is received by those who hold the theory of universal Celticism, as well as those who do not.

I do not think that one can get much information about the original inhabitants of Belgium or Gaul from etymological researches on the Roman names of places in these countries. The Romans, like the Italians and others of our own time, called places by names that fitted the genius of their language, whether they were like the original ones or not. Who could trace the Dutch Antwerp through the Italian Anversa ? Deutschland through Germania? Sverge through Svezia? or the Italian Livorno through the English Leghorn?

The next question that arises is, whether the Irish, Highlanders, and Welsh, are the same nation (Celts). The Irish and Highlands undoubtedly are; but the Welsh language is not a dialect of the Gaëlic. Dr. Shaw, the author of a Gaëlic Dictionary, lately told me that he could not understand a word of Welsh, though he could understand an Irishman as well as an inhabitant of the Western Islands of Scotland; and that he considered the Welsh and Gaëlic races as wholly dif

ferent nations.

It may be asked, why then did the Romans, &c. call distinct nations by the very same name (Celtæ) ? to which it may be answered, that if they did not do so, it follows that they called the very same nation by different names, as in the case of the three kinds of inhabitants in Gaul; and the latter is as great an impropriety as the former. W. BARNES.

Mr. URBAN,

IT was with no little astonishment that I perused in the Feb. number of your valuable Magazine, a letter under the signature of E. I. C. in which your Correspondent has thought proper to denounce, as the result of" a fit of affected liberality," the Resolution passed at a Court of Common Council of the City of London, held on the 6th of December last, directing the removal from the Latin inscription on the north face of the dado of the Monument the words "Sed furor Papisticus qui tam dira patravit nondum restinguitur," and also the inscription forming a continuous line on all the four sides of the plinth, the correct reading of which is as follows: "This

Pillar was set up in perpetual remembrance of that most dreadful burning of this Protestant City begun and carried on by the treachery and malice of the Popish faction in the beginning of September in the year of our Lord 1666, in order to the carrying on their horrid plot for extirpating the Protestant religion and old English Liberty, and introducing Popery and Slavery. Now, Sir, how this resolution of the Common Council can be liable to the imputation thus cast upon it, I am at a loss to determine, and no less so, how your Correspondent can imagine that, "if this assembly had the government of Rome, we should see them directing the demolition of the arch of Titus, because it might give offence to the Jews."

I am ready to admit that, if this resolution had been adopted only because the imputation it cast upon the Papists was untrue, there would be some propriety in the remark. I am, believe me, too much of an antiquary,

too sincerely devoted to that kind of knowledge of which your publication is so inestimable a store-house, to justify this proceeding on any such principle; if such a system were pursued, it requires no argument to prove that in the course of time, by the revolution of feelings and opinions, almost every record would become a sacrifice. If no better reason existed to authorize the destruction of which your Correspondent complains, I would have said of these inscriptions, let them remain to be frittered away by time, while we rejoice that the feelings which gave birth to them, have already been eradicated from that nobler monument, the human mind, by the omnipotent influence of truth.

There is, however, a better reason, which I consider as not only sufficient to justify the measure, but to cause it to be lauded even by antiquaries; and when I consider the opinion entertained by your Correspondent, with regard to these inscriptions, I can only wonder that it should be necessary to remind him of it. It is evident by his letter, that he believes they were added in the year 1681 to the original inscriptions on the Monument; granting, then, this opinion to be correct, was not their erasure imperatively called for? Instead of the Common Council being repro

It is only upon this being established on the most incontrovertible evidence, that I claim for this act of the Common Council the sanction of public approbation. And, first, as to the internal and circumstantial evidence on which I ground my opinion. Surely, Mr. Urban, if this pillar had been erected, not only "the better to preserve the memory of this direful visitation,' "* but likewise to hold up the Papists as the authors of it, it is natural to conclude that the sculptor would have introduced something into the noble hieroglyphic which graces it, corresponding with such an idea: nothing, however, of the kind is to be traced; the only figure of an ungracious aspect which appears, is that of "Envy peeping forth underneath the stone pavement where the King stands;" while we find, on the contrary, "the Duke of York," who was a professed Papist, standing behind his brother King Charles the Second, "holding a garland ready to crown the rising City."+ Again, if this pillar had been intended to embrace that object, would not the inscription which was written under the direction of Sir Christopher Wren for this mighty effort of his genius, have contained some notice of it? yet it is in vain that we seek in this inscription, which is preserved in the

Parentalia," for even the most distant allusion to such a circumstance.

"

Another argument that this was not intended, may, I think, be gathered from an examination of the inscriptions in question, and the situations assigned to them on the Monument; it is hardly to be believed that if this charge was originally meant to

But leaving this view of the case, it may safely be affirmed that it was not till the year 1678, that this charge against the Papists obtained any thing like general credence; at that period, however, by reason of the plot ascribed to the Papists by Titus Oates (since acknowledged by all to be a pretended one), it not only began to be almost universally believed, § but the public apprehension of them was excited to a very great degree; indeed to such an extent was this feeling carried, that it led in Parliament, in the year 1679, to the agitation of the question for the exclusion of the Duke of York from the Crown, and to a proclamation banishing all Papists from the City of London, the posts and chains of which were put up as in times of great tumult, and it prepared for a defence as if besieged.

To prove that the charge against the Papists with respect to the Fire of London, was then first generally regarded as a fact, a multitude of authorities might be adduced. In the speech of Sir Thomas Player, Chamberlain of London, made on the 12th of September, 1679, the following passage occurs : "It cannot be forgot that thirteen years ago this City was a sad monument of the Papists' cruelty, it being now out of all doubt that it was they that burnt the City."

1831.]

Again, in the Votes of the House of Commons, of the 10th of January, 1680, the following resolution is to be found: "That it is the opinion of this House that the City of London was burnt in the year 1666 by the Papists, designing thereby to introduce arbitrary power and Popery into this kingdom."

By a reference likewise to the Pageant exhibited on the 29th of October, being the show of Sir Patience Ward, Lord Mayor of London, as well as to "London's Defiance to Rome," and to "The Solemn Mock Procession, or the Tryal and Execution of the Pope and his Ministers," (the first of which was exhibited on the 17th of November, 1679, and the other on the same day in the year 1680,) additional evidence will be found to the same effect; in short, a fearful anxiety as to what the Papists might further accomplish, and a restless animosity, springing from the recollection of the awful conflagration which it was believed they had occasioned, almost wholly occupied the public mind, and hence most certainly the origin of these inscriptions on the Monument.

In "England's Reformation," by Thomas Ward, a poem written about this period, the disclosures made by Titus Oates regarding the Papists, and the consequences to which they led with reference to the subject immediately in question, are thus distinctly pointed out :

"He swore, with flaming faggot sticks,
In sixteen hundred sixty-six,
That they through London took their
marches,

And burnt the City down with torches ;
Yet all invisible they were,
Clad in their coats of Lapland air.
That sailing Whig-mayor Patience Ward
To this damn'd lie paid such regard,
That he his godly masons sent,
T'engrave it round the Monument:
They did so; but let such things pass,
His meu were fools, himselfan ass." CANTO 4.

Such is a portion of the internal and circumstantial evidence by which

313

I was convinced that these inscriptions were additions to those originally inscribed upon the Monument, To me the evidence of this kind which I had collected, appeared irresistible; and for my own satisfaction I required nothing beyond: I felt, however, that, if the facts were as I supposed, other evidence of a more direct nature must be in all probability accessible, and I determined for the satisfaction of others, and to place the subject beyond all doubt, to endeavour to obtain it. For this purpose 1 carefully examined the City Records, and was much gratified to find that they fully established the truth of the opinion I had formed. The following are correct copies of these official documents, commencing at the period when Dr. Gale was first required "to devise a fitting inscription to be set on the new Pillar," and ending at the period when these additional inscriptions, together with the inscription on the house in Pudding-lane, were set up for the second time.

COURT OF ALDERMEN.

4th October, 1677.-This Court doth desire Dr. Gale, Master of the Schoole of St. Paul, to consider of and devise a fitting Inscription to be set on the new Pillar at Fish Street Hill, and to consult with Sir Christopher Wren, Knt. his Majesties Surveyor Generall, and Mr. Hooke, and then to present the same unto this Court.

COURT OF ALDERMEN, 22d Oct. 1677.

Upon intimation now given by the Right Honble the Lord Mayor, that the Inscriptions for the new Pillar on ffish Street Hill, prepared and lately presented to this Court by Dr. Gale, had been tendered to and very well approved off by his Mutie. This Court doth Order that the said Inscription be forthwith made upon the said Pillar accordingly.

GENT. MAG. April, 1831.

COURT OF ALDERMEN, 25th Oct. 1677.

This Court now takeing into their consideration the ingenious Inscriptions prepared and presented unto this Court by Dr. Gase for the new Pillar on fish Street Hill, doth order that Mr. Chamberlein doe deliver unto Mr. Lane, Comptroller of the Chamber, ten guineys (to be placed on account of

It is only upon this being established on the most incontrovertible evidence, that I claim for this act of the Common Council the sanction of public approbation. And, first, as to the internal and circumstantial evidence on which I ground my opinion. Surely, Mr. Urban, if this pillar had been erected, not only "the better to preserve the memory of this direful visitation,' "* but likewise to hold up the Papists as the authors of it, it is natural to conclude that the sculptor would have introduced something into the noble hieroglyphic which graces it, corresponding with such an idea: nothing, however, of the kind is to be traced; the only figure of an ungracious aspect which appears, is that of "Envy peeping forth underneath the stone pavement where the King stands;" while we find, on the contrary, "the Duke of York," who was a professed Papist, standing behind his brother King Charles the Second, "holding a garland ready to crown the rising City."+ Again, if this pillar had been intended to embrace that object, would not the inscription which was written under the direction of Sir Christopher Wren for this mighty effort of his genius, have contained some notice of it? yet it is in vain that we seek in this inscription, which is preserved in the "Parentalia," for even the most distant allusion to such a circumstance.

Another argument that this was not intended, may, I think, be gathered from an examination of the inscriptions in question, and the situations assigned to them on the Monument; it is hardly to be believed that if this charge was originally meant to

But leaving this view of the case, it may safely be affirmed that it was not till the year 1678, that this charge against the Papists obtained any thing like general credence; at that period, however, by reason of the plot ascribed to the Papists by Titus Oates (since acknowledged by all to be a pretended one), it not only began to be almost universally believed,§ but the public apprehension of them was excited to a very great degree; indeed to such an extent was this feeling carried, that it led in Parliament, in the year 1679, to the agitation of the question for the exclusion of the Duke of York from the Crown, and to a proclamation banishing all Papists from the City of London, the posts and chains of which were put up as in times of great tumult, and it prepared for a defence as if besieged.

To prove that the charge against the Papists with respect to the Fire of London, was then first generally regarded as a fact, a multitude of authorities might be adduced. In the speech of Sir Thomas Player, Chamberlain of London, made on the 12th of September, 1679, the following passage occurs: "It cannot be forgot that thirteen years ago this City was a sad monument of the Papists' cruelty, it being now out of all doubt that it was they that burnt the City."

1831.]

By a reference likewise to the Pageant exhibited on the 29th of October, being the show of Sir Patience Ward, Lord Mayor of London, as well as to "London's Defiance to Rome," and to "The Solemn Mock Procession, or the Tryal and Execution of the Pope and his Ministers," (the first of which was exhibited on the 17th of November, 1679, and the other on the same day in the year 1680,) additional evidence will be found to the same effect; in short, a fearful anxiety as to what the Papists might further accomplish, and a restless animosity, springing from the recollection of the awful conflagration which it was believed they had occasioned, almost wholly occupied the public mind, and hence most certainly the origin of these inscriptions on the Monument.

In "England's Reformation," by Thomas Ward, a poem written about this period, the disclosures made by Titus Oates regarding the Papists, and the consequences to which they led with reference to the subject immediately in question, are thus distinctly pointed out :

"He swore,—with flaming faggot sticks, In sixteen hundred sixty-six, That they through London took their

marches,

And burnt the City down with torches ;
Yet all invisible they were,
Clad in their coats of Lapland air.
That sailing Whig-mayor Patience Ward
To this damn'd lie paid such regard,
That he his godly masons sent,
T'engrave it round the Monument:
They did so; but let such things pass,
His men were fools, himselfan ass." CANTO 4.
Such is a portion of the internal
and circumstantial evidence by which

313

I was convinced that these inscriptions were additions to those originally inscribed upon the Monument. To me the evidence of this kind which I had collected, appeared irresistible; and for my own satisfaction I required nothing beyond: I felt, however, that, if the facts were as I supposed, other evidence of a more direct nature must be in all probability accessible, and I determined for the satisfaction of others, and to place the subject beyond all doubt, to endeavour to obtain it. For this purpose 1 carefully examined the City Records, and was much gratified to find that they fully established the truth of the opinion I had formed. The following are correct copies of these official documents, commencing at the period when Dr. Gale was first required "to devise a fitting inscription to be set on the new Pillar," and ending at the period when these additional inscriptions, together with the inscription on the house in Pudding-lane, were set up for the second time.

COURT OF ALDERMEN.

4th October, 1677.-This Court doth desire Dr. Gale, Master of the Schoole of St. Paul, to consider of and devise a fitting Inscription to be set on the new Pillar at Fish Street Hill, and to consult with Sir Christopher Wren, Knt. his Majesties Surveyor Generall, and Mr. Hooke, and then to present the same unto this Court.

COURT OF ALDERMEN, 22d Oct. 1677.

Upon intimation now given by the Right Honble the Lord Mayor, that the Inscriptions for the new Pillar on ffish Street Hill, prepared and lately presented to this Court by Dr. Gale, had been tendered to and very well approved off by his Matie. This Court doth Order that the said Inscription be forthwith made upon the said Pillar accordingly.

Court of ALDERMEN, 25th Oct. 1677.

This Court now takeing into their consideration the ingenious Inscriptions prepared and presented unto this Court by Dr. Gale for the new Pillar on ffish Street Hill, doth order that Mr. Chamberlein doe deliver unto Mr. Lane, Comptroller of the Chamber, ten guineys (to be placed on account of