Mathew], Archbishop of York, has freely given and sent to Bristol a great number of books as aforesaid, gave and enffeoffed to the mayor and divers other citizens and burgesses of Bristol a tenement, with certain walks and rooms thereunto belonging, adjoyning on the town wall near Avon Marsh in Bristol, to hold to them and their heirs for ever to the only intent and purpose that they and their heirs shall from time to time for ever convert and employ the said house for a library and place for keeping of books for learned, studious, and well-disposed people to use and resort to at all times convenient, and that the said Robert and his heirs may have free way through and into the same, and that when the said ffeoffs should come to the number of 6, 5, or 4, then they to grant it to 24 such others as the mayor and aldermen of Bristol shall think fitt, and if the house be converted to any other use then the grant to be void, and further that the vicar of St. Leonard's for the time being shall have the keeping of the same, if he has secured the degree of a graduate in the university and his religion answerable thereunto."

Though the house here spoken of was rebuilt in 1740, the library has had continued existence, and in 1876 came under the operation of the Act.

Free Public Library, Bristol.

JOHN TAYLOR,

City Librarian.

1917. THE FRY COLLECTION OF BIBLES. (See No. 1839.) As a fitting sequel to what has appeared upon this subject, the following statement by Dr. Wright, editorial superintendent, is transferred from the Bible Society Reporter, March, 1890, to our pages:

The Fry Library of British Bibles, complete and intact, is now the property of the British and Foreign Bible Society.

When the books were offered it was necessary for some one to assume the responsibility of purchasing or rejecting them. None of the Society's funds could be devoted to that object. It was also a matter of uncertainty whether in the midst of incessant and pressing claims money could be raised for their purchase. It was not without some misgivings, therefore,. that I ventured to secure the collection for the Society.

If

When the finest collection of British Bibles-public or private --in the world came to our door, I felt that I dare not let it depart, probably, to leave our shores for ever. It was an opportunity that could only occur once; but by purchasing the books I should be taking on myself a heavy responsibility. I let the opportunity slip, I knew I should deserve blame for lack of moral courage. If I embraced the opportunity, I left myself open to the charge of imprudence by entangling myself with a burden which might prove too heavy. A crisis had come and I had to decide. In this dilemma I chose the more difficult path, but I was substained by the strong faith and generous liberality of

those whose names appear on the list of contributors, especially by the committee. One consideration weighed with me heavily against the purchase of the library: the danger of intercepting money which might otherwise be applied to the ordinary work of the Society, or to mission work. I made it clear that I wanted no money that was intended for the daily bread of the hungering multitudes, and any one who scans our list of subscribers will see that no good cause has suffered by their splendid liberality. Looking back on the whole matter, the result has justified the more courageous course.

The collection, as it now stands on our shelves, is a monument in a double sense. It is the result of the Christian scholarship, the patience, the energy, the self-sacrifice, the heroic devotion to truth, the inexhaustible grace of pity of the wisest and holiest men who have lived in these islands, the men who had heard God's voice in His Word, and resolved that their fellow-men should hear it too. They saw the danger that beset them, but they were bravely daring, and in the lowly service of translation work for their brethren, with whom all was not well, they became strong, heroic, and holy. This library is an abiding monument to their splendid gifts, their loyalty to God, and their devotion to

men.

It is also a nineteenth century monument to the large-hearted enterprise of their true successors who, in this metallic and deadening age, have given such princely gifts to secure for the Bible Society, and for England, this sacred treasure. To God alone be the glory.-WILLIAM WRIGHT, D.D.

1918. THE JERNINGHAM FAMILY, OF PAINSWICK.-(Reply to No. 1849.) Having read Rudder's note, I watched carefully during the recent restoration of Painswick Church for the memorials of the Jerningham family. A flatstone was uncovered in the chantry chapel bearing the initals "H.J.," but no other inscription was found. The stone has been removed to the tower. The only entries relative to the family with which I met in the parish registers, were as follows:

(1) Marye Jervelyngham, the daughter of Henry Jervelingham, baptized the twelfth daye of November, 1593.

(2) Henrie Jerningham was baptized the 25th July, 1611.

(3) Henrie, the sonne of Henrie Jeruingham, was buried the 9 August [1611].

Probably the stone mentioned above was placed over this infant's grave.

On examining the churchwardens' accounts I found mention of the following members of the family:-1664, Sir Henry J., Bart.; 1687-1704, Sir Francis J., Bart.; 1705-29, John J., Esq.; 1730-5, Sir John J., Bart.; 1736-47, Dame Margaret J.; 1748-56, Lady J., (no Christian name given); 1757-72, Sir George J., Bart.;

1773-1803, Sir William J., Bart.; 1804-32, Edward J., Esq. In 1664 Sir Henry J. was assessed at £200. The name is spelt in different ways.

Whilst out "rubbing brasses" in this county (Surrey), I met with a stone in the church of Great Bookham, on which was the following inscription:

Here lyeth Mary Iernegan, wife of Henry Iernegan, of Cossey, in ye Covnty of Norfolke, Barronett, davght of Benedict Hall, of High Meadowe, in the Covnty of Glocester, Esq.; whoe died the 30th of Aprill, Anno Dui 1653, leaveing him two sonnes and one davghter. | Deus meus et omnia.

The rector very kindly allowed me to make this extract from one of the parish registers :

Mary Jerningham, wife to Sr Henery Jerningham, Knight and Baronet, was buryed the first day of May [1653].

Public Library, Wandsworth, S.W.

CECIL T. DAVIS.

1919.- A GLOUCESTERSHIRE SCANDAL IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. The following remarkable and shocking episode in the domestic life of a Gloucestershire family of ancient lineage and territorial possessions has hitherto, through the silence of tradition and of the printing-press, escaped the knowledge of the public.

John Smyth, of Nibley, the steward of the hundred of Berkeley, and author of The Lives of the Berkeleys, in the time of King James I., does not appear to have been aware of the circumstance. It happened at the close of the 15th century in the family of the Berkeleys, of Stoke-Gifford, near Bristol.

Sir William Berkeley, K. B., of Stoke-Gifford, fourth in descent from Sir Maurice Berkeley, Knt., of Stoke-Gifford, (who was second son of Maurice, 2nd Baron Berkeley, of Berkeley Castle, in the reign of Edward II.), took to wife, early in the reign of Edward IV., if not before, Anne, daughter of Sir Humphrey Stafford, Knt., of Grafton, commander of the king's forces in the engagement at Sevenoaks with the Kentish rebels in 1450. By her he had two sons and a daughter, viz., John, the eldest, whose issue failed; Richard, his successor, ancestor of three several families of Berkeley, viz., of Stoke-Gifford, Bruton in Somersetshire, and Boy Court, Kent; and Mary, who married Thomas Snagge, of the parish of All Saints', Bristol.

Sir William affianced his son and heir, John, in marriage, at seven years of age, to a young lady of fifteen years, called "Katherine Ferrys" in the proceedings in the consistorial court of the Bishop of Worcester. Smyth, in his Lives of the Berkeleys, describes her as "Katherine, daughter of Sir Richard Deverox, Knt., Lord Ferrers." He was, probably, identical with Sir Richard Devereux, Knt., second son of Sir Walter Devereux, Knt., who was summoned to Parliament in 1461 as Lord Ferrers.

Though John, the eldest son, died before his father, he came to maturity, and had issue, by Katherine, his wife, an only child, Dorothy who died before 1509, s.p. But before he came to ten years of age, Sir William, his father, had criminal connection with Katherine, his son's affianced wife, and in due course she gave birth to a male child, who was named James Berkeley. Though pronounced to be a bastard by the vicar-general of the Bishop of Worcester in 1509, this James Berkeley subsequently possessed the estate of Bradley, in the parish of Wotton-under-Edge, and his male descendants became extinct in his two sons, John and Brice Berkeley. Sir William, in order to shield himself and family from the scandal of this incestuous intercourse, endeavoured to conceal the birth, and had the child secretly brought up by a man and his wife, dependents of his, at their house in Keynsham.

Sir William, dying in the latter part of the year 1500, or early in 1501, was succeeded by his surviving son, Richard, as his son and heir, who, by the grant of King Henry VII., in 1501, became perfectly settled in possession of his father's manors and lands in the counties of Worcester, Gloucester, Somerset, Wilts, and elsewhere.

Subsequently, James Berkeley, the incestuous offspring of Sir William Berkeley, having come to full age, brought an action in the Court of Common Pleas against Richard Berkeley, the lawful son and successor of Sir William, on the plea of his having unjustly taken possession of certain lands, &c.; whereupon, Richard pleading James's illegitimacy, the matter was referred (as in such cases) for inquiry, to the ecclesiastical court of the bishop of the diocese. While at Worcester, in the year 1864, I made an abstract in English of the original Latin record of the proceedings taken thereon in the Bishop's Court, and entered in the register of Silvester de Giglis, or de Liliis, who was bishop of the diocese from 1498 to 1521. It is as follows:—

"Inquisitio super Bastardiam,"

1509, July 31, at Worcester. The king's writ is received on the part of Richard Barkeley, Esq., commanding the Bishop to inquire whether James Barkeley, born at Stoke, in the county of Gloucester, is a bastard, or legitimate, and to certify thereon to the king's justices at Westminster. Upon which the Bishop, by his VicarGeneral, directs letters citatory to Thomas Wilman, Margery Ducy, Mary Snagge, William Betteson, and John Cator, as witnesses on that behalf, to come before him, at Worcester, on the 7th day of August then next. Accordingly, they appeared on that day, and were examined, &c.

Thomas Wilman aforesaid, of St. Nicholas's, Bristol, aged about 63 years, states that he knew the late Sir William Barkeley and Anne, his wife-Sir William from his boyhood, and Anne from the day of her marriage; that they had issue, viz., John Barkeley, their son and heir, which John Barkeley married Katherine Ferrys,

or at least was contracted to her ("disponsavit "), at which time the said John Barkeley was about 7, or 8, years old, and the said Katherine about 15 years old, at the time of the said contract of marriage; that the said Katherine had issue a son, called James Barkeley, before the time when John Barkeley, her spouse, came to ten years of age; that the said Sir William Barkeley, the father of John, the spouse of Katherine, was the father of the said James Barkeley; and this he states on the revelation and confession of the said Sir William Barkeley, and also of the said Katherine, because when the said Katherine was near her delivery, the said Sir William Barkeley sent for him, the witness, and for his wife and others, viz., Roger Ducy and Margery, his wife, and, having gained their promise of secrecy under oath, told them how that he had got the said Katherine, his son's wife, with child, and sought from them how he might avoid so great a scandal; that the said Roger Ducy and his wife took the said Katherine from the house of Lady Elene Barkeley, then dwelling in St. Philip's parish in Bristol, to the house of one William Silver in the parish of St. James, Bristol, where the said the said Katherine was, immediately after, delivered of a child; and that within three hours after her delivery, he, the said witness, with Roger Ducy and Margery Ducy, his wife (here called Margery Newcy), carried the said Katherine in a basket to the house of the said Lady Elene Barkeley, feigning that the said Katherine was ill with fever; and that the said offspring, called James Barkeley, was brought up by Roger Ducy and Margery, his wife, and that the said James is truly a bastard.

Margery Ducy, widow, relict of Roger Ducy, of Keynsham, aged about 60 years, confirms what last witness has stated, and says that she was the first woman who suckled the said James Barkeley, and that she was present at his birth, and that the said James Barkeley was brought up by her at the cost of Sir William Barkeley till the time when he came to years of discretion, and that she knows that he is the son of Sir William Barkeley.

Maria Snagge, wife of Thomas Snagge, of All Saints', Bristol, aged about 45 years, states that she is daughter of the said Sir William Barkeley: she agrees with the two former witnesses, excepting that the said John Barkeley was scarcely 7 years old when he was contracted in marriage with the said Katherine.

William Betteson, of Aure, in the diocese of Hereford (?), aged about 50 years, says that he knows that the said James Barkeley is son of Sir William, who beot him of the body of the said Katherine, wife of John Barkeley, his son; that the said Sir William Barkeley told him so, for he, the witness, had been his domestic servant for 35 years; and that the said James Barkeley is reputed to be the son of the said Sir William Barkeley.

Lady Elen Berkeley was daughter of Sir William Montfort, Knt., and by her late husband, Sir Maurice Berkeley, of Stoke-Gifford, who died 26 Nov., 1464, was mother of this Sir William Berkeley. She was living in 1474.