articulars 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.

[Footnote 4: Robertus Bloetus also, who was still Bishop of Lincoln, and
Rogerus, Bishop of Salisbury, appear to have had sons, though, perhaps, not
born in wedlock; but query.]

_Blanco White._--In Vol. vii., p. 404., is a copy of a sonnet which is said
to be "_on_ the Rev. Joseph Blanco White." This sonnet is one which I have
been in search of for some years. I saw it in a newspaper (I believe the
_Athenaeum_), but not having secured a copy of it at the time, now ten or
twelve years ago, I have had occasion to regret it ever since, and am
consequently much obliged to BALLIOLENSIS for his preservation of it in "N.
& Q." "It is needless," as he well observes, "to say anything in its
praise." I should add, that