Feb. 21. 1852.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



185 



think, mistaken in the dates wliich he assigns to 

 the Admonition and to Whitgift's Answer. He 

 follows indeed Herbert's Ames, in which reference 

 is made to Strype ; but Strype would have ("ur- 

 nislied materials for a more accurate statement. 

 Whitgift's Answer was first published towards the 

 end of 1572 ; for the edition of that year does not 

 contain " Certayne notes and properties of Ana- 

 baptistes," which Whitgil't himself {Defense of the 

 Aunsivere, p. 33., and elsewhere) tells us he had 

 introduced into the sefL'ond edition. But these 

 "notes" do appear in the edition dated 1573, 

 which must therefore be only the second. More- 

 over, Tiiomas Norton wrote to VVhitgift dissuading 

 hira from publif;hing his Answer. This letter was 

 dated Oct. 20, 1572. In a subsequent letter to 

 Archbishop Parker, dated Jan. 16, 1572 (1573), 

 Norton speaks of his former epistle as having been 

 written " before Mr. Whitgift's book came out." 

 (See Strype ; Whitgift, book i. chap. vi. ; Parker^ 

 book IV. chap, xii.) The date of the Answer thus 

 ascertained, we may the better conjecture the 

 dates of the editions of the Admonition, which 

 Mr. Collier says he gathers " had been printed 

 four times anterior to" 1572. Whitgift, it would 

 seem, had written, if not published, his reply before 

 more than a single edition of the Admonition was 

 abroad; for he says (Answer, 1573, p. 189.), 

 " After I had ended this confutation of the Ad- 

 monition, there comes to my hand a new edition of 

 the same, wherein some things be added," &c. 

 He also says (Defense, p. 34), ^^ the Admonition 

 was published after the Parliament, to the which 

 it was dedicated, was ended ... it was not exhi- 

 bited in Parliament, as it ought to have been," &c. 

 Further, the Admonition itself, fol. A. viii., says, 

 " immediately after the last Parliament holden at 

 "Westminster, begun in Anno 1570, and ended in 

 Anno 1571," &c. This could hardly have been 

 said earlier than 1572. For these reasons (I will 

 not occupy space by alleging more) the Admonition 

 could not, we may gather, have " been printed 

 feur times anterior to that year." A. J. H. 



"sib EDWARD SEAWARd's NARRATIVE." 

 (Vol. v., p. 10.) 



The following is a copy of a letter addressed by 

 Miss Porter to a relative of mine : — 



" Esher, Jan. .SO, 1 832. 



"Madam, — I hasten to express tlie pleasure with 

 which I answer your favour on the subject of Sir 

 Edward Seaward's Narrative, to the best indeed of my 

 power, but, I regret to say, not as explicitly as I wish. 

 However, witli respect to tlie authenticity of the events, 

 I have no reason to doubt them ; the manner of the 

 original MSS. coming into my hands having been 

 precisely what my Preface to the work described. 



" The same <juery that you have made has been put 

 to me from various quarters ; and I have communicated 



most of them to the owner of the MSS., but he inva- 

 riably declines allowing me to give his name, or other 

 proofs of the facts in the Narrative ; saying, that 

 ' since the public li;:s done liim the honour of putting 

 his old heir-loom into mystery, even in the face of the 

 editor's simply told Preface, lie will not deprive him- 

 self <if the amusement such unexpected doubts afford 

 him.' 



" Thus far his whimsical decision ; nevertheless, as 

 editor of the work, I cannot deny myself adding the 

 sincere satisfaction I feel in the sympathy so universally 

 expressed with the virtues of the truly amiable Seaward 

 and his family ; and the moreso, as hislessonsof pietyand 

 domestic concord in the most trying situations may well 

 be considered his richest bequeathment. 



" I have the honour to subscribe myself, Madam, 

 " Very much yours, 



" Jane Porter." 



This corroborates the account given by W. W. 

 E. J., and may be thought worthy of a place iii 

 " N. & Q." W. H. Lammix. 



Fulham. 



If we may credit the inscription on the monu- 

 ment erected to the memory of the Porter family 

 in Bristol Cathedral, the real author of Sir E. 

 Seaward's Narrative was none other than Miss 

 Porter's own brother, Dr. Wm. Ogilvie Porter, 

 who within three months followed his sister to the 

 grave, being the last survivor of that talented and 

 distinguished family. Dr. Porter commenced his 

 medical career as a surgeon in the navy, and was 

 ])robably acquainted with the Caribbean Sea and 

 its islands; for his first wife, who died in 1807, 

 and was buried at St. Oswald, in the city of Dur- 

 ham, was a native of Jamaica. Whether he 

 avowed himself the writer, when he entrusted the 

 work to his sister for publication, seems doubtful. 

 It is possible she may have been led to regard it 

 as a genuine account of real transactions, whereas 

 it is said to be an entirely fictitious and imaginary 

 story, written solely for amusement. 



May I take this opportunity of asking for inform- 

 ation respecting the origin of the Porter family ? 

 Their father, who was a surgeon in the army, and 

 died in early life, is said to have been of Irish 

 extraction. Their mother was a Miss Blenkinsop, 

 of the city of Durham. Any information respect- 

 ing the families of Porter and Blenkinsop would 

 be interesting. What is the name of the Russian 

 nobleman or gentleman to whom the daughter of 

 Sir R. K. Porter is married ? If she is still alive, 

 she is the sole representative of the Porters, it is 

 believed. E. H. A. 



general WOLFE. 



(Vol. v., pp.34. 136.) 



As a sequel to the inquiries suggested in your 

 pages respecting General Wolfe, permit me to 

 contribute the inscription on the obelisk erected 



