traces of their existence and labours are very few, scarce, and scattered.  A vague general statement respecting the prevalence of geometrical studies amongst the “middle-classes” of England was made by Playfair in the Edinburgh Review many years ago, which is quite calculated to mislead the reader; and the subject was dwelt upon at some length, and eloquently, by Harvey, at the British Association in 1831.  Attention has been more recently directed to this subject by two living geometers—­one in the Philosophical Magazine, and the other in the Mechanics’; but they both have wholly untouched a question of primary importance—­even almost unmentioned:—­it is, how, when, where, and by whom, was this most unlikely direction given to the minds of these men?

An answer to this question would form an important chapter in the history of human development, and throw much light upon the great educational questions of the present day.  It may furnish useful hints for legislation, and would be of singular aid to those who were appointed to work out legislative objects in a true spirit.  It cannot be doubted that a succinct account of the origin of this taste, and of the influences by which it has been maintained even to the present hour, would be a subject of interest to most of your readers, quite irrespective the greater or less importance and difficulty of the studies themselves, as the result would show how knowledge cannot only be effectively diffused but successfully extended under circumstances apparently the most hopeless.

Nor does Manchester stand as the only instance, for the weavers of Spitalfields display precisely the same singular phenomenon.  What is still more singular is, that the same class in both localities have shown the same ardent devotion to natural history, and especially to Botany; although it is to be remarked that, whilst the botanists of Spitalfields have been horticulturists, those of Manchester have confined themselves more to English field flowers, the far more worthy and intellectual of the two.

We could add a “Note” here and there on some points arising out of this question; but our want of definite and complete information, and of the means of gaining it (except through you), compels us to leave the subject to others, better qualified for its discussion.  Pray, sir, open your pages to the question, and oblige, your ever obedient servants,

PEN-AND-INK.

Hill Top, May 27, 1850.

* * * * *

ASINORUM SEPULTURA.

In former times it was the practice, upon the demise of those who died under sentence of excommunication, not merely to refuse interment to their bodies in consecrated ground, but to decline giving them any species of interment at all.  The corpse was placed upon the surface of the earth, and there surrounded and covered over with stones.  It was blocked up, “imblocatus,” and this mode of disposing of dead bodies was designated “Asinorum Sepultura.” Ducange gives more than one instance, viz., “Sepultura asini sepeliantur”—­“ejusque corpus exanime asinorum accipiat sepulturam.”