July 6. 1850.] 



NOTES AXD QUERIES. 



83 



sireil to be introduced to him, but hesitated because 

 he asserted that he had written an epigram on 

 " The Ancient Mariner," which Coleridge had 

 hin)self written and inserted in The Morning Post, 

 to this effect : — 



" Your poem must eternal be, 

 Dear Sir ! it cannot fail ; 

 For 'tis incomprehensible, 

 And without liead or tail." 



This was, however, only a Gadshill robbery, — 

 stealing stolen goods. The following epigram is 

 said to be by Mr. Hole, in a MS. collection made 

 by Spence (penes me), and it appeared first in 

 print in Terra Filius, from whence Dr. Salter 

 copied it in. his Confusion ivorse Confounded, 

 p. 88: — 



" Thy verses are eternal, O my friend 1 



For he who reads them, reads them to no end." 



In The Cnjpt, a periodical published by the late 

 Rev. P. Hall, vol. i. p. 30., I find the following at- 

 tributed to Coleridge, but I know not on what 

 authority, as it does not appear among his col- 

 lected poems : — 



job's luck, BV S. T. COLERIDGE, ESQ. 



" Sly Beelzebub took all occasions 

 To try Job's constancy and patience ; 

 He took his honours, took liis health, 

 He took his children, took his wealth, 

 His camels, horses, asses, cows, — 



Still the sly devil did not take his spouse. 



" But heav'n, that brings out good from evil, 

 And likes to disappoint the devil, 

 Had predetermined to restore 

 Two-fold of all Job had before, 

 His children, camels, asses, cows, — 



Short-sighted devil, not to take his spouse." 



This is merely an amplified version of the 199th 

 epigram of the 3d Book of Owen : 



" Divitlas Jobo, sobolemque, ipsamque salutem 

 Abstulit (hoc Domino non prohibens) Satan. 

 Omnibus ablatis, misero, tamen una superstes, 

 Qua; magis afflictum redJeret, uxor erat." 



Of this there are several imitations in French, 

 three of which are given in the Epigrammes 

 Choisies d'Owen, par M. de Kerivalant, published 

 by Labouisse at Lyons in 1819. S. W, Singeb. 



Mickleham, 1850. 



STBAKGEBS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 



(Vol. ii., p. 17.) 

 As far as my observation extends, i. e. the 

 last thirty-one years, no alteration has taken 

 place in the practice of the House of Commons 

 with resiiect to the admission of strangers. In 

 1844 the House adopted the usual sessional order 

 regarding strangers, which 1 transcribe, inserting 



within brackets the only material words added by 

 Mr. Christie in 1843 : — 



"That the Serjeant-at-.\rms attending this house do, 

 from time to time, take into his custody any stranger 

 or strangers that he shall see or be informed of to be 

 in the house or gallery [appropriated to the members 

 of this house, and also any stranger who, having been 

 admitted into any other part of the house or gallery, 

 shall misconduct himself, or shall not withdraw wlien 

 strangers are directed to withdraw] while the House or 

 any committee of tlie whole House is sitting, and that 

 no person so taken into custody be discharged out of 

 custody without the special order of the House. 



" That no member of the House do presume to bring 

 any stranger or strangers into the house, or the gallery 

 thereof, while the House is sitting." 



This order appears to have been framed at a 

 time when there was no separate gallery exclu- 

 sively appropriated to strangers, and when they 

 were introduced by members into the gallerv of 

 what is called the "body of the house." This 

 state of things had passed away : and for a long 

 series of years strangers had been admitted to a 

 gallery in the House of Commons in the face of 

 the sessional order, by which your correspondent 

 ClI. imagines their jiresence was "absolutely 

 prohibited." 



AVhen I speak of strangers being admitted, it 

 must not be supposed that this was done by order 

 of the House. No, every thins relatinaj to the 

 admission of strangers to, aiul then- accommodation 

 in the House of Commons, is effected by some 

 mysterious agency for which no one is directly 

 responsible. Mr. Barry has built galleries for 

 strangers in the new house ; but if the matter were 

 made a subject of inquiry, it probably would 

 puzzle him to state under what authority he has 

 acted. 



Mr. Christie wished to make the sessional order 

 applicable to existing circumstances ; and, it may 

 be, he desired to draw from the House a direct 

 sanction for the admission of strangers. In the 

 latter pvirpose, however, if he ever entertained it, 

 he failed. The wording of his amendment is ob- 

 scure, but necessarily so. The word "gallery," as 

 employed by him, can only refer to the gallery ap- 

 propriated to members of the House ; but he in- 

 tended it to apply to the strangers' gallery. The 

 order should have run thus, " admitted into any 

 other part of the house, or into the gallery appro- 

 priated to strangers ;" but INIr. Christie well knew 

 that the House would not adopt those words, be- 

 cause they contain an admission that strangers are 

 present whilst the House is sitting, whereas it is 

 a parliamentary fiction that they are not. If a 

 member in debate should inadvertently allude to 

 the possibility of his observations being heard by a 

 stranger, the Si)eaker would immediately call him 

 to order ; yet at other times the right honourable 

 gentleman will listen complacently to discussions 



