In reference to the Shirley family (see p. 400), A. B. observes :

"In 25 Hen. VI. W. Shirley was member for Ryegate in the Parliament then holden. Of the family of Shirley, the following have served the office of Sheriff of Surrey and Sussex, when the two Counties were under one Sheriff *.

1503, Ralph Shirley +.

1513, 1525, Richard Shirley. In those days it appears that it was not uncommon for a gentleman to serve the office more than once.

1574, Francis Shirley. Died 1577, as in p.

400.

1578, Sir Thomas Shirley, of West Grinstead. Died 1606, ibid. 1617, Sir John Shirley.

In 1531 the manor of Burstone, near Ryegate in Surrey, was conveyed to Sir Thomas Shirley the elder, of Wiston in Sussex. Supposing him to have been son of Ralph, or Richard, he might have a son at that time, and it is probable that this son was the Sir Thomas who sold the manor of Burstow to one Quarles, but having been Treasurer at War under Queen Elizabeth, and become indebted to the Crown, this manor, and that of Cotesbach in Leicestershire, were extended and seized; but on 24th April, 44 Elizabeth, Quarles obtained a grant of these manors, in consideration of 800l. 11s. 8d. paid by him. ‡

By a monumental inscription in the church of Albury in Surrey, in memory of the family of George Duncomb, esq. it is stated, that John his eldest son, who died in 1640, had married to his second wife Eliz. daughter of Sir Thos. Shirley of Sussex.§ This could not be a daughter of Sir Thos. who was called the elder in 1531, and proves a second Sir Thomas to have existed. Of Francis or Sir John I know no more than that they served the office of Sheriff."

We are happy to announce the publication of a Second Number of Mr. SKELTON'S Engraved Illustrations of Arms and Armour.

F. B. A. observes, in reference to the remarks of our Reviewer in p. 524 of our

* Manning and Bray's Hist. Surrey, I. xxx. &c.

+ Beatrice, daughter of this Ralph, was second wife of Sir Edward Bray, of Vachery, in Surrey, from which match the present representative of Sir Edward's family in Surrey is descended.

Manning and Bray, II. p. 282. § Id. 11. p. 129.

June number, that though Sir John Astley, the Champion, was only second son of a Knight, he was grandson of a Baron of Parliament (Thomas third Lord Astley, under the writ of 23 Edw. I.) and lineally descended from Philip de Estley, a Baron by tenure temp. Hen. II.

MENTOR is informed that the price of which he inquires after, Jan. 21, 1799, was 54.

The error in Lempriere's Dictionary (the word "Achilles" for Agamemnon) pointed out by Mr. PILGRIM in our last Volume, p. 386, requires no further elucidation, and is not disputed by C. W. p. 482; but can Mr. PILGRIM answer the queries put by the latter Correspondent?

S. H. remarks that "Curiosity is awakened by what is said in the Magazine for May, p. 401, of the Rev. Charles Joseph Douglas; it should be gratified."

C. K. asks if there is any such place as Feathercock Hall in Yorkshire. Lodge states it to have been an ancient seat of the family of King.

M. H. observes "I shall feel obliged to any of your topographical Correspondents, who will inform me where I can find any satisfactory account of Norwood in Surrey,to whom it belongs, and by whom it was planted. I have consulted Lysons' Environs, where it is merely observed, that a considerable part of Norwood is in the parish of Croydon. In a survey in 1646, it is described as being 830 acres, in which the inhabitants of Croydon have herbage for all manner of cattle and mastage for swine without stent.' Malcolm, in his Agricult. Survey of Surrey, drawn up for the Board of Agriculture in 1794, observes, 'The soil of Norwood is composed of a sandy loam upon clay or gravel, and is said to contain 600 acres, the greater part of which is in a neglected aud uncultivated state-250 acres is called an enclosed wood: no trees are, however, suffered to grow for timber, because they are cut or lopped every 10 or 11 years,' &c. These are all the notices I have found."

ERRATA. PART I.

Page 386, for Earl of Annesley, read Earl Annesley; p. 397, read Viscount Bernard, eldest son of the Earl of Bandon, there being no such person as Bernard Viscount Bandon; p. 416, read Earl of Tyrconnel; p. 476, read Peter Thellusson (not Thelluson), esq. of Brodsworth Park, co. York, grandfather (not uncle) of the present Lord Rendlesham.

66

MAGAZINE.

July 27. Ay the 1st of June, you issued an T your last Annual meeting, held Address, recommending to the notice of your Protestant fellow countrymen a Declaration drawn up and signed by those Ecclesiastics, who, in this country, are the Expounders of your faith." The document alluded to was entitled, "a Declaration of the Catholic Bishops, the Vicars Apostolic, and their co-adjutors in Great Britain." Your Address was conspicuously placarded about the streets of London and other principal towns. You have also forwarded copies of both the Declaration and Address to the Royal Family, to all the Members of the Cabinet, to the Bench of Bishops, to the Members of the House of Commons, and to the Heads of the Universities in England and Scotland. "With the view also of extending the circulation of the above valuable document (says your Committee's Report of the 26th July) in quarters where it would probably excite attention, we have procured its distribution, attached to the various periodical publications that issue regularly from the public press; and the whole number distributed amounts to more than 80,000 copies." The Irish Bishops had previously given a Declaration similar in effect to the above.

The object in issuing these documents, immediately antecedent to the Parliamentary election, was evidently to influence the votes of the electors, by attempting to soften down the odious tenets of Popery, and reconcile them, in some measure, to the feelings and religious notions of Protestants. It was intended to represent the Roman Catholic religion as the mildest and most rational, but at the same time the most persecuted on the face of the earth. Protestants are held forth to the world as the most heartless oppres

sors that ever disgraced society-whose prive a valuable portion of the comunrelenting bigotry continues to deinunity of all their political and municipal rights!

Unfortunately for your cause, Gentlemen, many of your assertions are founded on falsehood or evasion. Your statements and opinions are contradicted by every page in historyby the passing events of the last century-and even by facts which have occurred subsequently to the concoction of these precious documents. Even your own papal Church, in the plenitude of her eternal infallibility, would condemn your compromising spirit as a damnable heresy,' did she not imagine that this apparent dereliction was intended for time-serving purposes; and that when its objects had been effected she could grant absolution for the deed, or disclaim any participation with a production so contrary to the immutable tenets of "holy mother church.".

It is true that you have " pinned your faith" to the Declaration of those Ecclesiastics who are its "Expounders," (for who ever heard of such a circumstance as a papistical layman daring to expound his own faith?), but if you had not prostituted your understanding at the altar of papal devotion, or your principles at the shrine of temporal interest, you would have discovered that the Declaration to which you so obsequiously bow, would not be acknowledged by the Romish Church, which has declared itself immutable, infallible, universal, the deposer of kings, and the eternal enemy of heretics. In the reign of Louis XIV. a similar declaration was issued by the French Clergy, of which the most important article was the denial of all temporal authority by the Church of Rome. But did the Vatican assent to this? No. She fulminated her

anathefnas against the authors, whom she branded with impiety, heresy, and rebellion. Now as the Romish religion is acknowledged by all good Catholics to be infallible and immutable, the same tyrannical principles, and the same intolerant and uncompromising spirit which have been manifested in all ages and in all nations, whenever the opportunity presented itself, must necessarily pervade her Church.

To your heathenish and idolatrous worship, politically speaking, we are indifferent; you may worship the Holy Virgin," like another Juno, as the Queen of Heaven! *. you may offer " supreme adoration" to an inanimate thing of your own fashioning, and, as the untutored Indian exclaimed, you may, like cannibals, eat the god of your own creation;-you may continue to violate the express command of the Almighty, "thou shalt not bow down to any graven image, nor the likeness of any thing;"-all your besotted fooleries, which, in intelligent society, are by children questioned, and by men despised," may be freely practised in this free land:but whilst you acknowledge the supremacy of a foreign despot, whose predecessors have assumed the indefeasible right. of deposing kings, and British monarchs among the rest, by virtue of their Catholic or universal authorityno true Protestant, who values our national independence and glory, can ever think of investing you with political power and municipal authority, which on the first opportunity, might be directed against the interests of Protestantism and the State. "If once you could be brought (says Judge Blackstone) to renounce the supremacy of the Pope, you might quietly enjoy your seven sacraments, your purgatory and auricular confession; your worship of relics and images; nay, even your transubstantiation; but while you acknowledge a foreign power

*The Reformers happily checked the zeal of the Fathers assembled at the Council of Trent, who were on the point of declaring the Virgin the fourth person of the Trinity! however, that they might not pass her over in silence, they decreed to her the titles of "Mother of God, and Queen of Heaven," thus bestowing on her the title and attributes of pagan Juno. The ridiculous farce of addressing the Queen of Heaven was adopted by the late King John of Portugal.

superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, you cannot complain if the laws of that kingdom will not treat you on the footing of good subjects.

It is true, Gentlemen, that in your Address you "disclaim the imputation of dividing the allegiance which is due to the King." Your spiritual guides, the "Expounders of your faith,' have directed you so to do, without requiring you to offer any explanation. They, to be sure, have stated, among other plausible evasions, that by rendering obedience in spiritual matters to the Pope, Catholics do not withhold any portion of their allegiance to the King, and that their allegiance is entire and undivided; the civil power of the state, and the spiritual authority of the Catholic Church, being absolutely distinct."-If it were not for the subterfuge, to which it is well known by the Vatican these reverend timeservers can resort-or for the fear of ridicule and contempt-the Holy Conclave would not hesitate to proclaim these sentiments as impious and rebellious; and the history of ancient and modern times will prove their fallacy. From the establishment of Christianity under Constantine, the ecclesiastical and political interests of States have been one and undivided. “Church and State" have been considered as inseparable, both in Catholic and Protestant countries. A perpetual struggle has always existed between the Pope and the Sovereigns of Europe, which should have the ascendancy. Could the Pope and his reverend " Expounders " obtain political power in this country, their doctrines would soon appear to be the same as in times of papal glory, when the arguments of the priesthood, which none durst impugn, were to this ef fect: the laws of the Church and of 'Christ's Vicar on earth,' are the infallible and immutable laws of God; the laws of the State are the mere laws of men; the laws of God are superior to those of man ; ergo, the laws of man must subserve to the laws of God." Thus the canon or papal law laid it down as an indisputable axiom, that priests were to be honoured, and not judged; "sacerdotes a regibus honorandi sunt, non judicandi." The Romish priests, according to their canon law, always pretended to have received a power of being superior to and independent of all civil authority. One of their canons refers to a decision of