CASTILE, QUEEN OF ENGLAND, AND THE MONUMENTS ERECTED IN HER
MEMORY. ***





[Illustration:

  FIG. 1.
  Charing Cross and the Chapel of St. Mary Roncevall in
  the early part of the sixteenth century. (After Van den Wyngaerde.)
]




------------------------------------------------------------------------


                   HISTORICAL SKETCHES OF OLD CHARING




                    The Hospital and Chapel of Saint
                             Mary Roncevall




                  Eleanor of Castile, Queen of England

                                AND THE

                    Monuments Erected in Her Memory



                                   BY

                            JAMES GALLOWAY,

                               A.M., M.D.

   _Senior Physician, and a Vice-President, Charing Cross Hospital_.



                                 LONDON
                   JOHN BALE, SONS & DANIELSSON, LTD.
                              OXFORD HOUSE
           83-91, GREAT TITCHFIELD STREET, OXFORD STREET, W.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                                PREFACE.

                                -------

These Studies in the history of Old London were written at the request
of Students of Charing Cross Hospital, and were first published in their
Gazette. The rough outlines, marks of which may be easily discerned,
were formed by the notes for Lectures delivered to the Students and
Nursing Staff of the Hospital on various occasions. It is hoped that in
the present form these Studies may continue to be of interest to friends
of Charing Cross Hospital, and perhaps also to the large and increasing
number of Students of the history of London.

London,

    Easter, 1914.




------------------------------------------------------------------------




                       THE HOSPITAL AND CHAPEL OF
                          SAINT MARY RONCEVALL




------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       THE HOSPITAL AND CHAPEL OF

                          SAINT MARY RONCEVALL

                           AT CHARING CROSS.


                                -------


             “En Rencesvals si est Carles entrez;
             *       *       *
             Rollanz remeint pur les altres guarder.
             *       *       *
             Halt sunt li pui e tenebrus e grant,
             Li val parfunt e les ewes curranz.
             *       *       *
             Li gentilz quens, qu’il fut morz cunquerant.”

                    “La Chanson de Roland,” édition, Léon Gautier.


THE fact that the conventual Hospital of St. Mary Roncevall was founded
at the village of Charing in the time of Henry III, and that it
continued to exist till the dissolution of the religious houses by Henry
VIII, is well known to students of the history of London; but, so far as
the writer is aware, no definite attempt had been made to collect the
remaining records of this interesting medical foundation before 1907,
when the story of the Convent and its Hospital was published
privately.[1] Nevertheless, the influence of the Convent and the
Hospital which it established was considerable during the three
centuries of their existence in England. The name which the Convent in
London received from the Mother House served to revive the memories of
perilous journeys and of timely succour in the minds of many who had
travelled abroad in France and Spain engaged either in warlike or
peaceful affairs, the name of Roncevall in many forms came to be used as
a family designation in various parts of England;[2] and Chaucer refers
to the existence of the Convent in a way that shows that the reference
required no explanation to his readers. After the dissolution of the
alien priories the fraternity owed its continued existence to the
recognition of the charitable assistance it rendered to “the poor people
flocking to the Hospital.”

Footnote 1:

  Galloway, James, “The Story of Saint Mary Roncevall,” private
  publication; and _Charing Cross Hosp. Gaz._, 1907, ix, p. 43. Cf.
  references by Dugdale, “Monasticon Anglicanum,” ed. 1830; Newcourt,
  “Repertorium Ecclesiasticum Parochiale Londinense,” 1708; Tanner,
  “Notitia Monastica,” 1744; also by Stow and later writers on London.

Footnote 2:

  The records of the painful dispute between the Abbot of Rewley and
  John Ronceval and his associates, John, Thomas, and Walter Rounceval
  may be yet read with interest.—Calend. Pat. Rolls. 16 Ed. II and 14
  Ed. III. (1323-41.)

This attempt to fill up a gap in the history of London hospitals may be
of some service to the students of the history of medicine, and of
interest to the larger number who are unwilling to forget the stories of
Old London.


                             RONCESVALLES.

There are few places so renowned in the early literature of the Romance
languages as the pass through the Western Pyrenees, at the southern
extremity of which lies the village of Roncesvalles. The Song of Roland
handed down the memories of Roncesvalles from the early Middle Ages; but
this famous poem (dating in its present form from the latter part of the
eleventh century) must be regarded only as the final and successful
effort to collect the traditions which form the foundations of French
and Spanish history. The traditions find their earliest record in the
legends and “chansons de geste,” which, in the first instance, served to
commemorate the successful rising of the people of Spain to expel an
invader, Charlemagne, the Emperor of the North. The rearguard of his
retreating host, consisting chiefly of Frankish subjects of the Emperor
under the leadership of the Count Roland, Captain-General of the Breton
March, the Emperor’s nephew, was overwhelmed and annihilated, while
traversing the Pass on their retreat from Spain in the year 778. The
ancient history of Eginhard, telling of the Spaniards, says very
suggestively “usque ad unum omnes interficiunt ac ... summa cum
celeritate in diversa disperguntur.” Even “li gentilz quens” did not
escape the massacre. The Chanson de Roland gives the French version of
this tradition, which was accepted by the Normans in England; the
Spanish legend of the hero Bernardo del Carpio gives, as it is to be
expected, a very different account of the overthrow of the Emperor.

In the course of the succeeding centuries the Pass of Roncesvalles
occupies on more than one occasion a prominent place in British history.
One of the most picturesque passages in Froissart tells how the army of
Edward the Black Prince traversed the Pass in the ill-omened invasion of
Spain that led to his fatal illness. His remarkable victory at Navarrete
scarcely relieves the gloomy record of this adventure. Little more than
one hundred years have elapsed since Roncesvalles and the neighbouring
defiles once more saw the advance of war-worn British soldiery. In the
defence of these passes against the advance of the French under Soult,
so nearly successful in overwhelming Wellington’s right flank, and in
the subsequent pursuit of the retreating French armies, some of the most
remarkable of the feats of arms which distinguished the Peninsular War
took place. British military history contains few more stirring episodes
than the combats between the French and the allied troops in the Passes
of Maya and Roncesvalles.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 2.
  _Stanfords Geog^. Estab^. London._
  A chart of the Western Pyrenees, showing the roads through the passes
    and the position of Roncesvalles and Ibañeta.
]

The memories of Roncesvalles, therefore, are in no danger of being
forgotten, but it has passed from knowledge that for a period of more
than three hundred years the name of Roncesvalles was more familiar to
the citizens of Westminster and London than to the dwellers in Pamplona
and Bayonne. How it came about that an important religious house
dedicated to Our Lady of Roncesvalles should have been established at
Charing will best be understood if we consider the nature of the
activities of the ancient Monastery in the Pass of Roncesvalles, the
numbers of those on whom it conferred benefits, and the character of its
benefactors in England.


            THE CONVENT OF ST. MARY RONCESVALLES IN NAVARRE.

From very early Christian times a religious house, no doubt very small
in its beginnings, was situated near the top of the pass through which
runs the ancient road over the Pyrenees leading from Pamplona in
Navarre, through the mountains by St. Jean Pied-de-Port, to Bayonne and
Bordeaux. The religious community at this place received its most
important support from Charlemagne himself, when he established a
religious house intended to be a memorial of Roland and his comrades in
arms. The original Convent of Charlemagne’s foundation was situated
close to the village of Ibañeta, near the summit of the Pass and the
site of the great battle. Of this house only insignificant and deserted
ruins remain. After a destructive raid by the Moors under Abderramen,
Caliph of Cordova, in 921, the community removed to the present site of
the Monastery in the village of Roncesvalles, two or three kilometres
farther south. The removal of the Convent to this site is said to have
been determined by various miraculous signs, among others by the
discovery of an image of the Holy Virgin, and it was clearly to the
advantage of the community that its permanent settlement should be in
the comparatively sheltered southern approaches of the Pass rather than
on the exposed summit.

The Order of Roncesvalles thus became established on a firmer basis, and
at first had distinct military as well as religious purposes. The
members of the community consisted of knights and companions, as well as
the brothers and sisters, who all bore the badge of the Order. The
duties which they had to fulfil were military, for the Knights of
Roncesvalles were in frequent conflict with the Moors, and religious,
for not only did the brethren serve their Church, but one of the
earliest and most important duties of the community was to establish a
hospital in the Pass for wayfarers in this wild region.

In the course of time the members of this military-religious community
received the Augustinian Rule, but they retained much of their
independence, the memories of their original order, and especially held
to the traditions of hospitality and charitable succour to pilgrims and
to those in distress. The Convent and its Hospital gradually acquired
wide renown on account of the good works carried on by the Canons. Their
house was on the main road between France and Spain. The military
expeditions so frequently traversing the frontiers marched along the
highway passing its doors, pilgrims visiting the shrine of St. James at
Compostella must have halted there on their way to and from the south,
and the road through the Pass was the chief highway for peaceful
travellers of every kind. The community, therefore, increased in
importance and in wealth by gifts from princes, nobles, knights, and the
common folk, and came to possess property not only in Spain, but also in
Portugal, Italy and in France, and, as the records show, in England and
Wales, in Ireland, and in Scotland. It is stated that at the height of
its prosperity the Convent distributed annually from 25,000 to 30,000
rations, each consisting of a loaf of 16 oz., half a pint of wine, with
sufficient soup and meat, or fish on days of fast. Those who were infirm
had chicken broth and mutton. The Hospital had a staff consisting of the
physicians, with whom were associated surgeons and an apothecary, and
one of the distinguishing features of the Order at a very early period
was that it included sisters. In the case of patients dying while in
hospital, free interment was given after the celebration of masses in
due form. It is expressly stated that the daughter house in England,
with its possessions in that country, in Ireland, and in Scotland,
remitted annually the sum of 4,000 ducats for the support of the Mother
House at Roncesvalles.[3]

Footnote 3:

  Cf. Reseña histórica de la Real Casa de nuestra Señora de
  Roncesvalles; por D. Hilario Sarasa, Pamplona, 1878; a review was
  published by Wentworth Webster in the “Academy,” 1879, xvi, p. 135-6.

During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the community of
Roncesvalles fell on evil days. The march of events deprived them of
their property abroad, while laxity in the observance of their Rule and
the continually disturbed state of the Franco-Spanish frontier brought
about the loss of the greater part of their accumulated possessions and
wealth. Unfortunately the ancient records of the Monastery have nearly
all been destroyed; but there remains in the library an unpublished
manuscript giving the history of the Order and the Convent, written by
Don Juan Huarte, about the middle of the seventeenth century, which
incorporates information received from a certain Don Francisco
Olastro[4] (who is stated to have been an ambassador from England in
Madrid) respecting the history of their daughter house in London. But
even at the time when this document was written, many statements it
contains appear to have acquired the characteristics of tradition and
can be accepted only after careful collation and criticism. We have,
therefore, to depend almost entirely on the English records for the
history of the House of Roncesvalles in London.

Footnote 4:

  ? Francis Oliver.


            THE CONVENT OF SAINT MARY RONCEVALL AT CHARING.

To understand how it was possible that a religious house in the Pyrenees
could hold possessions scattered throughout so many different lands, it
must be clearly borne in mind that in the Middle Ages the rule exercised
by the Church took very little cognizance of State limits. The
ecclesiastical power was much stronger than the national influences of
the time, and the Church drew its revenues from all Christian countries,
quite irrespective of political boundaries. At the time when the House
of Roncesvalles at Charing was founded, the overlordship of the Pope had
been felt in England and in France in a very real manner. In addition to
this ecclesiastical bond, the political relationships between England,
France and Northern Spain were of the most intimate character, so that
the all-pervading power of the Church could be exercised with the
greater ease in these countries. During the period of the Norman, and
even more so during the Angevin dynasty, the English barons experienced
the greatest difficulty in detaching themselves from the influences
exerted on them by their foreign relationships, even if they had the
desire to do so. In many cases they seem to have frankly regarded their
insular possessions as sources of revenue and power to be made use of in
order to promote their Continental interests. In this respect they
followed the example set in such unmistakable fashion by kings such as
Richard and John. The Church acted in the same manner, and many foreign
convents were able, by their powerful influence, to obtain possession
of, and to exploit, the rich lands of England for their own support. It
was not until the close of the reign of John and during the reign of
Henry III that the separate destinies of England and France became
apparent to the more sagacious of the English statesmen of that period.
It is very instructive, therefore, to note as evidence of the
complicated and distracting political and social influences still felt
by the English magnates, that the noble family which perhaps most of all
by its example and advice sought to uphold the political independence of
England as apart from France, was nevertheless impelled to become one of
the great benefactors of a foreign religious house.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 3.                      FIG. 4.
  Figs. 3 and 4.—Front and profile views of the effigy in the Temple
  Church of William Marshall, sen., Earl of Pembroke (_ob._ 1219).
]


   WILLIAM MARSHALL, EARL OF PEMBROKE (1219-31), FOUNDER OF ST. MARY
                               RONCEVALL.

The House of Roncesvalles appears to have owed most of its property in
England and in Ireland to the liberality of William Marshall, Earl of
Pembroke, the eldest son of the great William Marshall—_Rector regis et
regni_—the Protector of the King and his kingdom after the death of
John. The elder Marshall stands out in conspicuous fashion as the most
steadfast of all the advisers of the king during the dark period
coinciding with the reigns of Richard I and John. His early years were
passed in France, acquiring skill in the martial exercises commonly
practised by the young nobles of the day, and his courage and
proficiency in arms were such that he had early acquired the reputation
of being one of the most redoubtable knights in Christendom. If no other
evidence remained of his prowess, the historic passage of arms against
Richard Cœur de Lion while still Count of Poitiers will be sufficient
proof.[5] On this occasion he overthrew Richard and held him at his
mercy, preventing the mad attack on his father, and probably saved the
Prince from the fate of being a parricide. In addition to his skill in
the use of arms, he gradually built up for himself a reputation for
prudence, sagacity and loyalty, so that while still a young man he was
entrusted with the guardianship of the young Henry, son of Henry II, and
in the succeeding reigns occupied the most prominent positions under the
English Crown, trusted by the barons and even by John. The testimony of
the French King Philip Augustus, when informed of the death of William
Marshall, as to his reputation for loyalty and honour remains on record:
“Et, en vérité le Maréchal fut l’homme le plus loyal que j’aie jamais
connu.”[6]

Footnote 5:

  “Al conte Richard ki veneit.
  E quant li quens le vit venir
  Si s’escria par grant haïr:
  ‘Par les gambes Dieu! Maréchal
  Ne m’ociez; ce sereit mal.
  Ge sui toz desarmes issi.’
  Et li Maréchal respondi:
  ‘Nenil! diables vos ocie!
  Cor jo ne vos ocirai mie.’”

      —“L’Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal,” 8836-8844; publié pour la
  Société de l’Histoire de France par Paul Meyer.

Footnote 6:

  “Dist li reis ‘mes li Maréchal Fu, al mien dit, li plus leials, Veir,
  que jeo unques coneusse En nul liu ou je unques fusse.”

  —“L’Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal,” 19149-19152.

During the many years of William Marshall’s residence abroad he
travelled widely throughout France and no doubt in Northern Spain. It is
well known that he went on pilgrimage to the Holy Sepulchre in
fulfilment of a promise given to the young Henry on his deathbed.
Marshall must have been very familiar with the reputation of the
Monastery at Roncesvalles. There can be little doubt that he had passed
it on his journeyings; the military-religious character of its Rule
would have appealed to him, and he may even have rested in the House of
the Convent. His piety is evidenced by the fact that he became closely
associated with the Order of the Knights Templars, was one of their
great benefactors in England, and at his death received sepulture in
their church, then newly built in London.

The elder Marshall died in the year 1219, and was succeeded by his
eldest son, also called William, who then became possessed of one of the
most extensive heritages in England, for the English and Welsh lands of
the Clares, Earls of Pembroke, and in addition their great Irish
inheritance in Leinster, had come into the possession of the Marshall
family.

What we know of the son shows him to have been a man of much the same
type as his father—probably not so rugged, but with the same steadfast
ideals of loyal conduct. It is evident that his character was as
strongly tinctured with religious feeling as was that of his father. He
also was an Associate of the Order of the Knights Templars, and was one
of their principal supporters after their removal to the “New Temple,”
where the “Temple” Church still stands. His admiration for his father is
clearly shown by the priceless biography of the elder William which we
still possess. This poem is known as “L’Histoire de Guillaume le
Maréchal” and is evidently the work of a professional writer of the
period, but it was composed under the direction of the son of the great
Marshall with the assistance of Jean d’Erleé,[7] his father’s old
companion and faithful squire.

Footnote 7:

  Erlée; Earley (Erleia, Erlegh, &c.), near Reading.

[Illustration:

  FIGS. 5, 6, and 7.—Front and profile views of the effigy in the
  Temple Church of William Marshall, jun., Earl of Pembroke (_ob._
    1231).
]

During the lifetime of William Marshall and his son, and for long before
and after, the high road through the Pass of Roncesvalles was much
frequented. It was the main line of communication by land between France
and Spain on the western frontier, and was used both by peaceful
travellers and by the numerous military expeditions passing from one
country to the other. These expeditions resulted not only from the
constant warfare of the border but were also organized by Crusaders on
their way to help the Spaniard against the Moor, frequently with the
purpose of travelling farther to the Holy Land. At this time also the
relationships formed by Henry II and his sons with the Courts of the new
kingdoms in the north of Spain, which were beginning to arise as the
tide of Moorish invasion receded, were of the most intimate character.
It will be remembered that Richard, when King of England, married
Berengaria, daughter of Sancho VI of Navarre, after a very troublesome
wooing, and that the younger Sancho took the part of Richard while the
latter was on crusade against their common enemies in the South of
France. The relationship between the Courts of Aragon and Castile and
the Angevin Kings was no less intimate. William Marshall and his eldest
son were in the closest association with the Royal House. They both
travelled far and wide over France and Northern Spain, so that the
Angevin dominions in Aquitaine and the neighbouring kingdom of Navarre
must at one time have been as well known to the Marshall family as their
home in England.

Another reason which brought many travellers along the road through
Roncesvalles was the attraction of the Shrine of St. James at
Compostella. The pilgrimage to Compostella was undertaken by knights and
their squires as the result of vows made on the field of battle, and was
famed for its efficacy among all engaged in military affairs. But the
pilgrimage even to armed bands was a dangerous one on account of the
disturbed state of the frontier. An interesting example of this is
presented in the relationships between Richard and his neighbour the
Count of Toulouse. The ostensible cause for Richard’s warfare against
the Count of Toulouse was the inveterate inclination of the latter to
acts of brigandage. When war was declared the Count of Toulouse had
actually captured and ill-treated two English knights named Robert le
Poer and Ralph Fraser, on their return from a pilgrimage to Compostella.
The reputation of the Hospital of St. Mary in the Pass of Roncesvalles
and of the Convent which supported the Hospital was known to every
traveller—peaceful or warlike—in Western Europe, and would certainly
have appealed to the benevolence of such a man as the younger William
Marshall. The probability is that both father and son had stronger
motives for giving alms to the Community—the result of benefits received
from the Convent and Hospital during their journeys between France and
Spain.


 THE COMING OF THE BRETHREN TO ENGLAND (1229) AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE
                          CONVENT AT CHARING.

The first knowledge we have of the presence in England of members of the
Community of Roncesvalles is obtained from the letters of protection
given to certain brethren by Henry III, in the year 1229. These letters
were of the usual complete character, and it is clear that the intention
of the deputation from Roncesvalles was to seek alms in England for the
support of their House in the remote valley in the Pyrenees. This
purpose was definitely encouraged by a special clause in the letters of
protection.

The brethren seem to have been taken under the patronage of the younger
William Marshall from the beginning. They may even have come to England
on his invitation, for we find that he soon commenced to make
arrangements to give them revenues and an establishment in this country.
Very unfortunately for the Convent, the Earl died in the year 1231, soon
after his return to England from Henry’s disastrous campaign in Poitou
and Brittany, where he had held the chief command. But the record of his
great gift remains, for on August 11, 1232, Henry confirmed at Wenlock
“the grant to Saint Mary and the Hospital at Roncevaux (_Roscida
Vallis_) of the gift which William Marshall, sometime Earl of Pembroke,
made to them of all his houses at Cherring, and the houses and
curtilages adjoining them formerly belonging to William Briwere, and of
100_s._ at Suthanton payable from the houses of the said Earl there, of
13_l._ of land in Netherwent in the moor of Magor, and of a carucate of
land in Assandon, which he bought from Robert de Rochford.”

It was thus in consequence of the munificence of William Marshall the
younger that the brethren of Roncesvalles obtained the land on the banks
of the Thames at Charing where they subsequently built their conventual
dwelling, their Hospital for the sick, and the Chapel by the riverside,
which were to remain an important feature of London for over three
hundred years.


                 SAINT MARY RONCEVALL TO THE YEAR 1348.

The records of this alien settlement for many years consist mainly of
statements of the gifts received from various important persons. The
community seems to have flourished, and their work, both in London and
in the Pyrenees, continued to deserve the sympathy and support of their
pious benefactors. There is evidence that they possessed property in
Norwich, Canterbury, Oxford, Pevensey, Southampton, and elsewhere, and
that they received certain revenues from Ireland and from Scotland. It
is easy to understand that their Irish revenues may have been
considerable on account of the great estates possessed by the Marshall
family in Leinster. It is clear also that the Convent had the advantage
of royal favour and patronage, for the English records contain several
confirmations of valuable gifts from both Henry III and Edward I,
derived from royal property situated in the South of France, to the
mother house in the Pyrenees. One of the most interesting of these gifts
is the rent to be derived for the benefit of the Convent from the King’s
lands in the town of Myramand, previously granted to Eleanor, the Queen
Mother. This grant is specially mentioned in the same document as
another endowment derived from the same source to be paid to the Abbey
of Fontevraud. This benefaction to the House of Roncesvalles gives the
measure of respect in which it was held, for an English king who placed
the house of Roncesvalles in the same category as the Abbey of
Fontevraud as worthy of support must have felt the claims of the Convent
in the Pyrenees in the strongest possible way. Edward’s Angevin
ancestors had been buried in the Church of Fontevraud for generations,
and there was no ecclesiastical foundation possessing a greater claim on
the munificence of the Angevin family than this Abbey.

The little that is known of the domestic progress of the House at
Charing, in addition to such general indications as are given of its
financial condition, concerns the appointment of certain officials. In
the year 1278, and again in 1280, a certain Henry, son of William of
Smalebrook, was appointed as his attorney for two years on each occasion
by the Prior of the Hospital of Roncesvalles. The inference to be
derived from this is that the weakness inherent in all the alien houses
had already begun to show itself in the community at Charing. The
management of the estates in England was entrusted to agents in this
country, with the consequence that maladministration of their affairs
was very apt to take place, and, as a result, opportunities frequently
arose for the interference of neighbouring magnates or of the King
himself with the affairs of the alien religious houses.

Complications of this nature must have taken place about this time at
the House at Charing. In the year 1283 a certain Brother Lupus appears
upon the scene for the first time. His position in England seems to have
been that of envoy coming from the Pope, but in the same record he is
described as a priest, envoy and preceptor of the Houses in England and
Ireland of the Prior and Convent of the Hospital of St. Mary
Roncesvalles, and he no doubt had instructions to supervise the
management of their estates. The arrival of Brother Lupus, “streight
comen fro the court of Rome,” with indulgences for the remission of
sins, is an interesting proof that even so early as the year 1283 the
sale of indulgences was one of the special functions of the brethren of
Roncesvalles, and was no doubt a source of considerable income to the
Priory[8]. Chaucer, writing a hundred years later, alludes, in his
characteristic ironical manner, to this side of the activities of the
Canons of Roncesvalles;[9] and even so late as the year 1432, when the
House in London had come under the influence of the English clergy, a
special effort was made to preserve this source of profit.

Footnote 8:

  An instructive example is afforded by the exploits of Ralph de
  “Runcevill,” who is stigmatized as a vagabond monk, but who was
  nevertheless strong enough to retain possession of the Priory of
  Goldcliff in the Marches of Wales (near Newport, Monmouthshire) in
  spite of the efforts of his superior, the Abbot of the very important
  Convent of Bec-Hellouin, in Normandy, of which the House at Goldcliff
  was a “Cell,” “Calend. Pat. Rolls,” 12-14, Ed. II, (1319-1321).

Footnote 9:

  “A Somner was ther with us in that place,
  That had a fyr-reed cherubinnes face.”
        *      *      *      *
  “With him ther rood a gentil Pardoner
  Of Rouncival, his freend and his compeer,
  That streight was comen fro the court of Rome.
  Ful loude he song ‘Com hider, love, to me.’
  This somnour bar to him a stiff burdoun,
  Was never trompe of half so greet a soun.”

  —The Prologue to the “Canterbury Tales” (Dr. Skeat’s edition).

The year 1290 must have been notable in the annals of the Hospital, for
in that year died Eleanor of Castile, the wife of Edward I, at Harby,
near Lincoln, and the King in pious memory built a sculptured cross at
every place where the body of his consort rested during the funeral
procession to Westminster. The last station in this progress was at the
village of Charing. The hospitality of the brethren must have been taxed
to the utmost to provide accommodation for the retinue accompanying the
King, even if supplemented by the exertions of the neighbouring
hermitage of St. Catherine. The cross at Charing was completed in the
year 1294, and the brethren no doubt at this time had many opportunities
of conversing with the artists and handicraftsmen who formed the very
flourishing and remarkable school of art at Westminster, and who were so
enthusiastically encouraged both by Henry III and his son Edward. It is
quite possible that the Chapel of the Convent may have benefited by the
advice, or even by the workmanship of Alexander “the Imaginator,” of
Abingdon, and William de Ireland, whose artistic handiwork formed so
prominent a feature of the Eleanor Crosses.

The next records show that officials with foreign names are in charge of
the estate of Roncesvalles in England. In 1292 William de Cestre and
Peter Arnaldi de Santo Michaele are nominated attorneys for five years
for the Prior then staying beyond seas, and again, the following year,
we find Lupus de Canone concerned in the management of the Roncesvalles
property, having a lay person, Arnaldus de Sancto Johanne, associated
with him.

Evidence of the vigour displayed by Brother Lupus in his administration
of the affairs of the Convent occurs in an entry in the statement of
accounts drawn up by the Executors of Queen Eleanor. It gives the
information that the Executors paid the comparatively large sum of
14_l._ 2_s._ to Brother Lupus, Procurator of the Hospital of
Roncesvalles, as damages claimed by the brethren on account of their
houses at Southampton. This payment was made in the year 1291, and not
only indicates that the estate of Roncesvalles in England was being
watchfully managed, but also gives us the information that the Convent
still possessed the property at Southampton, originally conveyed to them
in the foundation-gift of William Marshall.

The brethren of St. Mary of Roncesvalles at Charing did not fail to
defend their rights when unjust inroads were made on their property.
There are indications that efforts, stimulated no doubt by the Mother
House, were made after periods of lax management—numerous in the
troubled times that followed—to repossess themselves of the rents and
property seized by powerful neighbours. These efforts were in many cases
successful, partly by the good will of charitably disposed persons,
partly by the influence of the Crown, but mainly by the sturdy support
of the rights of their House before the King’s Court.

In the year 1294, the Prior of the Hospital claimed, by writ of entry,
one toft with appurtenances in Westminster from Adam, son of Walter the
Scot. It was admitted that the toft and tenements had been held fifteen
years previously by the Prior, who had lost them by default, as he did
not appear before the Court when the ownership of the property was in
question. The Convent made good its claim, though it seems that Adam was
quite willing to restore the property to the Convent, but a special
inquiry had to be made to show that there was no collusion in permitting
this property to pass in mortmain to the religious house. It is of
interest to note that the Prior, Garcia de Ochoa, died in November,
1278, and was succeeded by the Prior Juan. In the year 1279, when this
property passed by default, difficulties may have arisen on account of
an interregnum at Roncesvalles.

To this period an incident should probably be referred to which
attention is drawn in an undated petition from the Prior, requesting
that property lying before the Cross at Charing, to the extent of 3
acres, and certain rents, should be restored. This property had been
held for a period of ten years by a certain John of Lincoln, Burgess of
London, and on his death had passed into the hands of the King on
account of default on the part of the Attorney of the Prior and Convent.
This petition quaintly recites as part of the evidence that the property
belonged to the Convent, that the fact was a matter of common knowledge,
“come les gentz dil pais le sauont bien et toute la veisinetee.” The
little incident has a strong resemblance to other successful claims for
their lost lands made under the stimulating influence of Brother Lupus.

During the troubled times when England was engaged in Continental wars,
soon to become almost continuous, communication between Gascony and
England must have been so difficult as to be well-nigh impossible to men
of peace. Convoys under military protection were in imminent danger of
capture, and from what we know, especially in the case of naval warfare
at this period, there were few of the vanquished who escaped death. In
addition to the dangers of travelling another source of great difficulty
was felt by the Prior and his officials. The King was in constant and
urgent need of money to permit of the prosecution of his warlike policy,
and his agents were not too scrupulous as to how it was obtained. If it
could be represented that the property of the alien religious houses in
the King’s dominions could be used for the support of his enemies
abroad, or if it could be urged in extenuation that funds sent abroad by
the alien communities could be captured in transit, it is evident that
the King would have many excuses and would exercise little scruple in
levying heavy contributions on the property of the alien clergy in this
country, or even of confiscating it entirely. It was under these
conditions that the earliest suppressions and confiscations of the alien
houses took place.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 8.
  After an ancient drawing in the Gardner collection. On the left is
    part of the south end of the chapel of St. Mary Roncevall; in the
    foreground and to the right the gardens of the Convent. In the
    distance the river and the buildings of Whitehall and Westminster.
]

In 1321 we have a very suggestive record that William Roberti, Canon of
the Hospital of St. Mary, is appointed Proctor-General in England for
the recovery of their lands and rents. The late Proctor, John de
Roncesvalles, had died, and the Prior in Navarre,[10] not being informed
of the fact, did not appoint a new Proctor, “war and other impediments
hindering them, so that their lands and rents were taken by divers men.”
Immediately following, letters of protection are given to William
Roberti to aid him in his task, “in consideration of the benefits
constantly given in that Hospital to poor pilgrims visiting the shrine
of Santiago.” As the result of this vigorous action the House of St.
Mary Roncesvalles at Charing passed through a period of comparative
prosperity, for so late as 1335 a strong policy still seems to have been
pursued. In that year there is an interesting record of the recovery of
10 acres of land known as “Roncesvalcroft,” in Kensington. It was stated
to have been abandoned by the brethren and was in the occupation of a
certain Simon de Kensyngton. In such matters, however, the King’s agents
were usually very active. Simon de Kensyngton did not long remain in
possession, for the watchful eyes of William Trussel and Walter de
Hungerford, the King’s escheators, were upon him and they claimed the
land for the Crown. The legal argument in this dispute goes on to state
how the land, not being held directly from the Crown, was restored to
the brethren.

Footnote 10:

  Andrés Ruiz de Medrano; _ob._ August 21, 1327 (?).

It was in the second quarter of the fourteenth century that the
community of St. Mary of Roncesvalles in this country appears to have
been most prosperous. The Convent at Charing Cross was the headquarters
of the brethren in our islands. The Procurator for the Prior who managed
the estates and collected the revenues had his residence there. The
property they possessed in London was the most valuable, and consisted
of plots of land in various parts of the suburbs, as well as at Charing
Cross, but the Convent also possessed a considerable amount of property
in Canterbury and at Oxford. Evidence remains that they derived revenue
from property in Norwich and that they had possessions elsewhere in
England, in Wales, in Ireland, and in Scotland. The income derived from
these possessions was sufficient to permit of a subsidy towards the
support of the Mother House in the Pyrenees.

At Charing Cross itself the Priory possessed a piece of land fronting on
the river and extending back to the roadway between London and
Westminster. The depth of this plot was then not so great as it is now,
for the waters of the river extended much nearer to Charing Cross than
at present.[11] The position of Inigo Jones’s well-known watergate at
the foot of Buckingham Street, the last relic remaining of York House,
indicates the line of the river bank at a date over two hundred years
subsequent to the time now under consideration.

Footnote 11:

  Charing Cross stood approximately on the site now occupied by the
  statue of King Charles I.

Occupying the most easterly part of the river frontage was situated the
Church of the Convent. This Church, or Chapel as it was usually called
in London, was built soon after the foundation of the Convent, but there
is evidence that considerable alterations and additions were made much
later, perhaps at the end of the fourteenth, and again during the last
phase of the existence of the house, in the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries. Some idea of the appearance of the Chapel and the
neighbouring buildings may be gained by studying two ancient drawings
still in existence, made while the conventual buildings were standing.
One of these is the well-known sketch of London by Anthony Van den
Wyngaerde, dating from the middle of the sixteenth century. The other is
a very beautiful sketch in the Gardner collection which shows a portion
of the south-western end of the chapel, the gardens of the Convent, and
in the distance Whitehall and Westminster. Judging by the evidence thus
obtained, the chapel consisted of a rectangular nave, built of stone.
The type of work indicates that it was built about the middle of the
thirteenth century. There appear to have been two storeys in this
building, the lower storey with three large pointed windows, and the
upper storey with three smaller windows also pointed. The upper part,
with the small windows, may have formed the clerestory. It is possible,
however, that the upper part of the church was cut off from the lower
part, and that this upper storey was lighted by the three smaller
windows alluded to. Instances of this arrangement are known to have
occurred in the churches belonging to hospitals. In such cases part of
the church served the purpose of sheltering the sick, while at the
eastern end was the chapel proper, arranged so that the sick should have
the full benefit of the services of the church.

The pitch of the chapel roof was steep, the form most easily constructed
at the period of which we speak, and was no doubt covered with lead. A
belfry was situated at the north-eastern end of the chapel. Certain
buildings of a much later date than the main part of the edifice, and
probably built of brick, are seen to have been added to the northern and
southern ends of the chapel, and along the river front. From a terrace
on the south-east side of the chapel stairs led down to the water’s
edge. Immediately to the west of the chapel were the Convent gardens,
extending in the direction of the roadway to Westminster, and partly
terraced to the river bank. Lying back from the chapel were the
conventual buildings and other tenements in the possession of the
community. These appear to have been arranged on both sides of a court
which opened on the high road close to the cross.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 9.
  The cross according to the use of Roncesvalles, from a stamp now used
    in the “Real Casa.” This ensign “unites in one figure the Cross, the
    Crozier, and the Sword.”
]

It is stated that over the doorway of each of these houses was
sculptured a cross, according to the use of Roncesvalles. There also
appears to have been a Latin inscription around or near the doorway of
the chapel indicating the date of an addition or restoration in the time
of Henry IV. The exact position occupied by the Hospital itself cannot
be now identified unless, as is very probable, the chapel itself did
duty both as a church and a hospital. The churchyard of the community
was probably situated in the lands to the south-west of the conventual
buildings. The situation of the chapel corresponds approximately to the
middle section of Charing Cross Railway Station in alignment with York
Gate and extending towards the land now occupied by Craven Street and
Northumberland Avenue.


                       THE BLACK DEATH (1348-49).

The event which seems to have done more than any other single cause to
depress the fortunes and to change the future relationships of the
foreign community of St. Mary was the catastrophe of the Black Death.
The plague visited London in the autumn of 1348. Its ravages were
serious in the early days of November, and the condition of affairs had
produced so much alarm that Parliament was prorogued on January 1, 1349.
A further prorogation occurred on March 10, the reason given being that
the “pestilence was continuing at Westminster, in the City of London,
and at other places, more severely than before (_gravius solito_).” It
had diminished, or almost disappeared, in London by the end of that
year. The clergy appear to have suffered throughout the country even
more severely than the rest of the populace—evidence that they did not
fail in their duties during that terrible period. Geoffrey le Baker, a
clerk of Osney, says, “Of the clergy and cleric class there died a
multitude known to God only.”[12]

Footnote 12:

  Creighton, “History of Epidemics in Britain,” 1891, Camb., i, chap. 3.

What actually happened at Charing Cross can only be guessed, but there
are very clear indications that the Convent of St. Mary Roncevall
suffered severely. The deaths among the brethren were probably numerous,
for no one sufficiently important seems to have survived to uphold the
interests of the parent House. The depressed state of the Convent is the
more striking as the calamity occurred after a period of great
prosperity.

When the plague ceased, and for some time after, the affairs of the
Convent appear to have been in complete confusion. The immense mortality
during the year of the prevalence of the plague disordered to a serious
extent the whole executive of the country, and especially affected the
Church. In some cases the community in the smaller convents died out
entirely, in others the senior members and officials completely
disappeared from the records, and in all cases serious losses must have
occurred. This fatality was not confined to the monastic clergy alone;
those holding benefices outside the religious houses perished probably
in greater numbers. The consequence was that throughout the country
rapid institutions to vacant benefices had to be made to carry on the
duties of those who had fallen, and frequently unlettered, and in some
cases unworthy, clerks succeeded to important charges. These
difficulties must have been much accentuated in the case of alien
houses. They suffered, as did all the other religious communities, and
in addition, they felt the difficulty of being remote from the parent
House. Officials who would have had the interests of the House at heart
could not be sent from abroad to take charge on short notice, and the
Prior at Roncesvalles, no doubt, did not even know of the deaths of his
subordinates at Charing Cross. The vacant benefices in the possession of
the alien houses were sought for and obtained by clergy on the spot who
had influence, and there can be no doubt that the conclusion is correct,
that many of these persons were more concerned in advancing their own
interests and in retaining the possessions thus secured, than in
guarding the rights of the foreign abbey or priory. Not only, however,
did the local clergy secure the vacant benefices and property, but in
many cases the property of the alien houses was taken possession of by
their influential neighbours, sometimes without opposition, when the
original possessors had entirely disappeared, at other times by the high
hand when the rightful owners were few or feeble.


THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN ALIEN AND ENGLISH CLERGY AT SAINT MARY
                         RONCEVALL (1350-1414).

In spite of these adverse conditions the house of St. Mary Roncevall
survived, although new influences appear directing its affairs. The
earliest records after the Plague show that English clergy were in
possession of the Church and Hospital, and the title of Warden is made
use of for the first time by the chief clerical official. Special
interest appears to have been taken in its affairs by the Crown, perhaps
because its estate afforded a ready source of revenue, but more likely
on account of the proximity of the Convent to the Royal Palace at
Westminster. The Church and Hospital afforded convenient opportunities
of preferment and of income to the clergy connected with the Chapel
Royal of St. Stephen or of the Royal Household.

The first records after the Plague are of special significance. In 1379,
in the reign of Richard II, the chapel and lands of St. Mary Roncevall
were seized into the King’s hands in accordance with the statute dated
at Gloucester, “for the forfeiture of the lands of schismatic aliens,”
and in accordance with the policy of the Crown at this period to
suppress all the alien religious houses. At this time there was a
certain Nicholas Slake, a clerk, who, wise in his generation, had not
failed in procuring preferment and much advantage from the Church. He
possessed various benefices throughout the country, and finally became
Dean of the Chapel Royal of St. Stephen, Westminster, in the year
1396.[13] Nicholas Slake had obtained possession of the revenues and had
become Warden of the Hospital and Chapel of “Rounsyvale,” probably when
the Crown took possession of the property after the forfeiture of 1379.
In 1383, we find that the King grants a writ of aid for Ralph Archer,
Proctor of Nicholas Slake, Master of the Hospital of St. Mary Roncevall,
“to arrest and bring before the King and Council all persons whom he
shall prove to have collected alms in the realm as Proctor of the
Hospital, and converted the same to their own use.”

Footnote 13:

  Hennessy, “Novum Repertorium Ecclesiasticum Parochiale Londinense.”

It seems probable that an effort had been made by Nicholas Slake to put
the affairs of his church in order, either on his own initiative, or on
account of the renewed interest taken in the house at Charing Cross by
the Mother Convent. It is noteworthy that about this time the Prior and
brethren at Roncesvalles commenced a process at law to claim their
property. An inquisition took place before the King’s Court at
Westminster into the foundation of the Hospital, and as it appeared in
evidence that the chapel and its property belonged to the Prior of
Roncesvalles, it was restored (April 23, 1383).

There now appears to have been a short period of quiet and good fortune
for the brotherhood. It will be remembered that the years 1390-92 are
known as the three “quiet” years of the Hundred Years’ War with France.
Peaceful communications were restored between Navarre, through France to
England, so that we are not surprised to find that in 1389, Garcias, a
Canon of Roncesvalles, is ratified as Warden of the Chapel of Roncevall
by Charing Cross, at the supplication of the King’s kinsman, Charles of
Navarre. What happened in the next year, 1390, is a little obscure.
Garcias does not seem to have been at home or comfortable at Charing
Cross, or the influence of the London clergy may have prevailed over the
alien, for in that year we note that John Hadham, the King’s clerk, is
Warden of the Hospital.

The following years must have brought much anxiety to the remnants of
the alien clergy in England. They must have become more and more
conscious of the insecurity of their tenure. England was once more
engaged in deadly war with France; communications between the two
countries were constantly interrupted or carried on with great risk and
danger, and in the case of the Hospital of St. Mary, the sending of
their surplus revenue to Navarre through France must have been regarded
by the King, constantly seeking funds for military purposes, with the
utmost jealousy. Most of the alien houses had already been suppressed.
The continued existence of the House of St. Mary Roncevall, as mentioned
above, had been seriously threatened. The affairs, therefore, of the
community of Charing Cross must have been in great disorder and can have
afforded little satisfaction to the parent House. That the Prior did
make efforts to supervise the affairs of the Convent in England is
clear, but the control must have been very ineffective.

In 1396, John Newerk obtained the wardenship and the property of the
Hospital, including the charters, various apostolic bulls and other
documents, and apparently installed himself comfortably in his benefice,
for in the year 1399 we find that ratification of the estate of Ronceval
was given to Newerk. In the meantime Francis, who was then Prior at
Roncesvalles, learned of the doings of John Newerk, and commenced a
process against him for having broken into the close and houses
belonging to the Prior in the parish of St. Martin’s in the Fields, of
having removed a sealed chest worth 20_s._, containing the charters and
other muniments of the hospital, and claimed damages to the extent of
200_l._ This action seems to have dragged on for a wearisome length of
time, for in the year 1409 special directions are given by the King,
that, “whereas the suit has been long delayed, the justices are ordered
to proceed therein, but not to give judgment without consulting him.”
The plea was concluded in Hilary Term, 1409, and judgment was given to
the effect that at the time of the trespass the close and houses were
the sole and free tenement of the Prior, so that John Newerk was mulcted
in damages to the extent of 100 marks, but he was held not guilty in
respect of the matter of the chest and writings. Though the Prior was
largely successful in this action, his success did not long delay the
only possible issue.


  SAINT MARY RONCEVALL PASSES INTO THE HANDS OF ENGLISH CLERGY (1414).

The end of the strife between the Navarrese and English clergy for
supremacy in the House at Charing Cross was not far off. By the year
1414 the few remaining alien priories and convents were suppressed by
Henry V, but what influence this final suppression had on the activities
of the Convent of St. Mary Roncevall is not quite clear. English clergy
were already in possession of the appointments in the Church and
Hospital, and the services of the Convent to the people of London seem
to have continued. There arose no question of handing over the property
for secular purposes, and probably there was no serious dislocation of
the usual work of the House. The management of its affairs must simply
have been recognized to be entirely independent of the Prior and his
officials. It is to the credit of both parties that this separation was
accomplished without severe disturbance, for, as we shall see,
communications between the Prior at Roncesvalles and the Warden of St.
Mary Roncevall remained on what seems to have been a friendly basis. The
English wardens who were now appointed were, so far as is known, men of
note, and frequently in close relationship with the Court.

In 1417 Walter Sheryngton, Prebendary of Goderynghill, is confirmed in
his possession of the estate and the “free chapel” of Rouncevall in the
Diocese of London. During his tenure of office there appears to have
been an action at law between the Prior of the Hospital and the Warden,
the exact nature of which is uncertain; but during its course the
conditions of the early foundation of the Convent at Charing Cross came
under discussion.

In 1432 Roger Westwode, who was also a Prebendary of the Chapel Royal,
St. Stephen’s, was Warden of the Chapel or Hospital of St. Mary
Roncevall. He was clearly conscious of the advantages to be gained by
the connexion with the House in the Pyrenees, as he obtained a royal
licence to receive bulls and letters of indulgence for the profit of his
own chapel from the Prior in Navarre, and also to remit alms for the
poor and other monies to the Priory. An echo of the old difficulties can
be noted in this document, as the royal licence states clearly that the
said Priory is “outside our allegiance, and the licence is to continue
so long as there is no war between us and the King of Navarre.”

The fortunes of the Hospital in the middle fifteenth century can only be
judged by inference, but there can be little doubt that it continued to
be useful, and that gradually its functions as a place for the cure of
the needy sick became more developed. The co-operation of nursing
sisters must have also become familiar to the London community by this
time. The brethren and sisters had pursued their avocation in tending
and in nursing the infirm from very early days in the history of the
community of St. Mary both in Navarre and in England. As the religious
house became more distinctly a hospital their services must have been in
constantly increasing request.


   THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FRATERNITY OF ST. MARY RONCEVALL (1475).

The year 1475 marks the official commencement of the last stage of the
existence of the Hospital. In that year a royal charter of Edward IV
records the “foundation of a fraternity or perpetual gild of a master,
two wardens and the brethren and sisters who may wish to be of the same
in the Chapel of St. Mary Rounsidevall by Charyng Crosse, and of a
perpetual chantry of one chaplain to celebrate divine service at the
High Altar in the said chapel.” In 1478 a grant in mortmain is recorded
to the Master, Wardens, Brethren and Sisters of the Fraternity of the
said Chapel or Hospital, and of its property, revenues and privileges,
for the sustenance of the chaplain and two additional clergy who now
seem to have been required for the services of the chapel, and of “the
poor people flocking to the Hospital.”

In the years following, the affairs of the Hospital seem to have been
administered with energy and prudence, for we have records in 1494, 1495
and 1496 of legal proceedings concerning the property and privileges of
the Hospital, in which the master and wardens vigorously upheld their
position and successfully defended their rights. The litigation, which
seems to have gone on intermittently chiefly for the recovery of the
ancient possessions of the Hospital, appears to have been brought to a
conclusion in the year 1510, when, in the Mastership of Laurence Long,
the fraternity paid the sum of 20_s._ into the hanaper for the
confirmation of the various charters granted to the fraternity by the
King.

Again there seems to have been a period of comparative calm and, no
doubt, of successful performance of the duties of the Hospital. The
fraternity may have even thought that the storm which burst over the
Church in the time of Henry VIII would leave them unharmed on account of
the fulfilment of their useful functions in the community, for so late
as the year 1542, while William Jenyns was Master, a record can be read
giving evidence of their continuing interest and careful management of
their affairs. In this year they obtained certain property and a wharf
in the parish of St. Margaret, in respect of rents to be paid from a
tenement called the “Shippe” and certain lands in the Parish of St.
Clement Danes without Temple Bar. This, however, is the last deed
recorded of the ancient community, with the exception of the final act
which was very soon to take place.


          DISSOLUTION OF THE FRATERNITY BY HENRY VIII (1544).

The policy of the King, enforced in many cases by the greed of his
agents and other members of the Court, could not leave the Hospital
unscathed, and not even the charitable deeds of the fraternity were
sufficient to save them from dispersion. The grief with which the
master, wardens and members of the fraternity assembled to ratify their
last official act in a corporate capacity may be conceived, and it is
possible to some faint extent to imagine the feelings of despair and of
bitter irony uppermost in the minds of the brethren and sisters when
they heard the words of the Deed of Surrender read aloud. In this
document the master, wardens, brethren and sisters of the fraternity
declared that they are “specially influenced at the present time by
divers causes and considerations to give and concede by this Charter to
the most excellent and invincible prince, our Lord Henry VIII, by the
Grace of God, King of England, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith
and Supreme Head of the Church in England and Ireland,” their Church,
Hospital, and all other property and privileges. The affixing of their
Common Seal to this document concludes the chequered history of the
Convent of St. Mary Roncevall at Charing Cross (November 11, 1544).

Though the remaining members of the Community were deprived of their
offices and ejected from the home which they had so long possessed at
Charing Cross, their lot was not so hard as in the case of many others
driven into the world at this time. A pittance from their income was
left. There may be read in a book of payments of Edward VI, under the
heading “Pencions out of Monasteries” that the guardians of Roncevall
were allotted the munificent annual income of 6_l._ 13_s._ 4_d._ Very
oddly in this document the larger sum of 8_l._ is entered and crossed
out in favour of the smaller amount mentioned. The amount of the pension
was measured with parsimonious exactness. Quarterly payments of 33
shillings and 4 pence are entered as being paid to the few surviving
members of the fraternity so late as at Christmas, the Annunciation,
Midsummer and Michaelmas, 1551 and 1552.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 10.—The common seal of the Fraternity of St. Mary Roncevall.
  FIG. 11.—From the imperfect impression attached to the Deed of
    Surrender.
]


             THE LATER HISTORY OF THE ESTATE OF RONCEVALL.

The subsequent fate of the Chapel and Hospital and the land on which
they stood may be shortly stated. The site was granted, no doubt with
the buildings on it, in the year 1550 to Sir Thomas Cawarden.[14]
Cawarden had been master of the revels to Henry VIII and had established
claims to reward or remuneration from the King which had not been
satisfied on his death. He was able to establish and enforce these
claims in the early years of Edward VI. With some difficulty he obtained
in discharge of his claims on the Crown the estate and property of
Roncevall and also the church and property of the Blackfriars within the
City of London. He seems also to have secured at this time the
stewardship of Nonsuch Palace and its lands in the County of Surrey.

Footnote 14:

  “A Survey of London,” by John Stow, 1603. The edition by Charles L.
  Kingsford, Clarendon Press, 1908, i, p. 341; ii, p. 350.

The properties of Roncevall and of the Blackfriars soon passed from the
hands of Cawarden, probably during the period of wild speculation in
land and real estate which followed the dissolution of the religious
houses, but the stewardship of Nonsuch he continued to hold with much
tenacity in spite of the efforts to dislodge him from this favourite
position by Cardinal Pole during the reign of Queen Mary.

Cawarden died in the year 1559. In the meantime the Roncevall property
had passed to Sir Robert Brett. It was purchased early in the
seventeenth century by Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton, who built
himself a town house, described as a “sumptuous palace,” on the site,
using for the purpose the material of the ancient Convent. This house
was completed in the year 1605 and was known for some years as
Northampton House. It consisted of buildings arranged on three sides of
a quadrangle, and open towards the garden and river. From him the
property passed by inheritance to his nephew, Thomas Howard, first Earl
of Suffolk, the second son of Thomas, fourth Duke of Norfolk, who
completed the quadrangle, the house being then known as Suffolk House.
From the Howard family the property passed by an heiress to Algernon
Percy, Earl of Northumberland, in 1642; another heiress of the Percy
family brought the property to Charles Seymour, Duke of Somerset. While
in the possession of the Somerset family and their immediate successors,
the Strand front was much improved and acquired the architectural
features so long associated with Northumberland House at Charing Cross.
By another heiress, Lady Elizabeth Seymour, the property passed into the
possession of the present Duke of Northumberland’s family.

In consequence of the construction of the Thames Embankment, and the
necessity for making a wide approach from Charing Cross, the late
Metropolitan Board of Works bought the property from the Duke of
Northumberland, in 1874, for the sum of £500,000. Northumberland House,
the last of the old river-side mansions, was completely demolished and
now Northumberland Avenue and the great buildings near it occupy the
site of the Convent and Hospital of St. Mary Roncevall.[15]

Footnote 15:

  “Old and New London,” V. iii, by Edward Walford (Cassell, Petter and
  Galpin). “Charing Cross,” by J. H. MacMichael (Chatto and Windus),
  1905.


  THE RONCEVALL PROPERTY IN LONDON; FROM INFORMATION IN AN UNPUBLISHED
MANUSCRIPT OF THE BEGINNING OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY IN THE LIBRARY AT
                           RONCESVALLES.[16]

Footnote 16:

  The author is indebted to Don José Urrutia, the Abbot-Prior, for a
  précis of this document.

Most of the ancient documents dealing with the history of the Priory
have been destroyed or lost as the result of war, fires and other
causes. There remains in the Library at Roncesvalles an unpublished MS.
dealing with the early history of the Priory and its dependencies,
written about the second quarter of the seventeenth century by Don Juan
Huarte. This MS. incorporates information obtained by the writer from
various sources, and especially under the date April 12, 1623, from a
certain Brother Miguel de Spiritu Sancto, who derived it in his turn
from a certain Don Francisco Olastro—(Francis Oliver?)—who is stated to
have been an ambassador from England in Madrid. This document states
that there is situated in the suburbs of London a wide street named “the
Street of Our Lady of Roncesvalles.” The houses in this street have
sculptured over their doorways a single cross according to the use of
Roncesvalles. At the end of the street is a large building, now nearly
dismantled, which was a sumptuous church in the time of the Catholic
Religion. Over the portico of the church were sculptured three crosses
of the same form, and in addition there was a clearly engraved Latin
inscription to the effect that this church was built and completely
finished in honour of the Blessed Virgin by Henry IV, King of England,
who, in addition, granted to the Community of St. Mary of Roncevall
large possessions and revenues for the service of the Priory and
Hospital. The inscription is dated in the MS. 1378, but this date, which
is clearly impossible, is probably an error of transcription for 1408,
arising from peculiarities in the formation of the figures, and there
are other errors to be noted, showing that the information is derived
through indirect channels. The inscription is given as follows:—

    “Henricus quartus Dei gratia Rex Angliæ, Iberniæ et Irlandæ,
    Princeps Gales, et Dux (_Lancastrie?_). Hanc ecclesiam
    sacratissimæ Virginis et Matris Mariæ construxit locupletavit et
    a fundamentis edificavit, et eam in honorem dictæ Sanctissimæ
    Virginis et Matris multis possessionibus et redditibus et
    inquiliniis ditavit, et eam cum suis omnibus possessionibus,
    inquiliniis subditis et redditibus donavit in donum perpetuum
    ordini et hospitali generali coenobii Sanctæ Mariæ Roncesvallis
    in anno domini Salvatoris nostri Jhesu Christi, MCCCLXXVIII.”

The document goes on to say that the Priory possessed in England
property including the Chapel and Convent at Charing Cross
(“Caringrasso”) of the yearly value of 9,300 pounds English money,
corresponding to 8,223 Spanish ducats, and that it also owned property
in Canterbury (“Conturbel”) of the yearly value of 4,000 pounds, and in
Oxford (“Oxonia”) of 5,700 pounds. A Procurator was appointed directly
by the Abbot at Roncesvalles, who had his headquarters in London at
Charing Cross, and had complete powers of administration to deal with
the property of the Convent scattered through England, Scotland, and
Ireland, and he also directed the Hospital and other enterprises of the
Brotherhood.

The Huarte MS. also states that, in the ancient archives of the Abbey
there existed a record in alphabetical arrangement, from which it is
gathered that Henry VI of England, finding that no official was being
sent from Roncesvalles, directed one of his chaplains to obtain from
Roncesvalles an account of the property in London and Charing Cross
belonging to the Priory: “Las pertenecientes á la capilla y encomienda
de Roncesvalles situada junto á Caringrasso de Inglaterra,” and a
warrant to collect the income and charitable contributions and send them
to Roncesvalles for the maintenance of the clergy and the poor. There is
also a statement on the authority of a “military personage in the City
of London,” that there existed in London a large house which had
belonged to Roncesvalles, as shown by the crosses of the special form
used by the Order still to be seen on the stones, and that this house
had been converted into a seminary of the Anglican Church.

It will be observed that much of the information in the Huarte MS. is
traditional and cannot be accepted without careful collation with the
more complete and authentic information contained in the English
records. It is, however, of much interest to know that a document
perpetuating the memory of the Hospital of Roncevall in London still
exists in the parent House.


                           THE ILLUSTRATIONS.

FIG. 1.—The Chapel of St. Mary Roncevall on the bank of the Thames
previous to 1544. The chapel is of the middle of the thirteenth century,
in two storeys, with later additions, probably of the Tudor period, to
the south of the church and at the north-east angle. The tower and
belfry are at the north-east end of the church. The chapel is built on a
terrace, faced by a high wall, pierced by a door giving access by steps
to the river. The sketch gives indications of portions of the conventual
buildings, some of which may be identified by referring to the inventory
contained in the grant to Sir Thomas Cawarden; for instance, the
gardens, the churchyard, wharf, the almshouse. The Cross at Charing, St
Martin’s Church of that period, other features in the village of
Charing, and St. Giles’s in the Fields, may be identified.

FIG. 2.—A chart of the Western Pyrenees, showing the roads through the
passes, and the position of Roncesvalles and Ibañeta.

FIGS. 3 and 4.—The effigy of William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke (_ob._
1219), in the Temple Church.

FIGS. 5, 6, and 7.—The effigy of William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke, son
of the preceding (_ob._ 1231). These figures of the Marshalls are from
Edward Richardson’s “Monumental Effigies of the Temple Church.”
Longmans, 1843. William Marshall, sen., the regent, and his son were
closely associated with the Knights Templars, and benefactors of the
Order. It will be noted that the effigy of the father shows the figure
in a straight position, whereas the effigy of the son is in the
cross-legged attitude. The question is naturally raised as to the
significance of the cross-legged position. There is no doubt that
William Marshall the elder did go to the Holy Land in fulfilment of the
dying request of Henry, the eldest son of Henry II, in the years
1185-87. In the case of the son there is no evidence of a journey to
Palestine, though it is possible that he may have taken part in
campaigns against the Moors in Spain.

FIG. 8.—A copy of an ancient drawing lately in the possession of Mr. E.
Gardner, now in the collection of Sir Edward F. Coates, Bart. The
drawing is supposed to be contemporary and to have been the work of an
early Italian artist resident in England. It was purchased at the
Strawberry Hill sale by Dr. Wellesley for the Gardner collection; and
the Marquis of Salisbury is stated to have several drawings by the same
early Italian artist. The sketch shows part of the north-westerly aspect
of the Chapel of St. Mary Roncevall, with some of the later Tudor
additions. The battlements were probably added when additions were
built, perhaps in the time of Henry IV, or later. The Tudor chimneys
appearing over the battlements are reminiscent of the work of Cardinal
Wolsey at Hampton Court and would have been constructed in brick. The
building on the extreme left of the sketch is probably the corner of a
north porch. The sketch also shows the gardens of the Convent of which
very special note is made in Cawarden’s inventory, and in the distance
the buildings of Whitehall and of Westminster.

FIG. 9.—Copy of an official stamp now used in the Priory, showing the
Cross of Roncesvalles.

FIGS. 10 and 11.—The common seal of the Fraternity and Guild of St. Mary
Roncevall. The seal appears to be of the fifteenth century and was no
doubt the seal specially mentioned as being given to the Fraternity by
Edward IV. The seal is round, the engraved part being 2-1/4 in. in
diameter. Unfortunately the impression is imperfect.

Fig. 10 is from a cast taken by Doubleday in the middle of the last
century.

Fig. 11 is from a cast taken by Mr. Ready from the impression still
attached to the Deed of Surrender. It will be noted on careful
examination that there are certain interesting differences in the state
of preservation of these two casts. The seal on the Deed of Surrender
has been backed and strengthened, but this repair does not altogether
account for the differences noticed in the impressions. It is possible
that another impression may have existed when Doubleday made his cast.
The seal represents “the assumption of the Virgin, who is standing on a
crescent upheld by an angel and surrounded by radiance. At each side
three flying angels issuing from clouds. Overhead in clouds the Trinity.
The legend reads:—

       ‘SIGILLU(M COĒ FRATER)NITATIS BĒ MARIE DE ROUNCIVA(LL).’”

                                           (Birch’s Catalogue of Seals.)

The author cannot conclude this account of the Convent and Hospital
without expressing his cordial thanks to those from whom he has sought
assistance and criticisms. He desires especially to acknowledge his
obligations to Mr. E. Salisbury and other officials of the Public Record
Office for their courteous and patient guidance; to Mr. E. Gardner for
his kind permission to see the valuable collection of material
illustrating the history of London formerly in his possession, and to
reproduce one of the drawings in this paper; to Mr. Herbert Wigglesworth
and his assistant, Mr. L. H. Glencross, for drawings of the Chapel of
St. Mary, and for important criticisms respecting its structure and
architectural features; and to Don José Urrutia, the Abbot-Prior, and
Don Ignacio Ibarbia Fernandez de Guevara, Canon of Roncesvalles, for
much information respecting the present state of the Convent, and for
their sympathetic interest in the history of one of the ancient “cells”
of the Real Colegiata.


     CALENDAR OF THE HOSPITAL OF ST. MARY RONCEVALL, CHARING CROSS.


[Sidenote: ANNO 1229.]

Letters of Protection to the Brethren of St. Mary Roncesvalles.

_De Protectione._ Fratres hospitalis Sancti Marie Roscidi Vallis habent
literas de protectione sine termino cum hac clausula:—

“Rogamus vos quatinus cum nuncii ejusdem hospitalis ad vos venerint
elemosinas petituri,” &c.

                            Calendar Patent Rolls, 13 Henry III, p. 265.


[Sidenote: 1232.]

Record of the grant to St. Mary and the Hospital of Roncevaux (Roscida
Vallis) of the gift which William Marshall, sometime Earl of Pembroke,
made to them of all his houses at Cherring, and the houses and
curtilages adjoining them, formerly belonging to William Briwere, and of
100_s._ at Suthanton, payable from the houses of the said Earl there, of
13_l._ of land in the Moor of Magor and of a carucate of land in
Assendon which he bought from Robert de Rochford. 11th August; Wenlock.

                            Calend. Charter Rolls, 16 Henry III, p. 168.


[Sidenote: 1240.]

Grant by the King to the Brethren of “Roscida Valle” of 32 acres which
they have sown in Pevensey, of land which William Marshall, Earl of
Pembroke, gave to them. 26th July; Quicfeld.

                                Calend. Close Rolls, 24 Henry III, m. 8.


[Sidenote: 1242.]

Grant of pasturage by King Henry III beyond the water called “Lador”
(Adour) to the Prior and Brethren of the Hospital of St. Mary Roncevaux.
La Sauve Majeure.

                            Calend. Pat. Rolls, 26-27 Henry III, p. 334.


[Sidenote: 1242.]

Bond by the King for payment of 90 pounds of Morlaas to Dominic
Paschalis, Provost of Roncevaux. La Sauve Majeure.

                               Calend. Pat. Rolls, 27 Henry III, p. 349.


[Sidenote: 1253.]

Simple protection, without term, for the prior and brethren of the
Hospital of St. Mary, Rouncevall. 11th February; Windsor.

                                Calend. Pat. Rolls, 37 Henry III, m. 17.


[Sidenote: 1253.]

Protection for one year for the Master and brethren of Roscidevalle,
with this clause, that all their beasts may feed throughout the King’s
land of Gascony, as they have been accustomed to do. 1st October:
Benauge.

                             Calend. Pat. Rolls, 37-38 Henry III, m. 20.


[Sidenote: 1254.]

Protection for four years, as above. 26th August; Bordeaux.

                              Calend. Pat. Rolls, 37-38 Henry III, m. 8.


[Sidenote: 1278.]

Henry, son of William of Smalebrok, nominated Attorney for 2 years for
the Prior of the Hospital of Roncevaux. Westminster.

                                    Calend. Pat. Rolls, 6 Ed. I, p. 283.


[Sidenote: 1279.]

The sum of 16_l._ 13_s._ 4_d._ charged on the pedage of “Maramande”
(Myramand), to be paid to the hospital of Roncevaux (Rossidevall).
Westminster.

                                      Calend. Pat. Rolls, 7 Ed. I, p. 7.


[Sidenote: 1280.]

Henry, son of William of Smalebrok, nominated Attorney for 2 years for
the Prior of the Hospital of Roncedevall. Westminster.

                                    Calend. Pat. Rolls, 8 Ed. I, p. 382.


[Sidenote: 1281.]

Note in a Record of Accounts that the King’s lands granted to Eleanor
his mother, of the town of Myramand, are charged with 20_l._ Arvaldenses
equivalent to 16_l._ 13_s._ 4_d._ of Tours to the hospital of
Rossedevall. Westminster.

                                    Calend. Pat. Rolls, 9 Ed. I, p. 447.


[Sidenote: 1283.]

Protection for Brother Lupus, Priest, Envoy, and Preceptor of the Houses
in England and Ireland of the Prior and Convent of the Hospital of St.
Mary Roncevaux, coming from the Pope with indulgences for the remission
of sins. Macclesfield.

                                    Calend. Pat. Rolls, 11 Ed. I, p. 75.


[Sidenote: 1290.]

G. Prior and the Hospital of Roncevaux (Roscida Vallis) to Edward I,
praying the King to be attentive to what shall be told him by certain
Brethren of the Hospital who are bearing the present letter to England
and to grant their request. 2 Id. July.

                                Ancient Correspondence, vol. xx, No. 44.


[Sidenote: 1291.]

_Emendæ._ Item, fratre Lupo procuratori Hospitali Runcivallis dampnis
fratrum dicti Hospitalis adjudicatis coram auditoribus querelarum pro
domibus suis Suthamtonæ       xiiij _li_, ij _s._ xiiij _li_, ij _s._

                         19 Ed. I. Extract. Liberationes factæ per
                         Executores Dominæ Alienoræ Consortis Edwardi
                         Regis Angliæ Primi: Rot. primus.

               (_Vide_ Manners and Household expenses of England: p.
               105, Roxburghe Club; edited by T. Hudson Turner,
               presented by Beriah Botfield: 1841 (London, William
               Nicol, Shakespeare Press).


[Sidenote: 1292.]

William de Cestre, and Peter Arnaldi de Sancto Michaele nominated
attorneys for 5 years for the Prior of Roncyvall staying beyond seas.
Westminster.

                                   Calend. Pat. Rolls, 20 Ed. I, p. 476.


[Sidenote: 1293.]

Lupus de Canone, preceptor of the Houses of Ronceval in Bordeaux, and
Arnaldus de Sancto Johanne, a lay person, nominated attorneys for the
Prior of Ronceval (Roscidevall), staying beyond seas for three years.
12th May; Westminster.

                                    Calend. Pat. Rolls, 21 Ed. I, p. 14.


[Sidenote: 1293-94.]

The Prior of the Hospital of Rosci de Vall seeks against Adam, son of
Walter the Scot, one toft with appurtenances as the right of the said
Hospital, by writ of entry. A predecessor of the Prior is admitted to
have held this toft and tenements 15 years previously (in 1279).

                                 Assize Rolls, No. 544, 22 Ed. I, m. 21.


[Sidenote: Probably late Ed. I, or Ed. II.]

A petition from the Prior of the Convent and Hospital of Roncevall to
restore to them property consisting of a site before the Cross at
Charing, and also certain other small rents and three acres of land
which John of Lincoln, Burgess of London, had held for a period of ten
years, and which on his death, on account of the default of the Attorney
of the said Prior and Convent and Hospital, were taken into the hand of
the King. The petition requests the restoration of this property to the
Prior and Convent to hold them as they had been in the custom of doing
“come les gentz dil pais le sauont bien et toute la veisinetee.”
Undated.

                                                Ancient Petitions, 9635.


[Sidenote: 1310.]

Evidence of property held in Norwich by the House of Roncevaux, in a
licence for alienation in mortmain by William But of Norwich, to the
Friars Preachers of that place. 30th March; Westminster.

                                   Calend. Pat. Rolls, 3 Ed. II, p. 222.


[Sidenote: 1321.]

William Roberti, Canon of the Hospital of St. Mary Roncevall, appointed
Proctor in England for the recovery of their lands and rents. Their late
Proctor, John de Rouncevall, having died, and not being aware of his
death, they did not appoint a new Proctor, wars and other impediments
hindering them, so that their lands and rents were taken by divers men.
24th August; Westminster.

                                   Calend. Pat. Rolls, 15 Ed. II, p. 23.


[Sidenote: 1321.]

Protection granted to the messengers sent to England by William Roberti,
Canon of the Hospital of St. Mary Roncevall, and Proctor-General in
England of the Prior and Convent of that place, in consideration of the
benefits constantly given in that hospital to poor pilgrims visiting the
shrine of Santiago. 25th August; Westminster.

                                   Calend. Pat. Rolls, 15 Ed. II, p. 15.

F. (?) Prior and the Hospital of Roncevaux to Edward II, on behalf of
the citizens of Bayonne, greatly impoverished by the late wars.

                                 Ancient Correspondence, xxxiv, No. 167.


[Sidenote: 1335.]

An account of the abandonment of the 10 acres of land known as
“Ronsevalcroft,” in Kensyngton, by the brethren of the Hospital of
Roncevaux; how the land was taken by Simon de Kensyngton without the
King’s licence, escheated to the Crown, and finally restored to the
Convent. 12th July; Carlisle.

                                 Calend. Close Rolls, 9 Ed. III, p. 423.


[Sidenote: 1348-49.]

THE BLACK DEATH.


[Sidenote: 1379.]

The chapel and lands of St. Mary Rounceval seized into the King’s hands
in accordance with a statute, dated at Gloucester, for the forfeiture of
the lands of schismatic aliens. 2 Ric. II.

                 Cf. Close Rolls, 10 Henry IV, m. 7. 1409, _vide infra_.


[Sidenote: 1382.]

Nicholas Slake,[17] Master of the Hospital of St. Mary Roncevalles.

Footnote 17:

  Hennessy: “Nov. Repert. Ecclesiast. Paroch. Londin.” Nicholas Slake,
  Prebendary of Wenlakesbarn; of Erdington in Briggenorth; of Shirecote
  in Tamworth; Rector of St. Mary Abchurch; and Dean of St. Stephen’s
  Chapel Royal, Westminster (1396).

The King grants a writ of aid for Ralph Archer, Proctor of Nicholas
Slake, to arrest and bring before the King and Council all persons whom
he shall prove to have collected alms in the realm as proctor of the
Hospital, and converted the same to their own use. 18th July.
Westminster.

                                  Calend. Pat. Rolls, 6 Ric. II, p. 195.


[Sidenote: 1383.]

Inquisition into the foundation of the Hospital of Rouncevall, before
the King’s Court at Westminster.

Plac. coram Rege apud West. de term. Mich. 7 Ric. II, Rot. 21 Middx.;
also Chancery Miscellanea, 68/466.

It appears that the Crown had resumed possession of the Hospital and
land and all its possessions after the forfeiture of 1379, and that a
cleric, Nicholas Slake, had obtained the Wardenship of the Hospital and
Chapel of “Rounsyvale.” On inquisition, however, it was shown that the
Hospital and Chapel and its property pertained to the Prior of the
Hospital of the Blessed Mary of Rounsyvall, and was accordingly
restored. 23rd April.

      Cf. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, edit. 1820, vi, pt. 2, p. 677.


[Sidenote: 1389.]

Garcias, Canon of Roncivale, ratified as Warden of the Chapel of
Roncivall by Charyncroix, at the supplication of the King’s kinsman,
Charles of Navarre. 16th November; Westminster.

                                 Calend. Pat. Rolls, 13 Ric. II, p. 152.


[Sidenote: 1390.]

John Hadham, the King’s clerk, Warden of the Hospital of St. Mary of
Ronsyvale at Charryng by Westminster. 18th February; Westminster.

                                 Calend. Pat. Rolls, 13 Ric. II, p. 205.


[Sidenote: 1396.]

Grant for life to John Newerk of the Wardenship of the Hospital of St.
Mary Rouncyvall by Charryng Crouch. 20th October; Westminster.

                    Calend. Pat. Rolls, 20 Ric. II, p. 30, pt. 1, m. 15.


[Sidenote: 1396.]

Grant to John Newerk of the Hospital of St. Mary Rouncyvall. 5th
October; Calais.

                     Calend. Pat. Rolls, 20 Ric. II, p. 44, pt. 1, m. 6.


[Sidenote: 1399.]

Ratification of the estate of John Newerk, Warden of the Hospital of St.
Mary Rouncyvale by Charing Crouch. 28th October; Westminster.

                    Calend. Pat. Rolls, 1 Henry IV, p. 25, pt. 1, m. 16.


[Sidenote: 1409.]

Exemplification at the request of John Newerk, of:—

               (1) Letters patent dated 5th October, 20 Richard II
               (1396), granting to him the hospital of St. Mary
               Rouncyvall.

               (2) Letters patent dated 20th October, 20 Richard II,
               granting to him for life the wardenship of the hospital
               of St. Mary Rouncyvall by Charryngcrouch. 5th February;
               Westminster.

                          Calend. Pat. Rolls, 10 Henry IV, pt. 1, m. 10.


[Sidenote: 1409.]

Francis, Prior of the Hospital of St. Mary de Rouncyvall of the diocese
of Pampeluna and Warden of St. Mary of Rouncyvall by Charyng Crosse,
impleaded John Newerk, clerk, for having broken into a close and houses
of the said Prior in the parish of St. Martin’s in the Fields, and taken
away a sealed chest worth 20_s._, containing charters, writings, bulls,
apostolic instruments and other muniments, and committed other offences
to the damage of £200 in the reign of Richard II. John Newerk alleges
that the said chapel and all its property had been seized in the King’s
hands according to the statute dated at Gloucester, 2 Ric. II, and that
afterwards the Wardenship of the said chapel was granted to the said
John by letters patent, dated 20th October, 20 Ric. II, and that he is
not answerable for the above property, etc., to the said Prior without
consulting the King, and whereas the suit has been long delayed the King
orders the Justices to proceed therein, but not to give judgment without
consulting him. Westminster.

                         Close Roll, 10 Henry IV, m. 7 (see also m. 11).


[Sidenote: 1409.]

Record of the above-mentioned plea between Francis, Prior of St. Mary de
Rouncyvall, and John Newerk, Clerk, returned on a writ _de causis
certiorari_, dated 1st September, 5 Henry V, 1417.

Placita coram rege, Hilary Term. 10 Henry IV, 1409.

This document recites the conditions of the trespass of John Newerk on
the Monday after the Feast of All Saints, 21 Ric. II, when with force
and arms he broke into the close and houses of the said Prior in the
town of Westminster, mentioning the sealed chest and charters and the
amount of damage done to the Prior. It continues to recite John Newerk’s
defence and especially that he, John Newerk, had been granted the
custody of the said Chapel.

_Judgment:_ That at the time of the trespass the close and houses were
the sole and free tenement of the said Prior—damages for the said Prior
100 marks. As to the said chest and writings the said Newerk is found
“not guilty.”

                                           Chancery Miscellanea, 68/466.


[Sidenote: 1411.]

Pardon to John Newerk, Clerk, for his outlawry in the County of
Middlesex for not appearing before the King to satisfy the Prior of St.
Mary Rouncivall ... of 100 marks which the Prior recovered against him
on account of a trespass in the time of Richard II, he having
surrendered to the Marshalsea Prison and satisfied the Prior. 5th May;
Westminster.

                                 Calend. Pat. Rolls, 12 Henry IV, m. 12.


[Sidenote: 1417.]

Confirmation to Walter Shiryngton,[18] Prebendary of Goderynghill, in
the Collegiate Church of Westbury, of the free chapel of Rouncevale, in
the diocese of London, of his estate and possession to the said prebend
and chapel. Westminster.

                           Pat. Roll, 5 Henry V, m. 10. (By Privy seal.)

Footnote 18:

  Hennessy: Loc. cit. Walter Shiryngton, Prebendary of Gevendale oin
  York; of Offley; of Mora, &c.; Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster; _ob._
  1448. Buried in St. Paul’s Cathedral.


[Sidenote: 1418.]

Recorda 5 Henry V, pt. 1. “Recordum et processus inter Prior Hosp. beate
Mar. ibidem et Custodem Capelle ibidem ubi fit mentio de primata
fundatione.”

The reference of this note has not been found in the Memoranda Rolls of
the reign of Henry V.

[Sidenote: 1432.]

Royal licence to “our chaplain,” Roger Westwode,[19] Master of the
Chapel or Hospital of St. Marie de Roncidevall by Charyngcroix in the
diocese of London, his successors or their proctors, to receive bulls
and other letters of indulgence for the profit of the said Chapel, from
the Prior and Convent of Rouncidevall in Navarre, in the diocese of
Pamploma, and to remit alms for the poor and other moneys to the Priory
in Navarre, because the said Priory is outside our allegiance, to last
so long as there is no war between us and the King of Navarre.
Westminster.

                                   Pat. Roll, 11 Henry VI, pt. 1, m. 16.

Footnote 19:

  Hennessy: Loc. cit. Roger Westrode, Prebendary of St. Stephen’s Royal
  Chapel, Westminster, 1422; _ob._ 1433.


[Sidenote: 1440.]

Grant to John Gourney of a parcel of land, late of the King of Scotland,
lying between a plot of the Archbishop of York towards the south, and
the chapel of St. Mary Rouncevale towards the north (etc.). 1st April;
Westminster.

                          Calend. Pat. Rolls, 18 Henry VI, pt. 3, m. 12.


[Sidenote: 1440.]

Grant of the alien Priories in England and Wales to Henry, Archbishop of
Canterbury, and others.

                            Rymer’s Fœdera. 12th September, 19 Henry VI.


[Sidenote: 1475.]

Foundation of a fraternity or perpetual gild of a Master, and two
Wardens, and the Brethren and Sisters who may wish to be of the same in
the Chapel of St. Mary Rounsidevall by Charyng Crosse in the suburbs of
London: “They shall form one body, and shall have perpetual succession
and a Common Seal”; and of a perpetual Chantry of one Chaplain to
celebrate divine service daily at the High Altar in the said Chapel, for
the good estate of the King and his Consort Elizabeth, Queen of England,
and his firstborn son Edward, and the Brethren and Sisters of the
fraternity, and for their souls after death. 28th October; Westminster.

                    Calend. Pat. Rolls, 15 Ed. IV, pt. 2, m. 10, p. 542.


[Sidenote: 1478.]

Grant in mortmain to the Master, Wardens, Brethren and Sisters of the
fraternity or gild in the Chapel of St. Mary de Rouncidevale, by Charing
Crosse, of the said Chapel or Hospital, and of its property, oblations,
and other privileges, for the sustenance of three chaplains celebrating
divine service, and of the poor people flocking to the Hospital;
provided that they grant for life to Elizabeth Berde, widow, 6 marks
yearly for her sustenance, and a fair house for her by the said Chapel
or Hospital. 9th March; Westminster.

                    Calend. Pat. Rolls, 18 Ed. IV, pt. 2, m. 34, p. 114.


[Sidenote: 1494-95.]

A suit brought against the Warden of the Chapel of St. Marie de
Rounsewal as to half an acre of land. There follows a long legal
argument respecting the patronage of the Chapel, and other matters.

                           Year Book. 10 Henry VII, Easter Term (No. 5).


[Sidenote: 1495-96.]

Argument as to whether the Hospital can plead under the name of the
Master and Wardens only, or under the full title of Master, Wardens,
Brethren and Sisters of Rounceval.

Licence to plead in the former designation appears to have been granted
in their patent of incorporation.

                         Year Book. 11 Henry VII, Trinity Term (No. 12).


[Sidenote: 1509-10.]

Laurence Long, Master, Robert Day and William Goodwyn, Wardens of the
Fraternity or Gild in the Chapel of Saint Mary Rounceval juxta Charing
Cross, pay 20_s._ into the Hanaper for the confirmation of various
letters granted to the Fraternity by the King and certain of his
progenitors.

                         L.T.R. Originalia Roll. 1 Henry VIII, Rot. 139.


[Sidenote: 1539-44.]

A statement by the Treasurer of the Court of Augmentations of payments
made by the King’s warrant in 1542-43 includes two payments of 40_li._
and 44_s._ on the 28th April and 1st May, 1542, respectively, to William
Jenyns, Master of the Fraternity of Roncevalle, for the use of the
Wardens there, made by virtue of a deed of exchange bearing the date
13th March, 1542 (33 Henry VIII), between His Majesty and the Master and
Wardens, leaving a balance still due from the King of 43_li._ 4_s._

The Account of Edward North, Lord Treasurer of the Court of
Augmentations (31 and 35 Henry VIII).

                                                Roll 2 B., pt. 1, m. 80.


[Sidenote: 1542.]

Will. Jenyns,[20] Master, and John Ap Hoell and Ric. More, Wardens of
the fraternity or gild of St. Mary Rouncedevall by Charing Crosse, near
London, grant in exchange for three messuages and one wharf in the
parish of Saint Margaret, certain rents to be paid from the messuage or
tenement called the “Shippe” and a field of land called “Cuppefeld,”
adjoining a field called “Conninggarfeld of Lyncolnes Inne,” in the
parish of St. Clement Danes without Temple Barre, Midd.; which belonged
to St. John’s of Jerusalem. 12th April; Greenwich.

         Pat. Roll, 33 Henry VIII, pt. 6, m. 11. Calend. of State Papers
                                Domestic, Henry VIII, vol. xvii, p. 162.

Footnote 20:

  Hennessy; Loc. cit. A William Jenyns was Rector of St. Mary Staining,
  1583-84.


[Sidenote: 1544.]

The Deed of Surrender, whereby the Master, Wardens, Brethren and Sisters
of the Fraternity or Gild of the Chapel of Saint Mary of Rounsidevall by
Charinge-crosse, in the suburbs of London, concede to the King in
perpetuity all rights and ownership in the said Chapel and Church of
Saint Mary of Rounsidevall, the Belfry and Cemetery adjacent to the
Chapel, likewise all messuages, houses, buildings, lands, tenements,
meadows, grazing-lands, pastures, rents, reversions, services, and other
hereditaments whatsoever. (11th November.)

                        Deed of Surrender. No. 138, Augmentation Office.


_The impression of the Common Seal of the Fraternity is attached._


[Sidenote: 1550.]

(Abstract.) Grant to Sir Thomas Cawarden, knight, one of the gentlemen
of the Privy Chamber (in completion and performance of a grant of the
same premises made to him by Henry VIII before his journey into France
in the 35th year of his reign, the letters patent for which were never
made and sealed), of the following premises: All that Chapel of the late
Hospital of St. Mary de Rowncevall, in the parish of St. Martin’s, late
called the parish of St. Margaret’s, with the churchyard thereto
belonging containing about 1-1/2 roods; also the messuage called the
almeshouse, 80 feet north and south by 23 feet east and west; also “le
wharff,” a stable, and all cellars and land called “le bakeside”; one
garden 108 feet by 104 feet; 2 other gardens, 150 feet by 50 feet, and
120 feet by 45 feet respectively; another garden 126 feet by 84 feet,
abutting on the south on a piece of vacant ground called Scotland and on
the east on the water flowing in “le barge-house” and on the west upon
“le comon Sewer”; another garden 102 feet by 84 feet; a messuage; a shop
called “le longe shoppe” (the above are in the respective tenures of
John Rede, Richard Attsell, Hugh Haward, John Yonge, and Richard
Harryson), all which premises are of the clear yearly value of £12 6s.
8d.; to have and to hold to the said Sir Thomas Cawarden, his heirs and
assigns for ever, in socage as of the honour of Westminster by fealty
only and not in chief; paying yearly to the Court of Augmentations for
the chapel and churchyard, 12d.; for the almeshouse, 4s. 8d., and 19s.
for the other premises (the rents are given separately for each). 21st
January; Westminster.

                                            Pat. Roll, 3 Ed. VI, pt. 10.


           AUGMENTATION OFFICE. MISCELLANEOUS BOOKS. NO. 259.

 _Book of payments from 20th March, 4 Edward VI, to 20th March, 5 Edward
                                   VI._


[Sidenote: 1551-52.]

“Pencions out of Monasteries”

f. 16 d. ROUNDESIVALL.

Alloc’. Gardiani ibidem per annum vj li. xiij s. iiij d.[21] ex^r.

Footnote 21:

  The above sum is written below _viij_ _li_, crossed out.

Paide to them the xij of Aprill for theire quarters pencion due at
     Christenmas laste paste xxxiij s. iiij d.

Paide to him the xij of Aprill for theire quarters pencion due at Th
     annunciacion last past xxxiij s. iiij d.

Paide to them the xxij of Novembre for her quarters pencion due at
     Midsomer last past xxxiij s. iiij d.

Paide to them the xxij of Novembre for her quarters pencion due at
     Mighelmas last past xxxiij s. iiij d.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                           ELEANOR OF CASTILE




------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Illustration:

  FIG. 12.
  The Effigy of Queen Eleanor in Westminster Abbey; made by William
    Torel (anno 1291): from the drawing by Basire; Gough, “Sepulchral
    Monuments of Great Britain,” i, part i, plate xxiii.
]


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                          ELEANOR OF CASTILE,

                            QUEEN OF ENGLAND
                                AND THE
                    MONUMENTS ERECTED IN HER MEMORY.

                                -------


TRADITION for over six hundred years has conferred the title of the
“Good Queen Eleanor” on the Consort of Edward I, and does not fail to
repeat the tale of one of the most beautiful episodes in the domestic
annals of the mediæval English court; but the force of this tradition
has, without doubt, been greatly strengthened by the existence of the
remarkable series of monuments erected by King Edward to perpetuate the
memory of the Queen.

The story of the “Regina bonæ memoriæ” may be of interest to those who
read these pages, not only because the Cross erected at Charing was the
finest of the memorial crosses, but because the artistic conception and
much of the excellent craftsmanship lavished on these beautiful
monuments had their origin in the district of London specially
associated with the work of Charing Cross Hospital.

It will first of all be needful to recall something of the life and
character of a Queen who made so powerful an impression on her people.
That her influence must have been remarkable is sufficiently indicated
by the fact that the crosses partook of the nature of shrines. They were
built on consecrated ground and were intended to claim the prayers of
the wayfarer. This great demand on the devotion of her people, which
might readily have given the impression of being forced or exaggerated,
was clearly held to be entirely fitting.


                   THE COMING OF ELEANOR TO ENGLAND.

The omens at the commencement of Eleanor’s career in England were by no
means favourable, and little indicated the event. At the age of about
nine, Eleanor, a princess of Castile, was married to Edward, the heir to
the English Crown, who had reached the mature age of fifteen years. The
marriage took place in the year 1254, in the ancient city of Burgos, and
was celebrated with the utmost pomp; but the magnificence of the
occasion fails to conceal the features of the hard diplomatic bargain
driven between Henry III, the father of the bridegroom, and Alfonso X of
Leon and Castile, Eleanor’s half-brother. As a condition of this treaty
Alfonso merged all his claims and rights in Guienne and the South of
France in the English Crown; and the marriage, arranged after much
difficulty, placed the seal on this compact, terminating a long period
of petty warfare and intrigue, during which Alfonso had sought to
encourage the Gascons and other Gallic subjects of Henry against their
liege lord.

This Spanish marriage was by no means a popular one amongst the English;
and although in the following year, 1255, when Eleanor came to London,
her reception was marked with much circumstance and great official
cordiality, it is clear that the Londoners had no great love for the
Spaniards. Henry had given sufficient reason for the people’s jealousy
of foreigners; his prodigality and many acts of favouritism already
shown to foreign relations of the royal house and their retainers gave
good earnest that a similar outburst of extravagance on the part of the
King would result from this Spanish invasion. Preceding the arrival of
Eleanor, an embassy led by her brother, Don Sancho, the young Archbishop
of Toledo, had arrived to make certain preliminary arrangements. They
had been greeted with only a modified degree of favour by the London
populace. Their manners were considered to be anything but up to the
London standard. Under an aspect of richness and profusion their habits
were considered to be sordid and mean; one of the complaints made by the
grumbling Londoners was that the Spaniards, not content with hanging the
walls of their lodging with tapestry, must also use tapestry for
covering the floors! The unfortunate young Prelate himself on riding
through the streets of London had ventured to confer his benediction on
the populace with upraised hand—an act which was interpreted with but
little generosity. The hapless ten years old Princess and wife presents
a pathetic picture, for in the midst of all this political intrigue even
the little maiden herself did not escape the animadversions of her
future people. Special notice is taken of the fact that though landing
with a great retinue at Dover, and with much bravery of outward attire,
she had but a very scanty wardrobe (_minus bene munita hernesio_). One
of the first disbursements on the part of Henry for his daughter-in-law
was to remedy this grave defect.[22]

Footnote 22:

  Rot. Lit. Claus., 39 Henry III, m. 2. (No. 69).

The young Prince, her husband, appears to have been a headstrong and
undisciplined young man; though nominally in possession of great estates
in France and England, his actual income in money was small, and he and
his friends and retainers seem to have lived on the land as if they were
a band of foreign robbers. Edward’s thoughtlessness and the harshness
and cruelty of those around him are unfavourably commented on at this
time. The hard discipline, which the young Prince received in the years
immediately following, was very necessary to render him the great king
of England which he subsequently became, and many years also were
required before the little Princess acquired the gracious firmness of
character which is recognized in the “Regina bonæ memoriæ” of English
history.


          THE EARLY INFLUENCES AFFECTING ELEANOR’S CHARACTER.

The young Princess did not stay long in England at this time. She
returned to the Continent, no doubt to continue her education under the
influence of her royal relatives in Spain and France. Her half-brother,
Alfonso, was a man of much ability and high culture. His astronomical
researches are known to this day, and he is distinguished by the title
of “El Sabio” among the early Kings of Spain. Eleanor’s education was,
therefore, carried on under conditions more favourable than might be
expected in such a troubled age. The influences thus exerted on her
developing character left their mark throughout her life, and more than
once her love of beautiful things and the encouragement she gave to
learning appear in the fragmentary records of her history.

Edward, on the other hand, probably gained little in the way of
discipline or of military or political training from his father. It was
in the merciless school of rebellion and civil strife that he was to
receive his first hard lessons, the results of which may be traced
throughout his career. His early association with Simon de Montfort, a
leader of much genius, afforded him his first training in warfare. This
training never stood him in better stead than when, after his final
rupture with this great leader, the battle of Evesham gave him the
opportunity of putting in practice what he had learned against his old
master. At the same time his experience of the meaner side of the
miserable politics of this period produced the distortion of Edward’s
character which marred many of his great actions in the future.

It was not till the Barons’ Wars were approaching their termination that
Eleanor definitely took up her residence in England. The domestic life
of the young Prince and Princess may be reckoned as commencing about the
year 1264, ten years after their marriage, when their eldest child,
named after her mother, was born. Eleanor seems to have lived a very
domesticated life,[23] principally at Windsor and in her Castle at
Guildford, and there is evidence that her gracious character and many
acts of kindness to the neighbouring people soon began to have their
inevitable effect. She showed early the desire to accompany her husband
on his travels, one of the most characteristic features of her later
life. Edward, on the other hand, was still under the shadow of his
father. The state of English politics was exceedingly perturbed, and the
King’s eldest son was much involved in the intrigues of the time. The
strength of Edward’s character frequently showed itself by courage and
enterprise in the field of battle, by political insight and evidences of
good statesmanship; but his impetuosity and his lack of consideration
led to frequent acts of harshness which must have alienated many who
would otherwise have been supporters of the royal house, and his conduct
in private must have frequently been a cause of anxiety and mental
distress to his young Princess.

Footnote 23:

  Eleanor did not escape experience of the alarms of war, even at this
  early age, as may be inferred from the sudden orders for the
  retirement of the Princess and her household from Windsor to
  Westminster after the battle of Lewes. (Foedera i, part ii, p. 563.)


             ELEANOR JOURNEYS TO THE HOLY LAND WITH EDWARD.

There must have been, therefore, a great sense of relief to many within
the land when, in the year 1270, Edward, having taken the Cross,
entrusted his children and all his possessions to his uncle Richard and
departed to join the French King on crusade to the Holy Land. The
dangers from pestilence and sword besetting such expeditions to the East
were perfectly well understood—repeated and painful experience had
brought them home to all, both of high and of low degree. With this full
knowledge Eleanor made the momentous decision to accompany her husband
and to share the trials and dangers of the crusade.

Before they had actually left France on their journey to the East,
intelligence was received of the death of Louis of France, the leader of
this crusade, in Tunis, and although it must have been clear to Edward
that the chance of a successful issue of the crusade was much
diminished, nevertheless, accompanied by his comparatively small English
force, he went on towards Palestine.

The next two years were spent in the East. The crusade ended in failure,
scarcely relieved by the exploits of Edward in raising the siege of
Acre, at the battle of Nazareth, and in one or two smaller engagements.
From among the incidents of the crusade, the attempted assassination of
Edward by an emissary of one of the Sultan’s emirs stands out most
clearly. During the struggle Edward was badly wounded in his arm. The
wound suppurated, the arm swelled, and threatened to become gangrenous.
At this juncture the physician in the household of the Master of the
Temple was called in to advise, and stated his opinion that the only
chance of recovery was by means of free incision of the affected arm.
Edward decided that this should be done. On hearing the decision of her
husband, the Princess, worn out with anxiety, broke down completely, and
had to be conveyed from the tent in charge of her brother-in-law,
Edmund, and John De Vescy.[24] The operation was then performed, and
Edward made a satisfactory recovery. During his convalescence, he must
have owed much to the devoted care of his wife and to the skill of his
medical attendants. It was during these three years of close
association, while Edward had to bear the trial of repeated
disappointments in addition to the severe hardships and imminent perils
of foreign warfare, that a bond of firm comradeship was formed between
the future King and Queen.

Footnote 24:

  Hemingford, Walter: Historiae Angliae Scriptores. Gale; ii, p. 591,
  Oxford, 1687. Hemingburgh, Walterus de: Hamilton, H. C., Eng. Hist.
  Soc., ii, p. 335.

Eleanor had three children before leaving England, and during her years
of travel in the East and in France, two, if not three, more had been
born; of these, Joan of Acre, of romantic memory, and a son Alphonso,
for some years heir to the English crown, survived. It can hardly be a
matter of doubt that the number of her children added to the hardships
of her long journeys, and the almost certain incidence of disease had an
adverse influence on the health of the future Queen.


                         THE RETURN TO ENGLAND.

On their return journey, while resting in Sicily, the Prince and
Princess received the intelligence of the deaths first of their eldest
son John, and then of King Henry. Their homeward journey was, however,
still greatly delayed; Edward running the fantastic risks of a
knight-errant in Burgundy, and becoming embroiled in bouts of partisan
warfare in the South of France, while the Queen visited her royal
relatives in Spain, and rested for some time at Bayonne, where her son
Alphonso was born.

It was not till late in the following year that they returned to
England, when both Edward and Eleanor were hallowed and crowned at
Westminster amidst surroundings of the greatest magnificence, and with
the promise of a fortunate reign, especially in their relationship with
the King of Scotland (19th August, 1273).

One of the first great designs of Edward’s statesmanship was to secure
the more complete subjection of Wales to the English crown. Eleanor’s
influence appears to have been exerted to moderate the impetuosity and
harshness of her husband, and to add the occasional touch of
graciousness which became notably absent when her guiding hand was
removed. Llewelyn II, the Prince of Wales, had been in close terms of
intimacy with the de Montfort family, and was betrothed to Eleanor, the
King’s cousin and only daughter of the great Earl Simon. On her way to
Wales from France in 1276, the ship conveying this lady was captured by
Bristol sailors. The distinguished captive was promptly sent to Edward
at Windsor. Eleanor de Montfort was too valuable a counter in the game
of Edward’s politics to be given up easily, and she was accordingly kept
in captivity in order to influence the negotiations with the Welsh
Prince. The rigour of her captivity, however, was much alleviated by the
action of the Queen, whose kindness and consideration stands out in
pleasant relief to the unremitting harshness of Edward’s dealings with
Llewelyn. The unfortunate Princess, Eleanor de Montfort, died soon after
her marriage, after giving birth to a daughter, and happily did not
witness the savage outburst signalising Edward’s final triumph over
Llewelyn. Accompanied by the Queen, Edward gradually established himself
in Wales. In 1284, Eleanor’s son, Edward, was born at Carnarvon, and the
Welsh once more received a native-born Prince, but the episode of
Eleanor’s kindness to the de Montfort Princess and her presence with
Edward during the later stages of the occupation of Wales, were no doubt
factors of great assistance to Edward in bringing his Welsh policy to a
successful conclusion.

The following years of Eleanor’s life seem to have passed in much
contentment in the midst of her numerous family. She still retained her
custom of accompanying her husband on his travels, and undertook in his
company another long voyage to France and probably to Spain. The memory
of her domestic happiness is recalled by the traditions which still
remain of the gaiety which distinguished the “Maiden Hall” at
Westminster.

The Queen, however, did not entirely escape trial and mental anxiety
even in her relationship with her daughters. She keenly felt Edward’s
decision that her daughter, Princess Mary, a girl aged 6, should take
the veil and enter the great Benedictine nunnery of Amesbury. Edward
seems to have been forced to this harsh decision by the masterful
influence of the Queen Mother, Eleanor of Provence, who was living in
retirement in this convent. The Princess Mary survived to the year 1332,
and saw much of the trouble which subsequently befell the Royal House.

Records remain which show that Edward allowed himself to relax from the
severity of the warrior and the statesman in the domestic circle. His
domestic relaxation seems to have been often of a boisterous character.
There is, for instance, the story of the King being held in bed by seven
of the Queen’s ladies and damosels on the morning of Easter Monday,
1290, till he paid them the fine of £14 expected on that day.[25] On
another occasion, in the same year, Matilda of Waltham, stated to be the
King’s laundress, wins a wager from the King by venturing to ride his
horse, when he had gone hunting in Essex. The King recovered his steed
by paying a fine of 40s. to the bold Matilda.[26]

Footnote 25:

  Wardrobe Account 18 Edw. I, fol. 45b. Chancery Miscellanea 4/5.

Footnote 26:

  Wardrobe Account 18 Edw. I, fol. 47b. Chancery Miscellanea 4/5.


                   THE LAST YEAR OF THE QUEEN’S LIFE.

The year 1290, however, was to be distinguished by events of far more
serious import than the records of domestic happiness. Edward, secure in
England, had reached, perhaps, the culminating point of a successful
career. His judgment was appealed to and his advice followed in foreign
lands; and the great political design of bringing about the union of the
Scottish and English crowns, so often the dream of his predecessors, now
appeared to promise a successful issue by the betrothal of Prince Edward
to his cousin, Margaret of Norway,[27] the grand-daughter of Alexander
III, and heiress to the Scottish throne. Eleanor’s influence must have
been willingly exerted to bring about so happy a solution of the long
drawn out Anglo-Scottish dispute.

Footnote 27:

  The “Maid of Norway” was King Edward’s grand-niece, and first cousin
  “once-removed” to the Prince.

Earlier events of importance in 1290 in Eleanor’s domestic life were the
marriages of her two daughters, Joan of Acre and Margaret. The
celebrations which distinguished the latter event were of so striking a
character that their record remains to this day as an example of the
extreme of mediæval magnificence.

Already, however, the tragic events which closed this year were throwing
their shadows over the land. The Queen’s health was not as it should
be,[28] and a rumour rapidly gained credence that Margaret was dead in
Orkney, where she had rested on her voyage from Norway to Scotland. The
question of the succession to the Scottish Crown, with all its dangerous
consequences, was immediately opened up, and it is clear that Edward
promptly came to the conclusion that he must be in a position to bring
about a result favourable to the English interest.

Footnote 28:

  There is some evidence that a daughter was added to the Queen’s
  already large family early in this year.


          THE JOURNEY TO HARBY AND THE QUEEN’S FATAL ILLNESS.

The summer session of Parliament in Westminster was adjourned, but
re-assembled during the autumn, and Edward left London on 21st July,
travelling northwards accompanied as usual by the Queen. By slow stages
they reached Harby[29] near Lincoln, where the Queen remained at the
house of Richard de Weston, who was no doubt a relative of Sir John de
Weston, a confidential member of her own household. It is clear that the
Queen was unable to bear the fatigues of travelling, and as the autumn
session of Parliament was summoned to meet at King’s Clipstone, a royal
residence in Sherwood Forest, Edward was anxious that Eleanor should be
sufficiently close at hand for him to have full knowledge of her health.
During the month of September he made short journeys in the districts of
the Peak and Sherwood Forest, and paid a visit to Harby on 11th
September. The Clipstone Parliament occupied his attention during most
of October and the early part of November.

Footnote 29:

  Previously written “Hardeby,” “Hardby,” &c.

During the whole of this period the Queen was steadily declining in
health. It is interesting to note one or two indications of the nature
of her long illness. It is on record that a certain Henry de
Montepessulano[30] received on 18th October the sum of 13s. 4d. on
account of syrups and other medicines purchased for the Queen at
Lincoln.[31] The Queen’s physician was a certain Magister Leopardus, who
is specially mentioned in the Queen’s will as receiving a legacy of 20
marks. In addition to the physician attached to her household she seems
to have been attended by some of her own countrymen—the physician to the
King of Aragon is especially mentioned. To him the Queen presented a
silver goblet, worth 12-1/2 marks, and Sir Garcia de Ispannia, who was
evidently of the King and Queen’s household, received a certain sum for
a cross given to the Queen.

Footnote 30:

  The presence of a member of the ancient Medical School of Montpellier
  in the Queen’s Household is of much interest.

Footnote 31:

  Wardrobe Account 18 Edw. I, fol. 13, Chancery Miscellanea 4/5.

The character of the illness is described by a contemporary annalist as
being of a lingering character, associated with low fever.[32] In spite
of all skill and care the Queen steadily became worse, till at length
the illness must have been recognized as fatal. Another annalist speaks
of the Queen as being stricken with a serious illness.[33]

Footnote 32:

  Wykes, Thomas. Ann. de Oseneia. Annales monastici: Rolls series, iv,
  p. 326, “_Modicæ febris igniculo contabescens_.”

Footnote 33:

  Walsingham, Thomas of, quoting William Rishanger, a contemporary
  writer: “_Regina consors grave infirmatate correpta quarto idus
  decembris ex hac vita migravit in villa de Hardeby_.” Historia
  Anglicana, Rolls edition; anno 1291, pp. 32, 33.

At the close of the Clipstone Parliament, Edward travelled slowly
towards Harby, arriving there on the 20th November. The gravity of the
Queen’s illness seems scarcely to have been appreciated by the King. He
spent six days on his journey from Clipstone to Harby—a distance of
little more than 20 miles. On his arrival the hopelessness of the
Queen’s condition must have been apparent to him. She died on the
evening of the 28th November.

Evidence of the King’s grief and depression is given not only by the
contemporary writers, but by Edward’s actions at the time of the death
of Eleanor and during the subsequent months. The gracious character of
the Queen’s influence on her consort, and the affection she inspired in
her people, is amply testified by the contemporary annalists.
Walsingham, once more quoting his predecessors such as Rishanger,
describes her shortly in the following sentence: “She was in very truth
a woman of pious, gracious, and compassionate disposition, the friend of
all English folk, and as a pillar of the whole realm.”[34] The important
point of this description is the emphasis laid on the fact that Eleanor
was the friend of her English subjects. This had not been the
characteristic of her predecessors. In the time of Henry III, the
foreign relatives of both the Queen and the King swarmed into England,
and memories of the unjust favours showered upon them still rankled in
the minds of the people. An echo of this can still be heard on listening
to the tale of the annalist at Dunstable. He writes from the English
point of view, and is chiefly concerned with describing the benefits
received by his Convent from the King and Queen.[35]

Footnote 34:

  “Fuerat nempe mulier pia, modesta, misericors, Anglicorum amatrix
  omnium, et velut columna regni totius. Cujus temporibus alienigenæ
  Angliam non gravabant, incolæ nullatenus per regales opprimebantur, si
  ad aures ejus vel minima querela oppressionis aliqualiter pervenisset.
  Tristes ubique, prout dignitatem suæ permittebat, consolabatur, et
  discordes ad concordium, quantum potuit, reducebat.”

Footnote 35:

  Ann. de Dunstaplia: Annales monastici. Rolls series, iii, p. 362. Of
  Eleanor this annalist drily remarks: “Hyspana genere quæ plura et
  optima maneria adquisivit.”

Edward’s letter conveying information of the Queen’s death to the Abbot
of Cluny still remains, and gives pathetic evidence of his own sorrow:
“Whom while living we cherished dearly, and being dead we shall not
cease to love.”[36]

Footnote 36:

  Close Roll, 19 Ed. I, m. 11 d. A.D. 1291: Foedera, i, part ii, p. 743:
  “De Orando pro Regina.” “Cum itaque, dictam Consortem nostram _quam
  vivam care dileximus, mortuam non desinamus amare_, ac opus sanctum et
  salubre, juxta divinæ scripturæ sententiam, censeatur pro defunctis,
  ut a peccatorum solvantur nexibus, exorare.”

After the obsequies at Westminster were concluded, the King went into
retirement in the religious house of the “Bons Hommes” at Ashridge,
issuing to pay a visit to his mother and daughter in the Convent at
Amesbury.

The Queen’s death marks the crisis of Edward’s career. His kingly manner
and appearance, his renown as a warrior, and his success as a statesman,
combined to make him one of the most prominent personages in Europe. The
political problems of the future might well have been solved by his
firmness and skill had not the distortion of his character, which dates
back to his early years, become more pronounced. Especially in the
management of the Scottish difficulty, his firmness of purpose contrasts
curiously with the meanness and shiftiness of his administration. These
base qualities more than anything else brought to so unhappy a
termination his statesmanlike plans for the union of England and
Scotland. This great political scheme ended with Edward’s life in the
dark scene at Burgh-on-the-Sands, marked by the desire for savage
revenge[37] only too characteristic of Edward’s worse nature. At no
period of his career did Edward miss the moderating influence of Eleanor
of Castile more than during his quarrel with Scotland.

Footnote 37:

  This phase of Edward’s character brings to mind the “demon blood” of
  his Angevin ancestry. _Cf._ Norgate, Kate: “England under Angevin
  Kings,” i, pp. 143-144; ii, p. 207.


       KING EDWARD’S PLAN FOR THE COMMEMORATION OF QUEEN ELEANOR.

It is quite clear that Edward must have carefully considered the most
fitting means for the perpetuation of the memory of his consort during
the anxious weeks of Eleanor’s last illness. It would have been
otherwise impossible to put into immediate operation the details of his
great design.

The plan which commended itself to the King was that after the body had
been embalmed a funeral procession should be formed, led by himself and
accompanied by the important officers of State, and should pass through
England from Lincoln to London. The itinerary was so arranged that at
the close of each day’s march the cortège should rest for the night near
some important town, or at a religious house of note. The route thus
determined was not the most direct.

He spent Advent Sunday, December 2, 1290, in Lincoln, the body resting
at the Priory of St. Catherine, on the southern outskirt of the city,
while the King chose the situation for the first of the tombs under the
great eastern window of Lincoln Minster, and attended the memorial
services in that great Church.

Leaving Lincoln on 3rd December, the procession passed through Grantham,
Stamford and Geddington, reaching Northampton on the 9th December; then,
by way of Stony Stratford, through Woburn and Dunstable to St. Albans,
which was reached on the 13th December. The King went thence direct to
London, to make due preparation for the ceremonial entry into the City,
while the procession conveying the remains of Eleanor passed on to
Waltham Abbey, in order later to pass through the length of the City.
The procession through the City of London was of the most solemn
character, being led by the King, accompanied by the important nobles,
the officials of the Court, the prelates and the higher clergy.

The night following the departure from Waltham, the body rested at the
western end of Chepe (Cheapside), or perhaps actually in St. Paul’s, the
next night, in the village of Charing, on the confines of Westminster,
and the entombment in the Abbey Church of St. Peter’s took place on the
17th December.

Three tombs were to be erected in memory of the Queen—one in the
Cathedral Church of Lincoln, where the viscera were buried; one in the
Church of the Dominican Friars in London, a religious fraternity which
had early gained the sympathy of the King and Queen. In this beautiful
Church of the Black Friars, built mainly by the munificence of Edward
and his consort, the heart of the Queen was to be enshrined at her own
request. The third tomb was erected in the Chapel of St. Edward the
Confessor, where the body is interred. The King determined that at every
station on this route where the Queen’s body rested for the night a
memorial cross should be erected in the most sumptuous manner possible.

The ceremonies which took place at these various stations were solemnly
conducted with the full rites of the Church, and we still have evidence
of what took place at Dunstable and St. Albans. The Dunstable annalist
states that the body rested one night there—probably in the choir of the
Priory Church—and the bier remained in this place while the Chancellor
and the other magnates of the Court selected a suitable place for the
erection of the Cross. The Prior of the Convent was present at the
ceremony, and consecrated the spot by sprinkling holy water. The Priory
received two valuable pieces of embroidery and more than 40 lb. of
wax.[38]

Footnote 38:

  This was not the first time that Edward presented gifts to the Priory
  at Dunstable, including the valuable embroideries on cloth of gold of
  Eastern origin, “_scilicet Baudekyns_,” _i.e._, cloth of Bagdad, where
  this gorgeous fabric was originally made.

At St. Albans, as was to be expected of the greater house, the
ceremonies must have been conducted with even greater magnificence. The
procession was met as it approached St. Albans by the whole Convent,
“_solemniter revestitus in albis et capis_,” at the Church of St.
Michael, near the entrance of the town. The body was then conducted to
the Abbey Church and placed before the High Altar. The whole of that
night the Convent was engaged in its divine offices and holy vigils.
There can be no doubt that this progress passing through so much of the
land, accompanied by the King and the great magnates of the Court,
honoured by the most ceremonious rites of Holy Church, and ending with
the great celebration at Westminster, was one of the most remarkable
spectacles ever witnessed in England.

The idea of this impressive ceremonial was no doubt suggested to the
mind of Edward by the funeral of his old leader on crusade—Louis IX of
France. After the death of Louis in Tunis, his body was conveyed to
France for entombment. It was carried on men’s shoulders from Paris to
St. Denis, and at the places where the bearers rested on their journey a
cross was subsequently built. It is well known that Edward held the
memory of Louis in great veneration, and was well aware of these
circumstances; no doubt he had seen the crosses in memory of St. Louis
while in France and accompanied by the Queen.

Besides arranging for the construction of the tombs and crosses, Edward
made very ample provision for the religious celebrations to be made in
memory of his wife. These were conducted in many places throughout the
land, but the most elaborate was that held annually up to the time of
Henry VIII in Westminster Abbey, on the eve of St. Andrew’s Day, the
29th November.


                 THE BUILDERS OF THE QUEEN’S MONUMENTS.

Edward was well aware that he had both the men and the materials for the
accomplishment of this great design. Although the King was unable to
devote much of his time to artistic matters, he could not have been the
son of his father without having a cultivated taste and a competent
knowledge of the arts and crafts of the time. His father, Henry III,
however much he failed as a ruler in an age when the power of the King
was the main factor of good government, was an enthusiastic lover of art
and a patron of artists. It was during the reign of Henry, and largely
owing to his influence, that perhaps the most remarkable development of
Early English architecture took place. His principal work, to which he
gave himself with the utmost devotion, and, indeed, with little
consideration of other and more important duties, was the rebuilding and
decorating of the Abbey Church at Westminster. For the carrying out of
his designs he had gradually fostered a school of architects, sculptors,
painters, and other artists in Westminster unrivalled in England. This
Westminster School of Art not only produced a great part of the
magnificent edifice of the Abbey Church, but was directly engaged in the
construction of many other great churches and buildings. Its influence,
however, was still wider. From it trained and skilled men travelled
throughout Britain, imparting the knowledge of structure and artistic
design, while artists and students came to learn the Westminster methods
from the ends of the land.

There is, however, a good deal of evidence to show that Edward inherited
the collecting proclivities of his father, and was encouraged in this
amiable failing by Eleanor. He spent very large sums of money in buying
gold and silver plate, jewellery, carvings and embroideries. Records
remain not only of his own possessions, but of the lavish way in which
he and the Queen presented such works of art to religious houses which
they visited from time to time, and in which they took special interest.
An example may be found in the accounts of the Queen’s executors, where
we find that a certain Brother Nicholas received the sum of £10 for
bringing jewels, and, apparently, other works of art, from Acre to
England for the Queen’s service.[39]

Footnote 39:

  _Cf._ “Liberationes factae per Executores,” &c., _Item_, fratri
  Nicholao de Acon, pro cariagio diversarum rerum et jocalium, ad opus
  Reginae de Acon usque in Angliam, x li.

In the year 1290 and for some time before, the King’s master mason at
Westminster was a certain Master Richard Crundale, or, as he was usually
called in the Rolls containing the accounts of Queen Eleanor’s
executors, “Magister Ricardus de Crundale, Cimentarius.” Richard
Crundale was the direct successor of such great architects and builders
as Master Henry of Westminster, Master John of Gloucester, and Master
Robert of Beverley, who had been successively the King’s architects, and
to whom we owe the beautiful designs and the excellent workmanship of
Westminster Abbey. Crundale succeeded Robert of Beverley, and had
apparently been in charge of the work at the Abbey for about ten years
at this date. To him the King entrusted the building of the cross at
Charing, and also the construction of the beautiful tomb in the Abbey
Church, but it can hardly be doubted that it is to him we owe the
suggestion of designs for many of the other crosses, and it is at any
rate clear that the influence of the Westminster School is shown both in
their planning and in the selection of the architects and builders who
carried out the work.

The accounts of the executors show that, in addition to the work for the
cross at Charing and the tomb in the Abbey, the statues of the Queen
which found places in all the crosses, and much of the decorative stone
carving, were made at Westminster under the eye of Richard Crundale.

In association with Crundale, there were at work in Westminster two
sculptors (“Imaginatores”) of renown, namely—Alexander of Abingdon, and
William of Ireland; these were the men who carved the statues. Ralph of
Chichester carved much of the decorative stone work. The painter who
decorated the tombs had also a high reputation in his time—Master Walter
of Durham. Master William Torel, a citizen of London and goldsmith, had
the good fortune to be chosen to mould and cast the metal effigies of
the Queen, which found their places on the tombs at Westminster and
Lincoln. His work was carried out in material of more durable character,
and his reputation as an accomplished craftsman in metal rests firmly on
the evidence of one of the most perfect remaining examples of mediæval
art. Another worker in metal, Master Thomas de Leighton, has left
evidence of his skill in the fine iron grille over the Queen’s tomb. The
executry accounts tell us also of the men employed by Crundale to bring
the stone and Purbeck marble from Corfe, Caen, and other places, and the
names of others associated with the works at Westminster are still
preserved.

The actual cost of the erection of the Cross at Charing is difficult to
tell. The accounts show that large sums were received by Richard
Crundale, amounting to some £700, but this sum no doubt represents work
for other memorials to the Queen, and not alone for those at
Westminster. It is also evident that the executry accounts were not
complete, so that an exact calculation of the cost is no longer
possible.[40] Unfortunately Richard Crundale died before the completion
of the Queen’s memorials, and was succeeded in 1293 by Roger Crundale,
under whose care the work was completed.

Footnote 40:

  To obtain some idea of the cost of the memorials, money at the end of
  the thirteenth century may be considered to have possessed thirteen
  times its present purchasing value.

The cross in the City of London at the west end of Chepe was entrusted
to Michael of Canterbury, a member of the Westminster School, and
subsequently the successor of the Crundales as the King’s master mason
in Westminster. This distinguished architect was engaged in rebuilding
the Chapel of St. Stephen’s at Westminster while working on the cross at
Chepe. Of the exact plan of the “Cheapside” Cross little or nothing is
known, but there can be little doubt that it conformed in essential
details to the plan determined on by Richard Crundale. We know, however,
that Michael of Canterbury undertook the construction of Chepe Cross for
the sum of £300, and the executry accounts show payments to the extent
of £226 13s. 4d. This gives us the closest indication we can now obtain
of the actual money spent in building the crosses. It is generally
recognized that the cross at Charing was the finest and most elaborate
of the series, but Chepe Cross, situated as it was in the City of
London, must have also been a noble example of artistic work; probably
the crosses in country places were on less magnificent a scale.

The cross at Waltham was constructed by Roger Crundale and a certain
Dyminge de Legeri, sometimes called de Reyns. Roger Crundale was
obviously a member of the Westminster School, and there is little doubt
that he was Richard Crundale’s brother. Dyminge de Legeri may have been
a foreigner, but his work was held in high appreciation, for he not only
helped in the construction of Waltham Cross, but was employed in making
the sculptured tomb at Lincoln.

The building of the five Midland Eleanor Crosses—namely, at St. Albans,
Dunstable, Woburn, Stony Stratford and Northampton—is of special
interest, inasmuch as the work was entrusted to what seems to have been
the mediæval representative of a firm of architects and builders in
Northampton. The most prominent member of the firm was a certain
Johannes de Bello, or de la Bataille, in whose name most of the payments
are made out, but with him was one scarcely less important, namely,
Simon de Pabeham (Pabenham). These two builders were also of the
Westminster School, and appear later in connection with works at
Westminster itself. At this time, however, they were working at
Northampton as their centre. Nearly £400 was noted as being paid to John
Battle, but we can form little opinion as to how the money was
distributed. The cross at Northampton, a beautiful example of Battle’s
handiwork, still exists.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 13.
  The Cross at Geddington in the eighteenth century. Published by the
  Society of Antiquaries: drawn by Schnebbelie, engraved by Basire:
  _Vetusta Monumenta_, iii, plate xiv, 1791.
]

We know nothing of the architects or builders of the crosses at
Geddington, Stamford, or Grantham. The cross at Geddington remains the
most perfectly preserved example of the whole series. This cross is
remarkable, as it shows a completely different plan from those already
mentioned. Indeed its scheme of construction differs to such an extent
from the others that it is not probable that Crundale had any part in
its design. It is also noteworthy that no mention is made of these three
crosses in the executry accounts. If arrangements for building them had
been made at Westminster, we should have had evidence of it in the
executry rolls. It is probable, therefore, that in the Geddington Cross,
the only one of the three remaining, we see the work of some other
master. The influence of the builders of Lincoln Cathedral may have made
itself felt so far as Geddington, on the border of John Battle’s
territory. It is, however, very tempting to make the suggestion that the
cross at Geddington—possibly also those, long since destroyed, at
Stamford and Grantham—owe their origin to foreign artists. Those places
we may regard as having been in the Queen’s own country. On her marriage
it is specially mentioned that she received in dowry important
possessions in Grantham, Stamford, Tickhill, and the Peak. At the time
of her death we know that there were Spaniards in her household, and it
may be that the very unusual and striking design of Geddington Cross
owes its origin to a Spanish rather than to an English artist.

At Lincoln, the rebuilding of the Cathedral had given rise to a local
school of art, influenced no doubt by, but independent of, the greater
school at Westminster. The master builder of this school at the time was
Richard de Stowe, sometimes called “de Gaynisburgh,” evidently a man of
local birth and training, whose tombstone is still to be seen in the
cloisters of Lincoln Minster. To him was entrusted the erection of the
cross at Lincoln, but some finer decorative work was done by the
Westminster artists. William of Ireland furnished the statues and the
ornaments so frequently mentioned in the accounts as the “virgæ, capita
et annuli,” and special mention is made of payments to him for their
carriage to Lincoln.

The construction of the tomb over the remains of Eleanor in the
Cathedral was entrusted to Dyminge de Legeri, with whom was especially
associated Alexander of Abingdon. This tomb for long supported a replica
of Torel’s effigy of the Queen at Westminster made by that artist’s own
hands.

The monument constructed to contain the heart of the Queen in the Church
of the Black Friars in London, must have been elaborately beautiful.
Walter of Durham expended his utmost art in its decoration, and in
addition special effigies of the Queen were placed on this monument,
which were made by Alexander of Abingdon, Dyminge de Legeri, and William
of Suffolk.

Richard Crundale’s design for the Memorial Cross consisted of a solid
pillar, surmounted by a cross, following in principle the more ancient
crosses existing throughout the land; but with his greater skill in
construction and more developed artistic feeling the simple column was
surrounded with new architectural features.

The area on which the cross stood was covered with stone pavement, on
this pavement a smaller platform, attained by a varying number of steps,
was built, from this platform arose the cross proper. The architectural
decorations surrounding the column were arranged in three stages. The
first stage presented three, six, or eight faces, arranged in panels; in
these panels were carved shields, emblazoned with the Queen’s heraldic
bearings, giving the coats of England, Castile and Leon, and
Ponthieu.[41] The second stage consisted of a platform for displaying
the statues of the Queen, the number of statues corresponding to the
faces of the cross—three, four, or more, as the case might be.
Protecting the statues was arranged an elaborate system of
“tabernacles,” giving to the passer-by the impression of a shrine. The
third stage showed the continuation of the solid column, probably in
most cases surmounted by a cross. The whole of the monument was
ornamented with the decorations characteristic of Early English
decorated architecture. The work was done at the best period of this
school, and shows how beautifully the artistic ideas of the time could
be utilised for monumental purposes.

Footnote 41:

  For England, three lions passant, guardant; Castile and Leon,
  quarterly; for Ponthieu, three bendlets within a bordure.




                 THE ELEANOR MEMORIALS AND THEIR FATE.


                                LINCOLN.

The cross at Lincoln was built by Richard de Stowe, who at the time was
the master mason in charge of the work at Lincoln Cathedral. Stowe
received sums on account of his work during the years 1291 to 1293
amounting to £106 13s. 4d.

Of Stowe’s design for the cross we have no record, but the presumption
is that it agreed in its main features with the other crosses, for some
of the finer decorative work and statues were sent to the cross from
Westminster. They were entrusted to William of Ireland, the
“Imaginator.” The accounts of this sculptor are specially noted. He
received in all the sum of £23 6s. 8d. for making the statues of the
Queen, the “virgæ, capita et annuli,” and for their carriage from
Westminster to Lincoln. We know that he received the sum of five
marks—£3 6s. 8d.—for each statue. The cross stood on Swine Green,
opposite the Gilbertine Priory of St. Catherine, where the Queen’s body
rested. The last traces of the cross at Lincoln have long since
disappeared.

The tomb in Lincoln Cathedral was erected by Dyminge de Legeri and
Alexander of Abingdon who was under the immediate influence of
Westminster. Note is made of their receiving £18 6s. 8d. on account of
their work at Lincoln, a sum, however, which includes a small amount to
Alexander of Abingdon on account of making statues for the tomb at
Blackfriars. Roger de Crundale was evidently associated with the work,
as he is mentioned as receiving £1 16s. 8d. for marble supplied and work
done at the tomb of the Queen. The most important feature of the Queen’s
tomb, however, was the metal effigy made by William Torel, which was an
exact replica of the effigy on the tomb in Westminster. The tombs at
Westminster and Lincoln were probably similar in design. The Queen’s
tomb occupied a position under the great east window of the cathedral,
but now no relic of it survives.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 14.
  The Cross at Geddington, from a photograph by the Author, 1908.
]


In 1901 a monument in memory of the Queen, copying the original tomb,
was placed on the southern side of the retro-choir by the late Mr.
Joseph Ruston. Sufficient information was obtained from drawings of the
original monument by Dugdale and Bishop Sanderson, now in the possession
of the Earl of Winchilsea, to permit of this being done. This monument,
however, could not be placed in the original position on the north side
of the “Angel Choir” as the site had been used for a recent interment,
and the Bishop’s Chair had been erected close to the site.[42] No
fragments of the original tomb were discovered when this work was being
done.

Footnote 42:

  From information kindly given by Mrs. J. M. H. MacLeod.


                               GRANTHAM.

No information is obtainable of the design, nor of the builder, of the
cross at Grantham. Edmund Torner, writing in 1806, makes the following
note:—

    “On St. Peter’s Hill near the south entrance into the town stood
    the elegant cross erected by Edward I in memory of Eleanor, his
    Queen.”[43]

Footnote 43:

  Torner, Edmund, 1806. Collections for the History of the Town and Soke
  of Grantham.

A note in Camden is as follows:—

    “Queen Eleanor’s Cross stood before Mr. Hacket’s house, called
    Peter Church Hill, where stood a Church dedicated to St. Peter,
    now demolished.”[44]

Footnote 44:

  Britannia. Camden-Gough, ii, p. 360.

The fragments of the cross which survived were destroyed by Cromwellian
soldiery during the Civil War.


                               STAMFORD.

There is no information as to the builder and designer of the cross at
Stamford. Richard Butcher, some time Town Clerk of Stamford, in a work
published in 1717, states as follows:—

    “Not far from hence upon the North side of the Town near unto
    York Highway, and about twelve score from the Town Gate, which
    is called Clement Gate, stands an ancient cross of Free Stone of
    a very curious Fabrick, having many ancient scutchions of arms
    insculpted in the stone about it, as the Arms of Castile Leon
    quartered, being the paternal coat of the King of Spain, and
    divers other hatchments belonging to that Crown, which envious
    Time hath so defaced, that only the Ruins appear to my eye, and
    therefore not to be described by my Pen.”[45]

Footnote 45:

  Butcher, Richard. London, 1717. “Survey and Antiquity of the Town of
  Stamford.”

In Camden’s “Britannia” there is the note:—

    “Not far from the Town without Clement Gate, stood a fine cross,
    erected by Edward I, in memory of his Queen Eleanor, but pulled
    down by the soldiers in the Civil War.”[46]

Footnote 46:

  Britannia. Camden-Gough, ii, p. 351.


                              GEDDINGTON.

The cross at Geddington has withstood the ravages of time and has been
disturbed less by restoration than the others. Its design differs
greatly from that of the other remaining crosses, but it is so elegant
in spite of its unusual structure, that it is very unfortunate that we
have now no knowledge of its builders. No mention is made of Geddington
Cross, nor of Stamford, nor Grantham in the Queen’s executry accounts.
These Rolls, however, are not extant later than the year 1294. It is
possible, therefore, that these three crosses were built a year or two
later than the others.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 15.
  The Cross at Northampton in the eighteenth century, subsequent to an
    unhappy “restoration,” which resulted in a wooden cross being
    erected on the summit. Published by the Society of Antiquaries:
    drawn by Schnebbelie, engraved by Basire: _Vetusta Monumenta_, iii,
    plate xii, 1791.
]

The cross stands in the middle of the village, where the main road from
Stamford to Northampton turns in a southerly direction to pass over the
old bridge across the small river Ise. There is here a widening of the
road caused by the junction of a road from the east, allowing of a clear
space, so that the cross is well seen from all sides. The cross itself
rises from a platform led up to by a series of eight steps, arranged in
hexagonal form. It is exceptional in being triangular in section. The
first story consists of three faces, each face being divided by firm
mouldings into four panels. These panels show a beautiful example of
stone carving in various diaper designs. Even now the effect is rich,
but before the outlines had faded, the diaper work must have shown great
firmness and strength. The upper panels of the lower story present the
shields bearing alternately the arms of England, Castile and Leon
quarterly, and Ponthieu, as in the case of the other crosses. The second
story also gives the effect of a triangular outline, the angles
corresponding with the middle of each side of the lower story. At each
angle rises a beautifully moulded pillar which, with similar pillars
from the other sides, support the series of canopies sheltering the
three statues of the Queen. These tabernacles are richly ornamented in
the characteristic style of decoration of the period. The third story
continues the main column of the cross upwards, and consists of a
cluster of pillars ending in decorated finials, repeating the designs of
the tabernacle work below. The column may have been originally
surmounted by a cross. Fortunately no attempt has yet been made to
replace the terminal feature. The triangular design of the cross gives a
very curious effect when it is looked at from certain directions. It
will be evident that when seen from a line parallel to one of the faces
of the second story, the whole of the cross presents a lop-sided aspect.
Its symmetry of outline becomes obvious on changing the point of view a
little to one side or the other.

Geddington Cross, like the others, suffered not only by exposure to the
elements, but perhaps even more by neglect and wilful damage. It is
mentioned that in ancient times, during the rough sports which were held
on Easter Monday, it was the custom to catch squirrels in the
neighbouring woods and turn them loose in the neighbourhood of the
cross. The little animals naturally took refuge in its crevices and
corners, whereupon the mob attempted to destroy the squirrels by stoning
them, and many a decorated finial and beautiful piece of foliage must
have been shattered on those days.

On the south side of the steps leading to the cross is a spring of water
evidently used from time immemorial by the inhabitants. It is now
covered in by a small square-headed stone cistern. This cross
fortunately escaped the ruin which befell so many of the other memorial
crosses during the Civil War. It was restored in 1868, and repairs were
judiciously carried out in 1890.[47]

Footnote 47:

  _Cf._ “The Stone Crosses of the County of Northampton.” Christopher A.
  Markham. Northampton: Joseph Tebbutt, 1901.


                              NORTHAMPTON.

The cross at Northampton is the only one remaining of the five built by
John Battle and his partners. It occupies a site on the east of the main
road leading south, at a distance of about a mile from the town, in the
parish of Hardingston. The road rises slightly as it leaves the flat
land of the Nene Valley, and on this little elevation the cross was
erected. It was the proximity of the religious house of Cluniac nuns (S.
Maria de Pratis), now Delapré Abbey, which determined the spot where the
funeral procession stopped for the night. This cross stands quite in the
open country, and its fine proportions can be easily seen. Unfortunately
it has suffered much, both at the hands of time, but especially from the
restorer, and much of the original decorative work has disappeared. Its
strong, beautiful outlines give the observer a high idea of John
Battle’s skill as a designer.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 16.
  The Cross at Northampton, from a photograph by the Author, 1908.
]

The cross is situated on a platform surrounded on all sides by an ascent
of nine steps. From this the cross, which is of octagonal outline,
rises. The lowest story is supported by buttresses at the angles, and
the faces thus formed are divided into two panels by a perpendicular
moulding. Surmounting the panels is a series of decorated gables. The
panels show alternately shields with the arms of England, Castile and
Leon quarterly, and Ponthieu. In addition, every alternate face is
ornamented with an open book.

The second story is arranged also to give an octagonal outline, but
consists really of the quadrilateral solid column of the cross, on each
face of which stands the statue of the Queen, about 6 ft. in height,
facing north, south, east and west. Attached to this solid column is a
series of eight open tabernacles, elaborately and beautifully decorated.

Above this tabernacle story rises the solid four-sided column of the
cross, panelled and adorned with pointed tabernacle work, reproducing
the designs of the story below. The column originally terminated, in all
probability, in a cross-shaped finial. This no longer exists, the feeble
effort to replace the terminal cross during the restoration of 1713
being happily removed.

The first restoration of the cross of which we have particulars was in
1713. It was carried out very badly, and certainly in bad taste. Further
repairs were undertaken in 1762, during which the benefactions of the
restorers were duly and pompously notified on the cross itself. Careful
repairs were carried out in 1884, and now the care of the cross is
vested absolutely in the Northampton County Council. In spite of the
destruction due to early restorations, the Northampton cross remains a
remarkable tribute to the skill of the architects and builders of the
period, and a fine example of English decorated work.

It is difficult to obtain an idea of the cost of the crosses erected by
Battle. The executry accounts give evidence of a sum of nearly £400 paid
to Battle and his partners, but this money was on account of the five
Midland crosses. We know that the accounts are incomplete, so that the
amount spent was no doubt larger than this sum; possibly also a larger
amount may have been spent upon the cross in such an important position
as at Northampton than in certain other places.

In addition to the money which passed into the hands of Battle,
considerable sums were paid to William of Ireland and Ralph of
Chichester, who were entrusted with the sculpture of the statues of the
Queen, and the finer ornamental work represented by the constantly
recurring item, the “virgæ, capita et annuli.”

The building of the cross involved another very important piece of work
at Northampton. The roadway from the town to the Queen’s cross passes
over the flat marshes of the River Nene. Robert Harrison (Robertus
filius Henrici) received £80 for the construction of a causeway across
the marshy land, and certain sums were also expended in laying the
pavement. The necessity for such a “rood-way” is obvious to anyone who
has visited the spot, and the building of the causeway would have been
regarded at the time as a work of piety.


                            STONY STRATFORD.

The cross at Stony Stratford was one of those built by John Battle and
his partners. Ralph of Chichester was the sculptor employed to do the
ornamental work. He is noted as supplying “virgis, capitibus et
annulis.”

Dr. Lipscomb, writing in 1847, says:—

    “The cross here was demolished about 1646, but an old
    inhabitant, William Hartley, told Mr. Cole that he remembered
    part of it remaining at the western extremity of the town.”[48]

Footnote 48:

  Lipscomb, George, M.D. “History and Antiquities of the County of
  Bucks.” London: T. and W. Robins. 1847, p. 366.


                                WOBURN.

The cross was erected by John Battle and his partners, Ralph of
Chichester being employed to make some of the ornamental carving. The
puzzling détour of the procession from Watling Street to Woburn was no
doubt due to the desire of the King to have the advantage of the
religious services of the important Cistercian Abbey at this place.


                               DUNSTABLE.

The cross at Dunstable was built by Battle of Northampton and his
partners, part of the sculpture being supplied by Ralph of Chichester.
It stood in the main street of Dunstable, where Watling Street crosses
the Icknield Way. The Church and remains of the Augustinian Priory of
Dunstable are situated a very short distance to the east, along the
Icknield Way. Mention has already been made of the description given by
the Dunstable annalist of the arrival of the funeral procession, and the
ceremony of consecration of the site where the “lofty cross” was
subsequently erected. The cross is said to have been demolished by
troops under the Earl of Essex, in 1643. Parts of the foundation of the
cross have been met with during recent alterations in the roadway.


                              ST. ALBANS.

The cross was erected in what became the Market Place of St. Albans by
John Battle and his partners, some of the sculpture being supplied by
Ralph of Chichester. The visit of the procession to St. Albans is
especially noteworthy on account of the record remaining of the
elaborate religious services in the Church of the great Benedictine
Abbey during the night the procession rested there. In 1596 the cross is
described as “verie stately.” There can be no doubt, however, that
already the cross had suffered much damage by the lapse of time, as well
as by neglect. At any rate, scant ceremony was shown to the cross in
later years. It is stated to have been partly destroyed by order of
Parliament in 1643; fragments, however, stood in the market place till
the year 1702. In 1703 an octagonal market house was built on its site;
in 1765 this became a pump house, and in 1872 the present drinking
fountain in the centre of St. Albans was built on the consecrated site
of the “verie stately cross.”


                                WALTHAM.

The cross at Waltham was constructed by Dyminge de Legeri (de Reyns) and
Roger Crundale. Crundale was a near relative, probably the brother, of
Richard Crundale, the master mason at Westminster, and was obviously in
close touch with the Westminster School. Dyminge de Legeri, of whom we
have little knowledge—his name suggests a foreign origin—must have been
a builder of recognized skill. It is possible that he may have been
specially associated with Waltham Abbey.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 17.
  The Cross at Waltham, showing its ruinous condition during the
    eighteenth century. Published by the Society of Antiquaries; drawn
    by Schnebbelie, engraved by Basire; _Vetusta Monumenta_, iii, plate
    xvi, 1791.
]

The cross occupies a position on the main road at Waltham, where a side
road branched off leading to the important Augustinian house of Waltham
Abbey. The platform from which the cross arose seems originally to have
had ten steps. As the result of restorations this number has been
diminished to four. From this platform the cross, which is hexagonal in
design, arises. Each side of the lower story is divided into two panels,
which show alternately the shields charged with the arms of England,
Castile and Leon quarterly, and Ponthieu. The panels are surmounted by
pointed three-cusped arches supporting a quatre-foil decoration, and
finally a gable-like ornament. The whole panel is richly decorated, the
upper part with diaper work. The second story, which is separated from
the first by a perforated battlement, consists of a series of open
tabernacles in pairs, sheltering three statues of the Queen. The
tabernacles terminated in profusely decorated triangular gables. The
third story, still hexagonal in shape, is ornamented with tabernacle
work, reproducing the designs of the story below. From this arose the
shaft of the cross, which has been replaced during a recent restoration.
Considering the ruinous state into which Waltham Cross had been allowed
to pass in the beginning of the eighteenth century, it is almost a
wonder that so much of the original structure still remains. The lowest
story still gives a good representation of the original work. The
Queen’s statues remain after having suffered many indignities. Most of
the rest of the cross gives evidence of restoration.

In 1720 Dr. Stukeley remarked on its ruinous state, and prevailed upon
the Society of Antiquaries to take steps for its preservation, and Lord
Monson surrounded and strengthened the base of the cross with new
brickwork in 1757. In early days the Four Swan Inn, at the junction of
the road from Waltham Abbey, was the only house of any importance near,
but other houses gradually arose. The cross and its site apparently
belonged to no one, so the houses crowded on the cross, till at length
they actually abutted on its eastern side, destroying much of its
beautiful work and even endangering the solidity of the whole structure.
The prints of the cross in the eighteenth century show the ruinous
condition into which it had fallen.

In the beginning of last century a local committee undertook its
restoration, £1,200 being expended at this time. This work was finished
in 1834. In 1893 more complete restoration was carried out, nearly
£1,200 being again expended on the cross.[49] The Falcon Inn, which had
encroached on the cross so as actually to be in contact, was set back,
and now the roadway surrounds the cross on all sides, allowing its
proportions to be seen, and aiding in its preservation. It is
interesting to compare the sums expended on restoration with the amount
noted as being paid to the original builders. The sum of a little over
£90 can be traced into the hands of Dyminge de Legeri and Roger de
Crundale. Alexander the Imaginator aided a little in its construction,
and a good deal of the stone, especially the Caen stone, so much in use
at the time, was conveyed directly from the works at Charing.

Footnote 49:

  Vide _Weekly Telegraph for Waltham Abbey, Cheshunt and District_,
  Friday, 6th January, 1893.


                                 CHEPE.

The cross in the City of London stood at the west end of Cheapside,
opposite Wood Street. The construction of this cross was entrusted
entirely to a distinguished architect Michael of Canterbury, who at the
same time was engaged in building the Chapel of St. Stephen’s at
Westminster. There is unfortunately no relic of the original design. In
the Guildhall Museum, however, are two broken stone panels, which formed
almost certainly a portion of the Eleanor Cross in Chepe. These panels
show the characteristic heraldic shields emblazoned with the arms of
England and of Leon and Castile. Portions of ornamental mouldings are
also preserved on these panels. It is possible that these may be relics
of the work of Michael of Canterbury, but it is more probable that they
are of later date. In the case of Chepe Cross, we may gain the best idea
of the amount of money spent on individual crosses. Michael of
Canterbury evidently agreed to erect the cross for £300, and the Queen’s
executry accounts give evidence of his receiving £226 13s. 4d.

By the year 1441, the cross “being by length of time decayed,” John
Hatherley, Mayor of London, procured licence of King Henry VI to “edifie
the same in more beautifull manner for the honor of the citie.” This
restoration probably followed the main lines of the original structure,
and was very slow in progress.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 18.
  The Cross at Waltham, from a photograph by the Author, 1908.
]

In the course of time the citizens of London seem to have lost interest
in the cross and its significance, and it is only necessary to refer to
the pages of John Stow, published in 1603, to sympathize with this
worthy’s indignation at the desecration which the cross had suffered
even in his time. It had been partly restored on several occasions
subsequent to the time of John Hatherley, including various re-gildings
and re-burnishings in honour of various important royal functions, but
in the year 1581 “diuers Juries” of the citizens having considered that
it stood in the “highway to the let of carriages,” so much prejudice was
aroused that on the night of 21st June a band of roughs destroyed the
lowest images round the cross. These, however, were images totally
different from those originally on the cross, and included one of the
Virgin Mary. In the year 1595, according to Stow, this image “was againe
fastened and repaired, and the yeare next following a new misshapen son
born out of time all naked was laid in her arms.”

Later the cross was further desecrated by the addition of an alabaster
image of Diana, which served the noble purpose of a water conduit for
the benefit of the citizens. Attempts were made by certain members of
Queen Elizabeth’s court to bring home to the Mayor and citizens the
desecration of the cross which had been permitted. But shortly after
Christmas, 1600, “the image of Our Lady was again defaced by plucking
off her crown and almost her head, taking from her her naked child and
stabbing her in the breast, &c.”[50]

Footnote 50:

  Stow, John. “A Survey of London,” Edition of C. L. Kingsford, 1908.

The cross by this time could only have presented a remote resemblance to
the original work. The new statues which found a resting place on it had
no reference to its original purpose. During the religious and political
turmoils which followed, the crosses both at Chepe and Charing formed
the subject of numerous political lampoons, which are interesting as
giving some idea of the frenzy of destruction which possessed the
extreme political sects. It can hardly, therefore, have been considered
a matter of regret when the last scene of all was enacted.

The cross, mutilated and desecrated beyond recognition, was completely
destroyed on 2nd May, 1643. The Parliament deputed a certain Robert
Harlowe to do this work, who went with a troop of horse and two
companies of foot, and carried it out completely. “At the fall of the
top cross drums beat, trumpets blew, and multitudes of caps were thrown
into the air, and a great shout of people with joy”; so runs a
contemporary account.[51]

Footnote 51:

  Walford. “Old and New London,” i, p. 334.

The history of the cross in Chepe is important as giving an indication
of the gradual process of decay which seriously damaged the crosses,
long before the desecrating hands of political fanatics mutilated and
finally destroyed the remaining fragments.


                                CHARING.

The cross at Charing was the work of Richard de Crundale. He was
responsible for the design of this cross, but his design no doubt
influenced the ideas of the other builders, for we know that much of the
finer work of the other crosses was executed under his observation. Most
of the statues of the Queen were carved near Charing, and many of the
ornaments so frequently referred to as the “virgæ, capita et annuli,”
were also made by the Westminster artists. The cross was built
approximately on the plot of ground now occupied by the statue of
Charles I, facing the great thoroughfare now known as “Charing Cross.”

Richard Crundale himself died in 1293, and Roger Crundale came from
Waltham to carry on his work. Nearly £700 can be traced as being paid to
the Crundales for their work at Charing, but this sum obviously includes
work done and materials supplied for other crosses. The finer materials
used in the construction of the crosses, such as Caen stone, Purbeck
stone and marble, seem to have been distributed to the other crosses by
way of Charing. Considerable additional sums of money are mentioned as
being paid to merchants of stone, such as William Canon, Robert Blunt,
and others who brought the stone from Corfe, and Henry Mauger who
supplied stone from Caen. Alexander of Abingdon, the “Imaginator,”
carved the statues of the Queen for Charing; William of Ireland, also
working at Charing, carved the statues of the Queen which found their
way to the crosses built by John Battle and Richard Stowe; while Ralph
of Chichester carved much of the fine stonework for the crosses.

Unfortunately no adequate idea can now be obtained of Charing Cross. It
is admitted, however, to have been the finest of the series; but it must
have been subject to the same vicissitudes as its neighbour in Chepe,
and the sketches which exist, purporting to be Charing Cross, can only
have been obtained from the mutilated structure which survived to the
middle of the seventeenth century. The drawing in the Crowle Collection
of the British Museum, which has been reproduced by Wilkinson, is one of
these. The suggestion of the cross in van den Wyngaerde’s view of London
gives, perhaps, a better idea of its probable appearance.[52] John
Norden’s account is that of an eye witness, and tells of its condition
about the year 1590. He speaks of it as “an old weather-beaten monument
erected about 1290 by Edward I. Amongst all the crosses which the King
caused to be built ... Charing Cross was most stately, though now
defaced by antiquity.”[53]

Footnote 52:

  _Vide_ fig. 1.

Footnote 53:

  John Norden. MS. Harl. 570 (_circ._ 1593), quoted by Lethaby; cf.
  “Speculum Britanniæ, the first parte,” 1593, p. 45, and the maps of
  London.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 19.
  The fragments of two panels of the Cross in Chepe, City of London, now
    in the Guildhall Museum. The panels show the heraldic bearings of
    England, and of Castile and Leon, with portions of moulding. These
    relics are probably portions of the Cross as restored by John
    Hatherley in the fifteenth century. From a drawing by Mr. J. C.
    Hallinan.
]

Charing Cross suffered many indignities in the Parliamentary period.
After many years of neglect, it was sentenced by Parliament to be taken
down in 1643. An old rhyme mentions the event:—

                “The Parliament to vote it down
                  Conceived it very fitting,
                For fear it should fall and kill them all
                  In the house as they were sitting.
                They were told God wot, it had a plot,
                  It made them so hard-hearted,
                To give command it should not stand,
                  But be taken down and carted.”

Lilly,[54] writing in 1715, says that part of the stones were employed
in paving the front of Whitehall, whilst some other stones were made
into knife hafts and other articles which, when polished, looked like
marble.

Footnote 54:

  Lilly, “Observations on the Life of King Charles I.” _cf._ Edward
  Walford, “Old and New London,” iii, pp. 123 _et seq._

The cross in the forecourt of the South Eastern Railway station at
Charing Cross was erected from the designs of the late Mr. Edward
Middleton Barry in 1864-1865, and is the result of his own desire to
have the opportunity of reproducing the Eleanor memorial at Charing. Mr.
Barry was a learned as well as a distinguished architect, and visited
Northampton and Waltham Crosses many times before deciding on the design
of the monument he proposed to erect. It is well worthy of careful study
as expressing the ideas formed by a conscientious artist and student of
the appearance of the old cross; especially it shows the desire to give
the idea of the original builders, and to avoid the travesties of
construction which have not infrequently been erected purporting to be
after the fashion of an Eleanor Cross. Unhappily the motive which
renders the crosses at Geddington, Northampton and Waltham so entirely
appropriate, and which adds so much to their interest, cannot be
transferred to the new site.[55]

Footnote 55:

  The author is indebted for information respecting Mr. Barry’s cross to
  Mr. T. Harrison Myres, of Preston, who was one of Mr. Barry’s pupils
  in 1864, and afterwards his confidential clerk.


                          BLACKFRIARS, LONDON.

It was a custom of the time for devout persons to desire that the heart
should be removed after death, and taken to some peculiarly holy place.
Queen Eleanor had taken special interest in the community of the Black
Friars, and especially in the Church which they had just built in
London. By her own special request her heart was to be taken to this
church, and Edward took special pains that a tomb should be erected
worthy of containing this relic.

There is little knowledge of the design for this monument. A certain
John le Convers seems to have been a clerk dealing with the payments,
while Adam, a well-known goldsmith of the time, and much in the
confidence of the King and Queen, was asked to make an angel to support
the casket containing the heart. In addition to this figure, which was
of metal and gilt as were Torel’s great effigies, statues ornamented the
tomb. These were no doubt of the same design as those erected in other
places. They were the work of Alexander the “Imaginator” and Dyminge de
Legeri, and very probably of the same character as those at Lincoln.
Alexander also constructed certain iron work around this monument.
William de Suffolk made three small images in metal for the Blackfriars
tomb.

One of the most interesting features of the monument were the paintings
by Walter of Durham. This artist received the large sum of £46 13s. 4d.,
according to the Queen’s accounts, for his work at Blackfriars. Part of
the stonework, consisting of a _crista_, perhaps an ornamented stone
canopy, was built by William de Hoo.

All traces of the tomb disappeared at the time of the dissolution of the
monasteries. The responsibility for the final act of destruction seems
to rest on the shoulders of the same Sir Thomas Cawarden into whose
clutches there also fell the Church and possessions of St. Mary
Roncevall.


                              WESTMINSTER.

On the tomb at Westminster a special amount of care was devoted by the
artists and workmen employed by Edward. The design was that of a large
chest formed by slabs of Purbeck marble, in which was placed the body,
and the top of the chest was arranged to support the bronze-gilt effigy
of the Queen.

The tomb itself seems to have been designed by Richard Crundale, and the
work was completed by himself and his brother Roger. Under their
supervision the stone chest was ornamented with the characteristic
decorated carving of the period, and with the shields bearing the arms
which are so prominent on all the Eleanor memorials. Walter of Durham
was employed to decorate the tomb with paintings, while Thomas de
Leighton, a skilful worker in metal, made the iron grille protecting the
effigy. The perishable part of the stonework is unfortunately fast
disappearing, and faint shadows only of the paintings may be observed.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 20.
  The public or “Great” Seal of Queen Eleanor.
  Size 3-5/8 in. x 2-3/8 in.
  From the impression in the British Museum.
]

   Legend:—
     _Obverse_, ALIANORA DEI GRACIA REGINA ANGLI(E)
     _Reverse_, (ALI)ANORA DEI GRA DNA HYBERNIE DUCISSA ACQUI(T)ANNIE


The chief glory, however, of the tomb still remains, namely, the great
bronze effigy of the Queen, the work of William Torel, goldsmith and
citizen of London. Torel designed and cast not only the effigy at
Westminster, but the replica which reposed on the tomb at Lincoln.
Records remain of enormous quantities of wax and of metal supplied to
Torel for this purpose. The effigies appear to have been cast in one
mould, and the work must have been difficult to execute. After their
completion the bronze castings were gilt, and special reference is made
to the purchase of gold florins for this purpose. These coins appear to
have come from abroad, and were obtained from the merchants of “Luka”
and others. The figure shown is of so noble a design that the wish
arises that it might be regarded as a portrait of the Queen. The
evidence, however, seems to be complete that the effigy represents
Torel’s ideal of a queen’s statue; nevertheless it remains to this day
perhaps the most remarkable example of a statue in metal dating from the
early “decorated” period of English art (fig. 12). Special financial
provision was made for the purpose of the religious services at Queen
Eleanor’s tomb, including gifts of land and money to the Abbey, the
proper employment of which was subsequently the source of much
discussion in the chapter.[56]

Footnote 56:

  History of Westminster Abbey, by John Flete: edited by J. Armitage
  Robinson, D.D., Cambridge, 1909.

The anniversary service in memory of the Queen took place on November
29, the eve of St. Andrew’s Day, and was continued up to the time of the
dissolution of the Benedictine community.

To obtain an idea of the appearance of this monument, it must be
recollected that not only was the tomb itself formed of finely decorated
stonework, but was surrounded with elaborate paintings, while the great
gilt effigy of the Queen was studded with the jewellery and enamels
which Edward gathered from the East and abroad. These he lavished with
the utmost profusion in decorating this, perhaps the principal, monument
to his wife.[57]

Footnote 57:

  This tomb, and its ancient glory have been so well described that it
  is not necessary to enter into greater detail in this place. The
  reader is advised to go and study so much of it as remains. In
  addition to the references given it will be of interest to read the
  accounts given by Mrs. Murray Smith, “Westminster Abbey, its Story and
  Associations, 1906,” and Dean Stanley’s “Historical Memorials of
  Westminster Abbey,” 1869.

During the history of the next three hundred years, references are made
to the magnificence of the tomb and of the religious celebrations in
memory of the Queen. A distinguished foreign visitor to the Church in
the fourteenth century describes how “the radiant lights like the glory
of the starry sky exhilarated the souls of the beholders with
joyousness.”


                  ------------------------------------


                             BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Information respecting Eleanor of Castile and her Memorials is widely
scattered. Examination of the references will give an excellent
introduction to the study of the social history of an interesting
period. The attempt to do this cannot be made in this place, but the
following references will indicate the sources from which these notes
are derived, and afford the writer an opportunity of expressing his
great obligation to the work of others on the subject.

(1) THE EARLY CHRONICLES, especially—

    _Rishanger, William of_, at St. Albans; Rolls Series, by H. T.
    Riley.

    _Wykes, Thomas_, Monk of Osney; Rolls Series, by Luard.

    _Hemingburgh, Walter of_; English Historical Society. H. C.
    Hamilton.

    _Dunstable, Annals of_; Rolls Series, by Luard.

    _Walsingham, Thomas of_, a St. Albans Monk, writing in the
    fifteenth century, quotes the earlier Chronicles in the
    _Historia Anglicana_; Rolls Series, by Riley.

(2) General historical information may be referred to in:—

    _Rymer_, “Fœdera,” Record Edition.

    _Gough, Henry_, “Itinerary of King Edward I.”

    _Ramsey, Sir J. H._, “Dawn of the Constitution,” a careful
    detailed account of the period.

(3) SPECIAL REFERENCES:—

    “Liberationes factæ per Executores Dominæ Alianoræ Consortis
    Edwardis Regis Angliæ primi.”

    These Rolls have the following reference numbers in the Record
    Office;—

    “King’s Exchequer Accounts, 352/27, 353/1, 353/9, 353/19”, and
    have been transcribed with a most useful introduction in the
    volume entitled “Manners and Household Expenses of England,”
    presented to the Roxburghe Club by Beriah Botfield, 1841, edited
    by T. Hudson Turner. A photograph showing a specimen of these
    Rolls may be seen in the Souvenir of the St. Albans Pageant,
    1907.

“Vetusta Monumenta.” Plates vii, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, and
corresponding letterpress.

    _Hunter, Rev. Joseph_, “On the Death of Eleanor of Castile,”
    “Archæologia,” vol. xxix, page 167, 1842.

    _Abel, John_, “Memorials of Queen Eleanor,” published by the
    author, 1864.

    _Scott, George Gilbert_, “Gleanings from Westminster Abbey,”
    Oxford and London, 1863.

    _Lethaby, W. R._, “Westminster Abbey and the King’s Craftsmen,”
    London, 1906, gives much original and suggestive information.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




 ● Transcriber’s Notes:
    ○ Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.
    ○ Typographical errors were silently corrected.
    ○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only
      when a predominant form was found in this book.
    ○ Text that:
      was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_);
      was in bold by is enclosed by “equal” signs (=bold=).
    ○ The use of a caret (^) before a letter, or letters, shows that the
      following letter or letters was intended to be a superscript, as
      in S^t Bartholomew or 10^{th} Century.