spot to send me the most minute intelligence with respect to the leather; and from his letter, which is now before me, it is plain they can have no authority in the present question. I will give you his own words: "So far from the pieces of leather giving an indication of its being Henry I. that the plumber assured me those pieces were the remnants of an old slipper, which though perfect when discovered, crumbled to pieces as soon as touched, and left nothing of its shape and form but the stitches, which were very discernible." His account of the coffin is, that it was about eight feet long, seven inches high, roofed at the top, the ridge fluted, and remarkably thick with lead; that the lid was ornamented with a few studs in form of diamonds; that there was an inscription in brass, which was sent to the Antiquarian Society, undistinguishable except the two initial letters, which the plumber does not now recollect. He further adds, that the skull was examined by a very skilful and experienced surgeon of Reading, who gave it as his opinion, that it was of a young person under thirty years of age; and that the plumber assured him he had not the least idea that it could be the coffin of Henry I. from the state of the lead, which was cast in the modern manner, as they had not at that time attained to so great perfection in casting it. There seems, therefore, every reason to suppose that it was not the body of Henry I. It is probable he was buried in a vault; but no vault was here discovered the spot where the coffin was found by no means agrees with the place of his burial, mentioned by historians; the fragments of rotten leather, the only argument which seemed to be of weight, are proved to have no authority: and, from other appearances, there are evident marks both of a later date, and of a younger person. Perhaps also the length of the coffin may be some proof against it, as Henry is said to have been of middling stature. But there is another circumstance, which, if true, will put the matter past all doubt. It is expressly said by Sandford, that at the Reformation, his tomb was destroyed, and his bones thrown out; "But well might the memory thereof (his monument) perish, and be buried in the rubbish of oblivion, when the bones of this prince could not enjoy repose in his grave (not more happy in a quiet sepulchre than the two Norman Williams, his father and brother,) but were (upon the suppression of the religious houses in the reign of king Henry VIII.) thrown out, to make room for a stable of horses, and the whole monastery converted to a dwellinghouse. He then quotes these verses, which are also in Camden, "Hæccine sed pietas? heu! dira piacula, primum Auri sacra fames, regum metuenda sepulchris." We know how the intolerant zeal of the reformers ope rated, when the most stately abbies, and the most venerable remains of ancient architecture, were laid without distinction in the general ruin. The abbey of Reading in par ticular bears marks of the most unwearied industry employed in its destruction. One of the principal charges against the duke of Somerset, under whom others relate this abbey was destroyed, is his fury in the demolition of tombs. Several writers expressly confirm the fact of the demolition of that of Henry I. It is not, therefore, probable that the rage of the destroyers would stop here; that they would spare the bones of him whose tomb they were demolishing, and whose edifices they were levelling in the dust. In discoveries like the present, where any thing curious is expected, it is impossible to restrain the minds of the common people, who will infallibly take those steps by which most money may be obtained. It is not therefore wonderful if many of the bones were taken away, with the hopes of selling them as valuable remains, and the coffin immediately disposed of. Your correspondent, however, may rest satisfied with this assurance, that, as soon as the thing was known, there was an immediate order from the mayor that no bones should be carried away, and that they were most of them peaceably deposited again with the rest that were dug up. As to the coffin, as it had nothing remarkable in it, its loss is not much to be lamented. The end of all antiquities seems to be, by collecting the remains. of our ancestors, to obtain more certain information con cerning them, to mark their progress in arts and science, and, by an attentive survey of their productions, to strike out improvements for the benefit of the living. Those an tiquities, therefore, which are regarded merely for their an tiquity, are of little intrinsic value, If they elucidate no point in history, if they tend not to ascertain the state of ancient manners or of ancient art, mankind will be little the better for them. They may at first be regarded with some degree of enthusiasm; but that will be confined to the antiquary himself, and with him it will soon subside, when the mind is at leisure to consider their uselessness. I readily agree with your correspondent in his encomiums on the late Mr. Spicer; but he is much mistaken if he thinks there are not still many gentlemen in Reading, who would be equally active in preventing any thing that bore the appearance of the sacrilege he mentions. Mr. P. is guilty of a little mistake in mentioning Henry the First's death as on the second of September. He will find it corrected in the note at the bottom of page 199, vol. I. of Rapin, ed. Lond. 1732. John Brompton, Matthew of Paris, Henry of Huntingdon, and Roger Hoveden, say December the first; Matthew of Westminster, and Gervase of Canterbury, Dec. 2. The fact is, he died at midnight, Dec. 1, which might easily occasion this variation. "Calendas Decembris qua nocte decessit." William of Malmsbury. Vide Rerum Angl. Script. post Bedam, p. 100, ed Lond. 1596. 1736, January. Yours, &c. JUVENIS. XXI. The Testimony of Clement Maydestone, that the Body of King Henry IV. was thrown into the Thames, and not buried at Canterbury. Translated from a Latin Manuscript in the Library of Bene't-College, Cambridge. THIRTY days after the death of Henry IV,* one of his domestics came to the house of the Holy Trinity, in Hounslow, and dined there. And as the by-standers were talking at dinner-time of that king's irreproachable morals, this man said to a certain esquire, named Thomas Maydestone, then sitting at table, "Whether he was a good man or not, God knows; but of this I am certain, that when his corpse was carried from Westminster towards Canterbury, in a small vessel, in order to be buried there, I and two more, threw *Henry IV. died Sept. 14 1412. his corpse into the sea, between Berkengum and Gravesend. And (he added with an oath) we were overtaken by such a storm of winds and waves, that many of the nobility, who followed us in eight ships, were dispersed, so as with difficulty to escape being lost. But we, who were with the body, despairing of our lives, with one consent threw it into the sea; and a great calm ensued. The coffin in which it lay, covered with cloth of gold, we carried with great solemnity to Canterbury, and buried it. The monks of Canterbury, therefore say, that the tomb [not the body] of Henry IV. is with us. As Peter said of holy David, Acts xi." As God Almighty is my witness and judge, I saw this man, and heard him swear to my father, Thomas Maydestone, that all the above was true. 1767, July. CLEMENT MAYDESTONE. Testimonium Henrici quarti corpus fuisse in Thamesin projectum et non tumulatum Cantuariæ. (MSS. C.C.C.C. M. 14, 197.). "Post mortem ejusdem regis accidit quoddam mirabile ad prædicti Domini Richardi Archipræsulis gloriam declarandam et æternæ memoriæ commendandam. Nam infra triginta dies post mortem regis Henrici quarti venit quidem vir de familia ejusdem ad domum Sanctæ Trinitatis de Houndeslowe, vescendi causa; et cum in prandio sermonizarent circumstantes de probitate morum ipsius regis, respondet prædictus vir cuidam armigero vocato Thomæ de Maydestone, in eadem mensa tunc sedenti, si fuerit vir bonus novit Deus, sed hoc scio verissime quod cum a Westmon' corpus ejus versus Cantuariam in parva navicula portaretur ibidem sepeliendum, ego fui unus de tribus personis qui projecerunt corpus ejus in mare inter Berkingham et Gravesend; et addidit cum juramento, tanta tempestas ventorum et fluctuum irruit super nos, quo multi nobiles sequentes nos in naviculis octo in numero dispersi sunt, ut vix mortis periculum evaserunt; nos vero qui eramus cum corpore in desperatione vitæ nostræ positi, cum assensu projecimus illud in mare, et facta est tranquillitas magna: cistam vero in qua jacebat panno deaurato coopertam cum maximo honore Cantuariam deportavimus, et sepelevimus eam. cunt ergo monachi Cantuariæ quod sepulchrum regis Henrici quarti est apud nos, non corpus; sicut dixit Petrus de S'to David. Deus omnipotens est testis et judex quod ego Clemens Maydestone vidi virum illum, et audivi ipsum jurantem patri meo Thomæ Maydestone omnia prædicta fore vera." 1794, Nov. SIR, XXII. An Hour-glass found in a Coffin. IN June 1718, as I was walking into the fields, I stopt in Clerkenwell church-yard to see a grave-digger at work. He had dug pretty deep, and was come to a coffin, which had laid so long it was quite rotten, and the plate eaten so with rust, that we could not read any thing of the inscription. In clearing away the rotten pieces of wood, the grave-digger found an hour glass close to the left side of the skull, with sand in it, the wood of which was so rotten that it broke where he took hold of it. Being a lover of antiquity, I bought it of him, and took a draught of it as it then appeared: some time after, mentioning this affair in company of some antiquarians, they told me, that it was an ancient custom to put an hour-glass into the coffin, as an emblem of the sand of life being run out; others conjectured, that little hour glasses were anciently given at funerals, like rosemary, and by the friends of the dead, put în the coffin, or thrown into the grave. I send you also one of the glasses, (being two inches and a half high, and two inches greatest diameter), which you will observe to be tarnished by lying in the earth, and to have various colours, if held so as that the light may be reflected from it to the eye. Yours, W. P. 1746, Dec. XXIII. Of BURIAL GARLANDS. SIR, BEING a constant reader of your instructive, as well as diverting magazine, I take the liberty to present you with some remarks on a passage in that of December last, which |