Euutace-slreet, 1 was witness, in 1799, of a warm discussion on the Union, then approaching to consummation, between him and Curran, who vehemently opposed, while Kirwan as zealously defended, the project, though I have read that he had been some way implicated with the United Irishmen, which I consider very improbable. But for further particulars relative to Kirwan see the Gentleman's Magazine for Nov. 1838.

It would cost me no great effort of memory to extend these elucidatory remarks; but I have already, 1 fear, exceeded all fair bounds, and shall conclude by pointing Lord Cloncnrry's attention to such oversights as, soubriquet for sobriquet; Garde de Corps, for du Corps; Petite Comite, for Petit Comite; Mr. O'Connell and / meeting, instead of me, at page 433. At page 448, we have "Quand flnira done mes tourmens," from

Lord Anglesea, which should be " Gtuand finiront," &c. ; and, previously, at page 261, "Tros Triusve fuit nullo ille discrimine habetur," in place of " Tros Tyriusque mihi nullo discrimine agetur," from^virgil's jEneid, lib. 1, 578.

These incidental lapses, more imputable probably to the press than the pen, affect not the merit of the work, which, in its resulting impression, cannot fail to raise in public estimation the character of its noble author, and to justify, on perusal of this interesting retrospect of a long and well-spent life, the poet's solace of declining years, thus suitably employed—

"Nulla recordanti lux est ingrata gravisque: Ampliat fetatis spatium sibi vir bonus c hoc

est Vivere bis, vita posse priore frui."

Martial, x. 23.

[merged small][ocr errors]


IT was announced in July last, in a report of the works then completed and in progress at Ely Cathedral, that, amongst many other munificent offerings from various individuals "a distinguished amateur," whose name the cathedral authorities were requested at that time to withhold, had undertaken to present to the south aisle of the nave of the church a window of painted glass, his own production. This window was fixed during the last month, and it now fills the restored Norman window-arch above the cloister-entrance to the cathedral.

Having been enabled to examine this eminently beautiful and most interesting work, very shortly after its completion, we gladly avail ourselves of the earliest opportunity to record our conviction that, as an example of the revival of the true art of ecclesiastical glass-painting, it is absolutely without a rival. A master-mind and a master's hand are apparent throughout the entire work, in the disposition and general treatment of the composition, in the judicious adjustment and nice balance of the colours, and in that combination of deep and solemn tone with hues glowing with lustrous brilliancy which is at once the essential attribute and the distinctive characteristic of this art. The subject is the

History of Solomon, as exemplified in four remarkable episodes of the life of the wise king; viz.—The Judgment; the Building of the Temple; the Dedication of the Temple; and the visit of the Southern Queen. Each of these sub-divisions of the subject occupies a medallion-like compartment; and the remainder of the composition consists of a mosaic border and a field of rich diaper. So effective is this peculiar style of glass-painting, that we must consider it to be capable of such modification as would adapt it as well to the rich and diversified traceries of Gothic windows in their most perfect development, as to the severely simple outlines of the Romanesque and EarlyEnglish Gothic. We hope to learn that this indeed "distinguished amateur" (whom now we may without hesitation name as the Rev. A. Moore, Rector of Walpole St. Peter's, in West Norfolk,) has directed his attention to the application of medallion-glass to tracened windows: of his success we have no doubt, and we even venture to anticipate that he will himself rejoice to be set free from that conventional bad drawing which appears by common consent to be reckoned as necessary in the treatment of compositions designed to harmonise with our earliest ecclesiastical architecture; while, without doubt, he will expatiate, with that delight which a true artist can alone really know, in the glories of Gothic tracery, and in the bold, broad effectiveness of inullioned windows.

One practical suggestion resulting from Mr. Moore's success in glasspainting as an amateur we would submit to the consideration of all persons who are engaged on a great scale in the important work of Church restoration; it is to this effect, that the true system for Cathedral and other authorities is to produce their own painted glass on the spot by means of their own artificers, the actual workmen being merely conversant in the executive and mechanical parts of the process, and the artistic department being under the controul of some "distinguished amateur." Earely can excellence in both capacities of artist and artificer be expected to be found associated iu the same individual, as they are in the Rector of Walpole St. Peter's ; but, while very many can execute the work without possessing in the slightest degree the faculty to produce the design or to adjust and superintend its treatment; so also there may

be many persons eminently qualified to direct the operations of practical workmen, who yet are not nor could become practical workmen themselves. From the combined operations of these two classes of persons working on the spot, the costly, tedious, and, after all, but too often unsatisfactory agency of professed artists in glass may be in many cases altogether superseded, and glass of the highest merit be produced with a degree of facility hitherto unknown.

In conclusion, we beg to congratulate the Dean and Chapter of Ely on their noble Cathedral being the depository of the admirable work of art which has called forth these remarks; and at the same time we feel sure that Mr. Moore will sympathise with the congratulations which we offer to himself, that his name should be thus honourably associated with a Gothic Church of the very first rank in architectural excellence, and which as an example of equally energetic and judicious restoration must ever possess a peculiar claim to our grateful admiration.

[merged small][graphic]

THE Toy Tavern at Hampton Court is one of the most ancient in England. It was a flourishing hostelry in the days of James I., and there is reason for believingit existed during the dynasty of the Tudors. It formerly stood close to the water-side, between the bridge-foot and the palace gates; but in 1840 the old building, being in a ruinous state, was taken down, and the name and business removed to its present position, opposite the Green or ancient tilting-ground, only a few hundred yards west of its former site. There has been some difficulty in

ascertaining the origin of this singular designation "The Toy." As the house lay close to the river, bordering the /oH-iwir-pnth, it has been suggested that the name might be traced to this circumstance. On the other hand, it has been supposed that the original sign was "The Hoy" (which would be appropriate enough for a waterside tavern), and was gradually clipped or abbreviated, in the patois of the west-country bargemen, into "T oy." But in Miss Strickland's "Lives of the Queens of England" (Anne of Denmark, vol. vii. p. 461) an explanation of the origin of this name is given, which there can be little doubt is the true one. "Fronting the royal stables (now appertaining to the Toy Hotel) is a small triangular plain. This plain in the era of the Tudors and Stuarts was the tilting-place, and indeed the playground of the adjoining palace. Here used to be set up moveable fences, made of net-work, called toils or tois, used in those games in which barriers were needed, from whence the name of the stately hostel on the green is derived."

This is borne out by a passage in the Rev. D. Lysons's "Middlesex Parishes." "In the survey in 1658 (preserved in the Augmentation Office) mention is made of a piece of pastureground near the river, called the Toying Place; the site probably of a well-known inn near the bridge, now called ' The Toy.'"

This tavern stands directly facing the ancient Tilting or Toying Place, now commonly called'Hampton Court Green, one side of which is bordered by "Frog-walk."* The stables attached to it formerly belonged to the palace, and their dull and gloomy architecture contrasts strangely with

the stately and handsome facade of the tavern. In these stables we may suppose the horses were housed, and the Tois kept prepared for the tilts and equestrian games which were held opposite; so that the present position and property of "The Toy" are in singular harmony with the origin of its name.

William III. who lived much at Hampton Court, patronized the Toy, and was in the habit of giving periodical rump-steak dinners to his Dutch courtiers at the tavern, terminating no doubt with a glorious consumption of tobacco. It is well known that the king and his Dutch friends had an ardent passion for smoking, which was probably forbidden to be indulged within the palace walls.

John Drewry, who issued this token, adopted the heart-shape; it is undated, but must have been struck between 1648 and 1672, the period to which this species of currency was limited. We have delineated, among our former examples, specimens of the square and the octagon. These were all departures from the ordinary circular form, and were probably devised to attract notice. B. N.


Our excellent friend, the editor of the Atheneeum, has called us over the coals in a good-humoured way in bis last number (for June .".'ml, p. 660), for giving expression, in our magazine for June, to some doubts respecting his proposal for the compilation of a Universal Catalogue. Our friend commences with something which reads like a complaint that we have judged his scheme "in connexion with the Panizzi catalogue." The remark reminds us of an anecdote which is told of Philip

Henry. Some time after the Bartholomew Act came into operation, Henry chanced to fall in with his old master, Busby of Westminster. "Why, child," said the patriarch of the sieve, f " what has made thee a non-conformist?" "Master," replied the pupil, "it is your doing. You gave me the learning which taught me that I ought not to conform." So with ourselves. It was the editor of the Atheneeum wbo gave us the information which taught us to unite his scheme with the monster catalogue of Mr. Panizzi. What he wrote in his paper of the 11th May, was as folio Its i—

• This is noticed in the "Lives of the Queens of England," vol. xi. p. 49. "The queen (Mary II.) took up her residence at Hampton Court permanently for the summer in July 1689. She took a great deal of exercise, and used to promenade, at a great pace, up and down the long straight walk, under the wall of Hampton Court, nearly opposite the Toy. As her Majesty was attended by her Dutch maids of honour, or English ladies naturalized in Holland, the common people who gazed on their foreign garb and mien named this promenade 'Prow * walk: it is now deeply shadowed with enormous elms and chestnuts, the frogs from the neighbouring Thames, to which it slants, occasionally choosing to recreate themselves there; and the name of Frowwalk is now lost in that of Frog-walk."

f Busby used to call his birch his sieve, and declared that no boy was worth anything who would not go through it.

"What we propose is this :—let Mr. Panizzi proceed without interruption to complete his catalogue,—let him have additional assistants, one, two, or three, as may be desired, who shall, under his direction, consult libraries, catalogues,bibliographical works, and prepare, on the same uniform system, the titles of all works published in the English language, or printed in the British territories, but not at present in the British Museum."

Now, in our judgment, the union clearly proposed in the passage we have cited constitutes au entire barrier to the bestowal of any proper consideration upon the scheme of a Universal Catalogue.

The Panizzi Catalogue is a nuisance and an absurdity. All common sense revolts against it. We have proved it in our former articles upon this subject to be irrational, ridiculous, and extravagantly expensive. It alone stands in the way of a simple and easy solution of the difficulties connected with the present position of the Library of the British Museum. Under these circumstances, when our friend makes common cause with this catalogue, unites his scheme indissolubly with it, and proposes to proceed " on the same uniform system" with Mr. Panizzi, he immediately brings himself within the scope of the objections which exist against his proposed co-partner, and effectually prevents such attention being given to his proposal as it would otherwise deserve.

We are not withheld, as our friend supposes, by any morbid dislike to the vastness of the proposal. We have termed it "vast," " almost too vast for comprehension:" we esteem it to be so. We look upon it as a much greater work than we think our contemporary supposes it to be, but he mistakes us when he concludes that we therefore object to it. We have not objected to it, and do not object to it, on that account. Abstractedly, we see no objection to the scheme of the compilation of a Universal Catalogue; but taken in unison with that system of cataloguing which, if persevered in, will make us the laughing-stock of the whole civilized world, and keep us without a catalogue for twenty years to come, we cannot have anything to do with it. The Unholy Alliance with the Panizzi Catalogue prevents our even approaching the scheme in such way as to give it full consideration.

And it appears to us that this alliance is as destructive of the scheme of the Universal Catalogue as it is objectionable in other ways. We have said that that scheme becomes "altogether impracticable when

connected with Mr. Panizzi's catalogue.'' Such is our deliberate opinion. Without that connection we do not see anything impracticable in it. It is, we repeat it, a "vast" scheme, and it may be objectionable on the score of time, but it is not an "impracticable" one. Dove-tailed with the Panizzi catalogue, hampered with that Siamese union, and intended to be formed upon one uniform system with its objectionable companion, we do not think it can ever be compiled, and unless we are mistaken we shall have no difficulty in convincing all the world that such must be the result.

Our contemporary, in explanation of his scheme, remarks, that it merely amounts to the preparation of a second edition of the first half of Watt's Bibliotheca Britannica, the whole of which was "in the first instance, a result of the labours of one man." Very well; assume that to be the case. Now Watt's Bibliotheca was compiled in the following manner. Its foundation was Chalmers's Biographical Dictionary. So far as regards the greater part, perhaps four-fifths, of Watt's book, it consists of merely a series of extracts of the bibliographical portion of Chalmers. If any one will compare the commencement of the first volume of Chalmers with the first page of Watt, he will see at once what we mean. The latter book will be found to be pro tanto merely a reprint of the former, with additions derived from some subsequently published biographical dictionary or other book containing lists of the works of living authors. These are facts which, so far as we know, have never been observed before. They ought to have been mentioned in the preface to the work; but, although the sources whence other parts of the book were derived are there stated, there is no reference whatever to these far greater obligations which the author owed to Chalmers. In what degree this omission was culpable is not the present question, but the fact is important as illustrating the way in which this " Universal Catalogue" was compiled. The book is usually regarded as a wonderful monument of human labour, because it is presumed that the author compiled it from an immense variety of sources. The explanation we have given will probably lessen the wonder, and detract a little from the credit of the compiler, but will not diminish the value of the book itself. The compiler was a medical man, and his additions to Chalmers are in many cases derived from the books which a scientific practiser of medicine is the most likely to be familiar with. His notices of the works of medical authors, and occasionally of some others, are fuller than they are in Chalmers; but, with respect to the general literature included in the Biographical Dictionary, Watt's book is a mere reprint of the various lists of works to be found scattered through Chalmers's thirty-two volumes. It is quite obvious, from innumerable extraordinary blunders, that Watt knew nothing about many even of the commonest books he recapitulated; of course he never saw a thousandth part of them. Chalmers was his library and his chief informant; and what Chalmers wrote Watt copied with no more blunders than a man under such circumstances would be sure to make. Any correction of mistakes was out of the question. Compiling in the way we have described, the work was the labour of nearly twenty years.

We may presume that no one would desire to have a second edition compiled after this heedless and ignorant fashion. There ought to be some attempt at rectification of the errors, numerous beyond number, in the existing book, and of course a much nearer approach should be made to something which may deserve the name of a universal catalogue; and this attempt could not be made, as Watt made it, with the assistance of a Chalmers ready prepared to his hand. That has already been ransacked. No doubt it would be possible to derive assistance from an infinite number of helps, of which Watt was ignorant. Biographies and bibliographical books, which were never dreamt of in his philosophy, and trany previous and subsequent works of that kind, and the memoirs in our own Obituary, would all afford aid ; but, after all these were exhausted, there would still remain an ocean of inquiry to be traversed, after the fashion in which it has always been supposed that Watt's book was compiled, without chart or pilot, gathering indications here and there from whatever chanced to float by j and we are confident that we do not overstate the result when we say that it would be to add a great many thousands to Watt's entries. Now, with all deference to our friend of the Athenseum, we call this a "vast" work, and a difficult work to perform creditably; and we confess that it did cross our minds, when we found him recommending that it should be delegated to "one, two, or three additional assistants, as may be desired," that he did not form quite an accurate estimate of either its greatness or its difficulty.

But, suppose the work begun according to our friend's scheme. Suppose the necessary assistants engaged, and that one is set to work to correct Watt's entries, and another to add subsequently published works, and a third to enter authors who are not mentioned by Watt. In five

minutes they would be all at a stand-still; each would have found a something requiring a new entry. But how is it to be made upon a "uniform system," with the notions of the great catalogue dictator? It cannot be done. His scheme is applicable only to the preparation of a catalogue of books which are before him. He cannot stir a step without a sight of a title page. His minute distinctions, and refinements, and pedantic quibblings, all turn upon what the bookseller tells him in the title-page and the author in the table of contents. There is not in the great chaos of the ninety-one rules a single regulation applicable to the case of a book to be described from a catalogue, or from a bibliographical or biographical work. The thing outrages all ideas of Panizzian propriety. No stumbler upon the dark mountains could ever be more astounded than our great cataloguer, if he were desired to find places in his five hundred volumes for the thousands of entries which such a proposal would call into existence. Its very simplicity would involve him in a maze of inquiries, and subtleties, and distinctions, and splitting of hairs, which would be fatal to it. The thing is impracticable. It would be to put frills and ruffles on a quaker coat; to unite Doric simplicity with Corinthian superfluity; to join together blunt plainness and courtly over-refinement, conciseness and diffuseness, life and death;—it cannot be done I

And even supposing it were possible (which we do not believe, for the two things differ in all their essential qualities) our friend is grievously mistaken if he supposes that the thing ever mould be done by the keeper of our printed books. Such a union, if practicable, would show forth the absurdity of his five hundred volumes to an admiration not at all to his taste; and it would do more, it would exhibit to all the world the alarming state of deficiency of our library under his management in our native literature. What that deficiency is, our contemporary, or any body else, may ascertain for himself, if he will but compare the enumeration of the original editions of the works of any English author mentioned in the General Biographical Dictionary of the Diffusion Society, with those mentioned in the printed catalogue, vol. A; or if he will but in imagination Buppose himself about to edit the works of any English author—it matters not whom—let him frame a list of his works from the best available sources, and take that list to the British Museum and teat it by the catalogue. He will have better fortune than ourselves if the comparison does not produce results anything but ere

« 前へ次へ »