Page:Notes and Queries - Series 9 - Volume 4.djvu/508

 532 NOTES AND QUERIES. [^s.iv.dec.so.w. husius altogether (Gosse, ii. 112). On the back of the fragment in my possession is a portion of the first and second stanzas of the 'Ode to May' which West sent to Gray. West's letter, which is dated 5 May, 1742, was one of those that came into Mason's possession, and was published by him in his edition of Gray. A comparison of my frag- ment—which is undoubtedly the original— with Mason's transcript will show how little that writer is to be depended on for accuracy. One portion of the sentence is omitted altogether by him, and the wording of the rest is altered. I should be glad to know if any of the lists of dialect words drawn up by Gray and his friends have been printed. If not, I shall be pleased, with the Editor's permission, to copy those in my possession for ' N. & Q.' W. F. Prideaux. 1, West Cliff Terrace, Ramsgate. HORACE WALPOLE AND HIS EDITORS. (Continued from p. 393.) Lettek 481 in Cunningham's edition (vol. iii. p. 36), addressed to George Montagu, and dated " Twickenham, Monday," without men- tion of month or year, is placed among letters of 1756. It appears, however, to belong to 1747, for the following reasons. The points are given in the order in which they occur in the letter:— 1. The date "Twickenham." In the summer of 1747 Horace Walpole first occupied, as the sub-tenant of Mrs. Chenevix, the toy- woman, the house at Twickenham afterwards known as Strawberry Hill. His first letter thence is addressed to Conway, and dated "Twickenham, June 8, 1747." The present letter is also dated from Twickenham. In 1748 Walpole purchased the house at Twicken- ham, and, on examining his lease, made a discovery which he thus announces to Mann (7 June, 1748, vol.ii. p. 113): "lam now re- turning to my villa, where I have been making some alterations; you shall hear from me from Strawberry Hill, which I have found out in my lease is the old name of my house- so pray, never call it Twickenham again." The letter (to Conway) following the above to Mann in Cunningham's edition is the first which is dated with this address. 2. "I believe there cannot be a word of truth in Lord Granville's going to Berlin," <fcc. The post of minister at Berlin was at this time (autumn of 1747) vacant, and remained so until the following January, when not Granville, but Legge, was selected for the post. See letter to Mann, 26 January, 1748 (vol. ii. p. 102). 3. " Leggo is to marry the eldest Pelhamine infanta; he loves a minister's daughter—I shall not wonder if he intends it, but can the parents ?" Henry Bilson Legge, mentioned above, married in 1750 the Hon. Mary Stawel, who survived him. It is therefore impossible that in 1756 (under which year this letter is placed by Cunningham) he could have con- templated marriage with a Miss Pelham. In 1747, however, he was still a bachelor. Mr. Pelham became Prime Minister in 1743, and died as such in 1754, so that in 1747 his daughter was a " minister's daughter," which was not the case in 1756, while from the mention of Miss Pelham's "parents" it is obvious that her father was still alive at the time of Horace Walpole's writing, which he was not in 1756. 4. The phrase " Legge loves a minister's daughter' is an allusion to a previous occa- sion when Legge was ambitious of marrying another minister's daughter, namely, Wal- pole's own sister, Lady Mary. This incident is referred to in the letter to Mann of 26 January; 1748 (vol. ii. p. 102)^ where, after mentioning Legge's diplomatic appointment, Walpole writes : " My father was fond of him [Legge] to the greatest degree of partiality, till tie endeavoured to have a nearer tie than flattery by trying to marry Lady Mary Since that he has wriggled himself in with thePelhams." 5. " Mr. Conway mentioned nothing to me but of the prisoners of the last battle." The explanation of this is pretty certainly as follows. The Duke or Cumberland was defeated by the French at the battle of Laffeld (2 July, N.S., 1747). In this battle Conway was taken prisoner, but was " released on parole, and may come home to console his fair widow " (Walpole to Montagu, vol. ii. p. 91). Again, writing to Montagu on 1 October, 1747 (vol. ii. p. 95), Walpole says : " I had a letter from Mr. Conway, who is piteously going into prison again; our great secretary [Newcastle] has let the time slip for executing the cartel and the French have reclaimed their prisoners." The phrase " prisoners of the last battle " evidently refers to the letter in which Conway mentions his return to captivity, and Walpole's remark is no doubt in reply to some inquiry of Mon- tagu's relative to nis letter of 1 October. The letter under consideration was evi- dently written after 1 October, 1747. That it was written in autumn we know already from Walpole's own reference, at the begin- ning of the letter, to the " great beauty " of