mon Cards; declaring them to be excellent against melancholy cogitations, and for breeding contents in all necessities. He then goes on to say "Now in this latter age, wherein are so many new inventions, let this pass for one as a necessare recreation, in a time of such troubles, having no leasure to spend any time vainelie; but continually it behoveth us to search for knowledge, eve' in the least things, for that we remember our Creation, Redemption, and Sanctification. In the first, beholding the Omnipotence of God the Father, in all his Works, thereby reverently to feare, honor, and glorifie him; in the second, his unspeakable mercy in redeeming us, by the precious death of his Ideare Sonne, our Savior Christ Jesus, from the thraldome of sinne, death, and hell, thereby to love, beleeve, and hope in him; and by the third, these his gratious and infinite blessings, which yearly, daylie, howrely, and every minute, we have, doe, or shall receive, both in soule and body, through the Almighte Power of his Holy Spirite, to praise, give thanks, and rejoyce, onely and ever in so blessed a Trinity of power, mercy, and love, which in a most glorious Unity hath so blessed us with all his blessings; I unto which Eternall God, I say, let us ever be giving of all thanks without ceasing. Amen." The Second Pack is distinguished into the usual suits, by a Heart, a Diamond, a Club, or a Spade, placed in one of the upper corners; numbers from one to ten, or the names of the Court Cards, occupying the other corner, The middle part of each Card contains a print, representing some supposed scene in the Popish Plot; at the foot is an explanation. Thus the Ace of Hearts has a table, surrounded by the Pope, some Cardinals, and Bishops. Beneath the table is a Fiend, and the explanation states, The Plot first batcht at Rome by the Pope and Cardinals, &c." The Deuce of Hearts has-" Sir E. B. Godfree taking Dr. Oates his deposition." The Three of Hearts-" Dr. Oates discovereth Garner in the Lobby." The Four of Hearts-" Coleman giving a Guina to incourage ye 4 Ruffians.' The Five of Hearts-" Dr. Oates receives letters from the Fathers, to carry beyond Sea.” The whole suit of Spades is given to the Murder of Sir E. B. Godfree. Mr. URBAN, T DAVIES GIDDY. Jan. 14. O relieve the minds of some of your Clerical Readers, permit me to inform them, that no penalty, in any action where part goes to the King and part to the Informer, can be recovered for more than one year after committal of offence. This applies to all the present suits instituted by Mr. Wright against the Clergy. The Statute is 31 Q. Eliz. c. 5, sect. 5. Also by 18 Q. Eliz. c. 5, sect. 4, made perpetual by 27 Eliz. c. 10, it is enacted, that if the informer shall receive any money, or other reward, or have promise of such, to stop process in any penal action, the party receiving such reward or promise, shall upon conviction stand in the pillory for two hours, be fined 107. and ever after be incapable of being plaintiff or informer in any suit or action. Ten Year or Four-and-Twenty Men; In answer to a query relative to the following extract from p. 13, Cambridge Calendar, will, I hope, afford the information required. tolerated by the Statutes of Q. Eliza"They (i. e. the Ten-Year Men) are beth, which allow persons who are admitted at any College, when Twentyfour years of age and upwards, and in Priest's orders at the time of their admission, after Ten years (during the last two of which they must reside the greater part of Three several terms), to become Bachelors of Divinity, without taking any prior degree," Bachelors of Divinity, however, who obtain their degree in this way, are not Members of the Senate, since the Members of that body, who are B. D. deduce their right from their prior degree of M. A, Now I am writing on College matters, permit me to support the opinion of Dr. Symmons in his Life of Milton-that Milton was not a Sizar. In the entry of Milton, he is described as Pensionarius Minor. Some Gothamites have argued from this, that as- Pensioners form the class immediately above the Sizars, Pensionarius Minor must signify the class below, viz. Sizars. If these gentlemen had, however, taken the trouble of inquiring, they would have found in Par ker's ker's History of Cambridge, or even in Carter's, that the Pensioners are divided into two classes, viz. the greater (Pensionarius Major), now called Fellow Commoners; and the lesser (Pensionarius Minor), the Pensioner of the present day. Of this rank was Milton. LAICUS. I HAVE read the original letter of Algernon Sydney in your Magazine for December last, p. 531, with equal interest and satisfaction, and heartily wish that the contributor, or any of your readers, would favour the publick with a further supply of the correspondence of that eminent man. The letter in question bears the strongest marks of authenticity in matter as well as in style. It must have been written in November 1659, when he was actually residing at the Sound, and not in November 1660, when, in consequence of the Restoration, he had proceeded, as an exile, to Rome. But there must surely be some error in his having addressed it to Lord Whitworth. I suspect it to have been really addressed to the Lord Commissioner Whitelocke, who, although be declined the appointment, had, in the first instance, been joined with him in the mission to the Northern courts.-A large proportion of Sydney's Letters to his Father, and the whole of his correspondence with his Uncle the Earl of Northumberland, Sir John and Sir William Temple, and William Penn, have hitherto escaped research. If any part of them have been luckily preserved, the possessors will confer an important obligation by communicating them to the publick, or at least stating where they lie concealed. G. W. M. Mr. URBAN, IT Jan. 14, T is not my intention to reply particularly to the attacks made on me by your Correspondents " An Architect" and "Mr. Carter" in your Magazine for October last; neither is it my design to notice any future remarks from either of them, unless they should be accompanied with an incorrect or defective representation of facts. The former of these persons is supposed to be in reality a tradesman, an house-painter, as I am informed, in Westminster, who has since occasionally taken up the occupation of a draughtsman, and sometimes, it is said, painted scenes of landscapes for one of the Play-houses, How such a person can be entitled to the appellation of an Architect, which he assumes, I confess myself unable to discover: and the latter person is only a mere draughtsman. They have shewn themselves no competent judges of evidence, by denying, as they do, the strongest possible modes of proof; and I am confident no intelligent man will pay any attention to their observations. My adversary An Architect is peculiarly unfortunate in asserting, as he does, that my pursuits were not allied to the labours of an Artist, as Mr. Carter himself could have informed him to the contrary. The profession of the Law, for which 1 was educated, and which I afterwards followed, I have quitted above fifteen years; and while I continued in it, my pursuits, as Mr. Carter knows, were also directed to Antiquarian subjects. For I wrote for Mr. Carter several papers, for the express purpose of explaining some plates of historical subjects in his first publication, containing Specimens of Ancient Sculpture, &c. These paper's were accordingly inserted in that work with my name to them, as may be seen on referring to the book itself; and you, Mr. Urban, may besides probably recollect the circumstance, because you were the printer of the letter-press *. Whether or not I am sufficiently skilled in the subject, the book I have published will best shew. But I know, from the testimony of those persons on whose judgment I can rely, that the book has already obtained a considerable degree of credit; and it should seem from their conduct, that my adversaries had found themselves hard pressed by facts in attacking it. One declines the task of controverting my opinions, and transfers it to the other that other denies mathematical proof, conclusive evidence, aud self-evident propositions; and refuses to admit that very species of proof, which he himself, in his observations, and elsewhere, has actually used. Leaving, therefore, the useless undertaking of vindicating myself against charges of which, from my adversaries' own state of the case, every man of sense will perceive I am not guilty; *This is a 1 rue Bill." EDIT. I shall I shall only observe, that the instance of the Church of Malmsbury produced by Mr. Carter, does not apply to the question, nor does it vouch the fact for which it is produced. It is, indeed, singularly curious to observe, that when your Correspondents An Architect and Mr. Carter both inveigh, as they do, so bitterly against all Compilations (as they are pleased to term every attempt at a deduction of historical events), and against all intelligence to be derived from books, Mr. Carter himself, for the purpose of proving the date of the Church of Malmsbury, should be, as he is, driven to the necessity of refering, p. 322, to a very obscure modern publication, expressly described by himself as a Compilation. And this is still more unfortunate, because in a subsequent part of his observations he contends, though unreasonably, that none but an eye-witness is competent evidence, which must necessarily apply as well to historical events as to buildings. He should at least have referred to Tanner, a respectable author, who apparently originally furnished that fact. But the date given is that of the original foundation only; and there is no proof that the present erection is of that age. Supposing it to be really so old, still Mr. Carter has not shewn that the workmen were Englishmen, which is the very point in question; and this is at least very doubtful, because at that very period it was the practice to procure them from France and elsewhere. In 675, the very year in which Mr. Carter dates the Church of Malmsbury, Benedict Biscopius began to build St. Peter's Church in the Monastery of Wermouth; and in that year went over to France, to engage workmen to construct it after the Roman manner. See Bentham's Preface to his History of Ely, in Essays on Gothic Architecture, p. 31. Wilfrid Bishop of York, who in 675, the very same year with the dates of Malmsbury and Wermouth, founded the Conventual Church of Rippon, and in 674 that of St. Andrew at Hexham, procured some of his workmen, builders, and artificers, from Canterbury, and some from Rome and other parts of Italy, France, and other countries. See Bentham's Preface before cited, p. 38 and 39. The circumstance of some of these workmen having been procured from Canterbury, in which Mr. Carter exults p. 323, is by no means contradictory to the supposition that the workmen came from France, but rather enhances the probability of it. The distance from Canterbury to Dover is so little, as every one knows who has travelled the road, as I have done, that it is very likely the workmen came from France, that they landed at Dover, and proceeded to Canterbury; but, finding employment there, did not continue their journey any further. In confirmation of this idea it may be observed, that William of Sens, who was employed in 1174 to repair and rebuild the Cathedral of Canterbury after the fire, was most certainly and evidently a Frenchman; and, as his name imports, came from Sens in France. Governor Pownall, in his paper on the Origin of Gothic Architecture, inserted in the Archæologia, vol. IX. expressly mentions, p. 112, on the authority of Richard prior of Hexham, that St. Wilfrid learnt his architecture from Rome, and built his church at Hagulsted after that model. But there is every reason to think that the Church of Malmsbury is not by some centuries so old as Mr. Carter thinks it. William of Malmsbury, who lived in the reigns of Hen. I. Stephen, and Hen. II. and was him self a monk of that Abbey, speaks in his fifth book "De Pontificibus," edit. Gale, p. 350, of the whole Monastery of Malmsbury, most evidently. from what he says including also the Church, as twice destroyed by fire; once in the reign of Alfred, and again in that of king Edward. By this last he most probably meant Edward the Confessor, not Edward the elder; because, as Edward the elder was Alfred's immediate successor,it may bedoubted, in any other mode of interpretation, whether there could have been time sufficient for the re-erection of so many large buildings before they are represented as being a second time destroyed, particularly as it does not appear that the fire in Alfred's time happened early in his reign. A similar conflagration in the case of the Church of Canterbury in 1174, rendered it necessary to take down and rebuild the greater part of that edifice, and parti cularly the arches and columns, which of course had been injured by the fire, and by the in' em: it appears Later years, that sme ale ed unfinished. William of WTO veracity as to the TWY DED It is impossine u o I shall only observe, that the instance of the Church of Malmsbury produced by Mr. Carter, does not apply to the question, nor does it vouch the fact for which it is produced. It is, indeed, singularly curious to observe, that when your Correspondents An Architect and Mr. Carter both inveigh, as they do, so bitterly against all Compilations (as they are pleased to term every attempt at a deduction of historical events), and against all intelligence to be derived from books, Mr. Carter himself, for the purpose of proving the date of the Church of Malmsbury, should be, as he is, driven to the necessity of refering, p. 322, to a very obscure modern publication, expressly described by himself as a Compilation. And this is still more unfortunate, because in a subsequent part of his observations he contends, though unreasonably, that none but an eye-witness is competent evidence, which must necessarily apply as well to historical events as to buildings. He should at least have referred to Tanner, a respectable author, who apparently originally furnished that fact. But the date given is that of the original foundation only; and there is no proof that the present erection is of that age. Supposing it to be really so old, still Mr. Carter has not shewn that the workmen were Englishmen, which is the very point in question; and this is at least very doubtful, because at that very period it was the practice to procure them from France and elsewhere. In 675, the very year in which Mr. Carter dates the Church of Malmsbury, Benedict Biscopius began to build St. Peter's Church in the Monastery of Wermouth; and in that year went over to France, to engage workmen to construct it after the Roman manner. See Bentham's Preface to his History of Ely, in Essays on Gothic Architecture, p. 31. Wilfrid Bishop of York, who in 675, the very same year with the dates of Malmesbury and Wermouth, founded the Conventual Church of Rippon, and in 674 that of St. Andrew at Hexham, procured some of his workmen, builders, and artificers, from Canterbury, and some from Rome and other parts of Italy, France, and other countries. See Bentham's Preface before cited, p. 38 and 39. The circumstance of some of these workmen having been procured from Canterbury, in which Mr. Carter exults p. 323, is by no means contradictory to the supposition that the workmen came from France, but rather enhances the probability of it. The distance from Canterbury to Dover is so little, as every one knows who has travelled the road, as I have done, that it is very likely the workmen came from France, that they landed at Dover, and proceeded to Canterbury; but, finding employment there, did not continue their journey any further. In confirmation of this idea it may be observed, that William of Sens, who was employed in 1174 to repair and rebuild the Cathedral of Canterbury after the fire, was most certainly and evidently a Frenchman; and, as his name imports, came from Sens in France. Governor Pownall, in his paper on the Origin of Gothic Architecture, inserted in the Archæologia, vol. IX. expressly mentions, p. 112, on the authority of Richard prior of Hexham, that St. Wilfrid learnt his architecture from Rome, and built his church at Hagulsted aster that model. But there is every reason to think. that the Church of Malmsbury is not by some centuries so old as Mr. Carter thinks it. William of Malmsbury,. who lived in the reigns of Hen. I. Stephen, and Hen. II. and was him self a monk of that Abbey, speaks in his fifth book "De Pontificibus," edit. Gale, p. 350, of the whole Monastery of Malmsbury, most evidently from what he says including also the Church, as twice destroyed by fire; once in the reign of Alfred, and again in that of king Edward. By this last he most probably meant Edward the Confessor, not Edward the elder; because, as Edward the elder was Alfred's immediate successor,it may bedoubted, in any other mode of interpretation, whether there could have been time sufficient for the re-erection of so many large buildings before they are represented as being a second time destroyed, particularly as it does not appear that the fire in Alfred's time happened early in his reign. A similar conflagration in the case of the Church of Canterbury in 1174, rendered it necessary to take down and rebuild the greater part of that edifice, and parti cularly the arches and columns, which of course had been injured by the |