Agreeing with Mr. Peter Cunningham (vide History of Nell Gwyn), that a new edition of Grammont is much wanted, I beg to avail myself of your pages, and to offer a few remarks and notes which I have made in reference to that very entertaining work for the consideration of a future annotator.

Of the several maids of honour mentioned therein I will begin with those of the queen. They are Miss Stewart, Miss "Warminster," Miss Bellenden, Miss Bardon, Miss de la Garde, Miss Wells, Miss Livingston, Miss Fielding, and Miss Boynton.

The names of Miss Stewart (Frances Theresa), Miss Boynton (Catherine), Miss Wells (Winefred), and Miss Warmistre are found among the original six, appointed on the queen's marriage, May 21, 1662. The affiliation and marriages of the first two have been well ascertained, but Miss Warmistre's birth is yet open to some conjecture, whilst her marriage, like Miss Wells's parentage, is wholly unknown.

Horace Walpole, on the authority of the last Earl of Arran, of the Butler family, has confounded her with Mary, one of the daughters of George Kirke, Esq., a groom of the bedchamber to Charles I., by Mary his wife, daughter of Aurelian Townsend, Esq., "the admired beauty of the tymes," on whose marriage at Christ Church, Oxford, February 26, 1645-6, "the king gave her." She herself was maid of honour to the Duchess of York in 1674, and the year following left the court, we may believe, under the same circumstances as Miss Warmistre, more than ten years before, had quitted it: after being the mistress of Sir Thomas Vernon, the second Baronet of Hodnet in Shropshire, she became his wife, and ended her life in miserable circumstances at Greenwich in 1711.

"1711, 17 August, Dame Mary, relict of Sir Thomas Vernon, carried away."—Burial register of Greenwich Church.

She was sister to Diana, the last De Vere, Earl of Oxford's, countess, a lady of as free a morality as herself and as her mother, and second wife of Sir Thomas, whose first lady, Elizabeth Cholmondley, died in June, 1676. Sir Thomas died February 5, 1682-3, leaving by her three children, Sir Richard, the last baronet, Henrietta, and Diana, who all died unmarried.

A portrait of Lady Vernon, by Sir Peter Lely, has been engraved in mezzotinto by Browne, and lettered "Mary Kirk, Lady Vernon, maid of honour to Queen Catherine." Another portrait (?) has been engraved by Scheneker for Harding's Grammont, 1793. A third portrait was purchased at the Strawberry Hill sale, by Mr. Rodd of Little Newport Street, for 1l. 5s.

A portrait of the Countess of Oxford is or was at Mr. Drummond's of Great Stanmore. It was bequeathed to his family by Charles, first Duke of St. Alban's, who was her ladyship's son-in-law.

Of Mrs. Anne Kirke, who was "woman to the queen" Henrietta Maria, there are several portraits. Granger records:

"Madam Kirk. Vandyck p. Gaywood f. h. sh.

"Madam Anne Kirk. Vandyck p. Browne, large h. sh. mezz."

These engravings are most probably from the same painting—the fine whole-length exhibited last year among the collection of pictures by ancient masters in Pall Mall:

"Madam Kirk, sitting in a chair, Hollar, f. h. sh."

He also mentions her miniature at Burghley.

There is at Wilton a splendid painting by Vandyck of Mrs. Kirk, seated with the Countess of Morton, Lady Anne Keith, eldest daughter of George, fifth Earl Mareschal, and wife of William Douglass, seventh Earl of Morton, K.G. She was governess to the Princess Henrietta.

This painting has been engraved by Grousvelt. There is another engraving from the first-named Vandyck by Beckett.

Of Lady Vernon and her mother there is to be found mention, in the secret service expenses of Charles II. and James II., lately printed. The elder lady on her husband's death (he was buried in the cloisters of Westminster Abbey, April 5, 1679) seems to have had a pension of 250l. per annum. The younger was the recipient, on two occasions, of 100l. "bounty" only.

Mrs. Kirke and her daughter Diana are unfavourably alluded to by Mrs. Grace Worthley, a lady of the same class, who will not "be any longer a laughing-stock for any of Mr. Kirk's bastards" (vide letter to her cousin Lord Brandon, September 7, 1682, Diary of Henry Sidney, Earl of Romney, i. pp. xxxiii. xxxiv.). And again, the same lady, in another letter, speaks of "the common Countess of Oxford and her adulterous bastards" (Ibid.). Mr. Jesse's quotation from "Queries and Answers from Garraway's Coffee House" (vide The Court of the Stewarts, vol. ii. p. 366.) may be here reproduced in support of the epitaph which this angry lady has been pleased to assign the countess, who, it would seem, had robbed her, well born and well married, of her noble keeper "the handsome Sidney:"

"Q. How often has Mrs. Kirk sold her daughter Di. before the Lord of Oxford married her?

A. Ask the Prince and Harry Jermyn."

The following curious extract from one of the Heber MSS. at Hodnet has been kindly furnished me by Charles Cholmondeley, Esq., of the Ivy House, Wisbeach, co. Cambridge, to whom the MS. belongs:

"H——,

"Sir Thomas the second baronet's death is mentioned in Lady Rachael Russell's letters. His second wife was one of King Charles's Beauties, but the account in Granger of her is not correct, as it appears that she lived some time with Sir Thomas, as mistress, before their marriage. He left her in great distress, as the profits of the estate were embezzled by attorneys and stewards. The following is a copy from a letter from her to one Squibb, an attorney who had the management of the estate:

'Sir,

'When you were last here you were pleased to say that in some little time I should be payd some money. I have had with me my woman's husband y^t did serve mee about two yeares since; and hee is soe impatient for what I owe her y^t hee will staye noe longer. It is given me to understand I must goe to prison or paye part of w^t I owe him. Things fly to a great violence, and if you thinke it will bee for the credit or advantage of my childerne y^t such an afront should come to mee, is the question. I have nothing to depend on but w^t must come from the estate of Sir Richard Vernon. How I have been used by the trustees you are noe stranger to. I am now forced to live on charity, and I grow every day more and more weary of it. For my childern's sake I remain in England, or else I would seeke my fortune elsewhere. Pray to take this into consideration, and see w^t can be done.

'I am, Sir, y^r most humble serv^t,
'Vernon.

'P.S.—If you can, pray doe mee y^e favour to send mee by to-morrow at one of y^e cloke, twenty shillings, to pay for wood, or I must sit w^thoute fyer; y^t will be ill for a person confined to the house.'"

It is not certain whether it is to "Mistris Kirke," Lady Vernon's mother, that Charles I. refers in his letter addressed to Colonel Whaley on the day of his escape from Hampton Court, November 11, 1647, but it is very likely to have been so. There was a Mistress (Anne) Kirke, sworn in a dresser to Queen Henrietta Maria in Easter week, 1637 (vide Strafford Papers, vol. ii. p. 73.), whose full-length portrait by Vandyke has been frequently engraved, by Browne, Garwood, Hollar, Beckett, &c.; and this lady may be the "Mrs. Anne Kirke, unfortunately drowned near London Bridge," who was buried in Westminster Abbey, July 9, 1641.

In Westminster Abbey was buried, May 23, 1640, "Mr. Kirk's daughter." Captain George Kirke married there, February 10, 1699-1700, Mary Cooke. George Kirke, Esq., died Jan. 10, 1703-4, and was buried in the abbey cloisters (Mon. Inscr.); and Mrs. Mary Kirke died December 17, 1751, and was also buried there (M.I.). We may presume that all these Kirkes were of the same family.

Having now clearly released the annotator from all farther interference with Mary Kirke's private history, and having excluded her handsome face from any future illustrated edition of Grammont, I must leave him to deal with Miss Warmistre. It seems most probable that Dr. Thomas Warmistre, dean of Worcester, who died October 30, 1665, was her father, as he is known to have been a Royalist. His will, as it is not to be found at Doctors' Commons, must be sought for at Worcester. His brother Gervais was a married man, but his effects, unfortunately for our inquiries, were administered to at Doctors' Commons, August 31, 1641. That Warmistre was her right name is proved by Lord Cornbury's letter to the Duchess of Bedford, June 10, 1662 (Warburton's Rupert, vol. iii. pp. 461-464.). Her portrait is at Hengrave Hall, Suffolk, and has been engraved by Scriven for Carpenter's Grammont, 1811.

Lord Cornbury's letter contradicts Grammont's statement, that Miss Boynton and Miss Wells came in on a removal, for they were of the original six maids of honour. Among these is named a Miss Price (Henrietta Maria), who we may suppose a sister to the Duchess of York's Miss Price, one of Grammont's most conspicuous heroines; and if so, when I come to speak of the Duchess's maids of honour, her parentage will be proved. Of Miss Carey, rejoicing in the prefix of Simona, the sixth of the queen's original maids of honour, we have no farther occasion to speak.

In 1669 the queen appears to have had four maids of honour only, the places vacated by Miss Stewart's and Miss Warmistre's marriages being unoccupied. This state of affairs leads me to doubt whether Miss Bellenden ever held the appointment. Mademoiselle Bardon, Grammont admits, was not actually a maid of honour, and Mademoiselle de la Garde certainly never was. Lord Braybrooke has suggested to me, with some show of reason, that the first may be the "Mrs. Baladine" who held a place of less emolument (that of dresser, probably) in the Duchess of York's household, and who left in the middle of the quarter, between Michaelmas and Christmas, 1662 (vide Household Book of James Duke of York at Audley End), as if she had the prudence "de quitter la cour avant que d'en Être chassÉe."

"La dÉsagrÉable Bardon" may have been a daughter, or some other near relation, to Claudius Bardon, mentioned in the secret service expenses of Charles II.

Mademoiselle de la Garde was appointed a dresser to the queen on her marriage (vide Lord Cornbury's letter), and continued in this office till 1673, when she died. Her father, Charles Peliott Baron de la Garde, or her brother, if she had one, was a groom of the privy chamber to Queen Catherine in 1687, and her mother dresser to the Duchess of York in 1662 (Duke of York's Household Book). Mary her sister, who became the wife of Sir Thomas Bond of Peckham, co. Surrey, Baronet, comptroller of the household to Queen Henrietta Maria, was a Lady of the privy chamber to the same queen.

Of mademoiselle I may add, that she married Mr. Gabriel Silvius, carver to the queen, in 1669 (compare first and second editions of AngliÆ Notitia, 1669); and of her husband, in addition to the particulars already stated by the annotators, that he received the honour of knighthood January 28, 1669-70, married a second wife (a fact overlooked by the annotators, including Mr. Cunningham), viz. Anne, daughter of the Hon. William Howard, a younger son of Thomas first Earl of Berkshire, at Westminster Abbey, November 12, 1677, went the same year to the Hague as master of the household to the Prince of Orange (Evelyn), became privy purse to James II. (The British Compendium, or Rudiments of Honour), died at his house in Leicester Fields, January, 1696-7, and was buried in the church of St. Martin. It was his second wife, and widow, who died October 13, 1730.

If, as it is possible, Miss Bellenden did hold the appointment of maid of honour to the queen, she must have replaced Miss Stewart or Miss Warmistre; and if Miss Livingston and Miss Fielding held like appointments, one of the two must have replaced her, and they, again, must have removed from the court before 1669. I am not at present able to say who those three ladies were.

Before bringing this paper to a conclusion, I must be permitted to refer Mr. Cunningham to five letters, written by Count de Comminges, the French ambassador in London, and printed Lord Braybrooke in his Appendix to Pepys, which Mr. C. has very unaccountably overlooked when settling the chronology of Grammont.

The first, to M. de Lionne, dated "Londres, Janvier 5-15, 1662-3," announces the arrival of the Chevalier the day before "fort content de son voyage. Il a ÉtÉ ici reÇu le plus agrÉablement au monde. Il est de toutes les parties du Roi." The second, to Louis XIV., dated "DÉcembre 10-20, 1663," informs the king of the chevalier's joy at being allowed to return to France, and of his intention to leave England in four days. He also informs Louis that he believes the chevalier will see the court of France in company of "une belle Angloise." A postscript, dated "DÉcembre 20-24," says that the king of England, for certain stated reasons, has persuaded the chevalier to remain a day longer; and, farther, "Il laisse ici quelques autres dettes, qu'il prÉtend venir recueillir quand il se dÉclarera sur le sujet de Mille Hamilton, qui est si embrouillÉ que les plus clairvoyans n'y voyent goutte." The third, dated "Mai 19-24, 1664," is also to the King of France, and speaks of the Chevalier's wife, "madame sa femme." The next letter is addressed to M. de Lionne, and dated "Aout 29, Septembre 8, 1664." It contains this important intelligence: "Madam la Comtesse de Grammont accoucha hier au soir d'un fils beau comme la mÈre, et galant comme le pÈre." The last letter, dated "Octobre 24, Novembre 3, 1664," and addressed to the same M. de Lionne, commences as follows: "Le Comte de Grammont est parti aujourd'hui avec sa femme."

These several letters, all important to the annotators of Grammont, give the precise dates of the chevalier's first visit to the Court of Charles II., and of his departure, and settle the date of his marriage within a few days. This event must have taken place in December, 1663. Mrs. Jameson and Mr. Cunningham place it in 1668.

On another occasion I will return to this subject.

G. Steinman Steinman.

---

CHANGE OF MEANING IN PROVERBIAL EXPRESSIONS.

I entirely agree with G. K. (Vol. viii., p. 269.) respecting the original sense of "Putting a spoke in one's wheel." It surely meant to aid him in constructing the wheel, say of his fortune. As the true sense of this expression seems to have been retained in America when lost in its birthplace, so Ireland has retained that of another which has changed its sense here. By "finding a mare's nest" is, I believe, meant, fancying you have made a great discovery when in fact you have found nothing. I certainly remember the late Earl Grey using it in that sense in his place in parliament. But how does this accord with the following place in Beaumont and Fletcher?

on which, rather to my surprise, Mr. Dyce has no note. Now in Ireland, when a person is seen laughing immoderately without any apparent cause, it is usual to say, "O, he has found a mare's nest, and he's laughing at the eggs." This perfectly agrees with the above passage from Bonduca, and is doubtless the original sense and original form of the adage.

There is another of these proverbial expressions which, I think, has also lost its pristine sense. By "Tread on a worm and it will turn" is usually meant that the very meekest and most helpless persons will, when harshly used, turn on their persecutors. But the poor worm does, and can do, no such thing. I therefore think that the adage arose at the time when worm was inclusive of snake and viper, and that what was meant was, that as those that had the power to avenge themselves when injured would use it, so people should be cautious how they provoked them. I am confirmed in this view by the following passage in the Wallenstein's Tod of Schiller, Act II. Sc. 6.:

Thos. Keightley.

---

EXTRACTS FROM COLCHESTER CORPORATION RECORDS.

I inclose you some rather curious extracts from the corporation books of Colchester, which I made a few years since, during an investigation of some of the charities of that ancient borough.

Jas. Whishaw.

"The informacon of Richard Glascock of Horden-of-the-Hill, in the County of Essex, Cordwayner, aged twenty-four yeeres or thereabouts, taken upon oath the 5^th of June, 1651, before Jno. Furlie, Gent., Mayor of the Towne of Colchester.

"The Informant saieth, that upon the Lord's daie, the fower and twentieth daie of May last, that W^m Beard of Horden abovesaid, did cut off the taile of the catt of Thomas Burgis of Fanies Pishe, and Margaret, the wife of the s^d Tho^s Burgis, after the catt's taile was cutt off, came home, and seeing that her catt's taile had bin cutt off she enquired who had done it, and being told that the s^d W^m Beard had done it, she s^d she would be even w^th him before he went out of towne.

"Richard Glascock."

"The informacon of H^y Potter, aged twenty yeeres or thereabouts, of Horden abovesaid, Lynnen Weaver, taken upon oath the day and yeere abovesaid.

"This informant saieth, that y^e s^d fower and twentieth daie of May the taile of the catt of the s^d Thomas Burgis being cutt off by the s^d W^m Beard, and y^e s^d Margaret the wife of the s^d Tho^s Burgis haveing bin told that the s^d W^m Beard had done it, she p^rsentlie told the s^d Beard she would be even with him before he went out of towne, and flewe in his face, and said she would give him something before he went out of her howse. And this informant saieing, Good woman, I hope you will give him noe poyson, and she replyed, he would not be soe foolish as to take any thinge of her, but she would be even w^th him before he went out of towne."

"Henry Potter."

"The informacon of R^d Spencer, aged thirtie yeeres or thereabouts, Servant to Captⁿ Thomas Caldwell, taken upon oath the day and yeere aforesaid.

"This informant saieth, that the before-named W^m Beard being very sicke and in a strange distemper, and haveing heard that Margaret, the wife of the before-named Thomas Burgis, had threatened him, did suspect the s^d W^m Beard might be bewitched or ill dealt w^th, did cut off some of his haire off from his head, and did wind it up together and put it into the fire, and could not for a good while make it burne, untill he tooke a candle and put under it or into it, and then w^th much adoe it did burne, and after it was burnt y^e s^d Beard laie still, and before it was burnt he was in such a distemper that three men could hardlie hold him into his bed.

"Richard Spencer.
"his + mark."

---

CONVOCATION IN THE REIGN OF GEORGE II.

One hears it so often repeated, that Convocation was finally suppressed in 1717, in consequence of the accusations brought by the Lower House against Bishop Hoadley, that it seems worth while noting in correction of this, that though no licence from the Crown to make canons has ever been granted since that time, yet that Convocation met and sat in 1728, and again for some sessions in the spring of 1742, when several important subjects were brought before it; among which was the very interesting question of curates' stipends, in these words:

"VIIth. That much reproach is brought upon the beneficed, and much oppression upon the unbeneficed, clergy, by curates accepting too scanty salaries from incumbents."

and which was really the last subject that was ever brought before Convocation. On Jan. 27, 1742, it was unanimously agreed, that "the motion made by the Archdeacon of Lincoln concerning ecclesiastical courts and clandestine marriages, the qualifications of persons to be admitted into holy orders, and the salaries and titles of curates," should be "reduced into writing, and the particulars offered to the House at their next assembly." But in the next session, on March 5, 1742, the Prolocutor, Dr. Lisle, was afraid to go on with the business before the House, and after "speaking much of a prÆmunire," and "echoing and reverberating the word from one side of good King Henry's Chapel to the other," the whole was let drop; and Convocation was fully consigned to the silence and the slumber of a century. The whole of these transactions are detailed in a scarce pamphlet, A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Lisle, Prolocutor of the Lower House, by the Archdeacon of Lincoln (the Venerable G. Reynolds).

W. Fraser.

Tor-Mohun.

---

PARALLEL PASSAGES.

(Vol. iv., p. 435.; Vol. vi., p. 123.; Vol. vii., p. 151.)

1. "When she had passed it seemed like the ceasing of exquisite music."—Longfellow's Evangeline, Part i. I.

"When she comes into the room, it is like a beautiful air of Mozart breaking upon you."—Thackeray "On a good-looking young Lady." (Quoted in Westminster Review, April 1853.)

2. "Two stars keep not their motion in one sphere."—Whence?

"We are the twin stars, and cannot shine in one sphere. When he rises I must set."—Congreve, Love for Love, Act III. Sc. 4.

3. "Et ce n'est pas toujours par valeur et par chastetÉ que les hommes sont vaillants et que les femmes sont chastes."—De La Rochefoucauld, Max. I.

"Yes, faith! I believe some women are virtuous, too; but 'tis as I believe some men are valiant, through fear."—Congreve, Love for Love, Act III. Sc. 14.

4. "Mais si les vaisseaux sillonnent un moment les ondes, la vague vient effacer aussitÔt cette lÉgÈre marque de servitude, et la mer reparait telle qu'elle fut au premier jour de la CrÉation."—Corinne, b. I. ch. 4.

"Such as Creation's dawn beheld, thou rollest now!"—Byron, Childe Harold.

5. "Il est plus honteux de se mÉfier de ses amis que d'en Être trompÉ."—De La Rochefoucauld, Max. LXXXIV.

6. In "N. & Q.," Vol. iv., p. 435., I cited, as a parallel to Shelley, the following from Southey's Doctor, vol. vi. p. 158.:

"The sense of flying in our sleep might, he thought, probably be the anticipation or forefeeling of an unevolved power, like an Aurelia's dream of butterfly motion."

In Spicer's Sights and Sounds (1853), p. 140., is to be found a poem professing to have been "dictated by the spirit of Robert Southey," on March 25, 1851, the fourth stanza of which runs as follows:

What inference should be drawn from this coincidence for or against the reality of the "spiritual dictation?"

Harry Leroy Temple.

---

SHAKSPEARE CORRESPONDENCE.

Shakspeare's Works with a Digest of all the Readings (Vol. viii., pp. 74. 170. 362.).—I am exceedingly obliged to your correspondent Este for his suggestions, and need not say that any sincere advice will be most respectfully considered. In the second volume of my folio edition of Shakspeare, I am partially endeavouring to carry out the design to which he alludes, by giving a digest of all the readings up to the year 1684. How is it possible to carry out his wish farther with any advantage? I should feel particularly thankful for a satisfactory reply to the following questions in relation to this important subject:—1. As many copies of the first and other folio editions, as well as nearly all the copies of the same quarto editions, differ from each other, how are these differences to be treated? What copies are to be taken for texts, and how many copies of each are to be collated? 2. Are such books as Beckett, Jackson and others, to be examined? If not, are any conjectural emendations of the last and present centuries to be given? Where is the line to be drawn? A mere selection is valueless, or next to valueless; because, setting aside the differences in opinion in such matters, we want to know what conjectures are new, and which are old? 3. Are the various readings suggested in periodicals to be given? 4. Can any positive and practical rules be furnished, likely to render such an undertaking useful and successful?

J. O. Halliwell.

---