NAT

ON THE ORIGIN OF GOLD. TATURE, in every part of the globe, is constantly at work, whether in the mighty waters of the deep, on the surface of our planet,or in the bowels of the earth, her influence is alike felt. This being granted, it will follow that in some way or other gold is produced, since no naturalist ever imagined that it was of primary formation*. Of the four elements, earth, air, fire, and water, it must be self-evident that the two first cannot of themselves originate gold. One sort of earth being, by any convulsion, thrown into contact with another sort, never did create gold; and if it had, it is scarcely possible to imagine but what some portions of the two earths would have been discovered in an imperfect metallic state; at least sufficiently so to show the nature of their component parts; whereas gold, when discovered, has been found to exist in one sort of earth alone, or indifferently disseminated in several kinds, thus proving that no two particular descriptions of earth had alone given rise to the precious mineral. Air too appears to be equally foreign to its formation, since, although gold is sometimes found near the surface of the earth, it is at other times discovered very deeply embedded in the earth where air cannot penetrate, or where, if it did penetrate, it would become a very different air from that immediately extending its influence over the surface of the globe. It cannot, therefore, be air singly which generates gold. There only remain then to be considered the two elements of fire and water. Most naturalists are agreed that it is from heat acting on certain matter, in a way hidden from the human eye, that gold is made; whilst other theorists have conceived that it is from the action of water operating in an unknown way upon certain matter, that the precious metal is formed. I shall not attempt to decide with which of these philosophers the truth rests, but I feel disposed to ask whether it may not remain with both of them, and that in point of fact, gold

That gold is not of primary formation, would seem from the circumstance of its having been found in mines which had long been abandoned in consequence of their bar

renness.

may be the production of fire as well as water? The result, in short, of two elements widely different, and yet producing ultimately the same effect. The advocates for fire assert that gold is invariably found in mountains, and that where there are mountains, there is always hidden or revealed fire. Thus the Andes contain immense stores of metals, whilst volcanoes, either in action or the remains of them, are in many parts apparent.*

The advocates for water assert, that where there are mountains there too is water; and instance Minas Geraes in Brazil, which is intersected by innumerable streams, and in which province nearly all the gold hitherto found has been collected from the rivers ↑. Both suppositions may, I suspect, be just. If there be fires in the earth, there must be vapours; and these vapours, by impregnating certain matter, may produce gold. Again, certain waters, under certain circumstances, may transform many substances into stone, into crystal, and by analogy into minerals; therefore gold may follow from this operation of nature. Like results brought about by opposite extremes can perhaps be best shown by an example: Pass a heated bar of steel over a fleshy substance, the consequence will be a wound; let a bar of steel be cooled upon ice, and applied to any part of the human body, the same consequence will follow, a wound. Then if fire and water shall have similar effects upon animal matter, is it not possible, nay likely, that they may operate precisely the same, when brought under certain circumstances, to act upon certain substances which the globe contains, and thus present us in the result with that metal whose possession man so ardently covets.

Mr. URBAN,

to

B. M.

Jan. 7.

The be traced to the migration of HE origin of the Feudal System is the Northern hordes of people, who, excited by the luxuries which they

See Travels into Chile in 1820 and 1821, by Peter Schmidtmeyer. + See Mounteney's Selections relative to Brazil.

See Notes on Rio de Janeiro, by John Luccock.

had seen displayed in the camps of the Roman legions, quitted their own dreary wastes to seek in the land which produced them a more hospitable and delightful home. Although these irruptions, most correctly so called from the nature of the descent, took place during some periods of the Roman republic, it was not until the time of the Emperors, who, forgetting the ancient honour of their country, obtained a temporary but ultimately fatal relief by payment of large sums of money to bodies of the barbarians, that, encouraged by the fear they had excited, and animated by the spoils they had so easily acquired, these descents becaine frequent and systematical.

A few of the Emperors occasionally revived the glory of the Roman name by stemming the fierce current, and turned its impetuous course to its own destruction; but among the later Emperors there were but few of this character; and at last the empire of the West, weakened by intestine tumults and the repeated invasions of the barbarians, fell tottering at the feet of those very people, who a few hundred years before had been considered as scarcely removed above the brute creation.

The lands thus conquered, the invaders allotted to their leaders, on condition of a stipulated aid in case of danger to the body at large, and were subsequently subdivided by them among their own immediate followers, who held their portions sometimes under similar terms, and sometimes under new conditions, according to particular circumstances.

This system of apportioning and holding lands became universal throughout Europe. It does not appear, however, that the Feudal Law (as it was designated) was generally received in England until the time of William the Conqueror, who established feudal tenures, which had been brought to the highest pitch of military regulation in the countries he had left. But it must be observed, that a somewhat similar system may be traced among the institutions of our Saxon ancestors.

At first the tenure, under which lands were held, was strictly military, obliging the grantees to assist the King, or their feudal lord, with men and arms, and personal assistance in time of war or danger.

But the strength and power acquired by the Barons, by reason of the large military retinues they were thus enabled to keep, had in many instances been found by the King to be of fatal consequence to his authority and influence, compelling him by force to accede to their impetuous wishes. And in consequence, every opportunity was taken by the Crown to lessen this formidable evil. But we, of this time, cannot but regard with veneration a system, however faulty, to which we owe our dearest and most valuable rights.

Such estates which fell into the hands of the King by forfeiture, or which they acquired by family al liance, were at times granted to their favourites or followers, under a mere nominal service, or, at most, subject to duties which were considered honourable to the performer.

It appears also that the Sovereign's liberality was often excited in the midst of pleasure and amusement, and induced him in the same vein of feeling he was in at the time, to attach to the grant a condition of trifling and sometimes ludicrous observance.

The tenures of England were divided into Grand and Petit Serjeantry. The former comprised services of mili tary duties, offices to be performed at coronations and other State occasions by great officers and others, in respect of the offices themselves or of particu lar baronies and lands. Petit Serjeantry consisted of inferior services.

But it is not the intention here to enter into a learned or antiquarian research into such tenures, but merely to give the terms of a few, which have been selected on account of their amusing and almost ridiculous conditions, and which may rather tend "relaxare fibulum," than to raise in the forehead the wrinkles of profound cogitation.

Some lands at Addington in Surrey were held by the service of making. one mess in an earthen pot in the King's kitchen on the day of his coronation, called diligrout, and if there were lard in it, the mess was called manpignum. This tenure was as old as Henry II. At the Coronation of Charles II. the person in whose possession the lands then were, brought up to the table the dish of dilligrout; but it is recorded that the King was not pleased to eat of the potage.

John Campes held the mauor of

reader some idea of the facetiousness of our ancestors, but there are many other tenures of equally trifling terms, and those who would wish to dip more deeply into the subject may be referred to Littleton, Coke, and more especially Blount, who seems to have taken particular pleasure in preserving these " fragmenta antiquitatis" as he call them," for the diversion of some and for the instruction of others." W. L. D.

IT

Bath, Jan. 5.

Mr. URBAN, T has been for some time in my mind to recommend to public cognizance a Plan, which would tend greatly to national honour and to the diffusion of a patriotic spirit. The only cause of its delay in transmission has arisen from the doubt which I entertained, as to the most eligible method of giving it notoriety. But on , reflection, I yield a willing preference to your agreeable Miscellany, as much from partiality, as from its being an appropriate channel for developement. From the " Essay on Local Poetry," which is prefixed to the new edition of "Bidcombe Hill, are extracted the following observations:

"However extraneous to the general purport of this essay, yet not wholly unconnected with this particular portion of it, is the expression of regret at our destitution of national monuments to memorize important events, to illustrate loyal attachment, and to kindle patriotic enthusiasm. However Great Britain may rival more ancient nations in literature and arms, yet is she exceeded by the Promethean fire of their sculpture, and the imposing magnificience of their public edifices. The Parthenon at Athens, and the Coliseum at Rome, will leave no parallels in the posthumous History of Englaud. Let our monarch, nobles, and commoners, aggrandize their country by promoting the liberal arts. Let them emulate their fame, by acting in the spirit of Augustus, who found Rome of brick and left it of marble. But to return

to my subject. Why does not some ponderous column pierce the clouds from Runnymede, inscribed on one side with the declaration of the Barons, "nolumus leges Angliæ mutari ;" and on the reverse, with those matchless lines of our Bard, where loyalty, patriotism, and poetry, strive for pre-eminence ?

"Here was that charter signed, wherein the

crown

All marks of arbitrary power laid down; Tyrant and slave, those names of hate and

fear, The happier style of King and subject bear,

When Kings give liberty, and subjects love." Pp. 17, 18.

If the reigning monarch has endeared himself from any especial circumstances to popular feelings, it has been from his royal munificence to the unemployed manufacturers, and to the furnishing artisans with labour in his magnificient improvements. Would it then, Mr. Urban, be too much to hope, that the plan suggested in the above extract may be honoured with the same exalted patronage; and can our fellow-countrymen be insensible under the declaration, that the charter of royal, and aristocratical and popular rights, which is the heritage of Britons, was signed, sealed, and delivered on the plain of Runnymede, and neither obelisk, cross, column, nor temple, attest the spot of its concession and ratification.

It will be recollected by many of your readers, (for your publication, notwithstanding its numerous rivals, is a favourite with our citizens,) that to the Rev. Author of the cited extract, our City is primarily indebted for one of its most splendid improvements. The removal of the houses which shut out the view of our venerable Abbey, was recommended by Mr. Skurray, in an inaugural sermon before the mayor and corporation, and has since been acted upon as the leases fall in. The passages relative to this event are very properly inserted in Mr. Britton's recent history of our cathedral, and may be found at pages 186-7-8, of a

volume of "Sermons on Public Subjects and Occasions."

It would be a gratifying circumstance, and would illustrate our national cha racter and liberties, if the same voice which animated our local authorities to an act of high honour and disinterestedness, should prove the instigator mede. Its erection would draw down to a national monument at Runnyblessings from the hearts and lips of thousands who in the different departments necessary for its construction, would find employment; it would stimulate a spirit of loyalty when "the love of many waxes cold," and no spectator in generations unborn, would survey this durable monument of patriotism, without fearing God and honouring the King.