108 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
[ No. 7. 
vill. of the edition with chapters), there is given a 
conversation between Dr. Adams and Johnson, in 
which the latter asserts that he could finish his Dic- 
tionary in three years. 
“Apams. ‘ But the French Academy, which con- 
sists of forty members, took forty years to compile 
their Dictionary.’ —Jounson. ‘ Sir, thus it is. This 
is the proportion. Let me see: forty times forty is 
sixteen hundred, so is the proportion of an Englishman 
to a Frenchman.’ 
«“ No one of the numerous editors of Boswell has 
made « note upon this, although many things as slight 
have been commented upon: it was certainly not 
Johnson’s mistake, for he was a clear-headed arith- 
metician. How many of our readers will stare and 
wonder what we are talking about, and what the 
mistake is!” 
Certes, I for one, plead guilty to staring, and 
wondering what the Professor is talking about. 
I cannot for a moment imagine it possible, that 
he could base such a criticism, so announced, upon 
no better foundation than the mere verbal trans- 
position of the words Englishman and Frenchman. 
The inversion deceives no person, and it is 
almost more appropriate to the colloquial jocularity 
of the great Lexicographer’s bombast than if the 
enunciation had been more strictly according to 
rule. Besides, the correctness of the expression, 
even as it stands, is capable of defence. Let the 
third and fourth terms be understood as referring 
to time instead of to power, and the proportion 
becomes “as three to sixteen hundred, so is” (the 
time required by) “an Englishman to” (that re- 
quired for the same work by) “a Frenchman.” 
Or, if natives be referred to in the plural, — 
then, as three to sixteen hundred, so are 
Englishmen to Frenchmen ; 
that is, such is the number of each required for 
the same amount of work. 
But [ repeat that I cannot conceive a criticism 
so trifling and questionable can have been the true 
aim of Professor de Morgan’s note, and as I am 
unable to discover any other flaw in the Doctor's 
proportion, according to the premises, my query, 
Mr. Editor, has for its object to learn 
“ What the mistake is 2” B. 
CARACCIOLI’S LIFE OF LORD CLIVE. 
Sir, —Can you, or any of your readers, give me 
any information relating to Caraccioli’s Life of 
Lord Clive? It is a book in four bulky octavo 
volumes, without date, published, I believe, at 
different periods, about the year 1780—perhaps 
some years later. It enjoys the distinction of 
being about the worst book that was ever pub- 
lished. It bears, on its title-page, the name of 
“ Charles Caraccioli, Gent.’ A writer in the 
Calcutta Review, incidentally alluding to the book, 
says that “it is said to have been written by a 
member of one of the councils over which Clive 
presided; but the writer, being obviously better 
acquainted with his lordship’s personal doings in 
Europe than in Asia, the work savours strongly of 
home-manufacture, and has all the appearance of 
being the joint composition of a discarded valet 
and a bookseller’s hack.” The last hypothesis 
appears very probable. Internal evidence is 
greatly in its favour. Can any of your readers 
tell me who was ‘Charles Caraccioli, Gent.,” — 
when the atrocity which bears his name was pub- 
lished, — or any thing about the man or his book ? 
Probably some notice of it may be found in the 
Monthly Review, the Gentleman's Magazine, or 
some other periodical of the last century. The 
writer, indeed, speaks of his first volume having 
been reviewed with “unprecedented” severity. 
Perhaps you can help me to the dates of some 
notices of this book. The work I believe to be 
scarce. The copy in my possession is the only 
complete one I have seen; but I once stumbled 
upon an odd volume at a book-stall. It is such a 
book as Lord Clive’s family would have done well 
in buying up; and it is not improbable that an 
attempt was made to suppress it. The success of 
your journal is greatly dependent upon the brevity 
of your correspondents ; so no more, even in com- 
mendation of its design, from yours obediently, 
Covent Garden, Dee. 5, 1849. 
ON SOME SUPPRESSED PASSAGES IN W. CART- 
WRIGHT'S POEMS. 
As I want my doubts cleared up on a literary 
point of some importance, I thought I could not 
do better than state them in your “ Norxs anp 
QUERIES.” 
Ihave before me a copy of the not by any means 
rare volume, called Comedies, Tragi-Comedies, 
with other Poems, by Mr. William Cartwright, 8vo. 
1651, with the portrait by Lombart. Though the 
book may be called a common one, I apprehend 
that my copy of it is in an uncommon state, for 
I find in it certain leaves as they were originally 
printed, and certain other leaves as they were 
afterwards substituted. The fact must have been, 
that after the volume was published by H. Moseley, 
the bookseller, it was called in again, and particular 
passages suppressed and excluded. 
These passages are three in number, and occur 
respectively on pp. 301, 302, and 305 ; and the two 
first occur in a poem headed ‘On the Queen’s 
Return from the Low Countries,” an event which 
occurred only shortly before the death of Cart- 
wright, which took place on 23rd Dec. 1643. 
This poem consists, in my perfect copy, of eight 
stanzas, but two stanzas are expunged on the can- 
celled leaf, viz. the second and the fifth; the 
second runs as follows :— 
