198 



NOTES AND QUEKIES. 



[No. 281. 



seventh year of his nge, leaving his nephew, 

 William Moore, Esq., his sole executor and heir." 

 This is confirmed by his will, dated Novem- 

 ber 18, 1732, and proved March 19, 1734. It 

 appears from Beatson that Thomas Moore was 

 appointed Paymaster in 1712, and from Bowyer 

 that he was superseded amongst the first after the 

 arrival of the king, on November 27, 1714. 



Arthur Moore, the second son of Arthur Moore 

 of Fetcham, died between September, 1733, when 

 fais will is dated, and November, 1734, when it 

 was proved, probably in June, 1734, which is er- 

 roneously given in the History of Surrey as the 

 date of the death of the father. Arthur Moore, 

 the son, is described in his will as of St. Anne's, 

 Soho, and he therein bequeaths all his property 

 to his wife ; but by a codicil he gives to his 

 brother " Jemmy Moore Smythe " 30Z., and a ring 

 of one guinea value ; and makes a like bequest 

 to his brother-in-law Wyriot Ormond. 



Before I notice the younger son of Arthur 

 Moore — Pope's immortal — I had better dispose 

 of William Smythe, the grandfather, after whom, 

 and under whose will, he took the name of 

 Smythe, and this will answer another of your cor- 

 respondent's questions. 



Arthur Moore, the father, as already noticed, 

 married the daughter and heiress of William 

 .Smythe. William Smythe is described in his will, 

 ^ated December 19, 1720, proved January 13, 

 1720-21, as of Devonshire Street, St. Andrew's, 

 Holborn. Pie therein recites that his property 

 consists of leases for years of lands and houses, 

 -money in the funds, and debts owing to him by 

 the government ; and after some few legacies, he 

 bequeaths the whole, with authority to his ex- 

 -ecutors to invest the same in land when a favour- 

 able opportunity offers, in trust for his grandson 

 James Moore, in tail-male, with remainder to his 

 other grandchildren, Arthur and William, with 

 directions that he James Moore, and Arthur 

 should he succeed to the property, shall take the 

 name of Smythe ; but that should William suc- 

 ceed, he shall retain the name of Moore. 



The personal property of William Smythe was 

 subsequently, I presume, vested in real estate, as 

 James Moore Smythe is described in his will as of 

 Frodley Hall, Staffordshire. He died, however, 

 •according to the History of Surrey, at Whitton, 

 near Isleworth ; and according to Gent. Mag. 

 .(ante, Vol. xi., p. 7.) on October 18, 1734. In 

 his will he bequeaths to his brother William 

 Moore 20Z., and the residue of his property to his 

 old friend Charles Hays of Chelsea. The real 

 estate of course passed under the will of the 

 grandfather Smythe to the surviving brother, who, 

 as appears from his own will, died possessed of an 

 estate in Staffordshire. 



William, the eldest son, not only succeeded to 

 Ihe estates of the father, Arthur Moore, but to 



Polesden, and the other property of his uncle 

 Colonel Thomas Moore, and to the estate of the 

 grandfather, Smythe. He was member of parlia- 

 ment for Banbury, in the second and third par- 

 liaments of George II., and died on October 24, 

 1746. His will is dated April 20, 1744, and was 

 proved on February 6, 1746-7. He bequeaths, 

 after some trifling legacies, the whole of his real 

 estates in Surrey, Sussex, and Stafford, in trust 

 for Frederick North, son of Lord North and 

 Guildford ; and in case of his death, or failure of 

 heirs male, with remainder to the next eldest son 

 of Lord North and Guildford ; then to John 

 Moore, eldest son of Dr. Henry Moore, with re- 

 mainder to the eldest son of Thomas Parr of 

 Datchet. The executors are Lord North and 

 Thomas Parr. 



The Frederick North, to whom these estates 

 were bequeathed, was the celebrated Lord North ; 

 but to what extent he benefited I know not ; for, 

 according to the History of Surrey, in " conse- 

 quence of the incumbrances " to which these 

 estates were subject, an act of parliament was 

 obtained under which Polesden, where William 

 Moore had resided, was sold ; but what became 

 of the other estates is not mentioned, because, as 

 I suppose, they were situated out of the county 

 of Surrey. 



Here end my notes about Arthur Moore and 

 the Moore family, and here they ought to end ; 

 for, according to the tablet in Great Bookham 

 Church, William "having survived his younger 

 brother, Arthur Moore, and James Moore Smith, 

 Esq., and dying unmarried, the family became 

 extinct." The Writer of, etc. 



THOMAS LORD I.YTTELTON NOT JUNIUS. 



I presume to head this Note with this decided 

 assertion, because I feel convinced that the evi- 

 dence I am about to produce establishes the fact 

 that this eccentric nobleman could not be the 

 writer of the celebrated Letters, the authorship of 

 which is still a mystery. 



The following letter is one of several addressed 

 to Mr. Roberts, which lately came under my ob- 

 servation. I publish It because It proves, not 

 only that Thomas Lyttelton was abroad in Nov., 

 1771 — a period when a reference to The Letters 

 proves Junius to have been busy In London or its 

 neighbourhood — but because, curiously enough, it 

 bears the date Nov. 27, 1771, which Junius, in his 

 own edition (1772), assigns to his last letter to the 

 Duke of Grafton. 



In Woodfall's edition (1814) this letter is dated 

 28th, and not 27th November : but there is a 

 private letter to Woodfall, dated 27th. But 

 with reference to Lyttelton's claim, the 27th or 

 28th can make no difference. For, as the pre- 



