_Pokership_, (_antè_, pp. 185. 218. 269. 282. 323, 324.)--I am sorry
to see that no progress has yet been made towards a satisfactory
explanation of this office. I was in hopes that something better than
mere conjecture would have been supplied from the peculiar facilities
of "T.R.F." "W.H.C." (p. 323.) has done little more than refer to the
same instruments as had been already adverted to by me in p. 269.,
with the new reading {370} of _poulterer_ for poker! With repect to
"T.R.F.'s" conjecture, I should be more ready to accept it if he
could produce a single example of the word _pawker_, in the sense of
a hog-warden. The quotation from the Pipe-roll of John is founded on
a mistake. The entry occurs in other previous rolls, and is there
clearly explained to refer to the _porter of Hereford Castle_. Thus,
in Pipe 2 Hen. II. and 3 Hen. II. we have, under Hereford,

"In liberatione portarii castelli ... 30s. 5d."

In Pipe 1 Ric. I. we have,

"In liberatione constitutâ portarii de Hereford, 30s. 5d."

Again, in Pipe 3 Joh.

"In liberatione constitutâ portario de Hereford, 30s. 5d."

A similar entry is to be found in other rolls, as well printed as
inedited. I could indulge some other criticisms on the communication
of your correspondent in Spring Gardens, but I prefer encouraging
him to make further inquiries, and to produce from the records in