original MS. copy of this Book was preserved at Durham. The edition of 1690 had been printed from a transcript made by Archbishop Sancroft. The committee therefore engaged the services of a gentleman whose name is well known as an accurate editor of works existing in MS.

This gentlemen obtained access to all the known MSS. of the Convocation Book; viz. 1. The original copy, and papers of alterations suggested as it passed through the Upper House, preserved at Durham. 2. A cotemporary MS. of part of the first book, also preserved at Durham. 3. Archbishop Sancroft's Transcript, preserved at Emanuel College, Cambridge and 4. A MS. of the first book belonging to Bishop Barlow, preserved at Queen's College, Oxford. These MSS. were carefully collated, and the variations, in many respects curious and interesting, were printed at the bottom of the pages, and, as regards the 4th MS., at the end of the volume. The result is a correct edition of the text of this book, with all that can be learned of its variations—the book so highly extolled by your correspondent. And I hear no objection alleged against the care and faithfulness with which this part of the work has been executed: your correspondent does not appear to be aware of anything of the kind having been done.

But the editor went still further—he not only gave the subscribers so much more than they had bargained for, he added full references to the authorities quoted in the book; and when the passages were important, he printed them in full, and even added references to works in which the arguments were more largely handled. Now these references appear to me to amount to many hundreds. They begin with Josephus, and run through Fathers, councils, schoolmen, Roman Catholic controversialists, ecclesiastical historians, and the chroniclers of the Middle Ages: and, as far as I can judge in looking over the notes, not more than three or four of these passages have been undiscovered by the editor, and he honestly says he has not found them; one of these is the unlucky place of St. Jerome, which your correspondent happens to know something about.

The remarks of your correspondent have led me to examine the book, and I refer any one who has the least regard for candour or fairness, to do the same. I would ask them to judge it as a whole, to see the number and variety of the references, and the care which has been bestowed upon them; and to say whether—because he missed one passage, and knew not its importance—the editor can be fairly charged with incompetency; or the committee of the Anglo-Catholic Library accused of neglect, in leaving the work in his hands without exercising over him such supervision as implies the reading every sheet as it passed through the press; for assistance the editor had, and amply acknowledges that he received, at the hand of the superintending editor.

ANOTHER SUBSCRIBER TO THE
ANGLO-CATHOLIC LIBRARY.

GENERAL JAMES WOLFE.
(Vol. iv., pp. 271. 322.)

Many letters of Wolfe's will be found published in the Naval and Military Gazette of the latter part of last and early part of this year.

By the statement of your correspondent MR. COLE, Wolfe was promoted as captain in Burrell's regiment (at present the 4th, or king's own) in 1744. Now Burrell's regiment took the left of the first line at Culloden, so that James Wolfe, unless absent on leave, or employed on particular duty, must have been in that action. The left of the second line was occupied by "Colonel Wolfe's" regiment (now the 8th or "king's"). See the "Rebellion of 1745," by Robert Chambers, in Constable's Miscellany, vol. xvi. p. 86. Captains of nineteen were common enough at that period, but Wolfe is the only one whose name has excited attention.

As to Wolfe's having been "the youngest general ever intrusted with such a responsible command" as that at Quebec, your correspondent surely forgets Napoleon in modern, and the Black Prince in more remote times.

I have seen at Mr. Scott's, of Cahircon, in the co. Clare, an engraving of Wolfe: he is designated as the "Hero of Louisburgh," and is represented with his right to the spectator, the right hand and arm raised as if enforcing an order. The features are small, the nose rather "cocked," and the face conveys the idea of spirit and determination; he wears a very small three-cocked hat, with a plain black cockade, a sort of frock coat reaching to the knees, where it is met by long boots; there are no epaulets, a twist belt confines the coat, and supports a cartouche-box in front, and a bayonet at the right side, and he carries a fusil slung from his right shoulder "en bandouillière."

It is said that the father of Wolfe was an Irishman, and I have been shown in the co. Wicklow the farm on which it is said that James Wolfe was born. It lies near Newtown-Mount-Kennedy. Be that as it may, the name has been made celebrated in Ireland within the last half century by three individuals: first, the Lord Kilwarden, who was murdered during Emmett's rising in 1803; secondly, the late Chief Baron, who spelt his name "with a difference;" and last, not least, the author of the celebrated lines on the "Burial of Sir John Moore."

KERRIENSIS.

PUNISHMENT OF EDWARD OF CAERNARVON BY HIS FATHER.—CHARACTER OF EDWARD I.
(Vol. iv., p. 338.)

I think considerable light is thrown upon this very remarkable incident by a letter of the prince himself to the Earl of Lincoln, dated Midhurst, June 14, which appears upon the Roll of that prince's letters lately discovered at the Chapter House, Westminster. (See Ninth Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, App. II., No. 5.) This letter has been printed in one of the volumes of the Sussex Archæological Society, having been written from that county. For such of your readers as may not have either of these books at command, I will give the material part of the letter, translated:

"On Sunday, the 13th of June, we came to Midhurst, where we found the lord the king, our father; the Monday following, on account of certain words which, it had been reported to the king, had taken place between us and the Bishop of Chester, he was so enraged with us that he has forbidden us, or any of our retinue, to dare to enter his house; and he has forbidden all the people of his household and of the exchequer to give or lend us anything for the support of our household. We are staying at Midhurst to wait his pleasure and favour, and we shall follow after him as well as we are able, at a distance of ten or twelve miles from his house, until we have been able to recover his good will, which we very much desire."

The roll contains several letters which show how seriously the prince was affected by his father's displeasure, and how the king was appeased.

By the letter above quoted, the "minister" appears to have been the Bishop of Chester, then treasurer of the royal household. But the connexion between the prince's case and that of William de Brewosa does not appear, unless they were on intimate terms, as is not improbable: and the punishment of the prince himself is, in my opinion, referred to as a precedent or justification of the punishment imposed upon Brewes. That the severe punishment so imposed was richly deserved none can doubt who has read the report on the Roll: but an unfortunate error in the press