g s. vii. APBIL is, loci.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
295
marriage of Elizabeth, daughter and heir o
Edward, third Earl of Rutland and fifteentl
Baron Roos, to Sir William Cecil (Lord
Burleigh), second Earl of Exeter. His
son, William, Lord Ros, died s.p. in 1618
and the barony reverted to Francis, sixth
Earl of Rutland, who contested with William
Cecil for the barony, but, not succeeding, was
created by patent Lord Ros of Hamlake.
His only child Katherine married, first, George
Villiers, Duke of Buckingham ; secondly,
Randal Macdonell, Earl of Antrim; and the
old barony of Ros devolved upon her, and
the barony of Ros of Hamlake expired. The
earldom of Rutland passed to his brother
George, who died without issue ; then it re-
verted to his cousin John, father of the above
John. A. M. will see that he had no right to
the title of Lord Ros. I cannot find in any
of my works on the subject that Lady Anne,
his wife, had another child beside Frances,
who died 7 February, 1659.
JOHN RADCLIFFE.
BONAPARTE BALLAD (9 th S. vi. 349 ; vii. 193). About two years ago I heard 'The Isle of St. Helena ' sung by a centenarian, the late Mr. Timothy Hayes, of Cardiff, who well re- membered the time when Britain lived in daily fear (and Ireland in daily hope) of a landing by "Boneyparty." Mr. Hayes shortly afterwards died, aged 109 years. I knew him well, and had ascertained his age by careful investigation. JOHN HOBSON MATTHEWS.
Town Hall, Cardiff.
"MuNSiE" (9 th S. vi. 428). I have held over a reply to this query, in the hitherto vain hope of finding a mislaid French book about cards of which the authorship has slipped my memory. My notion, offered for what it is worth, is that the word is a vulgar Scottish corruption of "Monsieur." The three chief members of the French royal family were "le roi, la reine, Monsieur "- to quote the beginning of a sentence in Bossuet's oraison funebre on the Duchesse d'Orleans and the lowest of the three " court cards " may have been termed " Monsieur " in jocular allusion to this trio, not necessarily by a Frenchman or even in France, but perhaps in Scotland.
F. ADAMS.
PUBLIC MOURNING (9 th S. vii. 150, 174). The Undertakers' Journal for 31 January, in a spirited leading article, laments the change of public sentiment such as D. remarks upon. It says :
" Could some of the undertakers of the last generation know what we call a funeral in these days, it would turn them in their very graves
Item after item has been abandoned. Idea after
idea has been dropped, each meaning a distinct loss
to our business. As an instance, a leading under-
taker in the West -End, referring to the recent
death of a noble lord, confided to me : ' Forty years
ago,' he said, ' I buried a member of that family,
and the funeral bill came to 1,2501. Ten years later
[ buried another, when it came to just over 7(XV.
Fifteen years ago I buried a third, at a cost of 3*2W.
but the bill for this one did not reach 75/.'"
The writer then pictures a funeral of the past, and proceeds :
" The undertaker formerly took charge of a home immediately death entered its threshold. In that capacity he draped the house, provided shroud and grave clothes, as well as mourning for the whole family. He arranged a mortuary chamber, and pro- vided it with candlesticks, pall, and every necessary appurtenance. The funeral was a pageant. Mutes pre- ceded the cortege ; the hearse was drawn by four, six, or eight horses, with outriders and postilions. Each horse was decorated with splendid harness, plumes, and 'velvets,' whilst the body was encased in a shell, case, and oak coffin, over which was spread a handsome pall. How few of such funerals have
we to-day! Mutes, outriders, and postilions are
things of the past. A hearse drawn by more than two horses is becoming a novelty. For plumes there is neither call nor market, and the value of horse velvets, palls, and the like will be appreciated when it is mentioned that at the sale of the stock of the late Mr. Field, the eminent undertaker, at Aldridge's during the past month, the hammer fell on five pairs of horse velvets at 5s. for the lot whilst four excellent palls only realized 6s."
Is it to be wondered at that, in the existing state of things, so touchingly pictured in the above professional lament, butlers and the like, nowadays, sometimes go short of mourn- ing? HARRY HEMS.
Fair Park, Exeter.
DETACHED SHEET (3 rd S. vi. 266 ; 9 th S. vii. 11). The sheet described exactly corresponds to that in our copy of Littleton's curious old dictionary. The edition is dated 1684. The
D N.B.' (xxxiii. 366) seems to be in error
bout the editions" 1673, 1678, 1685, 1695, 1723, 1735." Rose's 'Biogr. Diet.' (ix. 292) gives 1678 for the first edition. W. C. B. says his is the fourth, 1715. Ours (1684) has an
mprimatur dated 1677. E. H. BROMBY.
University Library, Melbourne.
DR. JOHNSON (9 th S. vii. 88, 176, 237). I
- ancy Bos well was wrong in equating the
English Johnson with the Scottish Johnston. Johnson belongs to the patronymic class of proper names, and means the son of John, while Johnston belongs to the local class, and originally denoted a person living n, or connected with, the tun or toune of John, or St. John. Johnson could not become Johnston, though the latter might conceivably be whittled down to the English form.
