2 nd S. N7., FEB. 16. '56.]
NOTES AND QUERIES.
129
ture of the poor licenser at the bar of the House
of Commons (p. 356.) ; but the injustice done to
his reputation is scarcely expiated by a cold ad-
mission that he was a man of " some learning."
Macaulay treats it as a settled point that Charles Blount was the author of King William and Queen Mary Conquerors, in which tract is set forth, according to Burnet (" N. & Q.," 2 nd S. i. 21.), " with great modesty and judgment," but, according to Macaulay (vol. iv. p. 35.), " in the most offensive manner," a doctrine diametrically opposed to Blount's own opinions. The pamphlet is not included in Gildon's collection of Blount's works ; and Bohun especially says that Bently the publisher " ascribed it wrongly to Blount" (Auto- biography, p. 113.). This is not conclusive; and it must remain doubtful, if other evidence be not adducible, whether in the plot to ruin Bohun, Blount did not avail himself of popular clamour against the production of some third person. Bently's mistake (if mistake it was) would ex- plain how it happened that the tract was com- monly ascribed to Blount.
Blount's motives in attacking the censoi 1 are open to suspicion ; and if any credit be due to either of them for having contributed to bring about the freedom of the press, a share of that negative praise may as well be claimed for him who gave his imprimatur to the offensive notion of " Conquest," and refused to license the " Western Martyrology." Macaulay considers that Blount's " important service " has been sadly overlooked. (Vol. iv. p. 362.)
In a note at p. 705. of vol. iv., Bohun's name is twice mis-spelt, and Norfolk is put for Suffolk.
S. W. Rix.
Beccles.
LINES UPON THE SOVEREIGNS COINED IN 1817.
To many, if not most, readers of " N. & Q." the following lines, published in the Morning Chro- nicle of August 12, 1817, upon the sovereigns first issued in that year, may be new, and they are well worthy of preservation. For the correctness of the description they give is undeniable ; and though the satire was, it may well be supposed, sharpened by political animosity, it certainly was richly deserved ; since a more absurd design will not easily be produced than that of the original St. George upon the new gold coinage of 1817. This failure is to be regretted, for I consider the obverse of the coin to be decidedly superior to that of any subsequent issue ; and the present state of the legend proves that the raised rim, more recently added, is not necessary as a protec- tion from wear.
I conceive the first minted sovereigns to be still in circulation ; at least, I believe I have had some in my possession at no distant period ; but of II
those of 1820, I frequently take one or more, and
have one before me now, together with several of
George IV. of different dates. On that of 1821,
the first, it may be presumed, of that reign, the
garter surrounding the field of the reverse in the
original design is omitted, the figures within are
enlarged, and the " hedge stake " in the hand of
St. George changed into a short sword. Whether
or not any sovereigns were coined in 1825, I am
unable to say, but the first die of George IV.
was used in 1824; while an entirely new one, a
great improvement ufion the old, was adopted in
1826 ; when the wreath round the head, always
introduced previously, was discarded (as it was
likewise in the sovereign of William IV.), and the
royal arms, surmounted by a crown, displaced
St. George and the dragon.
It may be stated, that, though I can refer to no special Note upon the subject, the vei'ses below are faithfully given from the copy taken by my- self, mediately, but not directly, from the news- paper very shortly after they first appeared in the Morning Chronicle:
" Upon the New Coin called Sovereigns.
" Saint George one day -went out, To give the Dragon a bout. Of his clothes he Was careful enough, So he stript himself to his buff; He didn't put on his armour, For St. George was no alarmer, But his wife made him take her cloke; For, says she, to catch cold is no joke. So he started; but when he came near, He found he'd forgot his spear, So he pull'd from the hedge a stake, And the Dragon began to quake ; St. George, he drew his arm back, To give the Dragon a thwack, Then the Dragon fell down, and shamm'd sick ; But St. George so ill managed his stick, That he.prick'd his horse in the flanks. Oh, Ho, says the horse, no thanks ! So up his head he whaps, And hits St. George in the chaps, And beat his face to a jelly, That whether it were face or no, none can tell ye."
ABTHUK HUSSEY.
DICTIONARY OF ANONYMOUS WRITERS.
The frequent communications which have ap- peared in the pages of " N. & Q." on the subject of a dictionary of anonymous English writers, similar to the Dictionnaire des Ouvages anonymes et pseudonymes of Barljiei 1 , lead me to believe that such :i work would be regarded as a valuable con- tribution to the bibliographical literature of the country.
I have, myself, felt the want of it greatly, and for my own purposes I have long been in the habit of noting down every piece of information that came in my way. During the last three or
