MDMD Richard Trevor

[Terrance]

"
what in Christ's Name happened out in that Channel." MD.43

"It seems not to belong to either of their lives. "Was there a mistake
in the plan of the Day? Did we get a piece of someone else's History, a
fragment spall'd off of some Great Moment,-- perhaps the late Engagement
at Quiberon Bay,-- such as now and then may fly into the everyday paths
of lives less dramatic? MD.44

In Chapter 2 the letters introduce Dixon and Mason. 



In Chapter 5, Dixon and Mason are trying to figure out what in Christ's
Name happed out on the channel. 
Together, they  draft a letter to send to the RS. 
Together they try to determine who drafted the letter of reproach they
receive form the RS. Who  is on the faceless committee (well-know
gentlemen or not)? 

In their letter, Mason wants to write about the apparent Design, not of
Him-God, but of some well known Gentlemen, which put him in harm's way
(kinda reminds me of the military/media phrase-in harms way-used here in
the States during recent wars). 

All manner of mysteries for our detectives to solve. 

In Christ's Name what happened in the Channel? 

First, Mason  wonders why the English, via the Jesuit, Bascovich-now,
after the Jesuit suppression, the  Captain of Optics for the French
navy-did not send a message to the French Admiralty (department of the
British government that had control over all naval affairs). 
Dixon says they would have attacked even if the English sent a message
by way of Bascovich or some other messenger, even King Louie himself.   


And why didn't the French sink the Seahorse? 

Robert provided a very fine post; here is a little snip from it: 

"But the most reasonable explanation for the French retreat is alluded
to in
a snatch of historical exposition which follows in the text:

    A year before, Morale aboard the *l'Grand*, never that high to begin
    with, had seem'd to suffer an all but mortal blow with news of the
    disaster to the Brest fleet ... (40.7)

And so follows an extra-diegetic narrative excursus on trying to restore
wounded French pride
"

The French Captain could have sunk the Seahorse, but he did not. Unless
he had orders to the contrary, he could have been tried for cowardice
and treason for failing to sink the Seahorse. 

Dixon, a land lover, seems to know an awful lot about the Affairs of
Frigates and the Affairs of well-know gentlemen. 

Mason suspects forces Invisible. 

And, 

"It seems not to belong to either of their lives." MD.44

The history, the names dropped in here, are important,

Bascovich, King Louie, Bird, Earl of Morton, Richard Trevor (Bishop of
Durham),  Bradley. 

In Robert's post he ties the Seven Years War (a world war nearly
forgotten), to America, and to another world war, the American
Revolution. 

Dixon has met Anglicans. He has even seen the Bishop of Durham. 

He sez, "Eeh, Ah've even seen the Bishop of Durham. On of the biggest
among thee, correct?" 

And adds, "A Prince in his own lands." 

What does Dixon know about Prince Bishops of Durham? 

And how will this tie into America? 

Later, Mason and Dixon will meet Washington and they talk about Affairs
of the Land and Affairs of the Frigates. Washington's man, Gershom,  who
also knows an awful lot about things we might not expect him to know,
mentions the "Bishop of Durham Clause."  MD282


 A proprietary colony was one in which the English monarch granted to
one or
more persons (proprietors) a province over which they held feudal
sovereignty. This
privilege resulted from an official Crown bestowal of the ancient powers
of the bishop of
Durham. Since the Norman Conquest (1066) the bishop of Durham had held,
by the
king's authority, feudal lordship over a northern English county as a
buffer against
Scotland. Except for Pennsylvania, all of the proprietary charters in
America contained a
"Bishop of Durham" clause giving similar feudal rights to proprietors.
In certain charters
there were important limitations attached to this clause. For example,
in Maryland, whose
original proprietors were Roman Catholic, the charter, with the words
"to cause them
[any churches] to be dedicated and consecrated according to the
ecclesiastical [church]
laws of our kingdom of England," prevented Catholicism from attaining
established-church status. In Carolina the proprietary charter allowed
for a certain degree
of freedom in worship. In 1670 the Church of England became the
established church of
Carolina even though that province did not come under royal dominion
until 1729.

http://www.thenortheast.fsnet.co.uk/Pbishps.htm#ORIGIN OF THE PRINCE
BISHOPS

County Durham is unique, as for many centuries it was a virtually
independent state
ruled not by the king, but by powerful `Prince Bishops', who were more
or less the
`Kings of County Durham'.