ng that form. (See Furetiere,
vol. iii.) Prof. le Moine, of Leyden (quoted by Menage), claims for
it also an Eastern origin, and thinks we have received it from the
Arabians, together with their method of reckoning ciphers. He suggests
that it may be a corruption from the Hebrew [Hebrew: rphs], _safara_,
to number.

_Complutensian Polyglot_.--I cannot pretend to reply to "MR. JEBB'S"
inquiry under this head in No. 12. p. 213.; but perhaps it may assist
him in his researches, should he not have seen the pamphlet, to refer
to Bishop Smallridge's "Enquiry into the Authority of the Primitive
Complutensian Edition of the New Testament, as principally founded on
the most ancient Vatican MS., together with some research after that
MS. In order to decide the dispute about 1 John v. 7. In a letter to
Dr. Bentley. 8vo. London, 1722."

J.M.

Oxford, Feb. 5.

_Sir William Rider_.--In reply to the queries of "H.F.," No. 12. p.
186., respecting Sir William Rider, I beg to say that among the many
MS. notes which I have collected relating to the Rider family, {269}
&c., I find the following from the _Visitation of Surry_, 1623, and
from a MS. book of _Pedigrees of Peers_ in the Herald's College, with
additions.

"Thomas Rider married a daughter of ---- Poole of Stafforde,
by whom he had Sir William Rider, born at Muchalstone, co.
Stafforde, Sheriff of London, 1591, Citizen and Haberdasher,
Lord Mayor, 1600. Will dated 1 Nov., and proved 9 Nov.
1610, 8 Jas. I. (94 Wood); buried at Low Layton, Essex, &c.
Sir William married Elizabeth, da. of R. Stone, of Helme,
co. Norfolk; by whom he had, besides other children and
descendants, Mary daughter and coheiress, who married Sir
Thomas Lake, of Canons, Middlesex, from whose issue descended
Viscount Lake."

S.S.

_Pokership_ (No. 12. p. 185., and No. 14. p. 218.).--It is to be
regretted that no information has been supplied respecting the meaning
of this remarkable word, either from local sources or from the surveys
of crown lands in the Exchequer or Land Revenue offices. In one or the
other of these quarters we should surely find something which would
dispense with further conjecture. In the meantime the following facts,
obtained from records easily accessible, will probably be sufficient
to dispose of the explanations hitherto suggested, and to show that
the _poker_ of Bringwood forest was neither a _parker_ nor a _purser_.

The offic