9* s. vi. Nor. s, i9oo.] NOTES AND QUERIES. 345 man ! "* This is evidently an allusion to the death of the Governor of Madras in confine raent near Fort St. George. According U Horace Walpole's 'Last Journals' (vol. ii p. 186) confirmation of the reports of Lore Pigot's death reached London on 31 Jan. 1778. This letter was apparently written about that date, and may be placed between No. 1,702 (24 Jan., 1778) and No. 1,703 (4 Feb., 1778) in Cunningham's edition. Letter 2,050 (vol. viii. p. 63), addressed to the Rev. William Cole, is dated in Walpole's MS 7 July, 1781. It appears, however, to have been written in August, as is obvious from the following considerations :— 1. The letter is in reply to one from Cole, dated 5 Aug., in which he mentions having seen in the papers the announcement of what he supposes to be Horace Walpole's marriage. Horace Walpole states, in the letter under consideration, that the marriage was not his own, but that of his cousin, another Horace Walpole (the eldest son of Lord Walpole of Wolterton), who on 27 July, 1781, married Horace Walpole's niece Sophia Churchill. 2. Horace Walpole writes, "The story of poor Mr. Cotton is shocking, whatever way it happened." This comment was caused by Cole's account of the death of the eldest son of Sir John Cotton, a Cambridgeshire baronet. Cole, in his letter to Walpole, states that the death took place "last Monday," meaning apparently Monday, 30 July, though it is announced in the Gentleman's Magazine of 1781 (p. 395) as having occurred on 31 July. As Walpole's letter was probably written soon after the receipt of Cole's of 5 Aug. it may be placed between letters of 1 Aug. and 16 Aug. (Nos. 2,056 and 2,057 in Cunningham's edition). Horace Walpole no doubt here, as in other coses, wrote the wrong date by a slip of the pen. Letter 2,220 (Cunningham's edition, vol. viii. p. 325), addressed to the Countess of Ossory, is in two parts. The first is dated by Vernon Smith(the original editor of' Walpole's Letters to Lady Ossory') 29 Jan., 1783, and by Cun- ningham, 25 Jan., 1783. The second part,
- Col. Stuart, second in command of the forces
in Madras: " On the 24th of August, 1776, the Colonel passed the greater part of the day in com- pany, or in business, with Lord Pigot; he both breakfasted and dined with him as his familiar friend, and was driving in the carriage with him when, according to the Colonel's previous orders, the carriage was surrounded and stopped by troops. His Lordship was then informed that he was their prisoner."—Stanhope, 'History of England,' ed, 1853-4, voj, vii. y. 268, which begins "I had written the above on Wednesday," is dated in both editions "Sat., 26." None of these dates is correct. The date of the second part, "Saturday, 26," is either a misprint or a slip of the pen on Wal- pole's part. 26 Jan., 1783, was a Sunday. This portion of the letter, therefore, should be dated either "Saturday, 25," or "Sunday, 26." As the second part of the letter states that the first part was " written on Wednes- day," the date of the first part must bo. 22 Jan., 1783, and not 25 Jan. (according to Cunningham), nor 29 Jan. (according to Vernon Smith). Letter 2,224 (Cunningham's edition, vol. viii. p. 332), addressed to the llev. William Mason, and dated 10 Feb., 1783, evidently ends on p. 333 with the words, "I know no more literary news and I have done with all other. Adieu !" The continuation, which begins " Your coalition with Johnson," &c.t and ends with the date 7 March, 1783, has been treated both by Mitford (the editor of the 'Mason and Walpole Correspondence') and by Cun» ningham on the assumption that it is part of the letter of 10 Feb. This, however, is a mis- take. The paragraphs dated 7 March are clearly in answer to Mason's letter of 5 March, 1783 (' Correspondence of Mason and Walpole,' vol. ii. p. 332). This is evident from the fol- lowing parallel passages from Mason's lettef of 5 March and Horace Walpole's of 7 March: Mason (5 March). Walpole (7 March). "Now that Chaos is "Chaos is in good come again I hold my- earnest couie again, &ci self absolved from every obligation," &c. "I have gone a great "Your coalition with way towards a literary Johnson is supcrexcol- coalition with IV. John- lent," &c. . , son," &c. " My last edition [of " I have not seen the the 'English Garden']... new edition of your was printed off three 'Garden' advertised or weeks ago, but if you should certainly have would see it you must sent for it." tray it," 4c. It will be seen from the above quotations that the letter in which they occur is inde- pendent of that of 10 Feb. It should be placed between Nos. 2,227 (24 Feb.) and 2,228 '10 March) in vol. viii. of Cunningham's edition. HELEN TOYNBEE. P.S.—The following paragraph was inad- vertently omitted by me from my letter in N. & Q.' of 7 July (ante, p. 2). Letter 1,846 (Cunningham's edition, vol. vii. D. 250), addressed to Earl Harcourt, bears no late of any kind. It is placed by Cunning- lam amongst letters of September, 1779. It seems, however, to belong to November in
