tag="{http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml}a">[2] makes it appear that the prince, and not De Brewes, was the culprit, and performed the penance.

[2] Page 339. col. 1. line 46., where "Edward" is printed instead of "William de Brewes."

To return to the prince's offence and punishment. He appears to have been nearly starved into submission, as the royal prohibition against supplying him with articles or money was obliged to be removed by a Letter Close directed to all the sheriffs, dated Ospring, 22nd July.

The whole transaction is highly characteristic of the firmness of the king. Whether the prince's letters which I have referred to make out a case of harshness, as regards some other circumstances, I will not now trouble you with. But while examining cotemporary documents illustrative of the prince and his correspondents, I met with an entry upon the Close Roll (33 Edw. I.) too strikingly illustrative of the determination and caution of Edward I. to be allowed to remain in its present obscurity.

On the 27th November the prince addressed a letter to Master Gerard de Pecoraria, earnestly begging him to favour and forward the affairs of Ralph de Baldok, then Bishop Elect of London. The "affairs" in question were the removal of certain scruples instilled into the Papal ear against the approval of the bishop elect; a matter generally involving some diplomacy and much money. Master Gerard was employed by the Pope to collect various dues in England; and so his good will was worth obtaining. But the following Letter Close will show how he received his "quietus," as far as the King of England was concerned:

"The King to Ralph de Sandwich.—By reason of the excessive and indecent presumption with which Gerard de Pecoraria is making oppressive levies and collections of money in various places; by whose authority we know not, for he will not show it; and inasmuch as the same is highly derogatory to our crown, and injurious to our people, and many complaints have been made against him on that account; We command you to take the said Gerard before the Mayor and Sheriffs of London, and there warn him to cease from making the said levies, and to quit the kingdom in six days, provided that at such warning no public notary be present, so that the warning be given to the said Gerard alone, no one else hearing. And be you careful that no one but yourself see this letter, or get a copy thereof."

Who can doubt that such a mandate was strictly carried out?

I regret that my memoranda do not preserve the original language.

JOSEPH BURTT.

MR. GIBSON will find that this story, as well as that relative to Sir William Gascoigne, is also told by MR. FOSS (Judges of England, vol. iii. pp. 43. 261.), who suggests that the offence committed by Prince Edward was an insult to Walter de Langton, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, occasioned probably by the boldness with which that prelate, while treasurer, corrected the insolence of Peter de Gaveston, and restrained the Prince's extravagance. (Ibid. p. 114.)

R. S. V. P.

ELIZABETH JOCELINE'S LEGACY TO AN UNBORNE CHILD.
(Vol. iv., p. 367.)

Your correspondent J. M. G., whose letter is inserted in your 106th Number, labours under various mistakes relating to this small volume. The first edition was not printed in 1684, but more than sixty years earlier. Moreover, that edition, or at least what the Rev. C. H. Craufurd appended to his Sermons in 1840 as a reprint, is not a genuine or faithful republication of the original work. I have for several years possessed a copy of the third impression, Printed at "London, by Iohn Hauiland, for Hanna Barres, 1625;" and of this third impression a fac-simile reprint has passed through the press of Messrs. Blackwood in Edinburgh, which new edition corresponds literatim et verbatim (line for line and page for page) with the earliest impression known to exist, which differs materially in several passages from the reprint published by Mr. Craufurd. This new edition is accompanied by a long preface or dissertation containing many particulars relating to the authoress and her relatives, and to a number of ladies of high station and polished education, who during the period intervening between the Reformation in England and the Revolution in 1688, distinguished themselves by publishing works characterized by exalted piety and refined taste. With regard to Mrs. Joceline, no printed work appears to have preserved correct information. Genealogists seem to have conspired to change her Christian name from Elizabeth to Mary or Jane. The husband is supposed to have sprung from an old Cambridgeshire family, the Joscelyns of Hogington, now called Oakington, the name of a parish adjoining to Cottenham. The writer of the preface seems rather disposed to trace his parentage to John Joscelyn (Archbishop Parker's chaplain), who, according to Strype, was an Essex man.

But I have probably exceeded the bounds allotted to an answer to a Query.

J. L.

Edinburgh.

The Mother's Legacy to her unborne Child is reprinted for the benefit of the Troubridge National Schools, and can be procured at Hatchard's, Piccadilly.

J. S.

Replies to Minor Queries.

Coleridge's "Christabel" (Vol. iv., p. 316.).

—I am not familiar with the Coleridge Papers, under that title, nor indeed am I quite sure that I know at all to what papers MR. MORTIMER COLLINS refers in his question. On this account I am not qualified, as he will perhaps think, to give an opinion upon the genuineness of the lines quoted as a continuation of "Christabel." If I may be allowed, however, to hazard a judgment, as one to whom most of the great poet-philosopher's works have long and affectionately been known, I would venture to express an opinion against the right of these lines to admission as one of his productions. I do it with diffidence; but with the hope that I may aid in eliciting the truth concerning them.

I presume "brookless plash" is a misprint for "brooklet's plash."

The expressions "the sorrow of human years," "wild despair," "the years of life below," of a person who is not yet dead and in heaven, do not seem to me, as they stand in the lines, to be in Coleridge's manner; but especially I do not think the couplet—