would proceed from Dryden, while it is to be noticed that the inharmonious rhymes "faults" and "thoughts" were favourites of Mulgrave, and occur twice in his _Essay on Poetry_. Neither can I doubt that the verses on Shaftesbury,--the four "will any dog;" the four "For words and wit did anciently agree," the four "Mean in each action;" the two "Each pleasure has its price"--are Dryden's additions, with many others, which a careful reader will instantly appropriate. I can find no sufficient authority for the statement of Malone and Sir W. Scott, that Pope revised the _Essay on Satire_. It is well known he corrected that on Poetry. JAS. CROSSLEY. Manchester, Feb. 10. 1851. {147} * * * * * FOUNDATION-STONE OF ST. MARK'S AT VENICE. (Vol. iii., p. 88.) I recollect having seen the stone in question in the collection of the late Mr. Douce, in whose possession it had been for some years before his communication of it to the Society of Antiquaries. It is quite evident that he was satisfied of its authenticity, and it was most probably an accidental purchase from some dealer in antiquities, who knew nothing about it. I happen to know that it remained in the hands of Sir Henry Ellis at the time of Mr. Douce's death, and your correspondent H. C. R. will most probably find it among the other collections of Mr. Douce now in the museum at Goodrich Castle. The doubt expressed by your correspondent is evidently founded upon the engraving and accompanying paper in the 26th volume of the _Archaeologia_; and as it conveys such a grave censure of the judgment of the director of the council and secretaries of the Antiquarian Society, it appears to me that it is incumbent upon him to satisfy his doubts by seeing the stone itself, and, if he should be convinced of his error, to make the _amende honorable_. It is to be regretted that he did not state "the points which have suggested this notion of its being a hoax." For my own part, I cannot see the motive for such a falsification; and if it is one, it is the contrivance of some one who had more epigraphic skill than is usually found on such occasions. There is nothing in the objection of your correspondent as to the size and form of the stone which would have any weight, and it is not necessary to suppose that it "must have been loose in the world for 858 years." On pulling down the old church, the foundation-stone in which this was imbedded may have been buried with the rubbish, and exhumed in comparatively recent times. It had evidently fallen into rude and ignorant hands, and suffered by being violently detached from the stone in which it was imbedded.