and §, No 2., Jan. 12. ’56.] 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
37 
I put the question to him, he has been induced to 
look “a little closer into the subject;” and now 
he tells us, as the result, that — , 
«“ There never was but one copy of the letters printed on 
and bound in vellum with gilt edges, lettered, &c., ac- 
cording to the direction of Junius.” 
Thus the many of 1851 has become one in 1855. 
That another four years may not be wasted in 
waiting for a reply, I will not ask his authority for 
this latter assertion, that one copy was printed on 
vellum, but state at once that he has no authority. 
We all know that Junius directed Woodfall 
(Private Letter, No. 47.) to have a copy of the 
edition of 1772 “ bound in vellum.” It suits Mr 
Cramp’s speculations to find this copy, and he, in 
defiance of notorious facts, now asserts that it has 
been found, and was sold at Stowe. The readers 
of “N. & Q.” know (1" 5S. v. 304. 333.), and 
Mr. Cramp must have known, had he been pleased 
to “look a little farther,” or not wilfully to shut 
his eyes, that the copy sold. at Stowe was printed 
on vellum, and not bound in vellum — that it was 
not a copy of “ the author’s edition” to which only 
the directions of Junius can apply — not of the 
edition of 1772 — not a Woodfall edition at all — 
but an edition printed more than twenty years 
after Junius gave his directions—a copy of 
Bensley’s edition. No doubt Bensley, wishing to 
produce a choice specimen of typography, printed 
a copy, after the foolish fashion of his day, on 
vellum. If Mr. Cramp has any doubt as to the 
existence of this fashion, let him consult one or 
other of our old booksellers. Icould refer him to 
more than a dozen works, of which sometimes 
one, and sometimes two copies, were printed on 
vellum by the Stevensons of Edinburgh alone. 
Mr. Cramp’s whole argument, if it deserve to 
be so called, is founded on like assertions, —“ ru- 
mours,” I suppose they would be called, if ques- 
tioned. Thus he asks how came the vellum- 
bound copy in the hands of the Grenvilles? It 
never was in the hands of the Grenvilles. “It is 
proved that Junius had an amanuensis ” — it is 
not proved. That Mrs. Dayrolles “was ac- 
uainted with the secret,” is mere assertion to suit 
rR. Cramp’s theory. That Mr. H. S. Woodfall 
never “ pretended to know anything of the fate of 
the parcel” containing the vellum-bound is true ; 
but true only because he was never asked. The 
correspondence in the Gent. Mag., says Mr. C., 
“proves that the vellum-bound copy was in ex- 
istence in 1786.” The correspondence proves 
nothing, and Mr. Cramr’s presumption is founded, 
as usual, on nothing. The “lynx-eyed,” I pre- 
sume, allowed the paragraph quoted to pass with- 
out comment, and very naturally, because every 
word in it had warrant in the published letters ; 
and if with Mr. Cramp it “solves a mystery,” 
that mystery was solved, to all who read with at- 
tention, when the edition of 1812 was first pub- 
lished. Dl od 
REPRINTS OF EARLY ENGLISH POETRY. 
In pointing out the errors of other people in my 
article of last week, under the above liead, I have 
fallen into a very singular, but I trust not unpar- 
donable, blunder myself. I there spoke of Mr. 
E. V. Utterson as dead; I am most happy to be 
informed that he is living and well, but during 
the last six months at least, I have been, I hardly 
know how, under the unfortunate persuasion that 
he had ceased to be among us. My notion was 
that I had heard one of my family read the account 
of Mr. Utterson’s decease from The Times, but I 
must have been mistaken; and the only apology 
I can now make is, at once to acknowledge the 
error, and to express my hearty sorrow for having 
fallen into it, as well as my hearty joy at the con- 
tinued health of a gentleman to whom I have been 
under so many literary obligations. These obli- 
gations I not only did not scruple to admit, but I 
was glad to admit them at the moment I was so 
incautious in the statement of them. It may be 
some excuse to say that, residing at a distance 
from London, I had not any ready means of in- 
quiry; but, on the other hand, this very circum- 
stance ought to have rendered me more careful. 
The commencement of my article shows how 
strong was the conviction in my mind; it never 
suggested itself to me as a matter of doubt. if 
think I know Mr. Utterson well enough to feel 
sure that he will accept the amends contained in 
this note. J. Payne CoLiier. 
Maidenhead, Jan. 8, 1856. 
PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE. 
Photographie Fac-similes of Old Documents. — Mr. 
Lyvr’s late Letter to The Times on some difficulties in 
the application of photography to the production of fac- 
similes of MSS., was a heavy blow and great discourage- 
ment to the practice of the Art, in a department to which 
we believe it to be eminently adapted. We have great 
pleasure, therefore, in reproducing in our columns Mr, 
Delamotte’s Letter to the same journal on this important 
subject; and we hope that able and practised photo- 
grapher will complete the good work he has thus com- 
menced, by communicating some practical suggestions as 
to the best mode of making photographic copies of early 
documents and printed books: .— 
“TO THE EDITOR OF ‘ THE TIMES.’ 
“ Sir, In your journal of the 6th ult., there appeared 
a letter from Mr. Maxwell Lyte on photographic fac- 
similes of old documents, which is calculated to discourage 
attempts in one of the most valuable applications of the 
photographie art; but, as the statements contained in 
this letter are at variance with the experience of most 
photographers, I think, for the credit of the art, they 
ought not to pass uncontradicted, 
