322 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
[No. 20. 
Consuetudinarium vetus Schole Etonensis, taken 
from a MS. in the library of Corpus, Cambridge, 
and the Harleian MS. 7044, p. 167., and printed 
by Professor Creasy in his Account of Eton 
College, p. 73. (from whose work I take the ex- 
tract), the following passage occurs, under the 
head “ Mense Januario.” [I would remark, that 
Montem was changed from January to Whit- 
Tuesday, about a hundred years since : — 
“< Circiter festum Conversionis Divi Pauli ad horam 
nonam quodam die pro arbitrio moderatoris’ (ex con- 
sueto modo quo eunt collectum Avellanas Mense Sep- 
tembri), itur a pueris ad Montem. Mons puerili 
religione Etonensium sacer locus est ; hunc ob pulchri- 
tudinem agri, amcenitatem graminis, umbraculorum 
temperationem, et Apollini et Musis venerabilem sedem 
faciunt, carminibus celebrant, Tempe vocant, Heliconi 
preferunt. Hic Novitii seu recentes, qui annum non- 
dum viriliter et nervose in acie Etonensi ad verbera 
steterunt sale primo condiuntur, tum versiculis qui 
habeant salem ac leporem, quoad fieri potest egregie 
depinguntur. Deinde in recentes epigrammata faciunt, 
omni suavitate sermonis, et facetiis alter alterum supe- 
rare contendentes. Quicquid in buecam venit libere 
licet effutire, modo Latine fiat, modo habeat urbani- 
tatem, modo caveat obsccena verborum scurrilitate, 
postremo et lacrymis salsis humectant ora genasque’ 
et tune demum veteranorum ritibus initiantur. Se- 
quuntur orationes et parvi triumphi, et serio letantur, 
cum ob preteritos labores tum ob cooptationem in tam 
lepidorum commilitonum societatem. ” 
It seems that “salting” was a sort of initiation, 
like that which prevails among our Teutonic 
brethren, where the “Fuchs” is raised to the 
sublime degree of a ‘“ Brandfuchs,” “ junge 
Bursch,” “ bemorstes Haupt,” by successive pro- 
motions. Not improbably in after times, espe- 
cially at the Universities, like “ passing the Line,” 
it admitted of being commuted for a money pay- 
ment. The exact nature of the “salting” at Eton 
I cannot explain; perhaps your able correspond- 
ent, “R.O.,” may afford information on this head. 
C. R. Soc. 
College Salting (No. 17. p.261.).—I cannot but 
think that the asking for salt at the now abolished 
ceremony of the Eton Montem (whence also, as it 
is said, “ Salt Hill” was named) must have been 
connected with the “ College Salting.” The salt, 
or money, then collected belonged, as is well 
known, to the head-boy who had “ got Montem,” 
as it (alas!) was called, and who was about to 
enter on his career (of course as a freshman) at 
Cambridge. 
I would gladly, if permitted, draw the attention 
of your correspondents, who are considering the 
original subject, to the latter, by placing it in 
juxtaposition with “ College Salting.” G. W. 
Hamilton Terrace. 
JUNIUS. 
The questions asked by your correspondent 
“P.” (No. 18. p. 172.) perplexed by their sim- 
plicity. The answer, if answer can be seriously 
required, was obvious. All that was ever urged 
in favour of every other claimant was against’ the 
claim of Sir George Jackson. Beyond this I 
know not what reply could be given. MKmboldened 
by silence, “ P.” now proceeds (p. 276.) to adduce 
certain evidence which he supposes has some 
bearing on the question. ‘TI possess,” he says, 
“an unpublished letter by Junius to Woodfall, 
which once belonged to Sir George Jackson. My 
query is, ‘Is it likely he would have obtained it 
from Junius, if he were neither Junius himself 
nor a party concerned?’” What can be the 
meaning of this, obtain from Junius a letter which 
Junius had sent to Woodfall? Why, it is obvious 
that Sir George must have obtained it as “ P.” 
obtained it —as all autograph collectors obtain 
their treasures — directly or indirectly, by gift or 
by purchase, mediately or immediately from one 
of the Woodfalls — probably from Henry Sampson 
Woodfall — probably from George Woodfall, who 
has recorded the fact that he lent one letter to a 
Mr. Duppa, which was never returned. “ P.” 
then proceeds a step further, and observes — 
“The manner in which Burke evades the ques- 
tion, as to himself being the author of Junius, 
makes me think two or three were concerned in 
these letters.” Well, and it made others think so 
halfa century or more since. The three Burkes 
have often been named — the Burkes again, with 
the assistance of Samuel Dyer: and Mr. Prior 
put forth a very reputable argument in favour 
of the claims of the Burkes, but it was deli- 
cate, and died young. If your correspondent has 
nothing to urge in favour of this conjecture, 
why disinter it? “P.,” however, has it in his 
power to do some service to the cause: let him 
send you, for publication, an exact copy of the 
Junius’ letter, following carefully the spelling, the 
capital letters, the instructions, and even the 
punctuation. 
Mr. John Sudlow’s conjectures are still more 
simple. He evidently is not aware that when a 
public writer assumes a character he is bound 
to hold to it consistently ; and that as “‘ Articus” 
was then writing on the subject of the national 
debt, and objecting to the financial policy of 
the minister, he naturally affected to be a fund- 
holder, to be frightened, and to have, in conse- 
quence, removed his property. What a strange 
notion Mr. Sudlow must have of Steele and 
Addison, if he has read The Spectator and The 
Tatler after this literal fashion. But I will not 
speculate on his speculations, but come to facts. 
It is true that ‘amongst the letters attributed 
to Junius, and, in the opinion of Dr. Good, most 
certainly his production, is one signed Atticus,” 
