I shall be glad to hear from you as often as you have any thing new to communicate, and how the preparations go on.  Every thing now is in the hands of government, but, strange to tell, I have not yet heard from the Herald’s Office, whether I am to attend the procession or not.

    Believe me,

    Your much obliged humble servant,

    NELSON.

The codicil referred to in these letters proved to be, or at least to include, that memorable document which the Earl suppressed, when he produced the will, lest it should curtail his own share of the amount of favour which a grateful country would be anxious to heap on the representative of the departed hero.  By this unworthy conduct the fortunes of Lady Hamilton and her still surviving daughter were at once blighted.

The Earl as tightly held all he had, as he grasped all he could get.  It was expected that he would resign his stall at Canterbury in favour of his brother’s faithful chaplain and when he “held on” notwithstanding his peerage and riches, he was attacked in the newspapers.  The following letter is the last communication with which Dr. Scott was honoured, for his work was done:—­

    Canterbury, May 28, 1806.

    Sir,—­I am glad to find, by your letter, that you are not
    concerned in the illiberal and {38} unfounded paragraphs which
    have appeared and daily are appearing in the public prints.

    I am, Sir, your very humble servant,

    NELSON.

The Rev. Dr. Scott.

The above have never been printed, and I shall be glad if they are thought worthy of a place in your very useful and interesting periodical.  I am, Sir, &c.,

ALFRED GATTY.

Ecclesfield, 7th Nov. 1849.

    [3] The Battle of Trafalgar was fought October 21.

    [4] Lord Nelson’s steward in the Victory.

* * * * *

MISQUOTATIONS.

Mr. Editor,—­The offence of misquoting the poets is become so general, that I would suggest to publishers the advantage of printing more copious indexes than those which are now offered to the public.  For the want of these, the newspapers sometimes make strange blunders.  The Times, for instance, has lately, more than once, given the following version of a well-known couplet:—­

  “Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
  As to be hated needs but to be seen.”

The reader’s memory will no doubt instantly substitute such hideous for “so frightful,” and that for “as.”

The same paper, a short time since, made sad work with Moore, thus:—­

  “You may break, you may ruin the vase if you will,
  But the scent of the roses will hang by it still.”

Moore says nothing about the scents hanging by the vase.  “Hanging” is an odious term, and destroys the sentiment altogether.  What Moore really does say is this:—­