"N. B.—The little boy so often mentioned in the foregoing sheets, now lives with Mr. Galapin, a tobacconist, in Monument Yard; and may be referred to for the truth of most of the particulars before related."
W. Pinkerton.
Ham.
Grub Street Journal (Vol. vii., p. 383.).—Mr. James Crossley, after quoting Eustace Budgell's conjectures as to the writers of this paper, leaves it as doubtful whether Pope was or was not one of them. The poet has himself contradicted Budgell's insinuation when he retorted upon him in those terrible lines (alluding to his alleged forgery of a will):
"Let Budgell charge low Grub Street to my quill,
And write whate'er he please—except my will!"
Alexander Andrews.
Wives of Ecclesiastics (Vol. i., p. 115.).—In considering "the statutes made by Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas, Archbishop of York, and all the other bishops of England," ann. 1108, interdicting the marriage of ecclesiastics, might it not be worth investigating, by such of your correspondents as are curious on the subject, what had been the antecedents of the several bishops themselves?
With respect to Thomas II., Archbishop of York, it is historically certain, that he was the son of an ecclesiastic, and likewise the grandson of an ecclesiastic (his father being one of the bishops who concurred in these statutes). Neither does it seem altogether unlikely that Thomas himself also had spent some part of his early life in bonds of wedlock, since we learn from the Monasticon (vol. iii. p. 490. of new edit.), that "Thomas, son of Thomas (the second of that name), Archbishop of York, confirmed what his predecessors, Thomas and Girard, had given," &c. If this be correct, as stated[[4]], the conclusion is inevitable; but possibly some error may have arisen out of the circumstance, that Thomas I. and Thomas II., Archbishops of York, were uncle and nephew.
J. Sansom.