ond §, No 7., Fes, 16. °56.] 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
129 
ture of the poor licenser at the bar of the House 
of Commons (p. 356.) ; but the injustice done to 
his reputation is scarcely expiated by a cold ad- 
mission that he was a man of “ some learning.” 
Macaulay treats it as a settled point that 
Charles Blount was the author of King William 
and Queen Mary Conquerors, in which tract is set 
forth, according to Burnet (“N. & Q,,” 2°58. 
i. 21.), “ with great modesty and judgment,” but, 
according to Macaulay (vol. iv. p. 35.), “in the 
most offensive manner,” a doctrine diametrically 
opposed to Blount’s own opinions. The pamphlet 
is not included in Gildon’s collection of Blount’s 
works ; and Bohun especially says that Bently the 
publisher “ ascribed it wrongly to Blount” (Auto- 
biography, p.113.). This is not conclusive; and it 
must remain doubtful, if other evidence be not 
adducible, whether in the plot to ruin Bohun, 
Blount did not avail himself of popular clamour 
against the production of some third person. 
Bently’s mistake (if mistake it was) would ex- 
plain how it happened that the tract was com- 
monly ascribed to Blount. 
Blount’s motives in attacking the censor are 
Open to suspicion; and if any eredit be due to 
éither of them for having contributed to bring 
about the freedom of the press, a share of that 
negative praise may as well be claimed for him 
who gave his imprimatur to the offensive notion of 
* Conquest,” and refused to license the “ Western 
Martyrology.” Macaulay considers that Blount’s 
“important service” has been sadly overlooked. 
(Vol. iv. p. 362.) ; 
In a note at p. 705. of vol. iv., Bohun’s name is 
twice mis-spelt, and Norfolk is put for Suffolk. 
; S. W. Rix. 
Beccles, 
LINES UPON THE SOVEREIGNS COINED IN 1817. 
To many, if not most, readers of “ N. & Q.” the 
following lines, published in the Morning Chro- 
nicle of August 12, 1817, upon the sovereigns first 
issued in that year, may be new, and they are 
well worthy of preservation. For the correctness 
of the description they give is undeniable; and 
though the satire was, it may well be supposed, 
sharpened by political animosity, it certainly was 
richly deserved ; since a more absurd design will 
not easily be produced than that of the original 
St. George upon the new gold coinage of 1817. 
This failure is to be regretted, for I consider the 
obverse of the coin to be decidedly superior to 
that of any subsequent issue ; ad the present 
state of the legend proves that the raised rim, 
more recently added, is not necessary as a protec- 
tion from wear. 
I vonceive the first minted sovereigns to be still 
in circulation ; at least, I believe I have had some 
in my possession at no distant period; but of 
those of 1820, I frequently take one or more, and 
have one before me now, together with several of 
George IV. of different dates. On that of 1821, 
the first, it may be presumed, of that reign, the 
garter surrounding the field of the reverse in the 
original design is omitted, the figures within are 
enlarged, and the “hedge stake” in the hand of 
St. George changed into a short sword. Whether 
or not any sovereigns were coined in 1825, I am 
unable to say, but the first die of George IV. 
was used in 1824; while dn entirely new one, a 
ereat improvement upon the old, was adopted in 
1826; when the wreath round the head, always 
introduced previously, was discarded (as it was 
likewise in the sovereign of William IV.), and the 
royal arms, surmounted by a crown, displaced 
St. George and the dragon. 
It may be stated, that, though I can refer to no 
special Note upon the subject, the verses below 
are faithfully given from the copy taken by my- 
self, mediately, but not directly, from the news- 
paper very shortly after they first appeared in the 
Morning Chronicle :— 
* Upon the New Coin called Sovereigns. 
* Saint George one day went out, 
To give the Dragon a bout. 
Of his clothes he was careful enough, 
So he stript himself to his buff; 
He didn’t put on his armour, 
For St. George was no alarmer, 
But his wife made him take her clokes 
For, says she, to catch cold is no joke. 
So he started; but when he came near, 
He found he’d forgot his spear, 
So he pull’d from the hedge a stake, 
And the Dragon began to quake ; 
St. George, he drew his arm back, 
To give the Dragon a thwack, 
Then the Dragon fell down, and shamm’d sick ; 
But St. George so ill managed his stick, 
That he prick’d his horse in the flanks. 
Oh, Ho, says the horse, no thanks! 
So up his head he whaps, 
And hits St. George in the chaps; 
And beat his face to a jelly, 
That whether it were face or no, none can tell ye.” 
Arruur Husspy. 
DICTIONARY OF ANONYMOUS WRITERS. 
The frequent communications which have ap- 
peared in the pages of “* N. & Q.” on the subject 
of a dictionary of anonymous English writers, 
similar to the Dictionnaire des Ouvages anonymes 
et pseudonymes of Barbier, lead me to believe that 
such a work would be regarded ds a valuable con- 
tribution to the bibliographical literature of the 
country. 
I have, myself, felt the want of it greatly, and 
for my own purposes I have long been in the 
habit of noting down every piece of information 
that came inmy way. During the last three or 
