[We take this opportunity of stating that we have availed ourself
of General Fox's invitation, and examined the beautiful miniature
of Cromwell, described by him in our Number for the 6th instant,
and so considerately left by him at Colnaghi's, for the inspection
of all who are interested in the subject. The General having
placed beside it the volume of Carlyle's _Cromwell_, containing
the engraving from Cooper's miniature in the possession of
Archdeacon Berners, we are bound to agree with him that the
Archdeacon's may be "better painted;" but General Fox may
certainly congratulate himself upon being the possessor of a work
of very high art, as well as of great historical interest; and one
which we are extremely pleased to have had the opportunity of
examining. It will, we believe, remain on view until the 31st.]
_The Vellum-bound Junius_ (Vol. iii., p. 262.).--Your correspondent MR.
HAGGARD tells us, that from the time he read the private correspondence
between Junius and Woodfall he has examined all book catalogues that
came in his way, in the hope of finding a copy, or the copy, "bound in
vellum"--so bound by Woodfall, for and at the express desire of Junius.
Of course the edition so bound was "the author's edition," as Junius
calls it, the edition of 1772, printed by H. J. Woodfall. At last, says
MR. HAGGARD, "_the long-wished-for object appeared at the Stowe sale_;"
but though, he bid eight pounds, he was not so fortunate as to obtain
it. Thus far all is simple and clear enough. But then MR. HAGGARD
subsequently informs us (Vol. iii., p. 307.) that the reason of his
"being so desirous to procure this copy" was, because it was "not only
bound in vellum, but was printed on that article"--that is, as I
understand it, because it was _not_ the copy bound by Woodfall for
Junius. I am at a loss to reconcile these statements. However, as I
observe by the periodicals that MR. HAGGARD'S first statement is getting
into circulation, and that it now assumes this form--that the
vellum-bound copy of Junius presented by Woodfall to Junius was sold at
the Stowe sale, I think it right to state, that the Stowe copy, printed
on and bound in vellum, was, as I am informed on good authority, not the
edition of 1772--not a Woodfall edition at all--but the common
illustrated edition, printed more than thirty years after, by Bensley,
for Vernor and Hood.