NOTES AND QUERIES. [io s. XIL AUG. 28, im
for dabbling in the equestrian business. Later it is stated that
"after some difficulty Mr. Hengler succeeded in obtaining possession of the Palais Royal, as it was then called, and speedily converted it into the elegant theatre so admirably adapted for its present purposes, which was opened in the autumn of 1871."
Frost's book was published in 1875.
It is most likely that the paragraphist of The Daily Chronicle thought, as I do, that the first appearance of the Henglers in London as unsuccessful as the other was the reverse had nothing to do with the Argyll Street building, and considered that the opening of the Grand Cirque was virtually the date of the London foundation of their circus business.
W. E. HAUL AND -OXLEY.
CHARLES PIGOTT'S * JOCKEY CLUB ' (10 S. xii. 90, 135). ' The Jockey Club and its founders. In Three Periods,' by Robert Black, M.A. (London, 1891), is probably the history MB. BLEACKLEY requires. This places the identity of Sir F k E n, Bt., beyond doubt as Sir Frederick Evelyn. The manuscript note cited by MB. W. H. DAVID is incorrect : there was not a Sir Frederick Eden only Sir Robert and his third son the Hon. W. Eden, afterwards Lord Auck- land.
On the title-page of his posthumous work
- APolitical Dictionary' (1795) Charles Pigott
is identified as " Author of * The Jockey Clubs,' " but this is only a printer's error. He Also wrote ' Strictures on Burke,' ' The Case of Charles Pigott,' and ' Treachery no Crime ; or, The System of Courts.' These were published by D. S. Eaton " at the Cock and Swine," 74, Newgate Street.
" CULPBIT " (10 S. xi. 486). There is a certain " economy " in MB. HILL'S note. It is true that the ' N.E.D.' cites the 1717 edition of Blount in the terms MB. HILL quotes. It is true, secondly, that the legal antiquary of the seventeenth century was apt to write down his private guess as an established fact. But it is true, thirdly, that this explanation does not stand un- supported ; for the 'N.E.D.' (though no one would have supposed it from MB. HILL'S note) gives an actual instance of " non cul prist " from "La Graunde Abridgement, Collecte & escrie, per le Judge tresreuerend
Sir Robert Brooke, Chiualer In JEdibus
Richardi Tottelli 1586."
Brooke cites (tit. Action sur le case, pi. 78) from the ' Liber Assisarum,' 22 Edw. III.,
pi. 41, a report of a case of plaint by bill. A ferryman at B[arton ?] on Humber had surcharged with other, horses a boat in which he had undertaken to carry plaintiff's mare " oustre 1'eau de Humbre safe et sain," by which surcharge the mare perished. Rich- mond, counter for the defendant, argued that the claim " sounded in covenant." The judge, Roger de Bankwell, replied :
" Vous luy fist tort quant surcharge le batew par quoy son Jument perist. par quoy respondez.
"Richmond. Non cul prist, &c."
It strikes me that it is " up to " MB. HILL to produce some instances of " qil paroist " ; and that till he has done so Sir James Murray's single example outweighs the conjectures of the most eminent. I am somewhat interested in the point, since the phrase in Brooke was discovered after a tedious search, and sent by me to the Dictionary in response to the editor's request.
But perhaps MR. HILL will suggest that "non cul prist " is a misprint for " non qil paroist." His explanation of what that phrase would mean in this context will be decidedly interesting.
ROBT. J. WHIT WELL.
" BEC-EN-HENT," HOUSE-NAME (10 S. xii. 50).' This is the native name of my old house in Brittany, Commune de Tremeven, Finistere, where I lived many years. In Brythonic it means " The Point (or Corner) of the Road." Any Welshman would translate it thus.
I named my present English home after it, building the latter in 1906. Some of my children have also used the word elsewhere. B. BBOWNING, R.N.
LYNCH LAW (10 S. xi. 445, 515; xii. 52, 133). I can assure MB. ALBEBT MATTHEWS that, before writing my previous reply, I had consulted the article and book to which he referred, as well as Wirt's ' Life of Henry,' all of which are in the British Museum Library. MB. MATTHEWS says that the original term " Lynch' s law " could hardly have been derived from the name " Lynchy." May I ask him what would have been the difference in pro- nunciation between " Lynch's law " and " Lynchy 's law " ? M.
FIENNES or BBOUGHTON (10 S. xii. 123). H. C. is fully justified in saying that I had fallen into a bad error in calling the con- nexion between the family of Fiennes and William of Wykeham " mythical." Mine was yet another case, I confess, of the danger of not verifying one's references ; and I am