the printer and author being first established as to justify the resort to what should always be considered as the last remedy when all attempts at explanation fail. JAS. CROSSLEY.

JOHN WOLCOT, M.D. (3rd S. xii. 39, 94, 151, 235.) PHILALETHES does not alter the opinion that I have come to. The work of Mr. Polwhele quoted is one of the most desultory of books, and full of twaddle. To contradict what I have stated (3rd S. xii. 151) something more is wanted than Mr. Polwhele's "we are told," and "it is said," &c. With all Mr. P.'s pretended intimacy, "we are told" (? by whom), not that Wolcot ever denied his holy orders, but that "as to his clerical pretensions he was always reserved." Mr. P.'s " recollection" amounts to mere "hearsay," which every old woman knows is no evidence. I knew a gentleman in Surrey who was a friend of Dr. Wolcot, having consulted him for ophthalmia; and he always said that the doctor was a clergyman. The late Mr. Scales always asserted the same thing. He was a most intimate friend of Pindar, and being a congenial spirit, was more likely to be well informed on such a matter than was the late Rev. Richard Polwhele. Wolcot had no great respect for "the cloth," and would more freely speak out to a facetious lay citizen of London and a bon vivant, than to a very orthodox Cornish clergyman. That Wolcot may have been sent back on his first application for ordination, is very probable; but it does not follow that such application was the only one. There is one gentleman, the Rev. Percival Burton, M.A., who, if living, can settle the dispute, as he was for some years the incumbent of the same Jamaica living that was held by Wolcot. Mr. B. was not the immediate successor of Peter Pindar, but he knows the history of the parish. I repeat my assertion that Dr. Wolcot was in "holy orders." Let PHILALETHES prove the contrary. S. JACKSON.

•

In Kingsbridge and Salcombe with the intermediate Estuary (by Abraham Hawkins, of Alston, Esq.), Kingsbridge, 1819, Dr. Wolcot is thus noticed in connection with his birthplace, Pindar Lodge, Dodbrooke (adjoining the town of Kingsbridge)," where his respected ancestors for many generations resided":

"... Avi numerantur avorum.'

"John Wolcot, M.D., the celebrated lyrick and satirical poet, generally known by the name of Peter Pindar, Esq., first drew his breath within the precincts of these premises. He received his education at Kingsbridge under

Mr. Burton, after he left Jamaica, was Curate of Rendlesham, Suffolk, and afterwards Chaplain to the workhouse, Bermondsey, Surrey.

a gentleman of the name of Morris, a native of Ringwood in Hampshire, and a good classical scholar, beloved and for sound learning, virtuous worth, and unassuming respected through life by all his pupils and neighbours manners. Many of the early strokes of humour and smart repartees of the facetious author of the Lousiad are still recollected by a few of the companions of his schoolhours, who yet survive [1818] in Kingsbridge and its vicinity." [Of these, Abraham Hawkins was himself

one.

"After a course of medical studies, and obtaining the degree of doctor of physick at the University of Aberdeen, young Wolcot embarked for Jamaica with the governor, Sir William Trelawney, baronet, of Trelawney in Cornwall, as his physician. But the short time which his patron survived the appointment having annihilated his West Indian expectations, the doctor returned to England and settled at Truro,* where he practised for several years as a physician with great success. His fondness, however, for exposing to ridicule those who, perhaps, merited the lash of his satirical pen, drew him into many bickerings. Some charming songs of his were at this period set to musick with superior taste by that celebrated composer Mr. William Jackson of Exeter, and attracted notice Dr. Wolcot removed to Helstone, about seventeen miles by their exquisite sweetness and beauty. At length further towards the Land's End. It was while he resided at Truro he met with that extraordinary genius, John Opie, R.A., the celebrated painter. In the year 1780, Wolcot carried him to London, where Opie preLyrick Odes to the Royal Academicians, in which he sently got into practice; and the poetical patron, by his first assumed the title of Peter Pindar, Esq., a distant relation of the poet of Thebes, and laureate to the Royal Academy,' became as much the object of admiration for his witty invectives, † as the other for his powers in (Pp. 54-56.) giving life to the canvass."

"

There does not seem as if there had been time for Dr. Wolcot to have returned to England for ordination, nothing of the kind; and in the account given by Dr. and again to have gone to Jamaica. Hawkins intimates Wolcot of his clerical avocations in Jamaica (as narrated to those from whom I heard it forty years ago), though there was a sufficiently irreverent description of his congregation, &c., yet he said nothing as to his having in the interim returned to England for ordination. It may have been said that, if Sir William Trelawney had lived, he would have done so. But MR. S. JACKSON, after informing us that he has "made a search," states very explicitly that "he was ordained priest and deacon by Bishop Porteus." If so, it could have no connection with his Jamaica life; for Beilby Porteus was not made Bishop of Chester till 1776, and did not hold the see of London till 1787.

All the truth seems to be that, in the absence of a clergyman, Dr. Wolcot officiated; not so remarkable a thing on board ship, or in a colony, though it is to be wished that any who did this were not exactly of Dr. Wolcot's stamp.

Dr. Wolcot having been apprenticed to his uncle at Fowey, who was the family apothecary to the Trelawneys, was thus brought under their notice. Rather strange anecdotes used to be current as to his doings at Fowey during his apprentice days there.

On one point posterity has pretty fully agreed with Dr. Wolcot-as to his low estimate of Benjamin West as a painter. I see that a recent writer in "N. & Q." has conferred on West the dignity of knighthood-a thing which even the sovereign cannot do to a man after his decease (3rd S. xii. 104). Perhaps we shall next hear that he was an artist.

Anacreon, Sappho, and my great old cousin ; On thee shall rising generations stare, That come to Kingsbridge and to Dodbrook fair: For such thy history and mine shall learn ; Like Alexander shall they ev'ry one Heave the deep sigh, and say, "Since Peter's gone, With rev'rence let us look upon his barn."" Though Dr. Wolcot renounced the name of Peter Pindar when adopted by Lawler, who knew how to emulate or exceed his own coarseness, yet he retained the designation in verse. Thus, in the ninth stanza of the Elegy on his Barn," he thus speaks with reference to "Justice" Hawkins: "I, too, have felt the force of Slander's tongue,

―――――

And scorned her rage, her lying prose and metre:
While HAWKINS yields a plaudit to my song,
The snakes of Envy hiss in vain at PETER."
LÆLIUS.

131, in which volume (pp. 11, 53, 72, 292, 315) the names of other prelates are adduced as among the first to lay aside the wig. I do not, however, find among them the name of Shute Barrington, Bishop of Durham, 1791-1826, whose motive for laying aside his episcopal wig is said to have been the undue heat which it caused him in summer. The admirable kneeling figure (by Chantrey) of this prince palatine, on his tomb in Durham Cathedral, represents his stately bald head uncovered. His successor, Bishop Van Mildert, wore the episcopal wig, and is so represented in his portraits and in Gibson's sitting figure on the tomb in the Nine Altars.

The mention of Bishop Barrington's motive for laying aside the wig recalls to memory the analogous circumstance that Bishop Warburton, who was a Prebend of Durham up to his death in 1779, was the first (in Durham Ĉathedral) to lay aside the use of the cope; and he did so because its high collar irritated both his skin and temper. The Copes are carefully preserved in the cathedral library; and it is remarkable that the crimson silk cope presented to the cathedral by Charles I. the head of Goliath. is adorned with the subject of David cutting off CUTHBERT BEDE.

Permit me to supplement my note on the late Archbishop of Canterbury, by saying that there is a fine portrait of him in the hall of Durham University, in which he is habited in a gown and cassock, and wearing his own hair, not a wig. He held, in conjunction with the bishopric of Chester, a golden stall in Durham Cathedral, and consequently his portrait as a prebendary found a place in the College Hall. Engravings from this are well known.

News of the World published an engraving of him Again, when Archbishop of Canterbury, the in a series of portraits presented to their subscribers, in which he is again depicted as wearing his own hair. However, many years ago, when Bishop of Chester, he confirmed me, and then certainly he wore the episcopal wig.

It would seem though, from the instances cited, that he did not much admire that portion of the episcopal dress sanctioned by the authority of custom, and laid it aside when possible. An old Etonian told me the other day that he could well recollect him acting as wicket-keeper when one of the assistants there, and wearing shorts and silks, certainly not a wicketing costume adapted to the swift bowling of the present day, but tempora OXONIENSIS.

mutantur.

Bushey Rectory, Watford, Herts.

Thanks to your correspondents for their communications. I regard this little chapter in the history of costume as an interesting one. However,

I still contend that Archbishop Sumner was the last to wear the episcopal wig. So late as 1859, three years before his death, with my own eyes I saw him be-wigged at the consecration of three bishops in Westminster Abbey; and I have been assured, on the very highest authority, that on all public occasions this prelate wore the wig to the last. JOSEPHUS.

Your correspondent who asserts that Archbishop Sumner was the last prelate who wore the episcopal wig is quite right, but your correspondent who affirms that he left it off when Bishop of Chester is equally correct. The fact is he left it off when Bishop of Chester, but resumed it when elevated to the archiepiscopate. I may take this opportunity of recording a curious anecdote in the history of the episcopal wig. The Bishop of Rochester (Dr. Murray) and Archbishop Howley were the only dignitaries who were accustomed to wear wigs at the time of Dr. Howley's decease. When that event took place, Dr. Murray-probably from a wish not to be peculiar as the only bishop wearing a wig-disused it, and was hardly recognised when he first appeared in the House of Lords without it. But great was the surprise of Dr. Murray when the new archbishop took his seat wearing a wig-a practice which he continued until his death, and was really the last wearer of the wig; for Dr. Murray, who resumed his wig (if I remember rightly) predeceased him by about two years. T.

JOB BEN SOLOMON (3rd S. v. 12.)-See an interesting account of this remarkable individual in the Memoir of General James Oglethorpe, recently published, pp. 81-85. E. H. A.

ASSUMPTION OF A MOTHER'S NAME (3rd S. xii. 66, 154, 237.)-If MR. BUCKTON's assumptions are to be taken in their full breadth, I should say that all three are wrong.

1st. A married woman does not in Scotland retain her maiden name. It is true that in a legal deed she would be described both by her maiden name and that of her husband, "A, B, or C," but this is only for the sake of identification, as in subscribing the same deed her signature would be A, C. The Scotch custom in this respect appears to be very analogous to the use the French make of the word née. Among the lower classes in Scotland, and occasionally in the upper, the relatives and intimate friends of a woman use her maiden name after her marriage, but this is to a great extent a matter of accident, and is entirely colloquial. I may illustrate this by the case of two women who were both in my own service. The one, a native of the district, was always spoken of by her maiden name. The other had come with

Supposing the identity of the person established, there would be no difficulty in recovering in the cases mentioned by E.S.S. In that of an insurance office, however, it is possible to conceive circumstances in which a change of surname might be used to conceal a latent fraud, which of course would be a totally different matter.

All members of the Faculty of Advocates of my own standing will readily recollect an instance where a surname was assumed without any formality whatever, which, had the proceeding been illegal or irregular, would at one time have paralysed all important criminal prosecutions in ScotGEORGE VERE IRVING.

land.