The glory of Dunstable was its once celebrated priory; yet of this extensive building nothing remains, but the part now appropriated for the parish church, and two arches in the adjoining wall. It was founded by Henry the First, about the year 1131, for black canons, in honour of St. Peter. At the dissolution of the religious houses, its revenues, according to Dugdale, amounted to S441. 13s. per annum.

The priory church was originally in the form of a cross, with a tower in the centre, supported by four lofty arches; parts of which, belonging to the two western pillars, still remain: these are of a large size, with clustered columns, and surmounted with hexagon capitals. This fabric appears to have been very extensive and magnificent. Henry the Eighth intended it for a cathedral, and Dr. Day for the first bishop. When this design was abandoned, it is probable, that a considerable part of the structure was demolished; for the whole now standing only reaches from the west door to the cross aisle, or choir entrance; a space containing a nave and two side aisles, yet hardly extending to the length of forty yards.

This is one of the few specimens of Saxon architecture now remaining in the kingdom. On each side the nave are six circular. and lofty arches, consisting of four mouldings, with a pilaster in the middle between each arch. The arches of the upper windows are also round, as well as the groined arches at the east end. The windows are of a later date than the building itself, which is mended with brick in various places. A dead wall closes the east end; and the two nearest arches on each side form the present choir. A beautiful stone rood-loft, of four pointed arches, with clustered columns, ranges over the west door: beneath it is a rich wooden screen. The roof is of oak, finely carved with knots of flowers, &c. The beams are supported by angels horizontal and perpendicular. About the church are several grotesque figures.

The west front, though devoid of symmetry, appears to have been wonderfully enriched with a great diversity of historical carving, intermixed with Gothic ornaments of foliage, flowers, &c. The

great door had four pillars on each side, with Saxon capitals. supporting five mouldings, the outermost of which is ornamented with zigzag work: the second has angels and foliage in alternate ovals: the third, beasts' heads jessant foliage: the fourth, signs of the zodiac, of which Pisces and Capricorn still remain. There is also a spread eagle: the fifth, flowers, &c. The capitals have David playing on the harp, a figure prostrate to him; a bishop in pontificalibus, with mitre and crosier, and a bearded man in a cap: two more bearded men hold a scroll perpendicularly, on whose top is a headless beast, &c. The lesser door has seven mouldings, on five pillars, exclusive of the inner, composed of roses, and laced work, nail-headed quatrefoils. The arch between the two doors is half a zigzag and half a strait moulding; and the interlaced arches within it, rest on capitals charged with grotesque figures: one seems to have a number of souls and a devil. The flat between the doors is charged with indented roses. Above are three rows of arches: the first row consists of seven flat arches, with pedestals for statues; the second, of six small and two large, open to a gallery leading to the bell tower, with a seventh arch between the latter, placed over the door, all on treble clustered pillars. The third row has fine pointed flat arches, with single pillars. Over the west door, under the arch, are three beautiful niches; and under the west windows of the tower are four roses in squares. In the annexed print, this front is represented, and will be found to correspond with the above description. The small turret, or tower, that appears on the right hand corner of the building, has fallen down since Mr. Arnold took his sketch. This part presents a curious mixture of the Saxon, and, what are commonly termed, Gothic arches.

The tower is attached to the north side of the front, and has two rows of niches, now deprived of their statues. Anciently another tower on the opposite side corresponded with this. The Cronicle of Dunstaple records the falling of two towers in the

year

The door-way of Malmsbury-abbey, in Wiltshire, is very similar, but rather larger, in better preservation, and more richly ornamented.

year 1221. In falling they destroyed the prior's hall and part of the church. The body was repaired in 1273, by the parishioners, but chiefly at the expence of one Henry Chedde.

Within the church are a number of curious monuments; many of them belong to the CHEW family, whose benefactions to this town have caused their names to be repeated with reverence. In the middle aisle was formerly a very long slab, the inscription on which was so quaint and barbarous, that it gave rise to the incredible report of one woman having had nineteen children at five births! viz. three several times three children at a birth, and twice five two other times. Fuller, in his Worthies of Bedfordshire, gave currency to the error, and the tradition of the place has ever since confirmed it. The slab was inlaid with the figures of a man and a woman in brass, both dressed in gowns, with their hands in the attitude of prayer; and at their feet an inscription. Beneath the latter, two groups, one of boys, the other of girls, with the types of the evangelists at the corners. scription was in these words;

Hic William Mulso sibi quem sociavit & Alice,
Marmore sub duro conclusit mors generalis.

Ter tres, bis quinos hæc natos fertur habere

Per sponsos binos, Deus his clemens miserere.

The in

This, literally translated, is as follows: "One general fate. has shut up here, under a hard marble, William Mulso, and Alice his wife. She is reported to have had three times three, and twice five, children, by two husbands." This conceited mode of informing the world that a woman had nineteen children, undoubtedly gave rise to the mistake of their having been produced at five births; but how Fuller, who was a man of considerable learning, could assert that it was so represented in the epitaph, is indeed surprising: yet our surprise at his error is somewhat lessened, when we reflect on the conduct of Bishop Gibson, who, we are told by Mr. Gough, repeats the story implicitly. How easily would the exertion of a little common sense, have enabled the bishop to rectify this gross misrepresentation! Who for a moment