Page:Notes and Queries - Series 9 - Volume 6.djvu/567

9-s. vi. DKC. 15.1900.] NOTES AND QUERIES. 471 Herald supplied me. What his authorities were I am unaware, but I have never known that particular officer of arms put his name officially to a definite statement in writing that he was not certain about. So I con- fidently pass the responsibility of supplying authorities on to him, if he can be induced to enter this discussion. But one very general mistake I may, per- haps, be allowed to point out. With the exception of hereditary Esquires, those who are entitled to the description owe it to their possession of certain offices or dignities. But it should be remembered that it is not by virtue of their office, but because, when they were appointed to those offices, they were described as " Esquire" by the Sovereign, which action has conferred the right of being so described in future. Why the Crown has arbitrarily selected a certain number of occasions in which it has decided always to employ the term " Esquire," and declines to use it in others, I do not profess to state. I think a better way to enumerate Esquires by office would be simply to state that they are all those whom the Queen, in any commission or warrant, styles Esquire, "amongst whom are always the following," &c. That would give a clearer idea of the reason and status of the description. The assistance of neither the Queen nor the Crown is requisite in the making of a barrister. I now confidently leave the discussion to those members of the Bar who quote as authorities the writings of other interested lawyers, merely repeating that on such matters the'legal mind is hopeless. It even thinks and asserts that a solicitor is a gentle- man by Act of Parliament. A. C. FOX-DAVIES. Permit me to mention that, in my second reply to 'Age of Entry at Inns of Court,' I did not state, as your correspondent SIGNIA imagines, that barristers enjoy the right to the title of " Esquire," but, in effect, that the position is supposed to confer such a right or privilege. At the same time it must not be implied that I consider them not so entitled. Still, I express no positive opinion in the matter. The whole subject is an important and interesting one, to which I have given considerable attention, and, without intend- ing to be drawn into any personal controversy on the same, or any regard to the statements of modern writers, whether competent and experienced or not, I may, at some future time, give the results of my researches thereon, and deal fully with it, from acknow- ledged authorities, in these columns. On behalf of many of my brother antiquaries and others, I, however, take this opportunity of entering a very strong protest against any person assuming, without due authority, a quasi-judicial position, and presuming to determine, without good and sufficient evi- dence on both sides, and to name publicly in print, what individuals, families, or corpora- tions are or are not, in his or her opinion, respectively entitled to bear certain arms, titles, and so forth. W. I. R. V. THE BELLMAN (9th S vi. 350, 417).—The bellman for letters owed his origin to Charles Povey, of whose halfpenny post (1709) he formed a distinctive feature. When Dockwra's splendid penny post scheme came to an un- timely end Povey took up the idea, sub- stituting a halfpenny and a penny for Dockwra's penny and twopence. His suc- cess was very great, and very short-lived. Commencing in October, 1709, the scheme was nipped by the Post Office in May, 1710. Povey himself by his outrageous behaviour seems to have contributed to this result. The collection of letters by bellmen was, how- ever, appropriated by the Post Office, and continued for more than a century. The bellman was entitled to receive one penny for each letter he collected. In Dublin he seems to have further claimed one penny for each house at which he received letters—a device which was met by all the letters in a street being sent to one house for collection. In 1779, the date of Walpole's reference quoted by H. T. B., the bellman rang through the streets every night except Sunday. This dated from 1769. The earlier bellmen were very different. The receiving houses seem to have closed about 9 o'clock. Then the bellman commenced his rounds, receiving letters at one penny apiece. These he took to the central office, and thus the idea was something like a forecast of our "extra stamp" or "late box." (Here, for instance, the morning collection for London takes place at 10.30 A.M. But with an extra stamp it is always possible to post at the station oox in Lime Street up to 11 o'clock—that is, five minutes before the mail leaves—for delivery in London the same afternoon.) Three nights in the week—Tuesday, Thursday, and Satur- day—were known as "grand post nights," and on these nights letters were taken in free at the receiving-houses. On the other three nights the central office was the only free posting-house, the receiving-houses being entitled to claim one penny for each letter posted with them. The best allusions to the earliest bellmen