betwene princes,
they no lasse be astonied than if commyng out of a
darke house at noone dayes they were sodaynly
striken in the eyen with a bright sonne beame.
But I speke nat this in reproche of lawyers "
(l.c., 136-7).
" But to resorte unto lawyars. I thinke verily if children were broughte uppe as I have written, and continually were retayned in the right studie of very philosophy until they passed the age of XXI yeres, and then set to the lawes of this realme (being ones brought to a more certayne and compendiouse studie, and either in englisshe, latine, or good french, written in a more dene and elegant stile) undoughtedly they shuJd become men of so excel- lent wisedome that throughout all the worlde shulde be founden in no commune weale more noble counsaylours " (I.e., 141-3).
There is, of course, no proof in this, but it must have been customary to put lads to the law in these early days, or Elyot would not have said so much about it. I would recom- mend to your first correspondent a reading of the volumes quoted. S. L. PETTY.
Ulverston.
DUKE OF NORMANDY (9 th S. vii. 329). The Kings of England from William I. to Henry III. used the titles of King of England and Duke of Normandy. Normandy was invaded by Philip, King of France, in 1203, and conquered by him the next year. It was formally resigned by King John in 1206, but reclaimed by Henry III. in 1223. Edward I. gave up all claim to the duchy, and changed the titles to King of England, Lord of Ire- land, and Duke of Aquitaine, which were used by his son Edward II. Edward III. claimed the crown of France ; the titles were again altered to King of England and France (the dukedoms of Normandy and Aquitaine would merge in this title), and Lord of Ireland, and these were continued to Henry VII. During the reigns from Henry VIII. to Queen Elizabeth the title of Lord of Ireland ceased, and King and Queen takes its place. The Stuart dynasty added Scotland. From George I. to George III. they were styled King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Duke of Brunswick, Lunenburg, &c., but on 1 January, 1801, the title of King of France was dropped.
JOHN KADCLIFFE.
ARMS OF SCOTLAND (9 th S. vii. 368). Sir J. Balfour Paul (Lyon) says, in his 'Heraldry in Relation to Scottish History and Art,' that the enactment of 1471 was never carried into effect, and that he knows of no instance of
