Our Correspondent THEODORUS, in p. 103, however correct he may be in other more important points relative to the Hon. and Rev. George Spencer, must stand corrected with regard to the value of the Church preferment relinquished by that nobleman. It consisted only of the living of Brington (his father's parish) in Northamptonshire; which it is true is a rectory, but which, it must be well known in the neighbourhood, produces not a fifth part of the annual income stated by our correspondent.

E. Y. remarks: "Before your OLD SUBSCRIBER attempted to unfrock Lord Bloom-. field (as he does, p. 498), he should have looked at the articles of the Irish Union, where he will find the very case provided for, and will perceive that the only effect of the allowance of the Roscommon Peerage is, that the Crown must await the extinction of four peerages instead of three, before a new Irish Peer can be created."—If E. Y. had referred to p. 290, he would have seen the same law laid down by our OLD SUBSCRIBER himself; and the first paragraph of his letter in p. 498, tends to the same point, -that, as the Earl of Roscommon was not acknowledged by the House of Peers until 1828, and no new creation has since been made, the case is without difficulty, provided that the Roscommon peerage remained unclaimed for twelve months after the late Earl's death in 1816. This, we are now enabled to state, it did; as, although the present Earl perhaps assumed the title, neither he, nor any other claimant, made any such legal claim before the House of Peers as alone could be regarded by the Government. The right of the Crown to avail itself of the presumed extinction, is therefore indefeasible, and Lord Bloomfield's patent holds good. It is true that his Lordship has not yet voted at the election of a Representative Peer, and this because he has not proved his right before the House; but it is merely a voluntary deJay, probably arising from his absence from the country. Our OLD SUBSCRIBER was not strictly correct in stating that the present Earl of Roscommon's name was included, pending his claim, in the annual list of Ulster King at Arms; the title was returned, but the name left blank. consideration of these circumstances will, it is presumed, again restore Lord Bloomfield's patent to the favourable impression under which our OLD SUBSCRIBER previously viewed it; and it will be evident that the Crown has merely to quote four instead of three extinctions in the next patent conferred. We presume, indeed, that the delay which has taken place in the creation of Mr. James Daly to the title of Lord Dunsandle, has arisen from an intention to wait till the legal space of a twelvemonth has expired, after the date of a fourth extinction.

The

says,

Mr. W. HORTON LLOYD "Your Correspondent W. S. B. part ii. p. 484, of last vol. in correcting Sir Walter Scott's errors, appears to have fallen into one himself. He objects to the Dominicans being called by Sir Walter Scott black friars, and asserts that they were called white friars. But the Dominicans certainly were called black friars, wearing a black dress; and the Carmelites were those called White Friars, as see (if authority be necessary) Bonanni's Religious Orders,-Burn's Eccles. Law, art. Monasteries, and Dugdale's Warwickshire, P. 122."

J. G. N. observes, that our correspondents, on the biography and literary labours of the Rev. William Ainsworth, in our last volume, part ii. pp. 290, 498, 600, do not appear to have been aware that a bibliographical account, with extracts, from that author's Medulla Bibliorum, 1652," was communicated to our vol. xcvII. i. 599.

CARTHUSIENSIS is desirous to supply an omission in the Obituaries of the late Bishop of Calcutta (Dr. James), and that great and excellent man Dr. Wollaston, by stating that they were both, though "longo intervallo," educated at the Charter House, a school which he could prove by unquestionable documents, has produced within the last century more distinguished Churchmen, Lawyers, and Statesmen, in proportion to the number of its scholars, than any other public school in the kingdom.

Mr. Christopher Irwin, of Downend, near Bristol, having noticed in our July Magazine, p. 2, the inquiries of W. B. respecting the Irwins of Devonshire, sends the following information :-John Irwin (who is supposed to be the eldest son of Christopher_Irwin) who removed from Scotland into Devonshire, was buried March 5, 1763; a stone was erected to his memory in Kentesbury Church (near Barnstaple), but in the repairs which the church underwent last summer, it is lost. His wife Mary died in 1796, aged 93. This John Irwin had three sons and one daughter, John, William, and Christopher. Christopher (my grandfather) died Nov. 30, 1768. William Irwin, the brother of John Irwin, sen. died Jan. 21, 1779, aged 60; and Elizabeth his wife, died Dec. 7, 1773, who had three sons, John, William, and Joseph.

ERRATA. Vol. xcix. ii. p. 491, b. l. 40, for Ptolinus, read Plotinus.-P. 492, a. last line, for communion, read connexion.--P. 495, a. l. 33, for deemed read deem.-P. 595, b. line 16 from bottom, for compliment read complement.-Ibid. Fig. 1. for 34° read 20° 57'.-P. 598, last line, for 34° 30' read 20° 57'.

Vol. c. i. p. 90, a. l. 20, for 1822 read 1823; p. 184, b. l. 23, for 1828, read 1829.