"Also, when any unworthy selfe (anno 1620) offred mine owne collections, entituled _Herwologia Anglica_, unto his highnesse [James I.], he most graciously received it." In 1614 appeared, under the initials "H. H.," the _Monvmenta sepvlchraria sancti Pavli_, and in the address _ad lectorem_ we read: "Et non solùm nomine bonus appellatus est [sc. Alex. Nowel], sed etiam et in vita sua bonitas apparuit, et in morte bona sua opera illum sunt sequuta, et uberiùs et fusiùs in _Effigiebus_ nostris et _vitis illustrium Anglorum_ cum de Coleto tum de illo apparet: (quæ nunc transmarino habitu vestiendæ sunt) quare hic illum pluribus prosequi verbis non est opus." Here is unanswerable evidence that Henry Holland was the compiler of both works. In the catalogue of the Grenville collection of books, now in the British Museum, both works are ascribed to Hugh Holland. 5. "The edition of 1614 was certainly the first, and that of 1633 _certainly_ the second."--The querist adopts my correction of his threefold error, and calls it an _answer_! 6. "I shall therefore leave the shade of Cole and MR. BOLTON CORNEY to settle the question as to whether any such work exists."--The querist did not perceive that the _Roxana of Alexander_ was an error for the _Roxana of Alabaster_--so he endeavours to draw off the attention of his readers from this proof of critical obtuseness by a common-place witticism. I must describe the facile process by which our querist has obtained his apparent triumph. Wood, at the close of his article on Hugh Holland the poet, which is chiefly derived from the _Worthies_ of Fuller, mentions one Hugh Holland as admitted B.A. in 1570, and another Hugh Holland as matriculated at Baliol college in 1582, aged twenty-four; with others of that surname. He adds, "but whether any of them were authors, I cannot yet tell, or _whether the last was the same with the poet_. Qu." Now, with regard to the first and second articles, our querist omits the sentence which proves the inapplicability of his quotations! and with regard to the third article, he omits the word _afterwards_, which forms the gist of the argument. BOLTON CORNEY. LADY FLORA HASTINGS' BEQUEST. (Vol. iv., p. 44.) "Assertion is not proof," and it surely does require _proof_ ere we consent to brand a writer of unimpeached character with the charge of "a shameless, heartless act of literary piracy." It rests with ERZA to bring forward his or her _proof_ that the lines in dispute were written by Lady Flora. ERZA asserted that they were "never before printed." I have enabled him or her to satisfy himself or herself that they were in print _nearly_ twelve years ago. I am disposed to believe ERZA equally mistaken in the assertion as to the authorship of the lines. If this prove so, the imputation cast upon Miss Barber will revert upon her accuser, and will demand the most ample apology.