Notes and Queries, Number 191, June 25, 1853. Various

expression I have quoted. "Just the cheese," "quite the cheese," i. e. just the thing I require, quite comme il faut, &c.

      Probably some of your correspondents could furnish other examples.

E. S. Taylor.

      "Quem Deus vult perdere."—In Croker's Johnson, vol. v. p. 60., the phrase, "Quem Deus vult perdere, prius dementat," is stated to be from a Greek iambic of Euripides:

      "Ὅν θεὸς θέλει ἀπολέσαι πρῶτ' ἀποφρεναι."

      This statement is made first by Mr. John Pitts, late Rector of Great Brickhill, Bucks1, to Mr. Richard How of Aspley, Beds, and is taken for granted successively by Boswell, Malone, and Croker. But no such Greek is, in fact, to be found in Euripides; the words conveying a like sentiment are,—

      "Ὅταν δὲ Δαίμων ἀνδρὶ πορσύνῃ κακὰ,

      Τὸν νοῦν ἔβλαψε πρὼτον."

      The cause of this classical blunder of so many eminent annotators is, that these words are not to be found in the usual college and school editions of Euripides. The edition from which the above correct extract is made is in ten volumes, published at Padua in 1743-53, with an Italian translation in verse by P. Carmeli, and is to be found in vol. x. p. 268. as the 436-7th verses of the Tragedie incerte, the meaning of which he thus gives in prose "Quando vogliono gli Dei far perire alcuno, gli toglie la mente."

T.J. Buckton.

      Lichfield.

      P.S.—In Croker's Johnson, vol. iv. p. 170., the phrase "Omnia mea mecum porto" is incorrectly quoted from Val. Max. vii. 2., instead of "Bona mea mecum porto."

      White Roses.—The paragraph quoted from "an old newspaper," dated Saturday, June 15th, 1723, alludes to the commemoration of the birthday of King James VIII. (the 10th of June), which was the Monday mentioned as that before the Saturday on which the newspaper was published. All faithful adherents of the House of Stuart showed their loyalty by wearing the white rose (its distinguishing badge) on the 10th of June, when no other way was left them of declaring their devotion to the exiled family; and, from my own knowledge, I can affirm that there still exist some people who would think that day desecrated unless they wore a white rose, or, when that is not to be procured, a cockade of white ribbon, in token of their veneration for the memory of him of whose birth it is the anniversary.

L. M. M. R.

      Queries

      "MERK LANDS" AND "URES."—NORWEGIAN ANTIQUITIES

      In Shetland, at the present day, all public assessments are levied, and divisions made, according to the number of merk lands in a parish. All arable lands were anciently, under the Norwegian law, rated as merks,—a merk containing eight ures. These merks are quite indefinite as to extent. It is, indeed, clear that the ancient denomination of merk land had not reference to superficial extent of surface, but was a denomination of value alone, in which was included the proportion of the surrounding commonty or scattald. Merk lands are of different values, as sixpenny, ninepenny, twelvepenny,—a twelvepenny merk having, formerly at least, been considered equal to two sixpenny merks; and in some old deeds lands are described as thirty merks sixpenny, otherwise fifteen merks twelvepenny land. All assessments have, however, for a very long period, been levied and all privileges apportioned, according to merks, without relation to whether they were sixpenny or twelvepenny. The ancient rentals of Shetland contain about fourteen thousand merks of land; and it will be noticed that, however much the ancient inclosed land be increased by additional improvements, the number of merks ought to be, and are, stationary. The valued rent, divided according the merk lands, would make a merk land in Shetland equal to 2l. Scots of valued rent. There are only one or two places of Scotland proper where merks are in use,—Stirling and Dunfermline, I think. As these two places were the occasional residences of our ancient Scottish kings, it is possible this plan of estimating land may have obtained there, to equalise and make better understood some arrangements relating to land entered into between the kings of Norway and Scotland. Possibly some of the correspondents of "N. & Q." in the north may be able to throw some light on this subject. It was stated some time ago that Dr. Munch, Professor in the University of Christiana, had presented to the Society of Northern Archæology, in Copenhagen, a very curious manuscript which he had discovered and purchased during a voyage to the Orkneys and Shetland in 1850. The manuscript is said to be in good preservation, and the form of the characters assigns the tenth, or perhaps the ninth century as its date. It is said to contain, in the Latin tongue, several episodes of Norwegian history, relating to important facts hitherto unknown, and which throw much light on feudal tenures, holdings, superstitions, omens, &c., which have been handed down to our day, with their origin involved in obscurity, and on the darkness of the centuries that preceded the introduction of Christianity into Norway. Has this manuscript ever been printed?

Kirkwallensis.

      THE LEIGH PEERAGE, AND STONELEY ESTATES, WARWICKSHIRE

      The fifth Lord Leigh left his estates to his sister, the Hon. Mary Leigh, for her life, and at her decease without issue to "the first and nearest of his kindred, being male, and of his name and blood," &c. On the death of Mrs. Mary Leigh in 1806, the estates were taken possession of by her very distant kinsman, the Rev. Thomas Leigh. The first person to dispute his right to them was Mr. George Smith Leigh, who claimed them as being descended from a daughter of Sir Thomas Leigh, son of the first Baron Leigh. His claim was not allowed, because he had the name of Leigh only by royal license, and not by inheritance. Subsequently, the Barony of Leigh was claimed by another Mr. George Leigh, of Lancashire, as descended from a son of the Hon. Christopher Leigh (fourth son of the aforesaid Sir Thomas Leigh), by his second wife. His claim was disallowed when heard by a committee of the House of Lords in 1828, because he could not prove the second marriage of Christopher Leigh, nor the birth of any son by such marriage.