362 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 129. 



strong enough to demolish a likely and pleasing 

 fancy. The epitaph, however, though it may not 

 be Miltonic, has every possible merit, and may 

 find favour with such of your readers as delight in 

 the literature of tombstones. Thomas H. Gill. 



LIABILIXr TO ERROR. 



As I always strive to be accurate when writing 

 for the press, an accidental error should not give 

 me much compunction ; nevertheless, a touch of 

 the feeling is sure to obtrude itself on such occa- 

 sions. Even the apprehension of having added to 

 the mass of current errors gives me a fit of un- 

 easiness, and having just recovered from an attack 

 of that description it may not be amiss to report 

 the case for the benefit of future patients. 



When I wrote a memorandum on James Wilson, 

 in reply to the query of professor De Morgan, I 

 stated that the united libraries of Pemberton and 

 Wilson were sold in 1772. It was guess-work. 



I recollected that the two libraries were sold in 

 conjunction, but could not recollect the date. On 

 consulting the printed List of the original cata- 

 logues of libraries sold by auction by Mr. Baker 

 and his successors in the years 1744 — 1828, which 

 •was issued by the firm in the latter year, the date 

 appeared to be 1757. With that evidence, I penned 

 a short comment on the remarkable circumstance 

 of the two learned friends resolving to dispose of 

 their libraries at the same time, on their surviving 

 the separation from their beloved books for four- 

 teen years, and on their dying within about six 

 n onths of each other. 



Some undefinable suspicions arose in my mind 

 at this point of the inquiry. Now, the original 

 Side catalogue is in existence, and accessible on 

 proper application. I examined it. The sale 

 crmmenced on Monday^ February the 24th. The 

 year 1757 is added in manuscript; and, since Pem- 

 berton and Wilson are described as lately deceased, 

 it is an undoubted error. So I tore up my senti- 

 mental scrap, leaving the fragments on the table 

 for the benefit of autograph collectors, and replaced 

 it with the six lines which conclude my reply. On 

 reaching home, I turned to the Chronology of 

 history : the dominical letter was just what I 

 •wished it to be ! The Book of almanacs added to 

 my comfortable sensations. 



On a re-examination of my notes, it appeared 

 thi t the united libraries were sold by Baker and 

 Leigh. Now, according to the above-described 

 List of catalogues, the partnership between Baker 

 and Leigh did not take place till 1775. The 

 phrase lately deceased, applied to Pemberton and 

 Wilson, is not very precise ; the sale, however, 

 must have been after 1774. Resolved to pursue 

 the inquiry, I examined a copy of the catalogue in 

 the royal library in the British Museum. It is 

 boi nd with the catalogue of the library of Edward 

 Strnley, Esq., secretary to the customs, which was 

 sold in February 1776, and follows it. The volume 



is lettered 1776. As the libraries of Pemberton 

 and Wilson were to be vieived on Monday the 17th, 

 I turned to that day in the Stanley sale ; it was 

 Monday the I7th. This seemed to prove that the 

 two collections were sold In the same year. Chro- 

 nology says otherwise : the Monday the \7th of the 

 Stanley catalogue Is an error of the printer ; and the 

 lettering, with regard to Pemberton and Wilson, 

 Is an error of the binder ! 



Believing, on the evidence above stated, that 

 the sale was after the year 1774, I came to the 

 conclusion that it was in 1777 — in which year 

 the 24th February fell on Monday. On further 

 search at home, 1 met with the catalogue In ques- 

 tion. It is in a volume which was successively in 

 the possession of Dent and Heber, and contains 

 the rare Fairfax catalogue ; also, A catalogue of 

 the very valuable library of Phillip Carteret Webb, 

 Esq., which was sold by Baker and Leigh in 1771. 

 It now became evident that the libraries of Pem- 

 berton and Wilson might have been sold by Baker 

 and Leigh in 1772 ; and on examining the Public 

 advertiser for that year, I found the sale adver- 

 tised on Thursday the 20th of February. So I 

 was right by chance, and In spite of manuscript 

 and printed authorities. Here ends the case. 



Another anecdote in connexion with this in- 

 quiry deserves to be recorded. I had read the 

 life of Pemberton in the General biographical 

 dictionary. Chalmers therein states that his 

 course of lectures on chemistry, " was published in 

 1771, by his friend Dr. James Wilson." I applied 

 for the volume at the British Museum. By a rare 

 accident the Scheme for a course of chemistry was 

 produced instead of the Course of chemistry, and 

 as the day was far advanced, and copy due, I 

 gave up the pursuit. On examination, it turns 

 out that the volume contains a memoir of Pem- 

 berton in twenty-three pages. Chalmers cites 

 Hutton and Shaw as his authorities ; and Hutton, 

 as I conceive, gives the substance of It as his own 

 composition ! Wilson, in this important memoir, 

 declares that his intimacy with Pemberton was 

 the greatest felicity of his life. He dates It the 

 10th Aug. 1771. He died on the 29th of Sep- 

 tember in the same year. 



Wilson remarks, in his previous work, that on 

 the successful practice of navigation " depends, in 

 an especial manner, the flourishing slate of our 

 country." To this remark no one can refuse 

 assent. The Dissertation on the history of the art 

 has fallen Into oblivion, because it exists only in a 

 work which has been superseded by others ; but I 

 venture to express my opinion that a separate 

 edition of It, with such corrections and additions 

 as might be required, and a continuation to the 

 present time, would be a desirable addition to 

 scientific literature ; and that no one would per- 

 form the task with more ability, or more con- 

 scientiously, than professor De Morgan. 



• Bolton Cornet. 



