NOTES ano QUERIES: 
A MEDIUM OF INTER-COMMUNICATION 
FOR 
LITERARY MEN, ARTISTS, ANTIQUARIES, GENEALOGISTS, ETC. 
“ When found, make a note of.” — Caprain CuttiE, 
SaTuRDAY, APRIL 13. 1850. 
Price Threepence. 
Stamped Edition 4d. 
No. 24.] 
CONTENTS. 
Notes : — Page 
Skinner’s Life of Monk, by W. D. Christie - - 377 
Cunningham’s Lives of Whitgift and Cartwright - 378 
Inedited Letter of Duke of Monmouth - - - 379 
Lydgate and Coverdale, by E. F. Rimbault, LL.D. - 379 
QUERIES : — 
Speenlum Exemplorum, &c. - - - - 380 
The Second Duke of Ormonde, by Rev. James Graves - 380 
Mayors — What is their correct Prefix ? - - - 380 
Quevedo and Spanish Bull-fights, by C. Forbes - 381 
Minor Queries: — Gilbert Browne — The Badger — 
Ecclesiastical Year — Sir William Coventry — The 
Shrew — Chip in Porridge — Temple Stanyan ~ Tan- 
dem —As lazy as Ludlum’s Dog — Peal of Bells — Sir 
Robert Long— Dr. Whichcot and Lord Shaftsbury — 
Lines attributed to Lord Palmerston— Gray’s Alcaic 
Ode — Abbey of St. Wandriile— London Dissenting 
Ministers — Dutch Language — Marylebone Gardens 
—Toom Shawn Cattie—Love’s Last Shitt—Cheshire- 
round — Why is an Earwig called a “ Coach-bell ?”’ 
—Chrysopolis — Pimlico, &c. - - - - 381 
REPLies: — 
Blunder in Malone’s Shakspeare - - - - 386 
Hints to intending Editors - - - - 386 
Replies to Minor Queries ; — Depinges — Lerig — Vox 
et preterea Nihil — Havior — Mowbray Coheirs — 
Sir R. Walpole — Line quoted by De Quincey—Quem 
Jupiter, &c. — Bernicia — Cesar’s Wile, &c. - - 387 
MISCELLANIES : — 
Franz yon Sickingen — Body and Soul — Laissez faire — 
College Salting — Byron and ‘Tacitus — Pardonere 
and Frere— Mistake in Gibbon - - - - 389 
MISCELLANEOUS : — 
Notes on Books, Sales, Catalogues, &c, - - - 390 
Books and Odd Volumes wanted - - - - 390 
Notices to Correspondents - - - = 391 
Advertisements - - - - - = 392 
SKINNER’S LIFE OF MONK, 
Reading for a different purpose in the domestic 
papers of Charles II.’s reign in the State Paper 
Office, I came upon a letter from Thomas Skinner, 
dated Colchester, Jan. 30. 1677, of which I will 
give you what I have preserved in my notes; and 
that is all that is of any interest. 
It is a letter to the Secretary of State, asking 
for employment, and recommending himself by 
what he had done for Monk’s memory. He had 
previously written some account of Monk, and he 
describes an interview with Lord Bath (the Sir 
John Grenville of the Restoration) ; in which his 
Lordship expressed his approval of the book. 
“He [Lord Bath] professed himself so well satis- 
fied, that he was pleased to tell me there were two 
eS = 
persons, viz. the King and the Duke of Albemarle, 
that would find some reason to reflect upon me.” 
Lord Bath gives Skinner a letter to the Duke 
of Albemarle (Monk's son), who receives him very 
kindly, and gives him a handsome present. 
“JT have since waited on his Grace again, and then 
he proposed to me (whether upon his own inclination 
or the suggestion of some about him) to use my poor 
talent in writing his father’s life apart in the universal 
language; to which end, he would furnish me with all 
his papers that belonged to his late father and his 
secretaries. The like favour it pleased my Lord of 
Bath to offer me from his own papers, some whereof I 
had a sight of in his study,” 
Now if any of your readers who are interested 
in Monk’s biography, will refer to the author's 
and editor’s prefaces of Skinner's Life of Monk, 
edited in 1723, by the Rev. William Webster ; 
and to Lord Wharncliffe’s Introduction to his 
Translation of M. Guizot's Essay on Monk, they 
will see the use of this letter of Skinner’s. 
1. The life is ascribed to Skinner only on cir- 
cumstantial evidence, which is certainly strong, but 
to which this letter of Skinner's is a very import- 
ant addition. This letter is indeed direct proof, 
and the first we have, of Skinner’s having been 
employed on a Life of Monk, in which he had 
access to his son’s and his relative Lord Bath's 
papers; and there can be no serious doubt that 
the life edited by Mr, Webster was a result of his 
labours. 
2. This letter would show that Skinner was not 
on intimate terms with Monk, nor so closely con- 
nected with him as would be implied in Mr. Web- 
ster’s, and Morant’s, the historian of Colchester, 
description of him, that he was a physician to 
Monk. Else he would not have required Lord 
Bath’s letter of introduction to the son. Lord 
Wharncliffe has, I have no doubt, hit the mark, 
when he says that Skinner was probably Monk’s 
Colchester apothecary. Skinner says himself, in his 
Preface, that “he had the honour to know Monk 
only in the last years of his life.” 
3. The previous account of Monk, which gained 
Lord Bath's approval, and led to Monk's son soli- 
citing him to write a life, is probably Skinner's 
addition of a third part to Bate’s Elenchus Moluum, 
