teneri et firmiter obligari Rico Cosin gnoso et Robto Warmstry notario pão in quadraginta libris bone & legalis monete Anglie Solvent eisdm Rico et Robto hered execuť vel assignať suis ad quam quidem soluconem bene & fidetr faciend obligam9 nos & utruq, nim p se pro toto & in solid hered executor & administratoř nãos firmiter p pntes Sigillis nfis sigillat. Dat. 28 die Nove Anno Regni Dñe nie Eliz' Dei gratia Franc & Hitnie Regine fidei Defensor, &c. 25o. The Condicon of this obligacon ys suche that if herafter there shall not appere any Lawfull Lett or impediment by reason of any pcontract consangnitie affinitie, or by any other lawful meanes whatsoev, but that Willm Shagspere one thone ptie, and Anne Hathwey of Stratford, in the Dioces of Worcester, maiden, may lawfully solemnize mrïony together and in the same afterwards remaine and continew, like man and wiffe, according unto the lawes in that behalf provided, and moreov, if there be not at this psent time any action, suite, quarrell, or demaund, moved or depending before any iudge eccfiasticall or temporall for and concerning any suche lawfull lett or impediment. And moreov, if the said Wittm Shagspere Do not pceed to solemnizaĉon of mariadg with the said Anne Hathwey without the consent of hir frinds. And also if the said Wittm Do upon his owne costs and expper penses Defend & save harmles the right Revend father in god lord John bushop of Worcester and his Offycers for Licencing them the said Wittm and Anne to be maried together wth once asking of the bannes of mrïony betwene thein, and for all other may ensue by reason or occasion thereof, that then the said obligacon to be voyd and of none effect, or els to stand & abide in full force and vertue. causes wch (Signed by a cross and another mark.) [L. S.] [L. S.] THE NEW PINNACLE OF WESTMINSTER HALL. Mr. URBAN, Aug. 8. THE pinnacle recently erected at the south end of Westminster Hall is deserving of more notice than, as so smalla portion of the stupendous pile to which it is attached, it is likely to attract. It will be in the recollection of every one conversant with the antiquities of Westminster, that some years since, and previous to the repairs of the principal front of the Hall, a circular or polygonal turret, partly ancient, but ending in a cupola of modern design and workmanship, disfigured the point of the gable at the south end of the Hall. This unsightly termination was then taken down, and the length of time which elapsed without any attempt at its reconstruction, would appear to sanction the conclusion that the Board of Works were at a loss for a design for a new erection to supply its place. Mr. Sydney Smirke, in his " Suggestions for the Architectural Improvement of the Western Part of London," published in 1834, gave a hint upon the propriety of the restoration of it by the following description of the turret prior to its removal. "The turret which formed a finial to the south gable of this Hall, being in imminent danger of falling, was taken down a few years ago, under the direction of the author, and presented the appearance of an octagon turret with an ogee canopy; but it was found that this appearance was by no means its original one. Embedded in the solid stone work were discovered, standing in situ, two statues of kings, back to back, with the orb in their hands. An open groined canopy surmounted these effigies, which having been found probably in a dangerous state, had at some later period been filled in with masonry. By the desire of Sir Benjamin Stephenson, the then Surveyor-General (who in his official capacity never laid aside the feelings of a man of taste and an antiquary), these regal figures were deposited in a place of security. It is possible, however, that since the dissolution of the Board of Works, these mutilated images may have been credited as old materials to the metropolitan road commissioners." The fears of the author for the safety of the statues were happily without foundation. In the present year the restoration has been completed, in a style highly creditable to the architect to whose care it has been entrusted. The turret or shaft of the pinnacle is hexagonal in plan, and is formed by six perpendicular uprights moulded and finished by pinnacles, the intervals between them forming as many Gothic niches, each having a cinquefoil head, covered with a canopy, the raking lines of which are incurvated and enriched with crockets, and the whole is crowned with a spire, crocketed and ending in a finial. Within the body or shaft of the pinnacle, which is perfectly open, are three regal statues, standing on the points of a triangle; the whole are united at the backs of the figures, and each is placed opposite to one of the open faces of the hexagon; and there is consequently an alternate vacant niche between every duplication of the statues. The effigies are above the size of life, although, from the height, they appear to be much below it. The style of carving is bold and free, and well adapted to the elevated situation in which they are placed. The originals may be seen in the late Speaker's Court, and they appear to be very excellently copied in the restored design. The merits of the pinnacle are shewn as well in design as in execution: placed on the point of a gable, and necessa rily resting on the inclined sides of a coping, it presented a difficulty to the architect, who was very likely to fall into an appearance of awkwardness. The tact universally displayed by the ancient architects entirely avoided this danger. A solid pinnacle would have appeared unsafe and unharmonious; it would have reposed very insecurely on the canted sides of the coping, and in appearance at least would have seemed to be in danger of slipping off; but one of a hollow construction, sustained on columnar supports, each of which occu pied but little space, was particularly appropriate to the situation, and would stand most happily and securely on its singular foundation. The modern copy doubtless in this regard follows its predecessor. The design upon the whole somewhat resembles an ancient cross; the hexagonal plan, and the triple arrangement of the statues, will not fail to remind the architectural critic of Waltham Cross. The canopies and finials are neatly and finely executed; the detail of the age of Richard the Second: the spire, which is entirely new, is finished with a small and delicate finial, instead of the vulgar bunch of foliage, which is usually seen in modern works in a similar situation. It may be urged that the pinnacle in question is not of sufficient importance to call forth so much criticism; and there would be great shew of truth in the suggestion, if the importance of this species of embellishment was not taken into consideration. It is obvious, from the immense number of pinnacles which are seen about the new churches, on towers, and on angles, in place and out of place, that our modern architects are remarkably fond of this sort of decoration; but where do we meet a specimen on which the eye can repose with pleasure? To form a design for an insulated object, in which two different forms are united, is a task of too great difficulty for modern genius to accomplish. A cylindrical or a square shaft, with an obelisk upon it, would not be thought to offer a combination so difficult as it would appear to be from the many failures we are compelled to witness in the designs of modern pinnacles; in how many instances is any thing more than a mere deformity produced? In the present instance the union of the two is a rare example of harmony. A comparison with the pinnacle at the other end, and the paltry lantern in the centre of the same hall, will be sufficient to shew its superiority over the routine of modern works. The northern pinnacle is square, with an octagon termination; it has four faces, in each of which is a niche; but there is no harmony, no union between the parts; and the needless and unsightly projection of the canopies destroy the little merit which the erection might otherwise possess. It is a favourite idea of modern architects to thicken a structure of this kind in the middle, making a gouty finish to the shaft, and out of this protuberance springs up the spire which, in consequence, instead of appearing like a natural termination of its base, resembles rather an extinguisher placed on the top, or a cap of that description which is usually accompanied with bells, a fit reward for the designer of such a structure. In both the designs above referred to, the pinnacle and the lan tern, the littleness and perfect independence of the spire, is strikingly apparent. The clumsy finial and the crocket of the northern pinnacle are in equally bad taste: how they suffer when compared with their recently introduced neighbour! Let us, for the sake of the fine arts, and to wipe away a stain on the national taste, hope that in the erection of the new parliamentary buildings the obnoxious pinnacle will be altered, and the cast-iron piece of modern finery on the roof will be made to give way to a lantern like that which formerly graced the Hall; and whenever this is accomplished, it is to be hoped that the crockets, or whatever they may be called, on the northern gable, may be consigned to the chisel of the mason. Westminster Hall is a structure so perfect, that the introduction of every fantastic novelty should be religiously avoided, and denounced as an heresy in art, by every one who has a soul to appreciate the beautiful and the pure in architecE. I. C. ture. Yours, &c. RECORDS OF THE EXCHEQUER. Issues of the Exchequer; being payments made out of His Majesty's Revenue during the Reign of King James I. Extracted from the original Records, by Frederick Devon. 8vo. Lond. 1836. pp. 448. with Introduction, pp. xxix. 'ECCE iterum Crispinus!' We scarcely expected to have met our excellent friend Mr. Devon so soon again; but here he is, with a volume almost as thick, and, if we are not much mistaken, quite as heavy, as his last. We are delighted to meet with him; especially as it gives us an opportunity of clearing up a little unpleasantness which has happened between him and ourselves, respecting an article in our number for January last, upon his important work the Issue Roll of 44 Edward III. Our readers may remember in what highly flattering terms we mentioned that work; but, since the publication of our article, Mr. Devon has not only written to us, (such a letter!) but has sent us messages through our publisher expressive of his dissatisfaction with us; meaning, we suppose, that we did not praise him to his heart's content. If that was the case, we are really extremely sorry. We entertain a very proper opinion of Mr. Devon's talents as an historical writer, and it would grieve us exceedingly to say any thing that was not perfectly agreeable to him, either about himself, or any other person, or thing. If however it was our misfortune to err upon the occasion to which we have referred, Mr. Devon ought perhaps to take some little share of the blame upon himself; for, with all his admirable qualities as an author, he has occasionally a knack of saying odd things in a way so extremely odd, as to be This time, however, we doubt not be quite puzzling to plain men like ourselves. we shall get on very well together, especially as his work relates to James I.—a monarch for whom, in common with Mr. Devon, we entertain a most profound veneration. Mr. Devon remarks that, "It is to be lamented that they [the Records extracted in the present work] have remained so long in obscurity, as they unquestionably would have afforded very great assistance to the biographer and historian of this period of our history. The truth of this assertion will appear upon referring to some of the undermentioned contemporaneous and subsequent writers, who might have found undoubted authority for many circumstances given upon suggestion only, and corrected errors they have fallen into for want of such authenticity."—p. xvi. Now with all the good sense which we will take it for granted may be found in these sentences, the vein of oddity we have noticed may be traced even here. There is appended in a note a long list of contemporaneous and subsequent writers,' with all of whom Mr. Devon is no doubt well acquainted, but only some of whom, it will be remembered, have fallen into errors for want of what Mr. Devon calls 'such authenticity.' Here then is a puzzle-a complete enigma, at the outset. Who are The some?' First on the list stands Winwood's Memorials of State Affairs.' That work consists of a collection of Letters from Ambassadors and others upon public affairs, without any connecting narrative. It was published in 1725. Now it is quite clear that these Letters could not have been altered, even if Mr. Devon had thrown the lustre of his genius over the seventeenth instead of the nineteenth century. This book therefore is not one of the some.' 'The Cabala' and 'Rushworth's Collections' are well-known works of a character similar to Winwood. And what are 'The Miscellaneous State Papers,' and 'Howell's State Papers?' These, we are inclined to think, are books which Mr. Devon in one of his 'odd' moods has made for the occasion-make-believe volumes; such as, by the help of the carpenter, and the leather-letterer, fill up, what would otherwise be the empty shelves, of a would-be library:-a most ingenious contrivance, truly! As to the other works enumerated, such as Burnet's History' [which of them does not appear], ' Biographia Britannica,' and all the rest, we will humbly propose an enigma to Mr. Devon. It is this: What single error can you point out in any one of all these books which might have been rectified by the previous publication of your volume ? To assist you in your inquiry, we have no objection to add to the catalogue Tom Brown's Miscellanea Aulica,' and 'Howell's State Trials,' which we suppose to be the books you have misquoted as 'The Miscellaneous State Papers, and Howell's State Papers.' To stimulate your industry, we promise you that if our publication were a pocket-book, and not a Magazine, and, if you could discover even so much as a letter which you have set right, we would reward you with twelve copies of the present number, in which we intend to sing your praises in such manner as we hope and trust will give you satisfaction. Whilst Mr. Devon is turning our enigma over in his mind, let us proceed. He follows the sentence we have last quoted, with an assurance that he "Feels convinced that the character of James I. has by some writers been very much misrepresented, at least so far as regards the domestic and private part of it." -p. xvii. No one can follow Mr. Devon upon this subject without cordially agreeing with him. Some writers' have gone far wrong indeed; but the reign of error is at an end. Mr. Devon has arisen to illuminate the world of history and dispel the dark insinuations founded upon the profaneness and indecency which abound in letters addressed by Royal favourites to this 'Prince after Plato's own heart for his learning, and, which is infinitely more worth, after GOD's own heart, for his religiousness and piety.** Mr. Devon proceeds thus : Baker's Chronicle, p. 423. ed. 1733. Quoted by Mr. Devon, but referred to p. 427. "Many instances of this monarch's liberality and fondness for the arts and literature are deducible from the following pages, which may be offered as palliatives for some of the more grievous faults with which this King has been charged. It therefore may not be deemed irrelevant here to endeavour to adduce a confirmation of some of those acts of filial and paternal solicitude with which even his enemies must allow this Sovereign to have been endowed.”—p. xviii. Certainly, nothing can be more relevant; let us follow our author, and observe whence the confirmation of these endowments' can be derived. The first fact adduced is, that "We find that nearly one of the first acts of this Monarch on his coming to the Crown of England, was the discharge of the filial and pious duty of directing the remains of his mother, the ill-fated Mary Queen of Scots, to be removed from Peterborough, and buried with the pomp suitable to her dignity, in Westminster Abbey. We have here the charges for placing an elegant and a splendid tomb over her remains."-p. xix. James came to the throne on the 24th March 1603. Three years afterwards an agreement was entered into with the King's master mason to erect a tomb for Queen Mary. (Devon, p. 35.) At the expiration of six years from the time of making the agreement, the tomb was completed, and the corpse removed from Peterborough. (Ibid. p. 151.†) Four years afterwards the tomb was painted and gilded. (Ibid. p. 190.) Such is the transaction as it appears in the present volume. Some persons may think that the thirteen years which were allowed to pass over during its progress, do not intimate the breathless haste from which Mr. Devon would infer the strength of the Monarch's filial piety; but no doubt Mr. Devon knows best. The entries relating to the payments for this tomb exhibit the nature of a great portion of the book, and we will therefore state their contents. Cornelius Cure, the King's master mason, contracted to frame, make, erect, and finish' the tomb for a certain sum. At p. 35 we find an entry of a payment of 2007. on account, with a memorandum subjoined by Mr. Devon, that he was shortly afterwards paid 1007. more. At p. 50 we find him receiving a further sum of 1007., and at p. 75, 1207. The next entry, at p. 100, apprises us of his death, and the succession of William Cure his son and executor (or administrator, as he is termed at p. 168) to the office of master mason, and the liabilities of his father's contract. In these capacities William Cure received at that time 1087. 168. and four years afterwards the account was closed by the payment of 857. 10s. (p. 168.) All these sums amount to 7147. 68. ; but we find from the last entry that there was paid in the whole 8251. 10s. Mr. Devon must therefore have omitted some payments, so that we have not, as he says, 'the charges,' but only some of the charges' upon this occasion, and if it were not for the incidental mention of the total amount, we should have been misled as to the expense. This is a specimen of Mr. Devon's 'odd' way. He extracts various payments upon an account, the entries relating to which are all pretty much alike; but he takes no notice of how many are omitted; so that, unless it so happens that the total amount is fortunately mentioned, as in the instance alluded to, his readers are left to guess and blunder it out as they can. We have tried to do so in several other instances in vain. The mention made of the prices and quantities of a portion of the materials used in Queen Mary's tomb may furnish a reason for publishing at length the entries which contain those particulars; but as for the others, which merely import a payment on account, probably it may be thought superfluous to have inserted them fully. We beg to remark that this is quite a mistake. There are † See an account of the removal in Stow, 1002. Ten shillings per foot was paid for 220 feet of touchstone, and 20 feet of Raunce stone' (p. 75.), and sixteen shillings per foot for five stones of white marble containing 136 feet' (p. 100). |