Dec. 15. 1849.] 
Cowley or Cowleas. 
Your correspondent W. asks the etymon of 
“Cowley ;”—probably “Cow leas,” or Cow pasture. 
In ancient records it is written “Couelee.” I 
have before me a survey or “extent” of the Hos- 
pitalers’ lands in England, including those formerly 
belonging to the Templars. In this record, as in 
most that I have seen, it is written, “ Templecoue- 
lee,” and it is entered as a limb of the commandry 
of Saunford or Sandford. Bary. 
Cowley or Coverley—Statistics of Roman Catholic 
Church — Whelps — Discovery of America. 
I can answer pretty confidently the query II. in 
Number 4., p. 59., about the etymon of Cowley, 
for I have, on a farm of my own, two denomina- 
tions of land, called Ox-ley and Cow-ley, and I 
believe that both these names are common all 
through England. Like Horseley, Ashley, Oakley, 
and a thousand other leas or leys distinguished 
from each other by some local characteristic. Cover- 
ley was probably not Cowley, but, like Woodley, 
Orchardleigh, &c., derived from its local position. 
' In answer to the query as to the statistics of 
the Roman Catholic Church, p. 61. Number 4., 
I think I may say there is no such general work, 
though the Propaganda of Rome was said to re- 
gister something of that sort. The information is 
only to be picked up from various and (as far as I 
know) all imperfect publications. The least so 
that I can just now refer to is the Statistics of the 
Roman Catholic Church of Ireland, in Thom’s 
Dublin Almanack —a very curious and useful com- 
pilation. 
In reply to the inquiry as to a priest's wife, 
p- 77. Number 5., I would suggest that married 
persons may have separated, and retired each into 
the celibacy of a convent, yet might join, when 
necessary, in a legal conveyance; but I should 
examine closely the word deciphered clericus. 
To J.J., who inquires about “ Whelps,” and 
refers to Howell’s Lelters, sect. 5. p.9., I beg 
leave to suggest more precision in his future refer- 
ences. The passage is in one (viz. the viii.) of 
the 42 letters of the 5th section; but in the last 
and best edition (Lond. 1754) it is p. 204. Inote 
this to inculeate the necessity of accurate refer- 
ences and mention of the edition quoted. As to 
the query itself, I can answer that the “ whelps” 
were a class, perhaps I might say a litter, of light 
men-of-war of the fifth rate, which were so called, 
erhaps, after one named the “ Lion’s Whelp,” 
in Queen Elizabeth’s navy, and distinguished by 
numbers, as “ 1st Whelp,” “2nd Whelp,” and so on 
to at least “10th Whelp,” which is to be found in 
a list of the navy in 1651. She was of 180 tons, 
and carried 18 guns and 60 men. It seems not 
easy to account for this class of vessels having 
been rated so high as 5th rates, but I suppose they 
were a favourite und favoured class. 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
107 
In reference to the discovery of America by 
Madoc, pp. 7. 12. 25. 57., it may amuse your read- 
ers to be informed that Seneca shadows forth such 
a discovery : — 
“ Venient annis szcula seris 
Quibus Oceanus vincula rerum 
Laxet, et ingens pateat tellus, 
Ichthysque novos deteget orbes ; 
Nee sit terris ultima Thule.” 
Medea, act ii. ad finem, v. 375. 
“A vaticination,” says the commentator, “ of 
the Spanish discovery of America.” It is certainly 
a curious passage. y 
QUERIES. 
BERKELEY'S THEORY OF VISION VINDICATED. 
In Mr. Dugald Stewart’s Dissertation on the 
Progress of Metaphysical Philosophy he says of 
Lord Shaftesbury’s work entitled Characteristics — 
“It seemed to have the power of changing the 
temper of its critics. It provoked the amiable Berkeley 
to a harshness equally unwonted and unwarranted ; 
while it softened the rugged Warburton so far as to 
dispose the fierce, yet not altogether ungenerous, polemic 
to praise an enemy in the very heat of conflict.” 
To this passage is appended the following note :— 
“ Berkeley’s Minute Philosopher, Dialogue 3.; but 
especially his Theory of Vision Vindicated, London, 
1733 (not republished in the quarto edition of his 
works), where this most excellent man sinks for a 
moment to the level of a railing polemic.” 
Can you or any of your readers do me the 
favour to inform me whether the tract here re- 
ferred to has been included in any subsequent 
edition of the Bishop’s works, and, if not, where it 
is to be met with? B.G. 
DR. JOHNSON AND PROFESSOR DE MORGAN. 
Mr. Editor, — Although your cleverly conceived 
publication may be considered as more applicable 
to men of letters than to men of figures, yet I 
doubt not you will entertain the subject I am 
about to propound: because, in the first place, 
“whole generations of men of letters” are im- 
plicated in the criticism; and, in the next place, 
because however great, as a man of figures, the 
critic may be, the man of letters criticised was 
assuredly greater. ‘ 
Professor de Morgan has discovered a flaw in 
the great Johnson! and, in obedience to your 
epigraph, “when found make a note of it,” he has 
made a note of it at the foot of page 7. of The 
Companion to the Almanac for 1850,—eeccola : — 
« The following will show that a palpable absurdity 
will pass before the eyes of generations of men of letters 
without notice. In Boswell’s Life of Johnson (chapter 
