“Mr. Touchit’s Warning to the Watchmen of London.  From the
     Westminster Journal, April 2nd, No. 331. (1748).

“Whereas it has been represented to me, Thomas Touchit, Watchman Extraordinary of the City of Westminster, that the Watchmen of London were very remiss during the dreadful Fire on Friday morning, March 25, in not giving timely Notice of that Calamity over their several Beats, whereby the Friends of many of the unhappy Sufferers, who would have flown to their Assistance, were ignorant of their Distress till it was too late to do them Service; and also that most of the said Watchmen, on other Occasions, are very negligent, whence it happens that many Robberies, Burglaries, and other Offences, which their Care might prevent, are committed; and that even some of them are in Fee with common Harlots and Streetwalkers, whom they suffer at unseasonable Hours, unmolested to prey on the Virtue, Health and Property of His Majesty’s Liege Subjects:  Be it known to the said Watchmen, and their Masters, that, having taken the Premises into Consideration, I intend whenever I set out from Spring Gardens with my invisible Cap, my irradiating Lanthorn, and my Oken Staff of correction, to take the City of London, under Leave of the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor, into my Rounds, and to detect, expose, and punish all Defaulters in the several Stands and Beats:  Whereof this fair Warning is given, that none may be surprized in Neglect of Duty, I being determined to shew no Favour to such Offenders.”

Euston Square, 12th Dec. 1849.

Aelfric’s Colloquy.—­Permit me to correct a singular error into which the great Anglo-Saxon scholars, Messrs. Lye and B. Thorpe, have been betrayed by some careless transcriber of the curious Monastic Colloquy by the celebrated Aelfric.  This production of the middle ages is very distinctly written, both in the Saxon and Latin portions, in the Cotton MS. (Tiberius, A 3, fol. 58_b_.) Mr. Lye frequently cites it, in his Saxon Dictionary, as “Coll.  Mon.,” and Mr. Thorpe gives it entire in his Analecta Anglo-Saxonica.  The former loosely explains higdifatu, which occurs in the reply of the shoewright (sceowyrhta), thus—­“Ca_l_idilia, sc. vasa quoedam.—­Coll.  Mon.”—­and Mr. Thorpe prints both higdifatu and cal_idilia_. Higdifatu is manifestly vessels of hides, such as skin and leather bottles and buckets.  The ig is either a clerical error of the monkish scribe for y, or the g is a silent letter producing the quantity of the vowel.  “I buy hides and fells,” says the workman, “and with my craft I make of them shoes of different kinds; leathern hose, flasks, and higdifatu.”  The Latin word in this MS. is casidilia, written with the long straight s.  Du Cange explains capsilis to be a vessel of leather, and quotes Matt.  Westmon.:  “Portans cassidile toxicum mellitum.”—­Gloss. tom. ii. col. 387.  The root caps, or cas, does not appear to have any Teutonic correspondent, and may merit a philological investigation.