alike ingenious and well-founded. The line itself is but the corollary of the one that precedes it; and in order to make the sense complete, it should contain antithetical expressions to correspond with "flourish" and "fade." Now, between "can make" and "made" there is nothing antithetical; but between "made" and "unmakes" there is.

In support of this view, I may quote one or two parallel passages, in which the antithesis is preserved. The first is a quatrain commemorating the devastating effects of an earthquake in the valley of Lucerne in 1808:

The second is a line which occurs in Curiosities of Literature, and which I am compelled to quote from memory, having no access to that work. It is as follows:

That Goldsmith wrote the line in question with the word "unmakes," there seems little reason to doubt. To say of princes and lords that "a breath can make them, as a breath has made," far from conveying any idea of their "fading," would be, on the contrary, to indicate the facile process by which they may be perpetuated. It would show how they may "flourish," but not how they may "fade."

Although this emendation in Goldsmith was pointed out many years ago, and recommends itself by its appositeness, and its obvious adaptation to the context, yet I believe it has never been introduced into any edition of that poet. I have before me two copies of The Deserted Village, and both contain the words "can make." As, however, among the many useful hints thrown out by "NOTES AND QUERIES", that of suggesting the emendation of obscure or difficult passages in our poets, appears to have met with the approbation of your readers, I trust some future editor of Goldsmith may be induced to notice this passage, and restore the text to its original accuracy.

HENRY H. BREEN.

St. Lucia.

Minor Notes.

Biographical Dictionary.

—May I beg for the assistance of "NOTES AND QUERIES" to enforce a want which I am sure is daily felt by thousands of educated Englishmen? The want I speak of is that of a good Biographical Dictionary, coming down to the middle of the century; a dictionary as good as the Biog. Universelle for foreign lives, and a hundred times better for English lives. Every one knows how meagre and unsatisfactory is that otherwise magnificent work in its English part. Why should we not have an abridged translation, with the home portion re-written?

Z. Z. Z.

The Word Premises.

—The use of the word premises for houses, lands, and hereditaments, is surely incorrect. I have never found the word præmissa used in any Latin writer in a sense that can sanction the modern application of its derivative. Johnson's authority supports the view that the word is perverted in being made to stand for houses and lands, as he says it is "in low language" that the noun substantive "premises" is used in that sense, as, "I was upon the premises," &c. The office of "the premises" in a deed, say the Law Dictionaries, is to express the names of the grantor and grantee, and to specify the thing granted. "The premises is the former part of a deed, being all that which precedeth the habendum or limitation of the estate." I believe the term "parcels" is applied, technically, to the specification of the property which forms the subject of a deed. In an instrument, it may not be wholly incorrect to refer by the term "premises" to the particulars premised, and, if an etymological inaccuracy, it may be excused for the sake of avoiding repetitions; but surely we ought not to speak of houses, lands, &c. by this term. I see I am not the first to call an editor's attention to this point, for, in the Gentleman's Magazine of Jan., 1795, a correspondent complains of this improper application of the word, and attributes the perversion to the lawyers, "who," he says, "for the sake of brevity (to which, by-the-bye, they are not much attached), have accustomed themselves to the phrase, 'the aforesaid premises,' whence the word has come to be universally taken as a collective noun, signifying manors, tenements, and so on." The absurdity of such a use of the word is illustrated by putting it for animals, household goods, and personal estate, for which it may as well stand as for lands and houses.

W. S. G.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Play of George Barnwell:—

"Last Friday a messenger came from Hampton Court to the Play House by the Queen's command, for the manuscript of George Barnwell, for Her Majesty's perusal, which Mr. Wilks carried to Hampton Court early on Saturday morning; and we hear it is to be performed shortly at the Theatre in Hampton Court, for the entertainment of the Royal Family," &c.—Daily Post, Monday, July 5. 1731.

H. E.

Traditions from Remote Periods through few Links (Vol. iii., pp. 206. 237.):—

"My greatest boast in this line is, that I have conversed with Sir Isaac Herd, the celebrated herald, and he had conversed with a person who was present at the execution of Charles I."—Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chief Justices, vol. ii. p. 304. note.

E. H. A.

Queries.

DEODANDS AND THEIR APPLICATION.

Blackstone states (1 Comm. p. 300.) that a deodand—

"Is forfeited to the king to be applied to pious uses, and distributed in alms by his high almoner, though formerly destined to a more superstitious purpose. It seems to have been originally designed, in the blind days of Popery, as an expiation for the souls of such as were snatched away by sudden death; and for that purpose ought properly to have been given to holy church."

The authorities for this latter statement are Fitzh., Abr., tit. "Enditement," pt. 27., and Staunf., P.C., 20, 21., neither of which books are in my possession, nor in this remote district can I gain access to them. Hume, Lingard, Henry, and Rapin, omit all mention of this change in the destination of the deodand, at least so far as I can find. Fleta, who lived, according to Dr. Cowell (Interpreter, in verb. "Fleta"), tem. Ed. II., Ed. III., or, according to Jacob (Law Dic., in ver. "Fleta"), tem. Ed. I., says that—

"This deodand is to be sold to the poor, and the price distributed to the poor for the soul of the king and all faithful people departed this life."—Interpreter, in ver. "Deodand."

It would therefore appear that in Fleta's time it was settled law that deodands went to the Crown; nor does this writer seem to take any notice of their having been, at any time, payable to the Church. Hawkins, East, and I think Hale also, are equally silent upon the point.

Can any of your readers kindly supply the information as to when deodands first ceased to be given to the Church, and when they became the property of the Crown?

JONATHAN PEEL.