1831.] Arms and Quarterings of Huyshe. Mr. URBAN, St. James's-sq. Oct. 1. THE accompanying engraving represents an ancient escocheon of the arms and quarterings of Rowland Huyshe, of Sand in Devonshire. Being desirous of obtaining information respecting some of the bearings, I venture to beg the favour of your inserting it in your Magazine, and permitting me to add a brief notice of such of the quarterings as are known to me. Rowland Huyshe was the eldest son of James Huyshe of London, and Margaret Bourchier. He was born in 1560, and died in 1632-3. His father, James, was a younger son of the ancient family of Huysh, of Doniford in Somersetshire. The three first quarters consist of the arms of Roche (adopted at an early period by Huyshe, instead of their paternal bearing), of Avenell, and of Bourchier. I am simply acquainted with the names of the families to whom these arms belonged, and have not been so fortunate as to gain any information upon the descent of the heiresses who introduced them into the Huyshe family. Of the other bearings, I only know that the 4th and 6th are those of Seymer and Gambon, but of the remaining three I know nothing whatever. And in the 8th and last, the charge is one I never have heard satisfactorily described by any one to whom I have shown the escocheon. I am induced to think that chronological order has been disregarded in the arrangement of these quarterings, and that Seymer was brought in by Bourchier, while Gambon came in by Avenell. EDWARD PROTHEROE, Jun. 305 from John de Hywish of Lynch and Doniford, living 38 Henry III. This John again, was grandson of Richard de Hywis, of Lod Hywis in Somerset, in the time of Stephen. The ancient bearing of these Hywis's was at one time a chevron between three roundlets; at another, a chevron, and in chief three leaves. 2. AVENELL or RICHARDS.-Oliver Huyish of Doniford, in 30 Hen. VI. grandson of the former Oliver, married according to an old family pedigree of Huyshe, a daughter and coheir of Avenell, whose sisters married Weekes and Holcombe. According to Mr. Palmer of Farifield's MSS. extracts of which were in Sir John Acland's possession, he married a daughter and coheir of Richards. According to the Visitation of Devon," filia et hæres Richards." 3. BOURCHIER.-James Huysh of London, third son of John Huyshe of Doniford, who was Escheator for Somerset in 19 Hen. VIII., and of Grace, daughter of Richard Walrond of Bovey, married, according to the same family pedigree, the heiress of Bourchier; according to the visitation of Somerset, "filia Bourchier;" according to the Visitation of London, 1568, daughter of Robert Bowser. The eldest child of James Huysh, and Margaret Bourchier his wife, was baptized at St. Pancras within the city of London, Sept. 1554. Margaret was buried there in 1568. The arms of Bourchier were borne quarterly with Huysh and Avenell, by Rowland Huysh their son, on his seals, and occur in stone and in painted glass at Sand, of the date of his residence at that place. In Should this letter meet the eye of 4. SEYMER. These arms were grantany one who is able to throw lighted to Sir Thomas Seymer, of Walden upon the heraldic and genealogical in Essex, and Lord Mayor of London difficulties I have here remarked, I in 1527. He died Dec. 11, 1535, and beg to say that I shall feel greatly was buried at St. Leonard, Shoreobliged by the communication of such ditch. His will is dated May 8, information. 1533, was proved Jan. 31, 1535. his will he does not mention any children; but in a curious narrative of his funeral, preserved in the Heralds' College, we are told that Master Elryngton being his next of kin, having married his daughter, made the offertory. This was William Elryngton of Widdington in Essex, who died in Explanation of the Plate. 1. HUYSHE. This was anciently the bearing of Roche. It was assumed instead of his paternal arms, by Oliver Hywish of Doniford, 4 Edw. III. in consequence of his marriage with the daughter of Simon Roche. Oliver Hywish was 4th in descent 1558. Unless these arms were borne by others than Sir Thomas Seymer, to whom they were granted, it follows almost necessarily that he must have had a daughter, who married Robert Bowser, the father of Margaret Huysh. 5. Unknown.-This bearing occurs in painted glass, in the windows at Sand. The glass is of the date of Rowland Huysh's residence there. 6. GAMBON.-This occurs in the same windows, empaled by Avenell; and therefore it is that I conclude that these arms are brought in by Avenell. A family of Gambon existed in Somerset, and terminated in an heiress who married Wyndham of Orchard Wyndham, ancestor of Lord Egremont; others bearing the same arms in Dorset and Norfolk, noticed by Hutchins and Blomfield; and others again in South Wales, of whom there is a pedigree in Edwards's Adventurers of South Wales, in the Heralds' College. 7. Unknown.-It appears extremely difficult to say with any certainty what birds these are meant to represent. In the original they have not that character of ducks, given them in the engraving. They are not webfooted, are long legged, and intended for birds light in their motion. 8. Unknown.-This singular bearing appears also still in the windows of Sand. Although several suggestions have been made respecting this coat, none have appeared satisfactory. It is satisfactorily ascertained that this escocheon is of the period to which it is assigned, and that none of the arms have been introduced by any heiress with whom any member of the family has subsequently intermarried. MEXICAN ANTIQUITIES. A FEW remarks may be added to this limited examination for the present. The author of this paper, in a letter to the Morning Post in 1818, drew attention to the vestiges of scientific military fortifications at the Isle of Bonhomme, and on each side of the Missouri, as vestiges of a mighty people, who seem to have spread their conquests from north to south of the New World; and at the time of the Spanish conquest, to have mysteriously passed away. A consummately skilful military fortification on an eminence near Mitlan, resembling the Cyclopean ramparts of Tyrins, is ex [Oct. hibited in the fourth volume of Lord Kingsborough's work. How were they destroyed? These people possessed the knowledge of the arch at a time when it was not known in Asia and Europe. It appears (Belzoni's exception is problematical) to have been never known in Egypt. See the admirably constructed arches with key stones, of the passages leading to the tombs or treasuries with centrically lighted domes, like those of the Treasury of Atreus, of Minyas, &c. at Xochichalco, Alvar, and Oaxaca, in Dupaix's "Monuments." They used metal instruments in their sculptures, statuary (and some of this is as purely ideal as the Greek), and architecture, for copper chisels, drills, &c. have been found in the above described monuments. How came this acquisition to be lost? for the subsequent race used flint hatchets, chisels, and arrow heads. Lord Kingsborough labours through these seven bulky volumes to prove that the Mexicans were Jews—the lost ten tribes. But were the Tultecans, who preceded them by 600 years, Jews; or the builders of some of the above colossal monuments, who preceded them probably by many ages, Jews? The Mexicans may be readily supposed to be the product of an admixture of the Mogul variety of the human species, with the aboriginal red race of America. But the Tultecans, or their unknown predecessors (as appears from their portraits at Palanque, &c.), are a very different people from the Mexicans; at the same time, they have characteristics of an aboriginal American race. They have the prominent nose of the big-nosed Indians of the Missouri. They have the projecting under lip of the Bottecus, caused by piercing and loading it with heavy ornaments. They have the artificially created receding forehead of the Chickesaws. They are beardless and red skinned; both indications of a primitive American people, and both the reverse of the Jewish characteristics. At the same time, it may be admitted that there is a singular analogy between the prophetic description of the final Jewish temple in Ezekiel, and the great and magnificent temple of Palanque. More analogies even than Lord Kingsborough has adduced, might be readily collected. But it does not appear that Ezekiel's temple is founded on a Jewish model. It is prophetical and symbolical; and seems ra 1831.] Proposed Destruction of Tooting Church, Surrey. ther to be furnished as a model of the great final temple, which is to unite and identify the worship of the entire human race. A few concluding words as to the getting up" of Mr. Aglio's splendid work. The three first volumes contain coloured fac-similes of original Mexican paintings in the libraries of Oxford, Rome, Dresden, Pess, and Berlin. The fourth is highly valuable, consisting of the monuments of New Spain, by Dupaix, from the original drawings executed by order of the King of Spain. The fifth explains the three first, being interpretations of the paintings by early French, Spanish, and Italian writers; and Dupaix's Commentary on his own collection of Monuments is the fourth. The sixth contains the Spanish of Sahagun's valuable history of New Spain, illustrating that religion and philosophy of the Mexicans by which their picture writing was greatly regulated. The sixth is a translation of the preceding, and the seventh contains the original Spanish of Sahagun's remaining MSS. Great honour is due to Lord Kingsborough for the princely munificence with which he has furnished the pecuniary means for effecting this magnificent undertaking. And no less praise ought to be assigned to Mr. Aglio the artist and designer, who, it appears, spent six years in the unremitting labour of investigating the chief European libraries, and in copying all the documents which could in any way illustrate the objects of the inquiry. We understand that not a scrap of Mexican manuscript or painting, in any corner of Europe, has escaped his persevering research. All has been gleaned and incorporated in these splendid volumes. Mr. URBAN, Aug. 15. IT may be a matter of information to some of your readers to hear that the parish Church of Tooting will be shortly taken down, in consequence of a new one being in the course of erection. This Church is distinguished by a round tower, and in this regard it is singular, being the only one in the county of Surrey which possesses so curious a relic of the earliest architecture of the nation. Of the high antiquity of circular church towers, I may at some future period take an opportunity of speaking; at present I 307 only feel it necessary to observe, that not any of these singular structures contain evidence of their erection in any period when the Saxon Norman or Pointed architecture prevailed. Of their antiquity there is no question, and the numerous works which have been written on their origin, evince the interest which they have excited. They are not ordinary nor every-day structures, and their preservation is a matter of national importance; and I cannot believe that in any country except England would the existence of such curious and interesting relics of former ages be subjected to the caprice or ignorance of a parish vestry. In this instance the loss of the tower is the more to be deplored, as no plea of necessity existed to warrant its destruction. The Church, it is true, was situated at a very inconvenient distance from the village, and it must be obvious that whenever a Church is so situated, the congregation attending it is only composed of the families resident on the spot, or those inhabitants whose opulence enables them to ride to Church; for such as these the old Church is amply sufficient. If a necessity existed of affording additional accommodation to the parishioners, and it had been determined to rebuild the Church for that purpose, and at the same time it had been determined to erect the new building on a new site, common sense alone would suggest the propriety of seeking for such new site in the centre of the village, or as near to it as possible. But what is done at Tooting? A new Church is building, and on a new site; but it will scarcely be credited that such new site is within a few yards of the old Church!-where the flimsy Gothic edifice which is building will stand a monument of the profound and absolute wisdom of the vestry, and what is more to be regretted, will add another instance to the many which have occurred of the inattention to the wants and the conveniences of the inhabitants so observable in the erection of many new Churches. In this instance, this lamentable neglect is the more glaring, as the existence of a large meetinghouse in the heart of the village, too plainly evinces that whatever apathy may be apparent in some quarters, the opponents of the Church are sufficiently alive to the necessity of attend 308 Advantages of the Drama in India. ing to the convenience of the congregation who are to attend any place of worship which may be built, if the builders really intend it to be occupied when finished. If the new building had been erected on a distant site, the old Church might have been allowed to exist as a chapel of ease, by which means a vestige of antiquity worth preserving would have been saved, and the new Church might have been of some utility; as it is, it may accommodate many more than are likely to attend it. It is, however, not too late to save the ancient tower. It is totally independent of the walls of the building to which it is attached. It will occupy very little room; it requires no repairs; and the expenses necessary to secure its preservation will not be greater than the charge of demolishing it. If, then, any regard for our national antiquities exists among the inhabitants of Tooting, or if the incumbent of the parish has a voice, and feels, as I trust all clergymen of the Church of England do feel, that the antiquities of their parish Churches look to them as their proper and legal guardians, I confidently hope that some exertion will be made to save the tower. If allowed to stand, it will inconvenience no one; it will scarcely cause a grave less to be made in the church-yard, and it will excite the gratitude and deserve the thanks of every antiquary in the kingdom. And if, Mr. Urban, the insertion of this letter should be the means of preserving a relic of antiquity, valuable in the eyes of those who interest themselves in the history of their native country, the writer will receive a reward in the satisfaction that one more ancient structure has been saved from destruction by individual exertions, the only means in England of doing that which in France is effected by the Government. Yours, &c. Mr. URBAN, E. I. C. Oct. 10. [Oct. March 1, 1825 (Journal and Correspondence, 8vo, vol. iii. p. 336), says, "Though I fully believe the influence of Britain to have been honestly employed for the benefit of India, and to have really produced great good in the country and its inhabitants, I have not been led to believe that our Government is generally popular, or advancing towards popularity. It is, perhaps, impossible that we should be so in any great degree, yet I really think there are some causes of discontent, which it is in our power, and which it is our duty to remove or diminish. One of these is the distance and haughtiness with which a very large portion of the civil and military ser vants of the Company treat the upper and middling class of natives. Against their mixing much with us in society, there are certainly many hindrances; though even their objection to eating with us might, so far as the Mussulmans are concerned, I think, be conquered by any popular man in the upper provinces, who made the attempt in a right way. But there are some of our amusements, such as private theatrical entertainments, and the sports of the field, in which they would be delighted to share, and invitations to which would be regarded by them as extremely flattering, if they were not, perhaps with some reason, voted bores, and treated accordingly.” Now as it appears from several passages of Bp. Heber's Journal, and also from The Hindu Theatre, published by Horace Hayman Witson, esq. (of which an account is given in the Quarterly Review for July 1831), that the Hindus are very fond of theatrical entertainments, it strikes me that they might, if properly conducted, be made subservient to very useful purposes. They are more humane and intellectual than the sports of the field. They might tend to promote, as Bp. H. proposes, social intercourse, and to make our language more current, and to teach English manners, morals, and pure religion; but then it must be by a scrupulous attention to the morals and religion of the dramas performed. We must not teach them superstition, by representing witches who have an absolute foreknowledge of future events, and who are able to raise spirits.Macbeth might be easily altered to render the witches mere impostors, and then the piece is an interesting and instructive lesson. Neither must we exhibit a ghost come from the regions of purgatory to instigate his son to revenge his murder. I have heard of an alteration of Hamlet, in which the murder of the late King is disco 1831.] Hints for a purified Drama. vered by means of the present King walking in his sleep, and acting over the murder in the garden, and being taken for a ghost by those who first saw him, so that the piece is rendered an antidote to a belief in apparitions, instead of fostering it. Neither must we hold up as examples the assassin and suicide Brutus, nor the suicide Cato; nor yet must we exhibit Lear falling upon his knees, and invoking Nature to curse his daughter; but with a little more alteration than we have in the present acting copies, Lear might be made an instructive lesson. Othello too, with his murder of his wife and of himself, is no fit exhibition. I am surprised that it has never been altered, so as to preserve the lives of Desdemona and Othello. Tate altered Lear so as to save Lear and Cordelia, and his alteration maintains its place upon the stage. There seems much greater reason for altering Othello. Most of Shakspeare's historical plays are interesting and instructive. Some of the Hindu plays extend to ten and even to fourteen acts; and thus our Henry the Fourth may be said to be in ten, and Henry the Sixth in fifteen. The Merchant of Venice is a good play, and best in Dr. Valpy's alteration. His King John is an improvement. Bp. Heber, I think, mentions a Rajah with whom he conversed, who prided himself upon his knowledge of Shakspeare. The Sacred and Moral Dramas of Mrs. H. More are well calculated for representation. Some of them have actually been translated into Cingalese, and performed under the patronage of Sir Alexander Johnson. Her Inflexible Captive is worthy to supersede Cato as a play for the acting of boys at schools. Miss Baillie's Plays on the Passions are displays of them, but not always useful ones; but her Martyr and Bride have already, I believe, been translated into Cingalese, to be exhibited to the natives of Ceylon; the latter was written expressly for the purpose. Almost any of the plays in the Rev. Mr. Plumptre's English Drama Purified would be proper for the purpose. A copy of this work is, I have reason to suppose, in the library of the Bishop's College at Calcutta; and we have many living poets fully equal to the task, if they will but write as Christians, and not as heathens. 309 IN the observations which E. I. C. has deemed it right to make in your June Magazine (p. 492), in reply to my answer to his former communication, he has I consider been singularly unfortunate. And first, with respect to his opinion as to the influence of the Inscriptions, the erasure of which from the Monument he so much condemns. According to his statement, it would appear they "had become perfectly harmless, offended the feelings of no one, and kept up no national prejudice." Now, if E. I. C. will only change "national prejudice" to "religious prejudice" (which I presume is what he meant to express), I am prepared to maintain that not one of these assertions can be substan tiated. Perfectly well do I remember the bitter sensations which in my earlier years this charge against the papists excited in my mind; and from the multitude of instances which have come under my observation, by reason of having resided in the neighbourhood the whole of my life, I consider myself as fully justified in stating that, so far from these calumnies having become perfectly harmless," they were highly offensive to our Catholic fellow subjects, and but too frequently aroused a feeling of hatred against them, amongst the professors of Protestantism of all grades and of all ages. In the next paragraph, your Correspondent lays it down as an axiom, that "the destruction of any historical memorial is a vile and useless act;" and proceeds to illustrate his position by an allusion to "the democratic violence recently exercised against the fleur-de-lis on the French monuments by the Paris revolutionists," and to "the ancient brasses with the Orate," &c. chiselled out, which he affirms to be " parallel cases with the one in question. Surely nothing can be more out of keeping. Is it possible that the democratic violence of the present age, and what the learned Gough calls "the devastation of false zeal and fanaticism in the two |