S. Q. completely elucidates the
meaning of this word. Let us premise that, according to all principles of
English etymology, _pill-garlick_ is as likely to mean "the pillar of
garlick" as to be a syncopated form of "_pill'd garlick_." Now we see from
Skelton's verse that in his time the peeling of garlick was proverbially a
degraded employment--one which was probably thrust off upon the lowest
inmate of the servants' hall, in an age when garlick entered largely into
the composition of all made dishes. The disagreeable nature of the
occupation is sufficient to account for this. Accordingly we may well
suppose that the epithet "a poor pill-garlick" would be applied to any
person, in miserable circumstances, who might be ready to undertake mean
employment for a trifling gratuity.

This, I think, satisfactorily answers the original question, "Whence comes
the expression?" The verse quoted by F. S. Q. satisfactorily establishes
the orthography, viz., pi_ll_ garlick. A Query of some interest still
remains--In what author do we first find the compound word?

R. D. H.

_Pillgarlick_ (Vol. iii., p. 74.).--That _to pill_ is merely another form
of the word _to peel_, appears from the book of Genesis, c. xxx., v. 37,
38: "And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut
tree: and _pilled_ white strakes in them, and made the white appear which
was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had _pilled_ before the
flocks," &c.

On first seeing your correspondent's Query, it occurred to me that perhaps
"poor Pillgarlick" was in some way akin to "Pillicock," of whom Edgar, in
_King Lear_, records that "Pillicock sat on Pillicock's hill;" but the
connexion between these two worthies, if any, I confess myself quite unable
to trace.

I conceive that Pillgarlick means "peeler of garlick," _i.e._ scullion; or,
to borrow a phrase from a witness in a late case at the Middlesex sessions,
{151} which has attracted some attention, "a person in a low way of life."

The passage from Skelton, cited by your correspondent F. S. Q., may, I
think, be explained thus: the will is so powerful in man's moral
constitution, that the reason must content itself with an inferior place
(as that of a scullion compared with that of the master of the house); or
if it attempts to assert its proper place, it will find it a hopeless
endeavour--as hopeless as that of "rosting a stone."

X. Z.

_Hornbooks_ (Vol. ii., pp. 167. 236.).--In ans