Speculations about Junius are once again the fashion. I would recommend the editor of "N. & Q." not to enter on the general question; but there are ways, within his legitimate province, by which he might do good service. For example, there have been many obscure persons alluded to in these discussions, about whom we should all be glad to receive information. Thus, Mr. Combe, the author of _Dr. Syntax's Tour_, figures prominently in the last number of the _Quarterly Review_. Now, of Mr. Combe very little is known: his name never, I believe, appeared in a title-page, although he lived, or rather starved, by literature, for half a century. From a correspondent of _The Athenæum_ I learn that a list of Combe's works, in his own handwriting, is in the possession of Mr. Robert Cole; and as Mr. Cole is said to be a very liberal man, I have no doubt he would allow you to print that list. What a waste of speculation, not on one subject, but many subjects, might thus be saved to another generation of editors and contributors! There are also numberless facts, or assumed facts, made to do duty in these discussions, which might with great propriety be subjected to the searching test of "N. & Q." I submit one as a specimen. The writer of the above-mentioned article in the _Quarterly_ says: "It is universally admitted that Junius must have been indefatigable in acquiring information, and that he was pre-eminently distinguished by the variety and extent of his knowledge;" and he then quotes from the _Parliamentary History_ the reported opinion of Burke on this point: "Were he [Junius] a member of this House, what might not be expected from his knowledge?... Nothing would escape his vigilance and activity. Bad ministers could conceal nothing from his sagacity, nor could promises or threats induce him to conceal anything from the public." On this I desire to observe, that the "variety and extent" of the knowledge of Junius is not universally admitted--has indeed been publicly denied; and that what Burke said, as above quoted, had no reference to Junius whatever, but to the author of _Another Letter to Mr. Almon in Matter of Libel_, then just published, and believed to have been written by the author of the still more celebrated pamphlet, published in 1763 or 1764, called _A Letter concerning Libels and Warrants_, &c. It is quite true that the passage has been quoted, and so applied, twenty times, and been forced to do double duty, that is, been adduced in proof of directly opposite opinions. This was allowable up to 1842, but inexcusable since the _Cavendish Debates_ have been published. (See _Cav. Deb._, vol. ii. pp. 106, 107.) J. Q. R. SIMON OF SUDBURY, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY. In a niche in the vestry of St. Gregory's Church, Sudbury, Suffolk, is preserved the skull of the murdered archbishop: beneath the niche is placed the following inscription, which appears to me worthy of a place in your pages:--