112
NOTES AND QUERIES. in s. vi. AUG. 10, 1912.
1826, March 23. Wm. Catley (of Bristol) and
Ann Brodribb (by licence) (witnessed by
Thos. and Mary B.). 1828, April 15. Samuel Weston (of Winterbourne,
Glos.) and Mary Brodribb (by licence)
(witnessed by Thos. and Anna B.). 1833, Aug. 6. Saml. Bellamy (of Cameley, Som.)
and Anna Brodribb (by licence) (witnessed
by Thos. and [?] Sophia B.). 1842, March 26. Wm. Hammett (of Chapell Hill)
and Frances Brodribb (by licence). 1845, July 14. Thos. Brodribb (son of Jabez B.)
(of Cameley) and Frances Bell.
BURIALS. I. 1708, May 24. Mary Brodribb, dau. of Robert
and Mary Brodribb. 1724, Jan. 21. Robert Brodribb. 1729, Jan. 15. Mary Brodribb (widow). 1729, May 14. Jabez Brodribb. 1733, May 25. John Brodribb (sen.). 1747, May 22. Betty Brodribb. 1747, July 8. John Brodribb. 1750, Oct. 17. Mrs. Mary Brodribb. 1754, Oct. 5. Betty Brodribb, dau. of Samuel
and Mary Brodribb.
1759, Jan. 4. Mary Brodribb.
1760, March 9. William Brodribb. 1760, May 19. Samuel Brodribb. 1762, April 4. James Brodribb. 1769, March 21. Frederic Brodribb.
1774, July 26. Grace Brodribb (from Chelwood).
1775, Sept. 2. Katharine Brodribb.
1780, May 2. Josiah Brodribb (of Chelwood).
1784, May 5. James Purnell Brodribb (a child).
1785, Jan. 2. Elizabeth Brodribb (a child). 1785, Aug. 1. Jarvas Brodribb.
1787, Oct. 26. Ann Brodribb (a child).
1788, May 19. Uriah Brodribb.
1788, July 26. James Brodribb (of Chelwood). 1792, June 14. Samuel Brodribb (from Woollard).
1792, Dec. 29. Elizabeth Brodribb (a child).
1793, March 14. James Palmer Brodribb.
1798, March 11. Mary Brodribb (from Woollard). 1798, June 18. Matthew Brodribb. 1798, Oct. 30. William Brodribb.
1800, Oct. 17. Mrs. Elizabeth Brodribb (from Stanton Wick).
1801, Oct. 19. Mary Brodrib (an infant).
1802, June 18. John Brodrib (from Compton Dando).
1803, Oct. 26. Betty Brodribb (from Chelwood), wife of Joseph Brodribb.
187, Piccadilly, W.
A. L. HUMPHREYS.
(To be continued.)
BARROW AT GOTHAM (11 S. vi. 48). The
barrow at Gotam opened by Mr. Bateman
was without doubt in Derbyshire. I do
not think he opened any barrows in Notting-
hamshire. I have referred to his ' Ten Years'
Diggings,' and various articles from his pen,
with a view to locating exactly where this
barrow was situated, but he does not give
any particulars on the point. There is no
doubt, however, that it was at Pike Hall, on
the main road from Winster to Newhaven
Inn, about two miles from the latter place,
and not far from Mr. Bateman s residence
(Middleton Hall). His description of the
opening may be found on p. 104 of 'Vestiges
of the Antiquities of Derbyshire.'
The writer in the ' Victoria History of Nottinghamshire ' is evidently in error in assuming that the barrow opened by Mr. Bateman was at Gotham in that county. CHARLES DRURY.
EMPLOYMENT OF COUNSEL IN TRIAL FOB TREASON (11 S. vi. 49). MR. WILLCOCK asks what was the rule in the seventeenth century in England with regard to the employment of counsel by persons accused of treason. Not until the passing of the Act 7 & 8 Gul. III. c. 3, on 21 Jan., 1696, were such persons entitled " to have counsel learned in the law assigned them." This statute reformed and regulated trials for treason in other important respects. When Lord Russell was tried, in 1683, he had to examine and cross-examine witnesses him- self without any professional assistance ; nor had he counsel to address the jury in his behalf. As far as facts were concerned, he had to prove or disprove them as best he could. But when he was able, being a well-educated m4n, to raise a point of law, he demanded, and was allowed, to be heard by counsel. These he named : Pollexfen, Holt, and Ward. The report of the trial implies that they had not been present in court. They were called in, were informed by the presiding judge of the question at issue, and argued it then and there, appa- rently, on the spur of the moment. No other extraneous help did Lord Russell receive from first to last, except at the close of the case for the Crown, when Lord Chief Justice Pemberton fairly and courte- ously explained the evidence which he had to rebut. It may be assumed, I imagine, that Lord Russell had all the legal assistance allowed by the law at that time.
MR. WILLCOCK suggests that " it was regarded as a sacred duty on the part of judges to advise prisoners on legal matters that affected their interests," and that this fact diminished the need for the employment of counsel. In the present day judges are both just and independent. But it may be said of the Stuart judges, from the time of James I. to the Act of Settlement, that only some of them were just, and none were independent. On this point Hallam has much to say. The Stuart judges held their offices, not " quamdiu se bene gesserint,"
