178
NOTES AND QUERIES. [9 th s. VIL MARCH 2, 1901.
Acton upwards of twenty sittings. This well-
known sculptor has recently executed another
statue of Mr. Gladstone for Blackburn. In
the Daily Chronicle of 18 April, 1899, appeared
a " talk " with Mr. Adams-Acton concerning
his Gladstone statues. The following ex-
tract therefrom may possibly interest MR.
McGovERN :
" I worked with the great advantage of having known Mr. Gladstone for about five-and-thirty years. Going back that length of time, I was in Rome, the holder of a Royal Academy travelling scholarship. Then I came to England, and was engaged upon some busts in Liverpool. Mr. Glad- stone had been speaking there, and it was decided that a statue of him should be erected in St. George s
Hall. I was asked to undertake it and he gave
me quite a number of sittings at least twenty, I should think. I went back to Rome to finish my model, and, as it happened, Mr. Gladstone visited Rome, and I had other sittings from him and other talks with him. You could not conceive a greater treat than to have him sit to you. He was charm ing, even when he was busiest ; and, indeed, it was an advantage to work on him, if I may so express it, while he also was at work. He was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and at Carlton House Terrace where he then lived, he put on the robes of thai office, in order that I might have the bettei picture."
I have a full-page engraving of this statue, which, I think, came from the Graphic. There was a smaller one in the Illustrated London News of 21 May, 1870. I have also in my col- lection a steel engraving by E. Koffe, and a group in bronze by Mr. Adams-Acton entitled ' The Widow's Cruse.' JOHN T. PAGE.
West Haddon, Northamptonshire.
This is in St. George's Hall, Liverpool. The figure is represented in the robes of the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer. It is in marble. The statue was unveiled on 16 September, 1870. Joseph Hubback was Mayor of Liverpool and was present. Huxley, Rolleston, and many eminent persons were also there. The cost was defrayed by a somewhat small number of persons. Some of the subscribers are living in Liverpool now. THOS. WHITE.
WHITGIFT'S HOSPITAL, CROYDON (9 th S. vi. 341, 383, 402, 423, 479, 513). It seems un- desirable that the explanation on 'The Admonition to Parliament ' should be allowec to rest as if there were any real doubt witl regard to the authorship. It is true Cart- wright wrote a subsequent piece called 'A Second Admonition to the Parliament,' whicl second piece was reprinted in 1617 with the original "Admonition to the Parliamen holden in the 13yeare of the reigne of Queen< Elizabeth of Blessed Memorie. Begun an in 1570 and ended 1571." In this reprint th two pieces are set forth in succession ; th
Admonition ' itself followed by the ' Second
Admonition' published by Cartwright. This
atter contains a passage in which the former
s referred to, which shows conclusively that
Jartwright did not write the ' Admonition ':
'The persons that are thought to have made
i / <-TT/-> fT>cafiQoa in wVnpn form the
them
two
Admonition ' originally appeared) are laid in
no worse prison then Newgate the men
that set upon them are no worse then the Bishops." This corresponds with the account given by Brook, and also with that in the ' Athens? Cant.' :
"Cartwright [say the writers of the * Athense '] returned to England about November, 15/2. John
Field and Thomas Wilcox were at that period
confined in Newgate for writing the famous Ad- monition to the Parliament.' Mr. Cartwright visited them in prison and published a ' Second Ad- monition to the Parliament.' Dr. Whitgift replied, and Cartwright again answered Whitgift. Ihis controversy occupied the attention and absorbed the sympathies of all the reformed churches." See also No. 3 of the list of Cartwright's works at the end of the article on Thomas Cartwright, where what I have stated above is further confirmed, and the authorship of the original ' Admonition ' again ascribed to Field nd Wilcox. I have examined at the British luseum the reprint of 1617, from which I nade the above extract and copied the head- ng prefixed to the 'Admonition.'
S. ARNOTT.
Ealing.
Reference should have been made to a long ind original communication in 'N. & Q.,' 7*8. 1x7501. W. C. B.
JESSE AND SELWYN (9 th S. vii. 122). As the & randson of Edward Jesse and nephew of J. H. Jesse, I would wish to protest against the groundless assertions of MR. ROTTON that the latter improperly made use of documents which he had, presumably with the assistance )f his father, abstracted from the Office of the Commissioners of Land Revenues, &c. MR. ROTTON says, "Whether Jesse returned the MSS. after he had made use of them I do not know." Also, "My father's impression was that the publication was unauthorized, and was resented by the Carlisle family. Of this, however, I have no proof." MR. ROTTON tells us that "some of the Selwyn papers still remain at the Office of Woods ; but as there is a question who is entitled to them, the public are, very properly, not allowed to examine them." I cordially endorse the "very pro- perly," seeing that MR. ROTTON ingenuously admits that a few unimportant documents were taken by his own father and are still in his possession. Edward Jesse held the office
