venues at that time (nor indeed any time after the Reformation), it is almost impossible to conceive that he could have purchased these with his savings. They must, therefore, either have been conveyed to him by his father, or purchased with money derived from him.

"From experience I know that our parish registers in Scotland are worth little till after the Revolution, having been kept on loose sheets; indeed, the presbytery records are full of injunctions to the Book Sessions to get bound books.-GEORGE VERE IRVING."]

FIRST SABBATH SCHOOL IN ENGLAND.-I have seen it recently recorded that the first Sabbath school in Great Britain was formed by Mr. Robert Raikes in Gloucester in 1781:

"As Robert Raikes walked out one day,

To see if children were at play,

Some boys were seen on Sabbath day
A playing, playing-ah me,
Then away, away."

The Golden Shower, p. 104.

[Robert Raikes was born in 1735, and succeeded his father as a printer and editor of the Gloucester Journal. He received a liberal education, and prospered in trade. He formed a plan of bestowing upon the prisoners in gaols moral and religious instruction, and regular cmployment; but his greatest recommendation is, in conjunction with the late Rev. Thomas Stock, the institution of Sunday schools in 1781. He died at Gloucester, April 5, 1811, aged seventy-five years. Most recent biographical dictionaries give some account of him. Consult also the European Magazine, xiv. 315 (with portrait); xv. 350*; Gentleman's Magazine, vol. ci. (pt. ii.), pp. 132, 294, 391, and Joseph Ivimey's Memoir of William Fox, 18mo, 1881.]

VULGATE BIBLE, 1491.-I have a copy of the Vulgate Bible, about the rarity and value of which I shall be glad if you or any of your correspondents can give me any information. It has no title-page, but seems in other respects quite complete and in good order, with old wooden boards. At the end of the Book of Revelation there is the following colophon (I do not give the contractions):—

"Impensis attamen et singulari cura spectabilis viri Nicolai Keslers civis Basiliensis Anno Legis Novæ Millesimo quadringentesimo Nonagesimo primo. Nona

Januarii."

Replies.

SOLOMON AND THE GENII.

(3rd S. xii. 46.)

The stories of the pre-Adamite Jins, Peris, Divs, and Tacwins have come down to us through Jewish traditions. (Sale, Prelim. Dis. iv.) But the Koran and its commentators have something to say on the subject of Solomon and the Jins (Genii) or devils (ch. ii. p. 13; xxi. p. 270; xxvii. p. 310, Sale). In Surat, xxxviii. (p. 374, Sale), Allah says:

"We also tempted Solomon and placed on his throne a devil in human form." "We made the wind subject to him; it ran gently at his command, withersoever we directed. And we also put the devils under him and among them, such as were every way skilled in building, and in diving for pearls, &c."

The Talmudists have the following fable of Asâf and Sakhar. (See Sale's note to the above quotation.)

Solomon having taken Sidon, and slain the king of that city, brought away his daughter she ceased not to lament her father's loss, he Jerâda, who became his favourite; and because ordered the devils to make an image of him for her chamber, she and her maids worshipped it her consolation; which being done, and placed in morning and evening, according to their custom. At length Solomon, being informed of this idolatry, which was practised under his roof, by his vizir Asâf, he broke the image, and having chastised the woman, went out into the desert, where he wept and made supplications to God, who did not think fit, however, to let his negligence pass without some correction. It was Solomon's custom, while he eased or washed himself, to entrust his signet, on which his kingdom depended, with a concubine of his named Amina. One day, therefore, when she had the ring in her custody, a devil named Sakhar came to her in the shape of Solomon, and received the ring from her; by virtue of which he became possessed of the kingdom, and sat on the throne in the shape which he had borrowed, making what alterations in the law he pleased. Solomon, in the meantime, being changed in his outward appearance, and known to none of his subjects, was obliged to wander about and beg alms for his subsistence; till at length, after the space of forty days, which was the time the image had been worshipped in his house, the devil flew away, and threw the signet into the sea; the signet was immediately swallowed by a fish, which being taken and given to Solomon, he found the ring in its belly, and having by this means recovered the kingdom, took Sakhar, and tying a great stone to his neck, threw him into the lake Tiberias. (Talm. En Jacob, part ii, et Yalkut in Lib. Reg. p. 182; Al Beid. Jallal. Abu'lfeda.) T. J. BUCKTON.

THE SONGS OF BIRDS. (3rd S. xi. 380.)

Besides the works of Kircher and Bechstein, referred to by the editor and correspondents, I may mention that a very interesting and entertaining book called The Music of Nature, by Mr. Gardiner, appeared between thirty and forty years ago, in which this subject was treated on. The author converted into musical notation almost all the sounds under the sun, ranging from the inflexions and modulation of Edmund Kean's voice down to the bray of a donkey! If I recollect right, he also set to music the colours of the prism! No doubt his musical enthusiasm carried him great lengths. Nevertheless there is much that is noteworthy in the book. Having been myself musical from my very cradle, and having made long and frequent observations of the songs of birds, I have come to the decided conclusion that the natural songs of English birds (the only birds with which in a state of nature I am acquainted) are never capable of musical notation—are never, in fact, in tune with our musical scale. People may be startled by such an assertion, which is, in other words, that all birds sing out of tune. But I think that any musical man with what is commonly, but erroneously, called a good ear for music, and also an ordinary amount of musical science, will, on trying the experiment, find that the intervals of birds' notes do not correspond with ours, and that they never sing according to any key corresponding with ours. I have carefully guarded my assertion by restricting it to natural song, and therefore it is hardly necessary to add that it does not relate to piping bullfinches, &c., which may be taught by their power of imitation to sing correctly in tune. My observations lead me to suppose that birds have not only great pleasure in singing, but some of them are endowed with not only a talent for imitation but also with a spirit of emulation. I have frequently listened for a length of time to a little robin imitating the cadences of a thrush in a neighbouring tree, repeating them with a fair degree of accuracy, and evidently straining its little throat (but in vain) to equal the superior power and richness of the larger bird.

I have seen it remarked somewhere-very likely in that charming little book, White's Natural History of Selborne-that early in the season singing birds appear to be out of practice, and perform but poorly; but as the spring advances, and they exercise their voices, they improve in quality and execution. This observation I can confirm. I have heard a thrush (which I con

The musical faculty is undoubtedly an intellectual one-not depending on the external organ. Many musical geniuses, like Beethoven, have been stone deaf, and many unmusical people have the most acute hearing.

sider the king of English feathered songsters) evidently practising his song with great care, and trying new cadences and variations, and very interesting it was to listen to the performance. The lark may be said to have the greatest execution, but the quality of the thrush's voice and its expression I think rank it as a whole above the fark. The blackbird's tone is good, but its song is monotonous. It will repeat the same strain without altering a note for a whole evening. The robin is a sweet and accomplished songster, and, considering its size, has plenty of power. Indeed the great distance to which birds with their tiny throats can send their sweet songs shows a construction of their organ as one of the most wonderful of the numberless wonderful works of the Almighty. M. H. R.

DOCTOR WOLCOT.

(3rd S. xi. 450, 526; xii. 39.)

In the English Encyclopædia (Biogr.) vol. vi. p. 781, I find it stated that, before leaving England with Sir W. Trelawney for Jamaica, "Wolcott (sic) procured the degree of M.D. from the University of Aberdeen." The same paragraph adds that, "having his hopes of a lucrative practice in Jamaica dispelled," "Dr. Wolcott proceeded to England, and was ordained by the Bishop of London."

If this account of the English Cyclopædia be correct, it sets at rest MR. MACKENZIE WALCOTT'S doubt of Peter Pindar's medical degree; and also invalidates the statement which E. S. D. has quoted from the memoir prefixed to the works of Peter Pindar in 4 vols. 12mo, 1809. Also, it leads me to conclude that Wolcot was spelt indifferently with a single or a double t, although the latter shocks MR. WALCOTT's accuracy.

In Rose's Biographical Dictionary (vol. xii. art. "Wolcott"), it is stated that he graduated M.D. at Aberdeen, and further, that on his return from Jamaica he took orders.

In Chambers' Cyclopædia of English Literature (vol. ii. p. 78) it is stated distinctly that "the Bishop of London ordained the graceless neophyte, and Wolcot entered upon his sacred duties.'

My own edition of the Doctor's poems is a quarto of the date 1787. It has no preface or introduction, nor can I hit upon any internal evidence bearing upon the question at issue. But this at least may be said, that there is a consensus of authority that the Doctor was an Aberdeen M.D., and not a soi-disant doctor; also, that the error of spelling, if it be one, into which I fell in my first reply to a query, is one which such accurate men as Rose and C. Knight have shared with me. J. B. DAVIES.

Moor Court, Kington.

In the Dictionary of Universal Biography, edited by John Francis Waller, Esq., there is an article on Wolcott (spelt with two t's) by Mr. Francis Espinasse, in which it is stated that

"After a course of schooling in various places, diversified by a year's residence in Normandy, he removed to Fowey in Cornwall, where a kind uncle, a medical man, who had already defrayed the expenses of his education, adopted him as his heir, and brought him up to his own profession. . . . He was anxious to see the world, and at his request his uncle persuaded Sir William Trelawney, appointed governor of Jamaica, to take Wolcott with him. On his arrival in Jamaica he practised medicine, and-strange episode in the history of such a man-he actually went to England, and was ordained by the Bishop of London, that he might accept a cure of souls in Jamaica. The duties of his new charge were, of course, but indifferently performed, and after the death of the governor of Jamaica, Wolcott returned to England.. After various ineffectual attempts to obtain a medical practice in Cornwall, he removed to London."

In Chambers' Cyclopædia of English Literature, vol. ii. p. 78, it is said that

"Wolcot's (with one t here) uncle, a respectable surgeon and apothecary at Fowey, took the charge of his education. He was instructed in medicine, and walked the hospitals' in London, after which he proceeded to Jamaica with Sir William Trelawney, governor of the island, who had engaged him as his medical attendant.

His time being only partly employed by his professional avocations, he solicited and obtained from his patron the gift of a living in the church, which happened to be then vacant. The Bishop of London ordained the graceless neophyte, and Wolcot entered upon his sacred duties. . . . Bidding adieu to Jamaica and the church, Wolcot accompanied Lady Trelawney to England, and established himself as a physician at Truro."

Mr. Espinasse says that there is a copious memoir of Wolcot in the Annual Biography and Obituary for 1820. If E. S. D. will refer to this, he will probably obtain the information he is seeking as to whether or no Peter Pindar really

took orders.

JONATHAN BOUCHIER.

5, Selwood Place, Brompton, S.W.

I did not accuse MR. DAVIES of being incorrect to a "t," but of misspelling Wolcot's name as Walcott," thus confounding two families essentially distinct. As regard's Wolcot's qualifications for a degree, the European Magazine says that he was "appointed physician-general to the island of Jamaica," but gives no hint of his place of graduation, and touching his amateur clerical function (to use the gentlest term for the act), the same authority adds:

"This circumstance of his life honest Peter has always been unwilling to acknowledge, but as impartial biographers we think it our duty to reveal it to our readers." (1787, vol. xii. 92.)

Mr. Redding says:

"He completed his studies at Paris, and had quitted the paternal roof at an early age to reside with an uncle at Fowey.... there he was to be initiated in the art of manslaying secundum artem,"

but there is no notice again of any graduation. He also says that "Wolcot had scarcely qualified for the office " [a colonial living], "when he resigned it." The Scots' Magazine (iv. 192) and Mr. Cyrus Redding spell his name with one t; the European Magazine gives two_ts. The one ascertained fact remains that MR. DAVIES should have written Wolcot or Wolcott, not Walcott.

MACKENZIE E. C. WALCOTT, B.D., F.S.A.

Memoirs of persons written during their lifetime are seldom of much value. Little confidence can, I think, be placed in the memoir prefixed to Peter Pindar's works, 1809. The language of the extract given by E. S. D. shows clearly that Dr. Wolcot himself could not have sanctioned it. Moreover, it is exceedingly improbable that a member of the household of the Governor of Jamaica would have been permitted to act in a manner so irregular as stated in the memoir. The following passage from an article on Dr. Wolcot in the Penny Cyclopædia is very circumstantial: -

"Before leaving England, Wolcot procured the degree of M.D. from the University of Aberdeen. The Incumbent of a valuable living in the island being dangerously ill, the Governor suggested to his young friend that he might obtain preferment in the Church. Wolcot upon this hint proceeded to England, and was ordained by the Bishop of London; but on his return the clergyman whom he was to succeed had recovered, and he was obliged to remain contented with the curacy of Vere."

The authority for this article is stated to be the Annual Biography and Obituary for 1820. Dr. Wolcot was certainly not an estimable, but he was a remarkable man, and the question which has been raised with regard to his ordination authoritatively, is to examine the records of ordiought to be settled. The only way to do so nations in the diocese of London. Perhaps some of your readers have access to them, and will do this. H. P. D.

He was,