probably the case as to some part of them; Durham, it is said, was a county palatine in which the Bishop had a separate and independent jurisdiction; and as to the other counties, the most probable reason is that the country was in a state of total devastation, which could yield nothing to the Exchequer, and was therefore not thought worth the trouble of a survey. Sir H. Ellis has pointed out that at p. 301 b. of the first volume of Domesday, after the enumeration of the names of no less than sixtyone places in Agemundreness, now Amounderness in Lancashire, it is said, 'All these vills lie at Prestune, and three churches. Sixteen of them have very few inhabitants. But it is unknown how many inhabitants there are. The rest are waste. Roger Poitou held them." The Chroniclers all agree in representing the north country as having been the scene of the most terrible and disastrous devastation. The inhabitants were indiscriminately massacred; their flocks butchered; their dwellings and the fruits of the earth consumed by fire; no thing over which man had power escaped the fury of the Conqueror. William of Malmesbury, who wrote probably about seventy years afterwards, states that for more than sixty miles, the ground, totally uncultivated and unproductive, remained bare in his time. What particular tract of country is here alluded to, is not clear; but it was probably along the line of the eastern coast, as one pretext for this barbarous policy was that it would hinder the landing of the Danes; at any event, Malmesbury could not refer generally to the county of Durham, as is shown by the evidence of the Boldon Book, compiled no very long time afterwards. Indeed, Boldon Book may be taken to prove that total devastation was not the occasion of the omission of Durham from Domesday. Had that county been subjected to the hard measure' which the Conqueror inflicted upon other districts, the time which intervened between the Survey and Boldon Book, would not have sufficed to restore it to the condition in which it is represented by the latter authority. The cause must therefore be sought in the Palatinate jurisdiction of the Bishop, or in some other reason. The importance of Boldon Book is thus explained in Sir Henry Ellis's Introduction : "I. It is a valuable supplement to Domesday Book, supplying a material defect in that Record. II. It is of great importance to the see and palatinate of Durham, as it is frequently appealed to, and has been admitted as evidence in trials at law, on the part of succeeding Bishops, to ascertain their property and seignorial rights. III. It serves to cast lights on ancient tenures, customs, manners, and services. IV. It contains many words which are not found in Ducange, nor any of his continuators; the meaning of which from their connection with others, well understood in the Boldon Book, may in general be easily ascertained. V. It contains several curious references to the mode of living among our ancestors in the twelfth century, their amusements, diet, coin, the price of labour, &c. &c. which may furnish the antiquary and historian with valuable materials, either for a more improved topographical history of the palatinate in particular, or for a more accurate account of English customs and manners in the twelfth century in general. As a supplement to Domesday Book it is peculiarly valuable." (Introd. to Boldon Book.) The Introductions to the four minor Records contained in the supplementary volume, as well as the General Introduction to Domesday, proceeded from the pen of Sir Henry Ellis. The smaller Introductions are slight matters; but the other is of a more important character, and worthy of its author's antiquarian reputation. It was first written in the year 1813, but since that time Sir Henry Ellis states that he has not ceased to amass every kind of information calculated to throw light upon the subject. These labours coming to the knowledge of the present Record Commis. sioners, they directed that the Introduction should be reprinted, with such improvements as had occurred to the author, and accompanied by the Indexes we have before noticed. (Gentleman's Magazine, New Series, vol. I. 510.) With the exception of the seventh section of the second division, which is materially improved, the addi tions are not very frequent, and perhaps would not of themselves furnish reason for a reprint of the Introduction. The difference in the size of the publication, however, will have a tendency to make it more generally known, and sufficiently justifies the reprint. The Introduction is divided into five parts, which treat of the following particulars. I. The formation of the Record. II. The principal matters noticed in it. III. The original uses and consequences of the Survey. IV. Its conservation and authority in Courts of Law; and V. Its publication. The second of these divisions gave opportunity for the introduction of a great deal of miscellaneous matter relative to-the classes of persons mentioned in the Survey; the different descriptions and admeasurements of land, forests, vineyards, mills, salt-works, iron and lead-works, the different denominations of money and mints; territorial jurisdiction, and the franchises of cities and burghs; tenures and services; civil and criminal jurisdictions; ecclesiastical matters; historical events noticed in the record, and illustrations of ancient manners. Such a variety of topics furnished many opportunities for the display of Sir Henry Ellis's acquaintance with our antiquarian literature. Many facts had been before collected by Kelham, Russell, (in Nichols's History of Leicestershire,) and other commentators upon Domesday; of these Sir H. Ellis availed himself, and added to them the results of a very careful examination of the Record itself. We cannot, however, think that the illustration of Domesday is yet complete. Many points have been omitted, many but cursorily investigated, and there are many that might be further illustrated by a comparison with the ancient institutions of other countries; without, however, anticipating what may be done hereafter, we acknowledge our thankfulness for the labours of Sir H. Ellis, and cordially recommend his work to general attention as one that is more creditable to this branch of our literature than any other similar work that has proceeded from the Record Commission. For the benefit of our friends the topographers we shall conclude with a note inserted at page 41, vol. I. of the reprint of the Introduction, which contains a hint that may be useful to them. "It may be of service to County Historians to state here that local inquiries will often ascertain the sites of places mentioned in Domesday, of which all memory is supposed to be lost; and that the names of places in this Survey are not in every instance those of villages, but frequently of manors, and sometimes of very small and insignificant portions of land. Instances from two or three counties will be sufficient to put the topographical antiquary upon the alert in his search. In Surrey, for instance, Waletone, tom. 1, fol. 30, now Wallington, and, Cisedeun, fol. 36 b, are places in the vill of Beddington: the former known at this time, the latter unknown: Hackeham, fol. 31 b, is a manor in Camberwell; Belgeham, fol. 36, is Balham in the parish of Streatham. Witford, twice mentioned, foll. 31 b, 35 b, was a hamlet of Mitcham, the only memorial of which is now preserved in the name of a lane between Upper and Lower Mitcham. Aplestede in Hampshire, tom. 1, fol. 45 b, was in Southwick; its site is alone designated in a charter of the time of Edward I. entered in the Register of Southwick Priory. In Berkshire, tom. 1, fol. 61 b, Elentone, is Ealingtone, or South Elington, where now stands the town of Maidenhead. In Middlesex, tom. 1, fol. 129, Hatone will be found in the parish of Bedfont; Ticheham and Coleham in Hillingdon; and Cheneton is Hempton in Sunbury; Hergotestane, fol. 130, is Haggerston in the parish of Shoreditch, and Lilestone is Lisson green in Paddington. Among the lands of Geoffrey de Mandeville in Middlesex, in the hundred of Ossulston, we find Eia entered in Domesday, tom. 1, fol. 129 b. Our topographers have omitted to say where this property stood. From the Chartulary of Westminster Abbey, however, we learn that close upon the time when the Survey was taken, Geoffrey de Mandeville gave this manor of Eye, described as at no great distance from St. Peter's Church, to the Abbat and Convent of that place. See the Chartulary of Westminster, MS. Cotton. Faust. A. III. fol. 281 b. King William's confirmation of the grant occurs in fol. 57 b. This same manor, with various other lands, was exchanged by the name of Eyebury, with Henry VIII. in the 28th year of his reign, for the priory of Hurley and various other possessions, by the Abbat and GENT. MAG. VOL. II. 2 Z Convent. See Stat. of the Realm, 28 Hen. VIII. 1536, cap. 49, vol. III. p. 709. It now belongs to the Marquis of Westminster, still bears the name of Eyebury, and is situated toward Chelsea, in the parish of St. George, Hanover-square, though formerly in that of St. Martin in the Fields." Many of our readers may remember that the manor of Eia, or Eye, was amongst the subjects treated by Mr. Saunders in his communication to the Society of Antiquaries upon the boundaries of Westminster, mentioned Gent. Mag. N. S. vol. I. p. 94. Ebury-street, Square, and Chapel, now perpetuate the memory of the manor of 'Eyebury.' ORIGINAL POETRY. TRANSLATION OF PETRARCH'S SONNET TO THE RHONE. BY THE REV. J. MITFORD. GREAT River! rushing from thine Alpine hold, Of sweetest verdure, and serener air, Till the great Ocean greet thee. There she shines, With brightest garlands gilds thy ling'ring stream. Bathe her white hand, and bid thy waters kiss That creeps, and murmurs on its pebbly shore. NATHAN'S KIEVE, The name of a beautiful waterfall, situated in a retired valley running up from the sea, between Boscastle and Tintadgel on the northern coast of Cornwall. The spot is so sequestered, and the fall so concealed by overhanging rocks, that a stranger following the course of the stream up the glen, and coming upon it unexpectedly, might, with small help from fancy,' imagine himself the first discoverer of a scene so solitary. A stream, a lovely stream, eternally Pouring wild music down the rocky dell; But far within the depths of yonder nook, Rush down the cliff, as from a Naiad's urn: Here, here to sit, and cherish many a dream Of hours that people memory's storied cell, Lovely, most lovely-human tread profane Wild haunt of golden visions, such as fling Yes there are thousand forms of earth and sky That heavenly hour when all is poesy, Along their lov'd untrodden valley glide; On high they wave their joyous plumes, and weave Nor unremembered be the Poet's theme, The beauty of that legendary tale Of those, whose lives roll'd onwards as a dream, A home, but not of peace—the vigil lone, For deeds of former years would fain atone, Time passed-at length that fearful penance closed, Immediately above the fall are the remains of a small hut, which, as the legend runs, was tenanted some centuries since, by two females, who came, none could tell from whence, and spent the remainder of their lives in this lonely spot. There was a mysterious dignity about them; their very names were unknown, and their story is still related by the peasants of the country with feelings of reverential awe. THE PRIORY CHURCH OF CHRIST-CHURCH, HANTS. 105, Great Russell-st. MR. URBAN, July 18. IN your Review of the architectural department of this year's exhibition at Somerset House, among the drawings noticed (July, p. 80), I perceive The Restoration of the priory church of Christ-church, to its presumed design previous to the Reformation." As the author of this attempt, I am induced to offer a few words explanatory of my views, in the composition and arrangement of the several parts of the restoration. Should I be pursuing an irregular course in this step, I must claim your kind consideration, my motive being only to answer the inquiries apparently implied by the expressions used in your critique. My publication on the antiquities of Christ-church, which you referred to as progressing, I have now the satisfaction of stating to you, is completed; in it will be found all that relates to, and which has guided me in the renovation of the several portions of the building. The evidence which is quoted, as justifying the different features adopted in my design, is perhaps not so explicitly worded in the title to my drawing as might have been satisfactory to my own mind; but as the regulations of the institution demanded conciseness of superscription, I endeavoured to avoid being verbose. The authorities given in my work, consist of recorded documents, and deductions which are clearly warranted by a practical consideration of the present state of the edifice; from the deficiencies of the former our only conclusions can be drawn from the latter, and were this course more frequently pursued, the investigation would amply repay the inquirer by developing much that is curious and interesting in construction, and which too often is altogether neglected, or considered of very minor importance. My studies having been particularly directed to this object (during several tours with my late respected friend, Mr. Pugin, whose scientific works are too well known to require my encomiums), I can bear humble testimony to this description of research, and impressed with its value, can highly appreciate the talents of my friend, Mr. Garbett of Winchester; this gentleman has kindly favoured me with a communication of great interest upon the church at Christ-church, whose observations carry with them almost indisputable evidence of truth, and, in the absence of recorded facts on the various portions to which he refers, may safely be received as practically correct. With this belief, in connection with such information as 1 could glean from the "Historia Fundationis Conobi de Twynham," (given in the Appendix, No. 1. of my work) I have constituted my restoration of the main portions of the fabric. In reference to the ornamental details, I have endeavoured to render them suitable to those still existing, and consonant with the particular date, and other accredited works of the architect Flambard. The foregoing observations being intruded on your notice, I will not occupy more space in your valuable periodical, than the reply to your notice requires. Tradition then states, that the four main points at the junction of the nave, choir, and transepts, formerly supported a superstructure. That a tower (and perhaps a spire) formed a part of the intention of the original founder, we can entertain no doubt: so distinguishing a trait in conventual buildings must have been contemplated in the priory church of Christchurch, and indeed that it was carried into effect, although subsequently destroyed through some casualty, there seems abundant proof, in the shattered appearances still remaining near its precincts. In page 81 of my work, will be found Mr. Garbett's inquiry on this subject, with whose conclusion I perfectly agree. The two lower windows of the Tower introduced in my drawing may yet be traced in the (now) eastern gable of the nave roof, and also some portions of the staircase turret at the north-west angle of the tower are still discoverable. On these remains I have erected my tower and spire, the former in the characteristic |