MR. URBAN,

16th May, 1841. I HAVE lately learnt from advertisements in the daily papers, with some regret, that the Chapel in the Broadway, Westminster, is to be taken down, for the purpose of building a new church on its site; and with some surprise I saw a notice of an application to the Ecclesiastical Court for authority to take down the Chapel, when the Judge doubted his power over the structure, as it was stated and admitted on the argument that the Chapel had never been consecrated; and the reason assigned for the omission appeared to me most extraordinary, which was, as stated in the report, that this Chapel was one of the churches built during the Commonwealth, and therefore not consecrated. I must confess I felt somewhat surprised at this assertion, for two reasons: first, it conveyed to me the novel piece of information that churches were actually built during the Commonwealth, whereas I had previously deemed it to have been an age in which churches, instead of being built, were destroyed or profaned, either levelled to the ground, or turned into slaughter-houses for cattle, or to equally disgusting purposes. Upon looking into the history of this Chapel, I find the real state of the case to be more in accordance with the history of the times. Truly this Chapel existed in the time of the Commonwealth, but so far from being built or even used as a place of worship at that period, it had been during the civil war converted into a stable, a much more probable action for the Puritans to have perpetrated than the building of a Chapel, either consecrated or not. The truth is, that the Chapel was commenced by Marmaduke Darell, brother and executor of the Rev. Dr. Darell, prebendary of Westminster, soon after the year 1631, and was finished in 1636 by the assistance of several pious benefactors, at the head of whom appears the honoured name of Laud. This fact, and the circumstance of a cruciform arrangement in the plan, will evidently account for the treatment it received from the Puritans, whose fury was in this case more than ordinarily excited by their viewing in the church a memorial of the martyred archbishop.

It may still be true that the Chapel was not consecrated, but if so the reason is obvious: it possessed no endowment; and both Laud and Juxon knew their duty too well to consecrate an unendowed church; but even this is, I think, doubtful, for reasons to be hereafter assigned.

It is to be regretted that the present Chapel affords one more instance of the modern mode of treating old churches instead of repairing the fabric as repairs were needed, the building is neglected and allowed to fall into ruin, and then a new structure is called for, subscriptions are solicited, and an economical and dubious looking edifice is reared in its place.

There is a character about the present edifice which we look for in vain among the scores of new churches rising in all quarters of the metropolis: the altar-screen was old, and bore a sculpture of a pelican, a favourite device of Archbishop Laud, as it had been of Bishop Fox, and was at an after period of Sir Christopher Wren. A marble font stood in the south aisle, and, as before observed, there was the semblance of a cruciform arrangement in the plan.

The fittings of the church are in point of date subsequent to the Restoration, when the Chapel was again fitted up for divine worship by sundry liberal benefactors. It is probable that the Chapel was consecrated at this period, as there are numerous flat stones on the floor inscribed with the names of persons who have been buried beneath -a sufficient evidence, I should consider, of the fact of the consecration; one of these stones records the name of a member of the family of the original founder.

In the east window some fragments of painted glass still survive the sad effects of neglect and the mischief of idle boys. Among them is, or was, a shield of arms, bearing a memorial of the restoration of the Chapel, Or, on a chevron between three leopards' faces sable, a mullet for difference argent. These arms appertained to Sir William Wheeler, baronet; there were also two cherubic heads and a crowned portcullis. As no pains were taken to preserve the windows from being broken by idle boys, I fear these small fragments have disappeared

first, in the spirit of the times, taken a pilgrimage to the shrine of the Virgin at Loretto." Of course it is not meant that James V. made a voyage to Italy, but that he visited a chapel at or near Leith, which bore that name, just as there is one near St. Servan in France, (Department of Ille et Vilaine,) dedicated to Notre Dame de Lorette. But the passage requires explanation for the sake of readers who may not be aware of its meaning.

Ibid. p. 300. In the account of the transactions at Fala, Mr. Tytler omits to mention Scott of Thirlestane, whose readiness to march into England was rewarded with armorial distinctions. So, at the accession of James IV. he had omitted the interesting account of Lord Lindsey of the Byres and his brother, which Sir Walter Scott has related in his History of Scotland. Ibid. p. 360. For cruelty, read cruelties, on account of grammar, as the plural they follows after.

These suggestions, I trust, will not be considered impertinent, however selfish they may appear, as I confess to being a party concerned in them. Having purchased the first volume at its appearance, and continued the work till the last which has yet appeared, viz. the seventh, I naturally feel interested in what has been said. Yet I can also say, that the same feeling exists elsewhere, without there being the same personal cause for it, out of a general sense of what is due to purchasers of first editions. Not that every erratum, verbal correction, or even alteration of a sentence, should help to swell an appendix, but that first editions should not be depreciated, by any material advantages bestowed upon second ones. Neither do I think, that this principle should be carried to an extent, that would perpetuate errors, or hinder real improvements at any future time: what I plead for is, that justice should be done, while there is time and opportunity for doing it. Yours, &c. J. T. M.

MR. URBAN, THE following short account of the supply of London with water by the New River Company probably may be interesting to some of your readers.

The Company supplies a great part of London with water at the rate of

three-fourths of a farthing for one imperial barrel of 36 gallons, and this abundant supply is continued through the night, to be used in case of fire happening.

In the year 1833 the New River Water-works Company supplied 171,975,000 imperial barrels of water to the metropolis, 21,000,000 of which were raised by machinery 60 feet above the level of the New River head; the remainder is supplied by the river, which is 84 feet above the level of the Thames, a sufficient elevation to supply seven-eighths of the New River district without the aid of steam or other power.

The number of houses supplied was 70,145; the capital expended from its commencement has been £1,116,964; the rental received from houses supplied with water amounted to £98,307, and from land and houses £6,601, or a total income of £104,999; the expenditure was £61,163, leaving £43,746 to be divided, or not quite four per cent. upon the capital.

In the same year the quantity of water raised by the several metropolitan Water-works Companies was equal to 357,288,807 imperial barrels ; the number of houses supplied was 191,066; the average daily supply was above 35 millions of gallons, or 183 gallons per house upon the average. Yours, &c.

MR. URBAN,

W.R.

PERHAPS of all the devastations of modern times in art, there are none to be more regretted than those in our churches generally; and they may be mentioned as instances of the effects produced by the omission of art (mechanical) in the education of the people, and the ideal art (or pictorial) at our public schools and universities.

In the church of Earl's Colne, Essex, in 1825 there were four monumental effigies, surmounting the tombs of the De Veres, Earls of Oxford, the family who built Hedingham castle, in the same county. These four tombs,

* See Observations on the past and present Supply of Water to the Metropolis, by Thomas Weekstead, Civil Engineer, London, 1835; and the Report to the Select Committee of the House of Commons, 1834.

with their effigies, equal, if not superior, to anything we have in the country, have been removed from the church, and are now to be seen decorating a modern building, called the Priory, in the possession of Cawarden, Esq. M.D. (brother to the late Rector, who has changed his living for another elsewhere). A part of one of these tombs may be seen let into the brick wall over the garden door, and others of much finer work, and never intended for exposure to weather, are similarly treated in the brickwork of the entrance to the stable yard, while the rest are placed with the effigies, some above and some below, in a shed leading to the conservatory. I beg to draw your attention, Mr. Urban, and that of your readers, to this circumstance, as I fear such wholesale removals may form a precedent, if some step is not taken to ensure their being replaced.

THE ITINERANT ANTIQUARY.

MR. URBAN, London June 10th. WHETHER reviews on my works have been favourable or unfavourable, I have never yet ventured to make any comments upon them in print, and I should not have been induced to deviate from my general practice in the present instance, had not the notice of my edition of Lydgate's Minor Poems, which appeared in the last number of your Magazine, involved a new principle in editing old English manuscripts, which is, in my opinion, an injudicious innovation. I will endeavour to state, in as few words as possible, the reason of its inefficiency in practice.

Your reviewer appears to blame me because I have spelt the same words differently, in accordance with the MSS. from which I have printed my texts, and he takes the opportunity of remarking that "the orthography should be consistent in print, though manuscripts are most unsettled in that respect.' Now if your reviewer has any experience in these matters, he will upon reflection soon see the bad effect of this plan. For example, the modern word "head" is spelt hed, hede, heved, hevede, heed, and heede in one and the same MS., viz. MS. Cotton. Titus, C. xvi. How are we to reconcile the orthography in this instance? Are we to modernize the

But

spelling, and so put "head" for "heved," and thus effect a complete revolution in the language? sometimes in a metrical treatise the latter form is required for the rhythm, and may also probably rhyme with some word entirely obselete, and which is incapable of being modernized with any good effect to keep company with the other. If we do not modernize the spelling completely, I am quite at a loss to know which form to choose, unless the reviewer will charitably publish a dictionary of middle English on this method.

Much more might be said on this subject, but really the incorrectness of your reviewer's plan is so very obvious to my mind, that I cannot persuade myself that any one will require arguments against it. But perhaps you will allow me, while on the subject of this review, to add a few remarks on some other points of less importance.

Your reviewer has selected three readings which he considers to be "faulty," from a poem, of which only three MSS. are known to exist, all in the Cottonian library. The texts of two of these MSS. were easily accessible to the reader, having been printed by Sir H. Nicolas; but the third was not previously known, and as it was, on the whole, a very good copy, I thought it as well to print exactly from that MS. I have more fully explained this in p. 1.

At p. 64 there is a slight typographical error, the word "asoft" being divided; but the reviewer, who undertakes to correct this, reads "as oft," which makes the passage unintelligible.

From p. 109, the reviewer quotes a passage in which he says, "there are neither proper rhymes nor sense." There is some truth in this; but the poem itself is preserved in only one very bad manuscript, and it would be next to impossible to restore it.

In the following line, at p. 121, "Gees to swymme, among to take theyr flight;"

the reviewer thinks there is some error in the word "among." It appears to me to be right enough, meaning "at intervals." See Sir F. Madden's Glossary to Sir Gawayne, p. 364.

The line from p. 54 needs no explanation. See Reliquiæ Antiquæ, vo!.

"

i. p. 14. The passage from p. 88 would be readily understood from the notes at the end of the volume, and I never intended to make a glossary; albeit such words as ample," &c. are not very difficult to understand. Again, the line at p. 231, which your reviewer quotes, refers to a cherry wake or fair. This at least, is my opinion; but we shall probably have some further elucidation of it from Mr. Dyce, in his new edition of Skelton, which will, no doubt, be performed in his usual accurate manner.

،،

I observe that your reviewer misprints Burgh, the poet, Bayle, and that, in the very first quotation from my book, commencing Here dyed," &c. which is little more than a line, there are six great blunders, which make absolute nonsense of the passage.* I merely mention this to observe that some little palliation might be afforded to typographical errors in my own book, for the blunder which the reviewer finds at p. 43, is nothing else, nor is it so important as the errors in the passage above-mentioned.

Yours, &c. J. O. HALLIWell.

MR. URBAN,

EVERY one has heard of the original genius of Leibnitz. His universal knowledge is not yet, perhaps, so generally known. There is scarcely a department of human knowledge which was not the subject of his study and research, and among the rest Philology. It cannot but be allowed that ob ervations on that head, coming from the inventor of the "Differential calculus," ought to have great weight. Now, in his tract on the origin of nations, he says, that "there remain, in modern languages, traces of some ancient language most widely diffused, extending from the British isles to those of Japan;" that "this language must be better preserved in that of Ireland, or if there were an island still further to the west-than in any other. Wherefore the Irish language will restore to us the ancient Britons, and still

* The passage is printed ، Here dyed this translation, a nobil parte, and the yonge felowese gave his prologe on this wyse," instead of "Here deyed this translatour, a nobil poete, and the yonge folowere gan his prologe on this wyse."

more ancient Gauls and Germans; and from Ireland the most ancient Celta will be recalled into light." According to these observations, the Pelasgic or mother of the Greek and Roman languages must have been a dialect of the Celtic, and the roots of words, seemingly themes or underived, in most, at least, European languages,* ancient and modern, may probably be found in the Irish. Such inquiries have frequently amused me, and I now send you, Mr. Urban, one of my lucubrations on that subject.

On this occasion we shall want, im mediately, but two radicals, monosyllables. But before introducing them, it will be necessary to observe, first, that in ancient languages, bh or ph, dh or th, or gh or ch, are commutabl, in the different dialects, and sometimes even in the same dialect. Of this there are examples even in the highly cultivated language of Greece. There is oprides and opvixes ornithes and orniches, dip and pip, ther and pher, auxir dauphr, and several examples of the sort may be seen in the Greek Grammars of Valpy and Thiersc. We should, doubtless, find several such in English, if the dialects of Yorkshire, Dorsetshire, and Devonshire were admitted. Even in the fixed language of dictionaries we may see something of the sort. If laugh and cough were written as pronounced, we should have the varieties lauph and couph.

Secondly, in the different dialects, and in the same dialect in composition, the vowels are all commutable. The Germanic languages afford an example of this familiar to every one. There is stane, steen, stein, stone, and the latter is frequently pronounced stun in composition. The general rule is that a, o, u, are indifferently used; also, e and i; but they are all occasionally So. See the Proleg. of Skinner and Wachter; the Archæol. of Lluyd; and Valpy, G. G. 189, et seq.

Thirdly, the diphthong ao is to be sounded as ay in May. And the reader, while occupied with this article,

* There seem to be at least two exceptions besides the Turkish. The Russian or Sarmatic and the Welsh, very much altered by the mixture of ancient British, i. e. Irish words, from its original the Punic or Lybian, the language of the Carthaginian multitude.