the following remarks not out of place. The earliest representation of the Stone I am acquainted with, is a woodcut in the Gentleman's Magazine for December, 1750, p. 548., entitled:

"A representation of the triangular monumental Stone of William Rufus (in the parish of Minstead) in the New Forest, Hampshire, instead of the oak which always produced green leaves at Christmas Tide, and was cut down about the year 1737 or 1738."

On the top of the column is a round ball, supported on a bottle-shaped stem, and the inscriptions on the three sides are printed seriatim. In the same work for the year 1816, part i. p. 111., in some "Notes of a Journey to the Isle of Wight in June, 1753," the writer says:

" I hired a boy to guide me to King Rufus's Stone, which has three sides like a prism, and a ball at top. I copied the writing on each side, letter for letter."

The inscriptions are then again printed, which vary slightly from the copy given in 1750. Again, in the same periodical for 1786, part ii. p. 753., is a small engraving of the Stone, drawn in 1784, by J. P. Andrews, who describes the monument as five feet ten inches in height, and each side one foot ten inches wide. A third copy of the inscriptions is here given, line by line, and is perfectly accurate, except that the date A.D. 1745, which ought to stand at the head of the inscription on the third side of the column, is transposed to the end of the second, and printed A.D. 1143, and thence ought to be hence. In the Beauties of England and Wales, compiled by E. W. Brayley and J. Britton, in 1804-5, p. 176., we have the following remarks made on Rufus's Oak:

at Canterton,

" Another celebrated oak, and noted also for its premature vegetation, was formerly standing near Stony Cross, a little to the north of Castle Malwood, and traditionally said to be the very tree against which the arrow glanced that was shot by Tyrrel, and caused the death of William Rufus. This tree had become so decayed and mutilated about sixty years ago, that the late Lord Delawarr, to preserve the remembrance of the spot, had a triangular stone erected, about five feet high, and inscribed thus

"in

Then follows the inscription, which is correct, with the exception of reading, first side, "on the breast" for the breast;" second side, omitting "is" after "as;" and third side, reading "had" for "has;" all three of which mistakes (with several others) are in the copy given from Old England. The last of these errors is important, for as the Stone was erected by John Lord Delawarr in his lifetime, he did not write "had seen the tree growing in this place," but "has seen," which he might very well have done, if the tree was cut down * in 1738. A proof of this also existed in a piece of the tree itself, which

was

* In the Gentleman's Magazine for 1789, part ii. p. 708., Dr. J. Milner says, that the tree having been

presented by Lord Delawarr to Dr. Lyttelton, Bishop of Carlisle, in December, 1751, as appears by a notice in the Gentleman's Magazine for 1786, part ii. p. 859. This nobleman (inquired after by JOSIAH CATO) was John West, first Earl Delawarr, created 18th March, 1761, and well known for his military services. Among other appointments he held that of Master-Forester of the bailiwick of Fritham, in the New Forest, and resided at Boldrewood Lodge, in the vicinity. He died 16th March, 1766, and his descendants continued to reside at the same spot, on a lease from the crown. In the year 1789, on the occasion of King George III. passing a few days in the New Forest, at the King's House, near Lyndhurst, a visit was paid by his majesty to Rufus's Stone, ne, accompanied by John Richard, fourth Earl of Delawarr, by whom the monument was then repaired, and a record added to it, both of the royal visit and the reparation. In the Gentleman's Magazine for 1789, part ii. p. 707., the inscriptions are for the fourth time printed, with the additional lines added in that year, communicated by Dr. J. Milner of Winchester; and in the Topographical Collection of the Royal Library, British Museum, are preserved drawings of two sides of the Stone, with these inscriptions, made by J. Allen in 1803. The angles of the column are represented as then much broken and worn away, arising partly from the fraying of the deers' horns, and partly from the destructive habit of breaking off fragments by curiosity hunters. It is remarkable, that in the drawing of the first side (which appears very carefully executed) the lines added on the occasion of George III.'s visit do not agree with the copy given by Dr. Milner. The latter reads, spot was visited by King George and Queen Charlotte, June 27, 1789;" but the former, "This spot was visited by King George the Third, the 27th of June, Anno MDCCLXXXIX." I believe this to be correct, and it is subject of real surprise, how in trifling matters of this kind such discrepancies should occur; for if this takes place in regard to monuments of quite modern date, what have we to expect in copies of ancient inscriptions, difficult to read, contracted in the forms, and uncertain as to the sense? Before I conclude, I may remark, that the copies of these inscriptions given in the Additions to Gough's edition of Camden, in 1789, and again in 1806, as well as in Lewis's Ancient and Modern State of the New Forest, 1811, p. 60., are not to be depended on; and still less so in vol. iv. of The Port-Folio, a collection of engravings from antiquarian, &c. subjects, 12mo. 1824: in which latter work is a neat engraving by Storer, representing the second side of the Stone, on which the inscrip

"This

worn down almost to a stump, was " at length privately burned by one William House, out of mere wantonness."

tion is correctly given. The only authority I can find for the insertion of the words "stroke " on the first side, and "the spot" on the third side of the Stone (as repeated in Old England) is a small local guide-book, entitled A Companion in a Tour round Southampton, &c., which first appeared in 1799, and has gone through several subsequent editions. In Gough's Camden, edit. 1806, instead of "the spot," we have "the place," neither of which words was ever engraved on the monument, if we may accept the concurrence of earlier and more trustworthy evidence. F. MADDEN.

RICARDO'S THEORY OF RENT.
(Vol. vi., p. 509.)

Sir Edward West was a fellow of University College, Oxford, and afterwards a judge in the Supreme Court of Bombay. In the Literature of Political Economy, by J. R. M'Culloch, p. 33., I find it stated that "the true theory of rent was elucidated in these pamphlets, which, by a curious coincidence, were published nearly at the same period." The pamphlets to which he refers are, An Inquiry into the Nature and Progress of Rent, and the Principles by which it is regulated, by the

Rev. T. R. Malthus, London, 1815; and An Essay on the Application of Capital to Land [by Sir Edward West], London, 1815. Mr. M'Culloch goes on to observe,

"There is probably no good ground for impeaching the originality of either writer; but, however this may be, the theory of rent developed in these tracts had been discovered and fully explained by Dr. James Anderson, in a tract on the Corn Laws, published in 1777, and in other works of the same author."

In p.

68. of the Literature of Political Economy, Mr. M'Culloch gives the full title of Dr. Anderson's book, which is, An Inquiry into the Nature of the Corn Laws, with a View to the new Corn Bill proposed for Scotland: Edinburgh, 1777. And after stating that "the publication of this tract marks an important era in the history of economical science, from its containing the earliest explanation that is anywhere to be met with of the real nature and origin of rent," he proceeds to give extracts, for which I must refer J. F. J. to Mr. M'Culloch's volume. In p. 70. Mr. M'Culloch

adds:

Smith's Wealth of Nations, vol. iv. p. 124. It is there stated that the Theory of Rent was first announced to the world in two pamphlets published in 1815 by Mr. West (afterwards Sir Edward West, Chief Justice of Bombay), in his Essay on the Application of Capital to Land, by a Fellow of University College, Oxford, and Mr. Malthus. A pamphlet explanatory of the same doctrine was published by Mr. Ricardo two years after. In page 574. of the same volume, Mr. M'Culloch corrects the preceding statement in the following words:

"I have since had my attention called to a paper that has satisfied me that this statement is incorrect, and that the honour of being the first to point out the real origin of rent, and to show that it is not a cause but a consequence of price, is not justly due to either of the distinguished individuals alluded to, but to Dr. James Anderson. In one of the works edited by this gentleman, entitled Recreations in Agriculture, Natural History, Arts, &c., published in 1801, there is a paper on the effects of rent and tithe on the price of corn, in which the true theory of rent is most distinctly pointed out, and traced at considerable length;"

which Mr. M'Culloch illustrates by very extensive extracts from Dr. Anderson's paper. A slight

biographical sketch of the Doctor is added, by which appears that he had "projected and edited" a weekly publication called The Bee, in which your correspondent states the theory in question is to be found; and proceeds to inquire who was the author of the paper in that periodical. I think it inay be reasonably inferred that it was Dr. Anderson himself, seeing that he is the acknowledged author of the Recreations in Agriculture, where the doctrine is explicitly unfolded; unless, indeed (as plagiarism appears to be the order of the day), he plumed himself in borrowed honours from some anonymous writer in The Bee. See also Brande's Dictionary of Science and Literature, art. "Rent," where the above circumstances are briefly stated. A. W.

Kilburn.

MARTIAL LAW.

(Vol. vi., p. 533.)

Your correspondent J. M. A. asks what is martial law; what its powers; its form, if any? And are all crimes cognizable by a military court when martial law is proclaimed? The latest authority on this head is that of the Right Hon. Sir David Dundas, Judge Advocate-General under the government of Lord John Russell. He was examined as a witness by the committee of the House of Commons, which in 1849 sat to inquire into the operation of martial law during the rebellion of the previous year in Ceylon. When asked if there was any definition of the powers given when martial law is proclaimed, he answered that he knew

further conversation with his workman, Sir Thomas learnt from him that he had been tolerably edu

his youth; and that he did not know who his parents were till he was fifteen or sixteen years old, when he was taken to Bosworth field, and introduced to King Richard; that the king embraced him, and told him he was his son, and moreover promised to acknowledge him in case of battle; that after the

written code to be found in the Mutiny Act and the articles of war, by which the land forces are regulated; whereas martial law is unwritten, and is merely the exercise of authority by the controlling military force during the interval when, in the judgment of the executive, it becomes necessary to suspend the ordinary functions of the civil power. Military law applies to the army alone; martial law embraces all persons, civil as well as military; it has no precedents nor fixed practice, but adapts itself to the necessities of the moment as to form, whilst aiming to administer substantial justice. In a newly conquered country martial law is the discretion of the occupying force previous to the establishment of a civil jurisdiction; in a disorganised country it is the substitute for civil jurisdiction for the moment during which the functions of the latter are paralysed: and being the only protection for life or property, it is an object of resort in civil as well as in military matters.

a

This monarch is said to have had three natural children, of whom Richard Plantagenet-the subject of MR. CHADWICK'S inquiry was assuredly the eldest, as he was fifteen or sixteen years of age at the time of the king's death, which happened when he was only thirty-two.

The story of Richard Plantagenet is told in Peck's Desiderata Curiosa; and although the Rev. Robert Masters, in his "Remarks on Walpole's Historic Doubts," printed in the Archæologia, vol. ii. p. 198., discredits the relation, it is substantially corroborated by the Rev. Samuel Pegge, one of the ablest antiquaries that England had ever to boast of; and in Drake's Eboracum, p. 117., it is stated that Richard knighted this son, when a youth, at York.

The story is briefly this: When Sir Thomas Moyle was building his house at Eastwell in Kent, he observed his principal bricklayer, whenever he left off work, to retire with a book. This circumstance raised the curiosity of Sir Thomas to know what book the man was reading, and he at length found that it was Latin. Upon entering into

battle was lost he hastened to London, and, that he might have means to live by his honest labour, put himself apprentice to a bricklayer.

Upon hearing this story, Sir Thomas is said to have allowed him to build a small house for himself upon his estate, and there he continued till his death, which, according to the register of the parish of Eastwell, took place in the year 1550, when he must have been eighty or eighty-one years

of age.

Here it may be observed, that this story of the interview on Bosworth field but ill accords with Drake's assertion that the king knighted his son at York. More particulars relating to Richard Plantagenet may be seen in the Gentleman's Magazine, vol. xxxvii. pp. 344.408., and vol. lxiii. p. 1106.

Another natural son of Richard III. was John of Gloucester, as is shown by a charter printed in Rymer's Fædera, vol. xii. p. 215., and quoted by Rapin, who says Richard had only one natural son: "John of Gloucester was yet a minor, when the king his father died. Some months before he had made him governor of Calais, Guisnes, and of all the marches of Picardy, belonging to the crown." This son is also mentioned in The History of the Civil Wars between York and Lancaster, a scarce work, of which I beg to be allowed to say a few words below.

Besides these two sons, Richard had a natural daughter, Katherine Plantagenet, who is mentioned in Sandford's Genealogical History (p. 335., edit. 1707). And in Banks' Dormant and Extinct Baronage, vol. ii. p. 273., under the title of Herbert, Earl of Huntingdon, it is stated that on the 15th Nov., 1 Ric. III., the earl entered into covenant with the king to take his daughter Katherine Plantagenet to wife before Michaelmas next ensuing, &c., "but, the lady dying in early years, the marriage did not take effect."

The History of the Civil Wars between York and Lancaster: comprehending the Lives of Edward IV. and his Brother Richard III. Illustrated with Notes and Copperplates. This work was printed for the author, by W. Whittingham, of Lynn in Norfolk; and sold by R. Baldwin, London, 1792, 8vo. The former part of the work was written, as the title-page informs us, by Edward Spelman, Esq.; and the latter, with the notes, by the Rev. George William Lemon, rector of Geyton Thorpe, and vicar of East Walton in Norfolk. The work

WELLESLEY PEDIGREE.

(Vol. vi., p. 508.)

It would be interesting, I should think, to many of your readers, if MR. HEPPLE, or some other of your correspondents, would furnish a somewhat fuller pedigree of Wellesley than that in p. 508. What authority is there for the match of Aleson, daughter of a Sir William Wesley, of the date of 1500, with John Cusack? Sir William's greatgrand-daughter, Catherine, was wife of Sir Henry Colley about the year 1550.

The best pedigree that I know of Wesley is in Lynch's Feudal Dignities of Ireland, article "Standard-Bearer," edit. 1830, p. 95., &c. Асcording to him the pedigree runs thus, the parts in brackets being excepted:

Sir William Wellesley, of age=
46 Edward III. Custos of
Kildare, tem. Henry IV.

I suppose Aleson, the wife of John Cusack, was the daughter er of the first Sir William Wellesley? The pedigree of Wesley, under Earl of Mornington, in Lodge's Peerage of Ireland by Archdall, edit. 1789, vol. iii. p. 67., and that in Sir E. Brydges' Peerage, of Collins, under Viscount Wellesley, is quite at variance with that in Lynch; but I presume the latter to be correct.

Can any one refer me to a pedigree of Wesley, giving the names of the wives, which are almost always omitted by Lynch? By that book it appears Walleran de Wellesley was in Ireland, 1230. Cannot he be connected with Walrand de Wellesleigh, who formerly held half a knight's fee at Wellesleigh, co. Somerset, which was held by

John Stourton, 7 Henry VI., or with William de Wellesleigh, who held and there 37 Henry III. The following is the passage from Collinson's Somersetshire relating to them:

"The hamlet of Wells Leigh gave name to a family of distinction. 37 Henry III., William de Welleslegh held of the Bp. of Bath tiree parts of a hide of land in Welleslegh, by the service of the Serjeantry of the Hundred of Wells, and lands in Littleton, of Wm. de Button (Esch.). 22 Edward III., Philip de Welleslegh held lands in the same vill, and in Dulcot, as also the Serjeantry of the Bailiwick of East Perret (Esch.). 13 Henry VI., John Hill of Spaxton held these lands and the same serjeantry, as also the office of the Bailiff of Wells Forum, of John Bp. of Bath and Wells, in socage, leaving the same to John Hill, his son and heir (Esch.). 7 Henry VI., John Stourton held half a knight's fee in Wellesleigh and Est-Wall, which Walrand de Wellesleigh formerly held (Lib. Feod.). The manor of Wellesleigh was given to the vicars choral by Ralph de Salopia (see page 383., circ. A. D. 1330). "- Collinson's Somersetshire, vol. iii. p. 405.

Oxford and Cambridge Club.

THE VATICAN PRESS.

(Vol. vi., p. 478.)

G. R. ADAMS.

I must strongly protest against J. R.'s endeavour to revive the Gretserian method of accounting for the notorious variations between the Sixtine and Clementine editions of the Latin Vulgate (Vid. Grets. Append. sec. ad lib. ii. Card. Bellarm., col. 1058., Ingolst. 1607). It is a very serious misrepresentation of the matter to speak of it as one connected merely with typographical exactness and blemishes, the work of printers' "hands, and not of minds;" for Pope Sixtus V. not only read, word after word ("ad verbum perlegit," Roccha states), the entire of the Bible which was published by his authority, but he himself corrected the errata:

“ Nostra nos ipsi manu correximus, si qua prælo vitia obrepserant."- Sixti Præfat.

It does not appear that a single copy escaped from his revision; and when the pen was insufficient, words were printed and pasted on. (See Kennicott's Second Dissertation on the State of the printed Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, p. 199., note: Oxford, 1759.) So far was the Pontiff from admitting, or imagining, that, after all his labour, a more perfect book might be required, that, "according to his certain knowledge, and the plenitude of his apostolic power," he determined by a decree of permanent validity ("perpetuo valitura constitutione,") that henceforward his edition "hanc ipsam" was to be received "pro vera, legitima, authentica, et indubitata;" and every future impression was to be regulated by it alone, and to be completed with inquisitorial, or