Page images
PDF

remaining,” with such a noise as was dreadful and astonishing.” The architect employed after the fire was Mr. Edward Jerman, and the material Portland stone. The general plan was much as before, the architecture modified to the Vitruvian taste of the day. Its appearance is shown in the annexed bird’s-eye view, (p. 493,) with which we are favoured by the publisher of Mr. Burgon's work. The charges of erection (defrayed in moieties by the City and Mercers’ Company, the joint trustees of Sir Thomas Gresham's will,) amounted to 58,962l. besides 7,017l. 1 1s. for enlarging the ancient site. The ground on which the new building stood was 203 feet in length from east to west, and 171 feet in breadth from north to south, containing 34,713 superficial feet, a little more than 3-4ths of an acre. The King laid the first stone of the column on the west side of the north entrance, and his brother, the Duke of York, (afterwards James 11.) that on its east side, in memory of which achievement those two columns had royal ornaments for their capitals, as imperial crowns and sceptres. Afterwards Prince Rupert laid the first stone of the pillar on the east side of the south entrance. The 28th of September, 1669, was the day fixed for the opening of the New Exchange. The King was expected, but he did not come. The Lord Mayor, Sir W. Turner, then came, “and, walking twice round about it, congratulated the merchants on their 'Change again.” There were shops as before in the upper floor, like those still remembered at Exeter Change in the Strand, or in our modern Bazaars, and their prosperity continued

until about the year 1735. Maitland, writing in 1739, speaks of them as having been “... till of late stored with the richest and choicest sorts of merchandize; but, the same being now forsaken, it appears like a wilderness.” The Royal Exchange underwent an important repair in 1767, when the west side was rebuilt. On this occasion Parliament made a grant of 10,000l. Again in 1820 an extensive repair took place, which materially affected the appearance of the principal front. The old steeple was taken down, and replaced by another of less elevation and a different form, designed by Mr. George Smith, the appearance of which is shown in the second engraving. By referring to our Magazine for August 1821, p. 112. the reader will find a detailed architectural criticism on this production, which was there pronounced to be one of the best specimens of “the pepper-box order" in London. Whatever were its merits or demerits in itself, it was certainly ingrasted in as bad taste upon the original design of Jerman as we often see exhi

* This interesting incident is mentioned by many other writers.

1838, however, Sir Thomas Gresham's statue was destroyed, but that of Sir John Barnard escaped. In our vol. X, pp. 203, 437, we preserved some record of the sale

of the most interesting relics among the materials of the old Exchange.

the royal statues were comparatively perfect, and were sold for considerable sums; but

we are not aware of their present locale.

The modern statues of the four Quarters

of the World, by Bubb, (which were sold for 801.) now grace the front of a steam

packet wharf, a little below London Bridge.

At the fire of

Many of bited in the admixture of the various periods of ecclesiastical architecture. The fire of the 10th of January, 1838,” was, however, the signal for the removal of the whole of the Carolean building. Indeed its walls were left in too shattered a state to be worth preservation. The new Royal Exchange has been built on more extended as well as deeper foundations; and we trust that it is destined to enjoy a proportionately more enduring term of existence.

[graphic]

MR. URBAN,

IN conversation with those who are generally interested in antiquarian researches, with regard to the recent meeting of the British Archaeological Association at Canterbury, I find some partial misapprehension existing both as to the objects and the results of that meeting. Whether this has arisen from the very ill-natured and unfair remarks which have appeared in the columns of the Athenaeum, or elsewhere, l cannot determine ; but I have observed that the dissatisfaction on the latter point, namely, the conduct and results of the meeting, exists with those who were not present, and are therefore most likely to have been influenced by the reports they have read. Those who were present appeared to agree that their time had been profitably as well as agreeably spent. This is surely sufficient success for a first or trial meeting, with respect to which it was impossible for those most conversant with the circumstances of the immature Association, to calculate either upon the numerical strength of those who would attend, or upon the subjects which could be brought forward for consideration.

On the general arrangements of the meeting I may say a few words before I conclude; but the chief object of these remarks, (which altogether shall be very brief,) is to point out that the very nature and intention of the meeting seems to have been mistaken by those who censure it. They have hastily formed their idea of a provincial antiquarian meeting, and they quarrel with the proceedings at Canterbury because they do not find them coincide with their previously-conceived idea.

* Described in our vol. IX. p. 230.

The grand objection made is, that the attention of the meeting was not confined to local objects. It is said, in effect, that at Canterbury no Classical antiquities should have been introduced—no Phoenician, no Egyptian. More than this, it would seem that this exclusively local scheme was to shut out not only all foreign antiquities, but those of Ireland and Scotland, England, and even Kent itself: it was to attend to Canterbury, and nothing but Canterbury. It is therefore evident that, by those who can have conceived such ideas, the character of the meeting, and even of the Association itself, has been entirely misunderstood. Their argument has proceeded upon the notion that this was an occasional excursion, for local objects, of a Society established in London, and carrying on its usual business there; and it is extraordinary that they should not have perceived that the British Archaeological Association was, on the contrary, formed on the plan of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, the staff alone of which is existent from year to year, and which is embodied only when the annual meeting takes place. Such being the real state of the case, it would clearly be as unreasonable to insist that the attention of the British Archaeological Association should be confined to the town where it meets, as that the attention of the British Association for the Advancement of Science should be confined to the natural history, the geology, or the peculiar manufactures of the place it incidentally visits. The only mode then to decide the question as to the propriety of the topics brought before the British Archaeological Association at Canterbury, is to refer to the proposals with which the Association itself is set forth. It is entitled the “British Archaeological Association for the encouragement and prosecution of researches into the arts and monuments of the early and middle ages, particularly in England.” Here we find at once that its subjects are not to be sought solely at the place of meeting, nor even solely in England, but only “particularly in England.” Then for the objects of the Annual Meeting. The announcement of the Central Committee explains them in the following terms:

“The chief objects of the meeting are to promote a personal intercourse between antiquaries and historical inquirers who reside in different parts of the country and abroad, and to afford a week's amusement and instruction by the reading and discussing of papers on antiquarian and historical subjects before the different sections, and visiting and examining together the antiquities of the locality.” Here, again, it is as distinctly stated that the “visiting and examining together the antiquities of the locality” was not the sole object of the meeting, but only one of the means proposed to accomplish the general purposes of the Association, viz. mutual “encouragement,” and historical and antiquarian “research.” To the charge of having neglected the antiquities of the locality, the Association may triumphantly reply. The antiquities of Canterbury, and of the county of which it is the capital, received such attention as a provincial meeting was calculated to inspire. To mention first those early antiquities, the exhumed relics of early ages, at which it is so easy to sneer, but of which the due classification and appreciation is perhaps only now commencing, there were no less than five exhibitions of relics found in Canterbury itself, besides others from the tumuli at Bourne and on the Breach downs, from Sittingbourne, and from Dymchurch, all in Kent. The museum to which the Association made a visit at Dr. Faussett’s was of antiquities found in Kent; and, besides all these, we are informed that the Secretary had in preparation a review of the recent Roman and Saxon discoveries in the county, which there was not time to produce. On ecclesiastical antiquities there were communications relative to St. Margaret's Rochester, Lenham, East Wickham, and Reculver, all in Kent, beside the evening lecture by Professor Willis on Canterbury Cathedral, and his morning recapitulation in the edifice itself, the great interest of which not even the Athenaeum can deny. Moreover, there was a most interesting communication from Mr. Hartshorne, first on the Castle of Dover, and secondly on the Block-houses erected by Henry VIII. which are chiefly on the Kentish coast. Lastly, in the historical department, the most recondite and elaborate papers that were

produced originated with the antiquities of the county: for, after first mentioning the Rev. Beale Post's essay on the place of Caesar's Landing, a question exclusively belonging to the coast of Kent, and Mr. Puttock's dissertation on the Roman itineraries in relation to Canterbury, I allude particularly to Mr. Stapleton's essay on the succession of William of Arques, to Mr. Croker's investigation of the autobiography of the first Earl of Cork, and to Mr. Wright's report after examining the municipal archives of the city. The first of these was chosen for its local bearing on the honour of Folkstone, of which William of Arques was the Domesday lord; and the second for a like reason, because the Earl of Cork was a native of Canterbury. Yet the Editor of the Athenaeum, not having been present, and judging it may be supposed from the mere titles of the papers, perseveres, in his last remarks on the Association, in reprobating these very papers:— “Are papers, we ask again, on ‘The Origin of Idolatry,” on ‘The Counts of Guisnes and the Earl of Oxford,” on the Shipping in the Thames in the time of Henry VIII., on Lord Cork's lying Autobiography, on bits of broken pottery from this place, a Roman tile from that, and on coins of Antonine and Trajan from another, are such papers of a local interest?"

The objection here made to a document relative to the Thames, the ancient highway from Canterbury to the metropolis, as well as the county boundary, is a proof how confined are the Editor's notions with respect to “locality.” With respect to “The Counts of Guisnes and the Earl [s] of Oxford,” which was the same paper as that “On the succession of William of Arques,” and the Autobiography of the Earl of Cork, I have already answered his question: at the same time that I do not admit the necessity for the papers or topics of discussion to have this local bearing as a sine qua non.

I will now proceed to make the very few remarks of my own on the annual meeting which I before intimated; and which I would offer rather as hints for the next occasion than as censures upon a first experiment.

(To be continued.)

REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS.

Diaries and Correspondence of James Harris, first Earl of Malmesbury. Edited by his Grandson, the third Earl. 8vo. Vols. I. and II. THESE volumes contain a portion of a selection from the voluminous diplomatic papers and journals of the noble lord who is mentioned in their title. page. They extend from his first entrance into public life in 1767, to his departure on a special mission to the court of Berlin in the eventful year 1793. It is intended, we presume, by some future publication to carry down the extracts to a more recent period, the noble earl having been subsequently employed in other important negotiations, and having continued until his death in 1820, occasionally an actor, and at all times an interested and recording” witness, of the most eventful scenes of that eventful period. As the son of the author of ** Hermes,” who was himself a courtier and a member of Parliament, the gentleman to whom these volumes relate entered life with many peculiar advantages. He was born at Salisbury on the 21st April, 1746, and received the best part of his education at Winchester. At the age of 17 he was sent to Oxford, where the benefit he received may be estimated from his account of the life he led. “The two years of my life I look back to as most unprofitably spent were those I passed at Merton. The discipline of the university happened also at this particular moment to be so lax that a gentleman commoner was under no restraint, and never called upon to attend either lectures, or chapel, or hall. My tutor, an excellent and worthy man, according to the practice of all tutors at that moment, gave himself no concern about his pupils. I never saw him but during a fort

* The earl continued his journal until a fortnight before his death. In calm anticipation of his approaching end, he then closed it in a farewell passage which is printed in vol. I. p. xvi.

GENT, MAG. Wol. XXII.

night, when I took into my head to be taught trigonometry. The set of men with whom I lived were very pleasant, but very idle fellows. Our life was an imitation of high life in London; luckily drinking was not the fashion, but what we did drink was claret, and we had our regular round of evening card-parties, to the great

annoyance of our finances,” and, pro

bably, also, of their fathers’, or at any event of Mr. Harris's father, who suddenly stopped his son's progress towards an Oxford degree, and sent him off to Leyden “to study.” There he remained a year, spending “many hours daily ’’ in writing and reading, and the rest in studying the History of Europe; “but frequenting, at the same time,” as much as possible, “the public amusements and society of the Hague and Amsterdam.” His qualifications for public employment were completed by a tour on the continent, and his attainment of his majority. Soon after these desirable events were accomplished, he was appointed, “through Lord Shelburne's interest,” “secretary of embassy at the court of Madrid under Sir James Gray.” Whilst such was the education of our diplomatists, it is no wonder that they were out-manoeuvred by the French at every court in Europe. The wonder is, that, under such circumstances, England ever possessed, as in the case of the gentleman of whom we are writing, an ambassador in any degree able to cope with the rival nation in the practice of that system of profound and artful trickery which constituted the science of diplomacy. In the instance of Mr. Harris it is evident that he had a peculiar aptitude, it may be termed a genius, for the work, and was moreover encouraged by the success of his first attempt. After this young gentleman had been at Madrid six or seven months, Sir James Gray “left,” and the representation of Great Britain at one of the principal courts of Europe devolved upon Mr. Harris. This 3 S

weighty trust had rested upon his youthful shoulders exactly twelve months when the dispute relating to the Falkland Islands, for a cause not very unlike that at Tahiti which occasioned our recent disagreement with France, produced a sudden uproar between the two countries. Mr. Harris entered upon the business as an inexperienced and high-spirited young Englishman might be expected to do. The ministry at home thought the matter scarcely worth a quarrel; but young Mr. Harris fanned the flame, and, fortunately for him and for the country, the Spanish government were timid and gave the required satisfaction. The affair occasioned a great noise, and great, consequently, was the triumph and the reputation which accrued to the boy-ambassador. The book before us opens with some amusing extracts from Mr. Harris's Diary during his tour in 1767 and 1768, and his journey to Madrid in January 1769, and then presents various despatches and letters connected with the business of the Falkland Isles. In the full glow of his first success, Mr. Harris was transferred to the court of Frederick the Great, where he resided from 1771 to 1778. The prejudices of that monarch against England kept the ambassador in the back-ground. The first partition of Poland was indeed a circumstance of which he desired to make something— after the manner of the “Falkland Isles" question, and with more reason—but the ministry at home were weak and spiritless, and were only induced to take any interest at all in that “mostwicked business” because it happened to be out of the ordinary course of things—“a curious transaction ‘’ as it was termed by Lord Suffolk, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs... Mr. Harris's letters during his residence at Berlin are chiefly valuable on account of the information they give us respecting the condition of Berlin and of the court of Prussia. Of the former take the following as a picture written in 1773.

“Berlin is a town, where, if fortis may be construed honest, there is neither vir Jortis nec foemina casta.’ A total corruption of morals reigns throughout both sexes in every class of life, joined to pe

nuriousness, necessarily caused partly by the oppression of his present Majesty, and partly by the expensive ideas they received from his grandfather, constituting the worst of human characters. The men are constantly occupied how to make straitened means support the extravagances of their life. The women are harpies, debauched through want of modesty rather than from want of anything else. They prostitute their persons to the best payer, and all delicacy of manners or sentiment of affection are unknown to them. Bad as this description is, I do not think I draw the picture in too bad colours. I came without any prepossession, and venture to suppose that I live here with too great a variety of people to be blinded by prejudices. All I can say in their favour is, that the example of irreligious neglect of all moral and social duties raised before their eyes by the King, I say, this, joined to the success of all his undertakings, and the respect he enjoyed throughout Europe, have infatuated their better judgment, and shown them vice in too advantageous a light.” (p. 97.) Of the sovereign of this people—the Napoleon of Prussia—the scattered traits are numerous and effective. His flute-playing, and the nervous sensitiveness of the greatest sovereign of Europe lest he should give utterance to a false note, are the subject of a curious passage at p. 3. His snufftaking (“he takes it not by pinches but by handfulls”) and his “magnificent collection” of snuff-boxes are noticed at p. 6. His penuriousness, ill-temper, tyranny, mistakes in his commercial projects, hatred of England, and contempt of France, are displayed in innumerable passages. He was subject to nocturnal perspirations from the earliest period of his life, and always found them “highly beneficial to his health.” Upon their partial cessation he fell ill, slept badly, and was dejected in spirits. (p. 116.) Under this illness, and a consequent gout, he continued during Mr. Harris's sojourn at Berlin, and the accounts he gives of the state of his Majesty's temper describe him as guilty of the wildest and most outrageous freaks of passion, and at times “little inferior to a madman.” Still his mind remained as active as ever. “His views I am convinced,” remarks Mr. Harris, “rove from one side of the continent to the other, and, as long as he has the means

« PreviousContinue »