242 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2°<i S. No 39., Skpt. 27. '56. 



Clark, Lis coiinsol, then expressed surprise that 

 the charge against the prisoner should be put to 

 issue in this way ; he submitted that the Court 

 had a right to restrain the defendant from his 

 plea, and adduced the appellant's weakness of 

 body as a circumstance cogent enough to warrant 

 the interference of the Court. This however was 

 declined ; and time, until November 21, given to 

 the appellant to counter-plead. The counter- 

 plea merely recapitulated the facts of the case, 

 and concluded thus : " Wherefore, the said Wil- 

 liam Ashford prays the judgment of the Court 

 that the said Abraham Thornton may not be per- 

 mitted to wage battel on his the said Abraham's 

 plea." Time was now granted to the defendant 

 to reply ; and on January 24, 1818, he delivered 

 in a long replication, in which he quoted the 

 evidence used at his former trial, asserted his in- 

 nocence, and repeated his prayer to be allowed to 

 wage battel with William Ashford. The suffi- 

 ciency of this replication was denied on January 

 29, when Mr. Reader, for the prisoner, joined 

 issue on the demurrer. The argument took place 

 on, and occupied the whole of the 6th and 7th 

 February, when the case was farther adjourned to 

 April 16. At which time the Court decided that 

 the law gave the defendant a right to his wager 

 of battel. The appellant, Ashford, then craved 

 until April 20, to consider the course he should 

 adopt ; and on that day his counsel gave up the 

 appeal. " The appellant," said Mr. Gurney, "does 

 not feel himself justified in accepting the chal- 

 lenge." The defendant was thereupon discharged 

 from custody. 



And in this prosaic manner terminated the last 

 effort of judicial chivalry. Robert S. Salmon. 

 Newcastle-on-Ti'ne. 



Pope's ^'■Letters to Cromwell" (2"'' S. ii. 181.)— 

 your correspondent C. P. is under a mistake. 

 There is no doubt whatever that Pope's Letters to 

 Cromioell were published in 1726 ; or rather, ac- 

 cording to date in title-page, in 1727. The book 

 is scarce, probably because it was superseded by 

 editions containing a collection of Pope's letters, 

 and is worthless except to a few curious persons. 

 Your correspondent is under other mistakes. The 

 edition of 2'he Knights from which he quotes 

 was probably a London republication of the 

 Scotch poem. I doubt, from internal evidence, 

 whether the Address prefixed was written by 

 Meston, the author ; but cannot doubt that the 

 P. S., to which your correspondent refers, was 

 thrust in by Curll as an advertisement of his 

 Cromwell letters, and a means of annoying Pope. 



Your correspondent quotes from the Preface to 

 The Knight of the Kirk what he considers may 



have been "the passage in the original letter;" 

 then a variation from an edition of 1737, pub- 

 lished by Roberts ; and " another reading, making 

 a third version," from Curll of 1735. But if he 

 will examine carefully, he will find that the first 

 and third are the same. The writer of the " Pre- 

 face" desired to prejudice Pope by showing that 

 he had slandered and insulted the clergy ; and 

 therefore he omitted from the passage every 

 word that did not immediately illustrate the sub- 

 ject, or tended to qualify Pope's presumed con- 

 tempt ; but what he retained is, word for word^ 

 the same as in Curll 1735, except that the words 

 "he has paraphrased" are introduced. 



As to the variation in the edition published by 

 Roberts, the facts, I believe, are these : — 



Roberts, Cooper, " booksellers," all the pirates, 

 if they may be so called, in the first editions fol- 

 lowed Curll of 1735. Subsequently, and after 

 the publication of the quarto, a new edition was 

 published by Cooper, under the secret sanction of 

 Pope. This eA\i\or\, mutilated to suit Pope's pur- 

 pose, was followed by Roberts in the edition of 

 1737, referred to by your correspondent. 



There are no difficulties about tie questions 

 raised by your correspondent ; but there are great 

 difficulties about the original publication and sub- 

 sequent publications of the Letters to Cromwell, 

 which I hope future editors of Pope will clear up. 

 It would lead me out of all reasonable bounds if 

 I were to venture on this curious and interesting 

 subject. P. L. C. 



Pope and Warburton (2"'' S. ii. 182.)— The 

 volume described by P. A. W. is not rare. I have 

 two copies, and I have seen it in the cheap-book 

 catalogues of, I think, Mr. Kerslake at a mode- 

 rate price. The separate paginations show that 

 the three pieces were not intended to form a 

 volume ; but what Warburton's design was I 

 cannot guess. Could he have contemplated sell- 

 ing them separately ? C. 



Unpublished Letter of Pope to Wanley. — 



The following Letter, which is preserved in the Har- 

 leian MS. 3780. (Wanley Letters, vol. iv. p. 198.) does 

 not appear to have been published. At least, it is not to 

 be found in Roscoe's edition, which is the latest and most 

 complete. 



" To Mr. Wanley, at the Rt. Hon. the Earl of 

 Oxford's, in Dorset Street, Piccadilly. 



" Worthy Sir, 

 " I am greatly contented with your kind token 

 of affection, although I meant not, in any wise, to 

 have put you to so sudden a discharge of the 

 trust I reposed in you ; nor to have caused you a 

 journey to a distant part of the towne ; not to 

 have obliged you to renew an acquaintance with 

 Signor Alberto, after aa intermission of divers 



