Page:Notes and Queries - Series 12 - Volume 2.djvu/163

 12 s. ii. Anq. 19, 1916.] NOTES AND QUERIES.

157

1806-7, when he was defeated at the poll ? (Smith's 'Parliaments' gives both the Richard Wilson M.P.s as Whigs.) Would he be the Richard Wilson, eldest son of Rev. Dr. Chris. Wilson, Canon Residentiary of St. Paul's, London, who graduated B.A. Trin. Coll., Camb., 177.<; M.A. 1778; admitted to Lincoln's Inn, Jan. 23, 1771 ; and called to the bar June 22, 1779 ?

W. E. W.

" HONEST INJUN" (12 S. i. 389, 458, 517). May I add to the testimony of MR. CORNER and MR. SPARKE (quite accurate, and I also never heard it used in Mr. Farmer's sense) that the phrase was common among New- England boys sixty years ago ? I think is went from there West. Its use as a boy't formula of good faith (with " cross my breast," and the like) indicates that it was much older among their seniors. For its origin, I think MR. CORNER is correct : the reference was not to the Indian's " thievish propensities," but to his lying (as the famous " Sam Hill " story). It is probably eigh- teenth-century. FORREST MORGAN.

Hartford, Conn.

COMMON GARDEN =COVENT GARDEN (12 S. ii. 89). The following are later instances of -these equivalents.

1. 'Joseph Andrews,' iv. 6 (1742) :

" ' Upon my word, ma'am, 1 says Slipslop, ' 1 do not -understand your ladyship.'

" ' I believe, indeed, thou dost not understand me. Thou art a low creature, a reptile of a lower order, a weed that grows in the common garden of the creation.'

" ' I assure your ladyship.' says Slipslop, whose passions were almost of as high an order as her lady's, ' I have no more to do with Common Garden than other folks.' "

2. Richardson, writing triumphantly to Mr. Edwards of Turrick on Feb. 21, 1752, says {' Samuel Richardson's Correspondence,' iii. 33): ' ; Mr. Fielding has met with the disapprobation

S>u foresaw he would meet with, of his ' Amelia.' e is, in every paper he publishes under the title of the Common Garden, contributing to his own overthrow."

This was a reference to the newly launched Covent Garden Journal.

J. PAUL DE CASTRO.

THE CITY CORONER AND TREASURE- TROVE (12 S. i. 483; ii. 51, 91). To the several interesting notes and excerpts con- tributed on this topic I hope to see appended some record of finds made during the last half-century within the jurisdiction of the City Coroner. The fact that these

rarely included coins, jewels, articles made of precious metals, or briefly anything of intrinsic value, may explain some want of interest on the part of the authorities, who clearly have strictly adhered to the common application of the term " treasure-trove."

Excluding Roach Smith, Dr. Corner, Cureton, and some earlier harvesters of the unearthed relics of past London, the number of finds made have been innumer- able. With few exceptions these articles passed at once into private collections, and are not only unrecorded, but largely un- known to the authorities at the Guildhall. The late Mr. F. G. Hilton Price endeavoured to dispel this lethargy, but without success, and it was only the advent of the London Museum and its infinitely better methods that brought about the desired reform. _

As DR. MARTIN remarks, the existence f>f the casket of jewels had been known for some time to several zealous antiquaries in the City, but the civic authorities were not thus to be tempted to take any interest in such matters. ALECK ABRAHAMS.

" WATCH HOUSE," EWELL, SURREY (12 S. ii. 9, 113). The general terms of W. B. H.'s reply at the latter reference are tantalizing. " Two adjacent Midland counties " does not convey much definite information. Will your correspondent kindly give us the names of the four places still retaining their watch- houses ? And I shall be grateful if he will further specify the names of the two where the watch-house is contiguous to the village pound the latter, presumably, still in existence. G. L. APPERSON.

Brighton.

' THE MAN WITH THE HOE ' (12 S. ii. 50, 96). I have read with much interest the correspondence in your columns on this subject, but the bibliographical information supplied is, I think, incorrect. I have before me a copy of the first edition (8vo, 7 in. by o-J in., paper wrappers), the title-page of which runs as follows :

" The Man | with the Hoe | Written after seeing Millet's | World -Famous Painting . . . . | By Edwin Markham | Originally published in The San \ Francisco Examiner January the | fifteenth Eighteen hundred and | ninety -nine. Now first issued in | book form, March thirtieth, Eighteen | hundred and ninety-nine. | San Fran- cisco, California. Published | by A. M. Robert- son."

Including the paper wrapper it runs to 12 pp. On the back of the title-page is : " Copyright, 1899, | By Edwin Markham." The poem ends on the ninth page, after which there are two pages of advertisements, and