rather obscure) I may, at another time, communicate some particulars. Whilst the subject of the Pagets (a very interesting one to me), I cannot refrain from noticing, even at the risk of encroaching on your space, a singular mistake of Anthony à Wood respecting another writer (though of an entirely different family) of the name of Paget. Speaking of the Rev. Ephraim Paget (_Athen. Oxon._, vol. ii. p. 51.) he says: "One of both his names (his uncle I think) translated into English _Sermons upon Ruth_, Lond. 1586, in oct., written originally by Lod. Lavater; but whether the said Ephraim Paget was educated at Oxon, I cannot justly say, though two or more of his sirname and time occur in our registers." Had Anthony ever _seen_ the book in question, he would have been aware that the title-page informs him that it was translated by Ephraim Pagitt, a child of eleven years of age; and as, according to the said Anthony's account, Ephraim was born in 1575, he would also at once have seen that Ephraim himself--not that ideal personage, his "uncle of the same name"--was the translator. CRANMORE. LETTER TO A BRIGADIER-GENERAL. (Vol. v., p 296.) Your correspondent W. C. begins his letter modestly. "If," he says, Thomas Lord Lyttleton wrote _The Letters of Junius_, and "if" Junius wrote the "Letter to the Brigadier-General," then he sees a difficulty. Why, of course he does: but as nobody but the writer in the _Quarterly_ believes that the said Thomas did write the _Letters of Junius_, and as it has never been proved that Junius did write the "Letter to a Brigadier," I must believe that something remains to be done before we proceed a step farther either in the way of argument or inference. Unless some such resolution be come to by inquirers, we shall never get out of the mazes in which this question has been involved, by like conditional statements, and the conditional arguments founded thereon.