the title-leaf of 1637, reprinted it with the list of characters as then given - now ascribed to Rowe! - and an advertisement of some of his own publications, among which are six plays.

It might be unsafe to adopt this conclusion from one instance, but other copies tell the same tale. It required more than twice seven years to sell off an impression of the Merchant of Venice.

I proceed to treat of Macbeth. A List of plays altered from Shakspeare, formed by Steevens with the assistance of Reed, was printed in the annotated editions of 1790, 1793, 1803, etc.

In that list I find but one edition of Macbeth before the year 1675. It is thus described

Macbeth, a tragedy, with all the alterations, amendments, additions, and new songs; as it is now acted at the Duke's Theatre. By Sir William D'Avenant. 1674. 4to.

Now, I affirm that there is no edition of Macbeth so entitled, and that three altered editions of the play were printed at that period-which, to speak bibliographically, are omitted. I transcribe the titles from copies in my own possession

(1.) Macbeth: a tragedy. Acted at the Dukes-Theatre. London, printed for William Cademan at the Popes

Head in the New Exchange, in the Strand. 1673. 40.

pp. 4+68 = 72.

(2.) Macbeth, a tragedy. With all the alterations, amendments, additions, and new songs. As it's now acted at the Dukes Theatre. London, printed for P. Chetwin, and are to be sold by most booksellers, 1674. 4°. pp. 4+66 = 70. (3.) Macbeth, a tragedy: with all the alterations, amendments, additions, and new songs. As it is now acted at the Dukes Theatre. London: printed for A. Clark, and are to be sold by most booksellers, 1674. 4°. pp. 4+60 64.

=

The edition reported by Steevens is anonymous. The name of Sir William Davenant, to whom Downes ascribes the alterations, should therefore have been printed within brackets. It is one of the indispensable rules of bibliography.

The three editions of which I have transcribed the titles attest the popularity of this splendid drama. Among the actors were Mr. Nath. Lee and Mr. Betterton. The editions of 1674 contain an argument of forty lines-which I have traced to the MIKPO KOZMOZ of Peter Heylyn. It is, of course, the story of Macbeth" than which," says the ingenious author, "for variety of action, or strangeness of event, I never met with any more pleasing."-Neither of the three editions contains the name of Shakspere, nor of Sir William Davenant, and it is due to the public to give some account of the contents of each edition.

The Macbeth of 1673 contains the received text of Shakspere, with three lyrical additions. At the end of Act II. Scene 2. we have "Speak, sister, is the deed done?" 15 lines; at the end of Act II. Scene 3., " Let's have a dance upon the heath," = 16 lines; and at the end of Act III. Scene 5., "Come away Hecate, Hecate, Oh! come away,"34 lines.

CHARLES MARSHALL NOT THE INVENTOR OF THE ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.

In an article on "Electricity and the Electric Telegraph," which appears in the Cornhill Magazine for the current month, the writer assumes, as a res adjudicata, that the name of the inventor of the electric telegraph was Charles Marshall, and indulges in a somewhat glowing eulogy on Charles Marshall's merits. I am not in a position absolutely to affirm that the writer is wrong, but having given perhaps more attention to this subject than any other person, I am certainly in a position to prove that the name of the inventor of the electric telegraph is still involved in mystery; and that we have no more reason to believe it was Charles Marshall, than that it was Charles Mackenzie, or any other name beginning with the letters C. M.

That the writer of the letter, dated "Renfrew, Feb. 1, 1753," which appeared in the Scots' Magazine of the succeeding month, is really entitled to the honour of this important invention, there can be no doubt; and from the fact that he assumes the above letters as his signature, there seems to be a strong probability that they were the initials of his name; but although that letter was first republished in the leading columns of the Glasgow Reformers' Gazette, in Nov. 1853, accompanied with some remarks of my own strongly urging investigation, and although in the interval my pursuits have been much directed to these subjects, I have not been able from that time to the present to discover any farther clue to the name of the writer.

It is true that the letter, having been rediscovered by Sir David Brewster (probably in consequence of its appearance in the Reformers' Gazette), and republished at his request in the Glasgow Commonwealth of the 21st January, 1854, elicited, nearly five years afterwards, a communication from Mr. Dick, giving what he considered to be good reasons for believing that C. M. was none other than a Charles Marshall, who resided,

towards the close of the last century, in Well Meadows, Paisley. Mr. Dick was led to this conclusion by finding that name in a list of subscribers appended to a copy of Knox's History of the Reformation, which was published at Paisley in 1791, and which had remained in his family. His uncle's name was also in the list, and he recollected to have heard his mother say:

"There was a very clever man living in Paisley at that time, that had formerly lived in Renfrew. He asked my uncle, as they were acquainted, to canvass for subscribers in Renfrew. The said clever man could light a room with coal reek (smoke), and make lightning speak and write upon the wall," &c.

Mr. Dick plausibly argues that the man who solicited his uncle to canvass for subscribers probably subscribed himself; and he says, "he thinks it gives some probability to the name being Charles Marshall," that he finds this to be the only name in the list of about 1000 subscribers which answers to the initials C. M.

Mr. Dick's letter, prior to its publication, was forwarded by the editor of the Commonwealth to Sir David Brewster, who seems to have given it a very hasty and careless perusal; for, instead of even doubting the writer's "probabilities," he actually assumes in his reply, as facts, that "Charles Marshall was a resident in Renfrew about the time when C. M.'s letter was written ;" that "Charles Marshall was a clever man"-that "Charles Marshall was known as a person who could make lightning speak," &c.-and that he was not only the inventor of the electric telegraph, but also of coal gas.

Now all this is pure assumption. Even Mr. Dick says nothing of the kind. He merely finds Charles Marshall's name in a list of subscribers to a work published at Paisley in 1791, or nearly forty years after C. M.'s letter was written; and he has reason to believe that a certain "clever man," who was conversant with chemistry and electricity, and who had formerly resided in Renfrew, took a special interest in the book. But then even Mr. Dick's inference, that the man who asked others to canvass for a book would probably subscribe himself, is little consistent with our modern experience in these matters: for where do we find canvassers for publications putting down their own names as subscribers?

I mention these things merely to show how readily even men of science and acute reasoners, like Sir David Brewster, may jump at unwarrantable conclusions when they do not take the trouble to study their subject attentively; and the article in the Cornhill Magazine for this month is sufficient proof how easily the public are misled by the authority of great names in matters of scientific faith.

That the Charles Marshall who resided at Well Meadows, Paisley, in 1791, was not the C. M. of

the Scots' Magazine, and therefore not the inventor of the electric telegraph, I succeeded in ascertaining positively about a year ago, on the highest possible authority. Through the kindness of a venerable friend in Paisley I traced out the fact that a Charles Marshall, who once resided in the Well Meadows, had come from Aberdeen; and that a son of his, a clergyman, was still living. Discovering the address of this gentleman, I applied to him for information: and he states in his reply that he had no doubt his father was the Charles Marshall who appears in Mr. Dick's list; but that he could not be the C. M. of the Scots' Magazine.

About six or eight months ago an anonymous letter appeared in the Glasgow Herald, the writer of which pretended to state, on good authority, that C. M. was a Charles Morrison-who was born in Greenock, resided for some time in Renfrew, and finally emigrated to America. The story was plausible; but, although the writer has been twice called upon to produce either his name or authorities, he has hitherto declined to do so. And from certain inconsistencies in his alleged facts, I have little or no doubt in my own mind that the letter was a deliberate hoax.

I have merely farther to state, that at the time when C. M.'s letter was first disinterred from the Scots' Magazine, and republished in the Reformers' Gazette in Nov. 1853, the most diligent search was made by the schoolmaster of Renfrew, who is also session-clerk, not only in the records of the kirk-session, but also among the old people of the parish, without a shadow of success: and, strange as it may appear, the name of C. M. remains at the present moment as great a mystery as that of Junius. GEO. BLAIR. Glasgow.

STRANGE PASSAGE IN THE HISTORY OF THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

The particulars of the following historical instance of the supernatural being very little known, we have thought it proper to supply the curious readers of our publication with the account in extenso. It is extracted as it appears in a very reverend old volume now lying before the present writer, and displaying the manuscript annotations of individuals long deposited in their final homes, though their thoughts on these strange subjects, as equally as ours, still live. The old paper and type, the rusty ink, the traces of the little acts as the reader sat and marked, and more especially the vivid notions of forgotten men, over whose graves more than two centuries and a half of grass has waved, and whose ideas, at this moment inspected, might have been those of any living man among us yesterday, are striking. Whatever may be thought of the absolute fact of the

apparition, the historical vouchers are so cogent, the attestations so respectable, and, better than all, the vraisemblance, and, as a lawyer might say, the "inner persuasions of the evidence" so perfect, that one might pause before really rejecting. Reappearing in various forms in biographical and historical accounts, which have come down to us from this period, we have never yet encountered the verification as produced very nearly at the time at which the appearance is stated to have taken place. In the coldest and most reluctantand, we may add, the most scientific of minds a feeling of awe will intrude as the fancy dimly glances at the possibility of such unbelieved-of

matters:

"A Postscript of a Letter of Mr. Douche, concerning the appearing of the Shade of Sir George Villiers, Father to the first Duke of Buckingham.

"SIR, "Since the writing of the premises, a passage concerning an Apparition of Sir George Villiers giving warning of his son's (the Duke of Buckingham's) murder is come into my mind, which hath been assured, by a servant of the Duke's, to be a great truth. Thus it happened. Some few days before the Duke's going to Portsmouth (where he was stabbed by Felton), the appearance of his father, Sir George Villiers, made itself visible to one Parker (formerly his own servant, but then servant to the Duke) in his morning chamber-gown. He charged Parker to tell his son that he should decline that employment and design he was going upon, or else he would certainly be murdered. Parker promised the apparition to do it, but neglected it. The Duke, making preparations for his expedition, the apparition came again to Parker, taxing him very severely for his breach of promise, and required him not to delay the acquainting his son of the danger he was in. Then Parker the next day tells the Duke that his Father's Ghost had twice appeared to him, and had commanded him to give him that warning. The Duke slighted it, and told him he was an old doting fool. That night the Apparition came to Parker a third time, saying: Parker, thou hast done well in warning my son of his danger. But, though he will not yet believe thee, Go to him once more however, and tell him from me by such a token (naming a private token), which nobody knows but only he and I, that if he will not refuse his journey such a knife as this is (pulling a long knife out from under his gown) will be his death.' This message Parker also delivered the next day to the Duke, who, when he heard the private token, visibly changed countenance in the sight of Parker, and inwardly believed that he had it from his Father veritably. Yet he even now said that his honour was utterly at stake, and that he could not go back from what he was so sworn and engaged to, come life, come death! This real visitation Parker, after the Duke's murder, with infinite wonder, communicated to his fellow-servant, Henry Seeley, who told it to a reverend divine, a neighbour of mine. From whose mouth, indeed, I have it. This Henry Seeley has not been dead above twenty years: and his habitation, for several years before his death, was at North-Currey (North Cray), but three miles from this place.

"My friend, the divine aforesaid, was an intimate acquaintance of this Henry Seeley's, and assures me he was a person of known truth and integrity. "JAMES DOUCHE,"

"Advertisement concerning this same singular and wellattested Narration.

"This story I certify that I heard (but a certain other name was put for that of Parker) with great assurance and with fuller circumstances from a person of honour. But I shall content myself to note only what I find in a letter of Mr. Timothy Lockett, of the same place as Mr. James Douche. That this apparition to Mr. Parker was, all three times, towards midnight, when he was reading in some book or otherwise quietly occupied. And he mentions that the Duke's expedition was hasty, and for the relief of Rochelle: then sore pressed. The rest is much what as Mr. Douche has declared. But I will not omit the close of Mr. Lockett's letter. I was confirmed in the truth of these extraordinary particulars, saith he, by Mr. Henry Seeley, who was then a servant with this Mr. Parker to the Duke. And he told me that he knew Mr. Parker to be a religious and sober person, no way given to extravagancies either of speech or thought: and that every particular related was, to his knowledge, of substantial fact, and true."

HARGRAVE JENNINGS.

FEUDAL HOMAGE OF THE STEWARD OF SCOTLAND TO THE KING OF ENGLAND. In Michaelmas Term in the thirty-fifth year of K. Edward I., the Lord Treasurer delivered into the Court of Exchequer an instrument made under the signatures of two Public Notaries, and under the seal of James Steward of Scotland, concerning the homage and fealty done to the King by the said James. The import of the said instrument was this. On the 23rd day of October, 1306, James Steward of Scotland appeared before the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, Lord Treasurer, and several other persons hereunder named, and did fealty to King Edward I. for all his lands, and confirmed his said fealty in all its articles and points by his corporal oath, taken upon the consecrated body of Christ, and upon the two holy crosses, to wit, the Cross Neytz and the Blakerode, and other holy reliques; and that the said James made a patent letter under his seal, declaring the manner and form of this transaction, in the following terms:

"To all who shall see or hear this letter, James Steward of Scotland wisheth health. Whereas lately, for the great trespasses and misdeeds which we had done, in divers manners, against our Lige Lord, the Lord Edward by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, and Duke of Aquitaine, contrary to the Homage and Fealty which we did to him, and contrary to our Ligeance, we rendred and submitted ourself, fully and wholly, our Body, lands and tenements, and all that we have or can have, to the Will of our said Lord, and he hath since, of his special grace, restored to us our said lands and tenements which we hold in Scotland. Wherefore, we have now done to him Homage and Oath of Fealty anew. We being quitted and delivered, and in our full power, do promise loyally and in good Faith, that from henceforth for ever we will be Faithful and Loyal to our Lord the King of Englund, and to his heirs Kings of England, and will bear to them good Faith, for Life and Member, and for Earthly honour, against all men that may live

and dye; and we will not be against them at any time, upon any terms, either in aid or counsel, where any thing may be treated, ordained, compassed or done, which may turn to their dishonour or damage, or if we know of it, that we will hinder it with all our power, and we will make it known to them without delay. And to the performance of all these things in all points, we have sworn upon the Body of God, and upon the Holy Gospels, and upon the Cross Neytz, and upon the Blakerode of Scotland, and upon several other Reliques. And furthermore, to the firm holding and keeping of the said Homage and Oath in all points, we do bind our body, our heirs, all our lands and tenements, and all that we have or can have de alto et basso, and wholly, at the will of our said Lord the King, and of his heirs: And we do will and grant for us and our heirs, that if it happens, which God forbid, that we or our heirs shall ever be in war against our said Lord the King, or his heirs, or in aid or counsel to any of their enemies, privily or openly, that our body, our lands and our tenements, and all that we have or can have, be from thenceforth forfeited to our said Lord the King, and to his heirs, in such manner that we or our heirs may never be able to claim or chalenge any right to the same. Furthermore, we will and grant for us and our heirs, if it happens that we be at any time hereafter against our said Lord the King, or his heirs, as is said before, that then the Archbishops, Bishops, and any other Prelates of England and Scotland, such and as many as it shall please our said Lord the King of England, or his heirs Kings of England, without any manner of tryal, monition or warning, and without any man's gainsaying, may give sentence of excommunication upon us and upon our heirs, and may excommunicate us, and put us out of the community of all Christians, and may put our lands under interdict. In witness of which things we have put our

Seal to this Letter. Given in the Priory of the Canons of Lanrecost, the twenty-third day of October in the year of Grace one thousand three hundred and six, and in the four and thirtieth year of the reign of our said Lord the King. Which things being thus done, the said Lord James, on the same day, came into the presence of his Lord the said King of England, and made Homage to the said King for his the said James's lands in Scotland, in the due and usual form. These things were done in the Prioury of Lanrecost, in the diocese of Carlile in the Year, Indiction and day aforesaid, in the presence of Adomar de Valence, and of several other persons of Distinction (named hereunder). And straitway the said Publick Instrument was, by the Treasurer's command delivered to Adam de Osgoteby, Keeper of the Rolls of the Chancery to be enrolled." — Madox's Baronia Anglica, Book iii. chap.

vi. 267, 268.

meron (v. 24.), tells of a murder at Antioch which was detected by a dog; and Giraldus Cambrensis (about A.D. 1200), who refers not only to Ambrose, but to Suetonius, De Animantium Naturis, adds the circumstance of the duel :

"Hinc cane dentibus armato, illinc baculo cubitali milite munito; tandem cane victore victus homicida succubuit, et ignominiosam publico patibulo pœnam dedit." Itinerar. Cambria, i. 7. * J. C. R.

ORDINATION FEES.- At p. 203.* of the Essay on Ecclesiastical Economy by the late Rev. W. J. Conybeare, we find two instances specified of a remarkable variety in the fees exacted by the several bishops' secretaries for the documents necessary at the two ordinations. It would be curious to have a full list of the varieties in such exactions, and some information on the principle, or rather want of principle, on which they are made. I give Mr. Conybeare's instances below, and add a third variation from my own experience. Mr. Conybeare's Essay was published in 1855; my own knowledge dates from a year later. Is there any change?

Worcester Hereford Peterborough

91. 48. 6d. 7 10 6

5 0 0

P. J. F. GANTILLON.

A NOTE ON CAIRNS. It is, I suppose, generally considered that cairns were sepulchral memorials, and were raised by every passer-by casting a stone on the heap, "which would be regarded as an honour to the dead, and as acceptable to his manes." The custom reminds us of the request of Archytas, in Horace (lib. i., ode xxviii.), to the sailor not to leave his body unburied:

"Quamquam festinas (non est longa mora) licebit, Injecto ter pulvere curras."

It is said that to this day there is a proverbial expression among the Highlanders allusive to the old practice. A supplicant will tell his patron, "Curri mi cloch er do chorne," "I will add a stone to your cairn;" meaning, "when you are no more I will do all possible honour to your memory."

Now this seems to have been a wide-spread custom; at least it is an interesting fact that it exists at this present time in Burmah. In a small work published last year, entitled The Gospel in Burmah, containing accounts of the American missions in that country, is the following extract from a journal: —

"On the way I noticed a large rock on the side of the mountain piled up with small stones, and in asking how these stones came there, they told me of a custom that prevails among all the Burmese. Every one who passes by picks up a stone, and throws it on the cairn: if they fail to do it, they believe sickness and other ills

* As included in the volume of Collected Essays (Longmans, 1855).

will befall them. It seems to be a species of worship to the spirit of the mountain, and they say the custom is very ancient. I stopped to see if my coolies observed the tradition, and lo, each one as he passed stooped down, and picked up a stone, and threw it on." - P. 218.

S. S. S. FRENCH PUZZLES. A mother gives her child a cup of tea to cure a cough. She then, in the following words, inquires if the tea has produced the desired effect. Of course the child is tutoyé :

"Ton thé t'a-t-il oté ta toux ?"

I have never yet found a person, however proficient in the French language, who, hearing this for the first time rapidly pronounced, could tell the meaning.

In consequence of final consonants being generally not pronounced, the French language has more words than any other which, being spelt differently, are alike in sound: thus affording great scope for the lover of calembourgs, or puns. For instance:

POPULATION OF OUR CHIEF CITIES AND TOWNS AT THE LATTER PART OF THE 18TH CENTURY.In The General Evening Post of March 20, 1781, the following is given as the

"Number of Houses in certain Towns, laid before the House of Commons by the Tax Office, by Order of the House, viz. :

"Exeter, 1474; Norwich, 2302; Cambridge, 1925; Plymouth, 1510; Lynn, 602; Oxford, 2316; York, 2285; Yarmouth, 682; Ipswich, 1246; Hull, 1370; Newcastle, 2239; Dover, 1193; Sheffield, 2022; Bristol, 3947; Nottingham, 1583; Liverpool, 3974; Bath, 1173; Northampton, 706; Manchester, 2519; Birmingham, 2291; Shrewsbury, 904."

This statement, having been laid at the time before the House of Commons, must be presumed to be correct; and on that account is worth renewed preservation in the pages of "N. & Q."

A return of the increase in each city and town to the present time, would, no doubt, form a

striking memorandum; not only as to population, but in regard to the increase of our national prosperity. Y. S.

Queries.

NISBET'S CESAR'S DIALOGUE: GOD AND
THE KING.

Amongst the very many curious books which belonged to the late Principal Lee, and which were sold by Mr. Thomas Nisbet last winter, was a little volume containing three separate works, viz.: :

1. "Manuductions to the Pallace of Trueth, by F. B. Observant, Mackline, 1616."

2. "Cæsar's Dialogue, or a Familiar Communication containing the first institution of a Subject in Allegiance to his Soveraigne. London, Purfoot, 1601." Black letter, back of title. with beautiful portraiture of Elizabeth cut in wood on

3. "God and the King, or a Dialogue shewing that our Soveraigne Lord King James being immediate under God within his Dominions doth rightfully claim whatsoever is required by the Oath of Allegiance. Cambridge, imprinted by his Majesties speciall privilege and command, 1616." Black letter.

It is in reference to the second work that I am anxious for information, for the address to "all sound members of that bodie whereof her sacred Majestie is supreme head," is subscribed "E. N.," and has been filled up in an old hand Nisbet.

On the boards of the volume is written in pale ink "R. Nesbit, May 1, 1649." Below, in a somewhat darker ink, a sort of pedigree occurs :

"Sir Patrick Nisbet, Lord Eastbank.
Robert Nisbet.

Revd John Nisbet or Nesbit, 1660.

Dr Robert Nesbitt vel Nisbet, M.D., 1700.
John Nisbitt, Barister, 1732-3.

James Nisbit vel Nisbet, 1778."

Then follows this notandum:

"The pedigree of my family for 6 generations, whose portraits are in possession of the writer hereof.

"J. NISBET, 1794."

There are several curious matters connected with this genealogy. 1. As to the writer of Cesar's Dialogue. The insertion of the name of Nisbet as author in an old hand, connected as it is with the fact of the book having belonged to a family of that name, affords a reasonable presumption of the correctness of the assertion. 2. Lord Eastbank, a paper lord, as the Scotch used to call their judges, was the father of the celebrated Sir John Nisbet of Dirleton, whose Doubts on the law of Scotland are deservedly held, even at this date, in great estimation. Now was Robert Nisbet a brother of Sir John's? The MS. pedigree would indicate he was. 3. The spelling of the name shows, if farther proof were requisite, that there was not any fixed rule, and that the names of persons might be spelt differently in the same document. 4. What has become of the " por