It is hardly to be supposed that the Ken here named could mean the bishop, who died so far back as 1711. Was there a coin-collector of that name living about 1740? We learn (from Ken's _Prose Works_, ed. Round, pp. 93, 94.) that the Bishop's sister, "my poor sister Ken," most probably then a widow, lost her only son, who died at Cyprus, in 1707. Was this Mrs. Ken the Rose Vernon, sister of Sir Thomas Vernon, of Coleman Street, London, and the wife of Jon Ken, the bishop's eldest brother, and treasurer of the East India Company? This Jon and Rose Ken are represented, in Mr. Markland's Pedigree of the Ken family, as still living in 1683. Is there no monumental memorial of this Treasurer Ken, or his family, in any of the London churches? In Mr. Macaulay's _History of England_, 5th ed., vol. ii. p. 365., he states that "it was well known that one of the most opulent dissenters of the City had begged that he might have the honour of giving security for Ken," when the seven bishops were bailed, previous to their trial. On what authority (for none is cited) does this statement rest? Can any one give a clue to this passage from a letter written to Mr. Harbin, Lord Weymouth's chaplain, by Bishop Ken, and dated "Winton, Jan 22." [1701]: "I came to Winchester yesterday, where I stay one post more, and then go either to Sir R. U. or L. Newton, where you shall hear from me."--Ken's _Prose Works_, by Round, p. 53. Can "Sir R. U." (the _U_ perhaps being a mistake for _W._) designate Sir Robert Worsley, Bart., of Chilton, in the county of Southampton, married to Lord Weymouth's daughter? and can "L. Newton" be a mistake for Long Sutton, in Hants? or may it be Long Newton, in the hundred of Malmesbury? J. J. J. Temple. * * * * * THE REV. JOHN LAWSON AND HIS MATHEMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS. In the year 1774 the Rev. John Lawson, B.D., Rector of Swanscombe in Kent, published _A Dissertation on the Geometrical Analysis of the Antients, with a Collection of Theorems and Problems without solutions for the Exercise of young Students_. This work was printed anonymously at Canterbury, but the merits of the essay did not permit the author to remain long in obscurity; the real writer was immediately known to most of the geometers of the day, and the elegant character of many of the theorems and problems, led to a general desire that their solutions should be published in a separate work. In accordance with this intention, it was announced on a fly-sheet attached to some copies of the work, that--