296 



NOTES AND t^UERIES. 



[2"^ S. VII. April 9. '59. 



bllshment of unconsecrated burial-places was not 

 occasioned, as many suppose, by Dissenters ob- 

 jecting to burial in consecrated grounds, but to 

 the form of service required to be used by the 

 Church of England at burials in consecrated 

 grounds. Milton, it is well known, was buried 

 in Cripplegate Church, and the case of the cele- 

 brated Dissenter, Samuel How — ^Cobler How as 

 he was called — as related in Wilson, goes far to 

 establish this view. How, who preached in Cole- 

 man Street Chapel, and was the author of the 

 sermon " On the Sufficiency of the Spirit's Teach- 

 ing without human Learning," which obtained 

 considerable notoriety, by the boldness with which 

 he avowed his opinions, got cited before the Spi- 

 ritual Courts, excommunicated and shut up in 

 prison, where he died in 1640. He was taken to 

 be buried in Shoreditch Churchyard, but was re- 

 fused burial there on account of his being an 

 excommunicate. His friends then buried him in 

 the highway^ near St. Agnes-la-Clair (between 

 Shoreditch and London*, I believe), where many 

 persons belonging to his congregation were after- 

 wards buried. It is plain therefore from this 

 account, firstly, that had Dissenters objected to 

 burial in consecrated ground. How's friends would 

 not have taken his body to Shoreditch Church for 

 burial ; and, secondly, that had an unconsecrated 

 place of burial then existed in the neighbourhood 

 of Lon<]on, neither How's body nor those of 

 many of his followers would have been buried in 

 the highway. Grantham, the Lincolnshire saint, 

 who died in 1690, was buried in the chancel of a 

 church ; and many other Dissenters could be 

 named who were also buried in consecrated 

 places. 



I find that the fii'st lease of Bunhill Fields 

 burial-ground was granted by the City of Lon- 

 don at the latter end of 1661, and that the cele- 

 brated John Bunyan was buried therein in 1668. 



M. Sawabd. 



Quevedo. — Cowper writes : — 



" Quevedo, as he tells his sober tale, 

 Asked, when in hell, to see the roj'al jail ; 

 Approved their method in all other things, 

 ' But where, good sir, do j-ou confine your kings.' ' 

 ' There,' said his guide, ' the group is full in view.' 

 ♦ Indeed ! ' replied the Don, ♦ there are but few ! ' 

 His black interpreter the charge disdained — 

 ' Few, fellow ! — these are all that ever reigned.' " 



The question has been asked before, but never 

 in "N. & Q." — what was Cowper's authority for 

 attributing this story to Quevedo ? Southey pro- 

 duced a passage from a work of Quevedo, which 



[* Formerly a celebrated spring near Old Street Eoad, 

 about three quarters of a mile west of Shoreditch Church. 

 See Ellis's Shoreditch, p. 83.] 



he thought might have been the original upon 

 which some imitator or licentious translator had 

 exaggerated. The passage does not seem to me 

 to justify Southey 's conclusion : but even if it did 

 so, the question remains, whose is the translation 

 or exaggeration in which Cowper found his story, 

 and where, and when, was it published ? I have 

 looked for it in many places, but in vain. There 

 is so much curious learning among your contri- 

 butors that probably some of them can enlighten 

 me. John Bruce. 



5. Upper Gloucester Street, 

 Dorset Square. 



Matthew Dodsworth, LL.B., Cantab., 1573, was 

 judge of the Admiralty in the northern parts 

 about 1586, and v/as afterwards chancellor to the 

 Archbishop of York. He was living in 1626. 

 When did he die ? Had he any other children 

 than Roger (the chief author of Monasticon AnglU 

 canum) and Edward ? 



C. H. & Thompson Coopek. 



Cambridge. 



Editions of Harris's Ware. — What is the his- 

 tory of the title-pages and prefatorial matter 

 which distinguish the different so-called editions 

 of the Works of Sir James Ware, as translated 

 and augmented by Walter Harris? I have not 

 collated the body of the work, but suppose there 

 can be little doubt the sham of a new edition was 

 a mere bookseller's device, the book being sub- 

 stantially the same in every other particular. 



James Graves. 



Kilkenny. 



Sir T. Lawrence the Painter. — In the 3rd vol. 

 of the Annual Biog. and Obit., p. 508., is a brief 

 account of the life and death of Lawrence William 

 Read, major of the 72nd regiment, who died 1818, 

 aged sixty, his brother being the Rev. A. Law- 

 rence, and his sister being the wife of the Rev. 

 Dr. Bloxam of Rugby. But the statement re- 

 specting the deceased, for which I crave expla- 

 nation, is, that "he was father of Sir Thomas 

 Lawrence, R.A." Now, as Sir Thomas Law- 

 rence's mother was Lucy Read, one might think 

 at first that for father we ought to read grand- 

 father ; but Major Read was not old enough for 

 this relationship. What, then, was the relation- 

 ship which was borne to the painter by this Major 

 Read, whose brother's surname was not Read, but 

 Lawrence ? J, W. 



Macclesfield Forest. — Can any Cheshire reader 

 of " N. & Q." inform me what were the original 

 boundaries and extent of this royal domain ? I 

 do not require any minute details, but merely 

 wish to know what parishes, or parts of parishes, 

 were included within it; and what villages, or 

 other landmarks recognisable on a modern map 

 of the county, may be taken as guides to point 



