MR. URBAN,-Your Correspondent Mr. S. Bannister (July No. p. 2), inquires after a pamphlet published in 1717 entitled, "Fair Payment no Sponge." I possess it, and have referred to it in a notice in "Notes and Queries," vol. vii. p. 576. As I have there stated, I think it clearly written by Defoe and not by Paterson, to whose writings I have paid some attention as well as to those of his great contemporary. It will give me much pleasure to see Paterson's works republished in a collected form, and some justice done at last to his extraordinary merits.

Yours, &c.

JAS. CROSSley. Manchester, 1st July, 1854.

MR. URBAN,-Your valuable and longextended periodical contains many references to, and comments on, the doubtful

origin and authenticity of "the Itinerary of Richard of Cirencester." It is time all such doubts on this subject be settled, and I think it may be satisfactorily done by a series of eleven letters, from Bertram to Dr. Stukeley, in my possession, and which I trust will come under the cognizance of the Wiltshire Archæological Society, at its first anniversary meeting at Salisbury, in August next.

Yours, &c. J. BRITTON.

July 12, 1854.

Storey's Gate. The stone gate-posts at the entrance of St. James's Park from Great George Street, Westminster, have been pulled down during the past month, in order to widen the road-way, the iron gates themselves having been removed some years ago. An absurd paragraph has been going the round of the newspapers, asking who the Storey could have been who built this gate so inconveniently narrow whereas, since we ourselves have resided in Westminster, the said gates were kept constantly closed, and only opened on very unfrequent occasions for objects connected with works in the Park,-Birdcage Walk being then literally a walk, and not a roadway, except for the Royal Family, or, as we have said, for necessary works. It was entirely by royal favour that the public was permitted to pass along this road, which is now become the great highway from Belgravia to the senate-house. The question as to the origin of the name of the Gate is answered in Peter Cunningham's Handbook for London, thus:'Storey's Gate was so called after Edward Storey, who lived in a house on the site of

the present gate, and was employed by Charles II. in the improvements which he made in St. James's Park." Mr. Storey died in 1664, and was buried in the nave of St. Margaret's, Westminster. The Volery, or Birdcage, of which he was the keeper, was an aviary so large as to allow birds to fly about within it. See the Rev. Mackenzie Walcott's Historical Notices of St. Margaret's, Westminster.

J. T. M. inquires, who is the Frenchman, to whom Cowper refers in his "Retirement," as saying that "Solitude is sweet," but requires to have some one to tell us so? Some editions give La Bruyère as the author in a note. But Bonhours quotes it as Balzac's. "Selon Balzac, la solitude est certainement une belle chose, mais il y a plaisir d'avoir quelqu'un que cache répondre, à qui on puisse dire de temps en temps, que c'est une belle chose." (Pensées des Anciens et des Modernes, ed. 1737, p. 311.)

Some account of the prices for which the late Mr. Cuff's coins have been sold will be found in our Notes of the Month. One of them, the pattern gold-piece of Charles I. was sold for the largest sum ever given for a single coin. This highlyinteresting medal was intended, it is thought, for a 57. piece. It was never published. It bears the King's bust to the left, bare-headed, and over his armour a lace collar. Its history is curious. It was purchased by Lieut-Colonel Drummond of the Rev. Mr. Commeline, of St. John's college, Cambridge, a collateral descendant of Bishop Juxon, to whom it was presented by Charles I. a little before his death. The bishop devised it by will to Mrs. Mary Gayters, from whom it descended to her grand-daughter of the same name, who married the Rev. James Commeline, the grandfather of the Mr. Commeline from whom it was bought by Colonel Drummond. Mr. Till, the late worthy coindealer in Russell-street, Covent-garden, bought it from Colonel Drummond for 50%. He then offered it to the British Museum for 801., but the trustees refused to purchase, and it was immediately sold by Mr. Till to the late Mr. Cuff for 601. At the recent sale the agent of the Museum contended for it at thrice the sum the trustees might have had it for some twenty years ago. The enthusiastic gentleman who has given 2601. for a single coin is Mr. Brown, of the eminent publishing firm of Messrs. Longman & Co.

THE contents of M. Guizot's book would be described more accurately in this title-page if "the English Commonwealth" and "Oliver Cromwell" were to change places-that is, were to occupy the relative positions which they occupied in fact and in chronology. M. Guizot begins his history, of course, not with Oliver Cromwell, but with the vain endeavour of the Parliament to erect republican institutions upon the ruins of the monarchy, and in the midst of a people the vast majority of whom were sincerely attached to the ancient constitution. This portion of the subject runs through the first volume. As it proceeds, the grim shadow of the successful soldier rises gradually over the scene: it soon begins to overtop his so-called masters. They indeed exercise nominal authority; their ordinance takes the place of the king's proclamation; but the soldiers, the sinews of actual government, are moved by Cromwell. The Parliament holds the purse, but, without his consent, they dare not draw its strings with reference to the victors of Dunbar and Worcester. Such a state of things could not last long. Dissension arose between the Parliament and its too powerful servant, and Cromwell openly assumed the power which he had long in fact possessed.

M. Guizot's second volume comprises a narrative of the strong and in many respects glorious protectorate of Cromwell;-rising out of what seems like an unjustifiable usurpation, dazzling all Europe with the force and brilliancy

of its majestic course, setting amidst the louring indications of a coming tempest, but leaving behind it a trail of stormy splendour, which has exercised a curious kind of fascination upon all historical inquirers. Those of them who condemn the most strongly the means by which Cromwell acquired his authority, and rejoice the most sincerely that it so soon came to an end, yet cannot forbear to admire the way in which he wielded what was in their estimation his ill-gotten power. Something of this kind seems to have taken place in his own day, even with reference to the personal qualities of the man himself. The courtly young gentleman who observed with contempt, and recorded with foppish particularity, the "plain cloth suit made by an ill country tailor," the linen plain and not over clean, and the hat without a band, for all which Cromwell was noticeable in the early sittings of the Long Parliament, was yet compelled to bear witness to the fact, that at a subsequent period this same rustic sloven "appeared of a great and majestic deportment, and of a comely presence."

In the present state of our historical knowledge in reference to the period of ten years comprised in M. Guizot's present work, we are struck with astonishment, that, in the face of a decidedly hostile people, the parliament should have succeeded in establishing a republic at all. It must be admitted, in explanation, that there were at that time amongst the parliament

leaders some entirely sincere advocates of republicanism, men of the purest characters and most liberal and benevolent intentions. Nothing but the most violent partisanship will deny this clear and certain fact. But these men, however exemplary in reputation, prominent in talent, and eminent in station, were few in number, and comparatively devoid of the semifeudal territorial influence which at that time was so necessary to persons in authority. Under such circumstances it speaks trumpet-tongued for their ability and energy that they met with even momentary success. M. Guizot sees the difficulty, and explains it, not perhaps without an eye to the illustration it has derived from a similar modern instance with which he is peculiarly familiar. But there was one important circumstance in the English case which finds no parallel in that of of France. England had then been recently exhausted by a war in which much of its noblest blood had fallen in the field. The country was also but just recovering from the terrible consequences of the spasmodic efforts -foolish and in every way fatal which had been made to succour the king in 1648. But, even although smarting under the fatal results of those ill-judged risings, although without competent leaders, and split up into a variety of party divisions, the necessary consequence of the state of embranglement into which every thing had been reduced by the weakness and impolicy of the king, it is still difficult altogether to understand how it came to pass that the friends of monarchy, who comprised, be it remembered, many of the most strenuous of the original opposers of the king, felt themselves constrained to submit to the government of a party numerically by far the smallest in the state.

The parliament, which was now reduced to less than 100 members, met with no physical opposition in their establishment of a republic, but they had to encounter moral opposition at every turn. One of their first acts was to appoint a Council of State which was to be the depository of the executive authority. It was to consist of 41 members, each of whom was to take an oath which contained an approval of the king's trial, and of

the abolition of kingship and the House of Lords. The persons appointed assembled. Nineteen took the oath; twenty two refused. As a compromise Sir Harry Vane suggested an oath of fidelity for the future. Cromwell eagerly expressed his approval. The new oath was adopted by the house, and the Council of State was then ushered into the world.

The necessity for thus submitting to the private consciences of the members of the Council of State should have taught the parliament to respect the scruples of all their subjects; but their very next public act brought them into a similar collision with the city of London. The lord mayor was ordered to proclaim, not the republic, which as the proclamation of a fact might have been so worded as to avoid collision with the prejudices of any person, but the ordinances for the abolition of kingship and the House of Lords. The lord mayor refused to obey. M. Guizot shall tell us the result, and we select the passage not only for its contents, but as an illustration of the way in which he has brought the despatches of foreign ambassadors to bear upon the facts of his narrative-one of the special merits of his book.

When summoned to the bar, ten days afterwards, he alleged the scruples of his conscience in justification of his conduct. The House condemned him to pay a fine of two thousand pounds, and to be imprisoned for two months; and ordered the election of another lord mayor. Alderman Thomas Andrews, one of the king's judges, was elected; but, though the House

did not think it wise to require of him immediately that official proclamation of the Commonwealth which his predecessor had refused to make, it gave intimation of more rigorous intentions with regard to the city. "They believe they may make sure of the metropolis," wrote the President de Bellièvre, the French ambassador in England, to M. Servien, "either by causing the election of other magistrates who are devoted to their service, or by absolutely suppressing the form of government which has hitherto been observed, army as governor of the city-as it is beand establishing one of the officers of the lieved they intend to do. But, according to all appearance, although it may be their intention to do this at some time or other, they will be contented for the present with establishing their authority therein, with