Gnd §, No 8, Fun. 23. °56.] 
that it is the catalogue of the magnificent library 
of John de Witt, son of John, counsellor and 
syndie of Holland, and keeper of the great seal : 
Illins auctio habebitur Dordract in edibus defuncti 
20 Octobris, 1701. At the back of this is the 
order of the sale, which was to take place on Oct. 
20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31; Nov. 1, 2,3, 
4, 5, and following days. A prefice to the reader, 
by J. G. Grevius records the zeal of “ Joannes 
de Witt” in collecting books; but, that his un- 
timely death, and that of his wife, leaving three 
children “ ztatis tenerrime,” was the reason that 
their guardians determined “hance incomparabilem 
bibliothecam publice vendere, ne aut furtis lacera- 
retur, aut hominum temporumque injuria cor- 
rumperetur.” 
This volume includes books in folio and in 
quarto; of the former there are 1307 lots, and of 
the latter 2773. As may be expected, it includes 
copies of many rare and valuable works; but, I 
much regret that I have not.that portion of the 
catalogue which contains “libri manuscripti, nu- 
‘mismata et alia prisci temporis monumenta.” My 
reason for this regret is the greater because my 
copy is interleaved, and has the price at which 
it was sold placed opposite every lot. No, 2218. is 
Jac. de Witt, uytdrukzels van Godvrugtige gedaglen, 
Dord., 1674; and my Query is; Was the owner 
of this library son of the great John de, Witt? and 
was the author of the book just named one of the 
family ? B. H. C. 
GENERAL RICHARD WALL. 
(1* S. viii. 318.) 
On looking over your delightful Miscellany, I 
find a Query respecting this gentleman. The 
Query I shall be able to answer to H.'s satisfac- 
tion. I refer him to the fourth volume of Coxe’s 
Memoirs of the Kings of Spain of the House of 
Bourbon, where he will find the particulars of the 
whole political career’ of this distinguished Irish- 
man, and also some details of his earlier and more 
private life. In his youth; like many other Ca- 
tholic Irishmen of good family, he entered the 
military service of Spain. He was a volunteer on 
board the fleet which invaded Sicily in 1718, and 
signalised himself in the naval combat with Ad- 
miral Byng. He afterwards served with the 
Spanish army which placed Don Carlos on the 
throne of Naples. He next attracted the notice 
of the minister Patifio, and from this his diplo- 
matic career must be dated; for not long after he 
had the opportunity of distinguishing himself in 
foreign missions, and particularly in Englatid ; and 
finally he overthrew and succeeded the great 
Ensenada in office. Throughout the rein of 
Ferdinand VI. he preserved peace between this 
country and Spain, and when on the accession of 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
157 
Charles III., and the signing of the “ Family 
Compact,” war broke out between the two coun- 
tries, he discharged his duties ably and manfully 
up to the peace of 1763. In the following year 
he retired from office, and died in 1778. He left 
no issue; a collateral descendant of his was mar- 
ried to Charles Coote, LL.D., of the College of 
Advocates, London. Mr. Macaulay, with his 
usual vraphic force, describes the splendid position 
of the self-exiled Irishman — Don Ricardo Wall, 
as the Spaniards delighted to call him — but as in 
the case of other celebrities of the same country, 
he is unable fully to recognise the merits of the 
general. H.C. C. 
SAMARITANS==SHOMERIM, 
(2 §. i. 72.) 
The inquiry of Mr. Hussey may perhaps be 
best answered by replying to the argument of Dr. 
Wilson (Lands of the Bible, ii. 697.), who ob- 
jects to the claim of the Shomerim as descendants 
of Jacob, Joseph, Ephraim, and Manasseh (Jo- 
sephus, Ant., x1. vill. 6.; Eichborn’s Rep., ix. 21.). 
Dr. Wilson has, however, stated the argument 
very fairly in favour of such claim; and also his 
objections yery fully and candidly. . The question 
is far too interesting to biblical critics to. be left 
in doubt, if any certainty can be attained. The 
radical error of Dr. Wilson is a conclusion that 
no Shomar (Israelite) was left in Samaria after 
the captivity, the converse of which is stated in 
2 Kings xvii, 27, 28., and 2 Chr. xxx. 6.11.* It was 
not probable, scarcely possible, short of a miracle, 
that all the ten tribes, without exception of some 
individuals, should be transplanted into Babylonia. 
The peoples sent thence to supply the place of the 
eee in Samaria were already observers of 
the Sabbath (Josephus, Ané., xu. v. 5.), and are 
termed Cuthoi by Josephus, but, by the Greeks 
Samaritans (Ant., 1x. xiv. 3.).. The Samaritans 
occupied the city Shomeron; but the Shomeronim 
(2 Kings xvii. 29.) must not be confounded with 
the Shomerim, as Dr. Wilson has done. They are 
as distinct as the 12,000 Arabs and 100 Shomerim 
of Sichem now are.,, The Shomerim (Wilson, ii, 
45.), commonly called. Samaritans by_ biblical 
critics, have been for 2500 years inhabitants of 
Sichem (=Neapolis=Nablus), close to Mount 
Gerizim, their Kiblah, as Jerusalem is that of the 
Jews, and Mecea that of the Moslem. ‘The peo- 
ple, according to Josephus, amongst whom the 
Lord sent lions, were the Cuthzoi, not the Shome- 
rim: the former, and not the Shomerim (lzra iv, 
9.), were the people who interfered to prevent the 
building of a temple at Jerusalem, and their di- 
plomatic despatch, as preserved by Ezra (iv. 11— 
* Thave adopted Jahn’s chronoldgy, 
