9*s. vi. DEO. 22, i9oo.] NOTES AND QUERIES. 483 spondence with Lamb and Lloyd under which Coleridge groaned in his letter to Southey of 15 October, 1799 ('Letters of S. T. Coleridge,' 1895, i. 307)? " Final," Mr. Quarterly? Not yet! J. A. RUTTEB. HORACE WALPOLE AND HIS EDITORS. (Continued from p. 346.) LETTER 2,285(Cunningham'sedition, vol. viii. p. 441). addressed to the Rev. William Mason, is dated both by Mitford (in the 'Correspondence of Walpole and Mason,' vol. ii. p. 359) and by Cunningham 3 Dec., 1783. It appears, how- ever, that this was either a slip of the pen on Walpole's part, or a copyist's or printer's error, and that the date should be 30 Dec. The letter was evidently written in reply to one from Mason of 25 Dec., 1783 ('Corre- spondence of Walpole and Mason,' vol. ii. p. 362). This is clearly shown by the follow- ing parallel passages:— Mason's letter of 25 Dec. " I remember when the Coalition was first pro- mulged I began a letter to you with ' Chaos is come again,'but now I will content myself with merely wishing you a Merry Christmas which I should wish to enjoy myself if a teazing tooth- ache would suffer me to do so." "I was really serious Walpole's letter. "Chaos, you say, is come again; yes truly; and Pope might add: ' Joy to great Chaos! let Division reign!'" 'I now come to the when I told you I was pleasantest part of your writing a tragedy my letter, your Tragedy. 1 story is an Indian one and what would pro- bably appear too horrid on the stage." rejoice that you are in earnest, and shall detest your toothache or any associable twitches still more if they interrupt the completion. Don't make it too horrid neither, that it may be licensed at Athens." " Chaos" mentioned in both letters is the confusion occasioned by the dismissal of the Coalition Ministry on 19 Dec., 1783, a further proof that Walpole's letter was not written on 3 Dec., when that event had not taken place. The letter should be placed between Nos. 2,289 and 2,290 in vol. viii. of Cunning- ham's edition. Letter 2,317 (Cunningham's edition, vol. viii. p. 495), addressed to Hon. H. S. Conway, and dated 14 Aug., 1784, was first published in vol. v. of Horace Walpole's ' Works' (4to. edition, 1798). The names of two of the per- sons mentioned in that letter were left blank in that edition, as follows : "Lady has lost all her liveries and her temper, and Lady has cried her eyes out on losing a lurch and almost her wig." The letter was reprinted in Wright's collected edition of 1840 (vol. vi. p. 224), when these blanks were filled up as follows: "Lady Browne has lost," &c., and " Lady Blandford has cried," &e. These names reappear in Cunningham's edition. The name " Blandford," at any rate, cannot be correct. There was no Lady Blandford in 1784. The last bearer of the title previous to that date was Maria de Yonge, Marchioness of Bland- ford, relict of the grandson of the great Duke of Marlborough, and widow of Sir William Windham. She was for many years a country neighbour of Horace Walpole, who mentions her as one of the knot of dowagers with whom he passed so much time in later years. She died in September, 1779, five years before the date of this letter. In his letter to Lord Hailes of 10 Feb., 1781 (Cunningham's edition, vol. viii. p. 5), Walpole writes: " I may add, that latterly I lived in great intimacy with the Marchioness of Blandford who died but a year and a half ago at Sheene, here in my neighbourhood." It is impossible that Horace Walpole should have mentioned Lady Blandford as still living in 1784. On the other hand, the allusion ex- actly fits Lady Margaret Compton (daughter of the fourth Earl of Northampton), who died unmarried in 1786, at the age of eighty-three, two years after the date of this letter. Lady Margaret's wig, her fondness for gambling, and her proneness to tears when luck was against her, are all mentioned by Lady Mary Coke in her 'Journal.' Lady Slary on one occasion writes, " We played at Lu and I won fourteen guineas. Lady Margaret Compton lost forty. Lady Ailesburjr said she cry'd, but I did not see it" (vol. ii. p. 213). Again, referring to the wig, which seems to have been a favourite topic with Lady Margaret's con- temporaries, Lady Mary writes, " I wish Lady Margaret Compton would wear a better wig. I never saw such a one, excepting upon a stick to frighten away birds " (vol. ii. p. 203). Without inspection of the original letter it is difficult to arrive at a definite conclusion. It seems, however, probable that the second lady was Lady Margaret Compton; it cer- tainly could not have been Lady Blandford. I may add that there is no doubt about the date of the letter, because of the reference to the Spanish expedition against Algiers, which took place in the summer of 1784. Letter 2,342 (Cunningham's edition, vol. viii. p. 537), addressed to the Countess of Ossory, and dated " 16 Jan., 1785," is mis- placed, It evidently belongs to January, 1786.
