being Spanish, the white and red rose is the central ornament.' The Spanish general's halbert.' 'Hold, my friend! in the first place it is not a halbert, and, in the next, here is a coat of arms and a crest, which I am herald enough to tell you, prove that it belonged to Sir Dudley Carleton, Captain, I think, to the pensioners of Queen Elizabeth. A Spanish boarding-pike; it has six spikes and a spear at one end, and a matchlock pistol at the other.' This, in the inventory, taken in the time of Edward VI. is termed a holy-water sprinkle, with a gonne in th' ende'.' King Henry VIII.'s walking-staff, with three match-lock pistols in it. The same authority speaks of this as ' a holy-water sprinkle, with three gonnes in the top,' and I perceive the spikes which gave its character have been withdrawn. The Spanish battle-axe, as it is falsely termed, is of the same character. Shields, with match-lock pistols in the centre.' These occur in the beforementioned inventory 2, and were noticed by Hentzner in 1598, though not as having been part of the spoils of the Armada 3. I have gathered enough from the Critical Inquiry' to know, that, so far from using match-lock pistols, the Spaniards, in the time of Elizabeth, were possessed of those with wheel-locks, and of the very best manufacture. Spanish instruments of torture.' It is very curious that the only thing of the kind to be found in the year 1660 was the Spanish collar for torture, taken in 1588,' and that, strange to say, has never been degraded by being placed in company with counterfeits, always remaining in the Horse Armoury. But, I fear these horrible contrivances for cruelty must fall to the share of our own ancestors, for certain it is, that the thumb-screws, under the title of thumbikins, were used upon the Scotish covenanters, as those who have read the delightful northern novels may well remember. The invincible banner, with a crucifix upon it.' Oh impudence! this out-herods Herod !—actually a piece of leather, having stuck on it a piece of card cut into the shape of a crucifix! I remember no instance of a banner of leather, but the renowned blacksmith's apron. Is this to be endured? "Non hoc ista sibi tempus spectacula possit.' Such are the Spanish spoils, and as if the demand on our credulity had not been great enough to satisfy the craving of these wonderworkers, we are showna Danish club, a Saxon club, and a Saxon sword, which have lain in the Tower 900 years.' This is not worthy of a comment, except that I afterwards saw the very fellow club' in the hands of a figure dressed in a suit of armour in the Horse Armoury, assigned to the time of Henry VIII. The axe by which Queen Anne Boleyn was beheaded.' Unfortunately for the credit due to this statement, there is only the simple circumstance in contradiction, that her head was struck off with a sword! Hall, the contemporary chronicler, says, and all the gentlemen were beheaded on the scaffolde at the Tower hyll; but the Quene was with a sworde beheaded within the Tower.' "But now for the treat: Within that fine representation of Tilbury 1 See "Critical Inquiry," vol. iii. p. 14. 2 Ibid. p. 13. Fort, in imitation of bricks and hewn stones, appears Queen Elizabeth, represented in the attitude of viewing her troops at Tilbury camp; and there is her tent, in which is seen a beautiful transparency,' &c. And are the public indebted to Mr. Wright for this trumpery?' Trumpery, indeed! her majesty's dress alone, of green velvet embroidered, cost the Government not less than eighty pounds.' The more abominable then! Why, setting aside the ignorance of perspective, that has brought the smaller objects in front, these figures, without any great exertion, if alive, could step over the ramparts. But it would be useless to specify all the absurdities of this fine representation.' I know nothing of Mr. Wright, whose artistic ideas have been thus patronised by the Government; he may be a very good man within his sphere, but Ego, si risi quod ineptus Pastillos Rufillus olet Lividus et mordax videar?' In another communication, I shall submit some strictures on the Horse Armoury, contenting myself with asking why Dr. Meyrick did not represent to the Board of Ordnance the contempt to which such an exhibition as the Spanish Armoury must subject it. Was it because he has stupidly placed an Asiatic saddle and bridle on a wretchedly carved horse amongst the European armour? or is his tongue tied by a present of a piece of plate, which it is said has been made to him by some quarter for his services ?? "The Critical Inquiry proves clearly, that the spoils of the Armada of 1588, with the exception of the Collar of Torture,' were not to be seen in the Tower or the palace of Greenwich in 1598; nor were they to be discovered in 1660. Having some friends who, from their situation, could procure the requisite information, I applied to them, and learned that the earliest notice of a Spanish armoury is in the reign of James the Second, at least a century after the defeat of the Spanish fleet, when, upon reference to certain accounts, there appeared among the items of expense, a charge for mending the windows of an apartment so named. It is, however, almost hopeless to remonstrate against those pecuniary demands, which, to the disgrace of this country, attend the exhibition of every public building or institution. A more degrading task can scarcely fall to the lot of any one who has been abroad, than to attend a foreigner to Westminster Abbey, the Houses of Parliament, St. Paul's, &c.; but disgusting as the conduct evinced at those places is, it is not quite so bad as the Hope you will remember us; this is all we get for our trouble; what you have already paid going to the Governor and one of the Board officers,' with which, after paying the fees I have already mentioned, his ears are greeted on leaving the Spanish Armoury." Our Correspondent is here in error: these things were added after Dr. Meyrick had completed his arrangement, and to say the least, very unfairly. 2 This is also a mistake. We can take upon ourselves to assert, that, excepting a formal letter of thanks, he has received nothing that can be construed into a reward. He undertook his task gratuitously, and has always openly expressed his opinions on every subject that came under his notice.-Editor. ST. SAVIOUR'S, SOUTHWARK. In common with all admirers of the venerable ecclesiastical structures of our island, we regret to find that the restoration of the fabric of St. Saviour's Church, in Southwark, has for the present ceased; whether from immediate want of funds, or of taste, on the part of the parochial authorities, we are unable precisely to state. If from the former, it must be matter of deep regret to the antiquary; but if from the latter, our attention will occasionally be called to their proceedings. It has once been spared from ruin by the more enlightened and civilised portion of the parishioners, aided in no small degree by the public press; and we hope that the Vandals who dared to contemplate its prostration will not make another attempt to outrage the feelings of the public, by the destruction of a building which has not its parallel in the metropolis, and is, moreover, a relic of art in which every man of taste has an interest. Before entering on some account of what has been recently done to the church, a few historical notices connected with it may prove acceptable to our readers. Previous to the conquest' there appears to have been a religious house on or near the site of the church, known by the name of St. Mary Overey; for in Domesday Book, "Sudrie. Terra Episc. Baiocensis," we find, " Ipse episcopus habet in Sudwerche unum monasterium; et unum aquæ fluctum (St. Saviour's Dock) rex E. tenebat die qua mortuus fuit; qui ecclesiam habebat, de rege tenebat," &c.; and Tanner properly observes, that if" monasterium here denotes any thing more than an ordinary church, it may be thought to mean this religious house, there being no pretence for any other in this borough to claim to be as old as the Confessor's time, or indeed as the making of the Domesday Book, A. D. 1083." The foundation was doubtless restored for canons regular by William Pont de L'Arche and William Dauncey, two Norman knights, probably assisted by Bishop Giffard, when, in 1107, he obtained the quiet possession of his see; to whose time may be referred the nave of the church, the architecture of which corroborates the date above cited. In the 14th John, 1213, the priory was demolished by a fire, which consumed a large portion of the borough of Southwark, and was not until many years afterwards rebuilt by Peter de Rupibus, Bishop of Winchester, who also founded, and perhaps erected, the spacious chapel there dedicated to St. Mary Magdalen, afterwards the parish church for the inhabitants near adjoining. The repairs and additions which the structure received subsequent to A door-way, with Saxon mouldings, was discovered, not long ago, in the north aisle of the nave. the reign of Edward the First, did not much alter its appearance. There is a petition from the convent to that monarch, praying to be excused from supplying an allowance of provisions to a superannuated servant, named William le Fische, wherein the extreme poverty and decayed state of the church and monastery is pleaded. They humbly state, that all the goods, rents, and effects they possessed were insufficient for their support, without the gifts of the faithful, whose benevolence for God's sake they implore; that their church had been in a ruined state for thirty years past, and their endeavours to restore it frustrated by the constant exactions on their spiritualities and temporalities, by which they had been prevented all that time from rebuilding more than their bell tower; that being at continual expense for repairs on account of the incessant raging of the river Thames, upon whose banks their little house (domuncula) was seated, and which were nevertheless so insufficient for their security and the safety of their church, both were not only daily threatened, but would be in imminent danger, unless timely measures of prevention were taken. In 1273, an indulgence of thirty days was granted by Walter Archbishop of York, to all who should contribute to the repairs of the fabric of the conventual church of the Blessed Mary of Southwark. room. This house was again much damaged in the reign of Richard II., and again repaired and partly rebuilt in that and the subsequent reign. To the repairs then necessary the poet Gower is said to have been a great, if not the sole, contributor. He lies in the north aisle, under a splendid monument, with his effigy thereon, and it is certain that he founded a chantry here in the chapel of St. John, now the vestryIt is, however, possible, perhaps probable, that Cardinal Beaufort, being Bishop of Winchester, at the period in question, contributed at this or some subsequent time to the restoration of the church; his arms, carved in stone, being still in existence, on a pillar on the east side of the south transept, with some remains of sculpture on each side of the shield, evidently portions of the strings of a cardinal's hat, which doubtless stood over them. Though there be no historical evidence to prove that the church was nearly rebuilt after the accident alluded to, it is clear that at least very extensive reparations were made, inasmuch as a considerable portion of the church is of the style in use in the earliest part of the reign of Henry the Third. In 1469, 9 Edw. IV. the vaulting of the nave fell in, every appearance of which catastrophe it still bears. It was reinstated with a timber roof, as was also that of the north transept. It has the striking singularity of the corbels, from which the ribs spring out, being placed perpendicularly over the pillars of the nave. There is good ground for venturing the opinion, that this roof was put up by Bishop Fox, and that about the same time he made considerable alterations at the altar. The priory was surrendered in the 31st Hen. VIII. The church of St. Margaret, originally attached to that which is now called St. Saviour's parish, stood at St. Margaret's Hill, with a burial-ground adjoining it. Its inconvenient situation was so felt, that, in the 31st of the same King, an act was procured by the parishioners for the removal of the church-yard and its church to the above situation. By that act the churchwardens of St. Saviour's obtained a privilege enjoyed by few other parishes, of being erected into a corporation, with a common seal, and power to purchase certain lands named; and they also obtained from the King, for a trifling sum, the collegiate church of St. Mary Overy, or St. Saviour's, now the parish-church of the district. The act in question, which passed in the 32nd Hen. VIII. 1540-1, is entitled "An Acte for enlarging St. Margarett's ch'yarde, in Southwerke ;" and after reciting that "forasmuch as divrs and many of the Kinge's most drad sovreign Lords," and others within the borough of Southwark, have increased within the parish of St. Margaret, and the church-yard is situate" in the comon strete, and in the mydell" of the King's highway there, and from lack of space for burials is likely to breed infection, it is enacted, that the wardens of the parish of St. Margaret, and their successors, shall have a common seal for the business of their corporation, and that they may, by the name of wardens, plead and sue, and, by the same name, defend and implead, and be impleaded, and may purchase and enjoy such lands as were lately the property of Arthur Urmesbye, Esq. deceased, after of Sir John Bourchier, knight, Lord Ferrers, and after that of Thomas Onelye, gent., containing one acre of land or thereabout," &c. The public spirit of the corporation and care for the preservation of this fabric, in gratitude for the liberal grant of the King, first exhibited itself by their leasing the Lady Chapel, a fair and elegant structure, to a baker, who, according to Stowe, not only used it for the purposes of his trade, but desecrated the spot by using a portion of it for his hog-sties. The magic of uninterrupted perspective, which the cathedral style of the church originally displayed, was in 1618 destroyed by the organ-screen at the west end of the choir, in place of the ancient rood-loft. In the years 1621 and 1622, the west front from midway upwards, and the north side from the western extremity to the internal quoin of the north transept was coated with brick, and the ancient appearance, not destroyed by this useless and wanton spoliation, was completely ruined by the erection of a wooden building against the west front of the north aisle, now used as the sexton's office; which at the same time had the effect of obscuring the venerable arch leading into Montague Close, the site of the Palace of the Lords Monteagle. The works in 1624 bore a little of the marks of intelligence and civilization. In this year the Lady Chapel, which, as is just observed, had been let to a baker, was restored and new paved; though at the same time the unwarrantable innovations were continuing in other places. Probably about the same time the original external doorway into the Magdalen Chapel was closed, and another successful attempt to disfigure the noble pile was made, by substituting for it a new illdesigned entrance, containing in itself an example of all the abuses of the Italian architecture of the period. For the alterations in 1703 the parish authorities may not, perhaps, have been so much to blame: Corinthian altar-screens, with their blazing fire-pots, and volant cherubim, accompanied by whole-length, |