Charles I.; that his sermon was supposed to be somehow connected with one lately preached by Archbishop Abbot; that Laud was the mediator between the King and the Dean; that the King himself heard the sermon ;* that Walton is mistaken in saying that the King sent for Donne ; and that the speech which he is said to have made when the doctor's character was cleared, is the worthy biographer's own invention. Walton is also wrong in saying that the King was inclined to believe evil of Donne by the circumstance that "a person of nobility and great note, betwixt whom and Mr. Donne there had been a great friendship, was at that very time discarded the court, and justly committed to prison," if by this description he means Carr, Earl of Somerset ; since that person's fall happened so long before as 1615. After relating the story of the sermon, Walton proceeds, "he was made dean the fiftieth year of his age, and in his fifty-fourth, a dangerous sickness seized him," during which he composed his Devotions. If this statement were correct, Mr. Alford would be right (as Donne was born in 1573) in fixing on 1627 as the date of Letter 68, which was written when the Devotions were printed. But Mr. Alford elsewhere, (i. xvi.) rightly makes 1621 the year of the appointment to the deanery, and says that the illness was "three years later." In fact the Devotions were printed while Charles I. to whom they were dedicated, was yet Prince of Wales, i. e. before March 27th, 1625. (Comp. Letter 68, and vol. iii. p. 494.) Walton says that the anchor seals which Donne gave to his friends were made during his last illness, which is probably correct; but the biographer's words would also lead us to suppose that the device was then first adopted. Mr. Kempe has shown that this was not the case, and that Donne's ordination was more likely the event which led him to substitute the anchor for his old crest. This is confirmed by a comparison of some words in his poem on the seals, "Adscitus domui Domini, patrioque re licto Stemmate, nanciscor stemmata jure nova." with a passage in a sermon (vol. iv. p. 479.) "This is the first time in all The sermon is the 108th, "preached to the King at Whitehall, April 4, 1627." Donne writes (letter 75.) "The best of my hope is, that some overbold allusions or expressions in the way might divert his Majesty from vouchsafing to observe the frame and purpose of the sermon." Such passages as the following may be meant. "The Apostles, when they came in their peregrination to a new state, to a new court, to Rome itself, did not inquire, how stands the Emperor affected to Christ, and to the preaching of his Gospel? Is there not a sister or a wife that might be wrought upon to further the preaching of Christ? Are there not some persons, great in honour and place, that might be content to hold a party together, by admitting the preaching of Christ?" Again-" Very religious Kings may have had wives that may have retained some tincture, some impressions of error, which they may have sucked in their infancy from another church, and yet would be loth those wives should be publicly traduced to be heretics, or passionately proclaimed to be idolaters, for all that." + Walton's "custom of putting long speeches into the mouths" of his characters, which, as Mr. Keble says, (Pref. to Hooker, p. ii. ed. 1.) " deceives no one," is confessed by him in the Preface to his Life of Sanderson. In formerly noticing Mr. Alford's oversights as to this part of Donne's history, I allowed myself to be misled by one of his notes (on letter 16) into identifying the "Sir R. Karre" of Donne's correspondence with Somerset. The fact is, that there were four Sir Robert Kers in those days; (Nichols, "Progresses of James I." vol. ii. p. 412,) and that Donne's friend was he who was in 1633 created Earl of Ancrum. He is styled "now Earl of Ankerum" in the heading of letter 57, which appears to have been furnished by the first editor, as the letters appeared in 1651, and the Earl was then alive. Mr. Alford dates some of the letters to him too early. Sir Robert appears to have been dependent on a nobleman, (letters 19, 106, 109,) probably Somerset, who was his relation, and in 1614 (letter 49) introduced him into the Prince's bedchamber establishment. If "my Lord," then, mean Somerset, the letters in which he is mentioned must have been written after 1612, as that was the year in which he was raised to the peerage. Letter 104 was addressed to him when his title was Viscount Rochester. Donne speaks in a letter (50) written Dec. 20, 1614, of publishing his poems, and dedicating them to Somerset, who was then Lord Chamberlain, my life, I date my life from my ministry, for I received mercy,' as I received the ministry, as the Apostle speaks," &c. The mention of Donne's will in the Life reminds me that in the British Museum the will of his son John, which Ant. à Wood calls "fantastical and conceited," is bound up with certain broadsides by Baxter, Calamy, and others of the same way, in a volume labelled "Sayings of Pious Men," and that the Catalogue ascribes it to Dean Donne. Walton prints part of a letter written by Donne during his last illness, and gives as its date Jan. 7, 1630. Mr. Alford prints the whole, and tells us in a note that it was written in January 1630." It is surprising that he has followed Walton's statement, as there is proof in the part of the letter which Walton did not print, that it was written before Christmas. Mr. Alford seems not to be aware that the year was then reckoned to begin on the 25th of March. Thus, although he rightly states that Donne died on March 31, 1631, he dates the letters written in his last illness, as if they were of the winter of 1629-30. The same error has caused him to state (whether from a reckoning of his own, or after some other illustrator), that Donne's last sermon was preached on Feb. 12. Walton tells us that it was preached on the first Friday in Lent; which was Feb. 12, in 1629-30, but not in 1630-1, which is the year with which we are concerned.* I have now gone through Walton's Life; and, as in doing so I have often had to contradict him, it seems fit that I should here beg that I may not be thought insensible to the many and great merits of his delightful biographics. Dr. Ferriar, after filling a volume with an exposure of Sterne's plagiarisms, concluded it with a sonnet in honour of the author, whom he had been so laboriously pulling to pieces. If I were capable of writing sonnets worth the reading, I would willingly bestow a like tribute on the worthy Izaak Walton. As I have no such gift, I must now leave him, and shall proceed to make a few remarks on the notes which Mr. Alford has attached to the letters. Some of these, which relate to dates, have been already rectified, either in a general way or more particularly; of such I shall not say more; and a regard for your space forbids me to mention many of the others. Letter 1 is addressed "to my good friend G. H.," and bears date Dec. 12, 1600. The editor explains G. H. to mean George Herbert; and tells us that the letter was written during Donne's imprisonment after his marriage. On this it may be remarked, that the date is a year before the real time of the marriage, and three years before that which Mr. Alford elsewhere assigns for it; that Herbert was in 1600 only seven years old, and there is reason for believing that Donne did not know his family so early; and that it is very evident from the letter itself, that not Donne but G. H. was the prisoner. Donne was then secretary to the chancellor, and had been managing some business for his friend. Mr. Alford too had forgotten this letter when he wrote (I. xi.) that we have no record of Donne's having been in England between 1597 and 1603. Letter 32 is said to be " probably to Sir H. Goodyere, and written about 1609." This is one of those which, as has been said, belong to the year 1612. It has so much in common with 48, which was addressed to Sir H. G., that it can hardly have been meant for the same person. Letter 36. "Before 1610." Certainly a good deal later, although I have not the means by me of ascertaining the true date. Letter 38. "Probably written about 1610." The mention of Mr. Pory *See Sir H. Nicolas' "Chronology of History." By the way, Walton's account of an atheistical party, in his Life of Hooker, is in a great measure taken from a passage in one of Donne's Sermons, (vol. ii. pp. 354-5.) This circumstance may probably be noticed in Mr. Keble's second edition, which has not fallen in my way. The image of "preaching like an angel from a cloud," which occurs in the description of Donne's pulpit eloquence, is from one of Donne's poems (vol. vi. p. 565). shows that it was written abroad in 1612; probably from Spa. (Compare Letter 45.) Letter 40. "August 30, 1611." This date is not of Mr. Alford's conjecturing; but the allusion to a sermon might have led him to suspect it, as Donne was not ordained until 1615. The various circumstances which are mentioned in it-such as Sir Edward Herbert's embassy in France, the state of affairs in Germany, Boucquois' death, which, according to the Biographie Universelle, took place at Neuhaeusel, July 10, 1621, and my Lord of Canterbury's "accident," (i. e. Archbishop Abbot's having shot a keeper,) all show that 1621 is the year in which the letter was written. Letter 47. It seems questionable whether this was written "from Paris." Letter 60. "Probably in 1620." Rather about the same time with Letter 64, which is dated Oct. 11, 1621. Letter 61. "Written about 1620." While the Prince was abroad, in 1623. Letter 68 is dated "August 16th; here, 1622." There is abundant reason for concluding that 1622 must be a mistake for 1612. "Here" alludes to the difference of the New Style, used where the letter was written, from the Old Style, used in England. The editor's note on it is "most probably Frankfort." If so, Frankfort must be in the way from Spa, by Louvain, to England. Letter 70. "To the Honourable Knight Sir G. P." This letter would seem, by what is said about the son of the person to whom it is addressed, to have been written, like Letter 72, to Sir H. Goodreve. "Your son Sir Francis" would thus mean Sir Francis Nethersole, who married one of Sir Henry's daughters. Letters 71 and 72. The former of these was sent along with another, which had been written before it. The mention of the same public events in both, shews that the 72nd is the letter which accompanied the 71st. The last-written bears date 24th Sept. without mention of the year; the other alludes to Donne's sermon at St. Paul's Cross, on the injunctions for catechizing, which was preached Sept. 15, 1622. Mr. Alford dates both "probably 1623." Letter 80. Probably in January 1630." The reason of this conjecture would seem to have been, that the letter mentions a report of Donne's death, and it appears from the next in the collection, that there was such a report during his last illness. But this was written during the lifetime of "the duke" (Buckingham), and therefore before August 1628. Again, it was written from Chelsea, where Sir John Danvers lived, and where George Herbert then was, and therefore probably before the death of Herbert's mother, Lady Danvers, in June 1627. Although it had been rumoured that Donne was dead, it does not appear that he had been ill. A pestilence was then raging, which gave rise to the story. The letter was written on the 21st of December, which Mr. Alford has overlooked. On Jan. 15, 1625-6, Donne preached at St. Dunstan's "the first sermon after our dispersion by the sickness." (150.) It would seem, therefore, that Dec. 21, 1625, is the true date of the letter. In his funeral sermon on Lady Danvers, Donne says that he had been an inmate of her house during a time of general sickness not long before. The only other observation which I shall now make on the late edition, relates to the portrait prefixed to it, the original of which, according to the editor, is the work of Vandyck. That painter was born in 1599. In 1619 he left the school of Rubens, and in the same year Donne visited Germany. But as Vandyck proceeded southwards from Antwerp, on his way to Italy, and Donne both went and returned by Holland, (Comp. Brewer's Goodman, ii. 195, and Donne's Sermons, 148, 149, 72.) it seems impossible * Donne is made to write "I have been sometimes with My Lord of Canterbury since by accident, to give you his own words." For by we ought to read the. Mr. Alford must have been misinformed when he said that Leicestershire was the scene of the homicide (note on Letter 63), as the dispensation issued to the Archbishop, (Cardwell, Doc. Ann. ii. p. 137), describes it as having taken place "in parco quodam vocato Bramzil-park, apud Bramzil, in comitatu nostro Southampton." It was at Bramshill, the seat of Lord Zouch. that they should have met; and thus, as Donue never was abroad afterwards, the picture, if by Vandyck, must have been painted in England. Now his first visit to this country was in 1626, when he met with little encouragement, and remained but a short time; nor did he return until 1631, on the 31st of March in which year Donne died. These circumstances make it very improbable that Vandyck was the painter. Perhaps the portrait may have been painted by some Fleming, while Donne was abroad with Sir R. Drury in 1612. The apparent age of the subject agrees with this supposition, in so far, at least, as we can judge from the print, which Mr. Alford declares to be "beautiful," but denounces as incorrect. When I formerly ventured to question whether the dress were that of a clergyman, the editor replied that the portrait in an early edition of the Ductor Dubitantium exhibits Bp. Taylor in the same costume. At the time of noticing this answer, (see Brit. Mag. for August 1839,) I had not seen the portrait to which Mr. Alford refers, and therefore allowed the statement to pass. I am not disposed to insist that Donne's dress cannot be clerical; but it may be observed that Taylor wears a cassock, and Donne a jacket; that Taylor has a scullcap and a scarf, and Donne has neither. These points of difference are just what would distinguish the dress of a clergyman from that of a layman. The 42nd Letter contains some words which remind one of Milton's lines on Shakespeare: "I am not come out of England, if I remain in the noblest part of it, your mind; No prince would be loth to die, that were assured of so fair a tomb to preserve his memory." Unless Milton saw the letter in MS., he cannot have borrowed from it, as his lines were printed in 1632, i. e. nineteen years before Donne's Letters. It is probable, however, that both authors got the idea from some earlier source; and this may very possibly be pointed out in some editions of Milton, which I have not at present an opportunity of consulting. Yours, &c. J. C. ROBERTSON. Boxley, Maidstone, March 22, 1841, MAUSOLEUM AT BELVOIR CASTLE. THE accompanying Plate, which forms one of the embellishments to the Rev. Irvin Eller's History of Belvoir Castle, and for the use of which we are indebted to the publisher of that work,* Mr. Ridge, of Grantham, represents the interior of the Mausoleum erected by the present Duke of Rutland, near Belvoir Castle, together with the monument of the late Duchess, the style of which will at once be recognised as that of Mr. Matthew Wyatt, from its resemblance to the monument of the Princess Charlotte of Wales, erected by the same artist in St. George's Chapel, Windsor. "So effectually secluded from observation is this last resting-place of mortality, that, though there are several by-paths which lead to its site, See the review department of our present Magazine. the uninformed stranger would, in all probability, pass it repeatedly without being conscious of its presence. On every side but the avenue by which it is approached, the Mausoleum is fenced by high paling of closely set boards; which are themselves overtopped, in the inside, by thickly spreading laurels. It is only by application to the head porter at the Castle, that access can be obtained to the Mausoleum. After opening a boarded gate, the porter leaves the visitors at the entrance of the avenue, till he has unclosed the gates of the Mausoleum. The sombre avenue, with its aged yews and firs, is no inappropriate introduction to the scene that follows. When the lamented Duchess selected this as her resting-place, it is probable that it was recommended to her judgment by its seclusion and the character of the scenery. As soon as the exterior folding doors are opened, a pair of magnificent brass gates present themselves, and through them is seen the tomb and sculptured representation of the Duchess, as in the act of ascending to the clouds above! I have observed the effect of this scene under almost every variety of atmosphere; I have accompanied friends of almost every shade of temperament; memory has pondered again and again upon the subject; yet, neither from the resources of my own mind, nor that of others, can I obtain words which will at all adequately describe the impressions made by this scene. "It was the especial wish, I believe, of the architect, and some of his Grace's friends, that the Mausoleum should be of marble, and of Grecian architecture. Fortunately for the principles of good taste, obstacles, almost insuperable in their nature, prevented the carrying out of this design. It was eventually decided that the Norman style should be adopted, and from models actually in existence in Normandy. "If it be allowed to apply to a building dedicated to the special purpose of burials only, the general terms of ecclesiastical architecture, I would describe the Mausoleum as consisting of a porch, the projection for which is continued to the same elevation with the rest of the building; a nave, a chancel, and an angular apsis. The circular arch of the porch is decorated with mouldings of a zig-zag character, and roses of the field; and springs from piers with detached columns, whose capitals are ornamented with boldly sculptured leaves. The elaborate iron work on the doors was modelled from that on a door in an entrance of beau tiful Norman character, in the south side of Sempringham church in Lincolnshire. Over the arch is a corbel table, consisting of grotesque heads alternately with a dotted lozenge moulding. Above this is a parapet, with a nebulé corbel table. The roof of the porch is vaulted and intersected with ribs springing from flowered corbels at the four corners. The porch is separated from the nave by the superb brass gates before alluded to; which are hung in a plain round arch. On these gates are the cyphers E. R. intertwined, and a ducal coronet. GENT. MAG. VOL. XVI. At each "The nave is a square, the side of which is twenty three-quarter feet. The floor, a mosaic of freestone and black marble, has, in the centre, the ventilator of the vault beneath. angle are four massive Norman columns with plain bases, and having capitals foliated in a triple series; from which spring a corresponding number of ribs ornamented with zigzag moulding; and at the point of intersection, with a boss, on which are sculptured the Rutland arms. The circular-headed windows of this portion of the Mausoleum, are also decorated on the face with zig-zag mouldings; the sides and soffits being boldly splayed in the interior. The arch of entrance to what has been denominated the chancel, is a remarkably effective specimen of Norman work, in the massiveness of its constituent parts, the richness of its decorations, and the general breadth of its appearance. The floor is an area of mosaic, consisting of entrochi and black marble. The length of the chancel is eleven feet four inches; its breadth within the bases of the piers, ten feet six inches. "Within the apsis is the beautiful memorial of the departed Duchess. A sort of low altar tomb, of statuary marble, bevelled off at the sides so as to have something of the appearance of the coffin, is decorated with niches, in which are emblematical figures representing Faith, Hope, and Charity, Resignation, or self-government, Britannia, and Fortune with a bandage. The Duchess is represented as rising from the tomb, with expanded arms, and the face elevated towards the clouds, in which are seen four cherubs, the children who have preceded her to the grave,-one of whom is holding over her a crown of glory. The group is lighted from above, and from the two sides, by windows of glass stained with ruby, amethyst, topaz, and emerald colours. This arrangement of the light is judiciously contrived so as not to be obvious to the visitor, except upon close examination. The sculptor employed on the occasion was Matthew Wyatt. "The foundation stone of the Mausoleum was laid by his Royal Highness the Duke of York, March 1, 1826. The plans for the elevation, F |