king enough.

J. S. WARDEN.

_Latin Verses prefixed to Parish Registers._--On a fly-leaf in one of the
registers of the parish of Hawsted, Suffolk, is the following note in the
handwriting of the Rev. Sir John Cullum, the rector and historian of the
parish:

"Many old register books begin with some Latin lines, expressive of
their design. The two following, in that of St. Saviour's at Norwich,
are as good as any I have met with:

'Janua, _Baptismus_; medio stat _Taeda jugalis_
Utroque es felix, _mors_ pia si sequitur.'"

Can any of your correspondents contribute other examples?

BURIENSIS.

_Napoleon's Bees_ (Vol. vii., p. 535.).--No one, I believe, having
addressed you farther on the subject of the Napoleon Bees, the models of
which are stated to have been found in the tomb of Childeric when opened in
1653, "of the purest gold, their wings being inlaid with a red stone, like
a cornelian," I beg to mention that the small ornaments resembling bees
found in the tomb of Childeric, were only what in French are called
_fleurons_ (supposed to have been attached to the harness of his
war-horse). Handfuls of them were found when the tomb was opened at
Tournay, and sent to Louis XIV. They were deposited on a green ground at
Versailles.

Napoleon wishing to have some regal emblem more ancient than the
_fleur-de-lys_, adopted the _fleurons_ as bees, and the green ground as the
original Merovingian colour.

This fact was related to me as unquestionable by Augustin Thierry, the
celebrated historian, when I was last in Paris.

WM. EWART.

University Club.

* * * * *

{31}

Queries.

WAS THOMAS LORD LYTTELTON THE AUTHOR OF JUNIUS'S LETTERS?

In the _Quarterly Review_ for 1852 (vol. xc. No. 179.) appeared a clever
and speciously written article on the long debated question of the identity
of Junius, in which the writer labours at great length to prove that
Thomas, second Lord Lyttelton, who died in 1779, was the real substance of
the shadow of Junius, hitherto sought in vain. That this Lord Lyttelton was
fully competent to the task, I do not doubt; and that there are many points
in his character which may well be reconciled with the knowledge we possess
of the imaginary Junius, I also admit--but this is all. The author of the
review has wholly failed, in my opinion, to prove his case and the remark
he makes on Mr. Britton's theory (as to Col. Barre) may equ