While I thank MR. PETER CUNNINGHAM for his ready compliance with my request, I am sorry to say that I cannot concur in the reliance which he expresses on the authority of Sir George Buc. The passage quoted from that writer contains so palpable a blunder in that part of the history of the Temple of which we have authentic records, that I look with much suspicion on that portion of the relation, with regard to which no documentary evidence has been found.

He makes "Hugh Spencer, Earle of Glocester," the next successor of the Earl of Lancaster in the possession of the Temple after the suppression, and places "Andomare de Valence" in the house after the execution of Spencer for treason: an account which receives a somewhat significant contradiction in the fact, that Valence died in 1323, and Spencer was beheaded in 1326.

With reference to Buc's assertion, that "the other third part, called the Outward Temple, Doctor Stapleton, Bishop of Exceter, had gotten in the raign of the former king, Edward the Second, and conuerted it to a house for him and his successors, Bishops of Exceter," I can only say that no such grant has ever been discovered, and that every fact on which we have any information in relation to the Templars' possessions in London, contradicts the presumption that any part of them was disposed of to the bishop. He was raised to his see in 1307. The Templars were suppressed in 1309. Their lands and tenements in London were then placed in the hands of custodes appointed by the king, who in 1311 transferred them into the custody of the sheriffs of London, with directions to account for the rents into the Exchequer. In both of these documents, and in the grants to the Earls of Lancaster and Pembroke, ALL the property that belonged to the Templars in London and its suburbs is expressly included; without excepting any part of it as having been previously granted to the bishop; which, had any such been made, would inevitably have been specially noticed. And I have already shown in my former communication (p. 325.) that the grant by the Hospitallers themselves to Hugh le Despenser in 1324 is of the whole of their house called the New Temple, and that the bishop's mansion is therein stated to be its western boundary.

All these particulars confirm me in my opinion, that the bishop's house never formed any part of the New Temple.

EDWARD FOSS.

THE OLD LONDON BELLMAN AND HIS SONGS OR CRIES.
(Vol. iii., pp. 324. 377.)

The songs of the old bellman are interesting relics of the manners and customs of "London in the olden time;" but they must not be confounded with the more modern "copies of verses" which, until lately, were annually handed about at Christmas time by that all-important functionary the "Parish Beadle." The history of the old London bellman may be gleaned from a series of tracts from the pen of those two prolific writers—Thomas Dekker and Samuel Rowlands. The first of these in the order of date is The Belman of London. Bringing to light the most notorious Villanies that are now practised in the Kingdome. Profitable for Gentlemen, Lawyers, Merchants, Citizens, Farmers, Masters of Households, and all sortes of Servants to marke, and delightfull for all Men to Reade. Printed at London for Nathaniel Butler, 4to. 1608. The author of this tract was Thomas Dekker. Its popularity was so great that it passed through three editions in the course of one year. The title-page above given is that of the first impression. It is adorned with an interesting woodcut of the bellman with bell, lantern, and halberd, followed by his dog. In the following year the same author printed his Lanthorne and Candle-light, or the Bellman's second Nights-walke. In which he brings to light a Brood of more strange Villanies then ever were till this yeare discovered, &c. London, printed for John Busbie, 4to. 1609. The success of the Bellman of London, which Dekker published anonymously, induced him to write this second part, to the dedication of which "to Maister Francis Mustian of Peckham" he puts his name, while he also admits the authorship of the first part. This is the second edition of Lanthorne and Candle-light, but it came out originally in the same year. On the title-page of this tract the bellman is represented in a night-cap, without his dog, and with a "brown bill" on his shoulder. Three years later Dekker produced his O per se O, or a New Cryer of Lanthorne and Candle-light. Being an Addition, or Lengthening of the Bellman's Second Night-walke, &c. Printed at London for John Busbie, 4to. 1612. Previous to the year 1648, this production went through no fewer than nine distinct editions, varying only in a slight degree from each other. One of these editions, now before me, has for its title English Villanies Eight severall times Prest to Death by the Printers, 4to. 1648. The author in this calls the bellman "the childe of darkeness, a common night-walker, a man that hath no man to wait upon him, but onely a dogge; one that was a disordered person, and at midnight would beat at men's doores bidding them (in meere mockerie) to looke to their candles, when they themselves were in their dead sleepes." The following verses are at the back of the title-page, preceded by a woodcut of a bellman. The same lines are also given, "with additions," in the earlier editions of the Villanies, but they are too indecent to quote:

"THE BELL-MAN'S CRY.

"Men and children, maids and wives,

'Tis not too late to mend your lives: