the celebrated
argument in the case of the negro Somerset (_State Trials_, vol. xx. p.
41), an instance as late as 1617-18 is cited as the latest in our law
books. (See Noy's _Reports_, p. 27.) It is probably the latest recorded
_claim_, but it is observable that the claim failed, and that the
supposed villain was adjudged to be a free man. I can supply the names
of three who were living near Brighton in the year 1617, and whose
thraldom does not appear to have been disputed. Norden, from whose
unpublished _Survey of certain Crown Manors_ I have extracted the
following notice, adverts to the fact, but seems to think that the times
were rather unfavourable to any attempt by the lord of the manor to put
his rights in force.

"There are three bondmen of bloude belonginge unto this manor,
never known to be anie way mannumissed, namely, Thomas Goringe,
William and John Goringe. Thomas Goringe dwells at Amberley,
William at Piddinghow, and John Goringe at Rottingdean. What
goods they have the Jurie know not. All poor men. Thomas hath
the reversion of a cotage now in the tenure of William Jefferye.
But mee thinks this kinde of advantage is nowe out of season;
yet, were they men of ability, they might be, upon some
consideration, infraunchized." (_Survey of the Manor of Falmer,
Sussex_.)

I shall be glad to know whether any more recent instance can be pointed
out.

E. SMIRKE.

* * * * *

THE DORE OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.

In Herbert's edition of Ames's _Typographical Antiquities_, 1785, vol.
i. p. 492., is noticed _The Dore of Holy Scripture_, 12mo., printed by
John Gowghe in 1536; and, at p. 494., a reprint of the same work is
mentioned in 1540, by the same printer, and a description of a copy
given from one then in the possession of Herbert himself. In the preface
prefixed by the printer, he calls the work "the prologue of the fyrste
translatoure of the byble out of latyn in to Englyshe;" and at the end
of the work is this note:--"Perused by doctor Taylor and doctor Barons,
Master Ceton and Master Tornor." As I am much interested in the subject
to which this publication refers, may I ask for information on three
points?--1. What evidence is there of this edition of 1536, beyond the
statement in Ames? 2. What has become of the copy of the edition of
1540, formerly belonging to Herbert? and, 3. Who are the persons who
_peruse_ and revise the latter editio