332 REVIEW.-Guide to Wimborne Minster. have taken in their introduction, when it is done from motives the most kind and disinterested. I will endeavour, Sir, to let you have the verses by the time you wish, and will do my best to improve them; but as yet I have said but little to any person respecting them, and I believe, Sir, I must not address my friends on the subject, until I again trespass on your kindness for instructions how to proceed, for which, Sir, there can be no hurry." In this feeling we heartily concur; and we trust that the benevolence of Mr. Southey, as it will assuredly bring its reward to his own bosom, will be the means of laying up comforts for the poet whom he has so generously protected. The following is a favourable specimen of Jones's poetry. "DEEP IN THE DELL. Deep in the dell, when pensive straying, From a rock with foliage crowned: Fast it flowed, when all combining, Paints the scene of joys to come; Woos the path which leads to home. And when those souls, in memory chaptered, The seat of love's attraction swell, Congenial spirits flow enraptured, Like the waters down the dell." There is much humourous poetry interspersed, but we prefer the poet's more serious vein. Mr. Southey issues a proclamation against all future attempts on the part of poets to submit their manuscripts to his perusal; being, as he says, somewhat advanced in years, and having business enough of his own fully to [April, occupy as much time as can be devoted to it. He has also entered into a society for the suppression, or rather discouragement of autograph collectors, and this resolution he also desires us to make public. Long, we say, may he continue to advance the true interests of literature by writings instinct with the living spirit of truth and wisdom; and may the leisure which advancing life will require, be soothed by the remembrance, that of all the writers of the present day, there is not one who has advocated the cause of genuine piety and sound morals with more eloquence; not one who has stood between the perversions of intellect and the public good, with more courage than himself. Ductor Vindogladiensis: an Historical and Descriptive Guide to the Town of Wimborne-Minster, Dorsetshire; with a particular account of the Collegiate Church of St. Cuthberge, the Chapel of St. Margaret, and other Charitable Endowments in the same Parish. 8vo, pp. 47. WIMBORN is presumed by some writers to have been the Vindogladia of Antoninus, but doubted by others, and has been called one of two winter stations of the Romans in Dorsetshire, the summer station being Badbury, a hill triple trenched. With the latter we have no concern, but it was evidently British and the truth is, that Badbury was originally the fort or acropolis of the Britons, who occupied Vindogladia and the vicinity; and that the station seems to have been placed sometimes at Winburn, and sometimes at Badbury. Our author's view has been however chiefly directed to the Church, that has the unusual distinction of a transept tower in the centre, and another of more recent date at the west end. The latter tower was erected, we presume, for the reception of the bells, under a fear that the concussion of them when in the central tower, would occasion the fall of the spire above, an event that actually did ensue in the year 1600, our author says (in p. 6), from the concussion of the bells. The second tower was completed in 1464, and the author states, that the bells there were taken from the chapel of Kingston. But there were bells in more than one tower of our ancient abbey-churches, or the new tower might have been originally 1831.] REVIEW.-Guide to intended for the purpose before mentioned, though such intention was not executed. Why this was not the case, is a matter with which we are not acquainted; all we do know is, that the beams upon which bells are suspended, may, as they have done, act with the effect of battering-rams, through oscillatory motion, in the disjunction of stones and mortar. Our author says, that Tanner christened the place Twinbourne; from the brook and the bourne. Leland, who delighted in petty pedantry, had so denominated it long before Tanner,* because the town was an interamnium. But it was known only as Winburn in the Anglo-Saxon æra, and we lean to Bishop Gibson's etymon, from Win, the first syllable of Vindogladia, and the Anglo-Saxon burn, rivus, with which derivation Lye coincides, v. Vinbunn. The circumstance which gave celebrity to the place, was the foundation of a nunnery by Cutburga, sister of Ina, King of the West Saxons, who died anno 727, which having been destroyed by the Danes, was converted into a secular canonry by Edward the Confessor, which canonry (according to Leland +) was enlarged into an endowment of four prebendaries, &c. by Thomas Brember, Dean of Twinburne (who died in 1361), not King Edward, as our author (p. 4). These matters, which we add to our author's account, have however no concern with the Church, which, says our author, "by Gilpin is pronounced a specimen of the heaviest and earliest style of Saxon architecture; but we have in fact no ecclesiastical remains in this country, near so considerable in grandeur or extent, of an age precedent to the Conquest.”—p. 6. This allegation we peremptorily deny, not only from a repulsive feeling as to such contradiction of fact, but from an actual knowledge of the birth, life, and (we wish that we could add), dying-speech also of this bare-faced assertion. We have studied archæology for forty years, and know that in the times of Messrs. Gough, Lysons, Carter, and others, no such hypothesis was propagated. By some well-known circumstances, the name of Gundulf as builder of Rochester Castle, &c. was brought into notice. Persons (who were mere "perhaps" and "probably" antiquaries) immediately proceeded to Gundulfize and Normannize all our remains which bore the characteristics of a style of architecture that had obtained for four hundred years before the invasion of the Conqueror. As it was undistinguishable from the style of the Norman æra, they could not be contradicted in affirming that all such remains are subsequent to the Conquest. The rule which obtained before this superficial pretence, was to examine the dates of the building, as recorded by history, and compare them with the Saxon and Gothic styles, and then to decide, according to the testimony of the rule alluded to. Instead of this, which was a sort of testimony not easily to be got rid of, they have by positiveness somewhat established a theory which goes the extravagant length of saying that there cannot be any bones left of a man who died before the Conquest, though his place of burial is known. In the same manner, at the time when the Asiatic Society, Maurice, and other oriental scholars, were throwing that light upon Druidism, which has been so well embodied and exhibited by Mr. Higgins, up started certain men called Helio-arkites, and mystified and enfabled the whole. Now if men read for instruction, not for deception, there ought to exist a conscientious and honourable feeling, concerning the turpitude of vitiating history, as well as of forging old coins. Against both these impositions we have always set our faces; because, independent of the disgust naturally felt at the attempt, we know that there is both positive and circumstantial evidence so extensive in favour of sound archæology, as to render all unworthy resources unnecessary. In truth, some men start novelties, as Charlatans do quack-medicines, for the sake of notoriety and distinction; and addressing themselves to persons who are ignorant of the subject, find an easy reception. To those who understand that subject, the fraud is vexatious, but they are only few. In the case before us, it is evident from history, that the edifice was originally built in the Anglo-Saxon æra; and that it received no important alterations as to building, between the time of Edward the Confessor and the Temple Church style, usually ascribed to the thirteenth century. In the $34. REVIEW.-Sir W. Betham on Dignities. central tower are intersecting arches to relieve the dead wall, exactly conformable to those of Malmesbury Abbey Church, founded in or near the same era as that of the monastery before us. To that æra, therefore, we ascribe it, because we will not elevate the ipse dixit of any man over the positive evidence of history. It is necessary thus to say, because we are menaced with an irruption of writers upon Gothic architecture, all proceeding upon the same principle of thinking historical proof utterly unnecessary. Our author says, that there is over each side of the altar, a window of a lancet form. Now the fashion of two or three windows, instead of one large one at the east end of the chancel, is decidedly Anglo-Saxon, for we have seen it in a Church which is recorded to have been consecrated in the year 1066, and know that it was copied in the succeeding Gothic, and was superseded by the great window, still usual. We proceed with some extracts. "In a survey, thus far, of the exterior of the Church, abundant traces will be observed of an innovation, from which almost every Gothic edifice in this country appears to have more or less suffered. This is, a contraction in the height of the roof, by which a few pounds have been saved in the expense of lead or slates (the latter, by the way, a paltry substitute for the grey and mossy stone), at the same time, that an awkward mark is left in the outside, ornaments and windows are demolished or concealed within, and of course the proportions of the building materially altered.”—p. 19. Our author exhibits good taste and judgment in this and similar remarks; for nothing is more true than that Gothic architecture is spoiled by inattention to proportions. Our author notices, justly, that pinnacles disproportionately small, are faults not unusual in Gothic buildings of the fifteenth century. We have noticed the same fault in many parish churches (p. 17). An unusual thing is noticed in p. 22. "It would seem, from the gradations in the seats of the stalls, that they were origi [April, nally situated on the steps, rising one above another, and not on the level pavement of the altar, as they now stand." We are told in p. 29, that one of the transepts "Has been sometimes denominated Death's Aisle, from a strange painting of the King of Terrors bestriding his victim, with dart and spade in hand, and all the appropriate devices of mortality, which till very lately covered the eastern wall, above the little niche, in which are the remains of a piscina.” The popularity of the Dance of Death will here occur to mind. We find that in the library is a cupboard full of ancient wills, deeds, and deed-baskets, and a curious old box, in which offerings for the poor were formerly collected."-p. 34. We should be obliged to the author for drawings of the deed-baskets and poors' box. Our Churches are in such numerous instances ornaments of our landscape, memorials of our ancient arts, and conservators of the best feelings, that wẹ consider it patriotic and wise to extend a due regard for them. Without them no places can be considered fit for the residence of civilized beings, and the mere sight of them reminds all persons of the duties due to God and man. Of course, then, they should be preserved in a character consistent with their purpose; and not be made subjects of ridicule or contempt by injudicious or ignorant innovations and repairs. We therefore hope that future topographers will, with the laudable zeal of our author, expose any mischief which may have been done in this respect, that a warning may thence be held out to others. Dignities, Feudal and Parliamentary. By SIR WILLIAM BETHAM's cornerstone in this work is the "First Report of the Lords' Committees." Satisfactory as are in general the deductions of such Reports, and judge-like as is the construction of them, they may lie open to a great defect. They may * See Carter's Progress of Architecture, Pl. VI. fig. 4. + It is well known that the Reports of the Lords' Committee on the dignity of a Peer of the Realm, were drawn up by the late Lord Redesdale. Mr. Palgrave, in his Remarks on Mr. Nicolas's Pamphlet, has the following note at p. 32: "With respect to the reprinting of the documents inserted in the Peerage Reports, I must add, what Mr. Nicolas well knows, that these Reports were wholly the Reports of Lord Redesdale; and that it was utterly impossible to induce that learned Lord to change any plan, however defective, which 1831.] REVIEW.-Sir W. Betham on Dignities. apply evidence which belongs to recent history, to times of which there is no record. They may determine the history of the Britons and AngloSaxons, by matters which appertain only to the Normans. For instance, they say, as here quoted (i. 169), "The rise of the House of Commons, without any express law for the purpose, may have been the natural result of the situation in which the country was placed at the close of the reign of Henry the Third, or the accession of his son." Now it so happens, that Clerus and Populus formed part of our Norman full parliaments; and that a charter of John, as given by Mr. Lynch, does define the populus to consist of "citizens and burgesses." This charter, which was given to form an Irish Parliament upon the model of that of England, discriminates each particular class of persons necessary to compose a full Parliament. Mr. Lynch quotes a record, and that record sets the question at rest as to the existence of a House of Commons in the periods antecedent to the time mentioned in the Report. That the populus sat by representation is matter of course, because it was matter of necessity. The very word witena, as connected with gemote, implies a selection; and the principle of deputation was acted upon by the Conqueror. When Lanfranc complained of the spoliation of the See of Canterbury, the King ordered that his complaint should be heard by the assembled primores and probi homines, not only of the county of Kent, but of the other counties of England; and accordingly they are assembled, and are * " 335 called by Eadmer "Principum conventus. Here is an evident deputation of persons who were distinct from primores; nor is it true that the Witenagemot consisted only of Peers or Thanes, or that the King could be as arbitrary as supposed, for Bede mentions the acts of a King done, "Butan gepeate hir Vitena," without the advice of his counsellors" (523, 31), as unusual. And this practice of representation was further evinced, according to Sir William Betham, in the case of the Bishops; for when the Report says, that "the Archbishops and Bishops may be deemed Lords of Parliament, by tenure," i. 196, an ingenious note of Sir William Betham says, "It would perhaps be more correct to say, that on the establishment of legislative parliaments, it was considered expedient that the Church should be represented; and therefore the Archbishops and Bishops were summoned thereto, than that they were Lords of Parliament by tenure." Opposed, however, as we are to the Henry-third-ian origin of the House of Commons, (because it suffocates the Clerus et POPULUS of far earlier reigns, and many corroborating circumstances, particularly this, viz. that there never was a reign, prior to that æra, wherein aids could be legally obtained from all the people in the land, nor succession to the Crown be authorized, without the populus forming part of the Parliament, such populus being, we think, the real ancestor of the lower House), we still repeat that the matters relating to dignities, here collected by Sir William Betham, are of the highest he had once adopted."-Mr. Nicolas, in his Report of the Claim of the Lisle Peerage, says, "To establish the important fact that Judges who lived about two centuries ago, did not know the law which regulated the descent of dignities as well as persons of the present day, it must be shown that facts have been discovered with which they were unacquainted. That no new light has been thrown on the subject, must be admitted by every person who has read the Reports of the Lords' Committees on the dignity of a Peer of the Realm; for, while all proper respect is paid to those compilations, and whilst the labour which has been bestowed on them is fully conceded, it is neither presumptuous towards their Lordships, nor at variance with the truth, to say that it is impossible to draw a single positive conclusion from the mass of statements which occur; that, amidst much learning there are numerous contradictions and mistakes; and, what is far more material, erroneous deductions drawn from those mistakes. Under these circumstances, it is too much that these Reports should be made the basis on which an argument can be built to overthrow the law, as it has been laid down on two occasions, and on each by some of the wisest judges this country ever saw, as well as the numerous decisions to which their dicta have given rise, especially when they have been in strict conformity with the dicta of more than five centuries."-Nicolas's Lisle Claim, p. 259. * We are aware of Sir W. Betham's inferential arguments in i. 256 seq. + Eadmer, p. 9. Primores were Lords, as distinguished from Commoners. Ducange, v. Baro. 336 REVIEW.-Betham on Dignities.-Snow's Prayers. [April, value. The difficulties on the subject seem in the main to have grown out of nothing more than the capricious and discretionary exercise of the Royal Prerogative, especially in regard to the Writs of Summons. In vol. i. p. 174, we have a long account of Baronies by Tenure. We think that confusion has produced mistake here as elsewhere. a cording to the will of the Sovereign, summoned also. That the Caput Baroniæ, or principal residence of the Baro major, gave title to his peerage, is evident, but that the Parliamentary seat itself was dependent upon that Caput Baroniæ, is not admissible; the cause of such Baro major becoming a Peer being property and rank in the country, and a moral necessity, bearing compulsorily on the Crown, not a legal claim of right. The more proper term therefore for a Peer (to judge from Magna Charta, &c.), is, as to the early periods, not a Baron by tenure, or by writ, but a Baro major, who expected that particular individual summons from the Crown, which summons placed him in the Upper House. The custom still exists of elevating a Commoner of large landed property to the Peerage, and it is by comparing existing customs with the glimmering lights thrown by our old contemporary chronicles and records, that we draw different inferences from those which are given in the Reports of the Peers, and modern works upon Dignities. In regard to the subject which we have just discussed, Sir William Betham supports us with the following strong testimony. The old distinction of Peers is Barones majores. Parliaments were held three times a year, viz. Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide, and then these Barones majores came to Court, de more, from custom, and transacted parliamentary business; at other times writs of summons were issued. That poverty annihilated nobility was maxim of the age, and acted upon as such, and that respect was had to extent of property, in regard to the Barones majores, or Peers of Parliament, and that defalcation of property might reduce a Baro major to a mere Knight or Baro minor, can be shown from various instances. But tenure by barony might be merely territorial, and not imply in se a seat in the Upper House. It merely denoted certain military duties or assessments, or judicial local privileges. A Baro major, or Peer of Parliament, was a person in the earlier "No evidence is to be found of the extimes, who considered himself from his press reservation of the service of a Baron, consequence in the country, entitled or of attendance on the King's Court, or to be called to the Upper House, and Great Council of Parliament, in any grant of one who expected to be so; nor could land. Military service is reserved in many the King despise his expectation, unand in most grants, and services by grand less he was notoriously rebellious or serjeanty are extant on record. But no incompetent, or deemed personally grant, charter, or inquisition, imports a rehostile to the sovereign. But the pub-servation of the service of attending the lic affairs, military or political, could King's Court, or his Council, or his great not be carried on under total neglect of the Barones majores, because they were most intimately connected with the execution of national business. What local influence, what military power, could the Crown have commanded without them? They therefore necessarily became Peers of Parliament; but numerous cases show, that although the Peerage did mostly descend hereditarily, chiefly because the estate did so too, still there was no right even in the Barones majores, in those æras, to deem the peerage an indivisible adjunct to succession or primogeniture. In short, the Crown appears to have been morally compelled to call the Barones majores to the Upper House; and others, on account of their wisdom or loyalty, were, ac Council in Parliament."-i. 174. will find in this work most curious Possessors and claimants of dignities and interesting elucidations. Forms of Prayer adapted to the Use of Schools and Families consisting of young Persons; also Poems on Religious Subjects. By J. Snow. Hatchard and Son. THIS little volume is presented to the public with a modest preface, in which all attempt at novelty is disclaimed, and a blessing is invoked from Him" who as he best knows the imperfection of the most eloquent addresses, does not resist the feeblest cry, uttered in sincerity, by the humblest of his worshippers.' The work possesses considerable merit. It unites a departure from the hacknied phraseo |