fliifcftMli 
 
_ift 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 On issuing the twelfth and concluding number of the Monumental Effigies of Great Britain to 
 the Subscribers and the Public, Mrs. Bray is desirous to explain the reasons which have constrained 
 her to publish the Introduction and Historical Descriptions, written by her brother, Alfred John 
 Kempe, Esq. F.S.A. in a separate form, and to charge for it accordingly. 
 
 Since Mr. Charles Stothard’s decease, who not only executed the drawings but the etchings 
 from them himself, the work has been placed in a very different position, and Mrs. Bray has been 
 obliged to employ artists, at a very heavy expense, for the purpose of furnishing the plates, twelve 
 in each number. 
 
 The completion of the Monumental Effigies in a manner respectful to her late husband's great 
 talents, and satisfactory to the Subscribers, has ever been her primary object; and, long as the 
 interval may seem that has elapsed between Mr. Stothard's decease and such completion, the un¬ 
 dertaking has never stood still. 
 
 With respect to the Head-plates for the different Monuments, Mr. Stothard, had he survived, 
 would no doubt have added many more to those which he published ; but, except in the instance of 
 the tomb of Sir Robert de Shurland, he left behind him no materials available to pursue his 
 intention. His practice in drawing the elevation of Monuments for the Head-plates, was merely 
 to take the just admeasurements, and sketch the mouldings and architectural parts, reserving the 
 putting such materials together for a future opportunity. To these drawings, made only for his 
 own information, there were not any memoranda in writing appended, indicating to what tombs 
 they should be applied : consequently (the overwhelming increase of expense out of the question) 
 it became impossible to appropriate them to the purpose for which they were made. It is, however, 
 fortunate that in the head-plates will be found distinct examples of the variation in altar-tombs, 
 from the thirteenth to the early part of the fifteenth century. 
 
 The Introduction and Historical Descriptions for the Monumental Effigies, will be found to con¬ 
 sist of upwards of one hundred and twenty pages of letter press, elegantly printed, and embellished 
 with a Frontispiece, etched by the late Mr. Charles Stothard, after an original design by his father; 
 his Portrait, by Chalon, engraved by Cooper ; a View of the inscribed Coffin-lid of Matilda, Queen 
 of William the Conqueror; the elevation of the Tomb of Sir Robert Shurland, at Minster Church, 
 Sheppy; and various wood-hlocks, not here particularized. 
 
 The Price of the Introduction and Historical Descriptions will, therefore, be the same as that 
 of the Numbers containing the Effigies ;—Large Paper, j£l. 15s.; Small Paper, £\. 5s. 
 
 A very limited edition of the work has been struck off. 
 
DIRECTIONS TO TIIE BINDER. 
 
 In arranging the Plates of the Monumental Effigies of Great Britain in Chronological Order, the 
 Binder must refer to the Table, which indicates the Number in which each plate was published. 
 It is recommended that the Plates should be interleaved with the Letter-press and Historical 
 Descriptions. A Volume, made up according to this arrangement, will be deposited for the 
 inspection of Subscribers and the public, with the publishers, Messrs. Arch. 
 
 1 1 1 he Letter-press Descriptions are mostly numbered at the bottom. Mr. Slot hard 
 
 himself edited ten leaves, containing accounts of Henry the Second, Monuments in the Temple 
 Church, Bcrengaria Queen of Richard the First, William de Valence, Earl of Pembroke, Edward 
 the Black Prince, Sir Guy Bryan, William Fit*. Alan, Earl of Arundel, and Sir John Peche. The 
 pages of these leaves are not numbered, but they are allowed for, with the exception of the 
 three leaves describing the tomb of Edward the Black Prince, in the running numbers of Mr. 
 Kempcs Letter-press, and their places, with the aid of the List of the Effigies, will be thus 
 readily found. 
 
 Page 3. 1. 6, for " Marmonstier," read " Mannoustier." 
 
 Page 7. Under account of Eleanor de Guienne, omitted at the end of the last line: 
 
 " Details. Plate I. l. Pattern on the gown. 2. Painting on the girdle ’’ 
 Note, p. 36, for " Anglezia," read “Angleria, or Anghiera." 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Originality of design may be justly claimed for the Author of “ The Monumental Effigies of Great 
 Britainfor, blending at once the character of the Artist and the Antiquary, he has aimed at show¬ 
 ing the progress of sculptural science in the memorials extant for the illustrious dead, regarding them, 
 not simply as monumental records, but also as the most efficient means of bringing before our view 
 the characters of English History, in their “habits as they lived.” 
 
 A severe course of study, in those only schools for correct drawing, the Antique Greek sculptures 
 and the living model, a firm and delicate hand, a most discriminating taste, and an undeviating prin¬ 
 ciple of truth in all he drew, peculiarly fitted him for the undertaking. He seized and transferred to 
 his paper every good point in the original subjects before him. He exaggerated nothing; he let no 
 beauty escape him. The proof of these assertions will be found in the Plates of this work; and there 
 needs little apology in having said thus much in praise of its Author, on its being now presented to 
 the public in a complete form. He has been some years beyond the shafts of envy or malevolence, 
 and his own frank but modestly-expressed prediction will be accomplished, that sooner or later “ his 
 labours will find their value.” * Grateful, indeed, would it have been to those who now survive him, 
 if he had himself lived fully to reap the applause due to his labours, and if the pen which has 
 ventured to complete the letter-press of the Monumental Effigies had been spared the task. That 
 task has, however, been executed with a feeling of zeal inspired by the subject, and of reverence for 
 the talents and worth of the departed Author. A tribute imperfect, inadequate, but sincere, 
 
 " Hnnc saltern accumulem ilonis et fungar inani 
 Munere ”- 
 
 Mr. Charles Stothard had proceeded as far as the Ninth Number of his Work, when his honour¬ 
 able career was arrested by the mysterious decree of Providence. His widow, now the wife of the 
 Rev. Edward Atkyns Bray, has, with the praiseworthy approbation of her husband, neglected, since 
 that event, no effort to do justice to Mr. Stothard’s memory, and spared no expense within her means 
 to give completion to his great undertaking. 
 
 Mr. Charles Stothard left behind him some materials towards the Introduction to his work, which 
 are interspersed in the Memoir of his Life, before cited. These will be duly respected here. 
 
 The following sketch of a prefatory Essay was found among his papers: 
 
 • «I do n ot conceive I have done more than any one else might, with patience and attention; yet still I cannot be 
 deceived as to what must be the product. I am well convinced that, some time or other, my labours will find their 
 value.” Original Letter, in Memoirs and Correspondence of Charles Alfred Stothard, F.S.A. by Mrs. Charles Stothard 
 (now Mrs. Dray), Author of Letters during a Tour through Normandy, &c. Longman and Co. 1823, p. 97■ 
 b 
 
2 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 “ It is one ol tlie most striking features of the human mind, that it invariably embodies and gives 
 form to description, more or less strong and perfect, as the mind is gifted and cultivated; and it is 
 from this property in man that the study of antiquity, as connected with and illustrative of history, is 
 the source of some of the greatest intellectual pleasures we are capable of enjoying. By these means 
 we live in other ages than our own, and become nearly as well acquainted with them. In some mea¬ 
 sure we arrest the fleeting steps of Time, 'and again review those things his arm has passed over, 
 and subdued, but not destroyed. The researches of the Antiquary are worthless if they do not im¬ 
 part to us this power, or give us other advantages; it is not to admire any thing for its age or rust 
 that constitutes the interest of the object, but as it is conducive to our knowledge, the enlargement of 
 human intellect, and general improvement. 
 
 “ Among the various antiquities which England possesses, there are none so immediately illustrative 
 of our history as its national monuments, which abound in our cathedrals and churches. Considered 
 with an attention to all they are capable of embracing, there is no subject can furnish more various or 
 original information. Scattered in all directions, and very remote from each other, they have hitherto 
 possessed but a negative value; it is therefore both useful and interesting, by means of the pencil, to 
 bring them together in the form of a collection; and in some degree, it is to be hoped, such an 
 attempt may give a check to, and serve to counteract, die unfeeling ignorance so prevalent hi the 
 taste displayed for beautifying and whitewashing these vestiges; a custom which has already destroyed 
 so much, and still continues to make the most dreadful ravages among these records of past ages. 
 The destruction by time and accident bears, in comparison with this, but small proportion, although 
 it adds to the claim these subjects have upon our attention, to save them from total oblivion. 
 
 “ ^ le Present work was undertaken from a conviction that nothing effectual towards this last-men¬ 
 tioned purpose had been accomplished, as well as to alford an interesting illustration of history, the 
 progiess of art and sculpture, with the changes in costume of different periods in this country. 
 
 “ ^ the progress of sculpture I shall presently speak at large; and of costume I may here observe, 
 that we have many proofs that the various dresses which present themselves to us on our Monumental 
 Effigies, were not at all introduced by any inventive or whimsical fancies in the sculptor. Several 
 agree with our MS. illuminations of their various periods; and we never observe any thing, however 
 singular, but we are sure to detect it repeated in the same age on some other subject. It may be 
 also remarked, that, with very few exceptions, these effigies present the only existing portraits we 
 possess, of our Kings, our Princes, and the Heroes of ages famed for chivalry and arms. Thus con¬ 
 sidered, they must be extremely valuable, and furnish us not only with well-defined ideas of celebrated 
 personages, but make us acquainted with the customs and habits of the time. To history they give a 
 body and a substance, by placing before us those things which language is deficient in describing. 
 
 “ Comparatively speaking, we shall be able to ascertain less in the few centuries into which our 
 inquiries lead us, than in the ages of the Greeks and Romans. The reason, I think, is obvious: as 
 the Arts in this country had their birth in religion, and were confined to the adornment of religious 
 edifices, Architecture, Painting, and Sculpture were no where to be found but under die Church, 
 supported by the munificence of Princes, and the vast revenues arising from Monasteries so richly 
 and splendidly endowed. How different was the spirit which animated the Pagan and the Gothic 
 ages! \\ ith the Greeks and Romans, not only the temples of their gods, but their cities, and even 
 
 their private houses, were adorned with works of art. Amongst our monkish historians, we neither 
 find a Diodorus Siculus nor a Strabo. Had the subject of the Gothic Arts been more political, his¬ 
 tory would have been imperfect, if it omitted accounts of things so intimately connected with it. I 
 intended, on the commencement of my work, to have given a history of the rise of Arts in this coun¬ 
 try, as far as they were connected with sculpture; but, on looking further into the subject, I found 
 materials too few; and those of such a nature, that the time required to make researches in this parti- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 cular would be enough of itself, without thinking of giving specimens, Sic. * * * * * The 
 earliest tombs of this country, since the Conqnest, appear to us in the shape of the lid of the coffin. 
 These seem to have been placed even with the pavement, having, in some instances, foliage fancifully 
 sculptured upon them, and in others crosses, with various fanciful devices, but most generally with 
 such as denoted the profession of the deceased. These were carved in exceeding low relief. Tombs 
 of this description are extremely numerous. As examples, a few will be selected of the most curious. 
 From some interesting specimens we have prior to the Conquest, we may gather that such a mode 
 was very early practised in this country.” 
 
 In pursuance of this intention, Mr. Stothard made a drawing of the lid of the stone-coffin of Queen 
 Matilda, at Caen, an etching from which is here inserted. We have in this drawing a careful fac¬ 
 simile of an inscription in the Roman character, as employed in the Gothic age. The chief varia¬ 
 tions are to be found in the form of the C, E, H, G, Q, and Z; and of the three first letters, the 
 pure Roman form is used as well as the other. It may, indeed, be suspected that the alteration 
 began with the Romans of the Lower Empire themselves. The upright strokes of letters in this 
 inscription are sometimes blended together, so as to make one upright stroke serve for two letters, as 
 the last stroke of an N for the fu st of a D; in one instance, a single letter is made to end and begin 
 a word, as QUAMULTIS for QUAM MULTIS; small letters are put within larger, &c.; prac¬ 
 tices not unknown, we believe, to the Romans, in their inscriptions, when they wished to contract 
 them within a limited space. A curious example of this kind, in the inscription on the tomb of 
 the Amdo-Saxon Princess Editha, at Magdeburg, was communicated in 1830 by the Rev. Edward 
 Kerrich, F.S.A. to the Gentleman’s Magazine.* The round uncial character, so called either from 
 its size or its initial station in MSS. came into use on tombs in the thirteenth century, and was super¬ 
 seded by the black-letter towards the close of the fourteenth. 
 
 Matilda was die daughter of Baldwin Earl of Flanders, was married to William Duke of Normandy 
 before his successful invasion of England, and was crowned as his Queen Consort of that Country in 
 1068. She died in 1083, and was buried in the church of the Holy Trinity, founded by herself at 
 Caen. The following is the epitaph inscribed on her coffin-lid: 
 
 “EGREGIE PULCIIRI TEGIT HEC STRUCTURA SEPULCHRI 
 MORIBUS INSIGNE' GERMEN REGALE MATHILDEM 
 DUX FLANDR1TA PATER HUIC EXTITIT ADALA MATER 
 francor’ GENTIS ROTBEUTI FILIA REGIS 
 ET SOROR HENR1C1 REGALIS EDE POTITI 
 REG1 MAGNIFICO WILLELMO JUNCTA MARITO 
 PRESENTEM SEDEM PRESENTE' FECIT ET EDEM 
 TAM MULTIS TERRIS QUAMULTIS REBUS HONESTIS 
 A SE D IT AT AM SE PROCURAXTE DICATAM 
 HEC CONSOLATRIX INOPUM PIETATIS AMATRIX 
 GAZIS DISPERSIS PAUPER SIBI DIVES EGENIS 
 SIC INFINITE PETIIT CONSORTIA VITE 
 IN PRIMA MENSIS POST PRIMAM LUCE NOVEMBRIS.” \ 
 
 The reader will be amused by comparing this version with the inscription in the etching, and 
 observing the expedients which were resorted to in order to bring it within the limits of the stone. 
 
 To Mr. Stothard’s observations on stone-coffins may be added, that they were the receptacles of 
 
 * Gent3. Mag. vol. C. i. 195. She was the daughter of King Edmund, 
 t Mrs. Charles Stothard's Tour in Normandy, &c. p. 101. 
 
\mk\w/z<u 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 of the distinguished dead from a very early period.' A Roman stone-coffin of very massive construc¬ 
 tion, having a coped lid,+ was laid open at the excavations made in 1828 at a spot near Csesar’s 
 Camp, Holwood Hill, in Kent, where are still visible the remains of a small temple, or sacellum, in con¬ 
 nection with Roman sepulchres. This coffin was deposited in a grave cut eight feet deep in the chalk 
 rock. The coped form of the lid was particularly well calculated for carrying off the moisture from 
 the interior, whether above or under ground. Accordingly, we find in the coffin in which the body of 
 William Rufus was deposited, the same form continued which had been adopted by the half-civilized 
 people of Europe, like the details of their architecture, on the Roman model. The coped shape of 
 the lid was no doubt very early varied by the flat, (particularly when the defunct was deposited under 
 the roof of a sacred building, where no moisture was to be repelled^ and the coffin-lid could be thus 
 reduced to the level of the floor,) but it remains one mark of the antiquity of sepulchral chests in the 
 . We resume Mr. Stothard’s prefator; 
 
 are rarely to he met with in England before the middle of the thirteenth century: a cir¬ 
 cumstance not to be attributed to the causes generally assigned, which were, either that they had been 
 destroyed, or that the unsettled stale of the times did not oiler sufficient encouragement for erecting 
 such memorials: but it rather appears not to have been before become the practice to repre; 
 deceased. If it had been otherwise, for what reason do we not find effigies over the tombs of William 
 the Conqueror, his son, William Rufus, or his daughter, Gundrada. Yet, after a time, it is an 
 undoubted fact tliut the alteration introduced by the Normans was the addition of the figure of the 
 person deceased ; and then it appeared not in the bold style of the later Norman monuments, but 
 partaking of the character and low relief of those tombs it was about to supersede. Of these, and of 
 the few, perhaps, that were executed, Roger Bishop of Sarum is the only specimen in good p 
 tion. The effigy of Joceline Bishop of Salisbury is infinitely more relieved than that of Roger Bishop 
 of the same see, which is far from possessing the bold relief we afterwards observe, in the figure of Kin<r 
 John. Our sculptors, having arrived at this stage of improvement, continued to execute their effigies 
 after the same manner, (during which we observe the coffin-shaped slab giving way to a more regular 
 figure,) till the beginning of the fourteendi century; and it was then that it entirely disappeared, and 
 that the effigy is represented in full relief, lo support such a conjecture is no difficult task " * * * 
 as by the appearance of King John’s remains, and other instances. “Withburg, a sister to Queen 
 Etheldreda, Abbess of Ely, when examined, several centuries after her interment, bj order ofthe Abbot 
 Richard, was found with a cushion of silk beneath her head, Sec. It is not unlikely that it was usual to 
 bury the dead in this manner; whence arose the custom of sculpturing our effigies with cushions under 
 the head. Henry the Second’s effigy, at Fontevraud, is thus represented, and agrees with the account 
 given by Matthew Paris, and other writers, of that monarch’s appearance after death, when placed 
 upon the bier; and Berenguria, Queen of Richard the First, is seen in her effigy holding a book, the 
 cover embossed with a second representation of herself (which agrees with the effigy), lying upon a 
 bier, with waxen tapers burning in candlesticks on either side. Yet it is probable the custom of 
 burying the dead in the dress which marked the habits of their lives was not universal; for, had it 
 been so, we should find knights in their armour,} which would have explained points that i 
 bably, will never be clearly understood. 
 
 “ It is true that a very voluminous work of this kind has been published by the late Mr. Goi 
 
 • Cremari apud Romanos non fuit veteris instituti: terra condebantur j et pustquam longinquis bellis obrutos e 
 cognovere cst institutum, et tamen multa; fainiliic priscos servavere ritus. Manutius de leg. Rom. 
 f See Arclueologia, Vol. XXII. Plate xvxii. p. 3-1S. 
 
 I The value of armour in an iron age, when the s 
 legacy.” may nccount for the omission of this practice. 
 
 descended from s 
 
INTRODUCTION. 5 
 
 which was undertaken with the best intentions; but, whatever information we may receive from his 
 writings, the delineating part is so extremely incorrect, and full of errors, that at a future period, 
 when the originals no longer exist, it will be impossible to form any correct idea of what they really 
 were. It may, perhaps, be thought unjust that I should enter so little into the merits of a work 
 which has challenged considerable notice; but delicacy, united to the wish of depreciating as little as 
 possible the well-intentioned endeavours of another, would altogether make me silent, did I not feel 
 that, in justice to myself, and as the present work is situated, something must be said, or the errors* 
 of Mr. Gough might at a future period be the means of injuring an attempt, which differs from his 
 on account of its very accuracy. ****** Had Mr. Gough been draughtsman sufficient to have 
 executed his own drawings, he might have avoided the innumerable mistakes which, from circum¬ 
 stances, and the nature of the subject, must unavoidably have arisen. He could not transfer that 
 enthusiasm which he himself felt to the persons he employed, to enable them to overcome such diffi¬ 
 culties. Of what nature these were, and how they acted upon interested people, can be easily shown. 
 There are innumerable instances where the effigies are covered with plaster and whitewash, so as to 
 conceal, not only the true form, but the ornaments upon it. Such disfigurement cannot be removed 
 by the unfeeling hand of a labourer; and can it be supposed that a mere draughtsman, employed 
 upon a work of which he is not the proprietor, will take upon himself the disagreeable and unprofitable 
 task of clearing the surface of a subject, which his employer will probably never see or examine ? 
 For it is remarkable that the most curious specimens I have found, and given in my work, presented, 
 at first sight, nothing which could excite the least interest, till, with infinite trouble, lime, and labour, 
 
 I disincumbered them of their whitewash, plaster, and house-painting cases, when the figures, dresses, 
 and ornaments, frequently came forth in a state sufficiently clear and perfect to be entirely made 
 out.” 
 
 The military costume, from the military character of the Middle Ages, necessarily forms a most 
 prominent feature in the Monumental Effigies of Great Britain. The rent of the tenant in capite 
 was military service; and every great landholder, therefore, became a knight. The mail and the 
 plate, in modern days, have been stripped from under the surcoat, or “ cote armure,” of our Gentry, 
 but they still retain the distinctive emblazonments with which the surcoat was wrought, as the badge 
 of their noble descent, and thus have perpetuated the pride of chivalry; not, indeed, speaking in a 
 limited sense, reprehensible, for, when associated, as it always assumed to be, with religion, it leads 
 to actions “ Sans peur et sans reproche.” 
 
 Ancient armour may be classed under three distinct periods. In the first, the outward defence of 
 the body was chiefly composed of mail, (to apply that as a general term for armour formed of 
 minute pieces, and not strictly with a view to its derivation); that mail was either of small plates of 
 metal, like fish scales, of square or lozenge-shaped plates, or mascles, or of rings, which, perhaps, were 
 not at first interlinked and rivetted together, but sewn down upon quilted cloth. Examples of all 
 these will be seen by reference to the prints of the Bayeux Tapesty, published by the Society of Anti¬ 
 quaries of London, after Mr. Charles Stothard’s original drawings. 
 
 With this defensive clothing for the body was worn a conical steel cap with a nasal, and a long 
 kite-shaped shield. Pot-shaped helmets, flat at the top, and spherical chapelles-de-fer, were also 
 amon" the early defences for the head. These were sometimes worn under the hood of the hauberk; 
 which will account for the forms that the chain-mail armour in some instances assumes, on figures 
 represented in our effigies and seals. 
 
 In the second period, the mail was externally strengthened about the arms and legs with plates of 
 
 * It will be observed that Mr. Stothard speaks, all through these remarks, of the errors which arose from the misre- 
 sentations of the subjects by Mr. Gough's draughtsmen. Nothing could be further from his mind than any envious 
 motive, or to depreciate the zeal, research, and learning displayed by Mr. Gough’s undertaking. 
 
6 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 iron. A helmet covering the head and face was introduced, or a moveable ventaille, or baviere, was 
 added, for the same purpose, to the scull-cap. 
 
 The third period inclosed the body from head to foot in plate of steel, and the chain-mail only 
 makes its appearance at the aisse/les, or armpit joints of the armour, either its gussets, or worn under¬ 
 neath, as a haubergeon, or lighter shirt of mail.* 'Die carnail, or gorget of mail, so called from its 
 being attached by a lace to the basinet, or cap, was, on account of the pliability which it afforded to 
 the motion ol the neck, at first retained, but was ultimately displaced by a gorget of plate. To the 
 breastplate the protuberant form of a pigeon’s breast was given, particularly well calculated to glance 
 off the thrust of a spear, and to prevent the body from being injured by blows causing deep indentations 
 in the armour. I lie term hauberk seems to have been used either for the corselet, or body-armour of 
 mail or of plate. Chaucer thus describes the armour of a knight, in his ‘ Rhime of Sir Thopas:’ 
 
 ' He did on next his white lere 
 Of cloth of lake full fine and clere, 
 
 A breehc, and eke a sherte. 
 
 And next his sherte an hakalon. 
 
 And ovir that an habergeon 
 For percing of his herte; 
 
 And over that a fine huuberke 
 Was all ywrought of Jewis werkc; 
 
 Full strong it was of plate. 
 
 And ovir that his cotc-armure. 
 
 As white as is the lilly-flourc, 
 tn which he would debate. 
 
 His shelde was all of gold so redde 
 And thereon was a boris hedde; 
 
 A carboncle beside. 
 
 His swordis shethc of ivory ; 
 
 His helm of laton bright; 
 
 * In Dr. Meyrick’s fine collection of ancient arms and armour, we see a figure wearing the habergeon of mail over the 
 laiuerk of plate. I his does not appear to accord with the arrangement of the harness on Chaucer's knight ; but both 
 modes were no doubt adopted, according to the pleasure of the wearer. 
 
 + Cuir boudli was extensively used in armour. The corselet, or body-armour, superadded to the hauberk was at 
 first composed of it. and in the term cuirass we have etymological record that it was so employed; and plastron implies 
 a defence of leather sitting us close to the breast as a plaister. The figure of John of Eltham may be considered to 
 aflord a good example of plate and leather-armour intermixed. Du Cange, in his Notes on Joinville, cites a very curious 
 inventory, of t he armour necessary for a knight, which will be found to corroborate the above remarks: 
 
 " Preincrement, un harnois de jambes covert de cuir comme a csguillettes, ou long de la gamhe jusques au genouil et 
 deux attaches large pour son barrucir (breeches), et souleres values fqu. velours•) attaches au grues (greaves) 
 
 Item ' Cais “* et pouHuins (knee-plates) de cuir. armoier de Varcnnes, des armes au chevalier. 
 
 " Item, un chausse de mnilles par-dessus le harnois de jambes, attache'e au braier, comme dit ost par-dessus les misses 
 this was perhaps, the gipon, jupon, or little petticoat of mail,. et uns esperons dorez qui sont attache* a une cordelette 
 “‘our de ,a jambe, afin que la molette (rowel) ne tourne dessous le pied. 
 
 T" “ '■'”*■ * ““ ”* 
 
 Cl un seuroiiere (sou., cervelliere or camafl) sur le pis (breast) avant. 
 
 i. IT. ITT*,* "* k lmk ° r r ° r ,te « j* »- ™» d. 1., ur 
 
 - - rxJrr , tjeszszt *"" - - •*- •—— 
 
 .1.^™'^"“"“ d< '* < ' 1 "- to th, t»™. tt. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 His sadell was of ruell bone;* 
 
 His bridle as the sunne yshone. 
 
 Or as the moone ylight; 
 
 His spere was of the line cypres. 
 
 That bodeth warre, and nothing pece. 
 
 The hedde full sharpe igrounde.’ , -t' 
 
 Towards the latter end of the fifteenth century, the surcoat appears to have been often laid aside 
 for the purpose of exhibiting the effulgence of the polished steel. The armour then was elaborately 
 fluted and channelled; and lastly engraved with various ornaments, legends, and devices. A kind of 
 armour of German manufacture was, we believe, at this period much esteemed, which went under the 
 general name of “ Almayne Rivett.” £ 
 
 On the subject of plate and mail armour, Mr. Stothard himself makes the following remarks, in a 
 letter addressed to that eminent antiquary, the late Rev. Thomas Kerrich : “It is, I believe, a most 
 difficult thing to say when plate-armour was first introduced, because no representations, however 
 well executed, can tell us of what was worn out of sight, and inventories of armour, as well as notices 
 of writers on the subject, are not common; the only things by which we can gain information. Daniel, in 
 his c Military Discipline of France,’ cites a poet who describes a combat between William de Barres 
 and Richard Cceur de Lion (then Earl of Poitou), in which he says, that they met so fiercely that their 
 lances pierced through each other’s coat of mail and gambeson, but were resisted by a plate of 
 wrought-iron worn beneath. This is a very solitary piece of information; and the poet cited (whose 
 name, I believe, is not mentioned) might not have been contemporary with the event described, and 
 of course gave the custom of his own time. It however strikes me, that plate was at all times partially 
 used. We find in die reign of Henry the Third pieces of plate on the elbows and knees. I have a 
 drawing from a figure about the time of Edward the First, in mail, with gauntlets of plate; and I 
 strongly suspect that a steel cap was worn under the mail oftener than we imagine. How can we 
 otherwise account for the form in the mail chaperon of William Longespee ? Would not the top of 
 the head be round instead of flat, if something were not interposed to give it this form? And how 
 ill calculated to receive a blow, supposing nothing but the mail and linen coif interposed. See die 
 effigy in No. 8. of my work, from Hitehendon church :§ where a piece of mail appears cut out, does it 
 not seem that there is a cap beneath the mail ? 
 
 " Item, un heaume et le tymbrc (crest), tel comme il voudra. 
 
 " Item, deux chains a attachier a la poitrine de la cuirie, une pour 1'epee, 1’autrepour le baston, en deux vigeres, pour 
 le heaume attachcr. (Two chains; one to fasten the sword to the breast of the cuirass, another having some con¬ 
 trivance of a stick to attach the helmet in the same way.) 
 
 * Ruell-bonej bone riule, or stained with divers colours. 
 
 f The following passage of Froissart will afford an idea of the power of a sharp-ground lance : " Among the Cambre- 
 sians was a young squire from Gascony, called William Marchant, who came to the field of battle mounted on a good 
 steed, his shield hanging to his neck, his lance in its rest, completely armed, and spurring on to the combat. When 
 Sir Giles Manny saw him approach, he spurred on to meet him most vigorously, and they met, lance in hand, without 
 fear of each other. Sir Giles had his shield pierced through, as well as all the armour near his heart, and the iron passed 
 quite through his body."—Johnes’s Translation. Svo, vol. I. p. 169. 
 
 ; The term, therefore, we think has been used in too limited a sense, in describing the armour of Sir John Pechy, or 
 Peche. A passage in Hall’s Chronicle shows that it was applicable to the whole suit of armour. "The King 
 (Henry VIII.) was received into a bote covered with arras, and so was set on londe. He was appareillcd in Almayne 
 Ryvet, crested, and his vanbrace of the same, and on his head a chapeau montabyn, with a rich coronal; ye folde of the 
 chapeau was lined with crymsen satcn, and on it a rich brooch, with the image of Sainct George. Over his Rivet! he 
 had a garment of white cloth of gold, with a red crosse, and so he was received with procession."—Hall's Chronicle, 
 re-print, p. 538. 
 
 § The effigy of Richard Wellesburne de Montfort. 
 
8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ‘•'But, to dwell longer on tins head, plate-armour appears, from our paintings in MSS. and monu¬ 
 ments, not to have gained any ground till the fifth or sixth of Edward the Third. John of Eltham, 
 and the Knight ut I field, with Sir John Dabernoun, are the first specimens. Yet to show how care¬ 
 ful we should be on this point, we find, in an account taken 1313, the sixth of Edward II. of the 
 armour which belonged to Piers Gaveston, the following items: ‘ A pair of plates (these covered the 
 body, and most probably were the back and breast plate), rivetted and garnished with silver, with 
 four chains of silver, (see for chains the effigy of the Blanchfront,) covered with red velvet, besanted 
 with gold. Two pair ofjambers (armour for the legs) ot iron, old and new; two coats of velvet, to 
 cover die plates.’ All the monumental figures 1 ever saw, of the time of Edward the Second, 
 have been in mail, as far as I could judge; so that you see I am in some difficulty. I am not sur¬ 
 prised that mail was not so much worn after the introduction of plate; considering how the body 
 then became loaded, it was necessary to get rid of something. On the Knight at Ilield, and Sir John 
 Dabernoun,* we may see first the diick quilled gambeson, over which is the haubergeou ol mail, hav¬ 
 ing above that what I take to be the aqueton. If there was any plate on the body, it was hidden by 
 the surcoat, which went over all; but there is reason to suspect there was: for, iu the profile of the 
 Ash Church Effigy, we see between the lacings of the surcoat that the body is covered with narrow 
 plates. After the introduction of plate-armour the gambeson first disappears; which was followed 
 by the aqueton. The aqueton is seen without the gambeson in Sir Oliver Ingham: it is blue, 
 with gold studs or points. 
 
 “ Before the general introduction of plate-armour, men seem to have been pretty well loaded; but, 
 as most excesses cure themselves, it became necessary to get riil of something. The hauberk was 
 succeeded by the haubergeou, which was shorter: see the Knight at Tewkesbury. Before the end of 
 the fourteenth century, 1 believe, the mail chausses, or stockings, disappeared from our own monu¬ 
 ments. This is difficult to ascertain, because the joints (the only places where the chausses might be 
 seen) were always defended by pieces of mail, called, in some instances, gaussets (gussets). 
 
 “It does not seem as if the Black Prince hud a steel bark preu, yet I apprehend the lower division 
 of his body is in plate. Perhaps he wears the piece of armour called the pance.f I am inclined to 
 think so from John Lord Montacute’s effigy, where there is a contrivance to give more action, and 
 defend the joints of the body-armour; which would be unnecessary if either the upper or lower por¬ 
 tions were not of plate, or something similar. You perhaps know that there was a substitute for 
 plate, much in fashion at this period, called cuir buui/li/, or leather boiled and moulded into any 
 form; hard enough, when dry, to resist a sword. 
 
 “ I know nothing more difficult than to distinguish the plates under the surcoat; we must seek 
 information on this point from other sources. The singular appearance on monuments of the earliest 
 sort of mail, 1 think to be owing to its having been sewed on cloth in particular directions, or else a 
 different mode of representing a complete body. If you take a steel purse, and pull it crossways, die 
 rings will range in the same order, and have the same appearance. There is little doubt of their 
 having been rings, and not circular pieces of plate.” $ 
 
 In another letter, Mr. Stothard touches on the same subject: 
 
 “ Amongst other other curious tilings, I have met with a figure which has some remarkable points 
 about it; but for the discovery of these I devoted a whole day in clearing away a thick coating of 
 whitewash, which concealed them. The mail attached to the helmet was of that kind so frequently 
 represented in drawings, and which you have had doubts whether it was not another way of repre- 
 
 • See 1 ... iteil in tin work, 
 
 + Pence, ventre. Panchierc; portie <le I 'armour, destinee a couvrir le ventre.—Glossaire de la Langue Romane. 
 For the term hark pm, we should perhaps read horde pm, i. e. a strong piece of armour, composed of bars or lamimc 
 of iron. The appearance of Montacute’s armour about the waist will explain Mr. Stothard’s meaning. 
 
 1 Memoir, p. 268. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 senting that sort we are already acquainted with. The lowest row of rings finish in the way I have 
 represented them, without the band or cord. I must advertise you that the original is but a coarse 
 representation. I have an impression of a small portion, where I found it sharpest: 
 
 yy j j j jjjJJJ ))Jj 
 
 mi ((mam 
 
 msmm 
 
 The cuisses of the same figure are remarkable : 
 
 Mr. Stothard, in these details, refers to the figure in the abbey church, Tewkesbury. On the sub¬ 
 ject of the mails of armour, whether of plates or rings, he says that we should not be aware of the 
 varieties which existed but for the early illuminated MSS. He sketches from them, and from the 
 monuments, the following specimens, in addition to that above given: 
 
 Examples of the two last kinds, he says, are very common. 
 
 That prominent appendage of military costume, the surcoat, or tabard,* may claim a few particular 
 observations. It is said to have been adopted by the crusaders to the Holy Land, in order to pre¬ 
 vent their armour from being heated to excess by the rays of a burning sun. Shakspeare has noted 
 this inconvenience incident to habiliments of steel, when he speaks of 
 
 - "A rich armour worn in heat of day. 
 
 That scalds with safety.”- 
 
 We are not disposed to doubt but this might, indeed, have been the origin of the surcoat; but we 
 believe that in this article of military attire, as in the rest, the crusaders imitated their infidel 
 opponents. The assertion of the learned Du Cange must not, however, passed unnoticed,* who tells 
 us that the cotte d’armes, or garment to cover the armour, was the most usual dress of the ancient 
 Gauls, and by them called sagum; that it did not commonly reach below the knee; thus Martial — 
 
 " Dimidiasque nates Gallica palla tegit; ” — 
 
 that they wore this dress, in time of war, over the cuirass, as knights in later days wore their coats of 
 arms. The ancient Greeks wore a similar vesture over the cuirass, and called it, accordingly, 
 eKiQwpaKibiov and ireptObipaKtbiov. It is mentioned by Greek writers of the Middle Age, and styled, 
 in barbarous language, €m\u>ptciov a nd e*avoKXflavov. The knightly surcoat was at first very long, 
 and could, therefore, have little affinity with the sagum of the Gauls. It was worn for no other 
 
 Dissertations on the Hist, of St. Louis. Dissert. 
 
10 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 
 purpose, perhaps, than that which lias been first mentioned; without we add the very p 
 that by its colour, or figured devices, it afforded a ready distinction* for the individual v 
 
 Nicetas thus describes the attire of the Prince of Antioch, a French lord, at a tournament held in 
 honour of the Emperor Manuel Comnenas: “He was mounted on a beautiful horse, whiter than 
 snow, clothed in a coat-of-arms open on both sides, and which fell to his heels — a/onn-o/ieim mwa 
 For an illustration, see the effigies of Geoffrey Magnaville and of the nameless 
 
 1 emplar. 
 
 The warriors represented in the Bayeux Tapestry wear no surcoatsover their coats of mail; but, 
 after the first crusade, they are common on our historical sculptural memorials. Joinville, in his 
 Lite of St. Louis, says: “I remember once the good Lord King (father to the King now on the 
 throne) speaking of the pomp of dress, and the embroidered coats-of-arms, that are now daily com¬ 
 mon in the armies, I said to the present King, that, when I was in the Holy Land with his father, 
 am m las army, I never saw one single embroidered coat, or ornamented saddle, in possession of the 
 King his father, or any other lord. He answered that he had done wrong in embroidering his arms 
 and that he had some coats that had cost him eight hundred livres parisis."-!- At length, the surcoat 
 became an additional defence for the body, and was thickly gamboised, or quilted. 
 
 1 he same author, in the interesting personal narrative of his adventures in the Holy Land, cites a 
 striking instance of the efficacy of a quilted defence for the bodv: “I luckily found near me a gnu 
 bison of coarse cloth, belonging to a Saracen, and turning the slit part’inward, I made a sort of 
 sudd, winch was of much service to me; for I was only wounded by their shots in five places, 
 whereas my horse was hurt in fifteen.”^ 
 
 Those whose property did not qualify them to become knights, and wear the distinction of the 
 SefenTe ’ '™ re “ “ Pply ll,emselra • qtblted gambeson, or wamb.it, 
 
 “ Qtticumque vero 80 librarnm ,el antplias habebil de mobilibus, tenebitttr habere lorieom »el 
 errcale e. eapellam ferret™ ct iatteeam. Q„i vero minus de 20 libris habebi, de ntobilibtts, ienebitnr 
 liabere gambesam et capellum ferreum et lanceam.” 
 
 In the inventor, of the Wearing-apparel of King Louis Hunt,, made ISIS, he give, tts the follow- 
 
 “ Une c 
 de France, 
 gamboisiee 
 cuisses) 
 
 tte gamboisee de cendal blanc (white sarsenet). Deux tunieles et ui 
 Une couverture de gamboisons brodees des armes dtt roi Tmis 
 t ties armes do roi, et ones Inde, jasequenecs. Un caisiax gamboise 
 ; couvertures gamboisees de France et de Navarre.” 
 
 i gamboist 
 paires de 
 Z (a pai 
 
 des armes 
 ouvertures 
 of gamboised 
 
 Mr. Stotltard, m reference to the gatnboising on monuments, in a letter to the Rev. T. Kerrich 
 
 Ze„„^„“lT Ur 0 ". 0 " ' V °“ rP ‘™ **"> r °™“ 1 ™"i"g longitudinally. I 
 
 hate no, only dtscovered what „ ts ,Mended represent, b„, also lately found (in further proof 
 
 there ™ bill,,,, d, Cl.te, Etul, af 01or«,„, wham, ,h, Scattt. weald gl.dl, fa, , 
 
 liad knownc him ; but lie had forgotten to put on his coal,. „f ,r„,ae •• e. , ? ? 1 ,1 ‘ 
 
 ^r.«d * riina p - »• 
 
 . “ Kni s h,s their conisante clad for the nonce.” 
 
 a b ° dy "“ h ““ «. Ufa* kaigtu, 
 
 •' Took his labarde, and staffe eke, 
 
 . , . . , . And on his hedde he set his hatte.” Plowman's Tale 
 
 + Johnes s translation of Joinville’s Memoirs. 4to, 1S07 p 04 , „ .. _ 
 
 ; MS. af the year I3M, cited by Du Cange. ’ i IW. p. ■«. 
 
 § Sec Du Cange. Notes on the Memoir of St. Louis. Trans 
 
 uD. 1313 : 
 ne. if they 
 The dis- 
 
 3. p. 330. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 11 
 
 my conjecture was riglit) a knight whose long surcoat, with sleeves in separate pieces, is composed of 
 it; but what puts the matter beyond doubt is the surcoat of Edward the Black Prince, hanging over 
 his tomb. I have lately examined and drawn it. The whole is ribbed in a similar manner; but we 
 soon account for that, having one specimen of the thing before us, when a hundred of the best repre¬ 
 sentations in stone would not have done it. The surcoat of the Black Prince is stuffed with cotton 
 to nearly three quarters of an inch in thickness; and, in order to keep the cotton in its place, longi¬ 
 tudinal and narrow divisions were made all over it—in short it is quilted; the divisions being the 
 places where the cotton is sewed down—what, I believe, was called by the French gamboising.” * 
 
 On the use of coats-of-arms by the infidels, the authority of Joinville is very decisive. Speaking of 
 the youthful captives made in war, purchased of contending states in the East, and composing the 
 Sultan’s body-guard, he says: “These youths bore the arms of the Sultan, and were called his 
 Bahairiz. When their beards were grown, the Sultan made them knights ; and their emblazonments 
 were, like his, of pure gold, save that, to distinguish them, they added bars of Vermillion, with 
 roses, birds, griffins, or any other difference, as they pleased. They were called the Band of the 
 Hauleca; which signifies the Archers of the King’s Guard.”+ 
 
 Thus it also appears probable that the metallic colours of heraldry had their rise in the actual use 
 of the precious metals by the infidels, in the gorgeous distinctions assumed by them for their armour.J 
 During the late long-continued war in which this country was engaged, every military man will 
 recollect that many points of foreign military costume were adopted by the officers of the British army. 
 It does not, therefore, appear wonderful that the first crusaders should have imitated the splendid 
 arms in which their enemies were attired, or, to extend the remark, that theywere induced to adopt 
 their light and elegant pointed style of building, in the room of the heavy features to which they 
 themselves had debased the Roman architecture. 
 
 In continuation, we now add some of Mr. Stothard’s own remarks, on these and correlative points 
 “ Of the surcoat.—John is the first of the Kings of England, we observe, to wear the surcoat over 
 the hauberk. An old French writer tells us Charlemagne had always, in winter, a new surcoat, with 
 sleeves lined with fur, to guard his body and heart from cold. 
 
 “ The Crest, or Cap of Estate.—On the seals of Edward the Third, made after he had assumed the 
 lilies of France, by quartering them with the leopards of England, we observe for the first time the 
 cap of estate surmounted with the lion, A. D. 1388. 
 
 “ We do not find by our monuments, or other memorials, that crests were borne in such variety as 
 at present; with but few exceptions, they were originally the heads of beasts or birds, or bunches of 
 feathers. The reared arm bearing the cross, the demi-lion, and many others of the same character, 
 which now abound, are most probably the conceits of the age of Henry the Eighth, when quaint 
 fancies were sought after. 
 
 “ From the tomb of Richard the Second, and other evidences, it appears he not only impaled the 
 arms of England with those of Edward the Confessor, but also used them on an escutcheon alone, 
 Edward the Confessor having been adopted by Richard as his patron saint. An example of this, and 
 perhaps the best, is to be found over the entrance to Westminster Hall. Edward the Third adopted 
 St. George as his patron saint; and we find on the tomb of that King the arms of England and the 
 cross of St. George alternately enamelled on escutcheons: and it is not improbable that the cross of 
 
 * Memoir, p. 267. An example of the gamboised surcoat, clearly defined, will be seen in the effigy of Shurland. 
 
 •f Johnes’s translation of Joinville’s Memoirs, p. 156. 
 
 J How many distinctive bearings were suggested by garments, arms, or implements, which must have been familiar to 
 the warriors of the crusades : mauches, vair, flanches, minever, swords, arbalists, bows, lances, arrows, pheons (barbed 
 heads for missiles), battering-rams, water-budgets, &c. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 St. George lias been the English badge ever since Edward’s time.* This appears still more likely, 
 when it is considered that Edward the Third founded the Order of the Garter. 
 
 « Knights being represented cross-legged was certainly allusive to Templars, or Knights of the 
 Holy Voyage; as after Edward the Third's reign (in which the order was dissolved) we find no 
 monuments in that fashion. 
 
 “At the earlier period, when the mail covered the head, it appeal’s not to have been detached 
 from, but to have been one piece with, that which covered the body; but in the early part of the 
 reign of Henry the Third, to which period our earliest effigies belong, we see the mail flat on the top 
 of the head, and laced or tied above the left ear. Of this description are the effigies of many of the 
 knights in the Temple church, William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury, the Knight in Malvern abbey 
 church, Robert Courthose, &c. An early specimen differs considerably from these, as the mail appears 
 to go over the surcoat, not to have any kind of lacing or fastening much above the ears, nor to be 
 attached to the shirt of mail, as in the former—only, like them, characterized by this flatness. 
 
 “The last alteration we find, is the mail as before, but of one entire piece, sometimes with and 
 sometimes without a fillet: but resembling the hood, a part of the civil dress, to be drawn over the 
 head, and thrown back upon the shoulders, at pleasure. 
 
 “ The basinet was worn in the fourteenth century, and part of the thirteenth, sometimes with or 
 without a vizor, but always finished with other appendages, as vervilles.f The camail, and what was 
 called by the French a hourson, to which may be added a strap, was to attach the whole, by means of 
 a buckle, to the haubergeon, or plates. 
 
 “ The camail was originally a covering of mail for the head, and was called capmail, the basinet 
 being worn over it; but about 1330 its form was materially altered : it no longer extended as a cover¬ 
 ing for the head; vervilles, or staples, were introduced on the basinet, and the camail fastened outside, 
 by means of these and a lace. We have some few instances, about the period that this change took 
 place, where the ends of the mail, nt its junction with the basinet, are left folding over the laciii"-, 
 and depending on each side in an ornamental form. The cnmail was often called the barbicrc, or 
 the gorgerelte, after the changes took place; but as there is more consistency in Froissart, in his 
 descriptions of armour, I have preferred that name by which he invariably distinguishes this ap¬ 
 pendage to the basinet. The lacing of the helmet to the cerveUlerc appears to have been first dis¬ 
 used in all those monuments of the time of Henry the Fourth, and was never afterwards resumed.{ 
 
 Speaking of the fanciful diaper-work introduced in die first and fourth quarters of the shield of 
 
 third, Mr. Stothard, with his usual discrimination, says he does not see that any herald is justified in 
 calling the fleu-de-lys ornament a quarter of France.^ 
 
 On circlets, chaplets or wreaths, and coronets, so often occurring on our monumental figures, Mr. 
 Stothard makes the following notes : 
 
 • This is a judicious observation of Mr. Stothard; for we find by Matthew Paris that, in the year 1188, the French 
 cusaders were distinguished by red crosses, the English by white, the Flemings by green. We may therefore infer 
 that the red cross was not then one of our national ensigns. " Crucem aniraosius susceperunt. Provisum est etiam 
 inter cos. ut omnes de regno. Francorum cruets rubeas, dc terris regis Anglorum albas, de terra comitis Flandrensis 
 virides haberent cruccs.” Matt. Palis, Hist. Angl. edit. Watts, p. 146. 
 t Memoir, p. 335. * ibid. p. 332. 
 
 Ibid. 12G. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 13 
 
 “ The coronet does not appear to have been used, under its present form (excepting it is discovered 
 on the heads of females), by princes, dukes, earls, or knights, till the reign of Edward the Third, and 
 it is then to be found indiscriminately on the heads of all these. We may therefore infer that it was 
 used rather as an ornament than as a particular mark of distinction, as it is to be seen in the monu¬ 
 ments on the helmets of simple knights, as well as earls; but it perhaps became so when it disap¬ 
 peared on the helmets of the former, and was retained on those of the latter. The coronet, under 
 the present form, before the introduction of the leaves, was simply a fillet, more or less ornamented, 
 to confine the hair, and was worn alike by all classes above a certain rank. The coronet, under the 
 name of garland, is spoken of by Matthew Paris.* In its nearer approach to the modern coronet, it 
 became adorned with precious stones. We have good evidence that in this state it was called a circle. 
 As an ornamented fillet it was probably regarded in the reign of Edward the Third; for Lionel 
 Duke of Clarence in his will leaves two golden circles, with one of which he says he was created a 
 Duke, and with the other his brother Edward was created a Prince. Edmund Earl of March leaves 
 to his daughter Philippa a coronet of gold, with stones, and two hundred great pearls; also a circle, 
 with roses, emeralds, and rubies of Alexandria in the roses. 
 
 “ The chaplet, hi the time of Henry the Fourth, appears to have been worn round the helmet as a 
 defence, being composed of twisted linen, or a fillet of cloth stuffed with somewhat most capable of 
 resisting the blow of a sword. For a specimen of the latter, we must look to Bohun, in Gloucester 
 cathedral.” 
 
 We shall venture to add a few remarks in continuation of Mr. Stothard’s. 
 
 The chaplet, and the heraldic wreath placed under the crest, are perhaps nearly the same thing; 
 only that, when the helmet was taken off, the wreath was removed to the basinet. The probable 
 origin of the heraldic wreath was the twisted turban of the infidels, called by Joinville a twisted towel, 
 the folds of which he mentions as forming a good defence against the cut of sword or sabre. The 
 pot-helmet of the effigy of a Crusader in the Temple church, seems to be furnished with a plain 
 padded fillet. As the military costume advanced in luxurious splendour, this wreath, chaplet, or 
 circlet, was adorned with rich chasing of goldsmiths' work, precious stones, &c. See a beautiful 
 example in the details of the monument of Sir Edmund de Thorpe. 
 
 The knightly wreath, and its protuberant size, is noted by Chaucer. He says it was as thick as the 
 arm: 
 
 " A wreth of gold arm grot, of huge weight, 
 
 Upon his hed set, ful of stones bright. 
 
 Of fine rubys and clere diamants."- The Knight’s Tale, 1. 2146. 
 
 Froissart relates to us, with his usual interesting circumstantiality, the manner in which Edward 
 the Third presented a chaplet of pearls to the gallant French knight, Sir Eustace de Ribeaumont: 
 “ When supper was over, and the tables removed, the King remained in the hall among the English 
 and French knights bareheaded, except a chaplet of fine pearls which was round his head. * * * 
 When he came to Sir Eustace de Ribeaumont, he assumed a cheerful look, and said with a smile, 
 * Sir Eustace, you are the most valiant knight in Christendom, that I ever saw attack his enemy or 
 defend himself. I never yet found any one in battle who, body to body, had given me so much to do 
 as you have done this day. I adjudge to you the prize of valour above all the knights of my court, 
 as what is justly due to you. The King then took off the chaplet, which was very rich and hand- 
 
 * Mr. Stothard alludes to the following passage: “ Dominus Rex veste deaurata facta de preciosissirao Baldefcino, 
 et coronula aurea (pise vulgariter t/arlaiida dicitur redimitus, sedens gloriose in solio regio jussit,” &c. Matt. Parisiensis. 
 in vita Henrici III. edit. Watts, p. 736. This is the part where Henry the Third causes a portion of the blood of 
 Christ, sent to him by the Patriarch and Bishops of Palestine, to be deposited with great ceremony in the abbey church 
 of Westminster, and girds William de Valence, his uterine brother, on the same occasion, with the sword of knighthood. 
 
II. INTRODUCTION. 
 
 some, and placing it on the head of Sir Eustace, said, ‘Sir Eustace, I present you with this chaplet, 
 as being the best combatant this day, either within or without doors; and I beg of you to wear it this 
 year, for love of me. I know that you are lively and amorous, and love the company of ladies and 
 damsels; therefore say, wherever you go, that I gave it you,’ ” * * * § 
 
 These coronets, circlets, or garlands, were at first, perhaps, like the collar of SS. at a later period, 
 a general distinction for gentle rank or honourable achievement. A ram and a ring were constituted 
 the prize for the victor at an ancient wrestling-match. The ring spoken of was, we imagine, a circlet 
 for the head, not for the finger. 
 
 " Much worship were it, sothly, 
 
 Brotbir. unto us all. 
 
 Might I the Ram, and als the Ring, 
 
 Bringin home to the hall.” 
 
 Chaucer, The Coke’s Tale of Gamelvn. 
 
 Chaplets, or garlands, were used at funerals to decorate the corpse or bier of deceased virgins, or 
 suspended in the church where they had attended divine worship. Within our recollection, some, 
 curiously formed of paper, were hanging in Earningham church, in Kent. A writer in the Gentle¬ 
 man’s Magazine for June 1717, says, that “in 1733, as the parish-clerk of Bromley, in Kent, was 
 digging a grave in the churchyard, close to the east end of the chancel wall, he dug up a funeral 
 garland, or crown, artificially wrought in filagree-work with gold and silver wire, in resemblance of 
 myrtle. Its leaves were fastened to hoops of larger wire of iron, which were something corroded with 
 rust; but both the gold and silver wire remained very little different from its original splendour. The 
 inside was also lined with cloth of silver.” f The priest at Ophelia’s funeral says, she is allowed 
 “ her virgin crants,” { or garlands. 
 
 The Monumental Effigies afford many interesting specimens of female habits, and of civil costume 
 in general. Of the wimpled attire of the head, we have examples in the effigies of Aveline Countess 
 of Lancaster, and of the Lady on the brass in Minster church. Chaucer shows us that these head- 
 clothes were somewhat weighty : his Wife of Bath, 
 
 " Of cloth-making had such a haunt,§ 
 
 She passid them of Ypres or of Gaunt. 
 
 Her coverchiefes were large, and fine of ground, 
 
 I durst to swere that they weyid three pound, 
 
 That on a Sondav were upon her hedde. 
 
 Her hoain were of line scarlet redde, 
 
 Full strait ystrained ; and her shoos new. 
 
 Upon her ambler easily she satte, 
 
 All wimpled well, and on her hed a hatte 
 As hrode us is a bokeler or a targe ; 
 
 A foot mantil about her hippis large.” || 
 
 The last line informs us that she wore a mantle down to her feet. 
 
 If we refer to the beautifully illuminated Persian MSS. in the British Museum, we shall be 
 induced to believe the wimple was adopted from the ladies of the East. The coincidence of chain- 
 mail armour in these MSS. with that of our old crusaders, is also very remarkable. 
 
 * Johncs's Froissart, vnl. II. p, 248, Svo. edit. 
 
 + See Dunkin’s Outlines of the History of Bromley, in Kent. 
 
 I Hamlet, Act V. Scene i. 
 
 § Such a hoard of manufactured cloths for garments. 
 
 || Prologue to the Canterbury Tales. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The fret in which the hair was confined forms a remarkable appendage of the coiffure of the women 
 of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It was probably composed of gold or silver wire, and 
 studded with pearls or precious stones. Chaucer will afford us an illustration in the following lines: 
 
 To which may be added these: 
 
 - " And in his handc a Quccne, 
 
 And she was clad in roiall habite grene ; 
 
 A/re/ of galt/e she had next her here; 
 
 With flourounis small; and, I shall not lie 
 For all the worlde, right as a daisie 
 Icrownid is with white levis Iite, 
 
 So were the flourounis of hei crowne white. 
 
 For of a perle fine orientall 
 Her white coroune was imakid all; 
 
 For which the white coroune above the grene 
 Ymade her like a daisie foj to sene, 
 
 Considerid eke her fret of goldc above.” 
 
 Legende of Good Women, l. 213. 
 
 -" And everich on her hede 
 
 A rich fret of golde, which, withouten drede, 
 
 Was full of stately rich stones set; 
 
 And every lady had a chapelet." 
 
 The Floure and the Leafe, x.. 151. 
 
 That part of dress worn by women called the kirlle, seems never to have been precisely defined. 
 We believe that it consisted of a sort of close waistcoat without sleeves, to which a petticoat was 
 attached, all in one piece.* 
 
 " Full fctis damoselles two 
 Right yong, and full of semely hede. 
 
 In kirtils, and none other wede; 
 
 And fair ytressid every tress.” 
 
 Romaunt of the Rose, l. 776. 
 
 The kirtle was worn by men as well as women. Chaucer’s spruce parish-clerk is attired in that 
 habit: 
 
 " Crulle was his here, and as the gold it shon, 
 
 And strouted as a fanne, large and brode ; 
 
 Full streight and even lay his joly shode ; 
 
 H is rode was red, his eyen grey as goos; 
 
 With Poule’s windowes corven on his shoes,"t 
 In hosen red, he went ful fetislv- 
 Yclad he was ful smal and properly. 
 
 All in a kirlel of a light waget, 
 
 Ful faire and thicke ben the pointes set; 
 
 And therupon he had a gay surplise. 
 
 As white as is the blosme upon rise.” 
 
 Before the introduction of the fret, the hair of females was plaited. See the figure in Scarcliffe 
 church. In the twelfth century, the hair of both males and females were thus disposed in long tresses: 
 “Then was there flowing hair (fluxus crinium), and extravagant dress; and then was invented the 
 fashion of shoes with curved points. Then the model for young men was to rival women in delicacy 
 of person, to mince their gait, and to walk, with loose gesture, half naked. J 
 
 * Very similar to this is the dress of the scholars of Christ’s Hospital at this day. 
 t For shoes ornamented in this style, see those of William of Hatfield, Plate 70. Profile view. 
 
 { Sharpe’s translation of William of Malmesbury, p. 336. This passage refers to the reign of William Rufus. 
 

 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 A striking example of this “fluxus crinium,’' is presented by the figure of Henry the First’s Queen 
 (cotempornrv with tliat King's reign), which forms a pilaster to the west door of Rochester cathedral. 
 The figure of the King himself forms another. The Queen’s hair depends over either shoulder in 
 long plaits, below her knees. The kings and queens in the curious ancient chess-men of the twelfth 
 century, lately exhibited at the Society of Antiquaries, wear the hair hanging over the shoulders in 
 several long distinct plaits. The west front of the cathedral of St. Denis exhibits a series of the early 
 Kings and Queens of France, with their hair thus disposed. Mrs. Bray has, in her large collection of 
 Mr. C. Stothard’s original drawings, his beautiful views of these figures. Ancient as they are, Mont- 
 faucon makes them'much more so, and calls them, we believe, “ Les Rois Merovingiens.” 
 
 The caU-hardie, like the justc-au-corps , was, we think, a close-bodied vest. Perhaps it derived its 
 n leaving the neck and bosom bare. Mr. Stothard says, “ it was a summer-dress with 
 ladies towards the end of the fourteenth century, and tells the following anecdote in relation to it: 
 ‘ A certain nobleman had two daughters, but one was fairer then the other. A gallant knight, who 
 had heard the fame of her beauty, asked and obtained her father's leave to woo her. The day was 
 fixed ; the knight arrived. When the damsels appeared, the plain sister came dressed in the order 
 of the season: but the fair one, wishing to outvie her, and to show her charms to the best advantage, 
 wore the cote-hardic , which made her so cold, and her nose looked so red and blue, that the knight 
 could not fancy her beauty; so he wooed and wedded the other maid.’ 
 
 “ In the thirty-seventh year of Edward the Third, the wives and daughters of esquires, not possessing 
 the yearly amount of two hundred pounds, are forbidden to wear any purfilling or facings on their 
 garments, or to use any esc/nires crinales, or Irefles. The wives and daughters of knights, not pos¬ 
 sessing property to the value of two hundred marks a year, were restricted from using linings of 
 r latices csclaircs, or any kind of precious stones, unless it be upon their heads.” 
 
 Of the crescent horned head-dress, with its pendant drapery, constructed, no doubt, upon wires, 
 the figure of Beatrice Countess of Arundel, presents an extravagant instance. The same appen¬ 
 dage, arranged in better taste, appears on the female in the plate lettered Sir Robert Gmshill and 
 his Lady: and it will be observed worn under the hoods of the female mourners round Beauchamp 
 Earl of Warwick’s tomb. “ The mantle appears to have been given only to married women, in the 
 monuments of the time of Henry the Fourth.” * 
 
 Of the usual Civil Costume of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, excellent examples will be 
 found in the tombs of William of Hatfield, William of Windsor, Blanch dela Tour, and the mourners 
 on the monument of .Sir Roger de Kerdeston. One of these mourners, a female, and the figure of 
 the Lady of Sir Miles Stapleton, have long pendant lappets to their sleeves. That of the Judge 
 in Willoughby church, Nottinghamshire, has a tunic to which very full sleeves are attached, and he 
 ■t with a rich ceint. , or girdle; an appendage of knights, civilians, and ecclesiastics (when unattired 
 irteenth century. 
 
 " Change of clothing every day. 
 
 With golden girdles, great an small." 
 
 Plowman’s Tale. 
 
 There are numerous examples of the Regal Habits in the Monumental Effigie; 
 royal effigies at Fontevraud we distinguish the tunic, the supertunic t 
 crowns, the boots marked as sandals, the jewelled gloves, Ac. \ 
 these regalia until the time of Henry the Fourth. 
 
 The early Episcopal figure in the Temple church shows us the plain low mitre and pastoral staff 
 used by Bishops of that period. 
 
 In those of the 
 dalmatic, the mantle, the 
 the variation in the fashion of 
 
INTRODUCTION. ]7 
 
 The figure of Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury gives a faithful representation of the pontifical 
 habit of a later day; the rich jewelled anil more elevated mitre, crocketted with goldsmiths’ work- the 
 pall, maniple, chasuble, cope, jewelled gloves, &c. The costly ornaments of the episcopal office are 
 touched upon in the Plowman’s Tale : 
 
 " Miters thei werin, mo than two, 
 
 Iperlid as the Qucene's head ; 
 
 A staff of golde and pirrie,* lo ! 
 
 As hevie as it were made of ledde; 
 
 With cloth bothe new and redde; 
 
 With glitterande gold, as grene as gall.” 
 
 The mitred Abbot of the Monks of Westminster* is a fine example of the costume of his order. 
 Had Mr. Stothard survived to complete his work, no doubt he would have added to it the habits of 
 other ecclesiastical orders. It is, however, matter of satisfaction that he has left so little unnoticed by 
 his pencil, which could illustrate the progress of our national costume, regal, ecclesiastical, civil, and 
 military. 
 
 In closing these prefatory notes, which the antiquarian reader will no doubt amplify from his own 
 store of knowledge, and by examination of the plates (which ever will be found a faithful volume 
 speaking for themselves); it may be acceptable that some short account of the author’s life should be 
 added.* 
 
 Charles Alfred Stothard was the eldest surviving son of Thomas Stothard, Esq. R. A.; he 
 was born July 5th, 1787. 
 
 At an early age he exhibited a strong propensity for study, and a genius for drawing. The latter 
 was more particularly developed in various clever miniature scenes which he executed for his school¬ 
 boy model of a stage. On leaving school he entered, by his own wish, as a student in the Royal Aca¬ 
 demy, where he soon attracted notice for the chaste feeling and accuracy with which he drew from the 
 antique sculptures. 
 
 In 1802 he accompanied his father to Burleigh, the seat of the Marquis of Exeter, the "rand 
 staircase of which the latter was employed in decorating by his masterly pencil. Mr. Stothard senior, 
 suggested to his son that he might fill up his time by making drawings of the monuments in the 
 neighbouring churches, as useful authorities for designing costume. This circumstance gave the first 
 bias of Mr. C harles Stotliard’s mind towards the subject which afterwards became his pursuit. 
 
 In 1808 he received his ticket as student in the Life Academy, and formed a resolution to become 
 an historical painter. Circumstances which subsequently arose, however, changed this determination. 
 
 Having formed an attachment for the young lady who afterwards became his wife, he feared that 
 as an historical painter he might not acquire sufficient pecuniary independence to enable him pru¬ 
 dently to become a married man. He resolved, therefore, to turn his attention exclusively to the illus¬ 
 tration of our national antiquities, more particularly in a path which had hitherto been but imperfectly 
 pursued—the delineation of the sculptured Effigies erected in our churches as memorials for the dead, 
 in such manner as they might be referred to and depended on as accurate authorities, illustrating our 
 national history and ancient costume. 
 
 In 1810 Mr. Charles Stothard painted a spirited picture, representing the murder of Richard the 
 Second in Pontefract Castle, in which the characteristic dresses of the time were strictly adhered to. 
 
 * Pirrie, for pierrerie, jewelry, 
 t See Print of William of Colchester. 
 
18 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the portrait of the King himself, he made studies from his effigy in Westminster Abbey. This 
 picture was exhibited at Somerset Place in 1811. . 
 
 In the same year he published his first Number of the Monumental Effigies of Great Britain, 
 the objects of which were detailed in the following advertisement, which accompanied the publi¬ 
 cation : . 
 
 “ It is a circumstance much to be regretted, that so important and interesting a subject as tne 
 Monumental Effigies of our Kings, Princes, and Nobles, should have been treated with so much 
 neglect, as among all the works published with the intention of giving representations of them, there 
 is not one that can be relied on. Without possessing that simplicity and chastity which characterizes 
 the originals, they are not correct even as to particulars. It was partly on this account that this W or 
 was undertaken, with a view, by paying the most particular attention to the subject, to rescue from 
 the destroyer Time those Works of Art, introduced into our Cathedrals and Churches as Memorials 
 for the Dead, which, independent of their antiquity, are the greater part specimens of sculpture, 
 which, for grandeur, simplicity, and chastity of style, are not to be surpassed, it equalled, by any 
 nation in Europe. 
 
 “ There are, though not generally known, as they have never been published, a few Etchings by the 
 Rev. T. Kerrich, of Cambridge,* from Monuments in the Dominicans’ and other Churches in Paris, 
 which claim the highest praise that can be bestowed, as well for their accuracy as for the style in 
 which they are executed: these are mentioned as a tribute which they deserve, and as the sight of 
 them induced the proprietor of this Work to execute the Etchings for it himself. 
 
 “ Had it been but to remedy the above-mentioned defect, there would not, perhaps, have been sufficient 
 encouragement for entering on a Work of this magnitude, till it was found on consideration that 
 other very desirable points would be gained, which would make it more generally interesting. The 
 first of which was the great service these Monumental Effigies would render the Historical Painter, by- 
 explaining the costume adopted at different periods in England, as they give more complete ideas on 
 the subject than can be drawn from any other source: the knowledge we now have in this respect has 
 been in general gathered from the illuminated MSS. in our public libraries; but cither from the 
 minuteness of the figures in some, or the rudeness of the drawing in others that are on a larger scale, 
 they are too much generalized, and do not give us those smaller parts and ornaments which are so 
 interesting. 
 
 “ 'Die second point gained, was that of elucidating History and Biography, as most of those charac¬ 
 ters must in the course of this Work be brought in, who have been concerned in the civil and military 
 affairs of England from the earliest times to the reign of Henry the Eighth. This has also sug¬ 
 gested the idea of illustrating the Historical Plays of our great dramatic poet Shakspeare, in order to 
 assist the stage in selecting its costume with that propriety which will always add consequence to his 
 characters, and give that stamp of truth which they so highly deserve. W e should not then see as 
 now the slashed doublet and cloak, peculiar to the sixteenth century, introduced without discrimina¬ 
 tion in the play of King John as well as that of Henry the Eighth; or the Bastard Fauleon- 
 bridge in armour, which would puzzle the most profound antiquary to know when or where such was 
 
 “ If it be true that we may derive the above advantages from the Monumental Effigies of Great 
 Britain, they surely deserve to be saved from the oblivion in which so many have already sunk, and pre¬ 
 served as records of the splendour with which sculpture once flourished in England.” 
 
 Mr. Stothard’s undertaking procured for him the warm friendship of the Rev. 1 . Kerrich, of whose 
 
 • Some of these etchings were afterwards communicated to the Society of Antiquaries by Mr. Kerrich, and inserted 
 in their Archicologia, vol. XVIII. p. Ip". 
 
INTRODUCTION. l‘J 
 
 talents he makes such honourable mention; and for the candid criticism of that excellent judge of 
 matters of antiquity and art in the progress of his work, he at all times expressed himself much 
 indebted.* 
 
 The talents of Mr. C. Stothard as an artist, and the accuracy of his research in objects connected 
 with his pursuit, soon obtained for him a distinguished reputation as an antiquary, and the acquaint¬ 
 ance of characters eminent for their learning and respectability. Among these were the late Sir Joseph 
 Banks (who highly appreciated him), and Samuel Lysons, Esq. the joint author of “ Magna Bri¬ 
 tannia,” who esteemed him as a friend. Mr. Lysons employed him to make some drawings illustrative 
 of his work; for which purpose, in the summer of 1815, Mr. C. Stothard made a journey northward as 
 far as the Piets’ Wall, adding to his portfolio many drawings for the Magna Britannia, monumental 
 subjects for himself, and a number of little sketches, executed in the most delicate and peculiar manner, 
 of different views and buildings in the country through which he passed. During his absence from 
 London Mr. Lysons'gave him a proof of his esteem and regard, by obtaining for him, unsolicited, the 
 appointment of Historical Draughtsman to the Society of Antiquaries of London. 
 
 In 1816 he was deputed by that body to commence his elaborate and faithful drawings of the famous 
 Tapestry deposited at Bayeux. During his absence in France he visited Chinon, and in the neigh¬ 
 bouring Abbey of Fontevraud discovered those interesting Effigies of the Plantagenets, the existence 
 of which after the revolutionary devastation had become doubtful, but which were of high importance to 
 him as subjects for his work. The following account of this matter is given in Mrs. C. Stothard s 
 Tour in Britanny :—“ When Mr. Stodmrd first visited France, during the summer of 1816, he came 
 direct to Fontevraud, to ascertain if the Effigies of our early Kings who were buried there yet existed; 
 subjects so interesting to English history were worthy of the inquiry. He found the abbey converted 
 into a prison, and discovered in a cellar belonging to it, the Effigies of Henry the Second and his 
 Queen Eleanor of Guienne, Richard the First, and Isabella of Angouleme, the Queen of John. The 
 chapel where the figures were placed before the revolution had been entirely destroyed, and these 
 valuable Effigies, then removed to the cellar, were subject to continual mutilation from the prisoners, 
 who came twice in every day to draw water from a well. It appeared they had sustained some injury, 
 as Mr. S. found several broken fragments scattered around. He made drawings of the figures; and 
 upon his return to England represented to our Government the propriety of securing such interesting 
 memorials from further destruction. It was deemed advisable, if such a plan could be accomplished, 
 to gain possession of them, that they might be placed with the rest of our Royal Effigies in West¬ 
 minster Abbey.”+ An application was accordingly made, which failed; but it had the good effect of 
 drawing the attention of the French authorities towards these remains, and saving them from total 
 destruction. At the same period Mr. Stothard visited the Abbey of L’Espan, near Mans, in search of 
 the effigy of Berengaria, Queen of Richard the First: he found the abbey church converted into a barn, 
 and the object of liis inquiry in a mutilated state, concealed under a quantity of wheat.! At Mons 
 he discovered the beautiful enamelled tablet representing Geoffrey Plantagenet. Mr. Stothard’s 
 drawings of the Effigies of the English Monarchy extant in France, were, on his return from 
 Fontevraud, submitted by the late Sir George Nayler to the inspection of his late Majesty George the 
 Fourth, who was graciously pleased to express an earnest desire for their publication, and to allow 
 Mr. Stothard to dedicate his Work, the Monumental Effigies, to him. In 1817 he made a second 
 journey to Bayeux for the purpose of continuing his drawings from the Tapestry. In February 1818 
 
 * Mr. Kerrich’s numerous and interesting collection of sketches and plans of the details of Gothic Architecture wero 
 left, at his death, to the British Museum. His collection of paintings of the Gothic Age were bequeathed to the Society 
 of Antiquaries, and arc suspended on the walls of their meeting-room. 
 
 f Tour in Britanny, p. 294, J See Memoir of his Life, pp. 243 to 248. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 carefully 
 > antiquarian pursuits 
 
 lie married the young lady to whom lie had so long been attached, Anna Eliza, the only daughter of 
 the late John Kempc, Esq. of the New Kent Road. In July following she accompanied him in his 
 third expedition to France, which he made with a view of completing the Bayeux Tapestry. 
 
 His task being accomplished, he proceeded with Mrs. Stothard on a tour’of investigation through 
 Normandy, and more particularly Britanny. In order to render their families participators in some 
 degree of the pleasure of their journey, Mrs. Stothard addressed to her mother, Mrs. Kempe, a parti¬ 
 cular detail of it in a series of letters, which her husband illustrated by various beautiful drawings of 
 the views, costume, and architectural antiquities, which they thought worthy of notice in their route: 
 these formed the ground-work of the publication of Letters to which we have referred. 
 
 In 1S19 Mr. C'. Stothard laid before the Society of Antiquaries the complete series of his Drawings 
 !' 01,11 *"'’ ^ a P estr y ol Bayeux : and a paper highly creditable to his discrimination, in which he proved 
 from internal evidence, that the Tapestry was coeval with the period - immediately succeeding the Con¬ 
 quest, refuting the assertions of the Abbd de la Rue. This Essay was printed in vol. xix. of the 
 Archffiologia. On the 2d of July of the same year Mr. Stothard was unanimously elected a Fellow of 
 the Society of Antiquaries. In the following autumn he made a series of exquisitely finished draw¬ 
 ings for the Society, from the paintings then lately discovered on the walls of the Painted Chamber 
 in the ancient royal palace of Westminster. Fearlessly ardent in his pursuit, he took his stand on the 
 highest and most dangerous parts of the scaffold erected for the repairs; and on one occasion there, 
 narrowly escaped the fate which afterwards befel him. The Society of Antiquaries are in possession 
 of these admirable drawings; and they will, doubtless, when it shall be practicable, 
 engraved for one of their annual publications. 
 
 Some characteristic anecdotes of the ardour of Mr. Charles Stothard in hit 
 may find admission here. 
 
 The monument of Aveline Countess of Lancaster, in Westminster Abbey, was concealed by the 
 lofty cenotaph of Lord Ligonier, and thus rendered inaccessible to the light of day. Never daunted 
 by any difficulties which offered themselves to an antiquarian pursuit, Mr. Stothard furnished his 
 pockets with wax-candles, clay, and a percussion tube (a German invention for producing fire). Thus 
 prepared, he watched his opportunity, scaled the monument of Lord Ligonier, lit and fixed his 
 candles, and in the situation above described, smothered with dust, actually completed the drawing of 
 the beautiful monument which embellishes his series of Effigies, without the knowledge of any of “the 
 attendants in the abbey. 
 
 In one of his customary rambles with the writer, he had the good fortune to meet with the monu¬ 
 ment ot Sir John Peche, or Pechy, as the name is pronounced, at the site of an old baronial man¬ 
 sion, Lullingstone Castle, near Eynsford, in Kent. The effigy afforded a fine specimen of the 
 military costume of the age of Henry the Eighth. The whole was in admirable preservation; but 
 the very circumstance which had contributed to that perfect state, rendered it almost 
 for an artist to gain such an entire view as might enable him to 
 an horizontal slab, distant not more than eighteen inches froi 
 difficulty did not repulse Mr. Stothard. By t 
 
 by soak), he brought all the parts into their due relative proportion, anti in two days produced the 
 g of Which the late Mr. Bartholomew Hewlett made a very satisfactory etching, after Air. 
 Stothard’s death, for this work. 
 
 Often when a monument was so disfigured us, to tile eye of an, ordinary observer, to appear hope- 
 
 css as the subject for a drawing, would Mr. Stothard, by industriously stripping it, by means of a 
 
 penknife, of its barbarous coat of whitewash, or other plastering (called by country churchwardens 
 beauUJy.mj) ,restore the sharpness of the parts, and produce a drawing replete with the finest minutite 
 ot detail. Never was there an eye more accurately observant of the characteristic points of art in 
 
 mpossible 
 
 draw it correctly; it was covered by 
 1 the face. (See the Vignette.) This 
 5 aid of a graduated line (he drew all his monuments 
 
 dra 
 
INTRODUCTION. 21 
 
 different ages than Mr. Stothard's. Not a fragment of painted glass, or tile decorated by any sort of 
 ornament, but he could assign to it a proper era. This lion rampant was of the manner adopted in 
 blazoning heraldic bearings in the reign of the First Edward; the ornament on that belt was of the 
 Third; the mitre on the head of a certain Bishop was of Henry the Third’s time; the style of such a 
 capital bespoke a coeval date. The original conjecture that the collar of SS. expressed Henry the 
 Fourth's favourite motto, Souverayne, was one instance of his critical acumen ; and a good proof that 
 his solution of the enigma was right, is, that some antiquaries have since unhesitatingly adopted it as 
 their own:—an observation which might be extended to the piracies which have been committed on 
 his monumental etchings; for such they become, when his drawings have been copied without even 
 the courtesy of acknowledgment. 
 
 There was more of that nerve and perseverance necessary for the pursuit of his monumental 
 researches in solitude, and in wild and unfrequented districts, than a common observer, from the un¬ 
 pretending demeanour of Mr. Stothard, might have supposed. Many miles did he pass through 
 obscure paths, to bye and unfrequented villages, in search of ancient effigies. On his arrival at the 
 church, he often found the effigy which he was in search of removed, or so mutilated and disfigured 
 as to be useless for his work. Many days and weeks did he spend in rural solitudes, the whole of his 
 day being passed in the church, and at night was forced to content himself with taking up his quarters 
 at the village public-house; where, he has often been heard to say, the sight of a pedlar with his pack 
 was a most unwelcome one, as it often foretold that the only tenantable bed in the cabin was occupied 
 for the night. Yet Mr. Stothard had resources in his own mind, drawn not only from his pursuits, 
 but his good understanding, which preserved his spirits in these scenes. Seated near the chimney of 
 the village alehouse fire, the burning brands illuminating the ample hearth, the motley group of 
 rustics all around, he would listen to their conversation, and note it down when it took a singular or 
 comic turn; or he would take out his little sketch-book, and delineate their boorish features. “ There 
 is great pleasure,” he would say, “ in observing the character of man in all its forms.” “ How often, in 
 a village alehouse,” would he add, “have I recognized the clowns of our inimitable Shakspeare.” 
 
 It was no small part of Mr. Stothard’s aptitude for his task, that he joined to his rare talent a 
 slender active body, of the middle stature, about five feet eight inches in height, habits remarkably 
 abstemious, and the most perfect health. He was capable of the longest walks, without suffering 
 inconvenience from them. On one occasion (in the evening, after finishing the drawing from the 
 monument of Sir Thomas Cawne) he walked from Ightham, in Kent, to London. 
 
 Mr. Stothard had projected several graphic works, illustrative of English history, to be executed 
 by himself, after the manner of his monumental effigies—as a chronological series of ancient seals; 
 a miscellaneous collection of effigies, and subjects illustrating the Elizabethan age: and Mrs. Bray 
 has in her possession his original drawings of the effigies of some of the characters eminent in French 
 history, sufficient of themselves to form a publication consisting of several plates. Mrs. Bray has 
 also a valuable collection of his sketch-books, in which are noted every object which arrested his at¬ 
 tention in his numerous antiquarian excursions. 
 
 In September 1820 he again visited the Continent, making a tour of the Netherlands for the 
 benefit of Mrs. C. Stothard’s health. He added, in this tour, several fine drawings of local scenery 
 and architecture to his stock. Mrs. Stothard also, who (under his instruction in drawing from 
 antique busts) had acquired much skill in the imitative art, added to the number of these drawings, 
 by delineating one point of view of a building, or other object, while her husband made another, little 
 thinking how shortly their accordant taste and pursuits were to be disunited in this world for ever! 
 
 We now approach the melancholy close of Mr. Charles Stothard’s mortal race. Having been 
 solicited, by the Rev. Daniel Lysons, to make some drawings for the accoimt of Devon in the Magna 
 Britannia, on the 16th of May he parted from his affectionate and pregnant wife, never to meet her 
 
22 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 more on this side “ tvmt bourn whence no traveller returns.” He traversed a considerable part of 
 Devonshire on foot, exploring the churches in his way for effigies, and making sketches of the country, 
 according to his practice. He arrived at Bere Ferrers; and, on Sunday the 27th of May, after 
 attending Divine service, addressed the Vicar of that place, the Rev. Henry Hobart, for permission 
 to draw the stained glass in the east window of the church, representing the Founder and his Lady. 
 On the following morning Mr. Stothard began, by means of a ladder, to make tracings of the subjects 
 represented on the painted glass. Elevated on the north side of the altar, just above the tables in¬ 
 scribed with the Creed and Decalogue, the step of the ladder- dreadful to relate—gave way ! He 
 fell; and, in the effort to save himself, probably turned round. His head came in contact with the 
 slab on which the figure of a Knight is placed in the chancel wall; and he was, in all probability, 
 kil'ed on the spot, by a concussion of the brain—receiving his death-blow from one of those very 
 elfigies front which, through his talents, he will receive a sublunary immortality. The fall which 
 terminated the career of the artist, literally snapt the pencil which he held in his hand in twain ! His 
 venerable father, distinguished alike for his genius and his worldly bereavements (he had lost, some 
 years before, his eldest son, by an accident equally terrible and sudden), repaired to the spot accom- 
 panied by Mr. V. II. Brooke, and followed, for the second time, the pride of his heart and of his 
 hopes, to a premature grave. 
 
 Thus perished in the vigour of life and health, amid the brightest prospects of worldly success and 
 honours, in the most uninterrupted state of conjugal happiness, this excellent young man and zealous 
 antiquary. The eminence of his talents could only be exceeded by the virtues of his heart. After a 
 lapse often years, the pen which has composed this imperfect notice of himself and his works, renews 
 the subject with a freshness of sorrow and an undiminished regard, only consoling himself by the re¬ 
 flection, that severe and awful as the change was to the survivors, for the deceased, in the mercy of 
 God, it must have been a happy one. He contributed this epitaph to the stone which his widow placed 
 
 “ Sacred to the memory 
 (dear to every friend who knew him) 
 of 
 
 Charles Alfred Stothard, 
 
 Historical Draughtsman, 
 and Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, 
 eldest surviving son of Thomas Stothard, Esq. R, A. 
 
 “While pursuing his professional researches in the adjoining church, he was 
 unfortunately killed by a fall, on the 28th May, m the year of our Lord 1821, 
 in the 31th year of his age. As a laborious investigator of the ancient 
 Sepulchral Monuments and other historical vestiges of this Kingdom, which 
 he illustrated by his faithful and elegant pencil, he was pre-eminent. As a 
 man, though gifted with the most solid ability, he was humble, modest, un¬ 
 ostentatious; an example of benevolence and simplicity of heart; a Christian 
 by faith, as he proved by that essential demonstration—his works. Thus 
 awfully bereft of such a partner, what words shall describe the deep, the 
 bitter sorrow of his widow, who stood not by to pay him the last sad offices, 
 but while he perished thus untimely, expected his return, and shortly to 
 bless him with a first child. She has erected this poor monument to his 
 memory; a living one exists in her heart. Reader, profit bv this sad, but 
 
INTRODUCTION. 23 
 
 doubtless, in the wisdom of God, salutary and merciful lesson ; for it is better 
 that the virtuous should be thus suddenly cut off than the wicked. 
 
 “ ‘ Watch ye, therefore, for ye know not when the Master of the House 
 cometh; at even, at midnight, at cock-crowing, or in the morning; lest coming 
 suddenly he find you sleeping.’ Mark, iii. 35, 36.” 
 
 Blanche, Mr. C. Stothard’s posthumous daughter, was born on the 29th June, 1821, but one 
 month after the fatal accident which suffered her not to be greeted in this world by a father’s smile. 
 She lived little more than seven months, when she was called to join him, we humbly trust, in immor¬ 
 tality. She died on the 2d February, 1822. Mrs. Stothard’s (now Mrs. Bray’s) narrative of these 
 heavy afflictions, in the Memoir which we have so often quoted, is full of that deep and sincere feeling 
 which gives force and beauty to language, and subdues to sympathy every chord of the human heart. 
 
 Over the narrow but peaceful tenement where the mortal remains of the Author of this Work 
 repose, until the last trumpet shall again, at his Creator’s will, arouse them into life, four rose- 
 trees and a juniper-plant were flourishing in 1825. The lovers of the elegant arts, and historical 
 science, will add to these an ever green laurel. 
 
aaaac 
 
THE 
 
 OF 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 l\ogtv, Bisijop of gsaltstmvj). 
 
 This is a coffin lid, on which is represented in very low relief a Bishop attired in his 
 pontifical ornaments, in the act of giving the benediction, and trampling on a dragon or 
 serpent; the ordinary mode with the sculptors of the middle age of expressing the 
 fulfilment of the prophecy against Satan, by the power given through Christ to the 
 Ministers of his Church. The figure is surrounded by a border of interlacing scroll 
 work, in which arc introduced hands of beads. These characteristic points shew the 
 sculpture to have been executed in the twelfth century, and the effigy may, with much 
 confidence, be asserted to be that of Roger, Bishop of Salisbury. This ecclesiastic was 
 originally the priest of a small chapel in the vicinity of Caen in Normandy, which Prince 
 Henry, the third son of William the Conqueror, chanced to enter while engaged in a 
 hunting party. He was so pleased with the alacrity with which this obscure priest got 
 through the service that he took him into his Household, and, on coming to the Crown, 
 made him his Chief Counsellor, his Chancellor, Dean of St. Martin le Grand, London, 
 and Bishop of Salisbury ; in short he was invested by Henry I. with authority, honours, 
 and riches. Under the following reign of Stephen the picture was reversed, and he 
 bitterly experienced “ the wretchedness of that poor man who hangs on Princes’ favours." 
 Overwhelmed by reverses of fortune he expired in a state of phrensy on the 11th of 
 December 1139, and was buried in the Cathedral of Sarum, there can he little doubt, in 
 the tomb which has been above described. This, with his remains, were afterwards 
 translated to the new Church, and is placed on the South side of the nave. 
 
©rofFiTj) plantagenet, (Earl of 9itjou. 
 
 Geoffrey Earl, or rather, according to the foreign style, Count of Maine and Anjou 
 (called Plantagenet from the sprig of Planta Genista or Broom which he was accus¬ 
 tomed to wear in his cap *), was son of Fulk the preceding Earl, King of Jerusalem, by 
 Eremburga, daughter of Helias Count of Mans. 
 
 As the Earldom of Anjou was contiguous to Normandy he became an eligible husband 
 for Matilda or Maud, the daughter of Henry the First, King of England, and widow of 
 the Emperor Henry the Fourth. They were married at Mans, April 3, 1127. By the 
 issue of this union the Saxon blood was restored in the succession of English monarchs, 
 for Henry the Second, their only son, was great-grandson, by his mother’s side, to 
 Margaret, the sister of Edgar Atheling. Geoffrey Plantagenet died in 1150, and was 
 buried before the Crucifix in the Church of St. Julien in Mans.f The beautiful 
 enamelled tablet, from which the plate is etched, is preserved in the Museum at Mans, 
 where it was found by the Author of this work in the year 1817. It had formerly been 
 suspended in the Church of St. Julien, but disappeared during the Revolution. It was 
 fortunately, however, preserved from the melting pot, to which the unsparing hands of 
 the Revolutionists had consigned it. On this singularly curious and ancient memorial 
 the Earl appears at full length, under an arch decorated with semicircular ornaments, and 
 supported on either side by a pillar with a capital of foliage* lie wears a steel cap, 
 in form like the Phrygian, enamelled with a leopard of gold. In his right hand is a 
 sword, his left supports a shield, which is adorned with golden leopards on a blue field, 
 similarly to the cap. This shield is of the long kite shape, and reaches from the 
 shoulders to the feet; it bears a striking comparison with those represented on the 
 Bayeux Tapestry, save that the upper part is not curved, but the angles are rounded. 
 He wears an under-tunic of light blue ornamented with borders of gold, an upper one of 
 
 * It is said that Fulk. the first nf that name Earl of Anjou, his ancestor, made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to 
 atone fur l„s sms, ami was scourged before the Holy Sepulchre with a rod made of broom ; whence he assumed 
 it as his cognizance, and it was adopted as a family distinction by his descendants, 
 f Sandford gives the following as his epitaph : 
 
 Quatenus Anglieis turmis conregnet in tevum. 
 
 J An arch of .nr, similar dasign i, a,ill fo,mi„ s the fr„„,i,,ieee t= lha very anci.nt eh.ncel of Ihc 
 
 church of Compton, near Guildford, in Surrey. 
 
 J Similar cap. appear on th« head, of S.aphaa and Hear, II. he worn «,d„ ,he chain mail. See the 
 reverse of their seals in Speed. 
 
~TOETVO 
 
 r • • ' ! 
 
 a W\ 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 f i <v i 
 
 i m 
 
 III ' 
 
 ■ BfejJS 
 
 sfed 
 
 GEOFFREY PiAKTAOKSmi, EARJ. OPMAIHB AN® AtUOV. BUKO. 13 48. 
 
 from ttuEnjlincIIrd Thbipl Auanaefep in the Church ol - S'-.illljilu 1*1 Moan. 
 
green ; his mantle is of light blue, anti is lined with vair; above the mantle and over the 
 right shoulder is his belt. The whole ground-work of the tablet is curiously filled up 
 with small trefoil, scroll, and other ornaments. Over the head of the figure is this 
 inscription : 
 
 ENSE TVO, PIIINCEPS, PREDONVM TVRBA FVGATVR, 
 eccle'iis y* hvies pace vigente datvr. 
 
 The heraldic bearings on this tablet, by some thought to be griffins (though they are 
 in all probability leopards or lions), have excited much attention from their being perhaps 
 the earliest specimen extant of armorial bearings. “It is not easy to fix the time 
 when heraldic bearings assumed a more decided character than in the Bayeux tapestry, 
 but there appears to exist some proof that they were used in the time of Henry the First. 
 John, a monk of Marmonstier, in Tourainc, who was living in the time of Geoffrey 
 Plantagenet, on that prince’s marriage with Matilda, daughter of Henry the First, at 
 Mans, describes him, previous to his being knighted, as having put on him a hauberk 
 and stockings wrought with double mailles, golden spurs fastened to his feet, a shield 
 emblazoned with little golden lions hung about his neck, and a helmet glittering with 
 precious stones upon his head.” This description accords very well with the charge 
 emblazoned on his shield. “ The number of lions is not certain, as but one half of the 
 shield is seen, yet it seems probable there were six ; 3, 2, and 1, as we find his bastard 
 grandson M illiam Longespee, on his tomb in Salisbury Cathedral, bearing on his shield, 
 in a field Azure, six lions Or, 3, 2, and 1.”* There can he little doubt, from the style in 
 which the tablet is executed, but this memorial of Geoffrey Plantagenet was made about 
 the time when lie died. It appears to have been no unusual mode at this period of 
 commemorating the defunct. A similar enamelled tablet or picture, representing Ulgcr 
 Bishop of Angers, who died in 1141), formerly was suspended over his tomb in the Church 
 of St. Maurice at Angers, but was destroyed during the Revolution. 
 
 * See Essay by the Author of the Monumental Effigies of Great Britain on 
 pesfi'y, Archteolngia, vol. xix. p. 1SS. 
 
 the Antiquity of the Bayeux Ta- 
 
goccljm tic Batlttl, Btoijop of gwlfefcuvp. 
 
 This, like the effigy of Jocelyn’s predecessor in the See of Salisbury, is carved in low 
 relief on a coffin lid. Jocelyn de Bailul was of a noble Norman family, and much in 
 favour with King Henry the Second, whose views he espoused when the King sought to 
 limit the extravagant privileges of the clergy by the constitutions of Clarendon. This 
 drew upon Jocelyn the resentment of Becket, subjected him to ecclesiastical censures, 
 and as much persecution as could by those means be directed against him. Alter the 
 murder of Becket, nothing short of Jocelyn’s entire submission could make his peace 
 with the Pope. He retired into a Cistertian monastery, where he died on the 11th 
 September 1184. He left a natural son, Richard Fitz-Jocelyn, Archdeacon of Sarum, 
 Bishop of Bath and Wells, and afterwards elected to the See of Canterbury, but who died 
 before his election was confirmed. The effigy of this Bishop represents him standing 
 under an arch, the pastoral staff' in the left hand, the right elevated in the act of giving 
 the benediction. Mr. Gough, who conceived this to be the tomb of Bishop Roger, in 
 1770 procured it to be raised above the level of the floor of the nave, and was thus 
 enabled to read the inscription which runs round the perpendicular sides of the edge of 
 the stone. This commences at the head of the figure, and is as follows: 
 
 FLENT IIODIE SALESBERIE, QV1A DECIDIT ENSIS 
 JVSTITIE, PATER ECCLESIE SALISBIRIENSIS, 
 
 DVM VIGVIT MISEROS ALVIT, FASTVSQVE POTENTVM 
 NON TIMVIT, SED CLAVA FVIT TERRORQVE NOCENTVM, 
 
 DE DUC1BVS, DE NOBILIBVS PRIMORDIA DVXIT 
 FRINC1PIBVS, PROPEQUE TIBI (1VI GEMMA RELVX1T. 
 
 The line on the chasuble, “ . affer opem, devenies in idem,” is an admonition to the 
 
 living to pray for the soul of the defunct, remembering their own mortality. Round the 
 border of the same vestment was another inscription, which is now illegible. 
 
 Mr. Gough has endeavoured, by assigning particular allusions to the different lines of 
 this inscription, to prove that this was the effigy of Bishop Roger; but these allusions, 
 except in one point, are in a style of general compliment, which would apply equally 
 well to Jocelyn as to Roser, while two circumstances lead confidently to the conclusion 
 that this is the monument of Jocelyn : first, the only precise fact recorded in the epitaph, 
 < £ de ducibus, de nobilibus primordia duxit principibus,” seems at direct variance with 
 the received history of Bishop Roger, while it perfectly accords with that of Bishop 
 Jocelyn. The house of Bailul, or Bailleul, anglicised Baliol, whence lie was descended, 
 was one of the noblest in Normandy, distinguished for their voyages to the Holy Land, 
 and their share in the conquest of England. The second circumstance is equally strong 
 for its appropriation to Jocelyn. In searching the Chapter Records of Salisbury, several 
 deeds were found bearing the seal of Bishop Jocelyn, the figure on which exactly 
 resembled that on the monument which we are describing, and totally differed from 
 that of earlier date which we have assigned to Bishop Roger* The present situation 
 of this effigy is on the south side of the nave of the cathedral church. 
 
 * See DodsworUi's Historical Account of the Episcopal Scc anil Cathedral Church of Suiitm or Salisbury, p. 191. 
 
J)cnn> tijc grccmu. 
 
 The destruction of our royal effigies at Fontevraud during the Revolution had 
 been so confidently asserted, that the known devastation of antiquities of this cha¬ 
 racter in France, did not appear to be a sufficient reason to warrant the assertion; 
 but on investigation, by every inquiry it was found to rest on no better foundation, 
 and still wanted confirmation. As the addition of these, to commence our series 
 appeared so desirable an acquisition, and the reflection at the same time presenting 
 itself, that by some fortunate chance they might still be preserved, no other induce¬ 
 ments were wanting for hazarding a journey to ascertain their fate. An indiscri¬ 
 minate destruction, which on every side presented itself in a track of three hundred 
 miles, left little to hope on arriving at the Abbey of Fontevraud; but still less, when 
 this celebrated depository of our early kings was found to be but a ruin. Contrary, 
 however, to such an unpromising appearance, the whole of the effigies were dis¬ 
 covered in a cellar of one of the buildings adjoining the abbey. For amidst the 
 total annihilation of every thing that immediately surrounded them, these effigies 
 alone were saved; not a vestige of the tomb, and chapel which contained them, 
 remaining. Fortunately, there is nothing destroyed for us to regret. When the 
 fury of the Revolution had ceased, it appears that the veneration these memorials of 
 royalty had for ages excited, led to their removal from the ruined church to a place 
 of more security. They were accordingly conveyed to an octangular isolated 
 building, called the Tour d’Evraud, where they remained safe and undisturbed for 
 eighteen ’ years; but the church having been very lately converted to a prison, and 
 this receptacle being found convenient for some purposes of the new establishment, 
 they were again removed to their present situation, where they are subject daily to 
 be wantonly defaced by the lowest class of prisoners, and where, if they are suffered 
 to remain, they must soon be destroyed. 
 
 The effigies are four in number:—Henry II.; his Queen, Eleanor cle Guienne; 
 Richard I.; and Isabel d’Angouleme, the Queen of John. Considering their age, 
 and the vicissitudes they have undergone, they are in excellent preservation. They 
 have all been painted and gilt three or four times; and from the style of the last 
 paintiu"- it is probable it was executed when the effigies were removed from their 
 original situation in the choir* It is this painting which Montfancon has described, 
 and it has consequently misled him.f _ „ 
 
 Our present subject, Henry II., the son of the Empress Matilda, and Geoffrey 
 Plantagenet Earl of Anjou, died at the Castle of Chinon, nigh Fontevraud, October, 
 1189, in the 57th year of his age, and 35th of his reign. A modern French writer, 
 
 * B, Jeanne Bapti.te de Bourbon, natural daughter of Henry IV. in 1638, who at the same time erected a 
 
 tomb to contain the whole of them. , „ , . ,, „ T 
 
 t For the dove, having been ignorantly painted of a tab colour instead of wh.to. Monlfancon says, 
 ne sai que signifient les deux marques rondes qu il a 
 jewels on the gloves, the marks of royalty. 
 
 r les deux maim." Not conceiving they w 
 
who states as his authorities MSS. preserved in the ecclesia stical archives, says 
 “ the body of the unfortunate monarch, vested in his royal habits, the crown of gold 
 on his head, anil the sceptre in his hand, was placed on a bier richly ornamented, and 
 borne in great state to the celebrated Abbey of Foutevraud, which he had chosen as 
 the placeof his interment, and there set in the naveof the great church, where he was 
 buried.” This account partly agrees with that given by Matthew Paris, who says, 
 “ But on the morrow, until he should be carried to be buried, he was arrayed in the 
 royal investments, having a golden crown on the head, and gloves on the hands, 
 boots wrought with gold on the feet, and spurs, a great ring on the finger, and a 
 sceptre in the hand, and girt with a sword, he lay with his face uncovered.” When 
 we examine the effigy, we cannot fail of remarking that it is already described by 
 these two accounts; the only variation being in the sword, which is not girt, but lies 
 on the bier on the left side, with the belt twisted round it. It therefore appears, 
 that the tomb was literally a representation of the deceased king, as if he still lay in 
 state. Nor can we, without supposing such was the custom, otherwise account for 
 the singular coincidences between the effigy of King John on the lid of his coffin and 
 his body within it, when discovered a few years since. 
 
 The crown on the head of Henry II. has been probably many years broken, as 
 appears from some remains of an injudicious attempt to restore it with plaister of 
 Paris. It is represented without those clumsy additions in the etchings. The right 
 hand, on which was the great ring, is also broken; but still contains a portion of the 
 sceptre, which, if we may judge from its stays on the breast, must have been 
 remarkably short. The character of ihe face is strongly marked by high cheek¬ 
 bones and projecting lips and chin ; the beard is painted, and penciled like a mini¬ 
 ature, to represent its being close shaven; the mantle is fastened by a fibula on the 
 right shoulder, its colour has been, like the cushion under the head, of a deep reddish 
 chocolate; the dalmatic is crimson, and appears to have been starred or flowered 
 with gold. The mantle probably was originally ornamented in a similar manner. 
 The boots are green, ornamented with gold, on which are fastened with red leathers 
 the gold spurs. The whole is executed in free stone, and in a style much re¬ 
 sembling the seals of the time, but infinitely superior to what we should expect, 
 judging by the effigy of King John, which in comparison with this is a very inferior 
 production. We are told that Henry II. had on his tomb these lines: 
 
 t Inc Tumulus, cui non s. 
 
 Res 
 
 cui fuit ampla brevis. 
 
 Details.—Plate I. Fig. 1. Pattern on the bier. 
 
(Eleanor nr ©incmtc, Queen of J)cnn> tijc gscconti. 
 
 Eleanor of Aquitaine, or Guienne, was the eldest daughter and heiress of William V. 
 Duke of Aquitaine, by Eleanor of Chastelleraut, his wife. She was first married to 
 Louis VII. of France, but, owing to some dissension which arose between them, Louis 
 applied to the papal see for a divorce: and it appearing that there was consanguinity 
 between the parties, they were separated by authority of the Church in Easter 1151. 
 Henry the Second, then Duke of Normandy, thought that a marriage with the Countess 
 of Poitou and Aquitaine offered too large an accession of dominion and political power 
 to his crown to be neglected, and so promptly took his measures that he espoused her 
 the following Whitsuntide. She hore King Henry six sons and three daughters. Their 
 eldest daughter Matilda married Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony; among the issue of 
 which marriage was Otho the Fourth, Emperor of Germany, and William, progenitor of 
 the Dukes of Brunswick, who assumed as his arms the two lions which his grandfather 
 Henry bore, and which seem to have been the ensign of the early English Kings of the 
 Norman race as Dukes of Normandy. Eleanor thwarting the amours of her husband, 
 and taking part against him with their elder son Prince Henry (who had received the 
 titular and aspired to the actual honours of King during his father’s lifetime), incurred 
 his deep displeasure, and, according to Matthew Paris, banished from his bed, passed 
 sixteen years of her life in close confinement. On the death of Henry in 1189, and the 
 accession of her third son Richard to the Crown, he invested her with sovereign 
 authority during his absence in Normandy; and her first act was a very general release 
 of malefactors from confinement. She accompanied Richard to the Holy Land, died 
 in 1204, the sixth year of the reign of her son John, and was buried at Fontevraud. 
 She lies, like the other effigies at that place, upon a bier, attired in her royal vestments, 
 with a crown upon her head. 
 
lung l\trl)iirt tljr jfivst, 
 
 This chivalrous monarch, the fame of whose personal courage has been handed down to 
 posterity in his surname, Cceur dc Lion, was the third son of Henry the Second, by 
 Eleanor dc Guienne, his queen, and was born at Oxford, at the royal palace there, in the 
 year 1157. He was created Earl of Poitou and Duke of Aquitaine by his father, during 
 his lifetime, and at his death in 1181 succeeded to the Crown of England. In his 
 childhood he was contracted in marriage to Alice, daughter of Henry the Seventh, King 
 of France. This engagement was, however, never completed; her chastity lying under 
 an imputation with his own father, he refused to ratify it, and gave 100,000/. to King 
 Philip, her brother, as a compensation for its non-performance. She became the wife 
 of William Earl of Ponthieu, by whom she had issue Joan of Castile, mother of Queen 
 Eleanor, wife of Edward the First. 
 
 His second wife was Berengaria, or Berenquelle, daughter of Sanchez the Fourth, 
 King of Navarre. She was married to Richard in 1190, at the Island of Cyprus, when 
 on his way to the Holy Land, whither she accompanied him. 
 
 King Richard received the scrip and staff" of pilgrimage from the Archbishop of 
 Tours, and proceeding to Marseilles, embarked on the 7th August 1190, on his expedi¬ 
 tion to the Holy Land. His first exploit in his way was the capture of the city of Messina, 
 in Sicily, in order to release his sister Joan, widow of William the Good, the late king of 
 that island, then kept in confinement by Tancred, the bastard and usurper. Richard en¬ 
 forced his demands of remuneration for his sister’s claims, by keeping possession of Messina 
 until they were satisfied. These were, that Tancred should permit her to enjoy the dower 
 settled on her by the late King her husband; that she should have, according to the 
 custom of Sicilian queens, a chair of gold, a table of gold twelve feet in length and a 
 foot and a half in breadth, two golden tressels to support the same, a silk tent in which 
 two hundred knights might be entertained, twenty-four silver cups and as many dishes, 
 six thousand measures of wheat, a proportionate quantity of barley and wine, an hundred 
 armed galleys, properly appointed, and victualled for two years. Tancred compounded 
 for these dues by the payment of twenty thousand ounces of gold to Richard as his 
 sister’s dower, twenty thousand more to Richard himself, to be quit of any further 
 claims, besides a gift to him of four large ships and fifteen galleys. Setting sail from 
 Sicily, accompanied by his mother Eleanor and his betrothed wife, his fleet was scattered 
 in a tempest between the islands of Rhodes and Cyprus. The ship which contained his 
 sister Joan and his intended bride, was barbarously excluded from sheltering in Cyprus 
 by Isaac Comnenus, the reigning prince, who held it under the Greek emperors. 
 Richard promptly avenged this affront, by subduing the island, taking Isaac prisoner, 
 and ultimately transferring the sovereignty of Cyprus to Guy dc Lusignan. Here 
 
Richard espoused his queen Berengaria. In the beginning of April 1191 Richard pro¬ 
 ceeded to the relief of the Christian army encamped before Acre. In his voyage he fell 
 in with a Saracen dromond, or huge argosie, sent by Saladin, the brother of Saladin the 
 Soldan of Babylon, laden with immense treasure, military stores, and provisions, and 
 fifteen hundred warriors, for the succour of the Infidels besieged in Acre. Among the 
 articles for offensive warfare were a quantity of the celebrated Greek fire, and vessels full 
 of venomous serpents. This unwieldy vessel was promptly assailed on all sides by the 
 King’s light galleys ; her bottom was pierced with holes by the augers of certain dextrous 
 divers, and she was soon filled with water to her upper works. Thirteen hundred 
 of her crew were consigned by the King’s order to the waves; two hundred remained 
 his prisoners. Richard arrived at Acre in the middle of June, with his gallant fleet of 
 two hundred and fifty ships and sixty galleys, and aided so vigorously the combined 
 forces of Christendom in the prosecution of the siege, that on the twelfth of the follow¬ 
 ing July the city surrendered. The defection of Philip King of France did not damp 
 the ardour of Richard: he marched against Jerusalem, and in sight of that city attacked 
 and overthrew the caravan of Saladin, which came laden from Babylon, under an escort of 
 ten thousand men. A truce being concluded with Saladin, Richard bent his steps 
 homeward, to regulate the domestic concerns of his Realm, and to procure reinforcement 
 for his crusading host. In his way lie was shipwrecked near Aquileia, but getting 
 safely to land he disguised himself as a merchant, and assuming the name of Hugh, was 
 making his way through the Austrian dominions, when he was discovered and made 
 prisoner by Leopold Duke of Austria, who owed him an old grudge for an indignity 
 offered to his banner at Acre. Richard was given up by him to the Emperor of Ger¬ 
 many, of whom he was obliged to purchase his liberty by a heavy ransom, 130,000 marks 
 of silver. The old disagreement between Richard and Philip of France continuing 
 unallayed, a war between them was the consequence, and Richard gave him a signal 
 overthrow at the famous battle of Gisors, in Normandy, where the French king narrowly 
 escaped with his life. The lion-hearted Richard on this occasion eminently displayed 
 his intrepid character, and exclaimed after the field was won, “ Not we but ‘ God and our 
 Right’ have vanquished France at Gisorsthe same emphatic words were by one of his 
 successors coupled with the armorial ensigns of the British Crown. 
 
 Shortly after it was Richard’s fate to lose his life in a petty feud. The Count of Li¬ 
 moges, a dependant on the Dukes of Aquitaine, having found a treasure on his land, 
 Richard, as lord paramount, laid claim to the whole, and to enforce his right, besieged 
 the Castle of Chaluz, where it was supposed the treasure was deposited. He was wounded 
 by a quarrel, from the steelbow of an arbalister on the ramparts of the Castle. Hear¬ 
 ing the twang of the implement, he stooped forward to avoid the shot, and in conse- 
 guence of that movement received it in his left shoulder. The barbed head of the arrow 
 remained in the wound, the severity of which was much increased by the attempts of an 
 unskilful surgeon to cut it out. The Castle being taken, and the archer brought 
 before the King, he justified the deed, by saying that Richard with his own hand had 
 killed his father and his two brothers. The King, with a true magnanimity, commanded 
 him to be set at liberty with a reward of a hundred shillings; an order basely disrc- 
 
carded after tlie King’s death by one of bis mercenary chiefs, who caused the arbahstc 
 to be flayed alive and hanged. Richard having received the Sacraments of the Church, 
 died in the fortress above-mentioned on Tuesday 6th April 11!)!), after a reign of nine 
 years and nine months. He directed his heart to be carried to his faithful city of Rouen 
 for interment in the Cathedral; his bowels, as his ignoble parts, to the rebellious Poic- 
 tevins; and his body to be buried at the feet of his father Henry the Second at Fontevraud. 
 This gave rise to the following Leonine verses, which are cjuoted by Matthew 
 Paris as having been written for him by some rhiiner of the day by way of epitaph, in 
 which the idea that so mighty a ruin was too great for one place, is not destitute of 
 point: 
 
 Pictavus exta ducis sepelit lellusquc Chalutis ; 
 
 Corpus dat claudi sub marmore Fontis Ebraudi ; 
 
 Neustria, tuque tegis cor inexpugnabile regis ; 
 
 Sic !oca per trina tc sparsit tanta ruina, 
 
 Non fuit hoc funus cui sufficcret locus unus. 
 
 Over his gilt monument, according to Sandford, was the following inscription (pro¬ 
 bably on a suspended tablet, being a summary of his most celebrated exploits : 
 
 Scribitur hoc lumulo, rex auree, laus tua tota 
 Aurea, materia; conveniente nota : 
 
 Laus luaprima fuit Siculi, Cyprus altera, dromo 
 Tertia, caravana quarta, suprema Ioppe ; 
 
 Supprcssi Siculi, Cyprus pcssundnta, dromo 
 Mersus, caravana capta, retenta Ioppe. 
 
 The figure of Richard the First reposes on a bier covered with drapery. He wears a 
 crown, the trefoils of which are filled up with a honeysuckle pattern, which various 
 architectural remains of the same period shew to have been then much in vogue. His 
 royal mantle is painted blue with an ornamental gold border, his dalmatic or supertunic 
 is red, his tunic is white,* and under this appears his camise or shirt. The boots arc 
 adorned with broad ribband like stripes of gold, which appear to have been intended to 
 express the earlier mode of chaussure sandals. The leather of the spurs are visible. 
 
 Details. Plate I. 1. The border of the mantle. 2. Girdle. 3. The border of the dalmatic. 4'. The 
 border of the tunic. 5. The border of the camisole or shirt. 6. Ornaments on the cover of the feretrum or 
 bier. Plate II. The Crown. 
 
 * These three garments were ecclesiastical, answering to the bishop's chasuble or cope, the deacon’s dalmatic, 
 the subdeacon's tunic. The Church herself perhaps originally derived them from the imperial costume, in 
 order to denote the spiritual authority of her ministers. 
 
 10 
 
•jo.orn 'Jtfli nawvwsiniy 
 
0 
 
 
 THE Templars, whose house (the old Temple) was in Holborn, removed thence to 
 Fleet-street, in the reign of Henry II., when, it is most probable, the erection of 
 the Church commenced; for we find by an inscription now destroyed, that in 1 185 
 it was dedicated to the Virgin Mary by the Patriarch Eraclius. In 1240, it is 
 recorded, another Church was finished and dedicated. From the two distinct styles 
 of architecture of the above periods, now existing in the building, it seems highly 
 probable that the circular part was the original Church, and it is here we find the 
 effigies generally known by the name of the Knights Templars. 
 
 Matthew Paris says that William Marshal, the elder Earl of Pembroke, was 
 buried in the middle of the church of the New Temple; and near their father were 
 also interred two of his sons, William and Gilbert, successive Earls of Pembroke. 
 And from other authorities, we learn that Geoffrey Magnaville, Earl of Essex, 
 and William Plantagenet, fourth son of Henry III., were likewise buried in this 
 Church. The effigies, the subject of the present investigation, occupy the centre 
 of the pavement, and are parted off' within two enclosures, each surrounded by a 
 low iron railing: the figures are laid side by side, as close to each other as it 
 is possible to place them. In this arrangement it will be seen that there is not 
 that succession in the order of their dates we should have found had this been 
 their original situation. In the South enclosure it may be particularly noticed, 
 where the only three knights, with emblazoned shields are placed together, although 
 of all the figures thus enclosed, they are, in point of date, the most remote from each 
 other. That they have been displaced receives confirmation from a recent circum¬ 
 stance, for during the late repairs of the church, by excavating the ground beneath 
 the S. enclosure, it was discovered that merely these coffin lids (of which the figures, 
 according to ancient custom, were a part) remained, neither the bodies they inclosed, 
 nor the coffins to which they were attached, being found. This want of original 
 locality is probably the cause that we are now unable to identify with certainty any 
 of the persons said to have been here entombed. From the evidence of Camden, 
 Stow, and Dugdale, it appears these changes have taken place since their time. 
 Camden, who does not allude to their situation or arrangement, says, that William 
 
Marshal, the elder, and his two sons, William and Gilbert, were here buried, and 
 that upon the tomb of William the elder, he read on the upper part “ Comes Pen- 
 “ brochiee," and upon the sides this verse, “ Miles erarn Martis, Mars multos vicerat 
 “ armis.” Stow speaks of “ eleven monuments of noblemen in the round walk of this 
 “ church; eight of them images of armed knights, five lying cross-legged, as men vowed 
 “ to the Holy Land against the Infidels and unbeleeving Jews; the other three straight- 
 “ legged ; the rest are coaped stones, all of gray marble.” Dugdale says, “ within a 
 “ spacious grate of iron in the midst of the round walk under the steeple do lye eight 
 “ statues in military habits each of them having large and deep shields on their left 
 “ armes, of which five are cross-legged. There are also three other grave-stones lying 
 “ about five inches above the level ground ; on one of which is a large escocheon 
 “ with a lion rampant* graved thereon.” It is clear from Dugdale's account that the 
 whole of the effigies were in his time within one enclosure, and he likewise agrees 
 with Stow in their number and positions, and also to the number of coped stones. 
 There are now, however, nine effigies, six of them cross-legged, and but one coped 
 stone. This discrepancy is accounted for by a record somewhere existing, which 
 states that the cross-legged figure bearing on his shield the arms of Ross, was 
 brought from Yorkshire, and placed with the other effigies in the Temple Church,f 
 and it is almost conclusive from the situation of this figure, that whenever its 
 removal took place, the whole of these statues received their present arrangement, 
 and the two coped stones wanting were taken away or destroyed. Upon examining 
 the effigies, to whom the inscriptions given by Camden could possibly be applied, it 
 was found that they were carved in a stone best known under the name of Sussex 
 marble, upon the surface time had effected scarcely any change, and the sides (where 
 inscriptions are sometimes found) buried below the pavement, were ascertained to be as 
 smooth and perfect in most places, as when finished by the sculptor; consequently 
 had the inscriptions ever existed on these coffin lids, they must have been detected. 
 This contradiction to Camden’s account cannot readily be reconciled, unless the in¬ 
 scriptions in question were found elsewhere, or on the coped stone wanting, described 
 by Dugdale as having graved upon it an escutcheon, charged with a lion rampant. 
 
 In the present state of these memorials, all, therefore, that relates to the identity of 
 the persons represented must be conjecture, founded alone on such circumstances as 
 the effigies themselves may elicit. 
 
 The most ancient of these statues are IN 0 '. 1, 4, and 7. The first is said to represent 
 Geoffrey Magnaville; and the other two appear to be of the same date with each 
 other. The most remarkable circumstance that distinguishes these three figures 
 arises from their wearing the sword on the right side; the repetition argues against 
 its being accidental, and it is possible this may have been a fashion peculiar to the 
 early Knights Templars borrowed from their near neighbours, the infidels. If the 
 effigy called Geoffrey Magnaville, really represents that nobleman, this distinction in 
 him on this ground would be easily accounted for, as he received from the Templars, 
 when dying, the habit of their order. It may be added, as an argument for the high 
 
 * The arms of the Marshals Earls of Pembroke were, party per pale or, and vert, a lion rampant 
 gules. 
 
 t The note containing the authority for this fact has been mislaid and lost. 
 
antiquity of these statues, that they arc not like any others at present known. The 
 most remarkable will be found in this work, arranged with the other subjects in chro¬ 
 nological order; and first, 
 
 ©roffrej) Dc jHagnalitllf, or JWartDriuUe, Carl of Csstv. 
 
 This effigy is perhaps rightly assigned to Geoffrey de Mandcville, Earl of Essex. I lis 
 grandfather of the same name came over with the Norman William, and was rewarded 
 for his services in the invasion and conquest of England, by the gift of numerous lord- 
 ships, which descended to William his son, who married Margaret, daughter of Endo 
 Dapifcr, or Steward, to William the First. Geoffrey, the supposed subject of this effigy, 
 was their son and heir, and in the 5th of King Stephen fined for the livery of his inhe¬ 
 ritance. He was hereditary Constable of the Tower of London, and was created by 
 Kin- Stephen, by charter, Earl of Essex. He however took part against Stephen with 
 the Empress Matilda; and she also not only constituted him by charter Earl of Essex, 
 hut made him hereditary Sheriff of London, Middlesex, and Hertfordshire ; and gave 
 him, moreover, the lands'of Eudo Dapifcr in Normandy, and Ins office of High Steward 
 as aL hereditary right. King Stephen in 1144 seized his person, and obliged him, as 
 the ransom for his liberty, to yield up possession of the Tower of London, and his 
 castles of Pleshey and Walden, in Essex ; the latter of which was his chief family seat. 
 The warlike Geoffrey having, however, procured his enlargement, associated to himself 
 certain mercenary hands, at the head of which he ravaged the royal demesnes, and plun¬ 
 dered the Abbey of Ramsey. For this deed he incurred ecclesiastical excommunication. 
 Laying siege to the Castle of Burwell, in Cambridgeshire, he received a mortal wound 
 in his head from a dart, and finding his fortunes in this world set at rest, began to make 
 what provision he could, at so short a notice, for those of the next. Some Knights 
 Templar coming to him in his last moments, he endowed their fraternity with certain of 
 his lands, and put on the habit of their order as a passport to heaven. Still under sen¬ 
 tence of excommunication, they could not give him Christian burial, but they hit upon 
 the notable expedient of wrapping his corpse in lead, and suspending it from a tree in 
 the garden of the Old Temple, in Holborn. After some time his absolution was 
 obtained from Pope Alexander the Third, and bis body was taken down and buried in 
 the round or most ancient part of the Now Temple Church, which now serves as a porch 
 to the main body of the building. This may account for the style of the effigy on his 
 coffin lid, which does not appear to have been made before the latter end of the twelfth 
 century. ’ The costnme of this effigy is exceedingly remarkable. On the head is a 
 cylindrical, or pot like, chapelle de fer. The hauberk of chain-mail envelopes his hands, 
 
iuncj foljn. 
 
 Tins remarkable personage, the events of whose “troublesome reign” arc so conspicuous 
 in English History—and from whose disputes with his Barons we derive the foundation 
 deed of our liberties, Magna Charta, was horn at Oxford in 11(36. He was the youngest 
 son of Henry the Second, by his wife Eleanor of Guienne. His father jestingly called 
 him Sans Terre or Lackland, as if, being born last, lie had nothing left to give him. 
 He, however, created him Earl of Mortagnc in Flanders (latinized in the public acts of 
 the time “Comes Moritonic”), of Cornwall, and Gloucester, made him titular King of 
 Ireland, which grant was confirmed by the Pope, and endowed him with divers other 
 honours and possessions. His first wife was Alice, daughter of Humbert second Earl of 
 Mauricnne, now called Savoy ; this marriage was contracted by the parties in their 
 childhood, A. D. 1173, and John, by the death of Alice, lost his claim, in her right, to 
 her father’s possessions. His second wife was Isabella, daughter of Robert Earl of Glou¬ 
 cester, natural son of King Henry the First; but falling desperately in love with Isabella, 
 daughter of Aymer Earl of Angoulesme, he procured a divorce from Isabella of Gloucester, 
 under the plea of having contracted a marriage with her within the third degree of con¬ 
 sanguinity, and in 1200 married Isabella de Angoulesme. King John, in the midst of 
 public commotions (to which his misgovernment had largely contributed) and adverse 
 fortune, was cut off by death at Newark, on the 19th October 1216, in the eighteenth 
 year of his reign. His death is assigned by Matthew Paris, a writer who lived in bis 
 own time, to natural causes, induced by grief for the disaster which had occurred to his 
 army in crossing the Well Stream or Lincoln Washes, in his march to oppose Lewis son 
 of the King of France, who, backed by the discontented Barons, pretended to his King¬ 
 dom. Having rested at Swineshead * Abbey, in his way to Newark, for a night, a story 
 gained ground that the final catastrophe of his life was accelerated by poison adminis¬ 
 tered to him by a monk. There is no conclusive circumstantial evidence to support 
 this tale. Speed, the historian, asserts, that it was believed as a fact by his son King 
 Ilcnrv the Third, and refers, as his authority, to the reply made by that King to the 
 bold address of the Prior of the Hospitallers at Clerkcmvcll as related by Matthew 
 Paris. The expressions of that writer appear, however, too vague to support such an 
 inference.-}- The poisoning of John must, therefore, remain in the list of insoluble 
 historic doubts. His own will, preserved in the archives of the Dean and Chapter of 
 Worcester, merely says, that, being seized with a severe distemper he has no time for 
 
 * Nol Swinestead. Swinestead for Swineshead is an error which has crept into some received authorities owing 
 to the great similarity in name of these two different places in Lincolnshire. See Gent. Mag. June 18*25, p. 491. 
 
 f These arc given as the King's words, " O quid sibi vult istud, vos Anglici, vultis ne me sicut quondam 
 patrem meum a regno precipitate atque nccarc pracipitatum ?" Matt. Paris, Hist. Angl. edit. Watts, p. S54. 
 
making particular arrangements. He appoints certain nobles and dignified ecclesiastics 
 his executors, directs them, in general terms, by donations to religious houses, and alms 
 to the poor, to make, for the good of his soul, reparation for injuries done to God and 
 holy Church. He annexes the usual anathema against any who shall infringe their 
 disposition of his property. He directs his body to be buried in the Church of St. Mary 
 and St. Wulstan, the Cathedral at Worcester. John, in his last moments, commended 
 his soul to God and St. Wulstan, his body, royally attired, was conveyed to Worcester, 
 over his head was placed a monk’s cowl, as a sort of cover for all his sins and a passport 
 to Heaven. He was interred between St. Oswald and St. Wulstan, whose graves are in 
 the Chapel of the Virgin at the eastern extremity of the Cathedral. Thence, in all pro¬ 
 bability, they underwent translation to their present situation before the high altar in the 
 Choir. 
 
 The effigy of John, carved in grey marble, which forms the superstructure of his present 
 tomb, was originally the lid of the stone coffin that contained his remains, and in its first 
 position must have been placed on a level with the floor of the building within which lie 
 was interred. His head is adorned with a crown of state and supported by two Bishops, 
 undoubtedly intended for Oswald and Wulstan, between whose remains he, as before- 
 mentioned, actually reposed. He is represented as wearing a dalmatic of crimson lined 
 with green, the neck and cuffs edged with a gold and jewelled border ; bis tunic is yellow, 
 or cloth of gold ; he is girt with a belt; on his hands arc jewelled gloves, a ring on the 
 middle finger of his right hand, which supports a sceptre, while his left grasps a sword. 
 He wears red hose, golden spurs, his feet have on them black shoes, and rest upon a lion. 
 The greater part of these details will be recognized as the ensigns of royalty. 
 
 Valentine Green, F. S. A. the historian of Worcester, published a pamphlet, giving 
 a very interesting account of the opening of the tomb of King John on the 17th of July 
 17!)7. Two walls of brick were found to form the supporters of the effigy of the monarch. 
 The coffin containing his remains, of which it had originally formed the top, was 
 covered with two strong elm planks, the intervening spaces between the sides of the 
 tomb and the effigy, being filled up with mortar and brick rubbish. These circumstances, 
 and the state of the King’s mortal relics, shewed that they had been at some previous 
 time disturbed, and seem to favour the conjecture of their having been translated from 
 the Lady Chapel in the Cathedral into the Choir, most probably about the time of 
 Henry the Seventh, as the altar tomb, on which the coffin lid lies, resembles the monu¬ 
 ment of Prince Arthur in the same Church, and brick was much employed in architec¬ 
 ture about that period. The skull was found turned completely round, and presented 
 what anatomists term the foramen magnum, or aperture through which the spinal marrow 
 passes. The upper jaw lay near the right elbow. The agreement of the dress on the 
 body with that of the effigy on the tomb was very remarkable, and shews, as in the 
 instance of Henry the Second's figure, that these effigies very faithfully represented the 
 defunct as he lay in state. John had, however, no crown on his head or gloves on his 
 hands ; in the place of the former was found the celebrated monk’s cowl, confirming the 
 minute accuracy of the Chronicles. This sacred envelope fitted the head very closely, 
 and had been buckled under the chin by straps, parts of which still remained. The 
 
 16 
 
Effigy 
 

body had been covered with a crimson robe of damask of strong texture, reaching from 
 the neck to the feet: see the effigy. Part of the embroidery was still perfect near the 
 left knee. His left arm was bent towards his breast, and the hand had grasped a sword 
 in the same manner as on the tomb. The cuff of this arm still remained lying on the 
 breast. The sword was much decomposed and its parts found at intervals down the left 
 side, the scabbard was much more perfect. The covering of the legs (the precise nature 
 of which was not ascertained) was tied round the ancles. These were probably the red 
 hose seen in the effigy. Thus lay royal John, as the immortal dramatizer of his reign 
 has said, 
 
 -but now a king—now thus— 
 
 A clod and module of confounded royally 1 
 
 Matthew Paris has given the following as his epitaph, which, like many others of the 
 same cast on our early Kings, had perhaps a place in the Chronicle, but not on the tomb : 
 
 Hoc in sarcophago scpelilur Regis imago, 
 
 Qui moriens mult urn sedavit in orbe tuniultum, 
 
 Et cui connexa dum vixit prdbra manebunt, 
 
 Hunc mala post mortem timor cst nc fata sequantur, 
 
 Qui legis base metuens dum cernis te moriturum, 
 
 Discilc quid rerum pariat tibi meta dierum.* 
 
 Details. Plate I. 1. The figure of the King with the original painting restored. 2. The shoe, spur 
 leather, Ac. Plate II. The Crown. 
 
 * Matt, Paris, Hist. Ang. edit. Watts, p. 288. 
 
 17 
 
jsafjel VSlugoultame, ©utm of Jung; foijn. 
 
 Isabel d’Angoulesme was the third and last wife of King John. She was daughter 
 and inheritrix of Aymcr Earl of Angoulesme. Her mother was Alice, daughter of 
 Peter Lord of Courtenay, fifth son of Louis le Gros. She was married to King John in 
 the first year of his reign, and crowned his queen on the 8th of October. She had issue 
 by him, Henry (afterwards Henry III.); Richard Earl of Cornwall and King of the 
 Romans; Joan, married to Alexander the Second, King of the Scots; Eleanor, married 
 to William MareschaJ the younger, Earl of Pembroke; then to Simon de Montfort, the 
 celebrated Earl of Leicester, who was slain at the battle of Evesham; and lastly, Isabel, 
 who became the sixth and last wife of Frederick the Second, Emperor of Germany. 
 
 Surviving King John, she married Hugh Brun, Earl of Marche, and Lord of Lusignan 
 and Valence, in Poitou. By him she had several children, some of whom were much 
 advanced by Henry the Third, their half-brother, as William de Valence, created Earl of 
 Pembroke ; and Athclmar, raised to the Bishopric of Winchester. On the death of the 
 Earl of Marche she took the veil at the monastery of Fontevraud, and was at first uncere¬ 
 moniously interred in the churchyard of that place; her body was however taken up by 
 order of her son, Henry the Third, and the effigy which is delineated placed over her 
 remains. 
 
 Details. Plate I. The carnise, fermail, patterns on the border of the tunic and girdle. P'ate II. Pattern 
 of the border of the mantle. 
 
 Cfftgp tn tije CcinpU Cijurri), Hontiom 
 
 This figure must remain unappropriated. It is sculptured in a remarkably fine style. 
 The hands are crossed upon the breast, probably with the same design that the legs of 
 other effigies of this class are placed in a similar position, to indicate their militant pro¬ 
 fession of the cross. The knight is habited in chain mail, and has a long surcoat of 
 plain drapery, the folds of which are remarkably well understood. The sword depends, 
 as in the effigy of De Mandeville, from the right side. 
 
 Details. The head with the chapelle de fer. The ornaments upon the belt. 
 
(Queen 33erenprta. 
 
 THIS Princess was the queen of Richard I., and daughter of Sancho, king of 
 Navarre. It does not appear that she was ever in England, a circumstance not 
 surprising, when those events of her life known are considered, and that Richard 
 himself did not, altogether, pass more than eight months in his English possessions. 
 Berengaria is first spoken of as being brought to king Richard by his mother 
 Eleanor de Guienne, at Messina, when on his way to the Holy Land. She was 
 afterwards married to him, and crowned by the bishop of Evreux in the island of 
 Cyprus. From thence in company with Joan, the sister of Richard, she proceeded 
 to share with her husband the fatigues and perils of the Crusade: on her return to 
 Europe, sailing a few days before the king, she avoided the captivity into which 
 he subsequently fell, and retired to Poitiers. No more of her is known till after 
 the death of Richard Cceur de Lion, when on claiming her dower of King John at 
 Chinon in 1201, it appears she was so little recognized as the queen of Richard, 
 that it was not till after the testimony of the validity of her marriage, by those that 
 were present at its celebration, that John would satisfy her demand. Henry III., in 
 the 4th of his reign, 1219, compounded with her in lieu of her dower. The time of 
 her death is uncertain; she was buried in the abbey of L’Espan, which she had 
 founded. Berengaria was celebrated as well for her eloquence as her beauty ; but 
 Richard has been charged by some historians with having neglected her. 
 
 Considering that amidst the havoc of monumental sculpture in France, the Royal 
 Effigies at Fontevraud have escaped destruction, it becomes still more remarkable, 
 that the same good fortune should have also attended this effigy, the last erection in 
 France commemorative of Royalty which belonged to the English monarchy. Al¬ 
 though the tomb was overlooked in the heat of Revolutionary Vandalism, yet has it 
 ultimately suffered from the suppression of religious houses. On visiting the abbey of 
 L'Espan in 1816, near Mans, which contains this tomb, the church was found in a 
 ruinous state, and had been applied to the purposes of a barn. The architectural parts 
 of Queen Berengaria’s tomb were discovered lying about the place, but the effigy was 
 concealed beneath a considerable quantity of wheat. After many difficulties, and the 
 delay of a twelvemonth, it was uncovered, and found placed upright in a niche, in ex- 
 
cel lent preservation, with the exception that the whole of the left arm was wanting. 
 By the effigy were lying the bones of the Queen, the silent witnesses of the sacri¬ 
 legious, as well as recent demolition of the tomb. After some search, a great portion 
 of the arm belonging to the statue was recovered, but the remainder could no where 
 be found. As the destruction of this tomb bad been the work of no very distant 
 period, it was deemed interesting to seek the testimony of those engaged in it, 
 relative to what besides the bones had been discovered within the tomb. Three 
 men, who had assisted in this work of destruction, stated, that the monument with 
 the figure upon it, stood in the centre of the aisle at the east end of the church ; 
 that there was no coffin found within it, but a small square box, containing 
 bones, pieces of linen, some stuff embroidered with gold, and a slate, on which was 
 an inscription. The slate alluded to in this statement, was found in the possession 
 of a canon of the church of St. Julien, at Mans; upon it was engraven the inscrip¬ 
 tion following, which accounts for the interior state of the tomb. 
 
 Mausoleum Istud Serenissime Berengarise Anglorum Regime bujus Cumoliii Fundatricis Indite restau- 
 ratum ct in augiistiorein locum hunc traiislatum fuit in eoq: recondita sunt Ossa luce quie reperta 
 fuerunt in Antique tumulo die 27 Maii Anno Domini 1072.* 
 
 Of the original situation of the tomb we must remain ignorant, but there can be 
 no doubt whatever, from the style of the architecture and sculpture, that it is of 
 the same date as the effigy, which may he placed towards the commencement of 
 the thirteenth century. As St. Julien, the principal church at Mans, is about to 
 be restored as nearly as possible to the same state it was in before the Revolution, it 
 lias been suggested to those superintending so praiseworthy a work, to remove and 
 place the monument of Berengaria in that church; and it appears probable that this 
 will be done. 
 
 The sides of the tomb are ornamented with deep quatrefoils. The effigy which 
 was upon it is in high relief. It represents the Queen with her hair unconfined, but 
 partly concealed by the coverchief, over which is placed an elegant crown. Iler 
 mantle is fastened by a narrow band crossing her breast; a large fermail or broach, 
 richly set with stones, confines her tunic at the neck. To an ornamented girdle 
 which encircles her waist, is attached a small aulmoniere, or purse, to contain alms. 
 The Queen holds in her hands a book, singular from the circumstance of having 
 embossed on the cover a second representation of herself, as lying on a bier, with 
 waxen torches burning in candlesticks by her side. This effigy, among many others, 
 is an instance of the incorrectness of the prints in Montfaucon's work on the Monu¬ 
 ments of the French Monarchy. There is a representation, professed to have been 
 from this effigy, in which the hook is entirely left out, and the position of the arms 
 altered; that such unwarrantable liberties were taken, is now the more to he lamented, 
 as the greater part of the originals in Montfaucon’s collection no longer exist. 
 
 Details—Fig. 1. Part of the Crown:—2. The fermail:—3. The aulmoniere, as 
 attached to the girdle. 
 
 ■ This Tomb of the most serene Berengaria, Queen of the Angles, the noble Founder of this Monastery, 
 was restored and removed to this more sacred place. In it were again deposited the bones which were 
 found in the ancient sepulchre, ou the 27th day of May, in the year of our Lord 1672. 
 
‘’*#8 
 
William i-ontscsprc, Carl of §s>alts1)tirj>. 
 
 William Longespce was the bastard son of Henry the Second by the celebrated Ro¬ 
 samund de Clifford. His half brother, Richard the First, gave him in marriage Ela, 
 daughter and inheritrix of William Earl of Salisbury. He bore a conspicuous part in 
 the domestic divisions in the reign of King John, whose general he was against the rebellious 
 Barons in 1215, but in the following year went over to the party of Louis the son of the 
 French king. On the death of John he abandoned the cause of Louis, did homage to the 
 young King Henry the Third, and united with William Mareschal, the spirited Earl of 
 Pembroke, then Regent, in raising the siege of Lincoln. In 1219 he was with other 
 English noblemen at the siege of Damictta, which place was vigorously defended by the 
 Saracens, and the capture of which cost the Christian forces very dear. In 1224 he went 
 over into Gascony with Richard Earl of Cornwall, to subdue certain towns and castles to 
 obedience to King Henry their Lord. Returning in the following year they were over¬ 
 taken at sea by a violent tempest; after heating about for many nights and days they 
 were carried far out of their course ; and, giving themselves up for lost, committed all 
 their treasure and rich garments to the deep. While they remained in darkness and 
 despair, on a sudden the whole vessel was illuminated by the brilliant flame of a huge wax 
 taper, which appeared on the prow, and by it a damsel of exceeding beauty, who pro¬ 
 tected the light with her garment from the force of the wind and rain. While the crew 
 were lost in wonder at this miraculous nocturnal vision, the Earl of Salisbury proclaimed 
 that tlicir thanks were due to the Blessed Virgin for this merciful interposition, at whose 
 shrine, on the day of his knighthood, he had offered a taper to be kept constantly burning 
 on the paiw celebration of the offices to her honour. The courage of the dispirited crew 
 revived, and the following morning they made the Isle of Rli6, near Rochelle. Salisbury 
 was speedily obliged to put to sea again, being informed of the design of the Lord of the 
 place to make him prisoner. He braved the adverse elements for three months longer 
 before lie reached England. Such is the relation of Matthew Paris. His long absence 
 gave occasion to a current report that he was lost at sea, and Hubert de Burgh, Justi¬ 
 ciary of England, solicited to be allowed to match a kinsman of his, one Raymond, who 
 had a claim to the Earldom of Salisbury, with his rich widow, but she, like another 
 Penelope, rejected this suitor. At length the Earl landed unexpectedly in Cornwall, and 
 demanded satisfaction of the King against Hubert, whose relative had assailed the honour 
 of his wife. Hubert made submissive reparation by presents, but. is reported to have 
 taken the Earl off by poison, administered to him at a feast to which he had invited him 
 in simulated reconciliation. 
 
 21 
 
Be this as it may, lie retired to his castle at Sarum, grievously sick, and sent for the 
 Bishop of the place to administer to him the Sacrament, on whose approach with the 
 host, he leaped from his bed with a rope round his neck, as a wretched malefactor, and 
 throwing himself on the floor, exclaimed he was a traitor to Almighty God, and refused 
 to arise until he had received absolution and the Sacrament. He died in March 122(5, 
 and was borne from the Castle to the Church, then newly erected at Salisbury. It is 
 pretended, that, although it blew a tempest during the funeral procession, the tapers borne 
 by the clergy in procession were not extinguished, so evident were the signs of his 
 acceptance with Heaven. He gave, by his last will, several valuable donations to the 
 Canons of Bradcnstoke, and property to endow a Carthusian monastery. Ela surviving 
 him, fulfilled his pious intentions, and also founded for the good of her own and her hus¬ 
 band's soul the Abbey of Laycock, of which she became Abbess, died circa 12(53, and was 
 buried in the choir of the Church there. On the alterations which took place in Salis¬ 
 bury Cathedral a few years since, the effigy of William Longespee was found entire. It 
 had originally heen buried in the Chapel of the Virgin, of whose patronage and favour he 
 thought himself so eminently the object. His remains were about 1790 removed to their 
 present situation in the nave, inclosed in a wooden tomb, on which his effigy rests. 
 Nothing can be finer than the style in which this representation of a grandson of 
 Geoffrey Plantagenet rests. The mails of his hauberk arc of golden hue. On his blue 
 surcoat are the lions rampant which are found on his ancestor’s shield. One remark¬ 
 able character of this figure, is the flaccid, lifeless air with which it reposes on the coffin 
 lid which covered Salisbury’s mortal relics. 
 
 Details. Plate I. 1. The head with the hood of the hauberk, under which is probably a cylindrical defence 
 for the head. ‘2. The top of the hood. 3. The whole ligurc restored to its appearance as originally painted. 
 
MONUMENT A I. EFIL'HGY. 
 Slnlvcrr Alilirr rbar-li Worcriirrfbirr 
 
tit ©vent ^HaUicrtt 3l>k}> Clntvrl), fSLlortcstcr. 
 
 This unappropriated figure is of the same period with that of Longespee, Earl of Salis¬ 
 bury. There are some remarkable peculiarities in the arms which it bears. In the right 
 hand is a formidable martel dc fer, horseman’s hammer, or pole-axe, formed on the same 
 principle as the pick-axe of the labourer, but shorter in the head, which measures about 
 nine inches, and has one cutting and one pointed end; apparently a most efficient 
 weapon for breaking defensive armour, beating down and wounding opponents. In the 
 left hand is a circular target, eighteen inches in diameter. On the left side is suspended 
 the broad-bladcd sword of the time. 
 
 a Uc JL'fslr. 
 
 There were two families in England of this denomination; one deriving their appella¬ 
 tive from the Isle of Wight, the other from the Isle of Ely. Of the last was the subject 
 of this effigy. The Dc Lisles possessed the manor of Rampton, in Cambridgeshire, 
 from the reign of Henry the Third to that of the third Edward. They had from Edward 
 the First a grant for a weekly market, and an annual fair in their manor of Rampton. 
 A moated site, and some considerable ruins, near the church of that place, point out 
 their residence. The effigy delineated is in the church. The mails on the hauberk of 
 this figure appear to be effaced, and the mouth is sadly distorted by the carving of some 
 idler. On the surcoat and shield is the coat of De Lisle, Or, a pale and two chevrons 
 Sable, cotised Gules. The feet rest on a lion. 
 
 Details. Plate I. 1. Ornaments of the pillow. 2. Scroll-work on the chevron. 3. Pattern on the belt. 
 I. The figure as originally painted. Plate II. 1. Hood of the hauberk. 2. Rings of the mail. 3. Pat¬ 
 terns on the waist-belt and appendages. 4. Heel of the spur, and straps. 
 
Itobrrt Dube of ilormant))). 
 
 Robert Duke of Normandy was the eldest son of William the First, King of England. 
 He claimed the Dukedom of Normandy of his father during his lifetime, prosecuted a 
 war against him on that account, unhorsed and wounded him, not knowing who he was, 
 at the battle of Gerbrai. On discovering a mistake which might have involved him in 
 the guilt of parricide, he made an humble submission to William, who was however 
 implacable, and denounced a curse against him, to which Robert’s subseejuent misfor¬ 
 tunes are attributed by the historians of the time. On his deathbed the King disinhe¬ 
 rited him of his claim of succession to the English crown, substituting his second sur¬ 
 viving son, William le Roux, Rufus, or the Red, in his room. 
 
 An unsuccessful effort was made by Odo Bishop of Bayeux, the Conqueror’s half- 
 brother, to depose William Rufus, in favour of Robert, and shortly after William 
 retorted the design, by laying claim to and levying a war in the Duchy of Normandy. 
 
 In 109(5 the mania of the Crusade prevailed through Europe, and Robert Duke of 
 Normandy took the Cross. In order to defray the expence of equipping his forces for 
 the expedition, he mortgaged his Dukedom to his brother William. He distinguished 
 himself greatly by his chivalrous feats in the Holy Land. On one occasion he pushed 
 alone into the thickest of the Saracen host,* mortally wounded their Amiral, or Emir 
 and greatly contributed to a signal victory over them. On the capture of Jerusalem he 
 was chosen King of the Holy City by the leaders of the Christian army, but declined 
 the office in consequence of his views of succeeding to the Crown of England and 
 Godfrey de Bouillon was elected in his stead. On the death of Rufus, and the accession 
 of Henry the First, a second attempt of the friends of Robert to place him on the 
 English Throne proved abortive. Henry in his turn invaded Normandy, overcame his 
 brother at the battle of Tinchebray, made him prisoner, carried him to England, and 
 placed him in confinement. Relying on some unstable promises, and urged chiefly by 
 the Earl of C hester, he openly threatened vengeance, and escaped from his keepers; but 
 his horse in his flight falling into a deep bog, he was retaken, committed to closer 
 custody, and, as is said, to prevent further attempts, barbarously deprived of sight by 
 order of his brother. Ibis was effected by the application of a red-hot brazen basin to 
 his eyes. Ihe fact, however, seems to rest upon questionable authority. In 1134 
 Robert had grown old in prison, bewailing his sins, and regarding his misfortunes and 
 
 * Matt. Paris, sub a 
 
 10.00. 
 
confinement ns the punishment for having refused the kingdom of the Sacred City. 
 King Henry, touched with some compunctious feeling of respect, had been accustomed, 
 whenever he put on a new robe, to send one of the same stuff to his unhappy brother. 
 It chanced, as King Henry was trying on a scarlet vesture, that he rent the hood, 
 “ , g to ° sma " for llis llead; he ordered it to be taken to his brother, saying that he 
 had a shallower head than himself. The rent was not sewn up by the tailor, and 
 the blind Duke, trying on the garment, felt the rough edges of the aperture, and asked the 
 reason of its being brought him in that state 1 The messenger told him at once the 
 circumstances. “Alas!” exclaimed the venerable captive, whose mind had become 
 keenly sensitive by his misfortunes, “Alas! I live too long. See this my traitor 
 brother, my inferior by birth, an idle, petty clerk, the fraudulent possessor of my king¬ 
 dom, who has imprisoned me, and in helpless captivity deprived me of my sight! Me, 
 whose name was so renowned in arms ! He spurn, me, treats me with contempt, and 
 sends me, as his pensioner, for an alms-gift, his cast-off, ragged gowns!" Then bursting 
 into a flood of bitter tears, he vowed never more to touch that food and drink which 
 prolonged his miserable existence; and in this resolution died. His body, by command 
 of King Henry the First, was reverently interred in the cathedral of Gloucester, before 
 the high altar. A chest or shrine of oak was some time after erected for him; from 
 the costume of the incumbent figure, probably early in the following century. Sandford 
 says this memorial was very near being destroyed, when the Parliament army possessed 
 themselves of Gloucester and the cathedral against Charles the First. The scattered 
 parts of the monument were bought by a loyal individual of the soldiers, concealed until 
 the Restoration, when they were put together, and replaced in the cathedral. The figure 
 lies with the legs crossed, the attitude of a Crusader, habited in chain-mail, over which is 
 a long surcoat. 
 
 Details. Plate 1. Head with the mailed hood. 
 
effiijp m Wbittuortlj Cijuvclj^avt), Duvijam. 
 
 This remarkable sculptured stone is about six feet in length. On the head of the 
 figure is a cylindrical helmet: the apertures for the sight, and the weldings, or joints, 
 are so arranged as to form a cross. This species of defence for the head was continued 
 in use, with a slight variation in the form, until a much later period than that of the 
 present subject.* This effigy is in an attitude of defence: the shield is borne before 
 the body, and in the right hand is the sword naked and erect. The surcoat extends 
 only to the knee. The mails of the hauberk have either not been expressed, or arc 
 obliterated. The legs are crossed, designating a Crusader, and they appear to trample 
 on a prostrate figure, intended, perhaps, for an infidel. At the right side is a coucliant 
 hound. The bearing on the shield is, harry, a bordure charged with bezants. These 
 bearings do not belong to any family which are known to have existed in the North ; 
 the figure can therefore only be conjectured to represent one of the Lords of Whitworth. 
 In one or two other places in the County are effigies sculptured in exactly similar cos¬ 
 tume, the work probably of the same hand.-}- 
 
 Details. Profile. Plate 11. The top of the helmet. 
 
 * See the real specimens extant. That of Edward the Black Prince in Canterbury Cathedral, delineated in 
 this work. Two belonging to the Lords of Cobham are in the chancel of Cobham Church, Kent. 
 
 f See Surtees’s Durham, vol. 111. p. 292, and the illustrative plates of that work. 
 
MONl/M ENTAIL EFFIOY. 
 
 In Whitworth Cksrch Hurd Durham- 
 

■vr*m 
 
ISBtlltam Jftawscljal, Carl of ^Drmlnoftc. 
 
 This nobleman derived his surname from his ancestors exercising the offices of Marshal 
 in the King’s court. He was the son of John Mareschal, who performed that service for 
 King Henry the Second. He had an elder brother John, who on their father’s death 
 was confirmed by the same King in that honourable post. This John dying in the 
 reign of Richard the First, William became his heir. Richard gave him his ward 
 Isabella, daughter of Richard de Clare (surnamed Strongbow), the Conrpxeror of Ireland, 
 Earl of Striguil and Pembroke, in marriage, and with it the Earldom above mentioned. 
 He distinguished himself by his adherence to King John in his adversity, and on his 
 death became guardian to his son, Henry the Third. lie speedily marched against the 
 French Prince Lewis, the pretender to the Crown, raised the siege of Lincoln, routed 
 his marauding forces, straitly beleaguered London, and soon compelled Lewis to forego 
 his pretensions, and to evacuate the kingdom. He died in 1219, at his manor of Ca- 
 versham, near Reading, in Berkshire. His body was conveyed to Reading, where it was 
 received in solemn procession by the monks of the Abbey, and placed in the choir of their 
 Church while a mass was said for his soul; thence to St. Peter’s, Westminster, where it 
 underwent the same ceremony; and from thence to the Church of the New Temple, 
 where it was buried, on Ascension day. Matthew Paris assigns to him the following 
 epitaph, which styles him a Saturn, as a severe castigator of the Irish; an Apollo, as 
 the t^lory and honour of England; a Mercury, as a diplomatist in Normandy; and a 
 Mars, as a warlike and invincible knight against the French:* 
 
 Sum quern Saturnum sibi sensit Hybernia, Solem 
 Anglia, Mcrourium Normannia, Gallia Martem. 
 
 The costume of this figure very well accords with the period of William Mareschal 
 the elder’s decease. He wears a hauberk of chain-mail, long surcoat, and on his shield 
 is a lion rampant. The Earls of Pembroke of this name bore, Party per pale Or and 
 Vert, a lion rampant Gules, crowned and langucd Azure. 
 
 * Matt. Paris, edit. Watts, p. 304. 
 
Cffigj) tit the 'Crmplr Cljttrtlj. 
 
 This unappropriated figure of an ecclesiastic lies under the south wall of the Temple 
 Church, London. It is sculptured in a hard stone, in very sharp relief. He wears the 
 pontifical mitre, gloves, and in his left hand is the pastoral stall', which is swathed by 
 an ornamental band.* He treads on a winged dragon. At the top of the Gothic niche 
 in which he is placed arc two supporting angels. 
 
 Clir Boj> Btssiiop. 
 
 This effigy is not more than three feet in length. From the custom which prevailed of 
 children educated by the church choosing on St. Nicholas’s day (6th December), in mock 
 ceremony, a bishop from their number, this figure has obtained the appellation of the 
 Boy or Chorister Bishop. 
 
 Some reasonable doubt may however exist whether this be not a memorial for an 
 adult, a real Bishop of the See of Salisbury. The size of the figure alone appears to 
 countenance the legendary tale, and the monument of Athelmar Bishop of Winchester, 
 in the cathedral of that church, of the same age (which was erected to show the spot 
 where his heart had according to his direction been interred), is equally diminutive. 
 
 * These bandages are represented as attached to the pastoral staves of Bishops, in the MSS. and monuments 
 of this and the following periods of the middle age. The pastoral stall' and the crosier, although often con¬ 
 founded, are distinct appendages. The crosier, or cross, is borne by the Archbishop; the pastoral staff, or 
 shepherd's rrook, by the Bishop, &c. “ Next before the chariot went two men, bare-headed, in linen garments 
 down to the foot, girl and shoes of blue velvet, who carried, the one a crosier, the other a pastoral staff, like 
 a sheep-hook.” Bacon, New Atlantis. 
 
M<OK UMEHTAl EFFIGT 
 im tlie Temple (CKurdhi Lconadmai. 
 
The Hot jis u s m o jp . 
 
 llae "Jo ill, side of due Have of Salisbury Cathedral . 
 
 hyC-4 J'Of-'f.l'-y I 
 
 
Wtlltam iLongcspce tljc JDoungcv. 
 
 This effigy is on the south side of the nave of Salisbury Cathedral; it is ascribed, with 
 some uncertainty, to William, eldest son of William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury, by his 
 wife Ela. He was girt with the sword of knighthood in 1233, but could not enforce his 
 claim with King Henry III. to succeed his father as Earl of Salisbury. He married 
 Idonea, daughter and heiress of Richard de Camville. He took the cross, joined the ex¬ 
 pedition of St. Louis to the Holy Land, and after many deeds of valour, perished in 1250, 
 in an engagement with the Saracens at a fortress called Massourah, between Damietta 
 and Cairo. Matthew Paris, and a poem recently published,* which accord together in 
 the main particulars, give a circumstantial relation of the manner of his death. It appears 
 that great jealousy of Longespee and his English companions was entertained by the 
 Count d’Artois, who, on more than one occasion, derided them as a race to whom the 
 curse of Heaven adhered in the form of tails of beasts , alluding to the ridiculous legend 
 of St. Augustine and the Kentish boors. The Count d’Artois urged, with many sneers at 
 the Templars and their master, and many vulgar taunts at Longespee, similar to those de¬ 
 scribed, an attack on the fortified town of Mansour or Massourah. The gallant English¬ 
 man exclaimed, “ Lead on, Sir Count, I will set my foot in danger thus far to day that 
 you shall not dare to touch a hair even of my horse’s tail, according to vour vulgar jest.” 
 The Christians rushed forward into the fortress, where they met with so warm a reception 
 that the Count d'Artois was the first to fly, and plunging his horse into the neighbouring 
 river, perished by the weight of his harness in his attempt to escape. Longespee resisted 
 all proposals of retreat, “ Never,” said he, “shall the son of my father flee before a Sa¬ 
 racen !” Supported by a few knights, and surrounded by a host of infidels, his valour 
 could purchase nothing for itself but honourable death. His right foot at first was cut 
 oft'; sustained by Richard dc Ascalon he still fought on ; a Saracen sabre disabled his right 
 arm, he grasped his sword in his left hand until that also was separated from his bodv. 
 Then fell the valiant grandson of Plantagenet, and on his honoured corse fell also 
 Richard de Ascalon and De Guise his banner-bearer, disdaining to survive a master so 
 noble. He was interred in the church of St. Cross at Acre, and it is conjectured that 
 his mother Ela, the Abbess of Laycock, caused this monument to be placed in the ca¬ 
 thedral of Salisbury to his memory. The figure is in the attitude of a Crusader, and 
 the style of its costume very well agrees with the period in which Longespee the younger 
 died. The hauberk, which before this time was entirely of chain mail, hits now portions 
 of plate armour attached, covering the knees and elbows. The triangular shield with 
 curved sides, reaches, now, only from the shoulder to the middle of the thigh. 
 
 * See Matt. Paris, edit. Watts, pp. 785, 791- Excerpta Histories. Bentley, 1830, p. 66. 
 
 29 
 
jEung ©ciuj) tlir ClmU 
 
 IIenrv the Third was born at Winchester, 1st October, A. D. 1208, and succeeded to 
 the Crown by the death of his father John (whose eldest son he was by Isabella of 
 Angoulesme), in 1216. William Mareschal, Earl of Pembroke, was his guardian during 
 his minority. On the 24th of January, 1236, he was married at Canterbury to Eleanor 
 of Provence, second daughter of the Earl of Provence, who was grandson of Alphonso 
 the First, King of Arragon. After an eventful reign of fifty-six years, he died at West¬ 
 minster, Wednesday, 16th November, 1272, and was buried, according to the particular 
 direction of his last will, in the Abbey Church of that place, notwithstanding his having 
 previously appointed for himself a sepulture in the New Temple at London.* He com¬ 
 mits to his son and successor the finishing of the Church founded by the “ blessed 
 Edward” at Westminster, which he had rebuilt on a sumptuous scale, and which remains 
 to this day a proud and splendid monument of our ancient Monarchy and our Christian 
 faith, however the latter, in those remote days, was obscured by superstition. He 
 bequeaths for completing the shrine of St. Edward-f- five hundred marks of silver, to be 
 furnished from the value of his jewels by his Queen and his executors. He leaves, 
 moreover, certain vestments of his chapel, a silver image of the Virgin, and certain 
 crosses of gold, to St. Edward’s chapel at Westminster. His heart was buried at Fon- 
 tevratid, where the remains of his grandfather and grandmother, and others of his royal 
 predecessors, reposed. His tomb is on the north side of the shrine of Edward the Con¬ 
 fessor, and has been richly ornamented with inlaid work. On the top lies the effigy of 
 the King, composed of copper (see the two Plates of the front and profile). On the head 
 is a crown of a very simple and elegant form. His hands have supported the sceptre 
 and orb, which have been removed. Over the left shoulder is thrown the royal mantle, 
 fastened on the right by a fermail, or clasp. Beneath is the tunic. On the legs arc 
 boots, on which are represented as embroidered in fret-work golden lions passant 
 guardant. The same ornament decorates a square and a lozenge-shaped pillow, which 
 are placed under his head. The style in which this image, is executed is of the finest 
 cast; il is very probably Italian workmanship, The folds of the drapery are beautifully 
 disposed, and the head has much of the simple majesty of the antique or Greek school. 
 Sandford gives this inscription as remaining, in uncial characters, round the tomb of 
 Henry the Third: 
 
 IC[ ; CIST : HENRI : IAD1S . HEY : DE : ENGLETERRE : SEYGNVIt : DE : IRLAVNDE : DVC DE : AQVI- 
 TAYNE : LE : PILE : EE : ROY 1 IOHAN : IADIS : REY : DF. : ENGLETERRE : A : KI : DEV : FACE : 
 
 Del nils. Plate I The embroidered bool. 
 
 * Collection of Royal Wills. Nichols, 17S0, p. 15. 
 
 + Me caused a chest of gold to be made for laving up the reliquesof Edward the Confessor. Sandford. 
 
 30 
 
CIcanor, ©titcn of Cbtoavti tljr jfirot. 
 
 Eleanor, Queen of Edward the First, was the daughter of Ferdinand the Third, King 
 o Castile, and only child of his second wife, Joan, daughter and heiress of John Earl of 
 Ponthieu. She was married to him at Bures, in Spain, in 1254, and accompanied him 
 to the Holy Land, where she is said to have preserved his life by sucking the poison 
 out of a wound inflicted on him by the hand of an assassin. She bore him four sons 
 and nine daughters, and died in attending him on an expedition towards Scotland, 27th 
 November, 1290, at the house of Richard "Weston, at Ilcrdby, or Harby, in the parish 
 of North Clifton on the Trent, five miles from Lincoln. Her bowels were buried* in 
 Lincoln Cathedra], and her body was conveyed for interment to the Abbey Church at 
 "Westminster. At every stage where it rested the King ordered a Cross to be placed. 
 Fifteen are enumerated as having been erected in consequence. One at Herdby, whence 
 the procession set out; and in the chapel of which place Edward also founded a chantry 
 for her soul. The others at Lincoln, Newark, Grantham, Leicester, Stamford, Gcdding- 
 ton, Northampton, Stony Stratford, Woburn, Dunstable, St. Alban's, Waltham, Cheap- 
 side (London), and at the village of Charing, near the Minster where she was to be 
 entombed. Herdby, Leicester, Woburn, and Cheap, are omitted by some authorities. 
 These Crosses were adorned with statues of the Queen. Those at Geddington, North¬ 
 ampton, and Waltham are extant at this day. In gothic niches in the upper part have 
 been female figures, very similar in style to that on her tomb ; on the lower, shields 
 charged with arms of England, Castile and Leon, and Ponthieu. Edward caused a 
 monument to be erected to her memory near that of his father in the Confessor's 
 Chapel, in Westminster Abbey, on which is placed her recumbent image of copper; 
 and round the verge of the tomb the following inscription, in uncial letters : 
 
 ICY GYST ALIANOR IADIS REYNE DE ANGLETERRE, FEMME AL RE EDEWERD FIZ LE RE 
 
 Sandford informs us that on a tablet of wood, hanging near her monument by an iron 
 chain, were the following verses in Latin : 
 
 Nobilis Hispani jacet hie soror inclita regis, 
 
 Eximii consors Aleunora thori, 
 
 Edwardi prinii YVallorum principis uxor, 
 
 Cui pater Henricus tertius Anglus erat; 
 
 Hanc illi uxorem gnato petit; online princcps 
 Legal i munus suscipit ipse bono : 
 
 * In a tomb bearing her effigy of brass gilt, similar to that in Westminster Abbey, but destroyed in the 
 Civil wars. On it was the following inscription : 
 
 Hie • SVNT • SEPVLTA • VICERA * ALIANORE • QVONDAM 1 REGIME * VXORIS • REGIS ' EDVAKDI • 
 FILlt • REGIS • HENRICI • CVIVS • ANtME * PROPICIETVR • DEVS ■ AMEN ' PATER • NOSTER • 
 
 31 
 
Alphonso fratri placuit felix Hymeneus : 
 
 Germanam Edwardo nec sine dote dedit, 
 
 Dos preclara fuit nec tali indigna niarito, 
 
 Pontivo princeps munere dives erat ; 
 
 Ferainaconsilio prudens, pia, prole beata, 
 
 Auxit amicitiis, auxlt honore viruni: 
 
 Disce mori. 
 
 The effigy of Queen Eleanor, like that of Henry the Third, is remarkable for the 
 beauty of its execution ; indeed, it may be considered one of the finest of the series of 
 monuments given in this work. The form of the crown, and the style of the drapery, 
 are so similar to that of the monument of Henry the Third, that it may be strongly con¬ 
 jectured that both effigies were executed by the same hand, under the direction of Edward 
 the First. The features of the Queen arc remarkably regular, and have an air of com¬ 
 manding beauty. In her right hand was probably a sceptre; her left grasps a narrow 
 band attached to her mantle. The mantle covers both shoulders, falls over her tunic, 
 and is gathered in well-disposed folds round her feet, which rest on two coucliant 
 lions. 
 
 sc j&ortljtoolti, Btsljop of Ctp. 
 
 Hugh de Northwold, Abbot of St. Edinundsbury, was consecrated Bishop of Ely in 
 the year 1229 (14 Henry III.) He was a munificent restorer of his Cathedral Church, 
 which he almost rebuilt from the foundation at the cost of upwards of five thousand 
 pounds, a princely sum for the time in which he flourished. In the dark days of 
 Christianity the pastors of the church exhibited noble ideas of the honour due to the 
 Deity in the piles devoted to his worship, and a corresponding munificence in contri¬ 
 buting to their construction. The rebuilding Ely Cathedral by Northwold occupied 
 seventeen years, and he consecrated the new church in the presence of Henry III. and 
 Prince Edward, whom he entertained (keeping at the same time “ the hall, or open 
 house to all comers) in his palace at Ely. The last mentioned edifice he also entirely 
 rebuilt, and covered w ith lead, a distinction of the most costly buildings in the middle 
 age. He departed this life on the 9th of August 1254, thankful to Providence for 
 having been allowed to see the completion of his cathedral, where he was interred in the 
 middle of the presbytery. On the removal of the choir the situation of his effigy was 
 changed, and it now lies on the altar tomb of Barnet, who died Bishop of Ely 13/3. The 
 niche which canopies the figure of Northwold is in the richest style of sculpture, the pillars 
 
 32 
 
arc composed of interlacing foliage in scroll work, intermixed with heads of ecclesiastics 
 and birds. At the top of the canopy arc fragments of two angels. The sides are adorned 
 with niches containing figures : these do not appear in the etching. The Bishop treads 
 on a dragon and a lion, under both of which images the power of Satan is indicated in 
 Holy Writ. The entablature at the foot of the tomb, delineated in the plate, represents 
 the martyrdom of St. Edmund, King of the East Angles, who was shot to death with 
 arrows by the Danes, A. D. 870. This piece of sculpture of course alludes to Northwold 
 as Abbot of Saint Edmundsbury. 
 
 <3 3Latip ant) Cljtlti. 
 
 This singular monument is in Scarclifte Church, Derbyshire. The style in which it is 
 executed shows it to be of the thirteenth century. The head is surmounted with a very 
 elegant circlet, and rests on a couchant lion; the hair is disposed in braids; the tunic is 
 confined at the neck by a large fermail or broach; a band appears to attach the mantle 
 to the shoulders, and is held in the right hand; the mantle is caught up under the right 
 arm. The left supports a male child, who displays a long scroll, on which has been 
 inscribed in uncial characters some leonine verses, which arc now much defaced. 
 
 Hrc SV.MVLIER IACET INTVM VLATA : 
 
 CONSTANS. ; 
 
 .PROLES RE_ERE 1IVMATA : 
 
 CVM PECC.VACVATA! 
 
 .DELOCATA. AMES' : 
 
 Details. 
 
 I. Profile of the head, showing the hair, &c. 2. The circlet enlarged. 
 
Bofcert tir Ucrr, Carl of Cjrforti. 
 
 Robert, son of Aubrey do Vere, Earl of Oxford, succeeded his brother Aubrey in the 
 honours and possessions of his family in 1214. He was one of the principal Barons 
 who took up arms against King John, for which he was excommunicated by Pope 
 Innocent the Third. On the accession of Henry the Third he was received into favour, 
 and became a Judge in the King’s Courts. He married Isabella, the sister and inheritrix 
 of Hugh de Bolebec, by whom he had a son and heir, Hugh. He died in the fifth year 
 of the reign of Henry the Third, and was buried in the chancel of the Priory Church of 
 Hatfield Broad Oak, in Essex. At the dissolution, Weever says, his tomb was removed 
 into the parish church, and thus transcribes his epitaph : 
 
 Sire Robert de Veere !e premier, Count de Oxcnford le tierz, git ci; Dieu de 1'alme si luy plest face merci. 
 Qi pur fame priera xl jors de pardonn avera. Pater Nosier.* 
 
 This figure lies cross-legged, and is represented in the act of drawing his sword. The 
 loose fit of the hauberk about the right-arm and neck is admirably expressed, and the 
 mails are sculptured with great accuracy. The thighs appear to be covered with a 
 gamboised or quilted defence, which reaches to the knees, the caps of which are defended 
 by octangular pieces of plate-armour. The shield is curiously diapered with fleurs-de-lys 
 and roses. The ground of the field in ancient bearings is often enriched with fanciful 
 ornaments which have no relation whatever to the coat itself. De Vere bore, quarterly 
 Or and Gules, in the first quarter a mullet Argent* This monument, from the costume, 
 appears to have been erected about fifty years after the Earl’s decease. 
 
 Details. Diaper work on the shield enlarged. Band on the hood enlarged. 
 
 Cffigr in (Soohrvton Cljurclj, SLincolnofjfrc. 
 
 1 his unappropriated figure presents a good example of the chain-mail armour of the 
 thirteenth century. It is presumed to belong to the family of Rey.-J- 
 * Funeral Monuments, p. 631. 
 
 t There was formerly another mutilated Effigy in a chapel which has since been used as the schoolhouse, 
 and an inscription to Nicholas Rev and his son Edmund; as we learn from a Collection of Lincolnshire 
 epitaphs, made by the Rev. Robert Smyth in the middle of the last century, and now in the possession of 
 . B. Nichols, Estp F.S.A. 
 
 34 
 
MQNITM ENTAIL. ’ E il'FlG'Y, 
 
 in GoJberion C-biurelt Ijmcoliifliire. 
 
 Mi uM tr /' a. 
 
Ixobrit l\os 
 
 VV AS descended from the noble family of Iios or Roos, of Hamlake. His father Everard 
 d.ed when he was thirteen years of age, and he had livery of his lands from the wardship 
 of the Crown m the second year of the reign of Richard I. on payment of a line of one 
 thousand marks ; which shows that his possessions must have been very large 
 
 He was one of the Barons who leagued together to obtain the Great andthe Forest 
 Charter from John ; and when that King had signed them at Runnemedc, he was one of 
 the chief persons who undertook to constrain him to observe them. He married Isabella 
 the daughter of William the Lion, King of Scotland, by whom he had two sons William 
 and Robert. He gave the first his castle of Helmesley, with the patronage of the „,o- 
 nastencs of Kirkham, Rievaulx, and Warden, to the other his castle of Werke and a 
 barony in Scotland, held by knight’s service of his brother-in-law. Of both the above- 
 mentioned castles he was the fonnder. He confirmed to the Templars his manor of 
 Ribstone, with other possessions, assumed the habit of their order, died in 1231 and 
 was buried in the Temple church. The effigy of Ros is cross-legged, and his hands 
 raised m the act of prayer; the hood of his hauberk is thrown back to show his visage. 
 His sword depends from a belt adorned with broad studs ; his surcoat reaches to his 
 heels, which arc armed with the pryck spur, and rest on a lion. On his shield are three 
 water bougets, which were the bearing of Ros, Argent, in a field Gules. This figure, 
 like that of Robert de Vcre, is of a period subsequent to that of the decease of the 
 person whom it is said to represent. 
 
I\trimvti OTtllpsimvnc hr JWontfort. 
 
 This very remarkable effigy lies on the north wall of the church of Hitchcndon in 
 Buckinghamshire. 
 
 After the battle of Evesham in 1265, in which the famous Baron Simon de Montfort, 
 with his eldest son Henry, lost their lives, his wife * and children fled the country, with 
 the exception of the youngest son Richard, who assumed the name of Wellesburnc (from 
 a manor so termed in Warwickshire, an ancient possession of the family), and retired to 
 Ilinchendon as above, where he resided at a mansion called Wreck Hall. The armorial 
 bearings on this effigy, and the peculiarities which mark the period of its execution, 
 enable us very confidently to appropriate it to this identical personage. lie became the 
 founder of the family of Wellesburnc, which was extant in the county of Buckingham, 
 in the reign of Henry VI. In the church of Hitchcndon down to that period were 
 placed numerous monuments of his successors, one of which will be found in another 
 place. A deed of this Wellesburnc de Montfort has been printed in Nichols’s History of 
 Leicestershire, the faulty Latin of which is perhaps no proof of its being fictitious. 
 There are two seals appended to this instrument, one of which has the legend “ Sigil- 
 lum Bellatoris, filii Siinonis de Montefortthe other bears the rampant lion of his 
 house, the legend “ Wellisburne de la Montcfortc.’’ 
 
 There is some reason to conjecture that Richard Wellesburn de Montfort was imbued 
 with the martial character of his race. His effigy represents him in the attitude of a 
 Crusader (lie might, not improbably, have passed some of the years immediately after his 
 father's overthrow, abroad, in the service of the cross); his right hand grasps a dagger, his 
 left sustains a ponderous broad-bladed sword, on the scabbard of which are escutcheons of 
 various armorial coats, borne doubtless by the connections of his noble family. On this 
 and all the effigies of his descendants the pride of heraldry obtains, which shows that 
 they resigned not, under adverse fortune and a change of name, the remembrance of their 
 honours. 
 
 The quilted gambeson appears in bold folds under the hauberk and descends to the 
 upper part of the knee. His feet rest on a lion, on which is a crescent for difference. 
 The bearing of the shield is very remarkable; a lion rampant a la queue fourehce,holding 
 
 * Eleanor, second daughter of King John and Isabella of Angoulesnie, she retired to a nunnery at Montar- 
 gis, in France. Simon her second son, was Count oFBigorre in France, where he founded a family bearing his 
 patrimonial name ; Almaric, her third son, was first a priest in York, but embraced the military profession 
 abroad ; Guy, the fourth son, was Count of Anglezia in Italy, progenitor of the Montforts of Tuscany, and of 
 the Counts of Campobaehi in Naples ; Richard, the fifth son, is commemorated by the effigy. 
 
 36 
 
MOHFMENTAL EFFIGY. 
 
 Id IIIlchMuton Clmrrli Buda. 
 
in his mouth a child * the field semde with crosslets fitchfie. The bearing is repeated 
 on the surcoat quarterly, with a griffin segreant, holding in his paws a child, and with the 
 addition of a chief chequd, no doubt for Mellcnt, to which Earldom the Montforts sue- 
 cecded about the time of the Norman Conquest. 
 
 This effigy is executed in a truly noble style, and recalls to us at a glance the age of 
 chivalry and romantic feeling; and it is somewhat remarkable, that it commemorates 
 a name which has become hacknied among the writers of fiction, without allusion to 
 the historic facts connected with it, merely for its sound. The slender but striking 
 circumstances which are known concerning Wellesburne de Montfort surely afford ad- 
 mirable ground-work for the writer of historical romance. 
 
 9toclint Countess of 2.ancasttr. 
 
 Aveline Countess of Lancaster was daughter of William de Fortibus, Earl of Albe¬ 
 marle and Holdcrness, inheritrix of her father, and by her mother Countess of Devon 
 and the Isle of Wight. In 1267 she married Edmund Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster, 
 died in 1269 without issue, and was buried in Westminster Abbey, near the spot where 
 her husband was afterwards interred. The effigy placed on her tomb affords a fine spe¬ 
 cimen of female costume in the thirteenth century. 
 
 * Gules, a lion rampant with two tails argent, was a bearing of Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester. See 
 the vignette above, from an architectural decoration in Westminster Abbey. This shield with the addition of 
 a child in the lion's mouth, was blazoned in the windows of Wreck Hall at Hitchendon, and carved on the 
 reading desk of Hitchendon Church. Argent, a lion rampant, with ten cross-crosslets filchde sable, are the 
 Montforts of Warwickshire. Bendy of six, Or and Gules, changed temp. Edward I. to bendy of ten, are the 
 Montforts of Beldesert. Gules, a griffin segreant, a chief chequt; Or and Azure, over all a bend Ermine, is a coat 
 of the Wellesburn Montforts. There is at Hitchendon a monumental figure of a withered corpse, enshrouded 
 in a loose shirt, having marked on his breast the figure of a priest and eight crosslets on his body. This 
 represents, it may be well conjectured, some incumbent of the parish church of the Montfort family. Langley 
 conceives (but the style of the figure by no means supports the idea) that it is a memorial for Peter, son of 
 Peter de Montfort, who died at the battle of Evesham. See Hist, of Desborough Hundred, p. 478. 
 
i§ 
 
 Sana jR©mE»T Shujbilawb. 
 
 JFumhh .liia Effiirrim Mitas Jo' rHai'rclu.Kciral - 
 
Sheppy. He died without issue male, and Margaret his daughter carried his estate by 
 mamage to the family of Cheyn£. To the horse's head which appears on this tomb, 
 and on the vane of the church, is attached a wild legend, only worthy of notice as such, 
 that Shurland having in a transport of rage caused a priest to be buried alive, a judicial 
 process was about to be instituted against him for the crime, when the King chancing 
 to be on ship-board at the Great Norc off the Isle of Sheppy, Shurland swam his horse 
 to the vessel, sued to the King for pardon, which in consequence of this perilous feat he 
 obtained, and Ins gallant steed bore him safely to the land. On reaching the beach, a 
 wrinkled hag accosted him, telling him that although that horse had saved his life, he 
 would at last be the cause of his death. The impetuous Shurland, to defeat the pro¬ 
 phecy of this sybil, drew his sword, and on the spot slew his generous courser, whose 
 bones lay bleaching for years after on the strand. Shurland one day approached the 
 place, and while relating the story to a friend, kicked the scull of the horse, when a 
 splinter from the bone entered his foot. The wound festered, mortified, and death 
 ensued. Thus much for the tale; unfortunately for the credit of which, the horse’s 
 head appears to be led by the bridle by an armed figure, perhaps the knight’s henchman, 
 or his esquire. Be this as it may, the horse is but a mark of his equestrian rank; and 
 it may be observed that a figure of a similar age, leading a horse, may be seen at this 
 day near the west door ol Exeter Cathedral. The horse’s head on the vane of the 
 church has most probably been fixed there in later days, in compliance with the vulgar 
 tradition. The costume and accoutrements of this effigy are highly interesting. The 
 interior of the shield, and all its straps, are displayed. By his side is his banner, 
 attached to a pike-staff, or spear. Some markings of links appear on the horse’s head, 
 which show that it has been covered with chain-mail. The surcoat, or pourpoint, 
 appears strongly quilted in long parallel folds. The whole has been painted with lions 
 rampant argent on an azure ground, which was the coat of the noble family of Ley- 
 bourne, of Leybourne Castle, in Kent. Sir William de Lcybourne was at Carlaverock, 
 and Shurland probably assumed his coat as a Kentish gentleman in his train.* 
 i3uj(feme.£i oc 3lcgboume, augi 
 THailtanjj Ijomesi, £an£ meg et jSan^ gi, 
 
 SSsnierc i ot o largeg pan$s 
 TnOe o gig blanc Ijionsi rampant.-}- 
 
 Details. The head and laces of the hood. The gamboised sleeve of the surcoat, with its laces, the mail of 
 the haubergeon appearing beneath. Pillar resting on a lion, one of the architectural supporters of the canopy 
 of the tomb. 
 
 * Hogarth, in an excursion into Kent in the year 1732, attempted seriously to sketch the effigy of Shurland. 
 In his rough delineation of the figure there is nothing very extravagant or remarkable, but when he came to 
 the horse's head the caricaturist prevailed, and it is impossible to compare his drawing with that of Charles 
 Stothard without a smile. Sec “ An Account of what seemed most remarkable in five days' peregrination of 
 the five following persons: Messrs. Tothill, Scott, Hogarth, Thornhill, and Forrest, begun on Saturday, May 
 27, 1732, and finished on the 31st of the same month. London, 1782.” For the possession of this rare tract 
 we are indebted to J. B. Nichols, Esq. F.S.A. 
 
 f Poem of the Siege of Carlaverock, edited by Nicolas. Nichols and Son, 1S28. 
 
 39 
 
etmumti Ctoucljbaclt, Carl of iaiuasttr. 
 
 Was tile second son of King Henry III. by his wife Eleanor of Provence, and was born 
 at London lti January 1245. When he was yet but eight years of age, the Pope sent 
 him a gold ring, investing him with the sovereignty of Sicily and Apulia. Not, however, 
 unmindful of this titular and empty honour, front reverence to the then paramount au¬ 
 thority, spiritual and secular, from whence it was derived, he stamped com bearing the 
 legend “ Aidmundus Rex Scicilic.” 
 
 On tlie overthrow of Simon de Montfort and the rebellious Barons at the battle of 
 Evesham, in 1265, he was invested with the Earldom of Leicester, the lands of Nicholas 
 de Segravc, and the possessions of Robert de Ferrers, Earl of Derby, who in the follow¬ 
 ing year, had renewed hostilities against Henry III. and was defeated at Chesterfield. 
 
 He was also constituted High Seneschal or Steward of Englaud in the place of the 
 rebel de Montfort, and afterwards Earl of Champagne; he had, moreover, grants of the 
 castle and town of Monmouth, and numerous other lordships and estates. In 1269 he 
 was marked with the cross at Northampton by Ottobon, the Legate of the Pope, with 
 his elder brother Edward, the Earl of Gloucester, and many other nobles of the land: 
 one of those nominal crusades which procured for the See of Rome so many golden 
 In 1291 he had license from his brother King Edward I. to 
 md; which with its gardens and 
 
 savoy in t 
 
 n by his mother Eleanor, and which had before 
 
 crosses in current coin, 
 crenellate or embattle bis house, the 
 dependencies, had been granted to 1 
 belonged to her brother Peter of Savoy. 
 
 In 1295 Philip the Fair haughtily summoned King Edward I. as Duke of Aquitaine to 
 s of France, to answer for certain alleged outrages committed by 
 The Earl of Lancaster was at first sent 
 , but a pretext 
 
 appear before the Peer 
 his subjects towards some French marine 
 
 ambassador to the Court of France in order to arrange those differe 
 was drawn from them by Philip to seize on some of the possessions of Edward as Duke 
 of Aquitaine. The Earl of Lancaster was then dispatched with a military force into Gas¬ 
 cogne - but bis army being too inconsiderable to cope with that of the French, lie Was 
 constrained to shut himself up in Bayonne, where, suffering under mental venation from 
 his ill success, he sickened and died in 1296. A truce being concluded with France, Ins 
 hotly was brought to England, and buried ill a sumptuous tomb in the Abbey Church at 
 -Westminster. "lie had conscientiously directed that he should not be interred until his 
 debts were paid. Ills first wife was Avcline, an account of whom has been given to 
 illustrate her effigy; bis second, Blanch, widow of Henry King of Navarre, Earl 
 Champagne and Brie, by whom lie had three sons and a daughter. 
 
 Details. Plate I. I. Ornamental pattern on the pillow which supports the head. 3. Ditto on the lace 
 the hood. 3. Surcoat diapered with rampant lions, eagles displayed, ornamental crosses, &c. the points 
 the label and fleur-de-lys with which it is suraiounted enlarged, t. The whole figure os originally paint 
 Plate 11. 1. Maine, enlaigad. S. Bearings oo the bell. ,1. figure of .he Earl 0» bis buried horse, m 
 attitude of prayer, which occupies the trefoil ornament at the top of the tomb. 
 
 of 
 
. 
 
 
©Billtam lir ©lalrncr, Carl of pcmbrokr. 
 
 William de valence, son of Hugh le Brun, Earl of March, and half-brother 
 
 by his mother, Isabel d’Angouleme, to Henry HI, in 1247, came to England. 
 Soon after his arrival he was with great state and solemnity knighted by the king at 
 Westminster, who continuing to lavish favours on him and his brothers, and also 
 giving himself too much to their counsels, the indignation and hatred of the barons 
 was raised against them. In consequence William de Valence was obliged to quit 
 the kingdom, but returning three or four years after, commanded in the king's 
 army at the battle of Lewes, 1264. On seeing the day lost he fled to Pevensey, 
 and from thence to France; but it appears he did not remain there any time, 
 being at the battle of Evesham, 1265, which restored to Henry III. his regal 
 authority. William de Valence, 10th of Edward I., 1283, was in the expedition 
 against the Welsh, and in 1296 being at Bayonne, was there slain by the French. 
 
 His monument is composed of an altar tomb of stone, on which is raised a 
 superstructure of oak, bearing the effigy of the deceased, formed of the same 
 material: the whole of this wood-work was once covered with plates of copper 
 enamelled and gilt; but of these splendid decorations, there is scarcely any thing left 
 but what is to be found on the figure, which has also suffered in parts. The human 
 form is rudely expressed, a costly display of materials and workmanship appears to 
 have been the principal object of the artist who executed it; and it indeed gives a 
 very high idea of the goldsmith's art at that early period. 
 
 William de Valence is represented entirely in mail. On his head is a rich circle, 
 once adorned with stones or glass, but the empty collets now only remain. T.he 
 surcoat has been powdered with a number of little escutcheons bearing the arms of 
 De Valence, only three of these are left; the situation and number of those gone 
 may be easily traced. The rich lacing about the surcoat aud arms, appears to have 
 been used for the purpose of concealing the unsightly joinings of the plates which 
 cover the figure. In the spurs it is remarkable that they have been fastened on with 
 cloth, in form of straps of an extraordinary thickness; of these, as might be expected. 
 
 /^\V 
 
but a small portion remains. The table of the tomb has been covered with a 
 fret of the arms of England and De Valence; it is possible that on the raised border 
 which surrounded it, was the inscription, perfect in Weever’s time, who says, 
 “ about the verge or side of his monument these verses are inlayed with brasse." 
 
 Anglia tota doles, moritur quia regia proles, 
 Gua florere soles, quern continet infiina moles, 
 Guiliclmus nomen insigne Valentia praibet 
 Celsmn cognomen, nam tale dari sibi debet 
 Qui valuit validus, vincens virtute valore, 
 
 Et placuit placidus, sensus morurnque vigore, 
 Dapsilis et habilis, immotus, pralia sectans 
 
 Utilis ac humilis, devotus premia spcctans 
 Milleque trecentis cum quatuor inde retentis. 
 
 In Maii mense, hanc mors propria ferit cnse, 
 Unique legis litec repete quam sit via plena timore, 
 Meque lege, le morilurum & inscius bore, 
 
 O clemens christe cclos intret precor isle. 
 
 Nil videat triste, quia pretulit omnibus hisce. 
 
 On the sides and ends of this part of the tomb, are the remains of arches, twelve 
 on each side, three at top, and four at bottom, within which were probably figures 
 representing the relatives of the deceased ; for at the foot of each arch, placed hori¬ 
 zontally, formerly was an escutcheon to point out each personage; five only are 
 now left, given in the margin, fig. 1, *2, 3, 4. .No. 2 is repeated. In one of the Lans- 
 downe MSS. in the British Museum, are drawings, taken in 1010, of nineteen of the 
 lost escutcheons. As they cannot be more in place than here, they are given, plate 
 2,—where there are repetitions, they are marked by the figures. The stone altar tomb, 
 on which the parts described are raised, has on its sides and foot, on escutcheons 
 in relief, the arms of England, William de Valence, and Aymer his son. The 
 latter are distinguished by being dimidiated with those of Clermont.* 
 
 There is good ground for supposing the upper or metallic part of the tomb to be 
 French work. The mode of bearing the shield on the hip, and of emblazoning the 
 surcoat by little escutcheons, are both fashions common to French monuments, 
 seldom if ever occurring in this country. That we did employ French artists in 
 enamelled tombs, there is proof in that of Walter de Merton, executed at Limoges, 
 and put up in Rochester Cathedral, but destroyed at the Reformation.')' That the 
 style of the tomb in question was otherwise French than in the points abovemen- 
 tioned, we may see by comparing it with Lobineau’s print of the enamelled tomb of 
 Alice, Duchess de Bretagne. 
 
 Details—Plate 1, Fig. I. The circle enlarged:—2, 3, and 4, portions of the 
 lacing on the surcoat. The enamelling and diapering on the shield. And of the 
 enamelled fret. 5. The remains of the sword, ft. Engraved border on the lower 
 part of the surcoat. Plate 2, Fig. 1, 2, and 3. Enamelling on the pillow and 
 belts.J 4. Portion of the mail, formed by engraved lines, and appears to be of that 
 kind which is so seldom represented on stone. 5. Spur, with part of the strap. 
 
 * Beatrice, daughter of Raoul de Clermont, Lord of Nesle, Constable of France, was the first wife of 
 Aymer de Valence, and was probably living at the time the tomb was erected. 
 
 t This tomb, which was of copper enamelled and gilt, cost for its construction, and the expense of its 
 carriage from Limoges to Rochester, 41/. 5s. 6 d. 
 
 I Neither of the belts have any arms emblazoned on them, nor are the escutcheons on the surcoat, but six 
 in number.—Vide Gough. 
 
Jung Ctotoarti tfjr gtcoitti, 
 
 T- he fourth son of King Edward the First and Eleanor his Queen, was born at Caernar¬ 
 von, in North Wales, April 25th, 1284, from which circumstance he derived his surname. 
 After the death of Llewelyn ap Griffith, he was created Prince of Wales, being the first 
 of the elder sons of the Kings of England who bore that title. He was also Earl of 
 Ponthieu and Chester, and succeeded his father in his Kingdoms 7th July, 1307, being 
 then twenty-three years of age. His father, just before his death, had banished from the 
 country Piers de Gavaston, a Gascon gentleman of light and profligate habits, who had 
 corrupted his principles. On his death-bed he laid a curse on him if ever he recalled 
 him; directed him to carry his body with him into Scotland ; not to bury it until he 
 had subjugated that country, and to send his heart to the Holy Land. One of the first 
 acts of his reign was, in spite of this injunction, to recall Gavaston from exile, to invest 
 him with the Earldom of Cornwall, and other large possessions of the Crown. The 
 chief officers and judges of the land were dismissed from their posts to make way for 
 the favourites of this Court minion. Edward gave him in marriage Margaret, his own 
 niece, being the child of Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester, by Joan of Acre, daughter 
 to Edward the First; and on setting out for Boulogne, in 1308, to celebrate his marriage 
 with Isabella, daughter of the King of France, he appointed him Gustos of the Realm in 
 his absence. 
 
 The deportment of the favourite, and the blind partiality of the King, so disgusted 
 the Barons, that, under the direction of Thomas Earl of Lancaster, his cousin, they 
 came to a resolution to oblige the King to banish Gavaston from England for life: 
 with which dictation Edward found himself obliged nominally to comply. However, 
 instead of dismissing him in fact from his counsels, and from office, lie appointed him 
 Lieutenant of Ireland, and shortly after recalled him to his Court. A repetition of 
 similar circumstances at length incensed the people, the Barons, and their leader, Thomas 
 Earl of Lancaster, to the highest pitch. An army was levied in order to seize the person 
 of Gavaston, who was protected by the King. He lodged him in Scarborough Castle; 
 where, after some resistance, he was forced to surrender, and was shortly afterwards 
 executed on Blacklow-hill, near Warwick, by the confederate nobles, by a kind of sum¬ 
 mary military sentence. The next remarkable event of King Edward’s reign was his 
 signal defeat in Scotland by Robert Bruce, at the battle of Bannockburn, on Midsummer 
 day 1314. 
 
 The King’s inclination for favouritism was not to be corrected by the fate of 
 Gavaston. Hugh Spenser, his Chamberlain, succeeded to the place which he had 
 
held in the King’s affections, became equally obnoxious to the Barons, and, with Ins 
 father, who had been created Earl of Worcester, and had shared with his son in the 
 fmits of the King’s favour, was banished from the Realm by a decree of Parliament, 
 exacted by the confederate nobles sword in hand. The Spensers, however, shortly 
 afterwards returned to England. The King’s party was successful in their turn, and 
 Thomas Earl of Lancaster, the leader of the Barons, was defeated, made prisoner, and 
 beheaded at Pontefract, his own Castle,* 22d March, 1322. 
 
 His Queen Isabella, who was in France with her paramour Mortimer and the young 
 Prince Edward, now instituted a series of intrigues against her husband. She inflamed 
 the minds of the English people against their monarch, and, aided by William Earl of 
 Hainault and Holland, fitted out an expedition to invade his dominions, under the 
 plausible pretence of ridding the nation of its burthens, and reforming the Government. 
 The King fled into Wales; the elder Spenser was besieged in Bristol, taken, hanged 
 without trial, his body cut to pieces and thrown to the dogs: this in the ninetieth year 
 of his age. The King himself was shortly after captured in the monastery at Neath, in 
 South Wales, with the younger Spenser, who was hanged at Hereford on a gibbet fifty 
 feet high, furnished expressly for the occasion by the citizens of London. 
 
 The Queen and Mortimer now proceeded to procure a formal deposition of the King 
 by the Parliament. The King acceded tr> their decree, communicated by certain com¬ 
 missioners, delegated for the purpose. Judge Trussel pronounced, in the name of the 
 Bishops, the Barons, and the people of England, all allegiance to him void. The High 
 Steward of the Household broke his staff, and declared all officers discharged from his 
 service. Thus was the political demise of this unfortunate King attended by the same 
 ceremony which had consigned his predecessors to the grave! 
 
 He was at first committed to the custody of Henry Earl of Lancaster, his cousin, who 
 treating him with too much lenity, Thomas Lord Berkeley, John Maltravers, and Sir 
 Thomas Gournay, were constituted his keepers in rotation. He was transferred from castle 
 to castle, poorly clothed; and on one occasion Maltravers commanded him to be shaved 
 with water from a neighbouring ditch, when bursting into indignant tears, he exclaimed, 
 “ Here is at least warm water on my cheeks, whether you will or not! ” The eyes of the 
 people began now, however, to be opened to just consideration, and their hearts to relent 
 in favour of their liege lord. The Queen and Mortimer saw that, even from his 
 miserable existence, if protracted, might accrue vengeance for their own heads. They 
 therefore send orders to Gournay and Maltravers for his death ; a command too promptly 
 and cruelly obeyed by those instruments of hell, who in the absence of Lord Thomas 
 Berkeley from his Castle, entered the King’s chamber at dead of night, threw him on his 
 bed, and introduced a red-hot iron through a horn into his body. The ancient walls of 
 the Castle, the neighbouring town of Berkeley, and the shores of the Severn Sea, re¬ 
 sounded with his dying shrieks 1 The peasant was aroused from the tranquil slumber so 
 little known to the royal couch, and uttered a prayer for the passing soul of his King.-f- 
 
 * He was the son of Edmund Crouchback, whose tomb has been described. 
 
 f See Holinshcd, fol. edit. vol. II. p. 341. 
 
Thus says the poet, in allusion to this event: 
 
 " Mark the year and mark the night. 
 
 When Severn shall re-echo with affright. 
 
 The shrieks of Death through Berkeley’s roofs that ring. 
 
 Shrieks of an agonizing King ! 
 
 She-wolf of France, with unrelenting fangs 
 Thou tears’t the bowels of thy mangled mate !” 
 
 The manner of his death obviated all show of external violence in the general appear¬ 
 ance of his person. His body was conveyed without pomp to Gloucester Cathedral, 
 where the monument bearing the effigy represented in the plates was afterwards erected 
 by his son Edward the Third * He had by his wife Isabella four children :-Edward of 
 Windsor, who succeeded him ; John of Eltham,—both of whom will he noticed in their 
 places; Joan, wife of David Bruce, afterwards King of Scotland ; Eleanor, who became 
 the second wife of Reynold Earl of Geldres. 
 
 The effigy of the second Edward represents him royally crowned ; he has had a sceptre 
 in one hand, which is now removed : the other supports the mundus or ball. 
 
 * He is said to have made some Latin verses while in prison, describing his calamities, declaring his sub¬ 
 mission to them as a punishment for his grievous sins, and imploring mercy for them through the merits of 
 his Redeemer, and the intercession of the blessed Virgin. These arc paraphrased at length in Fabian's 
 Chronicle. (Reprint, p. 431.) 
 
gfoomar or agmer tic ©alcnce, Carl of ^cmfcrofcc. 
 
 Aymer de Valence was the third and youngest son of William de Valence, whose effigy 
 has already been described, and by the death of his brothers during his father’s life-time, 
 succeeded him in the Earldom of Pembroke- He was much employed in military service 
 by his kinsman Edward I. particularly in his Scottish wars. That King going into 
 France in 1286 left him Regent of the Realm. In 1305 he was appointed Keeper of the 
 Marches of Scotland about Berwick, and Commander of the Forces sent to oppose 
 Robert Bruce, Earl of Carrick. He was present with King Edward at the time of his 
 death at Burgh upon the Sands in Northumberland, who requested him to protect Ins 
 son from the contamination of the debauched foreigner Gavaston. He united with the 
 Barons against that minion of the second Edward, besieged and took him prisoner m 
 Scarborough Castle. According to the capitulation Gavaston was to have been allowed 
 to have an interview with the King, and to be tried by his Peers ; but the Earl of War¬ 
 wick took the profligate Gascon from de Valence’s custody, and summarily beheaded him 
 on Blacklow Hill, near Warwick. In 1314 the Earl of Pembroke was present at the 
 battle of Bannockburn, so disastrous to the English arms in Scotland. He is said to have 
 met his death in France at a tournament, which was appointed by himself in order to cele¬ 
 brate his marriage with his third wife Mary, daughter of Guy de Chastillon, Earl of St. 
 Pol. She founded Pembroke Hall, in the University of Cambridge. Aymer de Valence 
 was buried on the North side of the Choir of the Abbey Church at Westminster, and 
 his tomb is celebrated for its architecture and sculptural decorations. In the trefoil 
 ornament which fills up the pediment on either side the monument he is represented on 
 his barded horse. The compartments round the altar slab, on which lus effigy reposes, 
 are occupied by elegant statues representing his friends and connexions, and decorated 
 
 Details. Plate 1. 1. Figures at the head of the Effigy. 2. Band or lace of the hood. 3. Band confining 
 
 the surcoat to the waist. 4. Sword belt. Effigy as originally painted : Plate II. 1. Toe of the solerette of the 
 figure on horseback. 2. Figure on horseback. North side of the tomb ; basnet, aventaille, mantelet, surcoat, 
 &c. Bases of the barded horse, bearing the bars and martlets of De Valence. 3. Figure on the North side of 
 the tomb. 
 
nt wills k ftaimtiom wkz fiM talftilf eaBoii swlttif m \ 
 
§?tv William tic Staunton. 
 
 1 his singular tomb in Staunton Church, Nottinghamshire, commemorates Sir William 
 de Staunton. This family, who took their surname from the spot where they were 
 settled and had possessions, are said to have flourished there before the tera of the Nor¬ 
 man Conquest. A rhyming herald of the sixteenth century, speaking of them, says, 
 
 “ Tlie first Sir Mauger Staunton, Knight, 
 
 Before William came in-” 
 
 They held their lands at Staunton by tenure of castle guard of the Lords of Belvoir. 
 There was a tower in that fortress called Staunton Tower, which they, by obligation of 
 the tenure no doubt, built and kept in repair. Sir William was the son of Sir Geoffrey 
 de Staunton and Alice his wife. He was a knight of active reputation, favoured by Ed¬ 
 ward I. and employed in his service. He made his will in 1312, and from it we may 
 gather that he was under a vow of pilgrimage to the Holy Land, for he left a bequest of 
 five marks each to two footmen who should go “ the first passage," in his name. He died 
 in 1326. The monumental stone of Sir William de Staunton is somewhat fanciful; it 
 appears intended to represent him lying in his coffin, the lid of which is cut away to show 
 the figure as far as the elbows, and the feet to the ancles. On the centre of the stone is 
 his helmet, and his shield with two chevrons.* Round the edge of the stone runs the 
 following inscription in the black letter character, being an early instance of its adoption. 
 ^ $ic ©ill's, be Staunton miles! filiujS galftidde caDctn -j- militig que obiit in ibu maii anno b’ni 
 
 .cuj’ an . . p’picietur deujS. On that part of his surcoat visible, the 
 
 upper of the two chevrons appears. 
 
 * A seal of his Father Geoffrey, appendant to a charter, bears two bars and a large canton, charged with a 
 mullet of six points. His son, it appears, adopted another coat: his seal, as well the tomb, exhibits the two 
 chevrons. Legend, s . will .'de . stanton . militis. 
 
 t Blundered for Galfridi ejusdem, as also gue for qui, the second following word. 
 
g Bacon tn ©orlcaton Cijuvdj, Suffolk. 
 
 This interesting figure exhibits a good example of those extraordinary appendages to 
 armour called ailettes. Weever makes, taking them for escutcheons,* a shrewd conjec¬ 
 ture that they were intended to indicate the rank of Knight Banneret, being of the 
 narrow oblong form to which the pennon of the Knight was reduced when he was raised 
 to that honourable grade. This distinction was only conferred on the field of battle. 
 Froissart gives us a lively idea of the ceremony employed, where he describes the making 
 Sir John Chandos a Banneret by the Black Prince on the field at Navarete, or Vittoria. 
 “ The Spaniards seeing the English had halted did the same, in order of battle. Then 
 each man tightened his armour, and made ready for instant combat. Sir John Chandos 
 advanced in front of the battalions with his banner uncased in his hand. lie presented 
 it to the Prince, saying, ‘My Lord, here is my banner; I present it to you that I may 
 display it in whatever manner shall lie most, agreeable to you; for, thanks to God, I 
 have now sufficient lands to enable me so to do, and maintain the rank which it ought 
 to hold.’ The Prince (Don Pedro being present) took the banner in his hand, which 
 was blazoned with a sharp stake Gules on a field Argent, after having cut off the tail to 
 make it square, he displayed it, and returning it to him by the handle, said, ‘ Sir John, 
 I return you your banner. God give you honour and strength to preserve it.’ Upon 
 this Sir John left the Prince, went back to his men with the banner in his hand, and 
 said to them, ‘ Gentlemen, behold my banner and yours; you will guard it, therefore, as 
 becomes you.' His companions, taking the banner, replied with much cheerfulness, 
 that if it pleased God and St. George they would defend it well, and act worthily of it. 
 .... The banner w’as put into the hands of a worthy English Squire, called William 
 Allestry, who bore it with honour that day, and loyally acquitted himself in the service.”-}' 
 
 * Fun. Monuni. p. 84~. edit. 1631. 
 
 f Johnes’s Froissart, vol. 111. p. 304. Svo edit. 
 
 48 
 
§*>tr Ivtrijarti tie Wtjatton. 
 
 1 he Lords of Whatton had their residence in a strong castellated mansion on the banks 
 of the river Smite, in the vale of Belvoir: traces of the earthworks on which it wa9 
 erected remain to this day. Sir William de Whatton, said to be of Flemish extraction, 
 flourished here in the reign of Henry I. who made him a Knight. Richard dc Whatton, 
 the subject of this effigy, was the second son of John dc Whatton, by his wife Ela, daughter 
 of John Lord Bisset, Baron of Combe Bisset. He flourished in the reign of Henry III. 
 In the 14th and 15th of Edward the Second; Richard dc Whatton was summoned to 
 attend King Edward II. to aid him against Thomas Plantagcnet, Earl of Lancaster, and 
 the Barons his confederates. He valiantly adventured his life in the royal cause ; and on 
 the Earl of Lancaster being beheaded at Pontefract, all his castles, lands, and tenements, 
 and all those of the other rebels within the County of Northumberland and Episcopate of 
 Durham, were committed to the custody of this Richard de Whatton, to have and to 
 hold during the royal pleasure, he accounting for the receipts to the King’s Exchequer.* 
 This instrument is dated at Pontefract 23d March. The effigy of Richard de Whatton 
 is in the North aisle of Whatton Church. 
 
 On his shield has been sculptured the arms of Whatton, which were, Argent, a bend 
 Sable charged with three bezants -j~ between six crosslcts Gules. An inscription on the 
 monument runs thus: 
 
 PllIEZ PVR L’ALME DE SIRE RICHARD WHATTON, CIIIVALER. 
 
 * See the deed at length in the Gentleman's Magazine, vol. XCV. i. p. 39. 
 
 f John dc Whatton charged his paternal coat with the bezants, having married into the family of Bisset, who 
 bore. Azure, nine bezants, 4,3, and ‘2. 
 
 49 
 
Brass tit jWtnstcr Cljtttrij, ^Ijrppp. 
 
 This rich specimen of military and female costume in the early part of the fourteenth 
 century, is supposed to belong; to the family of Northwood, which are ranked by Dug- 
 dale among the Barons of the Realm, they having been summoned to Parliament until 
 the forty-ninth year of Edward the Third. 
 
 Northwood Chasteners (Chataigniers) so called from its indigenous chesnut trees, was 
 an extensive manor in the parish of Milton, in the Isle of Sheppy. Roger de North- 
 wode, who resided at the moated house here, was with Richard I. at the siege of Aeon, 
 in the Holy Land ; he and his Lady Bona were buried in Minster Church, and "Weever 
 took these for their effigies : but the costume contradicts him.* Roger de Nortliwode, his 
 son, procured of Henry III. his lands in Kent to be held by knight’s service instead of in 
 gavel-kind. His son and successor, John de Nortliwode, was with Edward I. at the siege 
 of Carlavcrock, where he was knighted. He was four times Sheriff of Kent in the reign 
 of Edward I. and was summoned to Parliament from the sixth to the twelfth year of 
 Edward the Second. He married Joan de Badlesmere, probably a daughter of Bartholo¬ 
 mew Lord Badlesmere, of Leeds Castle, in Kent, who suffered death for his political con¬ 
 duct in the reign of Edward the Second. John de Nortliwode died about 1337, and 
 himself and his wife are perhaps the personages represented by this beautiful brass. 
 There are many remarkable peculiarities about the armour of the male figure. The 
 female wears the hair plaited and the wimple. The pointed lappets of her mantle, 
 drawn over the shoulders, exhibit a lining of vair; originally a decoration of dress 
 composed of small pieces of different coloured furs, afterwards an heraldic distinction. 
 Northwood, according to Harris, bore, Ermine, a cross engrailed Gules. The bearing 
 on the shield appears to be a cross engrailed, between twelve chesnut leaves for North- 
 wood Chataigniers. 
 
 * The costume cannot, however, be always considered as an infallible guide. “ It was no uncommon thing 
 to erect monuments to persons from one to five hundred years after their death, representing them in the 
 habits of the time of the erection of the monument, and not of their own.” Original Letter of C. A. Stothard, 
 Memoirs, p. 131. 
 
 SO 
 
foijn of Cltljam, Carl of Corittoall, 
 
 Was the second son of Edward the Second by his Queen Isabella, and was born at the 
 Palace of the English Kings at Eltham in Kent, on the Feast of the Blessed Virgin’s 
 Assumption 1316. In the second year of the reign of his cider brother, Edward III. he 
 was created Earl of Cornwall. In the following year, the King going to France to do 
 homage for the Dukedom of Aquitaine, he was appointed his Lieutenant for the King¬ 
 dom, as he was also on the King’s expedition into Scotland in 1330. In the course of 
 the above periods he had grants of numerous Lordships from the Crown* the town of 
 Lostwitbiel (in the neighbourhood of Restormel Castle, the principal seat of the Earls of 
 Cornwall in the County), all the wreck, port dues, issues, and profits of the district, the 
 farm of the City of Exeter, the stannaries, and coinage or customs on stamping the tin in 
 the County of Devon. In 1333 and 1334 he was with King Edward III. in his expedi¬ 
 tions into Scotland, and died at Berwick-upon-Tweed in October of the latter year. 
 About the festival of Christmas, the King, with the Archbishop of Canterbury, returned 
 out of Scotland to celebrate his obsequies in the Abbey Church of Westminster, where 
 he was interred on the south side of the Choir. The Prior and Convent claimed ,=£100 
 in lieu of his horse and armour, which, according to the custom, should have been pre¬ 
 sented as an offering at the altar of their Church. John of Eltham was but twenty-eight 
 years of age at his death, and was never married. Various matches were proposed for him, 
 as with Joan, the daughter of the Earl of Eu; Mary, the daughter of the Earl of Blois ; 
 Mary, daughter of Ferdinand Lord Lara in Castile, which last proposal came to a formal 
 contract, rendered abortive by his demise. 
 
 Nothing can be finer in its way than the sculpture of this effigy. There is no departure 
 from the very usual recumbent attitude, the hands raised in prayer and the legs crossed; 
 but there is a most beautiful simplicity in the whole figure, while the details of the arms 
 and drapery are marked with elegant precision. 
 
 Details. Plate I. Portion of the head, with the ducal crown and mantelet depending from the lace ; orna¬ 
 ments on the sword belt, handle, and scabbard of the sword ; scalloped border of an aqueton, or some defence 
 under the surcoat. 
 
 Plate II. Ornaments on the top of the hood, or basinet, whichever it may be; plating of the gauntlets, pryck 
 spur and leathers, plates on the solerctte, buckle of the spur, with tongue of the strap. 
 
 * See Dugdale's Baronage, vol. I. p. 207. 
 
js'tv Roger Sr Brno anti iLatij). 
 
 r I'HESE arc said to be the effigies of Roger de Bois and Margaret his wife. Bloomfield 
 thus describes the tomb in his time: “ On the East of the Church” (at Ingham in 
 Norfolk), “just by the rood-loft, a tomb raised, on which is the effigies of a knight in 
 complete armour, under his head the head and body of a Saracen, at his feet a hound.” 
 This inscription, he further says, was about the monument: 
 
 Monsieur Roger de Boys gist icy 
 Et Dame Margarete sa feme auxi 
 Vous qui passez par icy 
 Priez Dieu de leur alines eit mercy. 
 
 Elle mourut l’an n’tre Seigneur mille t recent quinsieme et il mourut fan dedit notre Seigneur 1300. 
 The Knight and his Lady wear long mantles, on the right shoulder of each of which is 
 a circular badge, bearing what is called the Tau cross of St. Anthony, and the letters 
 ANThON, in the uncial character. 
 
 Details. 1. Badge on the shoulders. 2. Compartments of the girdle, one embossed with CD. 
 
 §9iv Robert tm Bois. 
 
 This effisry, carved in oak, commemorates Sir Robert du Bois, one of the Lords of 
 Fersfield, in Norfolk, who died in 1311, and was buried in the church there, of which 
 his family were the patrons. 
 
 As early as the eleventh century, William du Bois gave two garbs or sheaves of every 
 three growing on certain lands of his demesne to the Priory of Thetford. Sir Robert 
 du Bois, his descendant, married Christian, daughter of Sir William Latimer. The arms 
 of Du Bois, Ermine, a cross Sable, have been painted on the surcoat of the figure. 
 Bloomfield describes them as extant in his time on another part of the tomb, quartering 
 Latimer, Gules, a cross potence Or. 
 
 Details. 1. One of the ermiDes on the surcoat. 2, 3, 4. Decorations on the sword-belt and scabbard. 
 5. Sword, bell, and sheath, enlarged. O'. Leathers of the spur. 
 
 * Pope Boniface VIII. is said to have instituted an order of St. Anthony in 1298, and it is more certainly 
 known that in 1382 Count Albert of Bavaria founded one in Hainault, on occasion of some remarkable cures 
 of the disease called St. Anthony's fire, performed at a chapel dedicated to the Saint. Gentlemen of the first 
 rank and merit were knights of this Order: the ensigns of which arc said to have been a crutch, a hermit's 
 cord, and a little bell. (Morcri, Diet. Historlque, article St. Antoine.) The Tau cross has very much, it will 
 be observed, the form of a crutch. The surcoat of the knight is exceedingly curious. The little circles with 
 which it is covered must not be mistaken for ordinary mails ; the mailing of the camail shows the difference; 
 and indeed the skirt of the hauberk appears underneath this outward defence, which is perhaps of stamped 
 leather or of quilted work thickly set with studs. Mr. Stothard considered this monument to be one of those 
 erected some time subsequent to the death of the persons whom it represented. In strict chronological order 
 
(Sffigj) in 9el) Cijitvrl), j&cnt. 
 
 On the authority of Harris, this effigy may be assigned to Sir John Laverick. Weever, 
 speaking of Ash, says, “ in this church are many ancient monuments of worthy gentle¬ 
 men, namely, Sir Goshalls and Sir Levericks, who lie crosse-legged as Knights of Jerusa¬ 
 lem.”* There are many interesting points about the armour of this figure. The basinet 
 and genouillieres are elegantly adorned with studs and leaves. The wrists of the 
 gauntlets are composed of small lamina: or splinters of plate. 
 
 Details. Plate I. 1. Ornament on the front of the basinet. 2. Buckle of the sword-belt. 3. Ornament on 
 the bottom of the genouilliere. Plate II. Profile. 1. Lace of the cumail, passing through scallops of plate, 
 forming the lower part of the basinet. 2. Gauntlets. 3. Part of the solerette and jambe (near the ancle); 
 portion of the spur, with straps. 
 
 * Fun. Monuments, p.265. 
 
 Isir Itogcr bt ivrrbcston. 
 
 This monument is in the chancel of Reepham church, Norfolk. The family of Ivcr- 
 deston held a manor of the same name in Reepham parish as early as the reign of Henry 
 the Third. Sir Roger de Kerdcston died in the 11th year of the reign of Edward III. 
 1337. His military habits are represented by the lied of stones on which he reposes. 
 The male and female figures delineated in Plate III. adorn tile base of his tomb. They 
 probably represent his children, or relatives, as mourners, and are most interesting 
 specimens of the costume of the fourteenth century. 
 
 Details. Plate]. Hdt of the sword, genouilliere, and part of the cuisses. Plate II. I. Side view of the 
 sword-hilt, with part of the belt and scabbard. 2. Agrafe or clasp of the belt. 3. Lace attaching the basinet 
 to the camuil. Plate III. Mourners on the base of the tomb. 
 
©liber fngjjam. 
 
 Ilk S oi' Ey 15 I>laC , Cd "" dL ' r “ ” Ch °” tllC " ortI ' side of ,he <*™* “ f Ingham in Nor- 
 
 twlr r \ “ “ d hcir 0f Sir Joh ” ***»* -lose ancestors were seated a, 
 lD S harn as ear, y as the middle of the twelfth century. 
 
 The fi rs , historical notice that we find of Sir Oliver Ingham is that in the year 1325 
 tta ntneteentlt of the reign of Edward the Second, he was by the heir apparent as Duke 
 Aquitaine, constituted Seneschal of Goienne. He is characterised a, this period as 
 a young lusty, and valiant soldier. He collected an army of mercenary troops. Spa¬ 
 wn sArragonese, and Gascons, invaded the territory of Angenois, retained contrary to 
 treaty by the French king, and reduced it to the dominion of the English He was 
 one of those persons to whom, in the early part of the following reign, the king’s writ 
 was directed to apprehend Mortimer Earl of Marche. 
 
 In 1340 we find him in the execution of the office of Seneschal, commanding at Bor¬ 
 deaux, where he was suddenly surprised by the appearance of a large army of French 
 before the walls. He had scarcely six thousand men within the town to repel this assault; 
 
 his only resource was his militai 
 
 y genius and presence of mind. He ordered the citizens. 
 
 wlm were well affected to the English, to follow their usual occupations, and directed that 
 t e banner of France should be displayed on the walls and citadel. The French fell 
 into the snare, thought the place had been abandoned by their enemy, entered it, and 
 aying aside their arms, fell to rifling the houses of the English. At this juncture 
 Ingham sallied forth from the castle at the head of his men, fell impetuously on the 
 French, and put them to the rout with great slaughter; nearly the whole were slain or 
 made prisoners, and their leader, Gaston Count de Laille, with great difficulty escaped. 
 
 The valiant Seneschal* died at Bordeaux in 1344, and was buried in the church of 
 his family demesne at Ingham. 
 
 His heirs were a daughter, Joan, married to Roger le Strange, Lord of Knockyn; and 
 a grand-daughter Mary, by Elizabeth his eldest daughter, and her husband Sir John 
 Curzon. 
 
 The tomb of Sir Oliver is on the north side of the chancel of Ingham church. 
 Weever in his time describes it thus“ Under a fair tomb of freestone, very curiously 
 wrought, lieth the body of Sir Oliver Ingham, with his resemblance in his coat-armour, 
 lus belt, gilt spurs, and the blew garter about his leg ; his crest, the owl out of the ivy 
 bush, with a crowne on the head thereof; he being a great traveller lyeth upon a rocke, 
 
 * Among other appointments of honour and trust, we find him serving in Parliament, Governor of Elles¬ 
 mere and Guildford Castles, Gustos and Justice of Chester. 
 
beholding the sunne and moone and starrcs, all very lively set forth in mettall, behold 
 ing the face of the earth. About the tomb twenty-four mourners.”* 
 
 Some points of this description agree very well with the effigy as represented in the 
 plates ; while others supply us with particulars which the injuries of time would have 
 otherwise effaced. The crest on the helmet is broken off; so is the right leg: there is 
 no garter on the left. Weever mistook the fillet of the genouillicre for a garter. Sir 
 Oliver was not a knight of that order. In the painting which remains on the back 
 ground of the figure, we do not observe the planets as mentioned by Weever. A forest 
 is represented, in which wild animals and beasts of prey are roaming at large ; in one 
 corner an archer clothed in 
 
 “ Cote anil hood of green," 
 
 winds his bugle; in the other his companion is seen bending his bow. This would 
 seem to indicate the extensive forests of the duchy of Aquitaine, over which Ingham 
 was Seneschal, or his addiction to the chase. He reposes on the rock, or rather a bed of 
 pebbles, mentioned by Weever, not improbably indicative of his martial hardihood ;f an 
 idea that has not escaped Shakspeare: 
 
 -“ The tyrant custom 
 
 Has made the jlinly and steel couch of war 
 My thricc-drivcn bed of down." 
 
 Details. Plate I. Helmet with the mantelet. Portion of the mantelet enlarged. Figure as originally 
 painted. The surcoal bears, Party per pale Or and Vert, a cross moline Gules. Belt and clasp. Scabbard, 
 mountings with portions of the belt attached. Plate II. Painting at the back of the tomb; genouillieres or 
 knee-pieces; cuisses with studs ; some links of the lower part of the hauberk. 
 
 * Fun. Monuments, edit. 1631, p. SI*. 
 
 f Another conjecture is that when an effigy is thus placed, it represents the knight as shipwrecked, and 
 thrown upon “ the beached verge of the salt flood." We believe that examples of figures of this kind are rare ; 
 in this work only one other occurs, that of Sir Roger de Kerdeston. If the purpose of the sculptor had been 
 to represent Ingham as shipwrecked we should have expected a back ground of marine objects. '1 hose painted 
 on the tomb before us are, on the contrary, altogether terrene. The attitudes of Ingham and Kerdeston are 
 very similar, each appears as if roused from his rude bed of slumber, and laying his hand on the hilt of his 
 
 56 
 
from a brass 
 
 latf in lug'll am Church Norfolk 
 
Sir Jtttlcs Uc Stapleton nnB fjts ELatJj?. 
 
 One of those engraved plates familiarly termed brasses. It is on the floor of the chancel 
 of Ingham church, Norfolk, and commemorates Sir Miles Stapleton, Knight of the 
 Garter, and his wife, Joan, daughter of Sir Oliver Ingham, and widow of Lord Strange, 
 of Knoekyn. He died on Wednesday before the feast of St. Nicholas, 38 Edward III. 
 (December 4,1364.) The lady, perhaps from courtesy as a coheiress, is placed on the 
 knight’s right hand. An elegant crocheted gothic canopy and pinnacles surmount the 
 figures. These have suffered some mutilation. Into the verge of the stone has been 
 inserted a fillet of brass, with this inscription : 
 
 Priez pour les almes de Monseur Miles de Stapleton, et Dame Johanne, sa femme, fille de Monseur Oliver 
 de Ingham, fonfiouca Be ccetc maiaon ; qc Bicu Be lout almes eit pitie. 
 
 That portion printed in the black letter alone now remains, the rest is supplied from 
 Bloomfield. 
 
 militant of imtfielB 
 
 Was the second son of Edward III. by his Queen Philippa, and was born at Hatfield, 
 in Yorkshire, in 1335. He was christened after his maternal grandfather, William 
 Etirl of Hainault, died in his childhood, and was buried in the cathedral at York. The 
 effigy is nearly four feet six inches in height, and may therefore be supposed that of a 
 child about eleven years of age. This is a good example of the domestic attire of a 
 noble youth of the day. On his head is a circlet surmounted by pearls. A rich justc- 
 au-corps (probably embroidered cloth of gold*) covers his figure. A mantle, the 
 edge of which is indented into the form of a running pattern of ornamental foliage, falls 
 over his breast and shoulders, and depends behind to the ancles. His shoes are divided 
 into fretwork compartments, filled up with quatrefoils. His head is supported by angels, 
 and his feet rest on a couchant lion. He wears a rich jewelled girdle round his hips ; a 
 characteristic mark of the monuments of this, and of many of the following century. It 
 is not easy to imagine how a cincture thus placed sustained itself. 
 
 Details. Plate II. Profile. I. Portion of the circlet and pearls. 2. Ornament on the juste-au-corps, or 
 body coat. 3. Ornament on the shoes. 
 
 * Thus Chaucer, describing the attire of a gallant youth: 
 
 " Embrouded was he, as it were a mede. 
 
 All full of freshe floures white and rede. 
 
 - Short was his goune "- 
 
a Blancfyfront, 
 
 In Alvechurch, Worcestershire. This figure is termed by Nash “ a knight of the holy 
 voyage adopting the very probable conjecture, that the crossed legs indicated a vow of 
 pilgrimage to the Holy Land. The inhabitants of the neighbourhood call it the Knight 
 of the Green, who they say resided on Wetherock-hill; where they still show the site of 
 his moated house. 
 
 A grant is extant, of the time of Edward the Third, of certain lands in the tenure of 
 Thomas Kcmpe and John Kempe, to Thomas Blanchfront. Sir John Blanchfront, his 
 descendant, is mentioned in an instrument A. D. 1346, the 21st of the reign of Edward 
 the Third. This personage, therefore, the effigy may be conjectured to represent. 
 
 Asa specimen of an elegant variety of the costume of a knight in the fourteenth cen¬ 
 tury, the beautiful and spirited etching before us possesses great interest. The basinet 
 assumes the form of the double curved gothic arch, and the heavy close helmet of the 
 tourney is supplied by the aventaille, or ventaille, attached to the basinet, and thrown 
 back to show the face ; roundels, tastefully filled up with roses, are affixed to the 
 armour at the shoulders, the elbows, and on the belt. From each of the two roundels on 
 the paps descends a chain, fastening the handle of the sword. The lower part of the 
 surcoat is gathered into numerous folds, and is closed in the front by a row of studs or 
 buttons. Plate No. 2 exhibits the profile of the figure, the lacing of the surcoat clearly 
 and sharply defined. The rowel of one of the spurs, a rare exception, is fortunately 
 unbroken. 
 
 Cffigy in tijc Cljurtij of Cetoiasburj). 
 
 This figure has not been appropriated by Mr. Stothard, and the topographical works on 
 Gloucestershire afford no light by which it may be identified. It lies under an arch in 
 the wall of the North aisle of the Church. The hands are raised in the attitude of 
 prayer, and the bare feet indicate, perhaps, a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The details of 
 the armour, mail and plate, are curious. The cuisses, as in two or three preceding ex¬ 
 amples, are remarkable : they appear to be composed of fluted steel intermixed with studs. 
 Front and profile views of the figure arc given. The herald may perhaps discover the 
 family to which it belongs by the bearing on the shield and surcoat, a chevron between 
 three lions’ heads langucd. 
 
 58 
 
EFFIGY C9V A If. I .A jw i ' III V 1! O^T. 
 At AlverliurcL. Warpril rrfliirr. 
 
-— 
 
§?»' iHimpbrcp iUttlclnirj). 
 
 This effigy is in Holbeach church, Lincolnshire. The border of the surcoat is formed 
 into leaves. The cnisses are Semite with cinquefoil studs. Relative to the application 
 of nails to body-armour, the following passage from Philip de Comines seems to he in 
 point: “The Dukes of Berry and Bretagne were at their ease upon their hobbies, 
 armed only with gilt nails sown upon sattin, that they might weigh the less.”* 
 
 Dmih, 1. Roundel of „ , he c lb„„. s . 0ne of the „ ml) „, raen „ 0( the orm „ ntri w|e . 
 
 3. aide-view of the handle of the .word, with lhat portion of the .cabb.rd which remain.. 4. Cinquefoil .lod 
 on the cuisses. 1 
 
 §?>tr CJornas Catotte, 
 
 This monument is in the north wall of the chancel of Ightliam church, in Kent. It 
 commemorates Sir Thomas Cawne, who resided at Nulcomb, a manor in the adjoining 
 parish of Seal, in the time of Edward the Third. The effigy affords a rich example of 
 the armour of the time. 
 
 Details. 1. Ornamented rim of the basinet and lace by which the camail is attached. 2. Gauntlet, with its 
 ornaments enlarged. 3. Portion of the girdle enlarged. 
 
 Cfftsj) at ^tainbrop, Durham. 
 
 This figure is unappropriated; but belongs, there can be little doubt, to one of the 
 family of Ncvill of Raby. It wears a circlet, in form resembling a ducal coronet. A 
 wimple covering the chin. Hair braided. A long mantle attached to the shoulders, by a 
 lace apparently passed through two metallic loops, which are adorned with lions’ heads. 
 
 Memoirs of Philip de Comities, hook i. 
 
 59 
 
IMtUiam of Wintissor anti IManclj tit la Cour. 
 
 Edward gave another of his sons by Philippa the name of William, who died so young 
 that nothing more is known of him than the place of his birth, as affixed to his name, 
 and that he was buried at Westminster, in the chapel of St. Edmund, in the abbey church. 
 In the same tomb are also deposited the remains of Blanch de la Tour, their third daugh¬ 
 ter, so called from her birthplace, the Tower of London. She was born and died in 1340. 
 Their effigies in alabaster, scarcely eighteen inches in length, arc placed on an altar- 
 tomb. Sandford says that an inscription on brass, which had been affixed on the monu¬ 
 ment, was not extant in his time. The costume of the male figure much resembles that 
 of William of Hatfield. The cote liardie of the female, Handles, jewelled stomacher, 
 girdle, cordon and clasps of the mantle, are worthy attention. 
 
 " Details. Plate T. One of the fennails of the Princess's mantle. Plate II. Ornaments on the Prince's girdle. 
 Plate III. Details of the Princess's circlet and reticulated head-dress. 
 
 Joint wtratfoiti, ardjbtsljop of Cantnlutvp. 
 
 John Stratford was born at Stratford-upon-Avon, in Warwickshire, and was educated 
 at Oxford. Being well read in the canon and the civil law, he became Archdeacon of 
 Lincoln. Shortly after, Edward the Second made him his Secretary, and one of his 
 Privy Council. Walter Reynolds, Archbishop of Canterbury, constituted him his prin¬ 
 cipal official, and Dean of the Arches. On the deposition and death of Edward the 
 Second, his ability stood so high in the estimation of the Queen and her son, that he 
 was appointed Lord Chancellor of England. On the death of Mepham, in 1333, he was, 
 at the King’s special recommendation to the Pope, elevated to the Archbishopric of 
 Canterbury. The King going abroad to prosecute his pretensions to the Crown of 
 France, constituted the Archbishop Custos of the Realm in his absence, a circumstance 
 which eventually drew on Stratford a severe persecution; for, Edward having disbursed 
 vast sums of money to his followers and friends in the expedition, applied to the Arch¬ 
 bishop for more, who seeing that it was impossible to make further levies on the King’s 
 subjects, who had lately so liberally supplied him, advised him to return home. Edward 
 
ttxtxttx: 
 
is said to have made his creditors in Flanders believe that Stratford was entrusted with 
 large sums sufficient for paying their demands, and Stratford was charged, on the King’s 
 return, with having embezzled money which had really never been in his possession. If so 
 noble-minded a monarch as Edward could have acted advisedly in such a matter, we 
 should pronounce him at once the bravest and the meanest of his race; but the mys¬ 
 teries of court intrigue cannot at this period be unravelled, so as to extenuate or confirm 
 the imputation. The circumstances of the case are, however, highly in favour of Strat¬ 
 ford s innocence; for, a Committee of Bishops and Lords being appointed to examine the 
 accusation against him, their inquiry was never prosecuted, and Stratford was pardoned 
 at the solicitation of the entire parliament. Little, indeed, did Stratford deserve a charge 
 of peculation. So disinterested and indefatigable was his character, that he crossed the 
 channel two-and-thirty times on various public missions, besides making many journeys 
 to the Scottish border, yet received altogether for his pains not more than ^.300 from 
 the Kings Exchequer. Restored to the King's favour, he was permitted to pass the 
 fifteen following years of his life in tranquillity, and died at his palace at Mayfield, in 
 Sussex, in 1348. Stratford’s character was strongly imbued with the mild virtues of the 
 Gospel, so often obliterated by the temptations incident on high station. Gentle and 
 merciful, rather lenient than rigorous to offenders, bountiful to the poor, he endeavoured 
 to win men’s hearts by that charity which considers every human being suffering from 
 error or misfortune, as a brother. He munificently founded a college at Stratford-upon- 
 Avon, his native place, and was interred in a tomb of alabaster in Canterbury cathedral, 
 on the south side of the high altar. The effigy of Stratford is a beautiful work of art, 
 although it has suffered some mutilation. He is habited in his mitre, cope, and gloves 
 (the hands are fractured). Under his right arm is the staff of his crosier, or archiepis- 
 copal cross (the head broken off). Over his left hangs the jewelled maniple for wiping 
 any defilement from the sacramental cnp. Under the cope appears the border of his 
 dalmatic, and beneath the dalmatic a richly edged tunic. Fastened to his breast and 
 shoulders by pins (of gold), is the consecrated pall with which the archbishops were 
 invested by the Holy See, and for which it exacted a heavy pecuniary acknowledgment. 
 
 Details. 1. Crocketed edge of the mitre. 2. Cape of the cope. 3. One of the pins fastening the pall. 
 
Jung Csiuart) tfje CinrS, 
 
 Surnamed of Windsor, was the eldest son of Edward the Second by Isabella of France, 
 and was born at the Castle of Windsor on the 13th of November, 1312. In a Parlia¬ 
 ment assembled at York in 1322, he was created Prince of Wales and Duke of 
 Aquitaine. On the formal deposition of his father, he ascended the throne of England 
 on the 25th of January, 1326, being then about fourteen years of age, and was on the 
 1st of February following girt with the sword of knighthood by his cousin Henry Earl 
 of Lancaster, and crowned at Westminster by Walter Reynolds, Archbishop of Canter¬ 
 bury. The Parliament appointed twelve guardians for the King during his nonage, 
 consisting of five Bishops, two Earls, and five Barons.* 
 
 By consent of these and of the Parliament, Henry Tort-col, Earl of Lancaster, Lin¬ 
 coln, Leicester, and Derby, as Earl of Leicester, Hereditary High Seneschal of England, 
 (son of the celebrated Thomas Earl of Lancaster, the idol of the people, who was beheaded 
 by Edward the Second,) was appointed guardian of the youthful King. Such were the 
 nominal directors of Edward’s Government, while Roger Mortimer, by his close inti¬ 
 macy and influence with the Queen, his mother, was the real. The first aet of the first 
 year of his reign was to march against the Scots, who had made an inroad on the 
 borders; in which expedition he was assisted by many Flemings and foreigners, under 
 Sir John de Hainault, brother of William Earl of Hainault, who had aided the Queen 
 and her son against the Spensers in Edward the Seconds reign. In this expedition a 
 very remarkable occurrence took place, by which the King’s life or liberty was endan¬ 
 gered. While the English army lay encamped on the river Weir, Earl Douglas, with 
 two hundred men-at-arms, crossed the stream at some distance above their position. 
 Advancing at a cautious and “ stealthy pace,” they entered the English camp. At every 
 challenge of the “fixed centinels,” Douglas exclaimed, “ No ward? Ha! St. George!” 
 as if to chide their negligence. Each soldier on his post thought this to be the reproof 
 of the nightly “rounds” directed to himself, and thus Douglas and his band passed on 
 until he came to the royal tent, into which it is said he entered, and aimed a blow at the 
 sleeping Monarch of England, which was warded oft' by his Chaplain who was slain by 
 interposing his own body as a shield to his liege lord. The King leaped up, seized his 
 sword, which hung at the head of bis couch, the alarm was given, and Douglas made 
 good his retreat, from his bold but abortive enterprize, through the English host, with 
 
 * These were, Walter Reynolds, Archbishop of Canterbury, William de Mellon, Archbishop of York, John 
 Stratford, Bishop of Winchester, Thomas Cobham, of Worcester, and Adam Orleton, of Hereford, the infamous 
 tool of the Queen and Mortimer. The Earls were, Thomas of Brotherton, the Earl Marshal, Edmund of 
 Woodstock, Earl of Kent, both uncles of the King; the Barons, John Lord of Warren, Thomas of Wales, 
 Henrv of Percy, Oliver de Ingham, and John of Ros. 
 

some loss. Thus nurtured as it were in the din of arms, the master-mind of Edward 
 took a turn towards those military undertakings, which subsequently raised the martial 
 glory of his country to the highest pitch. 
 
 On the termination of this expedition, by the retreat of the enemy within their own 
 frontier, the King returned to London; and shortly after an embassy was sent to his 
 ally, William Earl of Hainault, to demand, on the King’s part, one of his daughters in 
 marriage. The Bishop of Coventry and Litchfield, the principal envoy, repairing to the 
 Court of Hainault at Valenciennes, the Earl’s five daughters were produced before him 
 when the Bishop gave his judgment and choice for Philippa, the youngest of them all* 
 being scarcely fourteen years of age. A dispensation for the union of the parties at this 
 early period was granted by the Pope, the bride was conducted to England, and the 
 marriage was solemnized at York on the 24th February, 1327-8, Edward being then 
 only in his fifteenth year. Charles the Fair, his uncle. King of France, now dying, he 
 claimed the crown in right of his descent from Isabella, his mother; his plea being, 
 that, although the Salic law or custom excluded females from the actual Government, it 
 had no such operation as regarded their male issue. An embassy was forthwith dis¬ 
 patched to France, to interdict the coronation of Philip de Valois, which, however, took 
 place within twelve days after its arrival: and thus subsequently arose the wars of Edward 
 in France in prosecution of this claim. 
 
 Until the year 1330, Roger Mortimer, Baron of Wigmore, and now Earl of Marche,* 
 by his influence with the Queen (whose character is further blackened by the imputa 
 tion ol a criminal connection with him), had been the actual Regent of the Realm, 
 while Ilcnry Earl of Lancaster, and the Lords the young King’s guardians, were 
 excluded from any real power in administration of state affairs. Mortimer ruled the 
 Queen; and, through the natural influence of a mother on a son of such tender years, 
 employed according to his pleasure the authority of the King himself. By his machina¬ 
 tions and the Queen’s, Edward had consented to the death of his uncle Edmund Earl of 
 Kent. Mortimer’s luxury, cupidity, and pride, had now reached the highest point. On 
 the other hand, the King had attained his eighteenth year, his eyes were opened, and 
 his high spirit determined to govern for itself. The Earl of Lancaster and the offended 
 Barons were not slow to aid this resolution. Mortimer w^as seized in Nottingham 
 Castle by William Lord Montacute. He and the Queen had thought themselves secure 
 in this stronghold from the attempts of their enemies. The Queen every night caused 
 the keys of the castle to be delivered to her by the Constable, Sir William Eland, and 
 kept them under her pillow; but Lord Montacute went to the Constable, and demanded, 
 by the King’s authority, to be secretly admitted within the fortress, for the puqiose of 
 seizing on Mortimer. At midnight, therefore, on the 19tli of October, Montacute, and 
 the Lords his associates, repaired, under the previous direction of the Governor, to the 
 mouth of a subterraneous passage hewn out in ancient days by the Saxons, which led 
 under the hill, and opened into the donjon, or master tower of the castle. Entrance 
 thus gained, they surprized and seized Mortimer in his chamber, notwithstanding the 
 
 * He was created Earl of Marche in Parliament at Salisbury, in August 132S. 
 
entreaties of the Queen, who hearing the noise of the confederate hand in an adjoining 
 room, guessing their errand, and thinking her son was with them, exclaimed, m the 
 French tongue, “ Fair son, spare, spare the gentle Mortimer !" He was removed under 
 a strong guard to the Tower of London, articles of attainder were speedily exhibited 
 against him, confirmed by the Parliament, and he was adjudged to execution. On the 
 29th of November he suffered death, like a malefactor of the vulgar class, upon the 
 
 common sallows. . . 
 
 In 1337, King Edward having fortified liis purposes by alliances with the Earl ot 
 Flanders, Jacob Von Artaveldt, the wealthy brewer who ruled the people of Ghent, and 
 the Duke of Bavaria, laid a formal claim to the Crown of France. In the following year 
 he repaired to Cologne to meet the Emperor of Germany, who received him in great 
 pomp, and dispensed with the usual ceremony that Kings should kiss his feet. Two 
 thrones were erected in the open market-place at Cologne; on one was seated the 
 emperor, in his imperial robes, having in his hands the sceptre and the orb of empire, 
 behind him stood a knight, who held over his head a naked sword. He there denounced 
 the King of France as disloyal, treacherous, and unworthy the protection ot the Empire, 
 and defied him. He constituted, at the same time, by charter, King Edward his Deputy 
 and Vicar General of the Empire, granting him full power over the territory on this 
 side Cologne. King Edward lost no time in summoning the German feudatories to 
 assemble in Flanders in July of the following year, to open the campaign against the 
 French King by the siege of Cambray. 
 
 Thus commenced the first hostilities by Edward the Third in prosecution of his right. 
 Edward soon after formally placed the arms of France, the golden lilies semee *m an 
 azure field, in the dexter quarter of his royal arms, and underneath the motto, “ Dieu et 
 
 mon droit.” 
 
 In 1341, the claims of John Earl of Montfort and Charles of Blois to the Duchy of 
 Bretagne (the cause of the first being espoused by England and of the latter by France) 
 revived hostilities between the countries. The contest between these two personages was 
 only decided by the death of Charles de Blois at the battle of Auray, in 1304, which 
 gave the Duchy to his rival. 
 
 In the year 1344, King Edward held his Round Table at Windsor, encouraging a 
 romantic spirit of chivalry among his nobles, by reducing in some degree to practice the 
 legendary tales of Arthur’s Court. In the same policy, as a reward and incentive for 
 gallant deeds, he shortly after instituted the most noble Order of the Garter. 
 
 In 1346, Philip of France sent his son, the Duke of Normandy, with an army of a 
 hundred thousaud men, to invade the Duchy of Guicnne. Edward embarked imme¬ 
 diately to the relief of his province, with the very disproportionate force of thirty thou¬ 
 sand. Baffled by contrary winds from landing in Guienne, he made a descent in Nor¬ 
 mandy, where Philip, with an overwhelming force, endeavoured to cut oft all retreat. 
 He however forced the passage of the Somme at Blanchetaque, and awaiting the army 
 
 * Charles VI. of France, in order to mark a difference between ihe French and English arms, reduced the 
 number of Ihe lilies to three, but nur Henry V. defeated the intention doing the same. 
 
 GF 
 
of Philip in a well-chosen spot, at the village of Crccv, on the 26th August, 1346, gave 
 him battle, and totally routed his army, with the loss of 30,000 men, 1,200 knights, the 
 Earl of Alemjon, the French King’s brother, the King of Bohemia, his ally, and fifteen 
 nobles of the highest rank. The active glory of this victory belonged to the gallant 
 Black Prince. 
 
 While the King was absent in France, David King of Scotland, instigated by the 
 intrigues ot the French Court, entered England with a powerful army, and laid waste the 
 country with fire and sword as far as Durham. Their progress was arrested by the 
 spirited Queen Philippa, the Archbishop of York, and the Lords Marchers, at Nevill's 
 Cross, about two miles from Durham, where they were totally routed; and David Bruce, 
 their king, taken, and carried to London, where he was confined in the Tower. 
 
 In 1356, the Black Prince having made an incursion, with an army not exceeding 
 12,000 men, into Languedoc, he was pursued on his return by John, who had now 
 succeeded to the Crown of France, who came up with him near Poictiers, and there 
 encountered a signal defeat, with the loss of his liberty. The dreadful thunderstorm to 
 which the English army was exposed before Chartres, induced Edward, who thought it 
 was an admonition from Heaven, to check his ambition and grant the French a peace, 
 which was but ill observed. 
 
 Enough has been said in this brief way to denote the energy and grandeur of his 
 character as a monarch, and to show what he did in arms for his country. He was 
 equally alive to her commercial interests and to the encouragement of the arts as they 
 were practised in his day. The sun of Edward’s glory, however, declined under a cloud. 
 That vanquisher of the invincible. Death, laid the Black Prince low; and the sword of 
 Bertram du Guesclin, Constable of France under Charles V. redeemed his country’s 
 honour and dominion. Towards the close of Edward's reign, of all the English con¬ 
 quests and possessions in France only Calais remained. 
 
 The King’s character in the decline of life, after the death of Philippa liis Queen, who 
 deceased in 1369,* is not exempt from imputation of that frailty which has so often 
 tarnished the silver honours of the aged head. Dame Alice Pcrers was taken into his 
 highest favour about five years after the above event. She was a woman of exceeding 
 beauty. At a tournament held in Smithfield by the King’s command, she rode as “Lady 
 of the Sun” from the Tower of London to Smithfield (the Campus Martins of the City), 
 attended by a procession of knights armed for the jousts, each having his horse led by 
 the bridle by a lady. 
 
 An interesting description of the King’s death-bed is to be found in an old chronicle 
 often referred to by writers of his history. He is therein described as lying on his sick 
 couch (his disease unexpectedly assuming a mortal character), “talking rather of hawk- 
 
 * She died at Windsor, on the 15th of August, in the most pious spirit of resignation. Her husband and 
 her youngest son, Thomas of Woodstock, were present at this parting scene, overwhelmed with griel. She 
 requested that her debts might be exactly paid, her donations for religious uses fulfilled, and that her body 
 should be buried at Westminster. A sumptuous monument with her effigy was erected for her by her husband 
 in the Abbey there. It is still extant, and is one of those few connected with the English monarchy, which the 
 untimely end of the author of this work prevented him from delineating for his collection. 
 
 65 
 
ing and hunting, and such trifles, than any thing that pertained to his salvation," trust¬ 
 ing to the soothing assurances of the Lady Percrs that “ he should well recover, and 
 not die:” who,whilst the King had the use of speech to communicate his pleasure, sat at 
 his bed’s head, “ much like a dog that waited greedily to take or snatch whatsoever his 
 master would throw from the board.” This authority also states, that as soon as she saw 
 the hand of death was on the King, she took the rings from his fingers, and bade him 
 adieu! All his retainers and dependants also “forsook him, and fled.” Thus he 
 lay deserted in his extreme hour by all those who had existed on his bounty, except a 
 single priest of the household, “ who approached his bed, and boldly exhorted him to 
 lift up his heart in penitence to God, and implore mercy for his sins.” The dying King, 
 touched with this simple, honest address, bursting into tears, faintly ejaculated, “ Jcsu!” 
 the hist word God gave him power to pronounce. The priest continued his admonitions 
 that he would show, by such signs as he still might, his repentance, his forgiveness of 
 his enemies, and his trust in God. He replied by deep sighs, by lifting up his eyes and 
 hands to heaven in prayer, by laying his hand on his heart, in token of his forgiveness, 
 from his heart, of all who had offended him. Then taking the crucifix in his hand, with 
 every sign of love and reverence of Him whose suffering for his sake it represented, he 
 resigned his spirit to his Creator. 
 
 Edward the Third's death took place at his manor of Shenc, near Richmond, in 
 Surrey, on the 21st June, 1377, in the sixty-fourth year of his age, he having reigned 
 fifty years and nearly five months. He directed by his last will, dated from that ancient 
 seat of the English Monarchs, Havering-at-the-Bower, in Essex, 25th June, 1377, that 
 he should be interred at Westminster Abbey, among his ancestors of famous memory, 
 but without excessive pomp. With this view, he limited the number of waxen tapers 
 and mortaries that were to be placed during the ceremony about his corpse. He lies on 
 the south side of the Chapel of Edward the Confessor within a tomb of marble, on which 
 is his effigy of copper, as represented in the plates ; it has originally been gilt. His 
 epitaph on the verge of his tomb is thus read by Sandford: 
 
 Hicdecus Anglorum, flos regum preteritorum, 
 
 Forma futurorum, rex clemens, pax populorum, 
 
 Tcrtius Edwardus, regni complens jubileum, 
 
 Invictus pardus, bellis pollens Machabeum. 
 
 Pruspcre dum vixit, regnum piclate revixit, 
 
 Armipolens rexit; jam celo, Celice Rex, sit. 
 
 The effigy of the King is in a grand and simple style. The hair flows over the neck, 
 and he wears the forked beard of the time. The mantle is fastened to his shoulders by 
 a broad band, which extends across the breast. The dalmatic is underneath, gathered 
 in a few broad and beautifully-disposed folds. He has had a sceptre in either hand, 
 denoting his double dominion. 
 
 Details. Plate 1. 1. Band attaching the mantle to the body. 2. Pattern on the border of the dalmatic. 
 3. Front view of the ornamented boot. Plate II. Profile. 1. Portions of the sceptres. 2. Side-view of 
 the boot. 
 
Cttoarti, tjjt JJlarfe fritter. 
 
 D DWARD, commonly called the Black Prince, 
 eldest son of Edward III. and Queen Philippa, 
 was born at Woodstock, on the 15th of June, 1330. 
 4th Edward III. Before he had attained his seventh 
 year, the King, his father, granted to him the County 
 of Chester, the Castles of Chester, Beeston, Rhydd- 
 lan, Flint, &c., and created him Duke of Cornwall. 
 In the 17th Edward III. he was invested with a coro¬ 
 net, a gold ring, and a silver rod, as Prince of Wales. 
 Three years after, in 1346, being then but sixteen years 
 old, this valiant Prince fought and gained the battle 
 of Cressy; and continued distinguishing himself in 
 military atchievements, till he won the field of Poitiers 
 with 8 or 9,000 English against 60,000 French, taking 
 kJolin, King of France, prisoner: this battle was fought September 19th, 1356. In 
 1362, King Edward invested his gallant son with the Principality of Aquitaine.* 
 Here he did not long remain inactive; for Peter the Cruel, King of Spain, having 
 been driven from his dominions, the Prince of Wales espoused his cause, passed 
 with an army into Spain, and gaiued the battle of Najara, by which he restored an 
 ungrateful Prince to a throne he had but too justly forfeited. Peter the Cruel once 
 more reigning in his dominions, evaded paying the sums he had promised to the 
 English Prince; who in order to discharge the expenses incurred by the war, had 
 recourse to levying taxes in Aquitaine, which furnished a pretext for revolt in that 
 province. In the midst of these difficulties the Black Prince died of a slow and 
 lingering disorder, which first seized him in Spain; he expired on Trinity Sunday, 
 in the Palace at Westminster, June 8th, 1376, aged 46. 
 
 * The initial letter of this page, representing Edward III. giving to his son the Prince of Wales the 
 grant of the Principality of Aquitaine, is taken from an illumination placed at the head of a copy of tho 
 grant, in the British Museum. Bibl". Cotton 0 . Nero. D. G. 
 
The Prince of Wales was married to Joan, Countess of Kent, commonly called, 
 on account of her beauty, the Fair Maid of Kent. She was the daughter of Edmund 
 of Woodstock, second son of Edward the First. By this Lady he had but two 
 sons, Edward, who died at the age of seven years, and Richard, afterwards King 
 of England. The Black Prince had also before marriage, two natural sons, Sir 
 John Sounder and Sir Roger de Clarendon ; the latter bore for his arms, Or, on a 
 bend sable, three ostrich feathers argent; the quills transfixed through as many 
 scrolls of the first. 
 
 Various reasons have been assigned for Edward's bearing the surname of the 
 Black Prince; the most generally received, and perhaps the best entitled to 
 credit, is that it arose from his wearing black armour. A circumstance which may 
 throw some light on this point, and correct an error in another particular, appears 
 to have been entirely overlooked. The three Ostrich Feathers within the Coronet, 
 as at present borne, is generally understood to have been the Cognizance of the 
 Black Prince, but on strict investigation, although his Will, his Seals, and his 
 Tomb, give the most minute evidence on the subject, there exists no authority 
 whatever for this disposition of the Ostrich Feathers. We are told that after the 
 battle of Cressy, the banner of John, the old and blind King of Bohemia, there 
 slain, was found in the field ; upon it was wrought—sable, three ostrich feathers, 
 with the motto Ich Dien; which cognizance, in memory of the day, was adopted by 
 prince Edward. By what authority this account is supported, is uncertain ; but 
 the German words Ich Dien and Houmout on the tomb, seem to give it probability. 
 Although there is no farther proof that the feathers were borne by the King 
 of Bohemia, yet it is not a little remarkable, that his granddaughter Anne, bore 
 an ostrich as her Badge. Instead of the feathers either being worn within 
 the coronet, or as a crest, the evidence on the tomb is contrary, they are borne 
 as a coat, on an escutcheon. From the subjoined extract of the Prince's 
 will, in the passage describing the man and horse, armed and covered with the 
 badges, it is clear that the former bore them on his surcoat, and the latter on the 
 barding.* We cannot, therefore, be surprised, if the Prince of Wales wore such 
 
 • There is a curious coincidence, bearing strong evidence on this point, in a beautiful manuscript, con¬ 
 taining in French verse, an account of the latter part of the life of Richard II. written and illuminated by 
 one who was an eyewitness to what he describes. In the second illumination Richard II. is represented 
 knighting Henry of Monmouth. The king is on horseback, in armour, his surcoat and the barding of tire 
 horse is powdered with ostrich leathers, and above him appears a pennon emblazoned in like manner. 
 
 Bibl\ Had". 
 
 Edward the Black Prince leaves to his son Richard in his will, “ a blue vestment embroidered with gold 
 roses and ostrich feathers.” The feathers, and other devices of the Black Prince are also alluded to in the 
 two following passages of the said Will“ We give and devise our Hall of Ostrich Feathers of black 
 Tapestry with a red border wrought with Swans with Ladies Heads, that is to say, a back piece, eight 
 
 pieces for the sides and two for the Benches to the said Church of Canterbury, &c., &c.’-“ Item, we 
 
 give and devise to our said son the Hull of Arras of the deeds of Saludyn, and also the Hall of worsted 
 embroidered with Mermaids of the Sea, and the border paly red and black, embroidered with swans with 
 Ladies Heads and Ostrich Feathers.” 
 
sable trappings, (which must be inferred from the extract alluded to,) that he should 
 have received the surname of the Black Prince. It may be necessary to remark, 
 that the first notice of this surname occurs soon after the battle of Cressy. 
 
 The first part of the Prince’s Will which relates.to his Tomb and Burial, is on 
 many accounts so interesting here, that a translation from the French Original* it 
 is presumed, will not be unacceptable. 
 
 “ In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen. We 
 “ Edward, eldest son of the King of England and of France, Prince of Wales, 
 
 Duke of Cornwall, and Earl of Chester, the Seventh day of June, the year of 
 “ Grace One Thousand, Three Hundred, and Seventy-six, in our Chamber within 
 “ the Palace of our very redoubted Lord and Father at Westminster, being in good 
 “ and sound memory, and having consideration to the short duration of human 
 “ frailty, and as the time of the resolution of the diviue will is not certain, and de- 
 “ siring always to be ready with the aid of God to bis disposing, we ordain and 
 “ make our Testament in the manner which follows. First we give our soul to God 
 “ our Creator, and to the holy blessed Trinity, and to the glorious Virgin Mary, 
 “ and to all the Saints: and our body to be buried in the Cathedral Church of the 
 “ Trinity of Canterbury, (where the body of the true martyr, my Lord St. Thomas, 
 “ reposes,) in the middle of the Chapel of our Lady Undercroft, right before the 
 “ Altar, so that the end of our Tomb towards the foot may be ten feet distant 
 "from the Altar; and that the same tomb shall be made of marble, of good 
 " masonry. And we will, that round the said Tomb shall be twelve escutcheons 
 “ of laton, each of the breadth of a foot, six of which shall be of our arms 
 “ entire, and the other six of ostrich feathers; and that upon each escutcheon 
 “ shall be written, that is to say, upon those of our arms, and upon the others of 
 “ ostrich feathers, Houmout. And above the Tomb shall be made a table of laton 
 “ overgilt, of the breadth and length of the same Tomb, upon which we will, that an 
 " image in relieved work of laton gilt, shall be placed in memory of us, all armed 
 “ in steel for battle, with our arms quartered ; and my visage, [et le visage mie] with 
 “ our helmet of the leopard put under the head of the image. And we will, that 
 “ upon our Tomb, in the place where it may be the most clearly seen and read, 
 “ shall be written that which follows, in the manner that shall be best advised by 
 “ our executors, f * * * * * * And we will, that at that hour, 
 
 “ that our body shall be brought into the town of Canterbury as far as to the 
 " Priory, that two coursers covered with our arms and two men armed in our 
 “ arms, and in our helmets, shall go before our said body ; that is to say, the one 
 “ for war with our arms quartered, and the other for peace with our badges of 
 “ ostrich feathers, with four banners of the same suit; and that every one of those 
 “ who bear the said banners, shall have a chapeau of our arms; and that he who 
 
 » Preserved in the Archiepiscopal Registry at Lambeth. 
 
 f As this epitaph is nearly the same as that on the tomb, it is omitted; but the inscription, giving the 
 time of the Black Prince’s death, with his titles, &c. <S:c., is not ordered in the above Will, although it is 
 found on the tomb. 
 
“ s h a u he armed for war, shall have a man armed bearing after him a black pennon 
 “ with ostrich feathers. And we will, that the herse shall be made between the 
 “ high Altar and the Choir, within which we will that our body shall be placed, 
 
 “ until the vigils, masses, and the divine services shall be done; which services so 
 “ done, our body shall be borne to the aforesaid Chapel of our Lady, where it shall 
 “ be buried.” 
 
 The Prince's Tomb is not in the Lady Chapel, as ordered in the Will, but on 
 the south side of the Chapel of the Holy Trinity. In other respects it nearly 
 agrees with the above order. The Tomb is of Sussex marble, divided into sixteen 
 quatrefoiled panels, six on each side, two at the head, and two at the foot of 
 the Tomb, in each of which are fixed escutcheons of copper, enamelled alter¬ 
 nately with the arms and badges of the Black Prince. Above those, with the 
 arms, is engraved on scrolls of copper, IpOUmOUt; and above those, with the 
 badges in a similar manner, 3fcl) iDtnir. The effigy is of copper gilt, and lies upon 
 the Tomb on a table of the same metal: it represents the Black Prince in armour, 
 his head resting on his helmet, on which is the chapeau surmounted by a leopard 
 crowned, having a file of three points about his neck. The countenance of the 
 Prince possesses fine character. He is represented with long mustachios, which fall 
 on each side over the camail, with which his face is closely enveloped; his beard is 
 almost entirely concealed. On the Inicinet is a rich coronet, the circle of which was 
 once set with stones or glass. The manner of attaching the camail to the baciuet by 
 the vervelles, or staples, with a silken lace, is here very clearly explained* The 
 plates are very evident beneath the coat armour, which is emblazoned in relief with 
 the arms of England and Prance quarterly, overall a file of three points. Lhe 
 gauntlets are armed with bosses or broches on the middle joints of the fiugers.f 
 The girdle is ornamented with gilt leopards’ heads within circles, on a blue enamelled 
 ground; in the centre within a quatrefoil, a leopard similarly enamelled. The 
 sword is of the most beautiful workmanship. The pommel is ornamented with 
 a leopard’s head enamelled as the c ircles in the girdle. The hilt is of wirework. 
 The sheath is richly wrought, engraved, and enamelled ; its whole length is set with 
 lapis lazuli in lozenges. The dagger is wanting. The solerets are of a preposterous 
 length. It is uncertain what animal is intended at the feet. Considering how 
 beautifully the whole of this figure is finished, it is singular that the armour is 
 represented without either buckles, straps, or hinges. About the table of the 
 Tomb are the inscriptions, engraved on plates of copper; the first is at the head of 
 the Tomb, and the second commences on the south side and finishes on the north. 
 
 * Pour six onces de soie de diverses couleurs & faire les las it mcttre les caraaux aus dits bacinets. 
 
 Computum. Steph. de la Fontaine, argentar. llog. 1. Jan. 1345). 
 
 For six ounces of silk of various colours, to make laces to fasten the camails to the said bacinets. 
 
 t In a Trial by Combat adjudged between John de Vesconti and Sir Thomas do la Marche, fought 
 before Edward Ill. in close Lists at Westminster; Sir Thomas de la Marche gained the advantage by 
 striking the Bosses of Steel on his gauntlet, called Gadlinys, into the face of his adversary.— Collins's Life 
 of Eduard.. Prince of Wales. 
 
 Et riche bacinet li fist on apporter. 
 
 Guns a broches de ter. oui sont au rodouter. 
 
 MS. Bertrandi Gnrscliui. 
 
Gp gift le Bobir prince monP ©btoarb alfhej filj Tut trefnoble JRoP ©btoarO 
 tiers labls prince B'aqultame (t be ©ales tmc be ©ornelnallle et Counte be 
 ©cftre ql moiuft en la fefte be la Crlnlte qeftolt le Miij. lour be jupn Ian be 
 grace mil trolfcen? septante slime lalmebe ql bleu elt mercf amen. 
 
 <5u qt paffej obe bourpe dole: par la on ce coips repofe: 
 
 6ntent ce qe te blral: g>tcome te hire le sap: 
 
 'Gid come tu es le autlel fu: Cu terras tlel come le su: 
 
 De la-moit ne-penfal le mpe: Cantcome fabol la ble: 
 
 ^n fie abol fnb rlcbelfe : SDont le p fls gub nobleffe : 
 
 <5erre melons-it gtib trelor: sDraps cplbaur argent it oi: 
 
 Wes oie fu tea polues (t cljettlfs: per fonb en la fre gts: 
 
 Wa gnb beaute cst tout alee: cljar eft tout gaftee: 
 
 Woult eft eftrolt ma mefon: en moj) na si berfte non: 
 
 0t si oie me belffei. 3fe ne qutbe pas qe bous bclffei: 
 
 Qe le euffe onqes ffomc eft. §>f su te oie be tant cljangce: 
 
 pur bleu prte? au celeftlen Hoj): qe mercj) alt be larme be mop: 
 
 ^ouj ceulr qe pur mop prleront: ou a bleu macoiberont: 
 
 X)tett les mette en son parap: ou nul ne poet cftre cbelttfs: 
 
 Over the tomb is a wooden canopy, carved and painted, on the underside of 
 which is painted a representation of God the Father sustaining before him the Son 
 on the Cross; at the angles are the symbols of the four Evangelists. The heads 
 of the two principal personages have been effaced. 
 
 The military accoutrements of the Black Prince which are suspended by an iron 
 rod above the tomb, are extremely curious; they are, perhaps, the most ancient re¬ 
 mains of the kind existing, and, as might be expected, convey information on points 
 which, but for such evidence, can be gained but by inference. The shield fastened to 
 the column at the head of the tomb, is of wood, entirely covered with leather, wrought 
 in such a manner, that the fleurs de lis and lions stand forth with a boldness of relief 
 and finish, that when we consider the material employed, is truly wonderful; at the 
 same time possessing even to this day a nature so firm and tough, that it must have 
 been an excellent substitute for metal. This is, beyond doubt, the celebrated 
 Cuirbouilli* so often spoken of by the writers of the time. The surcoat, till closely 
 examined, gives but little idea of its original splendour, as the whole is now in 
 colour a dusky brown; it has short sleeves, and is made to lace up the centre of 
 the back; its outward surface is velvet, once quarterly az and gules, upon which is 
 richly embroidered with silk and gold, the lions and fleurs de lis; the whole of the 
 surcoat is quilted, or gambased with cotton, to the thickness of three quarters of an 
 
 * His Jambeux were of curebuly, 
 
 His sword shethe of Ivory.— The Rhime of Sir Thopas. — Chancer. 
 
 When the body of Henry V. was brought from Rouen by Calais to England, a representation of the 
 deceased king, made of Cuir Bouilli, painted and gilt, was placed on the top of the cot&n.—Monstrelet. 
 
inch, in narrow longitudinal portions, and lined with linen. It is remarkable, 
 that there is no file either on this surcoat or the shield. The helmet is of iron, 
 and has been lined within with leather; besides the sights for the eyes, it has on the 
 right side in front, a number of holes drilled in the form of a coronet, for the pur¬ 
 pose of giving air to the wearer. The chapeau and leopard upon it, appear to be 
 formed with cloth, covered with a white composition. The leopard is gilt, and the 
 cap painted red; the facing white, with ermine spots, the inside lined with velvet. 
 The gauntlets are brass, and remarkable for their similarity to those represented on 
 the hands of the effigy, with this exception, that they have in addition, leopards, 
 standing erect on the knuckles; the leather which appears on the inner side is orna¬ 
 mentally worked up the sides of the fingers with silk. The sword is said to have 
 been taken away by Oliver Cromwell. The sheath which contained it yet remains, 
 it appears to be leather, has been painted red, and ornamented on the outer side with 
 gilt studs. There is yet a portion of the belt with the buckler attached ; this belt is 
 not of leather, but of cloth; the eighth of an inch thick, such as has been before 
 noticed as used in fastening the spurs on the tomb of William de Valence. 
 
 Details—Plate 1, Fig. 1. Portion of the coronet, with the mode of fastening the 
 camail to the bacinet, enlarged:—2, 3, and 4, parts of the sword and enamelled 
 girdle. Plate 2, Fig. 1 and 2, the gauntlets which hang above the tomb, and those 
 on the hands of the effigy, enlarged. 3. The spur and enamelled strap. 4. The 
 mode in which the straps are attached to the spur on the inner side ol the right foot. 
 5. Part of the coutes, or elbow-piece. 
 
loan IStirtMGcfjs, iLatiy jBoljun. 
 
 Joan Burwaschs, or de Burgbersh, waa the daughter of Bartholomew de Burghersh, and 
 wife of John de Mohun, Lord of Dunster, in Somersetshire, who had during his nonage 
 been in the wardship of her father. She founded a chantry in 1395, by indenture be¬ 
 tween herself and the Prior and Monks of Christchurch, Canterbury. In consideration of 
 the payment of 350 marks, and the gift of certain appendages necessary for her chantry, 
 and of the manor of Selgrave being amortized to them by royal licence, they covenanted 
 that when she died her body should be laid in the tomb which she had already, at her own 
 cost, erected in the Lady Chapel of the undercroft of Canterbury cathedral, and that her 
 remains should never be removed from the monument, which was to be honourably kept 
 up. Hasted says, that the Dean and Chapter possess the manor, but that the tomb was 
 in his day sadly neglected. The effigy of Lady Mohun lies on an altar-tomb under a 
 gothic canopy, adorned with pinnacles and arches terminating in corbelled points. The 
 inscription on the verge of the tomb is here copied from Dart: 
 
 " Pour Dieu priez por I’ame Johane Burwaschs, qe feut Dame de Mohun.' 
 
 The attire of the Lady Mohun presents us with an example of the fret or reticu¬ 
 lated coiffure adopted by court ladies of the fourteenth century; and of the cote liardie, 
 which appears to have been a vestment fitting close to the body, leaving the neck bare, 
 and became much in vogue with the ladies towards the latter end of the fourteenth cen¬ 
 tury. The wimpled attire of Aveline Countess of Lancaster will shew how chary they 
 were of their charms in the preceding age. The wimpled costume seems, indeed, to 
 have been borrowed from the females of the East. Mr. Charles Stothard relates a hu¬ 
 morous anecdote of a damsel who wore the. cote hardie in one of his original letters 
 inserted in the Memoir of his Life.* 
 
 Details. Plate I. Jewelled lace on the hips of the cote hardie. Plate II. 1. Top of the coiffure. 2. Por¬ 
 tion of the circlet enlarged. 3. Reticulation of the coiffure. 4. Pattern on the cote hardie. 
 
 * Memoirs including Original Letters, &c. of C. A. Stothard, F. S. A. by Mrs. Charles Stothard. London. 
 18*23, p. 331. 
 
Ixalpl) jSrtnll, (Carl of Wtstmotlanb, ant) Ijto ®LUbfS. 
 
 Ralph Nevill was born in 1365, and was the son of the warlike John Lord Nevill, 
 of that “ noble, ancient, and spreading family,” as it is termed by Dugdale, who derived 
 their descent from Gilbert de Nevill, a Norman who came into England with W illiam 
 the Conqueror. Isabella de Nevill, the descendant of Gilbert in the fourth degree, 
 carried his estate in marriage to Robert Fitz-Maldred, Lord of Ruby, in the county of 
 Durham. Their son Geoffrey, in consideration of his mother’s great inheritance, 
 assumed the surname of Nevill, and became the founder of the branch of Nevill of 
 Raby, afterwards Earls of Westmorland. Ralph Nevill, the subject of the effigy, was 
 the son and heir of John Lord Nevill, by his wife Maud, daughter of Lord Percy. John 
 de Neville married a second wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Lord Latimer, of Danby, by 
 whom he had John, afterwards Lord Latimer, who dying without issue the lands of 
 Latimer devolved to Ralph Nevill. 
 
 In 1397 Ralph de Nevill was created by King Richard the Second Earl of West¬ 
 morland. On the landing of Henry Duke of Lancaster and Earl of Derby, afterwards 
 Henry the Fourth, at Ravenspur, the Earl of Westmorland joined him, with other 
 noblemen, and on the deposition of Richard the Second, and Henry’s elevation to the 
 throne, the latter gave him the honour of Richmond for his life, and constituted him Earl 
 Marshal of England. In virtue of this office, he claimed to hear the Lancaster sword 
 (with which the King had been girt as Duke of Lancaster on his entering the district of 
 Holdcrness) on the King’s left side at his coronation. The service was counterclaimed 
 by the Earl of Northumberland, in right of the Isle of Man, but it was adjudged to the 
 Earl of Westmorland. 
 
 On the rebellion of the Pcrcys, which was suppressed by the victory of Shrewsbury 
 field, he marched with Sir Robert Waterton against the great power with which the Earl 
 of Northumberland was advancing to aid his son, Henry Hotspur. He kept Northum¬ 
 berland in check, who retired to his castle at Warkworth, where he soon learned the 
 signal defeat which his party had encountered, that 
 
 -" Rebellion had bad luck. 
 
 And that young Harry Percy's spur was cold." 
 
 On the insurrection which followed the same year, headed by the venerable Scroop 
 Archbishop of York, and Thomas Mowbray, in company with prince John of 
 Lancaster, the King’s third son, he made head against the rebels, and coming up with 
 them in Gualtree forest, had recourse to a stratagem for their ruin, in which he appears 
 to have sacrificed military honour to state policy. 
 
lie entered into a conference with the Archbishop and Northumberland, and gave them 
 to understand, that, if they dismissed their warlike and treasonable array, the grievances 
 ot which they complained should be redressed. In consequence of this understanding 
 the rebel army dispersed, 
 
 “ Like youthful steers unyok'd they take their courses. 
 
 East, west, north, south ; or like a school broke up, 
 
 Each hurries towards his home and sporting place." 
 
 Westmorland then arrested the Archbishop, Mowbray, and their associates for treason ; 
 they were taken to Pontefract, where the King was, and soon after suffered execution. 
 The historical passages to which we have alluded have been dramatized by Shakspearc 
 with a close adherence to the Chronicles, and with a spirit which has embodied the 
 mental character and motives of the principal actors. Among them the Earl of West¬ 
 morland is, of course, very conspicuous. 
 
 He accompanied Henry the Fifth into France, and was present at the battle of 
 Agincourt. 
 
 The Earl of Westmorland lived until the reign of Henry the Sixth, and was buried at 
 Staindrop, where he had founded and amply endowed a collegiate church. In the 
 chancel of this edifice was erected an altar-tomb, bearing his effigy and those of his two 
 wives, but which has since been removed, with reckless ignorance and barbarous feeling, 
 to an obscure corner in the south-west quarter. His first wife, whose figure reposes on 
 the left hand of that of the Earl himself, was Margaret, eldest daughter of Hugh Earl of 
 Stafford, by Philippa, daughter of Thomas Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. Joan de 
 Beaufort, his second wife, was the only daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, 
 by his concubine Catherine Swinford, whom he afterwards espoused. Joan was the 
 widow of Robert Ferrers. She died A. D. 1340, and, although she is commemorated 
 by an effigy at Staindrop (the monument most probably being prepared during the life¬ 
 time of herself and her husband), she was buried in Lincoln cathedral, near her mother, 
 under an altar-tomb, with the following epitaph : 
 
 Filia Lancastri® Ducis, inclita sponsa Johanna 
 Westnierland primi subjacet hie comitis, 
 
 Desine, scriba, suas virtutes promere, nulla 
 Vox valeat merits vix reboare sua. 
 
 Stirpe, decore, fide, fama, spe, prece, prole, 
 
 Actubus et vita polluit ymmo sua. 
 
 Nalio tota dolel pro morte, Deus tulit ipsani 
 In Bricii festo C. quater M. quater X. 
 
 The issue of this Earl was very numerous. By his wives he had two-and-twenty 
 children, nine by his first wife, and thirteen by his second. 
 
 His children by Margaret were John, who died during his father's life time, but whose 
 son Ralph became Earl of Westmorland ; Ralph married Mary, a daughter of Sir Robert 
 Ferrers, of Ousley in Warwickshire ; Maud, wife of Peter Lord Mauley ; Alice, whose 
 first husband was Sir Thomas Grey, her second Sir Gilbert Lancaster; Philippa, married 
 to Thomas Lord Dacrcs, from whom came the Dacres of the North and South ; Mar- 
 
garet to Lord Scroop of Bolton ; Ann, to Sir Gilbert de Umfraville, of Lincolnshire; 
 Margery, Abbess of Barking ; Elizabeth, a nun of St. Clare, at the Minories, London. 
 
 By Joan de Beaufort lie had Richard Nevill, Earl of Salisbury, father of Richard 
 Earl of Warwick and Salisbury, the King-maker; William Lord Fauconberg, created 
 Earl of Kent by Edward IV.; George Lord Latimer; Edward Lord Abergavenny; 
 Robert Bishop of Durham; Cuthbert and Henry Nevill, died young; Thomas Nevill, 
 married the daughter and heir of Seymour; Catherine, wife of John Lord Mowbray, 
 second Duke of Norfolk, and afterwards of Sir John Widvile, son of Earl Rivers; 
 Eleanor, married first to Richard Lord Spencer, next Henry Percy, Earl of Northumber¬ 
 land ; Ann, to Humphrey Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, then to Sir Walter Blouut, 
 Lord Mountjoy; Jane took the veil; Cicely was wife of Richard Plantagenet, Duke of 
 York, the father of King Edwaid the Fourth. 
 
 The monument of the Earl of Westmorland and his wives is entirely of alabaster. 
 The sides of the altar-tomb are richly adorned with architectural decorations, corbels, 
 pinnacles, and niches, surmounted by elegant little minarets with pointed roofs. At the 
 feet of each of the figures are two chantry priests, with open missals, celebrating divine 
 offices; these are in a sadly mutilated state, the heads being broken off. Sec Plate I. 
 AH the figures have the collar of SS. Under the Earl’s head is a helmet bearing the 
 crest of the family, a bull’s bead, and on his surcoat is a saltire ; Gules, a saltire Argent, 
 being their coat. Two dogs, wearing collars studded with bells, are at the feet ot the 
 Countesses; these animals, so frequently found with figures on tombs, especially those 
 representing females, are the appendages of high rank ; they were indeed the ladies’ pet 
 dogs. Thus Chaucer: 
 
 “ Of smale houndes hadde she, that she fedde 
 With rosted flesh and milk, and wastel brede ; 
 
 But sore wept she if one of hem were dead, 
 
 Or if men smote with a verde smert-" 
 
 Details. Plate II. Profile of the Earl. 1. Richly ornamented wreath on the basinet, with rim of the basinet, 
 
 the front of which is inscribed 1.1> 2. Jewelled gauntlet. It will be observed, that the nails of the fingers 
 
 are represented on those of the gauntlet. 3. Specimen of the mails of the camail. The mailing of the cantail 
 was left blank in Mr. Stoibard's original drawing, which has therefore been followed, but there is no doubt but 
 he intended it should be filled up. See Plate I. Plate III. Profile of Margaret the Countess. Details. 1. Rich 
 circlet and jewelled network confining the hair. 2. Band crossing the breast, and fastening the mantle to the 
 shoulders. 3. Coiffure of Countess Joan. *1. Band or frontlet on her forehead. 
 
CfftcjP tit WRingfieib Cfmvclj, Jtorfolft. 
 
 This effigy represents one of the Wingfields, Lords of Letheringham, in Suffolk, of whom 
 Wcever says, “ The town of Wingfield hath given name to a family in this tract that is 
 spread into a number of branches, and is besides for knighthood and ancient gentilitic 
 renowned, and thereof it was the principal seat.” He adds a mutilated inscription be¬ 
 longing to this tomb: 
 
 UJic jacet ©Dminu.d IBinofielb be 3CetbctinsIjain .... cujusi anime.* 
 
 Details. Plate I. Figure as originally painted, on the surcoat the arms of Wingfield, Azure, a fess Gules 
 cotised Argent and Azure, charged with three pair of wings Azure. 
 
 3foijn or Jlontacutr. 
 
 Sir John de Montacute, or Montagu, (Mons acutus and Mont aigu are synonymous 
 appellatives,) was the son of William first Earl of Salisbury, to which title his elder 
 brother William succeeded. He served in the wars in France under Edward the Third, 
 and was at the battle of Crecy in 1346. In 1372 he is mentioned as in the King’s fleet 
 at sea in the retinue of his brother the Earl of Salisbury. He was present in the expe¬ 
 dition into Scotland undertaken by Richard the Second, A. D. 1385. He was then a 
 Knight Banneret, and was retained to serve the King in person, attended by another 
 banneret, five knights, and their esquires, sixty men-at-arms, and sixty archers. As 
 Steward of the King’s Household, he was sent to conduct into England Ann of Bohemia, 
 with whom Richard the Second had contracted marriage. He married Margaret, daugh- 
 
 Fun, Monuments, edit. 1G31, p. 759. 
 
ter and inheretrix of Thomas (lc Monthermer, in whose right he held divers lordships 
 and manors, and was summoned to Parliament as a Baron of the Realm from the 31st 
 of Edward III. to the 13th Richard II. 1389, in which year he died. His will was dated 
 the 20th March, 1388, and directed that he should he buried in the cathedral church 
 of Salisbury, between two pillars, or, in case he should die in London, in the cathedral 
 church of St. Paul, where he was baptized. He ordered that a black woollen cloth 
 should he laid over his body, covering it and the hearse on which it rested, the ground 
 underneath to be spread with cloth of russet and white, of which every poor man attend¬ 
 ing his funeral should have enough to make himself a coat and a hood. That on the 
 day of his funeral the lights should consist of five tapers, each weighing twenty pounds, 
 four mortaries, each of ten pounds weight, and twenty-four torches, to be borne by as 
 many poor men in russet and white. That the emblazonments about his herse should 
 consist only of one banner of the arms of England, two of the arms of Montacute* and 
 two of Monthermer; by the last the five tapers were to be placed.f That there should 
 be a plain tomb made for him, with the image of a knight thereon, bearing the arms of 
 Montagu, or Montacute, and having a helmet under his head. He was interred in the 
 Lady Chapel of Salisbury Cathedral, and his tomb still remaining shows that the direc¬ 
 tions of his will were pretty closely followed. Under his head is his helmet, having a 
 grilfin for crest. His surcoat quarters, Argent, three lozenges in fess Gules, for Monta¬ 
 cute ; Or, an eagle displayed Yert, for Monthermer. 
 
 Details. Plate I. 1. Ornament on the girdle. 2. Figure as originally painted. Plate II. Profile. 1. Part 
 of the wing of the griffin, &c. 2. Luce of the camail, passing through loops on the basinet. 3. Gauntlet en¬ 
 larged. 4. Hilt and part of the scabbard of the sword, round which is twisted the belt. 
 
 * The shield of Montacute may to this day be observed on a buttress of one of the buildings in the Court 
 of Carisbrooke Castle, Isle of Wight. The gateway, and many other parts of that fortress, are evidently of the 
 time of Richard the Second, and William Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, in the 9th of that King's reign, had 
 a grant of the Isle of Wight, Carisbrook Castle, and the royalties on them dependent. 
 
 •)■ Of the disposition of these tapers and mortars, or mortuary lights, at funeral solemnities, an excellent 
 idea will be acquired from the print of the funeral of Abbot Islip, published by the Society of Antiquaries, 
 in their Vetusta Monumenta. 
 
—— 
 
Sms 'G'rnr ibbiiak, Died 1391. 
 
 !''rom his Monument ini the Abbey Church of Tewkesbury 
 
 J.dntrn nj Ihf ,trt tJirfeij ( 
 
i&ir (Sup 33rpan. 
 
 During the reigns of Edward III. and Richard II. no one appears to have been 
 more actively or variously engaged than Sir Guy Bryan. He first presents himself 
 to notice, 23rd Edward III. 1349, at the Battle of Calais, in which he bore the king's 
 standard, when for his gallant carriage with that trust he had granted him two 
 hundred marks per annum, for life, and, some time after, farther rewards. In 1354, 
 he was one of the Embassadors sent with Henry, duke of Lancaster, to Rome. The 
 year following in an expedition with the king against the French, he was made a 
 Banneret. In 1359 he was again active in the French wars, and, two years after, 
 revisited Rome on important business. In 1369 and 1370 he was Admiral of the 
 king’s fleet against France. Forty-fifth of Edward III. 1371, he was employed in 
 the Scotish wars, and about this time received, as a reward for his important services, 
 the Order of the Garter. 
 
In the 1st and 2nd years of the reign of Richard II. Sir Guy Bryan served both 
 by sea and land against France, and accompanied Edmund Mortimer, Earl of 
 March, in his expedition to Ireland. lie had summons to Parliament from 24th of 
 Edward III. till 13th of Richard II. and departed this life on Wednesday, next 
 after the feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, 14th Richard II. 1390. 
 
 Although this subject suffers considerably in its appearance, from the mutilations 
 it has undergone, yet, from the richness and peculiarities of the armour, it is a 
 valuable specimen. It is executed in stone, and has been painted, gilt, and silvered, 
 though there is but little of this now remaining. Sir Guy Bryan appears to have 
 been represented in the act of drawing his sword, an action not common on monu¬ 
 ments at so late a period: on his head is the basinet, the camail attached to it by a 
 red lace; the surcoat is charged with the arms of Bryan, or, three piles meeting in 
 base azure, the field is diapered with a white raised composition ; the piles are 
 painted with ultramarine, and have been beautifully diapered with white, the only 
 remains of which are to be traced under the right arm. The arms are covered by 
 the mail sleeves of the haubergeon, the lower part only from the elbow defended 
 with plate: on the upper, upon the mail, are singular appearances—a number of 
 iron pegs placed in regular order, enclosing a space, in form and extent the same on 
 both arms; for what purpose they were placed there, it is not easy to conjecture. 
 The sword and dagger are broken away, as are also the gauntlets. The mail 
 chausses covering the legs seldom appear after plate-armour had been so long intro¬ 
 duced, and they have here singular additions, being strengthened with narrow plates 
 above and below the genouillieres, each plate having, distributed equidistant along its 
 sides, six pegs of wood, the. purpose of these, or why they were of an extraneous 
 substance, is as unaccountable as what we find on the arms. The whole of the 
 armour, plate and mail, has been once covered with silver leaf. The mailles of the 
 camail, haubergeon, and chausses, are of different sizes, and formed with a white 
 impressed composition, as on the surcoat. The crest upon the helmet under 
 the head is too much mutilated to determine what it is, but most resembles a griffin’s 
 head. We should have expected a bugle-horn for the crest. Sir William Bryan, 
 son of Sir Guy, bearing this on his brass in Seale Church, Kent. The architectural 
 part of the monument is extremely light and elegant, and it has on that account 
 severely suffered; for many of the shafts, which supported this delicate fabric, are lost, 
 and a great number of those that remain are out of their perpendiculars in all 
 directions. As far as there were authorities remaining, a restoration has been made in 
 the etching, v\ liicli represents the monument nearly in its original state. The arms on 
 the base are Bryan in the centre, and Bryan impaling Montacute, on each side. The 
 wife of Sir Guy Bryan, being Elizabeth, daughter of William de Montacute, Earl of 
 Salisbury. 
 
 Details.—Plate 2. Fig. I, 2, 3, mailles of the camail, haubergeon, aud chausses, the 
 same size as the originals. 4. Raised diapering on the surcoat. 5. Part of the 
 girdle. 
 
§Hr Caltjclcy. 
 
 Sir Hugh Calveley, or Calverley, of Lea, in Cheshire, was a most eminent soldier in 
 the reign of Edward the Third, and his successor Richard the Second. In 1350 we 
 find him one of the combatants in the celebrated pitched trial of arms, or combdt-u- 
 Voutrance, fought between thirty men-at-arms on the English side, and thirty on that of 
 the Bretons, called, in allusion to the number of the champions on either party, the 
 Battle of Trente. Sir Richard Brembre commanded the English band, and Marshal 
 Bcaumanoir the French. Among the companions of the valiant Calveley (twenty of whom 
 were English, the rest foreigners) were. Sir Robert Knolles, also a most distinguished 
 knight, Croquart the Freebooter, the gigantic HulbittSe, and Thomelin de Billefort, so 
 called from his wielding an enormous weapon of the axe kind. Sir Richard Brembre was 
 slain fighting hand-in-hand with the famous Bertram du Guesclin ; Calveley, Knolles, and 
 Croquart, the poor remains of the English party, were taken prisoners to the Castle 
 of Jossclin.* 
 
 In 1364 Calveley was in the battle of Auray, in Britanny, fought on a plain between that 
 town and Vannes, which decided the adverse claims of John de Montfort and Charles de 
 Blois to the Duchy of Bretagne, by the defeat and death of the latter. John Lord Chandos, 
 who commanded the English force which supported the cause of De Montfort, assigned 
 to Calveley the command of the reserve. Calveley’s brave spirit had no relish for this 
 post, and he exclaimed, “For God’s sake, my Lord, give this charge to some other, for 
 I desire but to fight among the foremost!” Chandos, however, explained that the 
 success of the day depended on the reserve; and Calveley, by his firm deportment in 
 covering and rallying the troops, when pressed by their enemy, mainly contributed to 
 the victory. 
 
 When the Black Prince marched into Spain to support Pedro the Cruel against his 
 bastard brother, Henry of Transtamare, Sir Hugh Calveley was with his army. He 
 pushed forward in advance of the Prince’s force, and narrowly escaped being captured by 
 the enemy; for, having lodged for the night about a league from the English army, 
 his attendants at sunrise were bringing him his armour, when they were suddenly 
 
 * Mis. Charles Stothard (now Mrs. Bray), in her Tour through Normandy and Britanny, so replete with 
 illustrations of English History, as connected with our wars in France, describes the very spot on which this 
 battle occurred, a desert heath between Josselin and Ploermel, in sight of both towns. A broken cross still 
 marks the identical place, bearing the inscription, "A la memoire perpetuelle de la Bataille de Trente, que 
 Msr le Mareehal de Beaumanoir a gaignde dans ce lieu Tan 1350." See “Letters written during a Tour 
 through Normandy, Britanny, and other Parts of France, in ISIS, including local and historical Descriptions, 
 &c. with numerous Engravings after Drawings by Charles Stothard, F.S.A. Longman and Co. 1820. p.216. 
 
 75 
 
attacked by a great body of Spaniards under tlie Condc dc Sancelloni, the brother of 
 Henry. Calveley escaped with difficulty to the vanguard of the army, commanded by 
 the young Duke of Lancaster, John of Gaunt. This occurrence took place two days 
 before the celebrated battle, fought between Navarete and Najara, on the banks of the 
 Ebro, in which the Black Prince gained a complete victory.* 
 
 In 1377 we find Sir Hugh Captain of Calais, in which year the poet Chaucer and 
 others were sent into France to treat of peace, but were unsuccessful. Some English¬ 
 men, thinking there would be truce between the countries, ventured to pass the sea 
 between Calais and Dover, but were intercepted by the galleys of the French, and slain, 
 to the number of fifty, in sight of the garrison of Calais; at which deed Sir Hugh 
 Calveley was highly indignant, and took an early opportunity to requite it, for lie sallied 
 out from Calais, assaulted the town and harbour of Boulogne, burnt six and twenty 
 ships, besides smaller vessels, in the port, and great part of the lower town, and returned 
 laden with spoil to his fortress. 
 
 He recovered about the same time the Castle of St. Marc, of which the French had 
 got possession by the treachery of certain Picards belonging to the garrison. 
 
 In 1378 Pope Urban VI. proclaimed his crusade against Pope Clement VII. and his 
 adherents ; a dispute which sadly weakens the pretensions of the infallible successors 
 of St. Peter. “As men-at-arms,” says the honest Canon of Chimay, Froissart, “ cannot 
 live on pardons, and pay not much attention to them save at the point of death,” he 
 ordered a full tenth to be levied upon the goods of the church, for this military mode of 
 proving himself orthodox, and appointed Henry Spencer, Bishop of Norwich, com¬ 
 mander of the expedition. 
 
 Sir Hugh Calveley was one of those knights who entered into the pay of the church, 
 and whose opinion as a veteran warrior, was constantly consulted, although not properly 
 regarded, in the expedition. Against his advice the crusaders for Urban entered the 
 territory of the Earl of Flanders ; and, although at first they carried all before them, they 
 were ultimately obliged to retire with precipitation, the King of France taking part with 
 the Earl. 
 
 Froissart gives a lively description of this expedition, and of the part taken in it by 
 Sir Hugh Calveley. The historian brings before our view the banners, pennons, and 
 helmets of the hosts glittering in the sun; shows us Calveley on the retreat of the 
 English, leaning on the battlements of the town of Bergues, and calculating the enemies’ 
 force by the number of their men-at-arms. “ If they be but three thousand men-at-arms 
 they are ten thousand,” says Sir Hugh, alluding to the number of attendants on each 
 lance. lie found his estimate greatly exceeded when sixteen thousand lances appeared. 
 “ Let us mount our horses, and save ourselves,” then exclaimed the experienced soldier. 
 “ I know no longer the state of France ; I have never seen such numbers collected toge¬ 
 ther by three-fourths as I now see.” lie directed a silent and prudent retreat in the 
 direction of Bourbourg with the spoils they had gained. He halted in the plain to wait 
 
 * In the neighbourhood of Vittoria, the place where we have in our own days seen the Biitish arms again 
 victorious, under Wellington. 
 
for his rear and baggage. Unused to retreat before the foe, this gallant soldier was over¬ 
 whelmed with melancholy, and said to Sir Thomas Trivet and others who had come to 
 meet him, “ By my faith, gentlemen, we have this time made a most shameful expedi¬ 
 tion ; never was so pitiful or wretched a one made from England. You would have 
 your wills, and placed your confidence in this Bishop of Norwich, who wanted to fly 
 before he had wings—now see the honourable end you have brought it to. There is 
 Bourbourg; if you chose, retire thither; for my part I shall march to Gravclines and 
 Calais, because I find we are not of sufficient strength to cope with the King of France.” 
 
 Calveley returned to his garrison, the Bishop of Norwich and his adherents to Bour¬ 
 bourg ; which they shortly after surrendered by capitulation, being allowed to retire to 
 their own country, where they were received with disgrace.* Calveley alone escaped uu- 
 blamed by the general voice, as his experienced counsel had been disregarded. 
 
 In 1379 John de Montfort, Duke of Britanny, returned home under convoy of Sir Hugh 
 Calveley and Sir Thomas Percy. While landing at a small port not far from St. Malo’s, 
 the ships which carried the Duke’s household furniture and armour were assailed by the 
 enemy’s gallies. Sir Hugh Calveley obliged the master of the vessel in which he was, to 
 put back, much against his will; and the archers, under the direction of Sir Hugh, 
 hailed such a storm of arrows on the French that they were glad to retreat. 
 
 The above are some few passages of the military career of this renowned English 
 knight. Fie founded in 1386, the tenth year of the reign of Richard II. a college at 
 Rome, and at Bunbury in Cheshire. A story is extant, upon no certain foundation, that 
 he married a Queen of Arragon. He might indeed while in Spain with the Black 
 Prince have formed an alliance with some noble lady of the Spanish court. He reposes 
 in an altar-tomb in Bunbury church, Cheshire, which bears his effigy as represented, and 
 is surrounded by Gothic niches, intermixed with escutcheons. 
 
 Details. Plate I. The effigy as originally painted. On the surcoat—the coat of Calveley, Argent, a fess Gules, 
 between three calves Sable. Crest, a calfs head Sable. On the basinet is a rich circlet or wreath. The feet 
 rest on a golden lion. Plate II. Profile. 1. Portion of the wreath on the basinet enlarged ; also ornament of 
 the rim of the basinet, with lace of the camail. 2. Girdle, chain suspending the sword, scabbard of the sword. 
 3. Mails of the hauberk and camail. 4 . Part of thegreave, solerettc, spur, and ornamented strap. 
 
 a 33a0Qct anb 2.atj}> at atljcrington. 
 
 This ancient family, of which two branches were settled in the county of Devon, pos¬ 
 sessed the manor of Umberleigh, in the parish of Atherington, where they had a mansion 
 That renowned monarch of the Saxon dynasty, Athelstan, is said to have had a palace at 
 * Johnes's translation of Sir John Froissart's Chronicle, Svo. edit. vol.C. pp. 308—332. 
 
the same place, and to have endowed the churches of Atherington and Bickington, 
 adjoining parishes, with land and other privileges * 
 
 Polwhele says that these are the effigies of “ Sir Arthur Basset and Elinora his wife.” 
 It appears from Mr. Stothard’s journal of his journey into Devon, in May 1821, in 
 search of subjects for his work, that this was the last monument he ever drew, but four 
 days before the fatal accident, which terminated his mortal career. He speaks of the 
 effigy of a knight, in the style of that of William Longcspee, as being brought from the 
 mins of Umberleigh, in the neighbourhood, and placed in Atherington church. lie 
 continues: “ Besides this figure, there is a tomb on the north side of the church for a 
 Knight and Lady temp. Richard II. The arms on his surcoat, a saltire vaire. By a 
 repetition of the last in another part of the church, I could ascertain that the field was 
 Gules. Prince describes the coat of Basset as barrv wavy of six Or and Gules. Crest, an 
 unicorn’s head, on the neck two bars indented Gules. The figure of the knight presents 
 the novel appendage of a mantelet, or covering for the camail, adorned with a scallopped 
 border, similarly to the surcoat. On his basiuet is a jewelled circlet, or wreath, orna¬ 
 mented with roses. The coiffure of the female is a fret of the square form, the frontlet 
 of which bears a row of CD’s, probably as the iuitial letter of the blessed Virgin’s name. 
 Mr. Stothard’s original drawing has been very faithfully followed in the etching; but no 
 needle but his own could give an idea of its pure taste and elegant precision. 
 
 Details. Side view of part of the head, the fret and coif. 
 
 (Effigy in ®tUousIjhj) Cljurri). 
 
 This is supposed to be one of the Lords of Willoughby, in Nottinghamshire. Perhaps 
 Sir Richard tie V illoughby, who was Chief Justice of the King's Bench 11th Edward Ill.f 
 Chaucer says of his Serjeant-at-law, 
 
 and that he was 
 
 “Justice he was full oftin in Assise, 
 
 By patent, and by pleine connnissione 
 
 “ Girt with a eeint of silk with barris smale.” 
 
 The tunic of the figure is confined by a richly-embossed girdle. 
 Details. Ornament of the girdle. 
 
 * Risdon gives the laconic form of the grant, which should pill the scribes of modern instruments to the 
 blush , “ Ich, Athelstan, King Grome of this home, geve and graunt to the Preste of this Chirch, one yoke of 
 land freely to hold, wood in my holt house to build, bytt (i. c. biting) grass for all his beasts, fuel for his 
 hearth, pannage for his sow and pigs, world without end. Amen." 
 f MS. Note by Mr. C. Stothard. 
 
tljc dfourtf), anti Ijts Queen Joan of JlaOane. 
 
 These effigies arc both oil one altar-tomb in the cathedral at Canterbury. Henry the 
 Fourth, sumamed of Bolingbroke, from the castle in Lincolnshire where he was horn, 
 about the year 1366, was the son of John of Gaunt by his first wife, Blanche, daughter 
 of Henry Duke of Lancaster. Thus in blood he was truly royal; for Edward the Third 
 was his paternal grandfather, and he descended directly, by his mother’s side, from 
 Edmund Crouchback, first Earl of Lancaster, the second son of Henry the Third. His 
 first wife, and the mother of all his issue, was Mary, second daughter and coheiress cf 
 Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Essex, in whose right he was created Duke 
 of Hereford by King Richard the Second, and bore also, after his father’s death, the title 
 of Duke of Lancaster, and Earl of Derby. Having taken occasion one day, in conversa¬ 
 tion with Thomas Mowbray, first Duke of Norfolk, Earl Marshal of England, to ani. 
 inadvert somewhat freely on his cousin King Richard’s misgovernment, Norfolk 
 denounced him to the King as a traitor. Bolingbroke recriminated on him as a 
 malignant forger of seditious tales, and requested the King to allow him to clear him¬ 
 self by the trial of battle, « by the stroke of a spere and the dent of a sword.”* They 
 both in the royal presence interchangeably threw down their gages, and the King 
 appointed a day at Coventry for the adjustment of this quarrel by legal duel. In a work 
 of this character, it may be peculiarly allowable to follow the old chronicles in the 
 description of so chivalrous a ceremony. On the appointed day the Dukes came to 
 Coventry, accompanied by the noblemen and gentlemen of their lineage, who encouraged 
 them to the fight. The Duke of Albemarle, or Aumarle, and the Duke of Surrey,the one 
 High Constable and the other High Marshal of England for the day, entered the lists 
 with a numerous body of attendants, each of whom was attired in silke cendal, having 
 a “tipped staff in his hand to keep the field in order. About the hour of prime (six 
 o’clock in the forenoon) Bolingbroke came to the lists armed at all points, mounted on 
 a white courser, barded with blue and green velvet, embroidered sumptuously with swans 
 and antelopes of goldsmiths’ work. The Constable and Marshal demanded of him at 
 the barriers who he was ? " I am,” replied the noble appellant, “ Henry of Lancaster, 
 Duke of Hereford, who am come hither to do my devoir against Thomas Mowbray, 
 Duke of Norfolk, as a traitor untrue to God, the King, his Realm, and me ! ” Then he 
 was immediately sworn upon the Gospels that his quarrel was true and just, and there¬ 
 fore he desired to enter the lists. He then returned his sword to the scabbard, put back 
 his vizor, crossed his forehead, entered within the barriers, alighted from his horse, and 
 
 * Hall, reprint, p. 3. 
 
 t Edward Plantagcnet, son of Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, was created Duke of Albemarle, and 
 Thomas Holland, Earl of Kent, Duke of Surrey, by Richard the Second ; both were deprived of these dignities 
 by King Henry the Fourth. 
 
 79 
 
silt down in a chair of green velvet, which was placed under a canopy, also of velvet, at 
 one end of the lists. Soon after, King Richard entered the field, in great state, accom¬ 
 panied by the Peers of the Realm, and the Earl of St. Paul, who had journeyed post from 
 France expressly to see this challenge. The King had above ten thousand men in har¬ 
 ness with him as a guard. He ascended a stage, royally decorated, and seated himself. A 
 herald forbade, in the Constable’s and Marshal’s names, all persons, on pain of death, 
 from touching the lists, except the officers lor marshalling the field. Another herald 
 then proclaimed aloud these words: “Behold, Henry of Lancaster, Duke ol Hereford, 
 Appellant, is entered the Lists Royal to do his devoir against Thomas Mowbray, Duke 
 of Norfolk, Defendant, on pain of being proved false and recreant. During this time 
 the Duke of Norfolk, completely armed, was wheeling about before the entrance to the 
 lists on his destrier, barded with crimson velvet embroidered with silver lions (the bear¬ 
 ing of his house) intermixed with mulberry-trees. When he had taken the oath that 
 his quarrel was just and true, he rode within the barrier into the field, exclaiming aloud, 
 “ God defend the right! " and sat him down in a chatr of crimson velvet canopied with 
 white and red damask The Marshal then measured the spears, to see they were ot 
 equal length. He himself delivered one to the Appellant, and sent the other to the 
 Defendant by a knight. At the King's command, the seats of the champions were now 
 removed, they mounted their coursers, closed the beavers of their helms, threw their 
 lances into rest, the trumpets sounded, and the fiery steed ot Bolingbroke rushed 
 forward to the course. The Duke of Norfolk’s horse was not yet at his full pace, when 
 the King cast down his warder. The heralds called “ Ho! ho ! the signal for arresting 
 the combat. The King’s Secretary, Sir John Borcy, then read from a roll the decision 
 of the King and Council, publicly declaring that Henry of Lancaster, Duke of Hereford, 
 Appellant, and Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, Defendant, had entered the Royal 
 Lists to “darrain” battle like two valiant knights, but that, because the point in dispute 
 between them was great and weighty, and as Henry Duke of Hereford had displeased 
 the King, he was, within fifteen days, to depart the Realm, not to return for ten years, 
 on pain of death. That Thomas Mowbray, having sown sedition of which he could 
 make no proof, was also to avoid the Realm, never to approach it or its confines again, 
 on pain of death* A summary sentence, more intended to affect the revenues of these 
 noblemen than to answer the ends of justice, and of which Bolingbroke gave Richard in 
 a short time ample reason to repent. Bolingbroke retired to France; and Richard, on 
 the death of his father, John of Gaunt, seized his estates into his own hands. 
 
 In 1399 the banished Bolingbroke returned to his native shores, and landed at Ravens- 
 
 * Willi what a faithful adherence to Hall's Narrative, and with what spirit has Shakspeare dramatised this 
 scene ! Richard thus pronounces sentence on Norfolk in the play. 
 
 “ Norfolk, for thee remains a heavier doom, 
 
 Which I with some unwillingness pronounce. 
 
 The fly-slow hoursshall not determinate 
 The hateless limit of thy dear exile ; 
 
 The hopeless word of Never to return, 
 
 Breathe I against thee, upon pain of life!" 
 
 Richard II. net i. scene 3. 
 
 SO 
 
purg on the const of Yorkshire. Richard was deposed, and he was elevated to the 
 throne m h,s place, notwithstanding the superior claim, of Edmund Mortimer, Earl of 
 Marche. Henry by no means, however, succeeded to an undisturbed sway. While Richard 
 was yet alive and in confinement at Pontefract Castle, a mock Richard was found to 
 personate him by the Earls of Huntingdon, Kent, Salisbury, and Gloucester. This con¬ 
 spiracy defeated, the unfortunate royal captive was privately put to death as a matter of 
 state policy. The rebellion of the Percy, which followed in 1403 was put an end to by 
 the victory of Shrewsbury, in which fell the gallant Henry Percy, «the Hotspur of the 
 
 orth. His father, the Earl of Northumberland, in 1408, made a second attempt 
 at revolt, which cost him his life. 
 
 Henry enjoyed the crown, that 
 
 “ polished perturbation ! golden care !" 
 
 the object of his chief ambition, but fourteen years. While the more tranquil state of 
 his afiairs was giving him leisure to prepare for an expedition to the Holy Land, to reco¬ 
 ver, like the old Crusaders, the place of Christ's passion from the infidels, he was struck 
 with an apoplexy, under which lie sunk on the 23d March 1413, in the 46th year of 
 his age. 
 
 A marked characteristic of his ruling passion appeared in his desiring the crown so 
 indirectly obtained, to be placed on a pillow at his bed's head during his last illness. He 
 clung to the splendid bauble with the fondness of a child for a favourite toy. The motto 
 of his device, “ Soverayne, seems to have been imagined under the same influence of 
 mind. His body was conveyed to Peversham by water, and thence by hind to the cathe¬ 
 dral of Canterbury, where it was interred on the Trinity Sunday following his death, 
 with much state, his son Henry the Fifth and many nobles attending. There is an 
 improbable talc on record that they followed but an empty coffin, which the opening of 
 the tomb could only entirely refute.* 
 
 Henry the Fourth was twice married, first to Mary de Boliun, younger daughter 
 and coheiress of Humphrey Earl of Hereford, Essex, and Northampton, High Con¬ 
 stable of England, by whom he had issue Henry Prince of Wales, Thomas Duke of Cla¬ 
 rence, John Duke of Bedford (Regent of France temp. Henry VI.), Humphrey Duke of 
 
 * Testimony of Clement Maydestone, that the body of Henry IV. was thrown into the Thames, and not 
 buried at Canterbury. From a Roll in the Library of Corpus Christi College, M. XIV. 98. 
 
 “ About thirty days after the death of Henry IV. there came a certain man of his household to the House of 
 the Holy Trinity at Hounslow for refreshment. And while they were conversing at dinner about the righteous¬ 
 ness of that King's manners, the said man answered to a certain squire Thomas Maydstone, sitting at the same 
 table, that God knew if he were a good man. But this most truly (said he) I do know, that when his body 
 was conveyed from Westminster towards Canterbury in a small boat to be buried, 1 was one of those three per¬ 
 sons who threw it into the sea between Berkingham and Gravesend. And, he added with an oath, that so 
 great a tempest and sea burst upon us, that many noblemen following us in eight vessels, were so scattered 
 that they hardly escaped with life. But we who were with the body, driven to despair of our lives, with common 
 consent, threw it into the sea, and kept the matter very silent. But the chest, in which he lay, covered with a 
 golden pall, we carried with much ceremony to Canterbury and buried it. Therefore the monks of Canterbury 
 
 say, that the sepulchre (not the body) of Henry IV. is with us.Almighty God is witness and 
 
 judge, that I saw that man, and that I heard his asseveration to my father Thomas Maydestone, that all the 
 aforesaid things were true.— Clement Maydeston." From the Latin in Peck's Desiderata Curiosa, vol. I. 
 
 81 
 
Gloucester, Blanche Duchess of Bavaria, and Philippa Queen of Denmark. Mary de Bohun 
 died in 1394, and was buried in Canterbury Cathedral. Nine years after he espoused Joan, 
 daughter of Charles the first King of Navarre, and widow of John de Montfort, Duke of 
 Bretagne. She died without children, at that ancient seat of the English Kings from 
 the Saxon times, Havering-at-the-Bower, in Essex, the 10th of July, 1397, and was 
 buried at Canterbury Cathedral, where a sumptuous tomb, with the effigies delineated in 
 this work, commemorates herself and her husband. The tomb is on the north side of 
 the Trinity chapel, in which stood the shrine of Thomas a Beckct, and opposite to the 
 monument of Edward the Black Prince. It is of alabaster, painted and parcel gilt, of 
 the richest workmanship, but has suffered much from barbarous mutilation. The figures 
 are crowned, robed, and bore in their hands, no doubt, the other ensigns of royalty, 
 which are now broken away. The Queen has round her neck a collar of SS; an orna¬ 
 ment which is often repeated on other parts of the tomb, as is the King’s motto “ Sove- 
 raynewc may therefore strongly infer that the letters SS. are used as the initials of 
 that favourite “ impress.” The earliest instance of the collar of SS. is that, we believe, 
 now before us. The King’s word “Soverayne,” with an eagle surmounted by a crown, 
 and the Queen’s “a temperance,” with a small animal, said to be an ermine or a gennet, 
 similarly surmounted, adorn the cornice round the canopy of the tomb* which is 
 further decorated with several armorial coats of contemporary nobles. 
 
 Details. Plate I. 1. Band, &c. attaching the mantle of the King to the shoulders. 2. Band, border, cordon, 
 &c. of the Queen's mantle. 3. Her collar of SS. 4. Jewelled studs in the front of her cote hardie. 
 
 Plate 2. Profile of the King. 1. The Crown of State enlarged. 2. Jewelled border of the cuff. 3. Ditto of 
 the mantle. 4. Ditto of the side apertures of the dalmatic. 5. One of the two clasps closing the above aperture. 
 
 Plate 3. Profile of the Queen. 1. Portion of the Crown enlarged, with fret for confining the hair. 2. Bor¬ 
 der of the mantle. 
 
 * The ceiling of the canopy of the tomb is said to have undergone two paintings. The first painting con¬ 
 sisted of eagles and greyhounds, surrounded by the garter, having the words, “ Soverayne, " A lemperance, 
 between in diagonal stripes; the last, of the eagles and gennets placed as stops between the above inscriptions. 
 
Cijomas Carl of SfrunUtl anti Ijtss Countess Beatrice. 
 
 T homas Earl of Arundel was the son and heir of Richard Earl of Arundel, who suffered 
 death as a traitor by the severity of Richard the Second, in the 20th year of the reign of 
 that monarch. In the 1st of Henry IV. he was restored in blood, the attainder against 
 his father being reversed by the Parliament. He was made a Knight of the Bath at the 
 coronation of King Henry the Fourth. 
 
 In 1404, he espoused Beatrice, an illegitimate daughter of the King of Portugal. 
 The King and Queen were present at the wedding feast, which was kept at London. 
 In 1411 he was sent into France, accompanied by certain nobles, knights, and men-at- 
 arms, to aid the Duke of Burgundy against the Duke of Orleans, and performed good 
 service in the cause of the former.* He died on the 13th October, 1416, having directed 
 by his last will that his body should be buried in the choir of the collegiate church of 
 the Holy Trinity at Arundel, under a tomb to be there erected to his memory. On his 
 monument are the effigies delineated in the Plates. He directed 130/. to be expended 
 on his funeral, and in celebrating masses for the good of his soul. He gave other sums 
 to religious and pious uses, between which terms a distinction in the days of superstition 
 is obviously to be drawn. 
 
 Beatrice his wife survived, and in 1432 license was granted for her marriage with 
 John Holland, Earl of Huntingdon, afterwards Duke of Exeter; but this alliance does 
 not appear to have taken place. She died at Bourdeaux in 1439. 
 
 The Earl wears the collar of SS. a decoration introduced by his sovereign Henry the 
 Fourth.-}' 
 
 Details. Plate I. Exhibits a splendid example of t he state costume of the Earl and his Countess, both 
 wearing coronets. The lady has a huge horned coiffure, twenty-two inches in width ; under this draped ap¬ 
 pendage her hair is conlined by a rich jewelled fret. Plate II. The Earl's coronet enlarged. 
 
 * See Stows Annals, 4to. edit. p. 541. 
 
 t See our observations on the collar of SS. in the account of the efligy of Henry the Fourth, who seems to 
 have made this emblem of his sovereignty an honorary mark of distinction ; we find it employed as such by his 
 son Henry the Fifth at the battle of Agincourt. “ He exhorted such of his train as were not noble to demean 
 themselves well in the fight, he promised them letters of nobility, and to distinguish them he gave them leave 
 to wear his collar of SS." “ 11 leur donnacongd de porter un Collier semd de lettres S deson ordre.” Chronique 
 des Ursins, as quoted by Favines in his “ Theater of Honour and Knighthood." Translation, edit. 1623, Book 
 5, p. 67. 
 
 83 
 
iHtrljncl 6c la pole, Carl of Suffolk, an6 Ijts 
 Countess Catljmtu. 
 
 Michael de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, was the grandson of that eminent merchant of 
 Hull, Sir William de la Pole, who was advanced to a Knight's and Banneret’s degree for 
 his services * to Edward the Third in the way of financial supplies. Michael de la 
 Pole, his father, died at Paris in 1388, a fugitive from his country, having forfeited, hy 
 a decree of Parliament, his lands. About 131) 1 he married Catherine, daughter of Hugh 
 Earl of Stafford, obtained a small pension from the Crown to aid his impoverished con¬ 
 dition, the consequence of his father’s impeachment, and had licence to travel abroad, 
 where he probably watched the political changes for an opportunity to return ; for in 
 the first year of Henry the Fourth we find him petitioning for restoration of the lord- 
 ships granted to his father as Earl of Suffolk. This petition, in consideration of the 
 good services rendered to Henry of Bolingbroke on his landing in Yorkshire, was 
 favourably received, and the demesne lands of his family, with the title of Earl of 
 Suffolk, restored to him and his heirs. 
 
 In 1415 he was engaged to serve Henry the Fifth in his expedition into France. He 
 was entrusted with the command of the rear-guard-}- of the English army, and was at 
 the siege of Harfleur, with which operation the King opened the campaign. The Earl 
 of Suffolk fell a victim at that place to the dysentery, which infected the English army. 
 Ilis son Michael, who was with him, succeeded to his honours, and within a month 
 after the death of his father was slain on the glorious field of Azincourt. The Earl of 
 Suffolk by his last Mill directed that his body should be buried near his father and 
 mother, at the church of the Carthusians in Hull, if he should die in the north of 
 England; if elsewhere, at Wingfield in the county of Suffolk, in the collegiate church of 
 that place,;}: on the north side of the altar of the blessed Virgin. To Catherine his wife 
 he gave a little book, with tablets of silver gilt, and the coronet which was the Earl of 
 Stafford her father’s. To his son a little primer, which belonged to John de la Pole, his 
 brother. 
 
 * This appears to be an exception to the custom of conferring the degree of Banneret only on the field of 
 battle, and for military services. See Dligdale's Baronage, vol. I. p. 181. 
 
 1 The patronage of the Chantry at Wingfield came to his father, the first Earl of Suffolk, by marriage with 
 Catherine, daughter of Sir John de Wingfield, who was his mother. 
 
 | Stow, 4to. edit, black letter, p. 556. 
 
 8-1 
 
Hc bnrW * Wingfield, and the Countess his wife, who was one of his executors, 
 erected, m all probability, the monument there which commemorates him and herself. 
 The effigies of de la Pole and his Countess are eminently beautiful specimens of female 
 and military costume in the time of Henry the Fifth. The grand simplicity of the very 
 plain suit of plate-armour which he wears, personifies the idea which we entertain of the 
 appearance of the martial spectre so boldly imagined by Shakspeare for one of his finest 
 dramas. 
 
 Details. Plate I. Ornamented fret of the Duchess's coiffure. 
 
 gar Robert ©rtialjill anti Itatiy. 
 
 There is a monument in Hoveringham Church, Nottinghamshire, to Sir Robert 
 Goushill, or Grushill, and his Lady, Elizabeth, widow of Thomas Mowbray (that. Duke 
 of Norfolk who was banished by Richard the Second), daughter and heiress of Richard 
 Earl of Arundel.* We do not, however, think, in this single instance, that the drawing 
 lias been rightly appropriated on the face of the plate. The male figure evidently repre¬ 
 sents a Knight of the Garter, and it does not appear that Sir Robert Grushill was of 
 that noble order. Unfortunately, Mr. Stotliard omitted to write at the back of his draw¬ 
 ing the name of the monument from which it was taken. After his death, one of his 
 antiquarian friends informed his widow that it represented Sir Robert Grushill. The 
 erroneous information was adopted for lettering the etching; and in supplying the 
 notices for the different Effigies we have in vain endeavoured to rectify the mistake. 
 We would not, however, by omitting the subject, deprive the collection laid before the 
 public, of so elegant a specimen of costume, recorded by Mr. C. Stotliard’s pencil, and 
 faithfully etched by Mr. C. J. Smith. The Lady wears a crescent-horned head-dress, 
 rich fret, and a coronet; the Knight, a costly wreath, in front of which is a spread- 
 eagle, and his feet seem to rest on a bird of the same kind. In front of the basinet are 
 the letters IHS. His head rests on his helmet, furnished with a mantelet and 
 panache. He has the collar of SS. round his neck. The gussets and brassarts of his 
 armour are elegantly fluted. Below the cuirass, or plastron, is a clearly defined example 
 of the piece of armour to which Mr. Stothard has alluded in one of his letters, under 
 the name of “pance,” “bark” or “ barde preu.” The tassets are, as usual, appended by 
 straps; by which contrivance the free motion of the thigh was allowed. On the left 
 knee is the garter; and over the greaves, below the knee, we think are indented lam¬ 
 brequins of leather or cloth. 
 
 * See Thoroton's Nottinghamshire, by Throsby, vol. III. p. G2, where it is stated that, under Sir Robert 
 Grushill's head is a Moor's head crowned, which disagrees with the figure before us. 
 
 85 
 
ifetr CtmnutTi hr Cljorpc ant> SLatip. 
 
 These effigies are in Ashwell Thorp church, Norfolk. We have in the ancestry of Sir 
 Edmund de Thorpe a striking instance of the mutability of surnames in some families 
 until the thirteenth century. William de Norwich lived about the time of the Con¬ 
 quest, and possessed the manor of Thorpe. From him came Roger, whose son Robert 
 was distinguished by the surname of Fitz-Roger; Fitz-Roger’s child Hugh, from some 
 local circumstance, took the surname of de Messingham ; and his child John assumed 
 the cognomen of Fitz-Robcrt, in allusion to his grandfather. In the time of Henry the 
 Third, we find the heir of John entitled Robert Fitz-John de Thorpe; and in Edmund, 
 his heir, the surname became fixed and inheritable. Sir Edmund, his son by his wife 
 Joan, daughter of Robert Baynard, is represented by the male effigy. Joan, widow of 
 Lord Scales, his second wife, is the subject of the female figure. In 1417 Sir Edmund 
 de Thorpe was associated with John Ncvill and John Kempe, LL.D. (afterwards the 
 Cardinal Archbishop, son of Sir Thomas Kempe, of Wye,) to compose all differences 
 between Henry the Fifth and the Duke of Burgundy. He is considered to be the per¬ 
 son designated by the Chronicles as Lord Thorpe, who in 1418 was killed at the siege 
 of the Castle of Louviers, in Normandy. He was buried in the church of Ashwell 
 Thorp, in the new aile erected at his expense. The figures of Sir Edmund de Thorpe 
 and his Lady are of alabaster, and are described by Bloomfield in his time as lying under 
 a canopy of wood. The costume of the figures is elegantly and elaborately detailed. 
 The lady lies at the right side of her lord ; her hair is confined by a rich fret; the cordon 
 of her mantle is attached by two clasps, apparently formed as eagles with expanded wings. 
 The same ornament appears near the gusset of the armour on the knight’s left shoulder. 
 The front of his basinet is engraved with elegant tracery of foliage; and lie wears a 
 splendid wreath, studded, we may suppose, with pearls, and enamelled with leaves of 
 laurel. The. surcoat bears, quarterly, the arms of Thorpe and Baynard; the three 
 crescents Argent in the Azure field, in the dexter quarter, being for Thorpe. At the 
 lady’s feet are two little dogs with collars and bells ; at the knight’s a greyhound. The 
 joints of the brassarts, cuisses, genouillieres, and greaves of his armour, are ornamentally 
 engraven. Under his head is a beautiful specimen of the helmet of his time: it is 
 covered with a scallopped mantelet, or lambrequin, surmounted by a rich coronet, and 
 has a panache of peacock’s feathers. 
 
 Details. Plate II. Upper part of the lady's coiffure. Profile of her head. Portion of the fret. Profile of 
 the knight’s head and shoulders. The figure as originally painted and gilt. The helmet. Portion of the 
 basinet and wreath. Portion of the mailles enlarged. The collar of SS. enlarged. 
 
 8(i 
 

MJtlltant of Colcfjcfltcr 
 
 Became a monk of Westminster in 1360. He was much engaged in the affairs of his 
 convent, and was employed from 1377 to 1379 in managing a law-suit instituted in the 
 Papal Court by the Abbey of Westminster, against the Dean and Canons of St. Stephen’s. 
 For his good sendee in this matter, he was allowed a chamber and garden to himself, a 
 yearly salary of six marks, a corrody, or monk’s allowance, over and above this provision ; 
 and he was to be treated in all respects as one of the senior monks. He was at Rome 
 again, on the same or some other business for his convent, in 1384. In 1391 he was 
 sent abroad on a mission for King Richard the Second, but on what occasion is not 
 known. In 1399 he was one of the Commissioners appointed to receive the resignation 
 of the Crown from King Richard the Second. Widmore, the historian of Westminster 
 Abbey,* discredits the statement that he was concerned in 1400 in a plot against the 
 life of King Henry the Fourth, as a forgery of a later day. 
 
 In 1408 he was at Pisa, in Italy, owing, it is supposed, to a schism then occurring in 
 the Papacy. On the 20th March, 1423, Henry the Fourth being taken ill while at his 
 devotions in the Abbey, was carried to a large apartment belonging to the Abbot’s 
 house, (then inhabited by William of Colchester,) the celebrated Jerusalem Chamber, 
 probably so called from some painting, which, according to the fashion of the time* 
 decorated its lamhruscated or wainscotted walls. The story related by the continuator 
 of the History of Croyland, that the King believed this circumstance to be an accom¬ 
 plishment of a prophecy that he should die at Jerusalem, is become trite by the lines of 
 Shakspearc — 
 
 -“ Bear me to that chamber ; there I 'll lie ; 
 
 In that Jerusalem shall Harry die." 
 
 And there he actually breathed his last. 
 
 In 1414 Abbot Colchester was one of the King’s ambassadors to the Council of Con¬ 
 stance. Towards the latter period of his life we may suppose him to be much engaged 
 in rebuilding the west part of the Abbey, towards which undertaking Henry the Fifth 
 gave yearly 1,000 marks. He died in October 1420, having held the office of Abbot 
 thirty-four years: a longer period than any of his predecessors. He was buried in the 
 chapel of St. John the Baptist, in his church; in the tomb on which his effigies are 
 sculptured, without other inscription than the letters W. C. on the pillow under his 
 head. 
 
 Details. Plate I. 1. Front of the Abbot’s mitre. (The Abbey of Westminster was privileged with the pon¬ 
 tifical ornaments; in other words, a mitred abbey.) 2. Jewelled border of the cape of the chasuble. 
 
 Plate II. Profile. Border of the chasuble. 
 
 * Inquiry into the first Foundation of Westminster Abbey. London, 1743, p. 110. 
 
 87 
 
folm Wantlrp. 
 
 Aj.i. that we can find relative to the person represented by this sepulchral brass, is little 
 more than may be learned from its inscription. He was of an ancient family, settled at 
 Amberley, in Sussex, died in 1424, and was buried in the village church. Two farms in 
 the parish of Amberley arc called Wantlcy’s at this day. In his dress we have an 
 example of the surcoat, assuming the form of the habiliment commonly known as a 
 tabard: the surcoat and tabard are, however, synonymous terms. Wantley’s tabard 
 bears. Vert, three lions’ heads langued Argent, represented in enamel on the brass. 
 The upper part of a shirt of mail appears about the neck, where uncovered by the tabard. 
 Under his feet, in the black letter, is this inscription : 
 
 £?ic jarct Oiol/csi ©antclc, qui abut jrjrij: 0 Die ^lanuar’, anno ©’nt milfo £££CJ£'3133i3! 0 > cu ' 9 
 aiel p’picietur oeust. 
 
 DfjtUppa Diirljcss of J)orft 
 
 Was the daughter of John Lord Mohun, of Dunster, in the county of Somerset, who 
 died towards the latter end of the fourteenth century, leaving as his heirs three daugh¬ 
 ters, Philippa, Elizabeth, the wife of William de Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, (of whom 
 we have already treated,) and Maud, wife of John Lord Strange, of Knockyn, in the 
 county of Salop. Philippa, represented by this elhgy, married Edward Plantagenet, son 
 and heir of Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, fifth son of Edward the Third, who 
 succeeded to his father’s honours, and was by Richard the Second created Earl of Rut¬ 
 land, of Cork, Duke of Albemarle, or Aumarle, and Constable of England. By this 
 marriage there was no issue, and Edmund Duke of York was slain in the memorable 
 battle of Azincourt, A. D. 1415. Philippa was afterwards espoused to Sir Walter Fitz- 
 walter, Knight, whose arms are impaled with hers in the chapel of St. Nicholas, in the 
 Abbey Church of Westminster,* where she was buried, with this inscription on her 
 tomb.'}' 
 
 Philippa, filia ct cohasres Johannis D’ni Mohun de Dunster, uxor Edwardi Dueis Eboracensis, moritur anno 
 D'ni M.CCCC.XXXIII. 
 
 * Camden gives her another husband, Sir John Golofre, making him the second, and Edward Plantagenet 
 the last. Among the escutcheons on her tomb is certainiy the coat attributed to Golofre, impaling Mohun. 
 
 t Her last will was dated in the Isle of Wight, in the ad of Henry V. She had a grant of the Lordship of 
 Wight, which had been before granted to her husband the Duke of York. 
 
f olm jTtt?=aian, ICovti JWaltxa'urrB anti Carl of arunM. 
 
 John Fitz-Alan was descended directly, in the third degree, from John the second 
 son of Richard Earl of Arundel, noticed at p. 83, who married Eleanor daughter of Lord 
 Maltravers, he was the eldest son of John Fitz-Alan, Lord Maltravers, by his wife Eleanor, 
 daughter of Sir John Berkeley, and was born in 1407. His father had previously suc¬ 
 ceeded to the estates of his kinsman, Thomas Earl of Arundel, grandson of Richard 
 before mentioned, by the elder branch; but it does not appear that he ever bore the 
 title of Earl of Arundel. In 1432 John Fitz-Alan preferred a petition to the Parlia¬ 
 ment that he might be admitted to his due place in all public councils, inasmuch as he 
 was seised of the Castle and Honour of Arundel, to which the title of Earl had, by 
 peculiar custom, time out of mind, been annexed. 
 
 The right to the Honour of Arundel was counterclaimed by John Duke of Norfolk, 
 but it was adjudged to Fitz-Alan; it appearing that Richard Earl of Arundel had by 
 legal process in the reign of Edward the Third entailed it on his male issue. 
 
 In 1434 he accompanied the expedition of the celebrated John Talbot, afterwards 
 Earl of Shrewsbury, into Normandy, where he distinguished himself by the capture of 
 many towns and fortresses. Charles, the French King, had caused the ancient moulder¬ 
 ing castle of Gerbroi to be repaired and fortified, as it commanded the entrance from 
 Normandy into the territory of Beauvais. In the castle was placed a garrison of three 
 thousand men, under the command of the Chevalier Etienne dc Vignolles. The Earl of 
 Arundel, ignorant of the formidable state of defence in which the post was thus placed, 
 thought to carry it by a coup-de-main, and advanced with five hundred horse to the 
 neighbourhood of Gerbroi, encamping in a little meadow before the castle. His archers 
 on foot were yet some distance in the rear. The wily enemy were aware of this circum¬ 
 stance, and made a sally, at first with fifty horsemen only, in order to induce the Earl to 
 believe their numbers were insignificant. To them the Earl opposed one hundred of 
 his cavalry, under Sir Ralph Standish, when suddenly the whole remaining force of the 
 enemy poured out from under cover of the fortifications to sustain their companions. 
 The English, true to their intrepid nature, nobly bore up against such overwhelming 
 odds. Standish was slain. Fitz-Alan hastened to the scene of action. Vignolles per¬ 
 ceiving, from the valour of the little band of English, that the fight was still doubtful, 
 opened a fire on them from three culverins. These “ mortal engines,” which, as the 
 hero of Cervantes remarks, render the skill of personal arms of little avail, decided the 
 contest; such devilish instruments, he says, “put it in the power of a cowardly and 
 
 89 
 
jl 
 
 base hand to take away the life of the bravest cavalier; to which it is owing that, not 
 knowing how or from whence, in the midst of that resolution and bravery which ani¬ 
 mates gallant spirits, comes a chance ball, shot off, perhaps, by one who fled and was 
 frightened at the very flash of the powder, and in an instant cuts short and puts an end 
 to the thoughts and life of him who deserved to have lived for many ages.”* Fitz- 
 Alan’s leg was broken by a shot, which struck him off his horse. He lay helpless on 
 the ground, an easy capture for the enemy. Two hundred of his men were killed; 
 sixty were made prisoners with himself. lie was carried to Beauvais, where he died of 
 his wound, on the 12th May, 1434, and was buried in the monastery of the Grey Friars 
 at that place. By his last will, made some time previous to his death, he had directed 
 that he should be buried in the collegiate church of Arundel, founded by his ancestors. 
 With that intention the tomb there remaining was probably in his lifetime prepared. 
 
 The ethgy of this Earl of Arundel wears the collar of SS. or, as we may pretty con¬ 
 fidently term it, Soverayne. The surcoat, or tabard, has short sleeves. The camail, it 
 will be observed, bas now disappeared as a defence for the neck, and is replaced by a 
 gorget of plate-armour. 
 
 Details. Plate I. Figure as originally painted. On the surcoat, Arundel quartering Maltravers. 
 
 Plate II. Hilt and end of the dagger-sheath. 
 
 * Don Quixote, vol. I. chap, xxxvii. 
 
 90 
 
Ixuijavb Bcaucijamp, Cavl of fSffilartotrtt. 
 
 Richard was the son and heir of Thomas Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, by his wife 
 Margaret, daughter of Lord Ferrars of Groby. He was born at the manor-house of 
 Salwarpe, in the county of Worcester, 28th January, 1381. Richard the Second, and 
 Richard Scroop, afterwards Archbishop of York, were his godfathers. On the corona¬ 
 tion of Henry the Fourth, in 1399, he was made a Knight of the Bath. His father 
 dying in 1401, he succeeded to his patrimonial honours and possessions. In 1404 he 
 began to display the knightly character, with which, it will be seen, through life he was 
 so strongly embued, by proclaiming jousts to all comers. 
 
 In the following year, he distinguished himself in the battle fought at Usk with the 
 forces of Owen Glendower, in which the son of Glendowcr was taken prisoner, and the 
 Welch defeated with great loss. Three years after he had the King’s licence to leave 
 the kingdom, for the purpose of visiting the Holy Land. In his way he went to Paris, 
 where he was honourably entertained by the King of France. Thence he proceeded 
 into Lombardy, where a herald from one Sir Pandulph Malacet challenged him to joust 
 at Verona, in honour of the institution of the Order of the Garter. On the appointed 
 day he repaired to the lists, where the combat was to take place. The combatants were 
 to tilt with the lance, to fight with axes, and then with swords. Before, however, it 
 came to the trial of swords, poor Sir Pandulph (who had entered the field with affecta¬ 
 tion of great state, having nine lances borne before him) had had enough of the contest, 
 being severely wounded in the shoulder; and would have been slain, but that the Judge 
 of the Field proclaimed “ Peace,” and put an end to the fight. 
 
 From Verona he repaired to Venice, where he was entertained by the Doge, and 
 from thence sailed for Palestine, and accomplished his visit to the Holy City, setting up 
 his arms within the church of the Temple. From the Infidels themselves his great 
 name, and the renown of his ancient house, procured him distinguished attention. 
 Before he returned home he visited Russia, Lithuania, Poland, Prussia, Westphalia, 
 and other countries, in search, like a knight-errant of romance, of chivalrous achieve¬ 
 ments. He was, indeed, the actual personification of the knight drawn by a poet nearly 
 of his own time, Chaucer: 
 
 "That from the time that he first began 
 To riden out he loved chevalrie, 
 
 Trouth and honour, fredom and curtesie. 
 
 Ful worthy was he in his lordes werre. 
 
 And therto had he ridden, none so ferre, 
 
 As wel in Christendom and in Helhenesse, 
 
 And ever honoured for his worthinesse. 
 
Aboven all nations in Pruce : 
 
 In Lettowe had he reysed,* and in Ruce, 
 
 -and in the Grete See, 
 
 At many a noble army had he be. 
 
 At mortal hattles had be ben lifteene; 
 
 And foughten for our faith at Tramisscne, 
 
 In listos thrice, and ay slain his foe." 
 
 On his return to his native country, he performed the office of Grand Seneschal, or 
 Hi e h Steward, at the coronation of Henry the Fifth, and was engaged to serve that 
 King in peace and war, having the grant of a yearly pension. 
 
 In 1414 he was in an embassy from the English Court to the Council of Constance. 
 There he tilted before the Emperor Sigismund and his Empress. A certain German 
 nobleman challenged him to the outrance for his lady's sake. The German was slain in 
 the unequal trial. The Empress was so struck with Warwick’s prowess, that she took 
 the cognizance of his house, the bear and ragged staff, from the shoulder of one of his 
 retainers, and placed it on her own. Warwick, with refined gallantry, sent her the next 
 day the same device richly wrought in pearl. He was next appointed Captain of Calais, 
 made his entry into that fortress in solemn procession, and, true to his chivalric notions, 
 proclaimed a festival of arms. On the appointed day he repaired to the field in a sort of 
 assumed incognito, in imitation of the unknown knights of the old romances. Three 
 French knights in the same spirit accepted his challenge. The first day the Earl of 
 Warwick entered the lists in complete armour, his helmet surmounted by a panache of 
 ostrich feathers, his shield, and the bases of his horse, decorated with the coat of his 
 ancestor the Lord Toney. He was encountered by one of the French knights, who 
 called himself le Chevalier Rouge, whom at the third course he bore out of his saddle 
 and unhorsed. He then sent him a destrier, or warhorse, as a gift. The next day, with a 
 chaplet of cold upon his helm, wearing the arms of Hanslap, he was met by le Chevalier 
 Blanc, to whom lie gave proof of his prowess—smote off his vizor, pierced his armour, 
 and dismounted him. He sent him also a courser. The next day he appeared as Earl of 
 Warwick, quartering Beauchamp, Guy, Hanslap, and Toney, on his trappings. His 
 vizor open, the chaplet on his helm enriched with pearl and precious stones. His 
 opponent was Sir Collard Fynes. At every course he bore him at the point of the 
 lance from his seat. The French spectators thought there was some foul play, and 
 exclaimed that the Earl of Warwick was bound to the saddle. lie instantly corrected 
 their error by dismounting from his horse. The third time victor, he recompensed his 
 adversaries with noble gifts, feasted all the company, and returned to Calais. 
 
 In 1417 he was with Henry the Fifth in the division of the army under the Duke of 
 Clarence at the storming of the city of Caen, and was the first to enter the place and 
 plant the English banner on the battlements. 
 
 On the demise of Henry the Fifth he was appointed by will guardian of his son. 
 The Duke of Bedford, Regent of France, dying, he was next constituted Lieutenant 
 General of France and Normandy, and embarked with his wife and son to execute his 
 high office. While at sea they were overtaken by a violent tempest. Destruction 
 
 
 92 
 
 

Hloi aw i> B K.vi tii .\m!’. Eabl or 'War’wick . 
 
 
seemed inevitable. He caused himself, attired in the tabard of his arms, his wife and 
 son, to be lashed together to the mast of the vessel, in order that, if their bodies should 
 be found, they might be interred together, with that honour which belonged to their 
 noble house. The Earl of Warwick shortly after was taken ill, and died at Rouen. 
 His will is dated August 8th, 1435. By it he gives particular directions for the inter¬ 
 ment of his body in the collegiate church at Warwick, near his father's tomb; to which 
 church he gives an image of pure gold as a lieriot. Four images of gold, each of 201bs. 
 weight, of himself, holding an anchor in his hands, (allusive, perhaps, to his preservation 
 from shipwreck,) to be offered for him at St. Alban’s, Canterbury, Bridlington, and 
 Shrewsbury. The contract between the executors of the Earl, and John Essex, marbler, 
 William Austen, founder, and Thomas Stevyns, coppersmith, for the construction of his 
 tomb, is given at length by the elaborate antiquary Dugdale, who found it among the 
 muniments of the Corporation of Warwick. It is dated 13th June, 32 Henry XI. 
 (1453.) Among the items these may be particularized: “William Austen, citizen and 
 founder, of London, covenanted to cast and make an image of a man armed, of fine 
 latten, garnished with certain ornaments, viz. with sword and dagger, with a garter, with 
 a helm and crest under his head, and at his feet a bear muzzled and a griihn, perfectly 
 made of the finest latten, according to patterns.” He was to make also of the finest latten 
 (to be gilded) fourteen embossed images of lords and ladies, in divers vestures, called 
 weepers, to stand in housings (or niches) made about the tomb. A hearse was to he 
 made to stand on the tomb above the principal image. Also certain images of angels 
 and escutcheons of arms. Then follows the particulars of the marbler or mason’s work 
 on and about the tomb, and of the glazier for glazing the windows of the new chapel at 
 Warwick, where it was erected, with images and stories after drawings on paper, to be 
 executed in the best glass, not English, but brought from beyond sea, and of the richest 
 colours, “ blue, yellow, red, purpure, sanguine, and violetno more white, green, or 
 black glass was to be used than was absolutely necessary to express the figures in these 
 
 •' Storied windows, richly dight, 
 
 Shedding a dim religious light." 
 
 There arc other items of agreement for painting the walls with devices and “imagery,” 
 and painting and gilding images of certain Saints. The Beauchamp chapel and tomb 
 were commenced in 1442, and finished in 1465, at the expense of nearly two thousand 
 five hundred pounds. Of the beautiful figure of Beauchamp Mr. Stothard executed four 
 drawings, three of which he etched himself, with a spirit truly worthy of so fine a 
 subject. He ascertained that the ponderous figure of latten or bronze which lay upon 
 the altar-tomb was loose, and with considerable effort succeeded in turning it over, when 
 the armour at the back was found as carefully and accurately represented as in the. front, 
 showing all the parts of a suit, its straps and fastenings, with instructive minuteness. 
 This view of the figure about the shoulders is particularly fine, and must be of the 
 the highest value to the historical painter, for its boldness and truth. 
 
 Of the fourteen mourners about the tomb he executed also exquisite drawings in sepia, 
 which it is to be lamented he did not survive to transfer to the copper. These figures 
 
 93 
 
stand under their housings, or canopies, five on each side of the tomb, and two at either 
 end. Between these arc smaller canopies, each of which is occupied bv an angel holding 
 a scroll, inscribed with these words : 
 
 “ Sit Sco laus ct Gloria, bcfuncris mis'crccotbia." 
 
 On the south side of the tomb are the following mourners (see the fifth Plate from 
 this tomb:) 
 
 1. Richard Nevill, Earl of Salisbury, with a scroll. 2. Edmund Beaufort, Duke of 
 Somerset, husband to Eleanor, daughter of the Earl of Warwick, with a book. 3. Hum¬ 
 phrey Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, married to Ann, daughter of Ralph Nevill, Earl 
 of Westmorland, wrapped in his mantle. 4. John Talbot, the great Earl of Shrewsbury, 
 who married Margaret, the Earl of Warwick's elder daughter, in his mantle, the hood 
 drawn over the head, in his hand a book. 5. Richard Nevill, the younger, Earl of 
 Salisbury, husband of Anne the Earl’s only daughter by his second marriage, with a 
 book.—At the east end of the tomb. G. George Nevill, Lord Latimer, with a rosary. 
 7. Elizabeth, his wife, third daughter of the Earl of Warwick by his first wife, with a book. 
 
 In the sixth plate we have the figures on the north side of the tomb, and at the west 
 end: 
 
 1. Alice, daughter of Thomas Montacutc, Earl of Salisbury, and wife of Richard 
 Nevill the elder, in her right Earl of Salisbury, with a rosary. 2. Margaret, the Earl 
 of Warwick’s eldest daughter by his first wife, and wife of John Talbot, Earl of Shrews¬ 
 bury, holding in her hand a scroll. 3. Anne, wife of Humphrey Stafford, Duke of Buck¬ 
 ingham, daughter of Ralph Nevill, Earl of Westmorland, with a book. 4. Eleanor, 
 wife of Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, Beauchamp’s second daughter by his 
 first marriage, with a rosary. 5. Ann, wife of Richard Nevill, Earl of Salisbury, only 
 daughter of Beauchamp by his second wife, with a book.—At the west end or head of the 
 monument. G. Cicely, daughter of Richard Nevill, Earl of Salisbury, wife of Henry 
 Beauchamp, with a roll. G. Henry Beauchamp, the Earl’s eldest son, afterwards Duke 
 of Warwick, with a book in a bag. 
 
 The epitaph on the verge of the tomb runs thus, bears and ragged staves being in¬ 
 troduced between the words and sentences as points: 
 
 IPrictb Dcboutlr for rfjc cotnd, tobom fiob aoooillc, of onr of the moot toorobipful Rniebtco in bis narco of manfjooc 
 anti conning, Ricijarb ®caucl)amp, late ®arl of aHarrctoift, lam iDcopcnocr of tBcrgrbcnnr, anti of monp oibcr grrtc lorn, 
 obipo. taboo boar reotetfj pcrc unDcr tbio tumbe, in a ful feire bout of otonc, oct on tbc bare roocb, tijc tabic!) bioitcD toitfj 
 Iona me bn co in tbc €aotcl of Roan, tberinne bcccoocb, fill triotcnlp, tbc last bar of april, tbc ret of ourc Herb ®ob 
 a : rttjt. be being at that trmr lieutenant cental anti oobetnor of tbc Roialmc of JTtauncc, anti of tbc sOucfjjc 
 
 of /3otmanbic. br ouEcicnt autoritic of ourc oob'aianc lotb tbc Rina fijarrr tbc Cl J.; tbc tobicb bobr, tnitb arete bclibcrac on, 
 anb ful taorobipful contmitc, br occ anti br lonti, toao broabt to iCiatrctoilt tbc iiii of SDctobcr, tbc ret abobcoeiuc, anti toao 
 [cine, toitb ful oolenne crcquico, in a feir cheat mabc of atone, in tbio ebirebe, afore tbc tocot bore of tbio chapel, actorbina to 
 bio laotc toille anb tcatament, therm to rcatc til tbio cfjapcl br b*nt bebioeb in bio lief tacrc mabc. 911 tbc tobiebe ebapef, 
 founbeb on tbc roocb, anb all tbc membero tfjcroC, bio cjrecutoro bebe fullr mabc anb apparaillc, br tbc auctorite of bio ocibe 
 laot toille anb teotament. 9nb tberafter, br 'be oamc auctorite, tber bib tranolatc ful toorsbipfullr tbc ocibe bobr into tbc 
 bout abobcocibc. D;onurcb be Sob tbcrforc. 
 
 The Earl of Warwick was twice married : first, to Elizabeth, daughter and inheretrix 
 of Thomas Lord Berkeley; secondly, to Isabella, daughter and inheretrix of Thomas 
 Lord Spencer, Earl of Gloucester. By his first wife he had three daughters; by his 
 second, his son and heir, Henry, above mentioned. 
 
FIGURES ROUND THE TOMB OF RICHARD BEAUCHAMP BARI. OF WARWICK 
 
FIGURES ROUND THE TOMB OF RICHARD BEAUCHAMP EARL OF WARWICK. 
 
 JS6 
 
erscfc'VP. ■: 
 
J27 
 
 J0I1>: TAI.BOT.tse Cheat iEabjl of Shm-wsb^bt »jf.d 3-1-u?.3 . 
 From Ids Effigy at 'V3iitrl«rch. Shropfliixe . 
 
Sfoijn iLovtj Calbot, Carl of gilntloslmrj). 
 
 What English spirit, even in these latter days, but rouses at the name of Talbot! 
 
 “The cry of Talbot, serving for a sword ! 
 
 - “ The scourge of France ! 
 
 The Talbot so much fear'd abroad. 
 
 That with his name the mothers still'd their babes." 
 
 John Talbot was the second son of Richard Talbot, by Ankaret le Strange, and was 
 born about the year 1380. He married Maud, the daughter of Thomas Nevill, Lord 
 Furnival; and soon after the accession of Henry the Fifth to the Crown we find him 
 deputed Lieutenant of Ireland, by the title of Sir John Talbot, Lord Furnival. In 1417 
 he was one of the leaders in that great armament of 25,000, men, with which the King in 
 person, attended by many nobles of the land, passed the seas, landed in Normandy, and 
 laid siege to Caen. In 1428, the Duke of Bedford being Regent in France, he was 
 with the Earls of Salisbury and Suffolk at the siege of Orleans, where the Earl of Salis¬ 
 bury was slain by a cannon shot while he was looking through the iron-gratings of an 
 oriel window. In the following year, the siege of Orleans was raised by the celebrated 
 Joan of Arc, styled for her fanatical pretensions La Pucelle dc Dieu. This gave a tem¬ 
 porary turn of success for the French cause; and Talbot, retreating before a superior 
 force, was wounded and taken prisoner at the battle of Patry. He was ransomed about 
 four years after for a large sum of money, and the enlargement of Ambrose de Lore, a 
 French officer of high repute; and he immediately resumed and continued his military 
 exploits in the French territory, with the most active valour, and commensurate success. 
 
 In 1441, by the King’s letters patent, dated 20th March, he was created Earl of 
 Shrewsbury. In 1444 he was again Lieutenant of Ireland. His honours were increased 
 by the dignity of Earl of Waterford. Sir John Talbot, his son, was also constituted 
 Baron Lisle. 
 
 The English cause declining in France, the Earl of Shrewsbury was appointed Lieu¬ 
 tenant of Aquitaine, and it was resolved that he should attempt the recovery of that 
 province. In 1453, he diligently superintended the fitting out of an armament, with 
 which he set sail, and landed in the peninsula of Medoc, on the coast of Gascoigne. 
 He took the strong town of Fronsac, and advanced to Bordeaux, which the citizens 
 yielded to him by a concerted plan, unknown to the French garrison, who were taken 
 by surprise. The Earl of Shrewsbury, having established himself in Bordeaux, applied 
 himself to the reduction of the strong places in the neighbourhood, and, among others, 
 took the castle of Chastillon, in Perigord, in which he placed a garrison. 
 
 95 
 
The King of France assembled an army of 22,000 men, and divided them into two 
 bodies, one of which he committed to the Comte de Clermont, directing him to march 
 upon Bordeaux. Of the other he retained the command himself, and despatched two 
 Marshals of France, with 1,800 men-at-arms, with their proportionate number of 
 archers, making together 7,200 men, to the siege of Chastillon, before which place they 
 posted themselves in a strongly-entrenched camp. The experienced Earl of Shrewsbury, 
 seeing the danger of being hemmed in between two armies, resolved to engage them in 
 detail, and promptly marched to the relief of Chastillon, driving a strong advanced de¬ 
 tachment of the French before him. 
 
 The French had conveyed to the siege of Chastillon the whole royal park of artillery, 
 under command of the Chevalier Jean Bureau, the Master of the Artillery. Seven hun¬ 
 dred labourers attended him to place the guns and bombards, and construct field-works. 
 The French drew these engines of destruction within the trenches of their camp, loaded, 
 and pointed them towards the quarter from which their enemy was advancing. The 
 venerable Earl of Shrewsbury, then eighty-seven vears of age, mounted on an easy 
 hackney, accompanied by Lord Lisle, bis son, Lord Moleyns, and eight hundred horse, 
 approached the enemy’s post before the dawn of the 7th of July, 14.33. lie halted for 
 the infantry in his rear, about four thousand, to come up, and ordered a pipe of wine to 
 be broached to refresh his companions, fatigued with the weight of their armour and a 
 rapid march. The French retired with affected precipitation within their intrenched 
 post. The veteran Shrewsbury ordered his lances to dismount, and carry the place at 
 once by storm. St. George’s banner, the royal banner of England, the banner of the 
 Trinity, his own, and those of his noble companions, were advanced. The storming- 
 party marched forward with determined resolve to the entrance of the camp,—when 
 on a sudden the death-precursive suspense was broken by the vivid flash from dense 
 and rolling columns of grey smoke, the thunder-peal, and bolts resistless (ploughing up 
 the ground, and sweeping all opposition from its surface) from the three hundred 
 pieces of artillery, with which the lines appeared, on the instant, as by some enchant¬ 
 ment, to be bristled. 
 
 The old Chronicles relate an affecting scene between the elder Talbot and Lord Lisle 
 his son. They say, the net into which lie had been drawn did not escape his experienced 
 eye, and he counselled his son to a retreat, as he was but a young soldier, stranger to 
 the honours of the field, while for him to turn his back would not only stain all his 
 former laurels, but fill his companions in arms with dismay and despair. The son of 
 Talbot, both in lineage and heroic soul, rejected at once this counsel, and they fell 
 together. Thus Shakspeare: 
 
 “Thou antic. Death! who laugh'st us here to scorn. 
 
 Anon from thy insulting tyranny 
 
 Two Talbots, winged, through the lither sky, 
 
 In thy despite shall scape mortality." 
 
 The particulars of the elder Talbot’s end may be gathered from Hall and Monstrelet. 
 A ball from a culverin killed the hobby on which he rode, and as he lay extended on 
 the ground in the weakness of age, some base and cowardly hand shot him through the 
 thigh with a liand-gun. He died on the field. His body was conveyed to England, to 
 
 96 
 
liis manor of Whitchurch, in Shropshire, where it was buried in the parish church under 
 a monument erected in the chancel, with this epitaph: 
 
 “ Orate pro anima prfenobilis domini, domini Johannis Talbot, quondam comitis Salopian, domini Furnivall, 
 domini Verdon, domini Strange de Blackmere, et Mareschalli Francias, qui obiit in bello apud Burdeux, vii<* 
 Julii, M.CCCCLIII." 
 
 Talbot, after the death of Maud, whom we have mentioned, married a second wife, 
 Margaret, eldest daughter and coheiress of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. She 
 survived till the year 1468, and was buried in St. Paul’s cathedral. 
 
 Speed tells us that, with characteristic bluntness, Talbot had caused these words to be 
 engraven on the blade of his sword: “SumTalboti. Pro vincere inimicos meos.’ 1 A 
 motto which it was the purpose of his life to verify in his country's cause. A profile 
 and front view of his effigy, which has been sadly mutilated, are given. The face, as far 
 as w r e can judge from its fractured condition, possessed fine character. This may be 
 inferred from the front view; the wrinkled forehead and sunk cheek of age are ably 
 expressed by the sculptor. The Earl wears the mantle of the Garter, of which he was 
 a knight. The tassets of his armour and cuisses are fluted. The greaves are broken 
 away. His feet rest upon a couchant talbot, or hound.* 
 
 * The history plays are generally very faithful versions of our national Annals. In the first part of the history 
 play of Henry VI. a romantic scene is introduced between Talbot and the Countess of Armagnac, who invites 
 him to her Castle as a visitor, in order to entrap him, and then declares, with many taunts, he is her prisoner. 
 (Sec Henry VI. Part I.) Talbot laughs at this announcement, tells her she has but a small portion of Talbot 
 in her power, his sinews are not there, winds the bugle by his side, his men appear, and the tables are turned 
 on the lady. We have not found the authority for this scene, but there is little doubt but in history or tradi¬ 
 tion it had some real existence. 
 
Ixotirrt ?(.oi6 Joimgriforti. 
 
 Was descended from an ancient Wiltshire family. lie was the son and heir of Walter 
 Lord Hungerford by his wife Catherine, and was born about the year 1401). Ilis father 
 (distinguished by his military services in the reigns of Henry the Fourth and Fifth) was 
 one of the executors of the last-mentioned monarch, and under Henry the Sixth Captain 
 of the Castle of Cherbourg, Steward of the Royal Household, and Treasurer of the Exche¬ 
 quer. He died in 144!), when Robert, his eldest son, the subject of this notice, succeeded 
 him in his estates. Robert served during the lifetime of his father in the wars in France, 
 under John Duke of Bedford; and in 1453 was in that expedition into Guienne which 
 proved so fatal to Talbot Earl of Shrewsbury and his son the Lord Lisle. Robert Lord 
 Hungcrford’s son* by his wife, Margaret, daughter of Lord Botreaux, accompanied him, 
 and was taken prisoner in the disastrous affair at C'hastillon, which, under the head of 
 Talbot Earl of Shrewsbury, we have already detailed. Lord Hungerford died 22d April, 
 145!), and directed by his last will that he should be buried near the altar of St. Osmund, 
 in the cathedral church of Salisbury, where his father had founded a chantry, and where 
 his own widow, Margaret, also established another. 
 
 In 1789, during the repairs and alterations which took place in the cathedral, his body 
 was removed from its original resting-place into the nave of the church. His remains 
 were found deposited in a wooden coffin, lying above the level of the floor. The skele¬ 
 ton was nearly entire, and measured in length five feet five inches. From Dodsworth’s 
 account,')- it would appear that he had been placed in his coffin in the same attitude in 
 which the effigy appears on his tomb. The costume of Lord Hungerford presents a 
 fine example of plate armour. The surcoat, or tabard, began now to be much disused, 
 the fine effect of the metallic splendour of the steel being appreciated. The surface of 
 the suit is now elaborately fluted, or channelled. Lord Hungerford wears a rich hip- 
 girdle, and the badge of SS. or Souverayne, devised by Henry the Fourth, and adopted 
 by the monarchs of his line. At his feet is a hound, with a collar and leash. 
 
 Details. Plate I. 1. The effigy as originally painted. 2. Collar of SS. and pendant jewell enlarged. 3. Lace 
 on the vambrace. 4. Details of the hip-girdle. 5. One of the laces of the elbow-pieces. 
 
 Plate II. Profile. Lace of the dagger, straps with embossed mountings attaching the tassets. Scabbard, 
 and mountings of the dagger. 
 
 * This son was styled the Lord Moleyns, in right of his wife. He remained prisoner in France upwards of 
 seven years. Dugdale has detailed the curious items of the “ vast charges " his mother, Margaret, incurred 
 to support him and his family during his captivity, to pay his debts, previously contracted, and to procure his 
 ransom. These charges amounted in the aggregate to nearly 20,000/. of which the sum for the ransom was 
 7,690/. See Baronage, Vol. II. p. 209. 
 
 t Historical Account of Salisbury Cathedral, p. 196. 
 
 98 
 
i?tf 3ToI) it Crash?, a Its |)IQ 2.asi» a S nrs. 
 
 11 18 “ rMr eXC ‘ , '’ t '°" f ° th0 ^ated in this work, consisting chiefly of 
 
 ropl personages, potent feudatories of the crown, or renowned military leaders. Sir 
 John Crosby was an moment grocer and wool-merchant of the city of London. He 
 accumulated a large fortune by commercial pursuits, in the reigns of Henry the Sixth 
 and Edward the Fourth. A current tradition, arising perhaps from the passion of the 
 vulgar for the marvellous, was, that he was a foundling, and derived his name from his 
 being taken up near one of those public crosses so common formerly in our highways- 
 hence he was called “ Cross-by." Stow rejects the storv as fabulous* and think, he 
 might he the son of one John Crosby, a servant of Henry the Fourth, to whom he 
 granted in 1406 the wardship of Joan, the daughter and heiress of John Jordainc a 
 wealthy fishmonger, Crosby might have married his ward, and thus established himself 
 as a person of consequence in the city. Sir John Crosby, whose effigy is here deline¬ 
 ated, was an Alderman of London, and one of the Sheriffs of that city in 1470. I„ 
 1471 lie met Edward the Fourth on his entry into the city, and was knighted. In 
 the following he was a Commissioner for treating with the Hanje Towns, relative to 
 some differences in which the Duke of Burgundy was concerned. 
 
 He erected for himself a magnificent house near the priory church of Great St. 
 Helen’s, Bishopsgate.f It was the loftiest structure in the city in his day. Some 
 apartments of this building arc still standing, the chief of which is its great hall, with its 
 exquisitely carved oaken roof and embowered oriel. The view of the general design of 
 this elegant structure is impeded by its being divided in its height by floors, and formed 
 into a warehouse.^ Sir John Crosby died in 1475, and lies buried in the chapel of the 
 Holy Ghost, in Great Helen’s church, Bishopsgate, under an altar-tomb, on which is his 
 own effigy, and that of his first wife, Agnes. 
 
 He gave by his will 500 marks towards the repair of the church of Great St. Helen’s, 
 and large bequests to other ecclesiastical establishments in and near London. Stow says 
 
 * “ Survey of London," edit. 1G31, p. 332. 
 
 t It was built on the site of certain tenements, and tlieii appurtenances, demised to him in 1400, for the 
 term of ninety-nine years, by Alice Ashted, Prioress, and the Convent of St. Helen’s, for the annual rent of 
 1 It. 6s. Stl. being seventeen marks. 
 
 | In these all-changing days, when every thing which is connected with our ancient historical existence 
 seems marked for innovation or destruction, we have heard it rumoured that Crosby-place is to be pulled 
 down. We trust, however, that the British Government, as in the case of the Hall at Eltham, will interfere to 
 save it. The stale of the nave of that fine old Christian Temple, St. Saviour's, Southwark, is sufficient disgrace 
 for London and its suburbs in the intellectual nineteenth century. 
 
 .99 
 
that his arms were extant in many parts of St. Helen’s church.* Weever has preserved 
 the epitaph on his tomb, as follows: 
 
 Orate pro animabus Johannis Crosby, Militis, Aid. atque tempore vite Majoris Staple ville Caleis, et Agnetis 
 uxoris sue, ac Thome, Richardi, Johanni, Margarete, et Johanoe, liberorum ejusdem Johannis Crosby, Militis; 
 ille ubiit 1475, et ilia 14GG, quorum animabus propilietur Deus. 
 
 Details. Plate I. 1. The collar and pendant of the Lady Crosby. <2. The collar and pendant, apparently 
 an animal, perhaps a ram, of Sir John Crosby. 
 
 3 jTCuill nub 3Latn>, in Bvancepctl) Cimvrfj, Dmljnm. 
 
 These tire most probably the effigies of Ralph second Earl of Westmorland, and one of 
 his wives. He was the son of John Nevill (who died in the lifetime of his father, 
 Ralph, first Earl of Westmorland), by Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Holland, Earl of 
 Kent. 
 
 He had two wives; his first was Elizabeth, widow of Lord Clifford, daughter of that 
 remarkable historical character Henry Lord Percy, son of the Earl of Northumberland, 
 surnamed, for his promptitude in military emprize, Hotspur. By Elizabeth he had a 
 son, John, who was slain during his life-time in the battle of Towton. His second wife 
 was Margaret, daughter of Sir Reginald Cobham, knight. He died in the year 14S4, 
 the second of the reign of Richard the Third. The remarkable points in these effigies 
 are the collars which decorate the necks of the figures. The Lancaster badge of SS. is 
 now discarded, and we find that of York, the white rose in the sun,:*; adopted; from 
 which is suspended the white boar, Richard the Third’s device. 
 
 Details. Plate 1. 1. Collar of the male figure., composed of the rose en solcil, with a pendant boar, enlarged. 
 2. Collar of the Lady, suns and roses, with a pendant jewel, enlarged. Cordon of her mantle. 3. Hilt of 
 the Earl's dagger. 
 
 Plate II. Profile of the Earl. Compartments of the hip-girdle. 
 
 * Sable, a chevron Ermine between three rams trippant. 
 
 •f Funeral Monuments, p. 421. 
 
 X The parhelion which appeared in the Heavens at the battle of Mortimer’s Cross occasioned Edward the 
 Fourth to add the device of the sun to the white rose; and this assumed omen of success was indeed the occa¬ 
 sion of victory to him at Barnet Field ; for, being embroidered on the coats of his men, (much as we see, at 
 this day, the crown, &c. on those of the yeomen of the Royal Guard,) and the Earl of Oxford, on the other 
 side, having either a blazing star, or the silver mullet of his arms, on the jacks of his retainers, indistinctly 
 seen gleaming through the mists of a spring morning, it was taken by the Earl of Warwick's soldiers for the 
 badge of the foe, and assailed as such. Oxford, in consequence, suspected treachery in Warwick, and Bed 
 the field. Warwick's valour could not repair the mistake ; lie was defeated and slain. 
 

William jFits=3lan, Carl of JUunticl. 
 
 THIS tomb has been improperly ascribed to Thomas Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel; 
 but it was evidently raised to the memory of his father, the Earl William and his 
 Countess Joan, daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury. Such an error 
 would probably before this have been corrected, were the effigies more accessible; 
 but they are placed so near the roof of the chantry, in which the tomb is situated, 
 that it is scarcely possible to see them. 
 
 The first circumstance which would have led to the correction of the above error, 
 is the costume of the figures not being that of Henry the Eighth's time, but the pre¬ 
 vailing dress of Edward IV., and the early part of Henry VII.; but that circum¬ 
 stance, which most particularly points out the identity of the personages, is the 
 animals at the feet of these figures, which are the family supporters so placed 
 according to the custom of the fifteenth century. At the earl’s feet is the well 
 known White Horse, and at his lady’s a Gryphon; the latter being the supporter of 
 the Nevilles, Earls of Salisbury. And it is paramount to conviction in favour of 
 this opinion, that on the walls of the chapel where this tomb is placed are painted 
 the very supporters in question, sustaining a banner, on which are emblazoned the 
 arms of Neville and Fitz-Alan with their quarterings. The monument of Thomas Fitz- 
 Alan is on the N. side of the Chancel at Arundel, which also contains this tomb. 
 
 William succeeded his brother, John Fitz-Alan, Lord Maltravers, in the earldom 
 of Arundel, his nephew, Humphrey, dying in his minority. Shortly after, 18th 
 Heury VI., 1440, upon the death of Beatrix, widow of Thomas, Earl of Arundel, 
 being twenty-three years of age, he did homage for all the lands she held in her 
 dower. 38th Henry VI. we find him, in consideration of his special services, con¬ 
 stituted justice of all the king’s forests south of Trent. In the following reign, 
 Edward IV., William was appointed constable of Dover Castle and warden ot 
 the Cinque Ports, and in 11th Edward IV., was returned to serve the king, in the 
 
custody of that castle for fifteen days, with twenty men at arms, and forty archers 
 for the suppression of certain rebels then in arms. And the same year William was 
 one amongst those lords in parliament who made oath to Prince Edward; but 
 during the reign of Richard III. lie is said to have absented himself from court. He 
 died the third year of the reign of Henry VII., 1487, and left issue by his wife Joan, 
 four sons : Thomas, William, George, and John. 
 
 The tomb, placed within a chantry (on the south side of the chancel) of the 
 richest architecture, consists of two stages in the same taste, and of like material, 
 Sussex marble; at the West end or the lower stage, sufficient space is left for the 
 altar, where the service was performed for the souls of the deceased. The figures, 
 which lie loose upon the tomb, are carved in a softer stone, and possess considerable 
 merit; the draperies being executed in the angular style of Albert Durer. The earl 
 is represented in his robes of creation, with a coronet upon his head. The head¬ 
 dress of his countess is remarkable for its splendid decorations, and the singular 
 manner in which the coronet is introduced upon it:* beneath her surcoat appears 
 a rich robe wrought with gold, the cuffs are long and turned back from the hands, 
 which are broken, round her neck is a splendid necklace. 
 
 Details:—PI. 2. Fig. 1. The Earl's coronet:—2. Profile of the ladies head-dress, 
 with the painting and gilding :—3. The necklace formed of roses and suns, connected 
 by oak leaves,! the ornament pendant from it is defaced :—4 and 5. Girdle and 
 painting on the robe beneath the surcoat. 
 
 * The same head-dress is represented in a very curious portrait at Kensington, of Margaret of Denmark. 
 Queen of James III., King of Scotland. 
 
 f The suns and roses were the cognizances or badges of Edward IV,; the oak-leaves refer to the cog¬ 
 nizance of the Fitz-Alans. 
 
, -V ___ 
 
fofm Dr la |3ole, Bttltc of Suffolk, 
 aitD Ijia Bucljtss UBltjabctf). 
 
 John was the son and heir of that unpopular minister, William tie la Pole, Duke of 
 Suffolk, who being banished for his political delinquencies, was put to death on the 
 2d May, 1450, at sea, off Dover, by the master of a Bristol ship.* His mother was 
 Alice, daughter of Sir Thomas Chaucer, son of the poet of that name, the force of 
 whose extraordinary genius has secured immortality for his works in spite of then- 
 obsolete language. He married Elizabeth, second daughter of Richard Duke of York, 
 by whom he had Sve sons and four daughters ; on account of which alliance Ins bro¬ 
 ther-in-law King Edward, in 1409, restored to him the dignity forfeited by Ins fathers 
 attainder. He was made Constable of Wallingford Castle, in the first year of the reign 
 of Henry the Seventh, died in 1491, and was interred with his ancestors in the collegiate 
 church at Wingfield, in Suffolk. Elizabeth, his Ducliess, was buried at the same place, 
 and both are commemorated by the splendid effigies before us. 
 
 Details. Plate. I. Profile view Of the head Of the Duchess. , ., 
 
 Plate II. 1. Portion of the Duke's coronet, a. One of the metallic loop, attach,ug the cordon of the mantle 
 of the Garter to cither shoulder. 3. Skirts of the camlet, hilt and guard of the .word, mount,ug. of the 
 
 •cvbb.rd Sc 4 Portion of the Garter on the left knee, enlarged. S. One of the .Iraps attach,og the ., 
 
 6HU, or the dagger, or mis.ric.rde, with lace attaching 1, to the hip 7- *.„£*.£**-* 
 the Duchess’, coronet, enlarged. 9. Part of the metallic loop of the coidon of her m 
 
 PtaTnT. "'h Profile view of the left genouilliere, with the Garter. 1. Portion of the .ole. of the solerette, 
 resling on the lion's mane. 
 
 * Whatever the Duke's political offenci 
 John, written just before the Duke's dept 
 where nlso will be found, page 39, anotht 
 
 s, there is extant an admirable letter of advice from him to his s 
 rt Ur e on this fatal voyage. See the Paston Utters, voL I. !'• ■' 
 ■ curious letter, giving a circumstantial account of his death. 
 
 130 
 
Cfftsp of a iHontfovt, m Jxtrljention Cfjutrfj. 
 
 of l l Fe T CC ’ “ rm0,,r Sh0 "' S ,ha * “ is 0f 1,0 than the latter “d 
 
 panache ° f * 
 
 „„ c > , RdUI ' xn tllc right liand is a mace, a horseman's 
 
 weapon former!, much ,„ «, the left arm supports a ahield, on which trnderTTe 
 
 Ih cl h Z j' r P r\ M ^ ™ hiS (‘he remarkable hea Z 
 
 » h c s been noftced under the article of Richard Wellesburnc dc Mon,for,., oZ 
 
——„ 
 
Sim J © win IP K c mi k 
 

 Sir JOHN PECHE, the most splendid amongst the gentlemen who figured in 
 the court of Henry VIII., appears already to have advanced his fortunes in the 
 reign of Henry VII., during Perkin Warbeck’s unsuccessful rebellion. In the 
 twelfth of that king’s reign we find him amongst the foremost engaged in opposing 
 the Cornish men in Kent, which led to their subsequent defeat on Blackheath. At 
 the coronation of Henry VIII., Stow says, “ the king ordained to wait on his person 
 “ fiftie gentlemen to be speares, every of them to have an archer, a demilance, and a 
 “ cistrali, and every speare to have three great horses to be attendant on his person; 
 “ of the which band the earle of Essex was lieutenant, and Sir John Pechie captaine, 
 “ which ordinance continued not long, the charges were so great; for there were 
 “ none of them, but they aud their horses were apparelled and trapped in cloth of 
 “ gold, silver, and goldsmith’s worke.” 
 
 In 5th Henry VIII., 1513, we still find Sir John Peche employed in military 
 achievements, accompanying the king as vice governor of the horsemen at the 
 
siege and destruction ofTherouenne. In 1514 he again passed the sea from England 
 to Calais, and was appointed Lord Deputy of that town ; and the same year, in 
 company with other nobles and gentlemen he attended to Paris the Lady Mary, 
 sister to Henry, who was there espoused to the French King. In 1520 Sir John 
 joined the gallant train of Henry, who exhibited at the celebrated Champ de 
 Drap dOr, a splendor and magnificence never exceeded in the court of any 
 English monarch.* 14th Henry VIII., 1522, Sir John Peche terminated an 
 existence which, as far as it appears connected with his sovereign and public life, 
 seems to have passed in uninterrupted prosperity. The place of his death is not 
 specified, but it is probable he was buried beneath the magnificent tomb erected to 
 his memory at Lullingstone in Kent. Tradition there records the visits of Henry VIII. 
 to Sir John Peche, and the Tilt-yard, the former scene of courtly splendor, is still 
 pointed out in front of the castle gates. 
 
 The tomb of Sir John Peche, situated on the North side of the chapel attached to 
 Lullingstone Castle, in a state of high preservation, ranks amongst the finest 
 specimens of the time in which it was executed. The canopy is richly ornamented 
 with arms and devices. In the spandrils on the South side are carved the rose 
 and pomegranate, the badges of Henry V III. and Katherine of Arragon : in various 
 parts of the tomb the same badges appear, both single and conjoined. In the 
 spandrils on the North side is seen the Rebus for the name of Peche, formed by 
 peaches and letters united, which shew that the final vowel of the name was ac¬ 
 cented— Pech-c. The same Rebus is repeated elsewhere on the monument. In the 
 centre of the canopy on the N. and S. sides are escutcheons, bearing the modern 
 arms of Peche— a Lion rampant crowned, queue J'orchee, surmounted by the crest 
 on a wreath of peach branches fruited, a lion's head crowned. Beneath the escutcheon 
 on the South side, appears the motto of Sir John Peche, JplTSt a fail'?, and in the 
 same situation, on the N. side, this inscription, Pffl)p lltf fieri fCCtt. most probably 
 allusive to the tomb having-been made during the lifetime of Sir John, by his order 
 and direction. The motto is repeated in various places about the monument; amongst 
 the heraldic devices is introduced the ancient coat of Peche, a Jess between two chevrons. 
 
 The effigy, which lies at the lower part of the tomb, represents the knight, 
 wearing over his armour a rich emblazoned surcoat, wrought on the border with the 
 motto and devices of Peche. Beneath the surcoat and plate armour appears the 
 skirts of a haubergeon, wrought of small plates. TheTasses, which nearly cover 
 the Cuisses, are formed of almayne rivets. The double-tailed lion crowned, is 
 placed at the feet of the figure, and not far from it, on the right side, the gauntlets 
 of the knight. 
 
 The arms of Sir John Peche, at the bottom of the first page are taken from a 
 window in the chapel at Lullingstone. 
 
 Details:—Plate I.—Fig. 1. The Gorget:—2, ;j, and 4, Motto, and Devices on the 
 Surcoat. Plate II.—Fig. 1. Hilt of the Sword :—2. Specimen of the plates forming 
 the Haubergeon. 
 
 * At the justs and tournays held at the Champ de Drap d'Or, Hall says, Sir John Peehie, with three 
 other kuights, attended the king on horseback in his livery, which was white on the right side, and on the 
 left side gold and russet, both hose and garment. 
 
CHRONOLOGICAL ARRANGEMENT 
 
 PLATES IN THE MONUMENTAL EFFIGIES OF GREAT BRITAIN, 
 
 IS WHICH THE PERIOD OF THE SCULPTURE HAS BEEN CHIEFLY REGARDED. 
 
 was issued at intervals in 
 ind nine of the tenth Num- 
 r Howlett, and Mr. Charles 
 
 (The whole of the Plates arc from Mr. Charles Stothard’s original drawings. The work 
 twelve Numbers, containing twelve Plates each. All the Effigies in the nine first Numbers, 
 ber were etched by Mr. C. Stothard himself; Mr. Robert Stothard, the late Mr. Bartholome- 
 James Smith, were severally employed in completing the work. Mr. Blure etched one Plate, after the drawing from 
 the Effigy of Sir Thomas Cawne. The colouring has been executed by Mr. Edward Davis. The Roman numerals affixed 
 to the different titles of the Plates in this list, show the number in which they appeared. So anxious was Mr. C. 
 Stothard that the Public should have the benefit of his practical improvement in executing the Plates for his work, that 
 he etched some of those first issued over again, and circulated them gratis to his Subscribers. The Plates which 
 he re-etched have this mark f prefixed in the List. Those which they were intended to replace he of course consi¬ 
 dered as cancelled. Mr. Stothard himself furnished but eight descriptions for his etchings, which will be distinguished 
 by the pages which contain them being without numbers at the bottom. 
 
 A front and profile view of the Effigy of Sir Bernard Brocas, who was beheaded 
 monument in the Chapel of St. Edmund, Westminster Abbey), were issue 
 His further experience in the style of our ancient sculptures, acquired a 
 subject altogether; ns he saw that the shield of the figure, bearing a re 
 perhaps, the authenticity of the Effigy itself, which appeared t 
 
 original figure. This reduces the number of Plates from 144 to 14a. . 
 
 The expense incident to colouring all the details of the Tablet of Memorial for Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Maine 
 , » niou ( „ ce pi ate No. 2 ) precluded Mr. Stothard from publishing it fully illuminated in his Monumental Effigies ; 
 He contented himself, therefore, with causing the figure only to be coloured for that Work, and published the Tablet of 
 Geoffrey Plantagenet, and a genera, view of all the Royal Effigies at Fontevraud. as two separate Plates, elaborately 
 illuminated after the original subjects. These two Plates will be found desirable illustrations to bind up with the Plates 
 of the Monumental Effigies.] 
 
 n 1400 (and for whom there is a 
 i two of the Plates of his first Number, 
 s work proceeded, made him cancel this 
 int lion, was a modern work, and doubted, 
 o have been executed, rather in a clumsy way, after an 
 
 1. Monumental Effigy on the South side of the Nave of Salisbury Cathedral, Roger Bishop 
 
 of Salisbury (no. tv.) . • • • * ' ‘ „ . 
 
 2. Geoffrey PlxSTAOENET, E„rl of Maine .nd Anjou, died 1149, from an enamelled 
 
 tablet formerly in the churcli of St. Julien at Mans (no. ix.) . * ' 
 
 3. Monumental Effigy on the South side of the Nave of Salisbury Cathedral, Jocelyn 
 
 Bishop of Salisbury (no. iv.) ..••••• 
 
 4. Henry the Second, surnamed Plantagenet, died 1189 (no. viii.) 
 
 5. Profile view of the same (no. xii.) • • • * 
 
 6. Eleanor de Guienne, Queen of Henry II. from her Effigy at Fontevraud (no. xi.) 
 
 7. Profile view of the same (no. xii.) • 4 
 
 107 
 
IN THE MOW MENTAL EFFIGIES. 
 
 8. Richard the First, surnnmcd Cceur de Lion, (lied 118!), from his Effigy at Fontevraud 
 
 <»»• '*•). • 8 
 
 9. Pr ole of the same (no.viii.) . . . . .10 
 
 10. Geoffrey de Magnaville, Eaiii. of Essex, in the Temple Church, London (no. hi.) . 13 
 
 11. King John, died 1216, from his Effigy in the Choir of Worcester Cathedral (no. vi.) . 15 
 
 12. Profile of the same (no. vn.) ........ 17 
 
 13. Isabella of Angoulesme, the Queen of John, from her Effigy at Fontevraud (no. xii.) . ib. 
 
 14. Profile of the same (no. x.) . . . . . . . . ib. 
 
 15. Effigy in the Temple Church, London (no. ix.) . . . . . . ib. 
 
 16. Berengaria, Queen of Richard Cceur de Lion, from the remains of her tomb in the Abbey 
 
 of L’Espun, near Mans (no. ix.) . . . . . . .19 
 
 17. Willi \m Longesfee, Earl of Salisbury, son of Henry II. by Fair Rosamond, from his 
 
 Monument in the South side of the Nave of Salisbury Cathedral (no. v.) . .21 
 
 18. Profile of the same (no. v.) ........ 22 
 
 19. Monumental Effigy in Malvern Abbey Church, Worcestershire (no. vi.) . . 23 
 
 20. Effigy of a De L’Isi.e, in Rampton Church, Cambridgeshire (no. v.) . . . ib. 
 
 21. Profile of the same (no. v.). . . . . . . . . ib. 
 
 22. Monumental Effigy in Gloucester Cathedral, supposed to represent Robert Duke of 
 
 Normandy (no. vii.) . . . . . . . . .24 
 
 23. Profile of the same (no. x.) . . . . . . . .25 
 
 24. Monumental Effigy in Whitworth Church-yard, Durham (no. yiii.) . . .26 
 
 25. Profile of the same (no. viix.) . . . . . . . . ib. 
 
 26. Effigy in the Temple Church, London, William Marf.schal, the elder, Earl of Pem¬ 
 
 broke (no. i.) . . . . . . . . .27 
 
 27. Profile of die same (no. i.) ........ ib. 
 
 28. Monumental Effigy in the Temple Church, London, a figure in episcopal vestments (no. hi.) 28 
 
 29. The Boy Bishop on the North side of the Nave of Salisbury Cathedral (no. iv.) . ib. 
 
 30. Monumental Effigy of a Knight Templar in Salisbury Cathedral, William Longespee 
 
 the Younger (no. x.) ......... 29 
 
 31. King Henry the Third, died 1272, from his Monument in the Chapel of Edward 
 
 the Confessor (no. iii.) . . . . . . . . .30 
 
 32. Profile of the same (no. iii.) . . . . . . . . ib. 
 
 33. Eleanor, Queen of Edward the First, from her Monument in the Chapel of Edward the 
 
 Confessor, Westminster Abbey (no. vi.) . . . . . . .31 
 
 34. Hugh de Northwold, Bishop of Ely, from his Effigy in the South aisle of Ely Cathe¬ 
 
 dral, died 1254 (no. xi.) ........ 32 
 
 33. Effigies of a Lady and ( hilil, from the Monument in Scurcliff Church, Derbyshire (no. xi.) 33 
 
 36. Robert de \ erf., Earl of Oxford, died 1221, from his Effigy on the North side of the 
 
 Chancel of Hatfield Broad Oak Church—this monument not of the period of the Earl's 
 decease (no. vi.) .......... 34 
 
 37. Monumental Effigy' in Gosberton Church, Lincolnshire (no. v.) . . . . ib. 
 
 38. Robert Ros, died 1227, Temple Church, London—this monument executed long subse¬ 
 
 quent to his decease (no. i.) . . . . . . .35 
 
 39. Monumental Effigy in Hitchendon Church, Bucks, Richard Wellesburne de Mont- 
 
 fort (no. viii.) .......... 36 
 
 40. Aveline Countess of Lancaster, died 1269, from her Monument in Westminster 
 
 Abbey (no. iii.) ......... 37 
 
 108 
 
■0 
 
 
 PLATES IN THE MONUMENTAL EFFIGIES. 
 
 I. Sir Robert Shurland, from his Effigy in Minster Church, Kent (no. xi.) 
 
 1 . Edmund Chouchback, Earl of Lancaster, second son of King Henry III. 1296, 
 from hisMonument in Westminster Abbey (no. vi.) 
 
 I. Profile of the same (no. hi.) .... 
 
 '•+William de Valence, Earl of Pembroke, died 1296, from his Tomb in the Chapel 
 St. Edmund, Westminster Abbey (no. i.) 
 
 >.f Profile of the same (no. i.) .... 
 
 >. King Edward the Second, from his Monument in Gloucester Cathedral (no, 
 
 1 . Profile of the same (no. vii.) .... 
 
 ). Aymer de \ alence, Earl of Pembroke, died 1323, from his Monument in Westm 
 ster Abbey (no. ii.) .... 
 
 >. Profile of the same (no. ii.) ..... 
 
 I. William de Staunton, died 1326, from his Tomb in Staunton Church, Notts, (no. ix 
 . From a Brass formerly in Gorleston Church, Suffolk, supposed to have belonged to t 
 family of Bacon (no. x.) ....... 
 
 '• Monumental Effigy in Whatton Church, Notts, Sir Richard de Whatton (no. x.) 
 
 !. Profile of the same (no. x.) .... 
 
 ’. Brass in Minster Church, Isle of Slieppy (no. ix.) ..... 
 
 '. John of Eltham, Earl of Cornwall, second son of King Edward II. died 1334, fro 
 his Monument in the Chapel of St. Edmund, Westminster Abbey (no. hi.) 
 
 . Profile of the same (no. iii.) ..... 
 
 . Sir Robert du Bois, from his Effigy in Ferfield Church, Norfolk (no. x.) 
 
 . Sir RocEn de Bois and Lady, Ingham Church, Norfolk (no. xii.] 
 
 . Monumental Effigy in Ifield Church, Sussex (no. vii.) 
 
 . Sir John Daubeknoun, from an enamelled Brass in Stoke Dabcmoun Church, Surre 
 (no. viii.) 
 
 . Monumental Effigy in the Chancel of Ash Church, Kent (no. ii.) 
 
 . Profile of the same ( 
 
 . Sir Roger df. Kerdeston, died 1337, from his Tomb in Reepham Church, Norfol 
 
 (no- >*.). 
 
 , Profile of the same (no. ix.) 
 
 Figures on the Tomb of Sir Roger de Kerdeston (no. ix ) 
 
 . Sir Oliver Ingham, died 1343, from his Monument on the North side of the Chancel o 
 Ingham Church, Norfolk (no. iv.) .... 
 
 , Profile of the same (no. iv.) 
 
 From a Brass in Ingham Church, Norfolk, Sir Miles Stapleton and his Lady (no. x.) 
 William of Hatfield, second son of King Edward the Third, from his Effigy in Yor 
 Cathedral (no. viii.) . 
 
 Profile of the same (no. viii.) ..... 
 
 Effigy of a Blanchfiiont, in Alvechurch, Worcestershire (no. viii.) 
 
 Profile of the same (no. viii.) .... 
 
 Monumental Effigy in the Abbey Church of Tewkesbury (no. vii.) 
 
 Profile of the same (no. vii.) .... 
 
 Sir Humphrey Littlebury, from his Monument at the west end of Holbeaeh Church 
 Lincolnshire (no. iv.) 
 
 Profile of the same (no. iv.) 
 
 Sir Thomas Cawne, in Ightham Church, Kent (no. x.) 
 
E MONUMENTAL EFFIGIES. 
 
 \ Tour, Children of Edward Ill. 
 
 i.) . 
 
 1 the Clmpel 
 
 . th 
 
 66 
 
 Tomb in the Chapel of the Holy 
 To face the first page of the description. 
 To face the last page of the description, 
 the south side of the Lady Chapel, Undercroft of 
 
 , from his Monument 
 
 I.) 
 
 78. Effigy in Staiiulrop Church, Durham (no. ix.) 
 
 79. William of Windsor, and Blanch ni 
 
 of St. Edmund, Westminster Abbey (: 
 
 80. Profile of William of Windsor (no. J.) 
 
 81. Profile of Blanch de la Tour (no. i.) ...••• 
 
 82. John Stratford, Archbishop of Canterbury, died 1318, from his Monument 
 
 south aisle of Canterbury Cathedral (no. ii.) • 
 
 83. King Edward the Third, died 1337, from his Monument in the Chapel of Edward th 
 
 Confessor, Westminster Abbey (no. iii.) 
 
 84. Profile of the same (no. hi.) 
 
 85. fEowARn THE Black Prince, died 1376, frc 
 
 Trinity, Canterbury Cathedral (no. ii.) 
 
 86. Profile of the same (no. n.) 
 
 87. Joan Burwaschs, Lady Mohu 
 
 Canterbury Cathedral (no. ii.) . . , 
 
 88. Profile of the same (no. ii.) 
 
 89. Ralph Nevill, Earl of Westmorland, and his t 
 
 Staindrop Church, Durham (no. xii.) • 
 
 90. Profile of Ralph Nevill, Earl of Westmorland (no. xii.) . 
 
 91. Profile of one of the Wives of Ralph Nevill, Earl of Westmorland ( 
 
 92. Monumental Effigy in W ingfield Church, Norfolk (no. iv.) 
 
 93. Profile of the same (no. v.) • 
 
 94. John Lord Montacttk, from his monument on the south side of the Nave of Salisbur 
 
 Cathedral (no. v ) 
 
 95. Profile of the same (no. iv.) 
 
 96. Sir Guy Bryan, died 1391, from his Monument in the Abbey Church of Tewkesbury 
 
 (no. viii.) ......... 
 
 97. Profile of the same (no. vhi.) • •••••• 
 
 98.1 Sir Hugh Calveley, from his Monument in Bunbury Church, Cheshire (no. vi.) 
 
 99. Profile of the same (no. vi.) ....... 
 
 100 . A Basset and Lady, at Atherington, Devon (no. xii.) .... 
 
 101. Monumental Effigy in Willoughby Church, Notts (no. ix.) 
 
 102. Henry the Fourth, and his Queen, Joan of Navarre, in the Chapel of St. Thom; 
 
 Becket, Canterbury Cathedral (no. iii.) ...... 
 
 103. Profile of Henry the Fourth (no. ii.) ...... 
 
 104. Profile of Joan of Navarre (no. ii.) ...... 
 
 liij. Thomas Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel, and his Countess Beatrice, from their Mon 
 ment in the Church at Arundel (no. vii.) ..... 
 
 106. Profile of Thomas Earl of Arundel, died 1415, (no. vn.) 
 
 107. Michael df. la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, and his Countess Catherine, from their Mon 
 
 ment on the south side of Wingfield Church, Suffolk (no. v.) 
 
 108. Profile of Michael Earl of Suffolk,died at the siege of Harfleur, A. D. 1415 (no. v.) 
 
 109. Profile of Catherine Countess of Suffolk (no. v.) ..... 
 
 110. Effigies lettered, “ Supposed to be Sir Robert Grushill and his Lady” (no. xii.) 
 
 111. Profile view of the male Effigy lettered, “ Supposed of Sir Robert Grushill” (no. xii.) 
 
 112. Sir Edmund de Thorpf. and Lady, in Ashwell Thorp Church, Norfolk (no. xi.) 
 
 113. Second Plate, fully coloured, of the same ....•• 
 
 ib. 
 
PLATES IN THE MONUMENTAL EFEIGI 
 
 122. 
 
 128. 
 
 124. 
 
 125. 
 
 128. 
 
 129. 
 
 ■ "2c aiT ( » bbot ° r *“ i«», f „ m „ onumeM 
 
 the Chapel of St. John the Baptist, Westminster Abbey (no. hi.) 
 
 ■ 1 rofile of tlie same (no. iii.) 
 
 From enamelled Plate In Amberley Church, Sussex, Jon* v „ ') 
 
 ,™ DUCHES ; " Y °"' dirf » 23 - C1 “P'l »f St- Nicholas, Westminster Ab 
 Profile of the same (no. i.) 
 
 J Th r, ;r“” L “ r An '"“'-’ <“ 1«*. from his Monument on the north s 
 ot the Chancel of Arundel Church (no. v„.) 
 
 Profile of the same (no. vii.) 
 
 R ™ s B , E M CH “n Wm °* 1439 ’ *“» Monument in the La 
 
 t-stiapel, St. Mary s Church, Warwick (no. vi.) 
 
 Profile of the same, sword depending from left side (no. 
 
 Second Profile of the same, right side (no. xii.) 
 
 Back view of the same (no. vi.) 
 
 F (m“ J""*’ n “ ,e, rou " 11 the T ”'> " f Richard Beauchamp, Fmrl of Warwi 
 The same (mourners, female) no. xii. 
 
 John Talbot, the great Paul of Shrewsbury, died 1453, 
 church, Shropshire (no. vi.) 
 
 Profile of the same (no. vi.) 
 
 . Robert Loan IlnnoEnroRn, died 1155, from his Monument on the 
 JNave of Salisbury Cathedral (no. iv.) 
 
 . Profile of the same (no. iv.) 
 
 r, ° m their Mon “ m “ t in Great St. Helen's Church, Londo 
 Profile of Sir John Crosby (no. xi.) 
 
 Profile of Lady Crosby (no. xi.) 
 
 A Nevili. and Lady, (Ralph Nevill, Earl of Westmorl 
 betii,) in Brancepeth Church, Durham (no.xii.) 
 
 Profile of the Earl (no. x.) 
 
 M^lliam Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel, and his Countess, in A 
 1 rofile of William Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel (no. vmi.) 
 
 J r ])UKE OF • SuFF0LK - and his Duchess Elizabe' 
 
 Wingfield Church, Suffolk (no. v.) 
 
 Painting on the same (no. v.) 
 
 Profile of John de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk (no. iv.) 
 
 Effinp- of a Montfort, in Hitchendon Church, Bucks (no. xi.) 
 
 Vma > f, '“ m llis M ™'»»ent in Lullingstone Church, Kent (uo.'xt.) . . ]05 
 
 , from his Effigy at Wh 
 
 south side of t 
 
 ), and his Countess Ei.iz 
 
 rundel Church (no. xi. 
 h, sister to Edward IV 
 
ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE INTRODUCTION 
 
 MONUMENTAL EFFIGIES OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 Fuontispif.ce. The Monumental Effigies rescued from Time, designed by Thomas Stothavd 
 Esq. R.A. etched by C. A. Stothard, F.S.A. 
 
 Title FOB mi Introduction \m- descbiptions, &c. The Wood-cuts wliich surround this 
 page were designed by the late Mr. C. Stothard himself. The armorial shields are copied from 
 those on the wall of the South Aisle of Westminster Abbey, and are the bearings of the Barons who 
 contributed to the work or building of the present Abbey Church, in the time of Henry the Third. 
 The inscriptions, in the uncial character, are to be read thus: 
 
 nicHAnnus : u : cornubue * - hexricus dr . iiastinges-rogerus : moon -robertcs : nr.: verb 
 
 —JOANNES : D : WARRENNE—R1CHARDUS : DE : CLARE—SIMON : DE : MONTEEORTJ—Gl 11 ■ DB : PORTIBUS. 
 
 Portrait of the late Charles Alfred Stothard, F.S.A. engraved by Cooper, after a miniature 
 by Chalon; to face the Introduction. 
 
 View of the Lid of the Stone-coffin of Matilda Queen of William the Conqueror. Etched, after 
 Mr. Stothard’s original drawing, by his brother, Mr. Robert Stothard. See Introduction, p. 3. 
 
 VIGNETTES. 
 
 General View of the Knights Templar in the Temple Church. Etched by Mr. Robert Stothard. 
 
 Elevation of the Tomb of Queen Berengaria. 
 
 Elevation of the Tomb of W'illiam de Valence, Earl of Pembroke; with \ lews of the ena¬ 
 melled Escutcheons thereon, coloured and enlarged. 
 
 Elevation of the Tomb of Sir Robert Shurland. Etched, after Mr. C. Stothard’s original drawing, 
 by Mr. John Swaine, junior. 
 
 Elevation of the Tomb of Edward the Black Prince ; enamelled Escutcheons thereon, coloured 
 and enlarged. The Labels, bearing the mottoes, “ Ujoumout," " 3Ict) Diene," enlarged. 
 
 Chaperon and Crest, Shield, Sword-sheath, Gauntlets, Helmet, and gamboised Surcoat of Edward 
 the Black Prince, suspended over his Tomb in Canterbury Cathedral. 
 
 Elevation of the Tomb of Sir Guy Bryan. 
 
 Elevation of the Tomb of Sir John Peciie or Peciiy. 
 
 Rebus (a branch of a peach-tree with the fruit) and Armorial Shield of Peciiy, from painted glass 
 in the window of Lullingstone Church. 
 
 112 
 
 orig. perhaps for 11 Duniimis Cornuhiie." 
 
UST OF MRS. BRAY'S (LATE MRS. STOTHAHD'S) WORKS. 
 
 
 . www , oulduion ana u 
 and Smith and Elder, CornhiU, London. 
 
 Y ULAU.1S ana uenti.f.y, New Burlin 
 
 
 tor a. >i,h *«» ,. f Mr., a,.,: „ mMmi m,, , M 
 
 Re.™, «,j a, r ^, di „, nuof ' * 
 
 " Mixing and instructive fictions, see the 
 
 MEMOIRS of the late C. A. STOTHARD, Esq. FAS Price Is, 
 
 r p ““ or 
 
 __ 
 
 The FSTOSTANT 13 ’ t". “ff 3 •*. M» H. 11.. M. 
 
 R . 
 
 he TALBA, „r, Moo, of Poriog.l, « Eooame,, ln a Pr ,„ 
 
 Preparing for the Press, by the 
 WARLEIGH ; a Second Legend of Devon, in 3 vols. 
 
 To be had also of Mrs. Un A , 
 
 e Author, 
 
 ■ 1. Rodney Buildings, New Kent Bond, or of Messrs Apr,, l>, l „ „ 
 
 _ ,. - - »— v* *<«**. 
 
 C 15 co oured Elate of the enamelled TABLET OF GEOFFRPV m it , 
 
 4 .. d ' y .*. . . . the ROYAL EFFIGIES AT mmemSm’a 
 
 A. Stothabd, Esq. F.S.A. Price II. 15,. rumRVRALD, the last Work of the late V. 
 
 Also, to be had of Messrs. Nichols, 25, Parliament %tree / , „ 
 
 HISTORICAL NOTICES of,he COLLECIATE CHURf-H & Ww.fc, 
 
 LONDON, rounded o„ „ d ., w m " AKY ST - MARTIN LE GRAND, 
 
 foundation, and generally with ancient Coelome and eminent p *’ ° Cail - v " ilh th[1 Hietory of the 
 
 SANCTUARY, By ALFRED JOHN KEMPE, F.S.A - •"> kind, of 
 
 . lllnstrated with Engravings. Price 10s. Gd. boards. 
 
 ,0HN BOW VKK s 11 HOLS AND SON 
 
 PARLIAMENT STREET, WESTMINSTER. ’ 
 
7<'v ^ 
 
 MONUMENTAL EFFIGIES OF GREAT BRITAIN 
 
 Alvechurch, Worcester, Effigy in 
 Amberley Church, Sussex, Enamelled Plate 
 Arundel, Thomas, Earl of, and hifi Countess 
 Arundel, John, Earl of 
 Arundel, William, Earl of, and his Countess 
 Arundel Church, Effigies of the Fitz-Alans 
 Ash Church, Kent, Effigy in 
 Ashwelthorpe Church, Norfolk, Effigy in . 
 
 Athcrington, Devon, a Basset and Lady at. 
 
 Aveline, Countess of Lancaster 
 Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke 
 
 Bacon, Brass of a, in Gorleston Church, Suffolk 
 Basset and Lady, at Athcrington, Devon . 
 
 Beauchamp, Richard, Earl of Warwick 
 
 Berengaria, Queen of Richard Cccur de Lion. Elevation of her Tomb, V 
 Blanche de la Tour. See William of Windsor. 
 
 Blanchfront, Effigy of a, at Alvechurch, Worcester 
 Boy Bishop ..... 
 
 Brancepeth Church, Durham. Ralph Neville 
 Brocas, Sir Bernard, (described in the Advertisement to th 
 Bryan, Sir Guy, Elevation of his Tomb, Vignette . 
 
 Bucks. See Hitchenden. 
 
 Bunbury Church, Monument of Sir Hugh Calveley 
 Burwaschs, Joan, Lady Mohun 
 
 Caen, Effigy of Matilda, Queen of William the Conqueror 
 Calveley, Sir Hugh .... 
 
 Cambridge. See Ely and Rampton Church. 
 
 Canterbury, John Stratford, Archbishop of. 
 
 Canterbury Cathedral, Effigies in, viz. John Stratford, 
 
 Burwaschs, Edward IV. and his Queen. 
 
 Cawne, Sir Thomas • 
 
 Cheshire. See Bunbury Church. 
 
 Colchester, William de, Abbot of Westminster 
 Cornwall, John of Eltham, Earl of 
 Crosby, Sir John and Lady 
 
 D'Abemoun, Sir John .... 
 
 De Bailul, Jocelyn . . • • • 
 
 De la Pole. See Suffolk. 
 
 De’Lisle, Effigy of a 
 Derbyshire. See Scardiffe. 
 
 Devonshire. See Atheririgton. 
 
 Du Bois, Sir Robert • 
 
 Du Bois, Sir Roger and Lady .... 
 
 Durham. See Staindrop, Brancepeth Church, and Whitworth 
 

 Edmund Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster . . . . . . . 42, 43 
 
 Edward the Black Prince, Plate 85, 86. Elevation of his Tomb, Vignette. His Chaperon 
 and Crest, Shield, &c. Vignette. 
 
 Edward II. ... ...... 46, 47 
 
 Edward III. . • • • ■ • . 83, 84 
 
 Eleanor do Guienne, Queen of Henry II. . . . . . 6, 7 
 
 Eleanor, Queen of Edward I. ....... 33 
 
 Elthani, Jolm of, Earl of Cornwall . . . . . ■ . 55, 56 
 
 Ely, Hugh de Northwold, Bishop of, from his ElTigy in Ely Cathedral . . 34 
 
 Essex. See Hatfield. 
 
 Essex, Geoffrey de Magnaville, Earl of . . . . . 10 
 
 Ferfield Church, Norfolk, Effigy of Sir Robert Du Bois ..... 57 
 
 Fitz-Alan, Thomas, Earl of Arundel, and his Countess . . . 105, 106 
 
 Fitz-Alan, Jolm, Earl of Arundel . . . ■ • • . 119, 120 
 
 Fitz-Alan, William, Earl of Arundel, and his Countess .... 136, 137 
 
 Fontevraud, Effigies at, viz. Henry II. Plate 4, 5. Eleanor de Guienne, Plate 6, 7. 
 Richard I. Plate 8, 9. Isabella d’Angoulesmc, Plate 13, 14. 
 
 Geoffrey de Magnaville, Earl of Essex . . . . . 10 
 
 Gloucester. See Tewkesbury. 
 
 Gloucester Cathedral, Effigy of Robert Duke of Normandy . . . . 22, 23 
 
 Gorleston Church, Suffolk, A'Bacon in . . . . . .51 
 
 Gosberton Church, Effigy in ........ 37 
 
 Great St. Helen’s Church, Sir Jolm Crosby and Lady . . 131, 132, 133 
 
 Grushill, Sir Robert and his Lady . . . . 110, 111 
 
 Hatfield Broad Oak Church, Effigy of Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford . . .36 
 
 Hatfield, William of, second Son of Edward III. ...... 69, 70 
 
 Henry II. sumamed Plantagenet, Plate 4, 5. His Queen, 6, 7. 
 
 Henry III. . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 32 
 
 Henry IV. and his Queen, Joan of Navarre . . . . .102, 103, 104 
 
 Hitchenden Church, Bucks, Richard Wellysburne de Montford, Plate 39. Another of the 
 family of Montford, Plate 141. 
 
 Holbeach Church, Lincoln, Effigy in . . . . . . . 75, 76 
 
 Holy Trinity, Chapel of the, Canterbury, Edward the Black Prince . . .85, 86 
 
 Hoveringham Church, Notts, Effigy in ...... 110, 111 
 
 Ifield Chinch, Sussex, Effigy in ........ 59 
 
 Ightham Church, Kent, Effigy of Sir Thomas Cawne ..... 77 
 
 Ingham Church, Norfolk, Effigies at, viz. Sir Roger Du Bois and Lady, Plate 58. Sir Oliver 
 Ingham, Plate 66, 67. Sir Miles Stapleton and Lady, Plate 68. 
 
 Ingham, Sir Oliver . . . . . . . . . 66, 67 
 
 Isabella of Angoulesme, Queen of King Jolm . . . . . 13, 14 
 
 Joan of Navarre. See Henry IV. 
 
 Jocelyn de Bailul, Bishop of Salisbury ....... 3 
 
 John, King . . . . .11,12 
 
 Jolm of Eltliam, Earl of Cornwall . . . . . . . 55, 56 
 
 John de Ifield, Sir .......... 59 
 
 John d'Abemoun, Sir ........ 60 
 
 Kent. See Minster Church, Ash Chinch, Ightham Church, Canterbury and Lullingstone 
 Church. 
 
 Kerdeston, Sir Roger de . . . . . .63, 64, 65 
 
 Knights Templars, Vignette. 
 
 Lady and Child, Scarcliffe Church, Derby ....... 35 
 
 Lady Chapel, Canterbury Cathedral, Effigy in . . . . .87, 88 
 
 Lancaster, Aveline, Countess of ........ 40 
 
 Lancaster, Edmund Crouchback, Earl of . . . . . . . 42, 43 
 
 Laverick, Sir John .......... 61 
 
Brass belonging to the 
 
 MONUMENTAL EFFIGIES OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 L Espan, Abbey of, Effigy of Queen Berengaria 
 Lincolnshire. See Gosberton and Holbeacli Church. 
 
 Littlebury, Sir Humphrey ...... 
 
 London. See Temple Church, and Great St. Helen’s Church. 
 
 Longespee, William, Earl of Salisbury .... 
 
 Longespee, William, the Younger ..... 
 
 Lullingstone Church, Effigy of Sir John Peche 
 
 Malvern Abbey, Effigy at . 
 
 Mans, in Normandy, Effigy at, Geoffrey Plantagenct 
 Mareschal, William, Earl of Pembroke .... 
 
 Matilda, Queen of William the Conqueror .... 
 
 Minster Church, Kent, Effigy of Sir Robert Shurland, Plate 41 
 family of Northwood, Plate 54. 
 
 Moliun. See Burwaschs. 
 
 Montacute, John, Lord ......... 
 
 Montford, Richard Wellysbume de, Plate 39. Another of the family of Montford, Plate 141. 
 Mourners round the Tomb of Richard Beauchamp. Male, Plate 125. Female, Plate 126. 
 
 Nevill of Raby .......... 78 
 
 Neville, Ralph, First Earl of Westmoreland, and his two Wives . . .89, 90, 91 
 
 Neville, Ralph, Second Earl of Westmoreland and his Lady . . . 134, 135 
 
 Norfolk. See Ferfield Church, Ingham Church, Reepham Church, Winfield Church, 
 Ashwelthorpe Church. 
 
 Normandy, Robert Duke of ........ 22, 23 
 
 Northwold, Hugh de, Bishop of Ely ....... 34 
 
 Northwood, Brass supposed to belong to the family of .... 
 
 Nottinghamsliire. See Whatton Church, Hovcringham Church, Staunton Church, 
 Willoughby Church. 
 
 Oxford, Robert de Yere, Earl of . 
 
 Peche, Sir John. Elevation of his Tomb, Vignette 
 
 Pembroke, William de Valence, Earl of. Elevation of his Tomb, Vignette 
 
 Pembroke, Aymer de Valence, Earl of 
 
 Philippa, Duchess of York. ...... 
 
 Plantagenet, Geoffrey ....... 
 
 Plantagenet. See Henry II. ..... - 
 
 Pole, De la. See Suffolk. 
 
 Rampton Church, Cambridgeshire, Effigy in 
 Reepham Church, Norfolk, Tomb in 
 Richard L (sumamed Cceur de Lion) 
 Robert, Lord Hungerford . 
 
 Roger, Bishop of Salisbury. 
 
 Ros, Robert 
 
 St. Edmund’s Chapel, William of Windsor, and Blanche de la Tour 
 St. John the Baptist’s Chapel, Effigy of William de Colchester 
 St. Mary's Church, Warwick, Effigy of Richard Beauchamp 
 St. Nicholas, Chapel of, Philippa, Duchess of York .... 
 Salisbury Cathedral, Effigies at, viz. Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, Plate 1. Jocelyn, 
 Bishop of Salisbury, Plate 3. William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury', Plate 17,18. 
 The Boy Bishop, Plate 29. John, Lord Montacute, Plate 94, 95. Robert, Lord 
 Hungerford, Plate 129, 130. 
 
 Salisbury, William Longespee, Earl of ••••■• 
 Scarcliffe Church, Derby, Effigy of Lady and Child • 
 
 Shrewsbury, Talbot, Earl of ...•■•• 
 
 Shropshire. See Whitchurch. 
 
 Shurland, Sir Robert. Elevation of his Tomb, Vignette . 
 
 Staindrop, Durham, Effigies at, viz. A Raby, Plate 78. Neville, Earl of Westmoreland, 
 Plate 89, 90, 91. 
 
 142 
 44, 45 
 48, 49 
 17, 18 
 
 . 20 , 21 
 63, 64, 65 
 
 , 80, 81 
 14, 115 
 
 23, 124' 
 
 17, 18 
 35 
 128 
 
108, 109 
 1I59, 140 
 
 Stapleton, Sir Miles and Lady 
 Staunton, Sir William de . 
 
 Staunton Church, Notts, Tomb of Sir William de Staunton 
 Stoke d’Abernoun Church, Sir John d'Abemoun 
 Stothard, Charles, a portrait of 
 Stratford, Jokn, Archbishop of Canterbury 
 Suffolk. See Gorleston Church, Wingfield Church 
 Suffolk, Michael, Earl of, and his Countess Catlieri... . ■ 
 
 Suffolk, John de la Pole, Duke of, and his Duchess Elizabeth, (sister to Edward IV.) 13S, 
 
 Surrey. See Stoke d’Abemoun. 
 
 Sussex. See Ificld Church, Amberley Church. 
 
 Talbot, John, Earl of Shrewsbury . • • ■ * ' ’ 127, 128 
 
 Temple Church, London, Effigies in, viz. Knights Templars, Vignette. Geoffrey de 
 Magnaville, Plate 2. Knight Templar, Plate 15. William Marcschal, Earl of 
 Pembroke, Plate 26, 27. Monumental Effigy, Plate 28. Robert Ross, Plate 38. 
 Tewkesbury, Effigy in the Abbey Church of, Plate 73, 74. Sir Guy Bryan, Plate 96, 97. 
 
 Thomas a Beckett, Chapel of - • • • - • . 102, 103, 104 
 
 Thorpe, Sir Edmund de, and Lady . • • • ■ • • 112, 113 
 
 Valence. See Aymer and William de Valence. 
 
 Wantley, John 
 
 Warwick. See St. Mary's Church. 
 
 Warwick, Richard Beauchamp, Earl of . • • • • 121, 122, 123, 
 
 Westminster. See Chapel of Edward the Confessor, St. Edmund’s Chapel, St. John the 
 Baptist’s Chapel, and Chapel of St. Nicholas. 
 
 Westminster Abbey, Effigies in, viz. Aveline, Countess of Lancaster, Plate 40. Edmund 
 Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster, Plate 42, 43. Aymer de Valence, Earl of 
 Pembroke, Plate 48, 40. John of Eltham, Earl of Cornwall, Plate 55, 
 
 Ilenry III. Plate 31,32. Edward III. Plate 83, 84. Eleanor, Queen of Edwa 
 Plate 33. Sir Bernard Brocas, Plate 143, 144. 
 
 Westmoreland, Ralph Neville, Earl of. See Neville 
 Whatton Church, Notts, Effigy in . 
 
 Whatton, Sir Richard • 
 
 Whitchurch, Shropshire, Effigy of Talbot Earl of Shrewsbury 
 Whitworth Church-yard, Durham, Effigy in 
 Wi lliam de Valence, Earl of Pembroke 
 William of Hatfield • 
 
 Willoughby Church, Notts, Effigy in 
 Wiltshire. See Salisbury. 
 
 Windsor, William of, and Blanche de la Tour 
 Wingfield, Lord of Letheringham • 
 
 Wingfield Church, Effigies in, viz. Lord Wingfield, Plate 92, 93. John de la Pole 
 Plate 138,139,140. 
 
 Worcester Cathedral, Effigy of King John ...... 
 
 Worcestershire. See Malvern and Alvechurch. 
 
 56. 
 
 89, 90, 91 
 
 , 81 
 , 93 
 
 York Cathedral, Effigy in, William of Hatfield 
 York, Philippa, Duchess of.