"En toy qui est fitz de dieu le pere
Sauve soit qui gist sous ceste pierre."

On that in the hands of Mercy :

"O bon Jesu fait toy Mercy
A l'ame dont le corps gist icy."

On that belonging to Pity:

"Pour ta Pitie Jesu regarde,

Et mest ceste ame sauve-garde."

At present only the face of the middle figure remains, but all the scrolls are very fresh, and inscribed with Roman capitals on a gold ground. The figure of the poet in stone lies on the table of the tomb in a scarlet gown, with a gold collar of SS about his neck, his hair flowing and curled, his beard small and pointed, and a fillet with four roses round his head, which rests on the three books written by him and inscribed :

66

Speculum Meditantis, Vox Clamantis, & Confessio Amantis." The letters of these are likewise Roman capitals, though the original small black letters appear underneath where the plaster is broken off. At his feet is a broken lion, and above them on a shield in relief his arms Argent, on a chevron azure, three leopard's heads, or, langued proper. Crest a talbot sciant. Under the women are the following lines in Roman capitals also:

"Armigeri scutum nihil a modo fert tibi tutum
Reddidit immolutum morti generale tributum.
Spiritus erutum se gaudeat esse solutum,

Est ubi virtutum regnum sine labe statutum."

And on the ledge of the tomb this inscription in the same characters, the old one's appearing through:

"Hic jacet Johannes Gower arm. Anglorum poeta celeberrimus & huic sarco edific. benefact. insignis. vixit temporibus Ed."

The damage this whole monument has sustained by time is very small. I would therefore, by the channel of your useful Magazine, recommend it to the Society of Antiquaries to revive the beauty of this venerable piece, since the parishioners will not do it, nor suffer it to remain in its present state. There is no time to be lost, the principal repairs being nearly finished. Should any person not perfectly versed in the monumental style of that age be disposed to bestow any regard on this tomb, great care should be taken that the masons and painters do not scrape off any part of the ornaments, or alter the features of the face, which may possibly be as good a representation of the poet as the artists of those times could express. It is the only one we have, and may deserve a place among the illustrious heads as much as that of King Edward, from his statue over the gate of Carnarvon Castle, which is more exposed to the weather. They should likewise particularly attend to the dresses of

the women, which are of the religious kind, and to the forms of the letters and the spelling of the old French, which is certainly incorrectly printed in Stowe and the "History of Surrey."

[1823, Part II., p. 207.]

In the venerable church of St. Mary Overies, Southwark, is a monument to the memory of Richard Humble, Alderman of London, on which is the following poetical inscription :

"Like to the damask rose you see,

Or like the blossom on the tree,
Or like the dainty flower of May,
Or like the morning of the day,
Or like the sun, or like the shade,
Or like the gourd which Jonas had;
Even so is man whose thread is spun,
Drawn out, and cut, and so is done!
The rose withers, the blossom blasteth,
The flower fades, the morning hasteth,
The sun sets, the shadow lies,

The gourd consumes, the man he dies."

I had somewhere heard these lines ascribed to Quarles, the wellknown author of "Emblems," etc., and I hinted as much to Mr. Nightingale, who, in the recently-published description of the church, p. 92, agreed with me, and thought the figurative language of the inscription might well enough justify a conjecture of that kind. When, however, I read the poem by Strode, entitled "Of Death and Resurrection," in the July Magazine, p. 8 [see post, p. 175], so exactly resembling the above, not only in language and idea, but possessing all its quaintness of expression, so much so as to appear parodies on each other, I could scarcely fail in concluding that they were both written by the same person. I therefore send you the above copy of the inscription, on which, perhaps, E. Hood may be able to throw some further light.

The monument has no date, nor is the period of its erection given by Mr. Nightingale. By the prose inscription on it, it appears to have been erected, subsequent to the year 1616, by a descendant or relation of the Alderman. The style of the monument well agrees with the period at which both these poets lived, and it therefore affords no conclusion as to which of them the inscription was written by. As, however, such inquiries are, I believe, agreeable to the readers of the Gentleman's Magazine, you will probably think the above observations worthy of notice. E. I. C.

[1828, Part II., pp. 500-501.]

The much-talked-of and long-procrastinated repair of the magnificent parish church of St. Saviour, Southwark, is again brought before the vestry, and again opposed by the party who have hitherto been

the means of preventing the accomplishment of this desirable object. That so fine a church should remain in a state of neglect and decay in an age when the preservation of our national antiquities is so much encouraged argues very unfavourably for the intelligence and liberality of the Borough of Southwark; and it is to be deplored that so beautiful a memorial of past ages, interesting not only as a work of art, but for the historical recollections connected with it, should be at all under the control of persons who have neither taste to discern its beauties nor feeling to appreciate its merits.

The question at issue is whether Mr. Gwilt's plans for the gradual restoration of the church are to be proceeded with, or whether a new church in the style of the neighbouring meeting-houses is to usurp its place. Now one of the learned Thebans of the vestry having discovered that the buttresses are "underminded," argues most forcibly the necessity of taking down the present structure and building a new church.

Your readers will ask, Why are the parishioners so zealous for incurring an additional expense? The question is answered easily : Very large funds are at the command of the parish and available for the purpose; but if a two-penny rate had been wanted for the purpose either of repairing or re-edification, we should have seen these zealous church-builders among the first to cry out against rates and taxes for the maintenance of a church which they perhaps have only visited in their character of orators.

The choir, it is generally known, has been restored from the excellent designs of Mr. Gwilt; how well that has been effected is not my purpose to speak at present, the work being still unfinished. The transepts are now partitioned off from the church by whitewashed brick walls with mean glazed windows in them which were erected to prevent the repairs from interfering with divine service. The choir is occupied with temporary benches, and the pulpit set up in the middle of it, like the rostrum of a Dissenting meeting; in this unfinished state, to the detriment of the congregation and divine service (for seats for many hundreds of persons in the transepts are in consequence rendered useless), has the church remained for more than one year. From one of the handsomest parochial churches in London, St. Saviour's has degenerated into the meanest; it once looked like a cathedral, it now in some parts is little better than a barn.

The state of the church has never been publicly noticed with the attention it deserved, although the public press has more than once alluded to the subject, and, with that degree of historical accuracy so eminently displayed in the newspapers of the day, has gravely announced that the court in which the awful Bonner exercised his tyrannical and cruel sway actually exists in this church. Wonderful discovery!

To anyone who can justly appreciate the truly sublime features of Pointed architecture, of which the present church is so fine a specimen to any one who feels a respect for our unrivalled Established Church, the present disgraceful state of the building is a matter of profound grief; and it appears to me surprising that the interference of the diocesan has not been called forth to accomplish what the jarring members of the vestry will never effect. Let me, therefore, through your pages, call the attention of the public to the subject; let me entreat such persons as possess any influence in the world of taste to exert that influence to make the repairs of the church a national concern. To anticipate the attention of the members of either House of Parliament would not perhaps be delicate, as the subject will probably ere long occupy a portion of their attention; but when that event arrives, I trust the select but respectable body which exerts itself to uphold the present edifice will meet that support which its exertions deserve.

When we refer to what has been done at Malmesbury, Tewkesbury, and many other churches which possess no peculiar fund available for repairs; when even at Romsey what little has been done is well done, it will be seen that parishes possessing similar magnificent churches are proud of the treasures in their care, and that the parishioners exert themselves for the preservation of such treasures. There is scarcely a neighbourhood in England except the Boeotian spot above named in which the existence of an edifice like the present would not awaken not only enthusiastic, but universal, feelings in its favour; but to talk of pulling down such a church and building a flimsy new one in its place-the idea is insufferable!

Of Mr. Gwilt personally I know nothing; with his works at this church I am better acquainted. His designs for a portion of the unaccomplished restorations have been exhibited at Somerset House, and show that no falling off from the perfection displayed in the choir will occur. Whether, therefore, your readers agree with me as to the propriety of restoring the present church or not, I can at least claim the merit of having made this appeal without any interested or partial motives, in favour of a gentleman whom I never saw and whom I only know as a respectable, and certainly, judging by his designs in this church, a talented architect and who is, from many circumstances, the most proper person to accomplish the desirable work of restoration. E. I. C.

[1830, Part I., pp. 103-104.]

Strange and fearful rumours are once more afloat that the venerable and noble edifice of St. Mary Overy's, now St. Saviour's Church, Southwark, is about to be partially destroyed, through the sapience and economy of an official knot of worthy burghers, who,

though they may be very excellent and prudent judges of matters of business behind their counters (I speak it with no disrespect for commercial pursuits), are certainly totally disqualified from their habits and occupations to direct repairs or alterations in our public edifices. I will consider (by an extension of charity) that these voluntary desecrators of our fine old Gothic fanes are actuated by no puritanical hostility, arising from the assumed superior illumination of dissent against our national Church, although, alas! constituted as parish authorities now frequently are, such a feeling, either openly or insidiously, may acquire influence and prevail. I will consider them combined merely in a committee of economy, and that their intention is but summarily to get rid of such parts of the venerable edifice as it would require a considerable sum to repair. But will it be believed or endured, that in an age in which the architectural improvement of the British Metropolis is so much sought and pursued at a lavish expenditure, this noble and now almost solitary remnant of ancient ecclesiastical architecture within the limits of the City of London should be swept from the surface of the earth or disfigured on the paltry plea of pecuniary expediency? Is it of no importance to the effect of the magnificent bridge which is now in the course of rapid completion across the Thames, that its southern approach should be seen in combination with so splendid a monument of the piety of our forefathers?

When the destruction of the hall of Eltham Palace was meditated, some members of the British Senate thought proper to raise a strong and effectual protest in its favour; and will they suffer St. Saviour's Church, Southwark, to fall or be mutilated without a single word for its protection? I do not believe it. It is only because these things are, in the first place, meditated so secretly, and consummated so suddenly, that they are effected without the interference of the members of the legislative and executive Government. I call upon them not silently to suffer this ancient and striking feature of our national architecture to be disfigured or destroyed. I call upon the Society of Antiquaries of London, as a body, once more to exert whatever influence they may possess to arrest such a measure. Be the parish of St. Saviour's really too poor to undertake the restoration of the building, surely a few thousands (whatever the state of public finance) would be cheerfully conceded by the City of London or Parliament for so reasonable an object. Let the building be repaired as nearly as possible on the principles of the original construction of its existing parts. A successful specimen of such an attempt is exhibited at the east end of the church, although I think it was somewhat dearly bought by the destruction of the ancient chapel contiguous, and the monuments which it contained.

The space cleared for the approaches to the new London Bridge most fortunately will throw the old church completely open to view;