whose phlegmatic disposition perhaps saved her from the fate of her un

happy predecessor. At her death it again reverted to the Crown, and was granted by Queen Mary, on 16th of January, 1557, to Sir Edward Waldegrave, as a reward for his loyalty and attachment to his royal mistress: qualities which, on the accession of Elizabeth, procured his committal to the Tower, where he died in the third year of that arbitrary reign. In the family of Waldegrave it remained until 1715, when it was sold by James Lord Waldegrave to Sir William Humphreys, Bart. Lord Mayor of London, by which transfer it became for the second time the property of a merchant; thirty years after this period, in 1745, the mansion was again sold by the grand-daughter of Sir William Humphreys to Timothy Waldo, Esq. of Clapham, afterwards Sir Timothy Waldo, and in this family it at present remains. The existing structure, though by no means so extensive as many of the residences of ancient families, still possesses many features of grandeur and magnificence. The architecture exhibits the periods of its occupancy by the Hevers, the Bullens, and the Waldegraves; and to some members of the latter family are owing those extensive alterations, which we shall proceed to notice, and which have materially affected the original character of the edifice.

The buildings form a quadrangular pile, being, as may be inferred from the above statement of the vicissitudes of its history, the work of several periods, and constitute rather a castellated mansion than a castle in an architectural sense of the term.

The mansion together with the garden is surrounded by a moat, which is still filled with water. The entrance gateway is the most ancient portion of the structure; and, although it has in common with the rest of the building sustained alterations in the Tudor period, it still displays the character of the architecture of the reign of Edward the Third, and is the only feature of the pile which at all partakes of the character of a castle.

The entrance is formed by a low pointed arch commonly seen in castle gateways, but which is not to be confounded with the four centered

arches of the Tudor period. The form had many advantages, it more readily accommodated itself to the portcullis, and at the same time it allowed not only of the construction of a room above, but it made a smaller opening in the wall than an acutely pointed one I would have done.

The roof or ceiling of this arch of entrance is ribbed with pointed arches, the intervals filled up with masonry, and has grooves for the working of the three portcullises which guarded the entrance: the two external portcullises, or rather their representatives, remain; the one in the interior has been removed.

The soffite of the arch is also pierced in the intervals between the ribs with holes, for the purposes of showering down combustibles on the assailants; and these with the machicolations at the summits, and arrow slits in different parts of the walls, show that the gateway was possessed of all the ancient means of defence and annoyance, and, when viewed in conjunction with the remainder of the structure, appear to be more than necessary for the defence of the mansion, which nowhere possesses an equal degree of strength, circumstances which show plainly that this gate is the relic of an older structure.

The tracery seen on the face of the buttresses at the sides of the arch of entrance is of an earlier period than the occupancy of the Bullens, to whom may be assigned the quadrilateral windows seen in the remainder of the elevation of the gate-house. The residence of the Cobhams being at Sterborough Castle, in the immediate neighbourhood, it is not probable that Hever was used for that purpose from the period of the death of William de Hever until its purchase by Sir Geoffrey Bullen: it is therefore unlikely that the gateway should be erected in this interval; and as the architecture plainly bespeaks an earlier period than that in which it became the residence of the Bullens, there can be no impropriety in considering it as a part of the structure which formed the residence of the Hevers, and probably received its present appearance, if it was not wholly built, by the last possessor of that name. The remainder of the front is com

posed of two wings, flanking the gatehouse, having square towers at the angles furnished with cruciform arrow slits, also portions of the earlier pile. The windows, it will be remarked, in this wing, are occupied by mullions without the accompaniment of arched heads-a feature which is seen in most of the windows of the castle, proving that they are alterations of a period even later than the time of the Tudors, when the mullions of windows were almost universally surmounted by an arched head, including five sweeps.

The western flank of the castle shown in the engraving is terminated with the gable of what was once the hall. The back front is entire, in the same general style; it shows an octagon tower staircase, and the remains of the oriel window of the hall. The wall is surmounted by gables which originally may have constituted dormer windows to the hall. The eastern flank closely resembles the western, preserving an uniformity in the design of the structure. The whole of the external walls are built of the sandstone of the county.

The gables and chimney shafts have been altered from their original design, but not very materially; the windows have sustained the greatest injury by the removal of the small arches and the inclosed sweeps which surmounted each light. These alterations must have been made some time after the castle came into the possession of Lord Waldegrave; and, viewed in connexion with the fittings up of the interior, lead to the conclusion that a very material alteration of the structure took place about the reign of James the First.

Entering by the gate, a court yard presents itself, the dimensions of which have been considerably contracted from their original proportions by the extension of the surrounding buildings into the area: these buildings are constructed of timber and plaster; the former so disposed as to form panels. Both sides are uniform, each having a doorway and two bow windows ranging in height equal to the rest of the elevetion. On the further side of the court, a passage leads through the hall to the garden, and at the same time

affords access to the domestic apart

ments.

The hall in its present state adds nothing to the appearance of the entire structure, of which it no longer forms a separate feature. On the side towards the court it is concealed by an additional building which has been raised aginst the wall for the purpose of containing a staircase to the apartments, constructed in the upper portion. Internally, the hall is divided by a floor, the lower story forming a kitchen or servants' hall; it possesses a spacious fireplace, and a screen at the lower end covering the passage, affords a faint indication of the former grandeur of the apartment. The screen itself is not ancient; but, in common with the woodwork of the rest of the interior, is of Italian architecture, shewn in pilasters; the decorations are very sparingly applied, and are certainly not older than the age of Charles the First the remainder of this room has nothing worthy of remark. The upper part of the hall has been formed into a long and unsightly gallery, styled the ball-room, surrounded with wainscoting, decorated with Ionic pilasters in a very plain style; the ceiling is simple plastering, concealing the old timber roof, and in consequence of its situation it takes the form of a truncated gable. On one side of the room are recesses occupying the gables spoken of on the exterior, and also a portion of the oriel window of the hall. At one of these galleries a trapdoor is lifted up and discloses a dark place, ridiculously styled the "dungeon;" it is merely a void space between the two stories into which the interior of the hall is divided.

In the way up to this gallery a room is shown as that of Anne Bullen: the wainscot frontispiece to the chimney, has Ionic terminal pilasters, and may be of the time of James I. it is certainly not earlier. A dark recess or closet at one corner, occupying the turret before described, is said to have been her study.

The bedstead and furniture shown in

this room as Anne Bullen's, may possibly be coeval with Queen Anne; there is no pretence for saying they are older.

In the western range of building, at the left hand side of the quadrangle,

the upper apartments show a flat ceiling of plaster with mouldings, running into a plain geometrical pattern, very common in old houses. This may be a remnant of the long gallery; it is now divided into several apartments. The age is certainly not earlier than the date before assigned to the more modern portion of the structure. In the windows of the staircase, leading from the hall to the upper apartments, are the following shields of arms in stained glass, the first four surrounded with the order of the Garter. No. I. (reversed in the glazing) quarterly of 8. 1. Arg. a chevron Gu. between 3 bull's heads couped Sa. Bullen; 2. Quarterly Sa. and Arg. Hoo; 3. Az. a fesse Or, between two cotices dancettée Arg. ; 4. Azure, three martlets Argent; 5. Ermine, a chief Sable, charged with three crosses patée Argent; 6. Azure, a fret and chief Or, St. Leger; 7. Per bend wavy Sable and Argent; 8. Azure, three fleurs-delis and a chief engrailed Argent; being the shield of Sir Thomas Bullen, Earl of Wiltshire and Ormond: it impales quarterly, 1. Gules, a bend between six cross-crosslets fitchée Argent, Howard; 2. Gules, 3 lions passant gardant in pale Or, a label of three points Argent, Brotherton; 3. Chequée Or and Azure, Warren; 4. Gules, a lion rampant Argent, Mowbray; being the arms of Elizabeth, wife of Sir Thos. Bullen, and a daughter of Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk.

No. II. quarterly of 5 coats: 1. Bullen; 2. Per fesse indented Azure and Or; 3. Hoo; 4. Argent, a lion rampant Sable; 5. Azure, a fesse between six quatrefoils Or. No. III. quarterly Howard, Brotherton, Warren, and Mowbray. No. IV. repetition of No. II. No. V. defaced, probably the same as last. No. VI. a shield made up of fragments. No. VII. Per fesse indented

They appear to be the same as the following, which are given by Hasted. -In windows of Hever Castle, these arms-Arg. three buckles Gu. within the Garter; a shield of four coats, Howard, Brotherton, Warren, and Mowbray, Arg. 3 buckles Gules; a shield of eight coats, viz. Bulleyn, Hoo, St. Omer, Malmains, Wickingham, St. Leger, Wallop, and Ormond; and one in hall, Per pale Arg. and Gules, for Waldegrave. Hasted, vol. i. p. 395.

Azure and Or. No. VIII. quarterly, 1 and 4 Bullen, 2 and 3 Per fesse indented Azure and Or, an escutcheon of pretence, Quarterly Sa. and Argent, Hoo, Sir Geoffrey Bullen, knight, and Anne his wife, daughter of Thomas Lord Hoo and Hastings.* No. IX. Per pale Gules and Argent, a crescent for difference Or, for Waldegrave.

In 1831 the room which occupies the upper part of the gateway was fitted up by Mr. P. F. Robinson in the Gothic style. The wainscoting is partly ancient and partly modern; immediately above the fireplace is a fascia of ancient shields in oak, on which are carved the initial letters M-IHS, and the arms of France. Above this are two angels, each bearing two shields painted with the following armorial bearings (modern).

1. Arg. on a bend Sable 3 roses of the First, barbed Vert, seeded Or; impaling Arg. a chevron Gules, between three bull's heads Sable; a scroll below inscribed "Carey and Boleyn," for Mary, the second daughter of Sir Thomas Bullen, Earl of Wiltshire, and wife of William Carey, Esq.

2. Carey, impaling Argent, a bend Azure between six leopard's faces Gules, inscribed "Carey and Waldo."

3. Bullen impaling Howard, the bend charged with the augmentation, inscribed "Boleyn and Howard." If the artist who painted this shield had consulted the glass existing in the hall, he would have found that the alliance between the Howards and Bullens preceded the grant of augmentation to the first named family.

The fourth shield bears the Royal arms impaling Bullen, inscribed "K. Hen. VIII. and Boleyn."

The ceiling is paneled by oak ribs with gold bosses at the angles. At one end is a gallery which is decorated with a double rose, H. A. crowned, and a falcon on a mount, holding a sceptre, which badges are of modern execution.

In the room is some old furniture and a collection of portraits, of which one is shown as Anne Boleyn, but the features have an appearance of age beyond that of the unfortunate Queen.

This mansion, in common with the great majority of ancient structures, is *This coat is not coeval with the parties.

AT the commencement of the year now closed, I undertook to prove, to the satisfaction of Mr. Logan or any of your learned readers,-1st, That the Welsh is not a dialect of the Gaëlic; and, 2ndly, as a consequence, that the Gaël and Cymbri are not, as is generally believed, of the same origin; 3rdly, that the Gaëlic has no connexion whatever with the languages called Semitic; and, 4thly, that it bears no resemblance to that remnant of a language called the Basque or Biscayan. Since then, I have examined all those points with due care, and I must say, that I have neither seen nor heard any thing to induce me to alter my opinion. Mr. Logan's arguments I have endeavoured to answer in my letters to you, of which your readers may form their own judgment. At the same time, I am surprised to find that Mr. Logan has met with no support from his Welsh allies, who ought to know something of their own language. I have a shrewd suspicion that my mode of treating the subject, by reducing it all to matter of fact, has deterred them from entering so limited a field of contest; for when the battle is confined to a very narrow space, those only volunteer to fight who are confident in their own valour and the goodness of their cause. I conclude, then, I trust on fair grounds, that the learned among the Welsh, as well as my own sage countrymen who edited the great Gaëlic Dictionary, have found my facts too stubborn to admit of refutation.

It may be asked here (and I wonder why it has not been done ere now either by Mr. Logan or myself), what is the criterion by which we may pronounce two languages to be dialects of each other, or of some common origin? The first part of the question is easily answered. Dialects of a language are

GENT. MAG. VOL. XI.

merely variations in some words or phrases, bearing, however, a very small proportion to the great body of the language. Thus Herodotus, Theocritus, and Xenophon, all wrote different dialects of Greek; but a person well versed in one, can easily understand the others. There are three dialects of the Gaëlic, differing still less than the Greek dialects alluded to, the Scotch, the Irish, and the Manx. But the Welsh is as different from the Gaëlic as the Latin or Gothic is from the Greek. To say, then, that the Welsh is a Gaëlic or Celtic dialect, is taking too much liberty with the usual acceptation of terms.

The second part of the question, viz. "When are languages said to be of the same family or origin?" is more difficult to answer; or, strictly speaking, there is not, to my knowledge, any criterion laid down wherewith to decide. For this reason, I will here explain my own standard, and, if defective, I shall feel obliged to any of your readers for a better. In comparing two languages, then, I should say, that when the roots of the verbs, the pronouns, the simple adverbs of time and place, and the substantives in most common use, can be identified, the two languages are of one family. This criterion will apply as a general rule in comparing the English with the Flemish, Dutch, German, &c. which are all of the Gothic family; or in comparing the French with the Italian and Spanish, which are all from the Latin.

Again, it may happen that two languages may have a vast number of words (chiefly substantives and adjectives) in common, and yet be of different families: such is the case with English and French, in which the above criterion will not apply, because the one is from the Gothic, and the other from the Latin. Now, it is notorious that the stray words common to the Gaëlic and Welsh are substantives or adjectives; but how few of the roots of verbs agree? to say nothing of the pronouns and adverbs, which differ as much from each other as any two languages in Europe. I maintain, then, that the mere agreement of a few nouns in any two languages,

F

merely proves that there was once an intercourse between the two nations, but not that they are of the same origin.

As all my arguments in this dispute are drawn from facts, I cannot avoid mentioning, even at the risk of appearing professional, the following corroborative circumstance which led me to adopt the above criterion in the comparison of the Gaëlic and Welsh. The Persian language is of a totally different origin with the Arabic, the one being Japhetic, somewhat like the German, and the other Semitic; but the Arabic (substantives and adjectives) has been so copiously introduced into the former as to constitute by far the majority of words. Yet the framework of the Persian is still unchanged, and the stupendous poem of Firdausi, which has scarcely one word of Arabic, is still read and understood and admired by the people.

Again, the Persian, thus loaded with Arabic, has been incorporated with the Hindi-a Sanscrit dialect which pervades the northern half of India; and hence has arisen the modern Hindustani spoken by the Mahommedans in that country. Three-fourths of the Hindustani words are Arabic or Persian; the Hindi is entirely from the Sanscrit yet Hindi and Hindustani are the same language, having the same grammar, the speaker having only to bear in mind that when he addresses a Hindu he is to avoid all words from the Persian and Arabic, and with a Mussulman he is to employ terms from the latter ad libitum. These facts clearly prove that the copia verborum (even if such a thing existed between the Gaëlic and Welsh) does by no means imply identity of origin; and for this reason I have been led to search for a more safe criterion, which I think I have found in the one above described.

Now a hasty or careless observer, looking merely at the words of the Persian Dictionary, or some of the modern compositions in the language, would have no hesitation in saying that Persian is a dialect of the Arabic, than which nothing is more erroneous. We have an instance precisely similar in our own language, which has admitted a vast number of words from the Latin, either directly or through the

French; so that a stranger might conclude, from seeing Milton's Paradise Lost, or Johnson's compositions, that English is a dialect of Latin. I mention all this to shew how fallacious are the grounds on which Mr. Logan founds his belief in the identity of the Gaëlic and Welsh; which are not nearly so much akin as Persian and Arabic, or English and Latin.

Before I conclude this part of the discussion, I have to request of those who may differ with me in opinion to dismiss all prejudice, if they have any, and examine the two languages agreeably to the method which I have laid down for myself. Without some such criterion the dispute will be endless; and if mine be not satisfactory to my opponents, let them favour me with one of their own. There is, indeed, a very sound test, founded on experience; but that may not suit every one. I have made languages the study of my life, partly from accidental circumstances, and partly from taste. I found that by knowing something of one language of a family, the transition to the rest was easy. From a knowledge of Latin and French, I found little difficulty in Italian. From knowing Hindi and a little Sanscrit, I found the transition easy to Bengali and Marathi; and, were it worth while, I see no difficulty in the acquisition of Dutch and Flemish, from my knowing English and broad Scotch. But now comes the very pith and force of my argument: I happen to know Gaëlic better than any of the languages I have mentioned, and I have eagerly tried to learn Welsh, but I declare, that my Gaëlic was of no more use to me in this elegant pursuit, than it would be if I were attending lectures on the idiom of the Hottentots. This argument is, I trust, a settler; and it was the fact on which it is founded that first led me to differ from the generally-received opinions on the subject. Of course, my opponents will not expect me to admit that it was my own stupidity that caused my failure in my Welsh studies; if they do, all I can say is, that they will be giving me credit for more modesty than, I fear, I possess.

Secondly: The languages of the Celts and Cimbri being radically different, it follows that the two tribes