584 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 243. 



In 1688, Graramont was sent by the Duke of 

 Orleans to congratulate James II. on the birth of 

 his son ; in the Ellin Correspondence, under the 

 date of 10th July, 1688, it appears there was to 

 have been an exhibition of fire-works, but it was 

 postponed, and the following int imation of the cause 

 was hinted at by a person behind the scenes : 



" The young Prince is ill, but it is a secret ; I think 

 he will not hold. The foreign ministers, Zulestein 

 and Grammont, stay to see the issue." 



Grammont died on the 30th January, 1707, aged 

 eighty-six years; his Countess survived him only 

 until the 3rd June, 1708, when she expired, aged 

 sixty-seven years. They only left one child, 

 namely, Claude Charlotte, married on the 6th 

 April, 1694, to Henry Howard, Earl of Stafford ; 

 Marie Elizabeth de Grammont, born the 27th 

 December, 1667, Abbess of Sainte Marine de 

 Poussey, in Lorraine, having died in 1706, previous 

 to her parents. 



Maurepas says that Grammont's eldest daughter 

 was maid of honour to the second Duchess of 

 Orleans, who suspected her of intriguing with her 

 son, afterwards the celebrated Regent. TheDuchess, 

 he adds, married her to Lord Stafford. 



Another writer says, that although Grammont's 

 daughters were not handsome, yet they caused as 

 much observation at Court as those who were. 



W. H. Lammin. 



Fulham. 



Count Hamilton is little to be trusted to in his 

 chronology, from a mischievous custom that he has 

 of, whenever he has to record a marriage or love 

 affair between two parties considerably different 

 in age, adding to that difference extravagantly, 

 to make the thing more ridiculous. Sir John 

 Denham is a well-known instance of this; but 

 another, which is not noticed by the editor of 

 Bohn's edition, nor any other that I have seen, 

 is his making out Col. John Russell, a younger 

 brother of the first Duke of Bedford, to have 

 been seventy years of age in 1664, although his 

 eldest brother was born in 1612, and the colonel 

 could have been little older than, if as old as, De 

 Grammont himself. J. S. Warden. 



bohn's reprint of woodf all's "JUNIUS." 



When a publisher issues a series of such works 

 as are comprised in Bohn's Standard Library, and 

 thereby brings expensive publications within the 

 reach of the multitude, he is entitled to the grati- 

 tude and the active support of the reading portion 

 of the public ; but, if he wish to be ranked amongst 

 the respectable booksellers, he ought to see to the 

 accuracy of his reprints. Bohn's edition of Wood- 

 fall's Junius, in two volumes, purports to contain 

 " the entire work, as originally published." This 



it does not. Some of the notes are omitted ; and 

 the text is, in many instances, incorrect. I have 

 examined the first volume only ; and I shall state 

 some of the errors which I have found, on com- 

 paring it with Woodfall's edition, three volumes 

 8vo., 1814. The pages noted are those of Bohn's 

 first volume. 



P. 87. In his Dedication, Junius says : " If an 

 honest, and, I may truly affirm, a laborious zeal." 

 Bohn turns it into nonsense, by printing it : " If 

 an honest man, and I may truly," &c. 



P. 105. In Letter I., Junius speaks of "distri- 

 buting the offices of state, by rotation." Bohn ha3 

 it " officers." 



P. 1 13. In Letter II., Sir W. Draper says that 

 " all Junius's assertions are false and scandalous." 

 Bohn prints it " exertions." 



P. 206. In Letter XXII., Junius says, " it may 

 be advisable to gut the resolution." Bohn has it 

 " to put" 



P. 240. In Letter XXX., Junius says : " And, 

 if possible, to perplex tis with the multitude of 

 their offences." Bohn omits the words " us with" 



P. 319. In Letter XLII., Junius speaks of the 

 " future projects " of the ministry. Bohn prints it 

 " future prospects." 



P. 322. In the same letter, Junius says : " How 

 far people may be animated to resistance, under 

 the present administration." Bohn omits " to re- 

 sistance." 



P. 382. In Letter LIII, Home says : " And in 

 case of refusal, threaten to write them down." 

 Bohn omits "threaten." 



P. 428. In Letter LXL, Philo-Junius says, 

 " his view is to change a court of common law into 

 a court of equity." Bohn omits the words " com- 

 mon law into a court of." 



P. 437. In Letter LXIIL, Junius writes, "love 

 and kindness to Lord Chatham." Bohn omits 

 " and kindness." 



P. 439. In Letter LXIV., Junius speaks of " a 

 multitude of prerogative writs." Bohn has it " a 

 multitude of prerogatives." 



P. 446. In Letter LXVIII., Junius says to 

 Lord Mansfield : " If, on your part, you should 

 have no plain, substantial defence." Bohn sub- 

 stitutes " evidence " for " defence" 



These are the most important errors, but not 

 all that I have found in the text. I now turn to 

 the reprint of Dr. Mason Good's Preliminary 

 Essay. The editor says: "The omission of a 

 quotation or two, of no present interest, and the 

 correction of a few inaccuracies of language, are 

 the only alterations that have been made in the 

 Preliminary Essay." We shall see how far this is 

 true. Such alterations as " arrogance" for " in- 

 solence," p. 2. ; "classic purity" for "classical 

 chastity," p. 3. ; " severe" for " atrocious," p. 15., 

 I shall not particularise farther ; but merely ob- 

 serve that, so far from being merely " corrections 



