stones, we trust to be excused for passing on with dry eyes. There appears to have been attached to the northern aisle-probably corresponding in position with the old vestry—another chapel. In the Archiepiscopal Registry of Lambeth is the will of Walter Shiryngton, who directs his "wretched body to be buried in Waldone Chapel, within the Priory of St. Bartholomew, on the north side of the altar, in a tomb of marble there to be made, adjoining to the wall on the north side aforesaid:" dated at Barnes, Jan. 17, 1479. In a prior notice of this place, in the will of John Walden, 1417, it is styled the "New Chapel." These records there is no doubt are connected with one of the interesting recollections of St. Bartholomew, the burial of Roger Walden, Bishop of London, in the church here instead of in St. Paul's Cathedral, as was usual. We may say with Fuller, why he was so buried is too hard for us to resolve; but we have no doubt the chapel above referred to was built by or for him. "Never had any man," says Weaver, "better experience of the variable uncertainty of worldly felicity." Raised from the condition of a poor man by his industry and ability, he became successively Dean of York, Treasurer of Calais, Secretary to the King, and Treasurer of England. When Archbishop Arundel fell under the displeasure of Richard II., and was banished, Walden was made Primate of England. On the return of Arundel in company with Bolingbroke, and the ascent of the latter to the throne, Arundel of course resumed his archiepiscopal rank and functions, and Roger Walden became again a private individual. Arundel, however, behaved very nobly to the man whom he must have looked on as an usurper of his place, for he conferred on him the bishopric of London. Walden did not live long to be grateful for this very honourable and kindly act, for he died within the ensuing year. "He may be compared to one so jawfallen," says Fuller, in his usual quaint homely style, "with over long fasting, that he cannot eat meat when brought unto him; and his spirits were so depressed with his former ill fortunes, that he could not enjoy himself in his new unexpected happiness." A monument to the memory of Captain John Millet, mariner, 1660, begets reflections of a more amusing nature. He it appears was "Desirous hither to resort, the Because this parish was his port." In our account of the College of Physicians it will be remembered that one of persons against whom proceedings were taken for practising without its licence was Francis Anthony. The history of this individual, whom the author of the article in the Biographia Britannia' calls "a very learned physician and chemist," possesses, we think, sufficient interest to make it worth while to extract a few particulars from the work we have mentioned. The account, we must premise, is evidently written by a warm admirer. Francis Anthony took the degree of M.A. at Cambridge in 1574, and there, according to his own account, studied chemistry most sedulously. Soon after his arrival in London, about 1598, he published a treatise concerning the excellency of a medicine drawn from gold; but, not having received the licence of the College of Physicians, he was summoned before it in 1600, when he confessed that he had practised physic in London for more than six months, and had cured twenty persons or more of several diseases, to whom he had given purging and vomiting physic, and to others a diaphoretic medicine prepared from gold and mercury, as the case required. He was then examined, and, being found inexpert, interdicted from practice. About a month after he was committed to the Compter prison, and fined five pounds, but, upon his application to the Lord Chief Justice, was set at liberty. The College immediately sent the President and one of the Censors to wait on that dignitary, to request him to preserve and defend the College privileges. Mr. Anthony now submitted, promised to pay his fine, and practise no more. Not long after he was again accused of practising, and on his own confession fined five pounds, which he refused to pay; it was then raised to twenty pounds, and he was committed to prison till it was paid. The College also commenced a lawsuit against him, and obtained a judgment in its favour; but, on the entreaties of Mr. Anthony's wife, remitted their share of the penalty. These proceedings, however, appear to have benefited rather than injured him in the eye of the public; among other evidences of his popularity is that of his obtaining the degree of doctor of physic in one of the universities. New complaints were now made of his giving a certain nostrum, which he called aurum potabile, or potable gold, and which he was said to represent as an universal medicine. Dr. Anthony published " a very learned and modest defence of himself and his aurum potabile, in Latin, written with great decency, much skill in chemistry, and with an apparent knowledge in the theory and practice of physic." In the preface he says "that, after inexpressible labour, watching, and expense, he had, through the blessing of God, attained all he had sought for in his inquiries." In the second chapter of the work he affirms that his medicine is a kind of extract or honey of gold, capable of being dissolved in any liquor whatsoever; and, referring to the common objection of the affinity between the aurum potabile and the philosopher's stone, does not deny the transmutation of metals, but still shows that there is a great difference between the two; and that the finding or not finding of the one does not at all render it inevitable that the other shall also be discovered or remain hidden. The price of the medicine was five shillings an ounce. Wonderful cures of course are displayed in the doctor's pages. His publication produced quite a controversy on the merits of the aurum potabile. We need not wonder to find that Dr. Anthony had implicit believers in the value of his nostrum when we see the great chemist and philosopher Boyle thus commenting on such preparations :"Though I have long been prejudiced against the pretended aurum potabile, and other boasted preparations of gold, for most of which I have still no great esteem, yet I saw such extraordinary and surprising effects from the tincture of gold I spake of (prepared by two foreign physicians) upon persons of great note, with whom I was particularly acquainted, both before they fell desperately sick and after their strange recovery, that I could not but change my opinion for a very favourable one as to some preparations of gold.* Dr. Anthony enjoyed a very extensive and lucrative practice, and lived in great hospitality at his house in Bartholomew Close. He is said to have been very liberal, very pious, very modest, and of untainted probity. He died in 1623, and was buried in the church here, where we now read the following inscription set up by his son, who inherited from Dr. Anthony the reputation and profits of the aurum potabile : *Boyle's Abridgment of Shaw, v. 3, p. 586, quoted in Biog. Brit. "There needs no verse to beautify thy praise, Or keep in memory thy spotless name. Yet shall all they commend that high design That feel thy help by that thy rare invention." 66 Let us now enter the Choir, and, ascending the gallery to the side of the organ, from whence the view at the head of this paper is taken, gaze on the impressive and characteristic work before us, which seems scarcely less fresh and solid than when Rahere beheld in its vast piers and beautiful arches the realization of the vision for which he had so long yearned. We are standing in the centre of four arches of the most magnificent span, fit bearers of the great tower that they lifted so airily, as it were a thing of nought, into the air. Two of these are round, and two slightly pointed. The last (which were originally open and formed the commencement of the transepts) have been referred to as among the various instances of the occasional use of pointed arches by the Normans before their systematic introduction as a style. "The cause," says Mr. Britton, " is evident; for those sides of the tower being much narrower than the east and west divisions, which are formed of semicircular arches, it became necessary to carry the arches of the former to a point, in order to suit the oblong plan of the intersection, and at the same time make the upper mouldings and lines range with the corresponding members of the circular arches."* In each of the spandrels formed by these arches is a small lozenge-shaped panel containing ornaments which bear a striking resemblance to the Grecian honeysuckle, and deserve notice from their singularity. Behind us are arches showing the original continuation of the church into the nave. The roof is very ancient, and not particularly handsome looking. It consists of massy timbers, some of them braced up in the middle, apparently to prevent their falling. Prior Bolton's elegant oriel window in the second story appears to have been built as a kind of pew or seat, from which the Prior could overlook the canons when he pleased, without their being aware of his presence, as it communicated with his house at the eastern extremity of the church. The piers which support the range of pointed arches forming the uppermost story are, it will be perceived on referring to the engraving, pierced longitudinally, so as to leave open a passage all round the upper part of the building. The dimensions of the church are stated somewhat differently by different writers, and we have no means of reconciling the discrepancy. According to Malcolm, the height is about forty feet, the breadth sixty feet, and the length one hundred and thirty-eight feet; to which if we add eighty-seven feet for the length of the nave, we have two hundred and twenty-five feet as the entire length of the Priory church within the walls. Osborne, in his English Architecture,' gives the height as forty-seven feet, the breadth fifty-seven feet, and the length of the present church one hundred and thirty-two feet. We may here observe that when the fire broke out in 1830 the interior of the church was much injured, and the * Chronological History of Christian Architecture in England. entire pile had a narrow escape from destruction. A portion of the roof of the south aisle fell on that occasion, and showed it to be composed of rubble-work. The church has undergone numerous reparations and alterations-we wish we could add improvements. But, on the contrary, many parts appear to have been injured, if not wantonly, certainly from unworthy or insufficient reasons. Thus, in Henry VIII.'s time, as we have seen in our previous number, the sacred edifice had well nigh been entirely pulled down for the value of the materials. The erection of the brick tower in 1628 was little better than an architectural insult to the pride of the fine old Norman choir. And, as if the very sight of its magnificent arch-piers had become irksome, they have been cased round with wood, for no better reason, we presume, than that they were apt to leave undesirable marks on the coats of the congregation. But is that their fault? They are not plaster; nor, if they could speak, do we believe we should find them at all ambitious of whitewash. There are some interesting monuments in the Choir; among which we may mention the following:-A beautiful marble monument of a rich dark-brown or almost black colour contains a figure of a man in complete armour, kneeling under an alcove, two angels as supporters are drawing aside the curtains. This is Robert Chamberlain's. Nearly opposite is the monument of James Rivers, Esq., with this inscription :— "Within this hollow vault there rests the frame Of the high soul which once inform'd the same; Whose life and death design'd no other end Conquer'd the age, conquer'd himself and died." This was written in 1641, or just when the civil war was about to break out and deluge the country with the blood of its bravest and best children. Beyond is a sumptuously executed marble monument of great size, in memory of Sir Walter Mildmay, 1689, "displaying," says Mr. Godwin, "a mixture of the classic forms then becoming known, with the style which had been in general use." This gentleman, the founder of Emanuel College, Cambridge, held several offices under Henry VIII. and Edward VI., and was by Elizabeth made Chancellor of the Exchequer; who would, perhaps, have still further advanced him if he had been more obsequious to her wishes. Fuller says of him, "Being employed, by virtue of his place, to advance the Queen's treasure, he did it industriously, faithfully, and conscionably, without wronging the subject, being very tender of their privileges, insomuch that he once complained in Parliament that many subsidies were granted and no grievances redressed; which words being represented with disadvantage to the Queen made her to disaffect him ;" and so he was left "in a court cloud, but in the sunshine of his country and a clear conscience." In 1582 he was employed with Sir W. Cecil in a treaty with the unfortunate Queen of Scots, and a few years later in the melancholy affair of her trial and conviction. He was appointed by Elizabeth a fellow-commissioner with Burghley, and many other eminent and titled personages, to proceed to Fotheringhay Castle, whither Mary had been lately conveyed. The commissioners arrived there on the 11th |