were at
once blighted.

The Earl as tightly held all he had, as he grasped all he could
get. It was expected that he would resign his stall at Canterbury
in favour of his brother's faithful chaplain and when he "held on"
notwithstanding his peerage and riches, he was attacked in the
newspapers. The following letter is the last communication with which
Dr. Scott was honoured, for his work was done:--

Canterbury, May 28, 1806.

Sir,--I am glad to find, by your letter, that you are not
concerned in the illiberal and {38} unfounded paragraphs which
have appeared and daily are appearing in the public prints.

I am, Sir, your very humble servant,

NELSON.

The Rev. Dr. Scott.

The above have never been printed, and I shall be glad if they are
thought worthy of a place in your very useful and interesting
periodical. I am, Sir, &c.,

ALFRED GATTY.

Ecclesfield, 7th Nov. 1849.

[3] The Battle of Trafalgar was fought October 21.

[4] Lord Nelson's steward in the Victory.

* * * * *

MISQUOTATIONS.

Mr. Editor,--The offence of misquoting the poets is become so general,
that I would suggest to publishers the advantage of printing more
copious indexes than those which are now offered to the public. For
the want of these, the newspapers sometimes make strange blunders. The
_Times_, for instance, has lately, more than once, given the following
version of a well-known couplet:--

"Vice is a monster of _so frightful_ mien,
_As_ to be hated needs but to be seen."

The reader's memory will no doubt instantly substitute _such hideous_
for "so frightful," and _that_ for "as."

The same paper, a short time since, made sad work with Moore, thus:--

"You may break, you may ruin the vase if you will,
But the scent of the roses will _hang by_ it still."

Moore says nothing about the scents _hanging by_ the vase. "Hanging"
is an odious term, and destroys the sentiment altogether. What Moore
really does say is this:--

"You may break, you may ruin the vase if you will,
But the scent of the roses will _cling round_ it still."

Now the couplet appears in its original beauty.

It is impossible to speak of the poets without thinking of Shakspeare,
who towers above them all. We have yet to discover an editor capable
of doing him full justice. Some of Johnson's notes are very amusing,
and those of recent editors occasionally provoke a smile. If