plished citizen of the world, James Howell, writing from Kent to Thomas Iones, June 1, 1625, says: "I pray leave the smutty Ayr of London and com hither to breath sweeter wher you may pluck a Rose and drink a Cilibub." At that time, and throughout the century, the practice was to imbibe syllabub, like posset, through the spout of an earthenware pot with two handles. The Immortal Dreamer had such a pot in Bedford Jail. In Pyle's time the somewhat mawkish drink was consumed from special tumbler-shaped glasses, then called in the trade "whiptsillibub glasses," and slightly "évasés." It may be doubted whether the "engine" of which the royal housekeeper at Kensington Palace so highly approved, had any merit save that of saving trouble in towns, for the whipping of "that sort of geer" must have been then a frequent operation in the great houses. But no device could supply the picturesque old-world open-air system, such as was in use in hay-fields in Northamptonshire within the Editor's recollection, namely, the "stroking of the sack and the spices in the bowl at the actual side of the fragrant cow.

"

Dr. Conyers Middleton's widow must be his third wife. Anne, daughter of John Powell of Boughrood near Radnor. Sir Leslie Stephen states that Middleton left behind him several MSS., some of which appeared in the posthumous "Collection of his Miscellaneous Works." His papers were left by Anne Middleton to Dr. Heberden, who is said to have burnt one of them against the utility of prayer. It is also said that Bolingbroke surreptitiously preserved a copy of this paper, after advising Middleton's executors to destroy it. There can be no doubt that Samuel Kerrich thought the information conveyed to him by Edmund Pyle so serious, and so damaging to Middleton's character, and that of another, that he tore off the several lines of the letter that are missing, and at once defaced the criminatory words and the name of the "particeps crimi

nis." These defacements recall the letter of "Oxoniensis in the Daily Telegraph of 1904 on the question "Do we believe?" and the astonishing resultant correspondence. Sherlock's book referred to is "An Examination of the Lord Bishop of London's Discourses concerning the Use and Intent of Prophecy."

"The Deplorable Condition" of Hanover must have reference to the bloody battle of Hochkirchen in which Marshal Keith was killed, October 14, 1758, when the Austrians burst upon and defeated the Prussians in a fearful scene of carnage. The French, who had been driven out of Hanover by Ferdinand of Brunswick, after the Battle of Crefeld, June 23, now re-entered the Electorate.

LETTER XCVI

"Feb. 13, 1759

"DEAR SIR,

"Except the inclosed (which is not yet printed& which I desire to have again-& which is written by Soame Jennings) and a story-a sad story-wherein my Lord of Ely has shone ;-I have nothing to say to you.

"The story is of an Irish bishop (late John Craddock of St. John's)-who, has married an Irish widow (of an officer) young-very handsome & of good jointure, and fame. But Lo! this woman is brought to bed-some months too soon for the child to be the bishop's; and many too late for it to be the captain's. On this provocation the bishop has been so indiscrete as to treat her, once & again, with stripes. And both are now striving for a divorcehe on account of the belly-she of the battery. This affair which is matter of much speculation & discourse, especially amongst the bishops, occasion'd the prelate of Ely to deliver his opinion in, but not to the House of Lords, t'other day; as followeth. "Why, look'ee, as to the beating, that may go a good way towards procuring a

divorce: but as to your big belly (my Lord of Chester) I take it to be in this as in other like cases, suppose of a horse-caveat emptor.

Soame Jennings was of St. John's College, Cambridge, and Member for the county from 1742 to 1780, with one exception. The enclosure mentioned by Pyle was perhaps "Short but Serious Reasons for a National Militia," written in the year 1757, a matter that caused enormous excitement.

Pyle's "sad story" appears to have been as malicious an invention as the tragic event related in the letter of January 11, 1755, respecting a noble Duke. The facts about Mrs. Cradock are as follows: Mary, daughter of William Blaydwin of Boston, Lincolnshire, married, firstly, Richard St. George, of Kilrush, Co. Waterford. On August 28, 1758, she married John Cradock, Bishop of Kilmore, 1757-1772, advanced in the latter year to the Archbishopric of Dublin. The only issue of this marriage was John Francis Cradock, born August II, 1759. He changed his name to Caradoc, and was created Baron Howden in the peerage of Ireland in 1819, and dying without issue the title became extinct. Mary Cradock, his mother, died December 15, 1819, aged eighty-nine, and was buried in the Abbey Church of Bath. In her will, proved May 4, 1820, both the date of her son's birth and the fact of his being her only son are stated.

LETTER XCVII

"May 10, 1759

"DEAR SIR,

"I have this moment, almost, found your letter of the 2d April, in a new coat pocket, which, I remember, I fitted some days after I went into waiting at Court, and never have touched it since, 'till this morning; being 'till the end of that month almost perpetually in my gown & cassock, I was frightened at the article of Tenths-but, on looking at the date, I took heart; in confidence that I can have done you no harm; for, I think, if payment is delayed 'till the first of that month, the delay may as well be made longer, for the forfeiture of some small matter is then incurred. I say I think so-for, to confess the truth, I never paid a farthing of that sort, on my own account, in my life; my brother Farraine always doing it for me.

"But if this should not be the case, and you have suffered by my delay; I ingenuously confess I have done wrong and that is the next best thing to doing right.

"Lord L. is dead since you wrote. I wish, with 1000 more, that his antagonist were in the shades too (provided his family were no sufferers :) for I hold him, & his brother (Charles) to be two most dangerous men; as having parts that enable them to do great mischief, & no principles that lead them to do any good. The challenger was (by confession of his friends) drunk when he wrote to Lord L-of whom, notwithstanding what I have here said, I never was an admirer. But in the case now under consideration how can one help being of his side? He spoke contemptuously of the Militia-very true and so do thousands. It has been burlesqued in publick papers, over & over again & treated with the highest scorn & satire. Yet because Ld. L. was a little severe upon it at his table he is to be challenged, truly and by whomwhy, by G. T. a man whose licentious tongue spares not