54 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2°4 S. VI. 133., July 17. '58. 



the Bishop ; her name was Amicia, and by her he 

 was fixther of Nigel de Albini, who was thus the 

 near relation (first cousin, as I take it) of Rohert 

 de Moiohray. 



Rohert de Mowbray had taken to wife Maude, 

 daughter of Richard de Aquila. After her hus- 

 band had been for some time a prisoner, this lady 

 was, by special leave of the Pope, permitted to 

 marry Nigel de Albini, who, by the gift of King 

 Henry I., had all the lands of her former husband 

 Robert de Mowbray given him. 



After a while Nigel de Albini put away his wife 

 Maude, on the ground of her being the wife of 

 his kinsman, and wedded another, viz. Gundred, 

 daughter to Girald de Gornay, by whom he left 

 issue Roger, who became possessed of the lands 

 of Mowbray, and by the special command of King 

 Henry assumed the surname of Moxohray. Fi'om 

 this Roger are descended the Mowbray s of Eng- 

 land. 



I should be obliged by any information respect- 

 ing tlie progenitors of Roger de Albini, who was 

 the father of Nigel ; as well as of William de 

 Albini, from whom the Earls of Arundel were 

 descended. Was there any connexion between 

 this Roger de Albini and the family of Neel de St. 

 Sauveur, hereditary Vicomte of the Cotentin ? In 

 particular, is there any ground for supposing that 

 Roger de Albini was a younger son of one of the 

 Neels de St. Sauveur ? Meletes. 



AUTHORSHIP OP THE CANDOB PAMPHLETS. 



(•2'''* S. V. passim.) 

 As to who was the author, I have not grounds 

 even for a conjecture ; but I agree with D.E., and 

 believe that the writer was certainly a lawyer. I 

 think, from Almon's Letter to Temple, that Temple 

 did not know the writer, or rather that Almon 

 assumed that he did not. 



Wilkes, though the writer was an able advocate 

 on his side, was indignant at his calling him " a 

 worthless fellow," and he asks in a letter to Al- 

 mon (Wilkes's Cor. ii. 95.), Dec. 1764: "What 

 does he mean by 'he ever avoided my acquain- 

 tance?' I never heard of him till now?" It 

 ought to be inferred from this that both Wilkes 

 and Almon knew the writer; but I suspect it 

 is a loose expression, and means only " What 

 does the writer mean ? I know nothing about 

 him ? " It is possible that Wilkes, after all, may 

 have known more than Almon, and assumed that 

 Almon was as well informed as himself; bit I 

 doubt. There is further a puzzling passage in 

 the same letter, which I cannot apply. Separated 

 from the foregoing by some talk about Churchill, 

 Wilkes says : " I observe that Wright highly con- 

 demns me as too ludicrous from the expression of 

 stolen goods," &c. : it was nervous, not ludicrous. 

 It was treating the case as it deserved ; and he 



adds, "the same dull lawyer" likewise condemns 

 the second letter to the Secretaries. My first im- 

 pression was that Wilkes still referred to the 

 Enquiry, and that Wright was the assumed or 

 known writer of it : but though the letter to the 

 Secretaries is condemned in the Enquiry as " in- 

 decent and scurrilous," " unbecoming any gen- 

 tleman," it is not called "ludicrous;" and Wilkes 

 seems to dwell on, to argue on, and to quote that 

 word. I therefore presume that Wilkes had re- 

 ceived a batch of pamphlets, and noticed the En- 

 qidry and another written by Wright. Wilkes 

 indeed, though very angry, says, " There is much 

 good sense, and I suppose a great deal of sound 

 law in the Enquiry," whereas he seems to despise 

 " the dull lawyer " Wright. Wilkes assuredly 

 believed that he knew the writer of the Enquiry, 

 for, in a "Letter on Public Conduct of Mr. Wilkes," 

 dated Oct. 29, 1768, he says: "lam entirely of 

 opinion with ****** [six stars, which might serve 

 for Camden], who declares ' I do not scan the pri- 

 vate actions,' &c. . . I shall not now stay to show 

 how far the Equity of this rule was violated by the 

 concealed author himself, before he got half through 

 his pamphlet, in a manner equally indecent and 

 unjust to a sick and absent friend whom he basely 

 wounded," &c. Again Wilkes, in his " Letter to 

 George Grenville," dated Nov. 4, 1769 (p. 51,), 

 refers to Postscript on " Letter concerning Libels," 

 quotes fi'om it, and says, " a book written by the 

 greatest lawyer of this age," which again might 

 characterise, in Wilkes's opinion, Camden or Dun- 

 ning. 



I may add that there was no " Master in Chan- 

 cery" of the name of AVright; and it is on the 

 reference to the Enquiry in Wilkes's Letter to 

 Grenville that Almon says, in a note, the Enquiry 

 was written by " a late Master in Chancery." 



A. C. P. 



ilf plic^ to iHiivar i^ueviti. 



Crashaw and Shelley (2°'i S. v. 449. 516.)— As I 

 only see " N. & Q." in monthly parts, I have been 

 unable sooner to notice the former of these articles 

 by Professor M'Carthy, and to thank him for 

 pointing out, what your other correspondent has 

 frankly and justly accepted for me, the typogra- 

 phical error referred to. It is truly provoking 

 that in spite of the utmost care and desire to pro- 

 vide a perfect text, such oversights will be made by 

 theverybest of editors; and, therefore, some excuse 

 may be found for the fault of one whose unlucky 

 case does not admit of his enjoying much literary 

 ease. W. B. Tdbnbull. 



Hymnology (2°'' S. v. 171.) — Having in my pos- 

 session the original copy of the hymn " Come 

 thou fount of every blessing," composed by Lady 

 Huntingdon about 1750, I send it for insertion in 



