Before taking the liberty of putting the question so directly to Mr. Collier, I awaited an examination of his recently-published volume of selected corrections, in which, however, the point upon which I seek information is not alluded to.
In glancing over that volume, I perceive that Mr. Collier, in his notes at the end (p. 508.), does "N. & Q." the honour to refer to it, by alluding to an emendation "proposed by Mr. Cornish" ("N. & Q.," Vol. vi., p. 312.).
When that emendation appeared I recognised it at once as having been proposed by Warburton and applauded by Dr. Johnson. I did not, however, then think it of sufficient importance to trouble the editor of "N. & Q.," by correcting a claim which, although apparent, might not perhaps be intentional.
But now, since the ownership (quantum valeat) has deceived even Mr. Collier, and is endorsed by him, it is time to notice it.
A. E. B.
Leeds.
P.S.—I may add that, with respect to these words "happy low lie down," from my habit of looking for solutions of difficulties in parallels and antitheses, I have arrived at a different conclusion from any that has yet been suggested. Finding "uneasy" used adverbially in the last line, I see no reason why "happy" should not also be taken adverbially in the preceding line: we should then have the same verb, "lie" and "lies," repeated antithetically in the same mood and tense.
The article the before "low" has probably been omitted in the press, and may be either actually restored or elliptically understood:
"Then happy [the] low lie down;