Dec. 29. 1849.] 
least, was pranked and decked in all the apparel 
of a young gallant, an exquisite of the first water, 
for this was only one of several rich suits which 
he provided for his marriage outfit; and then 
follows a list of the costly gloves and presents, 
and all the lavish outlay of this his “ desperate 
quarter.” 
In some future number, too, if acceptable to 
your readers, you shall be furnished with a list of | 
other and better objects of expenditure from this 
household book; for Sir Edward, albeit, as Cla- 
rendon depicts him, the victim of his own vanity, 
was worthy of better fame than it has yet been his 
lot to acquire. 
He was a most accomplished scholar and a 
learned antiquary. He had his foibles, it is true, 
but they were redeemed by qualities of high and 
enduring excellence. The eloquence of his par- 
liamentary speeches has elicited the admiration of 
Southey; to praise them therefore now were 
superfluous. The noble library which he formed 
at Surrenden, and the invaluable collection of 
charters which he amassed there, during his 
unhappily brief career, testify to his ardour in 
literary pursuits. The library and a large part of 
the MSS. are unhappily dispersed. Of the former, 
all that remains to tell of what it once was, are a 
few scattered notices among the family records, 
and the titles of books, with their cost, as they are 
entered in the weekly accounts of our “ household 
book.” Of the latter there yet remain a few 
thousand charters and rolls, some of them of great 
interest, with exquisite seals attached. I shall be 
able occasionally to send you a few “ notes” on 
these heads, from the ‘“‘ household book,” and, in 
contemplating the remains of this the unrivalled 
collection of its day, I can well bespeak the 
sympathy of every true-hearted “ Chartist” and 
Bibliographer, in the lament which has often been 
mine — “ Quanta fuisti cum tante sint reliquiz !” 
Lampert B. Larxine. 
Ryarsh Vicarage, Dee. 12. 1849. 
BERKELEY'S THEORY OF VISION VINDICATED. 
In reply to the query of “ B. G.” (p. 107. of | 
your 7th No.), I beg to say that Bishop Berkeley’s | 
Theory of Vision Vindicated does not occur either 
in the 4to. or 8vo. editions of his collected works ; 
but there is a copy of it in the library of Trinity 
College, Dublin, from which I transcribe the full 
title as follows : — 
“ The Theory of Vision, or Visual Language, shew- 
ing the immediate Presence and Providence of a Deity, 
Vindicated and explained. By the author of Alciphron, 
or The Minute Philosopher. 
P « Acts, xvii. 28. 
“ In Him we live, and move, and have our being. 
“Lond. Printed for J. Tonson in the Strand, 
“ MDCCXXXIII.” 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
131 
Some other of the author’s tracts have also been 
omitted in his collected works; but, as I am now 
answering “a Query,” and not “ making a Note,” 
I shall reserve what I might say of them for 
another opportunity. The memory of Berkeley 
is dear to every member of this University ; and 
| therefore I hope you will permit me to say one 
| word, in defence of his character, against Dugald 
Stewart’s charge of having been ‘“ provoked,” by 
Lord Shaftesbury’s Characteristics, “to a harshness 
equally unwonted and unwarranted.” 
Mr. Stewart can scarcely be supposed to have 
seen the book upon which he pronounces this most 
“ unwarranted” criticism. The tract was not 
written in reply to the Characteristics, but was an 
answer to an anonymous letter published in the 
Daily Post-Boy of September 9th, 1732, which 
| letter Berkeley has reprinted at the end of his 
| oceurs at the commencement of the tract. 
pamphlet. The only allusion to the writer of this 
letter which bears the slightest tinge of severity 
Those 
who will take the trouble of perusing the anony- 
mous letter, will see that it was richly deserved ; 
and I think it can scarcely, with any justice, be 
censured as unbecomingly harsh, or in any degree 
unwarranted. The passage is as follows : — 
[After mentioning that an ill state of health had 
prevented his noticing this letter sooner, the author 
adds,] “ This would have altogether excused me from a 
controversy upon points either personal or purely spe- 
eulative, or from entering the lists with declaimers, 
whom I leave to the triumph of their own passions. 
And indeed, to one of this character, who contradicts 
himself and misrepresents me, what answer can be made 
more than to desire his readers not to take his word 
for what I say, but to use their own eyes, read, ex- 
amine, and judge for themselves? And to their com- 
mon sense | appeal.” 
The remainder of the tract is occupied with a 
philosophical discussion of the subject in debate, 
in a style as cool and as free from harshness as 
Dugald Stewart could desire, and containing, as 
far as I can see, nothing inconsistent with the 
character of him, who was described by his con- 
temporaries as the possessor of “every virtue 
under heaven.” James H. Topp. 
Trin. Coll. Dublin, Dee. 20, 1849. 
BISHOF BARNABY. 
Mr. Editor, — Allow me, in addition to the Note 
inserted in your 4th Number, in answer to the 
Query of Lecour, by your correspondent (and I 
believe my friend) J.G., to give the following ex- 
tract from Forby’s Vocabulary of East Anglia :— 
“ Bishop Barnabee-s. The pretty insect more gene- 
rally called the Lady-bird, or May-bug. It is one of 
those few highly favoured among God’s harmless crea- 
tures which superstition protects from wanton injury. 
Some obscurity seems to hang over this popular name 
