376
NOTES AND QUERIES. [9 th s. xn. NOV. 7, 1903.
But MR. HIBGAME'S note contains a start-
ling statement, viz., " that during excavations
for the Blackwall Tunnel a token was found
bearing the inscription 'Ship and Turtle
Tavern of Greenwich, 1640.'" For many
years I have made a close study of the
history of the district, and can safely say
that this is the only mention of such a sign ;
but, what is more important if there is no
misprint in MR. HIBGAME'S note the date
1640 is by eight years the earliest known on
any token of this series. Without further
knowledge of this piece I should be inclined
to pronounce it a forgery. In any case
additional particulars would be gratefully
welcomed. AYEAHR.
The "Ship in existence in 1640 stood "at the S.W. wing" of Greenwich Palace, and in the reign of Charles II. was " purchased from Warner, the King's bargemaster, and pulled down : but not paid for until 1712, when Greenwich Hospital paid 2,322L principal and interest, to the Warners." ' Hist, of Kent, Hundred of Blackheath ' (London, 1886), p. 65n. JOHN B. WAINE WRIGHT.
IMMUREMENT ALIVE OF RELIGIOUS (9 th S. xii. 25, 131, 298'. At the first reference MR. ASTLEY committed himself to two main state- ments. The first was that " there is no doubt
that the punishment was inflicted in the
Middle Ages," and the evidence adduced for it was a passage in ' Marmion.' I replied to this by referring him to works in which the passage in * Marmion,' and other pieces of evidence for the alleged practice, are dis- cussed and found to be insufficient to support the allegation. The second statement was "that such practices were not altogether un- known even in the last quarter of the nine- teenth century," and the evidence adduced for it vvas a romance by a Mrs. or Miss Char- lotte M. Mew in Temple Bar, It was the opinion embodied in the second statement to which I referred as an opinion " the sole ground for which is a 'striking story' in Temple Bar." MR. ASTLEY had, and has, re- vealed no other ground for it. He says that I appear not to have read the story, I sup- pose from the fact that I attached no im- portance to it. The truth is that I regarded, and regard, the "evidence" of a work of fiction as negligible. At the last reference MR. ASTLEY makes the charge that "dark deeds have been done, and perhaps are being done, by persons possessed of irresponsible power," thereby receding from the second statement he made at the first reference. As it stands, the charge is, as MR. ASTLEY well knows, too vague to be rebutted. He speaks
of "all the evidence," but gives none. May I
add, first, that the fact that " skeletons have
been found in very striking positions"
proves nothing, unless it can be shown that no less extravagant hypothesis than that the skeletons are those of religious buried alive is tenable ; and, secondly, that a myth is not necessarily the less ridiculous because it is " as old as Sir Walter Scott, and a good deal older " 1 JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT.
MR. ASTLEY would have made a useful witness for one of the prosecutions conducted under the Rev. Titus Gates. He asks us to credit the story of the burial of a live nun, (1) on the credit of a report contributed to a magazine twenty years after the alleged event; (2) on the ground that a popular belief in similar stories is a good deal older than Walter Scott ; (3) because skeletons have been found "in very suspicious posi- tions"; (4) because the tale is at least "a striking illustration " of something or other. The first Earl of Shaf tesbury being dead, not even a Papist much less a dog could be hanged on such evidence.
Those of your readers who may wish to see the genesis and history of the inhumation legend may be referred to an interesting brochure entitled ' The Myth of the Walled -up Nun,' by the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J. JOHN HOBSON MATTHEWS.
Monmouth.
SEATS RESERVED IN THE HOUSE OF COM- MONS (8 th S. iv. 286; vii. 204). 1766 is the earliest date given at either of these references for the reserving of seats in the House of Commons by placing some article of a mem- ber's personal property upon it ; but it can be carried back very much further. On 26 November, 1640, at the very commence- ment of the Long Parliament, it was resolved :
" That neither Book nor Glove may give any Man Title or Interest to any Place, if they them- selves be not here at Prayers/' 'Commons' Jour- nals,' vol. ii. p. 3G.
ALFRED F. ROBBINS.
"TATAR" OR "TARTAR" (9 th S. xii. 185). Your correspondent L. L. K., in quoting my statement in the 'Destruction of the Greek Empire/ is not quite accurate. I mention that 1 adopt the conclusion of Dr. S. W. Koelle that Tatar is an " incorrect spelling, due mainly to the fact that this form of the word comes to us from the Chinese, who cannot pronounce the letter r." L. L. K. for " due mainly to the fact " substitutes "learnt." The word "mainly" implies that I am aware that there are other reasons why Tatar is an i incorrect form. These reasons are fully set
