2'"> S. No 105., Jan. 2. '68.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



Mr. Hunter's Reply to the Animadversions on 

 his Tract entitled " Pope : his Descent and Family 

 Alliances, Facts, and Conjectures " (2°'' S. iv, 445. 

 507. 509.) — 



P. H. D. This gentleman's conjecture is per- 

 haps as reasonable as mine, neither of them as- 

 suming to be more than conjecture. What the 

 feeling generally among English Roman Catholics 

 is, I do not know : but I well remember the bit- 

 terness with which one of their most eminent 

 writers speaks of an ancestor having been re- 

 quired to attend a religious service in which a 

 "married priest" was the minister, meaning a 

 Protestant clergyman. 



D (I.), There was a family friend of the Popes 

 named, not Mannick, but Mannock, as may be 

 seen in the Additions, vol. ii. p. 96. I know not 

 that the person of whom Mrs. Pope speaks has 

 been identified, but it is a reasonable conjecture 

 that he was of the Baronet family of Mannock, 

 who, like the Popes, were Roman Catholics. 

 There appears to me no reason whatever for turn- 

 ing Mannick into Mawhood, and a great proba- 

 bility that the Mannick (Mannock) of whom 

 Spence speaks was a priest. 



J. Sansom. Mr. Sansom will but send the i\j.- 

 quirer to sources of information which are either 

 nothing to the purpose, or completely coincide 

 with my statement, when he refers him to War- 

 ton's Life of Sir Thomas Pope and Gutch's Antiq. 

 Oxon. 



P. A. I did not before know that it has gene- 

 rally been supposed that the aunt who is said to 

 have taught Pope to read was the same person 

 whom Mr. Potenger speaks of as his and the 

 poet's aunt. At least I never heard of the iden- 

 tity as far as I recollect, and think it far more 

 probable that it was one of the ten or twelve 

 sisters of the poet's mother domiciled with Mrs. 

 Pope, who assisted her in the early education of 

 the young boy. But perhaps P. A. may have 

 means of proving the identity, and at the same 

 time of showing more precisely how the relation- 

 ship arose between the Pojfes and Potengers. I 

 have stated how it appears to me (p. 21.) on the 

 facts as already in evidence, but should be very 

 glad to receive farther information, either com- 

 municated privately, or through " N. & Q." 



A. T. T. sets out with declaring that the com- 

 piler of the Additions to the Works of Pope, 2 vols., 

 Baldwin, 177fJf is not known. I think I have 

 produced evidence which determines the question, 

 and see nothing in this communication to unsettle 

 it. All which the writer says touching the London 

 Museum, he will excuse me for saying, is founded 

 in a misapprehension. The " London Museum" 

 spoken of in Cooke's Memorandum, is not any 



publication so entitled, but that great depository 

 of materials for literary history now called, not 

 the " London Museum," but the British Museum. 

 Cooke states in his Preface that " many of the 

 Letters and Poems, of which this publication con- 

 sists, were transcribed with accuracy from the 

 originals in the collections of the late Lords Oxford 

 and Bolinbroke " (p. v.). And in correspondency 

 with this we are told by another critic on this 

 tract that the '^^anden Bempd letter is in the 

 British Museum ; to which I add that the original 

 two Letters of Pope to Wanley, dated the 1st and 

 31st of July, 1725 {Additions, vol. ii. pp.27— 29.), 

 are in vol. 3777 of the Harleian MSS., No. 197. and 

 198. : where also are the originals of the two Letters 

 of Prior to Wanley printed in the Additions, vol. i. 

 pp. 198, 199., which follow immediately on those 

 of Pope in the same Harleian volume. This is a 

 very satisfactory proof that the collector of these 

 Additions (a great part of which is worthless and 

 worse than worthless) did read in the Harleian 

 Library, and is strongly confirmatory of the 

 genuineness of the manuscript note in the copy in 

 my possession. So far also we have proof that 

 some of the Letters in the Additions are genuine. 

 As to the rest the question may be considered 

 open ; and each piece to rest upon its own merits 

 and peculiar evidence, till we know more of their 

 origin and of Mr. Cooke, and the care and acute- 

 ness which he brought to his task. That he was 

 the compiler or editor, and the person answerable 

 for the publication, does not I think now admit of 

 a doubt ; assisted, however, as he acknowledges 

 to have been, by literary friends, among whom 

 Steevens may perhaps be numbered. In the Pre- 

 face we are distinctly told that " several of the 

 pieces originally appeared in the Saint James's 

 Chronicle," p. iv. 



M. C. A. It is rather a singular mistake which 

 this correspondent makes when he states that 

 J. C. Brooke's mother was a Mawhood, and there- 

 fore sister of Mrs. Edith Pope; when I have 

 shown in detail that it was not his mother, but his 

 great- great-grandmother who stood in that rela- 

 tionship. As to the epitaph on "Mrs. Corbet," 

 what 1 state was but a mere surmise : still I wish 

 more was known on this subject. 



Mannick. — A correspondent (2°^ S. iv. 445.) 



asks : — 



" Was there some family friend of the Popes bearing 

 the name of Mannick ? . . . Mannick seems to have been 

 an inmate of the poet's house, or that of Mrs. Rackett . ._ . 

 Who was Mr. Mannick? His name does not occur in 

 the will of Mrs. Cooper, or in that of Wm. Turner . . . 

 and as The Athenanim suggests that Spence may have 

 mistaken the name of Bevan, the apothecary, substituting 

 that of Morgan, I think it not improbable that Mannick 

 may be a corruption for Mawhood." 



I confess that the "not improbable" of your 



