6 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2>«i S. No 53., Jan. 3. '57. 



faces of all sizes around blm, all eager with ex- 

 pectancy of the dip into futurity. The book is 

 opened with closed eyes ; and the first passage 

 touched by the finger expounded, after the man- 

 ner of one of Oliver's chaplains, to refer to coming 

 events. 



Another divination is also practised by observ- 

 ing narrowly the atmospheric changes of the first 

 twelve days of the year ; each day representing a 

 month, and forming an index to the weather of the 

 period for which it stands. Vincent Stbbnbbeg, 



THE IMPBEIAIi DICTIONARY. 



In your periodical (2°^ S. ii. 377.), which has 

 only recently come under my observation, I find an 

 article ("Check") which intimately concerns my- 

 self, as Editor of the Imperial Dictionary. The 

 writer of that article, who subscribes himself Q., 

 charges me with wholesale plagiarism from Web- 

 ster's Dictionary. He says, " There is not one 

 word in that gentleman's [Dr. O.'s] Dictionary 

 which is not ' conveyed,' as Antient Pistol, or 

 •lifted,' as Dr. Ogilvie's countrymen would say, 

 from the pages of our Transatlantic brother — 

 Noah Webster." Again, he remarks, " In how 

 many other instances, indeed in how great a por- 

 tion of the entire work it may be traced that 

 similar 'conveyances' or 'liftings' have been per- 

 petrated, I am not prepared to say. Certain I 

 am, in far too many to allow of an exouse, under 

 the plea of general acknowledgment." 



It is not very easy to reconcile with each other 

 the two paragraphs above quoted. According to 

 the first, the whole of the Imperial has been 

 " lifted " from Webster ; and, according to the 

 second, other portions of the former work, besides 

 the whole, have been " lifted " from the latter. 

 Q. will no doubt assert that, in the first para- 

 graph, he merely refers to the article check. Be 

 it so; his words, notwithstanding, must convey, to 

 the cursory reader at least, an impression that the 

 Imperial Dictionary is nothing else than a reprint 

 of Webster under a false name. But what are 

 the facts ? In the title-page of the Imperial it is 

 clearly indicated that the work is on the basis of 

 Webster's English Dictionary, and the same fact 

 is explicitly stated in p. 2. of the Preface. In 

 p. 3. of Preface the following statement occurs : 



" In adopting Webster's Dictionary as the basis of the 

 Imperial Dictionary, the great object of the Editor in 

 preparing the latter has been to correct what was wrong, 

 and to supply what was wanting in Webster, in order to 

 adapt the new work to the present state of literature, 

 science, and art. Accordingly, every page of Webster 

 has been subjected to a careful examination ; numerous 

 alterations and emendations have been made, a vast 

 number of articles have been re-written, verj' many of 

 Webster's explanations of important terms have been en- 

 larged, and many new and more correct definitions of 

 others given; new senses have been added to old words, 



where they were found wanting, and a multitude of new 

 words and terms have been introduced, especially in the 

 scientific and technological departments." 



Thus it is abundantly evident that the charges 

 and innuendos of Q. are void of foundation ; — that 

 I have not " lifted " from Webster in a furacious 

 manner, as he asserts, nor claimed for myself any 

 undue degree of merit. I have openly and avow- 

 edly taken Webster as the basis, that is, the 

 foundation, of the Imperial, incorporating his 

 materials, so far as they sui|;pd my plan, with my 

 own ; and in this manner have I raised, I venture 

 to say, a good superstructure upon an excellent 

 foundation. It may be proper to add here that I 

 have also written a Supplement to the Imperial, 

 containing upwards of 400 pages ; and hence, in 

 forming a correct estimate of my labours, the two 

 works ought to be taken together. 



I trust, Mr. Editor, you will do me the favour 

 to give this letter a place in your periodical, and 

 do an act of justice to John Ogilvie. 



Strawberry Bank, Aberdeen. 



MARGARET HUGHES, THE MISTRESS OF PRINCE 

 RUPERT. 



The story of Sophia Howe and Nanty Lowther 

 has been made familiar to many readers by Pope's 

 Lord Hervey, and by Sir Charles Ilanbury Wil- 

 liams. 



Miss Howe was maid of honour to Caroline, 

 Princess of Wales (afterwards Queen Caroline), 

 and grand-daughter of Prince Rupert by Margaret 

 Hughes, an actress at the King's House. 



Some of Sophia's letters are printed in the first 

 volume of that agreeable and well-edited work, 

 The Correspondence of Henrietta, Countess of 

 Suffolk. The anonymous editor was the Eight 

 Hon. John Wilson Croker. 



In one of her letters, dated October 1, 1719, 

 Miss Howe desires to be excused from attendance 

 at court, for, as she observes, " my grandmother is 

 dead." 



Now, no book on the stage that I have seen 

 informs us when Margaret Hughes died. Mr. 

 Croker's note on the passage is, " This must have 

 been Margaret Hughes." 



My object in calling attention to this passage in 

 Miss Howe's letter is to confirm Mr. Croker's 

 statement, and to do justice to the sagacity of 

 Lysons. 



In the burial register of Lee, in Kent, Lysons 

 observed the following entry : 



" Mrs. Margaret Hewes, from Eltham, buried Oct. 15, 

 1719." 



On which he observes : 



" It is not improbable that this was the same Mrs. Mar- 

 garet Hewes, or Hughes, a vocal actress of some eminence, 

 and mistress to Prince Rupert." 



