_King's Prerogative._--A writer in the _Edinburgh Review_, vol. lxxiv. p. 77., asserts, on the authority of Blackstone (but he does not refer to the volume and page of the _Commentaries_, and I have in vain sought for the passages), that it is to _this day_ a branch of the king's prerogative, at the death of _every bishop_, to have his kennel of hounds, or a compensation in lieu of it. Does the writer mean, and is it the fact, that if a bishop die without having a kennel of hounds, his executors are to pay the king a compensation in lieu thereof? And if it is, what is the amount of that compensation? Is it merely nominal? I can understand the king claiming a bishop's kennel of hounds or compensation in feudal times, when bishops were hunters (vide Raine's _Auckland Castle_, a work of great merit, and abounding with much curious information); but to say, to _this day_ it is a branch of the king's prerogative, is an insult alike to our bishops and to religious practices in the nineteenth century. Of hunting bishops in feudal times, I beg to refer your readers, in addition to Mr. Raine's work, to an article in the fifty-eighth volume of the _Quarterly Review_, p. 433., for an extract from a letter of Peter of Blois to Walter, Bishop of Rochester, who at the age of eighty was a great hunter. Peter was shocked at his lordship's indulgence in so unclerical a sport. It is obvious neither Peter nor the Pope could have heard of the hunting Bishops of Durham. FRA. MEWBURN. _Quotations in Cowper._--Can any of your correspondents indicate the sources of the following quotations, which occur in Cowper's Letters (Hayley's _Life and Letters of Cowper_, 4 vols., 1812)? In vol. iii. p. 278. the following verses, referring to the Atonement, are cited: [Greek: Tou de kath' haima rheen kai soi kai emoi kai adelphois] [Greek: Hêmeterois, autou sôzomenois thanatôi.] In vol. iv. p. 240. it is stated that Twining applied to Pope's translation of Homer the Latin verse-- "Perfida, sed quamvis perfida, cara tamen." L. _Cawley the Regicide._--Mr. Waylen, in his _History of Marlborough_, just published, shows that Cawley of Chichester, the regicide, has in Burke's _Commoners_ been confounded with Cawley of Burderop, in Wiltshire; and he adds, "the fact that a son of the real regicide (the Rev. John Cawley) became a rector of the neighbouring parish of Didcot," &c. has helped to confound the families. May I ask what is the authority for stating that the Rev. J. Cawley was a son of the regicide? C. T. R. * * * * * Minor Queries with Answers.