Vol. IV.—No. 106. NOTES AND QUERIES: A MEDIUM OF INTER-COMMUNICATION FOR LITERARY MEN, ARTISTS, ANTIQUARIES, GENEALOGISTS, ETC.

VOL. IV.—No. 106.

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 8. 1851.

Price Threepence. Stamped Edition, 4d.

CONTENTS.

NOTES:—

QUERIES:—

REPLIES:—

MISCELLANEOUS:—

Notes.

SOME NOTES ON ARUNDEL HOUSE, STRAND, AND ON THE DISPERSION OF SCULPTURES FORMERLY PART OF THE ARUNDELIAN COLLECTION.

The celebrated Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, was son of Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel—the faithful and constant, who being persecuted for his religion, was suffered by Queen Elizabeth to languish in the Tower, where he died in 1595—and great-grandson of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, the accomplished nobleman who was beheaded in 1547 by "the Nero of the Tudor race." Thomas Howard was restored, as your readers know, to the earldom of Arundel by James I., and in the reign of that king and of Charles I., who held him in veneration, received other honours and employments, but was yet more distinguished by his munificent patronage of the arts and of learning. He is called "the only great subject of the northern parts, who by his conversation and great collections set a value" upon transalpine lands; and he began about 1614 to decorate with the precious and costly works of art which he had collected in Greece and in his beloved Italy, the gardens and galleries of his quaint old palace in London, called Arundel House.

This mansion, or rather collection of buildings, the site of which had been taken from the see of Bath in the time of "Protector" Somerset, appears from Hollar's Views (as is stated by Mr. Cunningham in his admirable Handbook of London Past and Present) to have comprised a range of irregular buildings, principally of red brick, erected at various periods, and combined without much regard to elegance or uniformity; although I find the earl is said to have been the first person who introduced uniformity in building, and to have been made chief commissioner for promoting this object in London. This famous, and once hospitable, mansion, stood between the gardens of Essex House on the east, and of Somerset (then Denmark) House on the west, its pleasure grounds coming down to the river, and commanding a fine view of the city as far as London Bridge, and of Westminster, and westward to Nine Elms. It is mentioned by Mr. Cunningham, that in this house Hollar drew his well-known view of London, as seen from the roof. The earl, of whose taste and munificence the Arundelian collections formed a noble monument, departed this life at Padua, on the 4th of October (or, as another account[1] says, the 26th September), 1646, in the sixty-first year of his age, having been two years before created Earl of Norfolk, in consideration of his lineal descent from Thomas de Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk, a younger son of King Edward I., and was interred at Arundel. His will, dated at Dover, 3rd September, 1640, was proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, and is printed in the Howard Anecdotes. His marbles, medals, statues, books, and pictures (he is said to have possessed "a larger number of Hans Holbein's works than any other person, and to have been the first nobleman who set a value on them in our nation"), formed at that period, says Sir Charles Young,[2] one of the finest and most splendid collections in England. Many of the articles of virtu and of the books were, during his lifetime, in the possession of Alathea, his Countess (who was a third daughter and coheir of Gilbert Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury), from whom some of them were obtained by his younger son, Sir William Howard, the unfortunate Viscount Stafford (beheaded 1680, on perjured testimony); and a portion of the marble statues and library devolved upon Henry Frederick, his eldest son, who, in his father's lifetime, was summoned to parliament as Lord Mowbray, and succeeded him as Earl of Arundel, and who died in 1652, leaving Thomas, his eldest son, who became Earl of Arundel, Surrey, and Norfolk, and was, at the Restoration in 1660, restored to the dukedom of Norfolk, with limitation to the heirs male of his father. This nobleman died unmarried in 1677, and his brother Henry (who had been created Earl of Norwich, and in 1672 Earl Marshal of England, to him and the heirs male of his body, with other limitations in default) thereupon became sixth Duke of Norfolk. By him the marbles and library were finally dispersed.

[1] Hist. Anecd. of some of the Howard Family, by Mr. Charles Howard of Greystoke, 8vo. Lond. 1769. The writer became Duke of Norfolk on the death of his cousin Edward, eighth duke, in 1777.

[2] In his preface to the Catalogue of MSS. given to the College of Arms by Henry Duke of Norfolk (not published).

The Royal Society had held their meetings since the Fire of London at Arundel House; and John Evelyn, Esq., author of the Sylva, one of the founders of the society, observing in 1667

"these precious monuments miserably neglected, and scattered up and down about the garden and other parts of Arundel House, and how exceedingly the corrosive air of London impaired them,"

induced this nobleman, then Mr. Henry Howard, to bestow on the University of Oxford

"his Arundelian marbles, those celebrated and famous inscriptions, Greek and Latine, gathered with so much cost and industrie from Greece, by his illustrious grandfather the magnificent Earl of Arundel."—Diary, vol. ii. p. 295.

In 1676 Mr. Evelyn induced the Duke to grant to the Royal Society the Arundel library, into which many of the MSS. formerly belonging to Lord William Howard (the famous ancestor of the Earl of Carlisle), who died in 1640, had found their way from Naworth Castle in the lifetime of Thomas, Earl of Arundel. In the same volume of Evelyn's Diary, p. 445., is a minute, under date 29th August, 1678, from which it appears that he was then called to take charge of the books and MSS., and remove to the then home of the Royal Society in Gresham College, such of them as did not relate to the office of Earl Marshal and to heraldry, his grace intending to bestow the books relating to those subjects upon the Heralds' College. It is known, however, that many chronicles and historical MSS. of great value formed part of the donation to the College of Arms; and it would appear from a document in the handwriting of Sir William Dugdale, referred to by Sir Charles Young, that many monastic registers and cartularies which were taken to Gresham College, had nevertheless been intended by the Duke for the College over which, as Earl Marshal, he presided. This nobleman died 1684.

In 1678, according to Mr. Cunningham (who quotes Walpole's Anecdotes, ii. 153.), Arundel House itself was demolished. This was done pursuant to an act of parliament, which had been obtained for the purpose of entailing the estate on heirs male, exempt from being charged with jointures or debts, and empowering the Duke to let a part of the site of the house and gardens to builders, at reserved ground-rents, which were to form a fund for building a mansion for the family on that part of the gardens adjacent to the river. The house was planned by Wren, but the design was laid aside about the year 1690, when Henry, seventh Duke of Norfolk, who was a favourite of William Prince of Orange, obtained an act of parliament empowering him to lease the remainder of the garden-ground for a term of forty-one years, and to appropriate to himself the fund which had accumulated. He accordingly let the ground to Mr. Stone of New Inn, an attorney, and buildings of a very different character to the palatial mansion that had been contemplated, ere long overspread the site of Arundel House. The seventh duke died in 1701. It appears that his friend King William had made him Governor of Windsor Castle; but at his death 12,000l. were due to him for arrears of salary, which sum it is said was never paid.

The museum of objects illustrative of natural history, and great part of the furniture of Arundel House, were removed to Stafford House (situated without Buckingham Gate, where Stafford Row was subsequently built), in which house, in the year 1720, the Duchess of Norfolk, consort of Thomas, eighth Duke, sold an immense quantity of plate, jewels, furniture, pictures, and curiosities. Besides these, however, many family reliques were at that time in the hands of different branches of this noble family, as, for example, the grace-cup of St. Thomas of Canterbury (which had belonged to Thomas Earl of Arundel, and is now in the possession of Philip Henry Howard, Esq., of Corby Castle, M.P.), and the staff of office of High Constable of England, formerly used by the Earl, and which in 1757 was in the possession of the Earl of Stafford.

"Some other of these broken statues, not thought worth replacing, were begged by one Boyder Cuper, who had been a servant (I think gardener) to the family, and were removed by him to decorate a piece of garden ground which he had taken opposite Somerset water-gate, in the parish of Lambeth,[3] which at that time was a place of resort for the citizens and others in holiday time, still called after him by the name of Cuper's, and thence corruptly Cupid's Gardens, which were much of the same nature as Sadler's Wells and Mary'bone Gardens. Here they continued for a considerable time, till Mr. John Freeman of Fawley Court, near Henley-on-Thames, and Mr. Edward Waller of Beaconsfield, observing something masterly in the designs and drapery of several of them, desired I would treat with Mr. John Cuper for them. I agreed with him for 75l., and soon afterwards they were divided between these two gentlemen, and sent part to Fawley Court, and part to Beaconsfield, where they at present remain.

"What statues and broken fragments yet remained undisposed of in Arundel Gardens, the Duke of Norfolk obtained leave from the Crown to remove across the water, just on the opposite shore, to a piece of waste ground in the manor of Kennington, belonging to the principality of Wales; and one Mr. Arundel, a relation of the Duke's I think, at the latter end of the reign of King Charles II. or King James II., did obtain a grant of the said piece of ground at a small rent for a term of years, which was renewed on paying a fine. (These are again referred to.)

"What were thought not worth removing were buried in the foundations of the buildings in the lower parts of Norfolk Street and the other buildings on the gardens. Mr. Aislabie, who inhabited one of these houses, found a broken statue in his cellar, which he carried to his seat in Yorkshire; and he tells me there is a sarcophagus in the cellar of Mr. James Adamson, who lives in the corner house on the left hand going into the lower part of Norfolk Street.

"As to those carried over the water and laid on the Prince of Wales' ground, Mr. Arundel, soon after he obtained the grant of the ground, let it for a timber-yard, and the person who took it built up a wharf; and when the foundation of St. Paul's was laid (Mr. Cunningham gives 1st May, 1674, as the date when the ground began to be cleared), great quantities of the rubbish were brought over thither to raise the ground which used to be overflowed every spring tide, so that, by degrees, these statues and other marbles were buried under the rubbish, and lay there for many years forgotten. About 1712 this piece of ground was rented by my father, who, on digging foundations, frequently met with some of these broken fragments, which were taken up and laid on the surface of the ground. The late Earl of Burlington having heard of the things which had been dug up, and that they had formed part of the Arundel collection, chose what he pleased and carried them down to Chiswick House, where he placed one piece of basso-relievo on the pedestal of an obelisk he erected there. Some years after this, the Right Hon. Lord Petre, speaking to me about these things of the Earl of Burlington's, told me he had heard that on some parts of my ground there were still many valuable fragments buried, and obtained my leave to employ men to bore the ground. After six days' searching of every part, just as they were going to give over, they fell upon something which gave them hopes, and upon opening the ground they discovered six statues without heads or arms, lying close to each other, some of a colossal size, the drapery of which was thought to be exceedingly fine. These were soon afterwards sent down to Worksop, the seat of his present Grace the Duke of Norfolk, in Nottinghamshire, where they remain.

[3] Mr. Cunningham mentions that the Waterloo Bridge Road now runs over the very centre of these gardens.

Sic transit gloria mundi!

Such are the particulars recorded by Mr. Theobald. When I met with them lately, I determined on asking a place for this Note in your valuable publication, thinking that its contents might be new to some of even your readers, and might form an acceptable page of topographical illustration.

WILLIAM SIDNEY GIBSON.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Oct. 1851.

PANSLAVIC LITERATURE, AND THE LIBRARY OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM.

There existed, even in ancient times, some connecting links between the Panslavian and the Anglo-Saxon races: the most important, the introduction of Wickliff's Bible translation into Czechia by Anne, sister of Wenceslaw IV., and wife of Richard II. of England,—an event rich in great and salutary consequences. In allusion to the Library of the British Museum, it seems to me that in former times the diplomatic agents of this country must have taken care to collect the rare and interesting works of the places where they temporarily resided; and that in this way the libraries of this country became enriched by an astounding stock of Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Panslavic works, which subsequently merged some way or other in the national library. This, albeit hypothetical genesis of that huge collection, will, I think, best explain its incompleteness and even un-systematicity in former times; as there are some rare old works to be found, of which the concluding volume is wanting. But I shall not, on this occasion, review a whole library, but confine myself to its late exponent for the world-exhibition, described in the "Short Guide to that Portion of the Library of Printed Books now open to the Public, May 1851."

In imitation of the National Library of Paris, a number of books have been publicly exhibited in the British Museum which, on account of their early date, rarity, costliness and splendour of printing, binding, or for certain interesting autographs, deserved general attention; thus forming an exemplified memorial and history of typographic art and enterprise. The show was a grand and instructive one, owing mostly to the specimens of the unmatched collection of the Grenville Library, the greatest gift ever bequeathed by an individual to a people. None could look without deep emotion on the set of Columbus' Letters, all printed during his lifetime (1493 et seq.)—documents much adverted to by A. Humboldt in his Examen Critique on the discovery of America. Of similar interest were the sets of first editions of Petrarca, Cervantes, Camoens—leaves invaluable to the thinker on human civilisation. Chinese, Indian, and Japanese specimens were also not wanting.

With all that, the gentleman who had arranged en maestro this exhibition, did completely ignore the existence of Panslavic literature, viz. that of a race of sixty millions of people! It is the perusal of the Short Guide which will satisfy any one of the exactness of the assertions, that not one single Russian, Polish, Czechian or Serbian book or fly-leaf was in the whole collection: an anomaly, the explaining of which is beyond my reach.

Still, Panslavia occupies a conspicuous place even in the history of typography and literature, although our later periods have been dimmed by the intrusion of foreign or despotic princes. It was so early as the year 1512, that a Slavonic translation of the Bible was begun. Ivan IV. established the first printing-press in 1564 at Moscow; and in 1659 the learned Patriarch Nikon published a revision of both the Old and New Testaments. Without entering here into an investigation on the first Slavian typographers, both Czechia and Poland were foremost in introducing this important discovery; and even our southernmost city, the Republic of Ragusa, printed Slavian works. Of all this the typographical exhibition of the British Museum contained no trace. What the Library may possess or not possess, is now more difficult to ascertain than ever, as the different sets of Catalogues amount to a couple of hundred volumes. In fact, I know that there exist in the Library the Acta Fratrum Polonorum (the disciples of Socinus), a work unknown even to Lellewel but I am not aware how to find it without a great loss of time.[4] Unfortunately also, the Catalogues are encumbered by a host of exploded German works, which, remaining on the hands of the Leipzig publishers, are mostly sold as waste paper. The works of the greatest Slavian literati are wanting; for instance, Palacky's History of Czechia (in German), published by order and at the expense of the house of representatives at Prague, of which a second edition (reprint) has already appeared so far back as 1844.

[4] [Our correspondent will find it in the King's Catalogue, tom. i. p. 281., under Bibliotheca. The press mark is 273, i. 20.—ED.]

DR. J. LOTSKY, Panslave.

ON ARCHBISHOP USSHER.

Without designing to take part in the question at issue regarding archbishop Ussher, I may be permitted to record the evidence of one of the earliest and best-informed witnesses on it—Nicholas Bernard, doctor of divinity, and preacher to the honourable society of Grayes-Inne, London.

"Anno 1641. The great businesse of the Earle of Strafford came in agitation, in which there is one thing he gave me a charge, as I had occasion, to clear him, viz. of a scandall raised on him, by a rash, I will not say malicious pen, in his Vocall forrest, as if he had made use of a pretended distinction of a Personall and politicall conscience, to satisfy the late King, that he might consent to the beheading of the said Earle; that though the first resisted, he might do it by the second; which, I wonder men of prudence, or that had any esteem of him, could be so credulous of: but there is a presumptuous Observator of late, hath more ridiculously and maliciously abused him in it, as if the root of it was in revenge, for the Earles suppressing the Articles of Ireland; both are of the like falshood, as hath been already made apparent, in an answer to him.

"And I have lately seen it under the hand of a person of quality, affirming, that some yeers agone, a rumour being spread of the death of this Reverend Primate (who was much lamented at Oxford) and this concerning the Earle being by one then objected against him. He was an ear-witnesse, that the late King, answered that person in very great Passion, and with an oath protested his innocency therein."

Bernard received ordination from the hands of Ussher; was his librarian at the period in question; and was honoured with his confidence for thirty years. His Life of Ussher is a work of authority, and deserves to be held in remembrance.

BOLTON CORNEY.

ANGLO-CATHOLIC LIBRARY—BISHOP OVERALL'S CONVOCATION BOOK.

The volume which is known under the title of Bishop Overall's Convocation Book, is a document possessing no ordinary degree of interest. It consists of a series of arguments and canons, in which are discussed and decided several questions of great moment relative to the authority of princes, the divine right of episcopacy, and the differences between the Church of England and the see of Rome. Though this document never obtained the sanction of the Crown, yet its intrinsic value is considerable; and its claim to be regarded as an authentic exposition of the doctrine of the Church of England, in the beginning of the seventeenth century, is unquestionable. Drawn up by the eminent divines who constituted the lower house of the Convocation of 1603, the signature of Bishop Overall at the end attests that the whole had been read three times in the hearing of the house, and unanimously approved.[5]

[5] "Hæc omnia suprascripta ter lecta sunt in domo inferiori convocationis in frequenti synodo cleri, et unanimi consensu comprobata. Ita testor,

"JOHANNES OVERALL, Prolocutor.

"April 16. 1606."

The whole of this passage, the editor informs us, "is in the handwriting of Overall."—P. 272.

In the year 1844, a new edition of this document was issued to the subscribers to the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology. Some care and labour appear to have been bestowed in editing it. The name of the editor is not given: the preface does not even bear his initials. Consequently, the Committee, whose names are before the public, and to whom, as the subscribers are informed in the Rules of the Society, "the whole management of the fund subscribed is entrusted,"[6] have taken on themselves the entire and sole responsibility of this edition, and are the only parties in any way answerable to the subscribers, for the manner in which it has been prepared for publication.

[6] The fifth rule is as follows:—

"5. That the whole management of the fund subscribed be entrusted to a Committee, consisting of not less than twelve nor more than twenty-four subscribers, who shall fill up all vacancies that may occur in their own body."

How that has been done the following observations may help to determine.

In the second part of the work this passage occurs (book ii. chap. vii.):—

"In these times it may well be granted that there was no need of any other bishops but the Apostles, and likewise that then their churches or particular congregations in every city were advised and directed touching points of religion in manner and form aforesaid by the common and joint advice of their priests or ministers. In which respect, the same persons, who then were named priests or ministers, were also in a general sense called bishops. Howbeit this course dured not long, either concerning their said common direction, or their names of bishops so attributed unto them; but was shortly after ordered far otherwise, by a common decree of the Apostles, to be observed in all such cities where particular churches were planted, or, as one speaketh, in toto orbe 'throughout the world.'"

The Committee of the Anglo-Catholic Library are not persons who require to be informed, that something more is demanded in an editor, than industry in hunting out references, and transcribing scraps of Latin. Nor could this passage have presented an instant's difficulty to some whose names have stood on the list of the Committee from the commencement of the undertaking. But this is the very thing which the Subscribers have a right to complain of. They expected that the editors employed should have the benefit of co-operation and consultation with the Committee. They had a right to expect this. The Subscribers cannot be expected to feel satisfied with the unrevised performance of an anonymous editor. They had a right to expect, in the first place, that the Committee would not engage any one to edit a book until they had ascertained whether he was acquainted with the subject of which it treated. They had a right to expect also, that the Committee would exercise such a real and bonâ fide superintendence and control as should have prevented the possibility of any work, issued with the sanction of their names, containing a confession so strange and so humiliating, and manifesting a degree of editorial incompetency so disappointing to the Subscribers, and so discreditable to the literary and theological character of the country. The names of the gentlemen of the Committee must be regarded as a pledge and guarantee that no such case as this could occur. On the faith of that assurance, and in the hope of receiving valuable editions of our standard theology, as well as with a wish to encourage a most useful undertaking, many persons have given their names and their subscriptions. There is too much reason to think now that this assurance is of less value than could have been anticipated. And when proof so unquestionable is thus forced on one's notice, it can scarcely be thought surprising, that regret and disappointment should be expressed by one who has been, from the beginning,

—Are the muster rolls of the army that landed with King William at Torbay, or of the army that served in Ireland in 1690 and 1691, now to be met with, and if so, where? Any information on this subject will oblige