Plates 2.29-2.35: Three Monuments in Westminster Abbey (Original Explanatory Account)

These sepulchral remains, together with the high altar, and the very remarkable and stately monuments of Edmund Crouchback earl of Lancaster, and that of Aymer third son of William de Valence earl of Pembroke, both of which are still visible on the South side of the North ambulatory, encompassed the Presbytery; and during the series of years in which they were permitted to remain open and exposed to the public eye, added greatly to the magnificence and splendor of that part of the church, and more particularly so when they were viewed from the entrance into the choir.

Few, if any, of the sepulchral monuments now remaining, can vie with those of SEBERT and AVELINE, whether we consider the elegant stiles of architecture, in which they are respectively executed, or the paintings, sculptures, and other enrichments, wherewith they are severally decorated: their seclusion therefore from the inspection of the public, and more especially as one of them was erected to the memory, and contains the ashes of the first founder of the church of Westminster, is a circumstance which carries with it such an appearance of disregard and ingratitude to the memory of a munificent and royal benefactor, that we might reasonably expect to find the time and occasion of that remarkable transaction, together with the reasons which induced it, fully noticed and carefully transmitted to posterity; but neither the one or the other is so much as mentioned by any writer either of our National Story in general, or of the Antiquities and History of Westminster in particular.

Defect of positive proof can only be supplied by presumptive and circumstantial evidence; but as that will not enable us to discover, with precision, the real motives on which the hard treatment these monuments have met with was actually founded, we must necessarily desist from pursuing that enquiry, and rest contented with investigating the particular period of time in which the monuments here spoken of, were condemned to obscurity. In order thereunto such facts are to be adduced, as, when collectively considered, may throw so much light on the subject as may at least countenance, if not confirm, the conjecture here intended to be offered.

Sulcardus, John Flete, Richard Sporley, and John Felix, are all of them silent as to any of the monuments which were standing in the abbey church of Westminster at the times in which they respectively wrote; and they are the only persons, who, previous to the dissolution of religious houses, employed their pens in transmitting to posterity the history of that church singly and by itself.

Bishop Nicolson indeed tells us, in his Historical Library, that John Skelton, the poet laureat in the reign of king Henry the Eighth, collected the epitaphs of such of our kings, princes, and nobles, as then lay buried within the abbey church of St. Peter at Westminster; but he doth not pretend either to have seen that work himself, or to inform us where it is to be met with.

Had Skelton really made such a collection, he would in all probability have given some description of the situation and circumstances of the unlettered monuments, and more especially of those that are placed in the vicinity of the high altar; but as such collection of epitaphs, &c[.] hath not hitherto been discovered, notwithstanding the most diligent search made for it by several able antiquaries, we may reasonably conclude, with Mr. Widmore (a), that the bishop was mistaken in his assertion, and that it was no otherwise true than that when Skelton, to avoid the anger of Cardinal Wolsey, had taken sanctuary at Westminster, he, in order to recommend himself to the favours of Islip, who was at that time abbot, made some copies of verses to the memories of king Henry the Seventh, and his Queen, his mother the Countess of Richmond, and perhaps, of some other persons there buried; and which verses were transcribed and hung upon their monuments, as in those times was frequently practiced.

(a) See Widmore’s Account of the Writers of the History of Westminster Abbey, p. 5.

This piece had not long been published, before some of its historical and descriptive parts were translated into English, and together with many of the epitaphs and inscriptions, inserted, although in a mutilated, and very defective state, in the second edition of John Stowe’s Survey of London, published by Howe. But neither Mr. Camden, or the editor of Stowe’[s] book, gives the least intimation, that at the times they respectively wrote, any of the monuments within the abbey were in any respect either totally or partially hid from the view of the public.

The next person that confined his pen solely to the history and antiquities of Westminster abbey, was Mr. Henry Keep. That writer in his “Monumenta Westmonasteriensia,” which came out in the year 1683, speaking of the monuments erected between the sacristary and the sides of the area before the altar, says, “There are five Noble Monuments still remaining, three on the North, and two on the South part, but no inscriptions or epitaphs on any of them, nor are they visible but by withdrawing the hangings which are hung before them.” He then goes on and tells us, “that they are the Monuments of Anne of Cleves, Sebert King of the East Saxons, and Ethelgoda his Queen, Edmund Crouchback Earl of Lancaster, Aymer de Valence third Son of William De Valence earl of Pembroke, and Aveline Countess of Lancaster.”

Here we have positive proof that at the time when Mr. Keep published his book, which was in the year 1683, the several monuments that are the subject of this Memoir, were in obscurity, and their sides next to the area before the altar closed up.

We are not however to conclude from the passage just quoted, that the seclusion of those monuments was not effected till nearly the time of the publication of Mr. Keep’s book; for although he is the earliest writer who expressly mentions the circumstance of their not being visible but by withdrawing the hangings placed before them, yet there is good reason to believe, that the tapestries which obscured these monuments, were hung up not only long before Mr. Keep wrote, but even previous to the time of his birth.

Weever, in his Funeral Monuments, which was printed so early as the year 1631, after relating the well-known story of King Edward the Confessor, Hugolin his Chamberlain, and the pilfering Courtier, says, “That Story was delineated and wrought in the hangings on one side of the Quire in Westminster.” That the coronation of our English kings was represented in the tapestry that hung on the opposite side, is a well-known fact.

As it is evident from the passage here quoted, that in the year 1631, the sides of the area before the altar in Westminster abbey, were lined with tapestry hangings; and consequently that the monuments of the Lady Anne of Cleves, Sebert, Edmund Crouchback, Aymer de Valence, and Aveline Countess of Lancaster, were thereby closed up, so far at least as not to be visible either from the choir, or in the presbytery; so it is equally certain, that no such circumstance is mentioned by Mr. Camden in his before-mentioned book, of which there have been three editions, viz. in 1600, 1603, and 1606; an omission, of which it cannot be supposed that accurate historian would have been guilty, had the monuments we are speaking of been then in any respect hid from public view. On the contrary, from the following considerations it is highly probable, that these monuments, then and for some years after, were actually uninclosed and open to public inspection.

On the 5th day of November, 1605, Dr. Richard Neville was installed dean of Westminster, and continued in that office until the 6th day of December, 1610 (b), when it was vacated by his election to the bishoprick of Litchfield and Coventry. This eminent prelate, while he presided over the church of Westminster, was known to have greatly promoted and encouraged the repairing and beautifying that fabric, as also the monuments erected within it. And by an account, under the several articles of building, repairs, furniture, &c. of the expenditures of that church during the five years that he was dean, attested by seven of the prebendaries, and still preserved in their archives, it appears, that he actually caused the tomb of Anne of Cleves to be covered with a black marble stone and railed in, at the expence of the church; an attention which it cannot be supposed he would have paid to the sepulchral remains of that unfortunate queen, had they at that time been either totally or partly secluded from the public eye.

Further, the silence of the editor of the second edition of Stowe’s Survey, as to any hangings or screens being placed on the sides of the area before the altar in Westminster abbey, may not improperly be likewise considered, as a presumptive, if not a certain evidence, that at the time of its pub-[lication]

(b) Widmore’s History of the Church of St. Peter, Westminster, p. 147.

Tapestry, from the time of the invention of the art of weaving it, was constantly considered as the grandest and most elegant furniture of the palaces of our kings and nobility; and as such, reckoned to be the most valuable article in the catalogues of their removing wardrobes. The art of making it was principally practiced at Brussels, Antwerp, and other towns of the Low Countries; from whence the manufactory was brought into England by Mr. Sheldon towards the latter end of the reign of Henry the Eighth; but it did not grow into any great repute during the life-time of either of his children.

In the year 1607, Henry the Fourth of France established in that kingdom a manufactory of tapestry, which was said to be formed upon a better plan than that of the English fabric, and flourished with great rapidity so long as that monarch lived. This success of the French manufactory, raised a spirit of emulation amongst the English artizans, which was not a little cherished by the countenance given thereto by this principal nobility of this kingdom, and more especially by those who were about the persons of the two young princes Henry and Charles. King James the First, although he had not any great esteem for the arts in general, yet a little time before the close of his reign, of his own mere motion, induced Sir Francis Crane to set up a manufactory of tapestry at Mortlake in Surry, and gave him two thousand pounds towards its establishment, and the erecting a house there for the execution of the design. Prince Charles, on his part, was extremely zealous in promoting the success of the manufactory, and not only sent for some of the most curious workmen in that art, from foreign parts, to be employed therein, but contributed large sums of money for its support, besides keeping part of the looms constantly at work for his service. Of this the public records of the kingdom bear testimony; for we therein find, that the prince, in the very year of his accession to the throne (c), granted to Sir Francis Crane, an annuity of One Thousand Pounds, for ten years, in satisfaction of a debt of six thousand, which he acknowledged he owed to him for three suits of gold tapestry; as also a further allowance of one thousand pounds a year for the like term of ten years then to come, towards the furtherance, upholding, and maintenance of the said works of tapestries, as the record expressly mentions.

At this time the lord-keeper Williams was dean of Westminster, into which office he had been installed on the 10th day of July, 1620. Very few of the persons who filled that stall before him, had been more liberal benefactors to the church of Westminster than he was, he having expended in repairing and adorning the fabric with statues, &c. four thousand five hundred pounds of his own money, exclusive of two thousand pounds which he had laid out in fitting up the library, are furnishing it with books; a perpetual yearly benefaction which he settled for four boys in the school, known by wearing purple gowns; and his discharging a debt of three hundred pounds incurred by the prebends in exceeding their allowance for their common table. His generosity was not however confined to that place: the munificence of his temper, and the elegance of his taste, led him to imitate that of his royal masters in cherishing the polite arts: and amongst the many instances of his powerful attachment to their encouragement and prosperity, that of his giving Sir Francis Crane no less a sum than two thousand five hundred pounds for tapestries representing the four seasons (d), is an irrefragable proof of his very particular zeal for promoting the success of that new-established manufacture, which under the royal patronage was then brought to singular perfection.

From the several foregoing circumstances when connected and weighed together, may we not without any violation of probability, conjecture, that the first tapestry linings that were hung up on the sides of the area before the altar in Westminster Abbey, were placed there in the year 1625, by order of King Charles the first, as proper furniture and decorations for that part of the church which was then fitting up, and particularly adapted for therein performing the solemnity of his coronation; and that those tapestries being afterwards on the application of the lord keeper Williams then dean of Westminster, given by the king to that church, were permitted there to remain in the same manner and situation in which they were originally placed, not only as specimens of the flourishing state to which the art of tapestry weaving in England was then arrived, but as a testimony of his majesty’s regard for the place in which his father and himself had been crowned, and where the remains of many persons of his royal family were deposited.

(c) Rot. Pat. I Car. I. printed in Rymer’s Foed. Vol. XVIII. p. 66.
(d) Walpole’s Anecdotes of Painting, vol. II. p. 21.

Upon the removal of the last mentioned tapestries, and the frames on which they were placed, the Abbey reassumed, in great measure, its antient splendid and magnificent appearance, and produced a most pleasing and awful effect. The eye of the spectator, on his entrance into the choir, instantly passing along it, and thence over the ambulatories to the several side chapels, at once took a view of the whole arrangement, as also of the before mentioned monuments, each of which enriched the perspective, and heightened the majesty of the scene.

Those who had an opportunity of seeing the Abbey under these desirable circumstances, could not but wish that these venerable and beautiful sepulchral remains might be permitted to continue open and exposed to the public view, in the same manner as they antiently used to be. But unhappily they are devoted to their former obscurity, and on the sides next to the Presbytery hid behind a screen of ill designed and unmeaning carpentry.

The north sides of the tombs of Edmund Crouchback, and Aymer de Valence may indeed be seen in passing along the ambulatory which is between the Presbytery and the chapels of St. John the Baptist, St. Blaze, and St. Michael, but no part either of the tomb of Aveline countess of Lancaster, or of that of the lady Anne of Cleves, or of the north front of King Sebert’s shrine, are any longer visible. In order therefore that those gentlemen who had not an opportunity of viewing them before they were shut up behind the present screens, may form some idea of the modes in which those monuments are constructed and of the ornaments wherewith they are enriched, I take the liberty of laying before the Society the following description of them, together with accurate drawings taken under the inspection of Mr. Basire; and some account of the persons whose ashes they contain.

THE MONUMENT OF AVELINE COUNTESS OF LANCASTER, of which Mr. Sandford has given a very incorrect engraving in his Genealogical History of the Kings and Queens of England, stands at the head of that of Aymer de Valence, on the north side of the Presbytery or second pavement before the altar, and between the first and second of those pillars of the church which stand east of the transept.

It consists of an altar tomb of Touchstone, (e) placed under a magnificent mausoleum or canopy twelve feet in height formed in imitation of those temporary structures or hearses under which, in ancient times, the corpses of our kings, queens, and principal nobility were usually laid, from the day they were brought into the church to the time of their interment, and which hearses were then kept standing, till after the expiration of the month’s mind of the defunct.

This tomb, which is two feet eight inches in height, reckoning from the bottom of its plinth to the top of the covering stone, stands on an ascent of two steps, each rising six inches.

On its south side, facing the area of the presbytery, are six tabernacles or recesses, separated from each other by slender Gothic pilasters, terminating in pyramidical pinnacles, or spiracles. The outward edges of each of these recesses are dressed with a plain half rounded moulding, and over each of them is a pyramidical Gothic head or canopy, formed by two oblique rounded mouldings, which on each side, rise out of the flanks of the pilasters separating the recesses from each other. These mouldings, as likewise the Gothic heads and the spiracles on the pilasters, are continued up to the lowermost bead on the verge of the covering stone of the tomb, and consonant to the taste that prevailed in the 13th and 14th centuries, have their hips and fynials enriched with crotchets, which are intended to represent the flowers of that plant called by the botanists Calceolus. In the center of each canopy is formed a rose aperture, placed within a round moulded frame stuck on its edge. In each of the recesses stands a statue of a man, in alto relievo, dressed in a long robe or gown; but unfortunately the heads of four of them have been broken off and destroyed. In the spandrels between the before mentioned pinnacles and canopies are fixed heater shields, whereon the following arms are depicted in their proper tinctures. viz.

1. Gules, 3 pales vair. On a chief Or, a Label of 3 points Gules—for Odo of Champagne impaling Cheque Or and Azure within a border Gules a Canton ermine—Warren.
2. Azure, Semée of Fleurs de lis Or, within a border Gules—for Anjou impaling Gules 2 pales vair. On a chief Or, a label of 3 points Gules.
3. Or, Semée of Fleurs de lis Or—France.
4. Gules, 3 Lions passant Guardant Or—Henry III. of England.

The covering stone of the tomb is four inches in thickness, and ornamented on its sides and at its ends, with a cavetto or bed mould studded with roses, but without any fillet over it. On this covering stone is placed a cumbent effigy five feet seven inches in length, cut in free stone, and representing Aveline countess of Lancaster (f) as a beautiful woman in the bloom of youth, dressed in a loose robe, over which is a mantle that in elegant foldings reaches down to her feet. On her head is a coif, which a little below her temples, joins to a barbe (g) that passes over the lower part of her chin, and covers her neck; on the coif is a long Paris hood, which falls down in easy folds to the front part of her shoulders. Her hands are conjoined and held up as in the act of prayer; and her head rests on a cushion or pillow, which is supported on each side by an angel sitting and with wings expanded. At her feet are two talbot whelps couchant, the head of the one lying over and resting upon that of the other. The whole of this effigy, as also the figures of the two angels, together with the front of the tomb, appear to have been originally richly painted and gilt, but most of the colours are now worn off. At each corner of the tomb stands the trunk of a slender circular column or cylinder, five feet in height, cloathed with an assemblage of small pillars or shafts, not detached or separate therefrom, but closely united, so that all of them being wrought up together, form one entire firm and elegant column, surmounted by a regular and beautiful Gothic capital, composed of the conjoined and highly enriched capitals of the several small shafts. Some of these shafts are painted red, others green, and all of them, as likewise their capitals, are overspread with net or lozenge work party gilt.

From the imposts on these columns spring four Gothic arches, which serve to support an high pitched pediment or pyramidical head of elegant workmanship, the whole together forming a most magnificent canopy which spans over the tomb, and is open at both ends, as it is likewise on the two sides.

The arch (h) or under vault of the canopy is formed by projecting ribs, that arise out of the capitals of the innermost pillars or shafts, and sweeping along the face of the vaulting, are let into and fastened by a key-stone placed in the centre of the roof, which roof is enriched by means of those ribs, and divided into various angular compartments. These ribs are fluted and painted red, and the compartments between them are fully enriched with trailing branches, tendrils, and ripe fruit of the claret grape, painted in proper colours upon a white ground. The key-stone in the centre of the roof is covered with a circle of oak leaves coloured sky blue, and out of the middle of that circle rises another, composed of the same sort of leaves, but smaller in size, and gilt in burnished gold.

The face of each of the arches is covered by an architrave, cut out of the solid of the voussoirs or arch stones. The Fascias of these architraves are about six inches in breadth, concave, painted red, and studded with roses in raised work, gold gilt. On the lower edge runs a large half-rounded moulding, but their upper edge is bordered by an astragal, which, as well as the lower moulding, is raised out of the solid, and both of them are overlaid with net work, and richly gilt with gold.

The archivaults or inner contours of the two side arches are adorned with mouldings running over the ends of the voussoirs, and bearing upon the capitals of the small shafts or pillars of those columns which support the arches.

On the edges of each of the outermost ribs of these archivaults is affixed a kind of Gothic indent or festoon, formed by the sections of two circles conjoined in point, and shaped like an inverted tympan. These are brought so far forward as to hang flush with the plain of the Fascia of the adjoining architrave. Each of these indents or festoons is bordered by a similar and large semicircular moulding, raised out of the solid, fully enriched and gilt with gold. But the pannels of the one are charged with ornaments very different from those of the other. The westernmost, or that which is next to the head of the tomb, is enriched with a fruited vine branch in mezzo relievo, the leaves and tendrils whereof are gilt with gold, and the grapes tinted of a deep claret colour, which by time is, for the most part, turned black. Whereas the corresponding pannel is charged with an Acanthus fully expanded (i), and two dimidiated Acanthi; all of them in mezzo relievo, gold gilt.

(f) See plate II.
(g) The barbe was a kind of chin-cloth of fine linen, worn by mourners. No lady under the degree of a baroness was permitted to wear them on her chin. Knight’s wives were to wear them under their chins, and esquire’s wives and gentlewomen of note wore them beneath their throats.
(h) See plate III. A.
(i) See plate III. D.

The figures of two angels in an attitude of adoration, and the lower part of an upright female figure placed somewhat above them, are however still distinguishable, and by their present appearance seem to have been intended to represent the apotheosis or assumption of Aveline. Within the moulded frame, and on the right hand of the compartment, is painted part of the arms of France, and on the other are some faint remains of those of England. Each of the triangular spandrils on the sides of this compartment, is occupied by a large fruited branch of the vine (l), whose leaves, grapes, and tendrils are layed in gold; and spread themselves in a loose, easy, and elegant manner, on a sage green ground. The whole is executed in a most masterly and exquisite taste, and enclosed within a broad flat frame, gilt with gold (m).

This lofty pediment hath a lighter and more airy appearance than any of those constructed according to the rules of Greek architecture. An effect which is owing to the upper part of the supporting arch breaking up into the area of the tympan, and there occupying the place usually allotted to the under cornishes of pediments formed in conformity to the regular orders of architecture, leaves, by reason of its elliptical curv[a]ture, each of the spandrils so large, as to admit of a considerable enrichment. The lower members of the side cornishes of the pediment consist of two half-rounded mouldings carved and gilt with gold, and of one large hollow moulding running between them, and coloured red. The facias of these cornishes are painted green, and charged with square compartments placed at equal distances from each other; the space between every two of them being studded with a rose, one of the badges of King Henry the 3d. On these compartments we find the following arms repeatedly depicted in their proper colours, viz.

1. Castile and Leon Quarterly.
2. Paly of eight Or and G. for Arragon.
3. England with a label of 3 points each charged with a Fleur de lis. Edmund Crouchback.
4. Or a Lion Rampant Gules. Fr. de Albaniaco.
5. England with a Bendlet Azure, being the Arms used by John, first Son of Henry II. and afterwards King of England.
6. Bendy of Six Or and Azure within a border Gules. The ancient Arms of Burgundy.

I am the true vine, and my father is the husbandman.
Every branch that beareth not fruit in me he taketh away, and every branch that beareth fruit he purgeth it, that it may bring forth the more fruit.
Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
Abide in me and I in you, as the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, no more can ye except ye abide in me.
I am the vine, ye are the branches; he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit, for without me ye can do nothing.

Mr. Dart in the second volume of his Antiquities of Westminster Abbey (p. 10.) hath favoured us with an engraving of the north side of the altar part of the monument we have been describing, and represents it as divided into six compartments, or tabernacles, formed in a style widely different from those on the south side of the tomb, and without any statues placed within them. But he tells us, they retain the traces of some paintings which he supposes to have been figures of monks.

Aveline, Countess of Lancaster, to whose memory this monument is erected, was daughter and sole heir of William de Forz, Deforce, or Fortibus, earl of Albemarle and Holdernesse, as also baron of Skipton in Craven (f), by his second wife Isabella, daughter of Baldwin de Ripariis or Redvers, earl of Devon and the Isle of Wight, and sister and at length sole heir to Baldwin De Redvers, the last earl of Devon, &c. of that name. Her father, William de Fortibus, by his descent from Odo earl of Champaigne, whom William the Conqueror created earl of Albemarle and Holdernesse, became allied in blood to Malcolm, king of Scotland, as also to the kings of England of the Norman dynasty, and was possessed of very large estates, lying in the several counties of Cumberland, York, Surry, Northampton, Kent, Lincoln, and Southampton. He died in the year 1260 (g), leaving issue three sons, John, Thomas, and William; as also two daughters, Avise and Aveline. Of these, the three sons and Avise died soon after their father, so that the inheritance of his earldoms of Albemarle and Holdernesse, the Barony of Skipton, and the earl’s great landed estates fell to this his youngest and only surviving child.

Aveline was likewise the presumptive heir to her mother Isabella, in whom much about the same time the earldoms of Devonshire and of the Isle of Wight, the castle of Carisbrook, together with the office of chamberlain in see of the King’s Exchequer (h), and the vast possessions of her father’s family were then lately become vested on the death of her brother Baldwin de Ripariis, the last earl of Devon of that family; and in consequence of that earl’s death, king Henry the Third, in the 52d year of his reign, by his writ directed to Matthew de Columberiis, and three other wardens of the Isle of Wight, commanded them to deliver to this Isabella de Fortibus, Comitissa Albemarle, as she is therein styled, the castle of Carisbrook, and the Isle of Wight, as being her inheritance from her father the then late Earl of Devon (i).

The high honors and great estates which Aveline actually possessed on the failure of the issue male of her father, together with those expectant upon the death of her mother, rendered her the greatest heiress of a subject that England had theretofore seen, and induced king Henry the Third to consider her as a proper wife for his second son Edmund; wherefore in order to facilitate the match, he procured from her relation, Richard de Clare earl of Gloucester, a surrender of her wardship which had been granted to him in the preceding year, and immediately gave it to his own eldest son Edward. On the Thursday before the feast of St. Ambrose, in the year 1269, this Aveline being then near eighteen years of age, and as remarkable for her great beauty as for her immense wealth and future expectations, was with great solemnity publickly married to Edmund earl of Lancaster, in the presence of the king, the queen, and almost all the nobility of the kingdom (k).

(f) These honours of Holdernesse and Skipton in England, were sometimes called by the Norman name, the Honour of Albemarle, or the Honour of the Earl of Albemarle. Madox, Baron. Ang. p. 3.
(g) Mat. West. 373.
(h) The office of chamberlain in see of the Exchequer, seems to have come to this Isabella by inheritance from her grandmother Margaret, daughter and coheir of Warin Fitz-Gerold, whose grandfather Warin Fitz-Gerold, in a charter granted by him to the Nuns of Ardington, writes himself Camerarius Domini regis^a. This Margaret by the title of MARGARETTA de Ripariis Comitissa de Insula in the 9th year of Henry III.—Ponit loco suo ad Scaccarium Galfridum de la Rose ad Sedendum loco camerarii ad Scaccarium, et Henricum Foliot Militem ad denarius recipiendos^b. In the 11th year of the same reign, she is mentioned as then holding in see the office of King’s Chamberlain^c; and in the 20th of Henry III. it is again entered, Margeria de Ripariis praesentavit coram Baronibus Nicolaum de Luttershul Militem loco suo ad Officium Camerarii ad scaccarium Receptae, et Thomam Esperun sub eodem milite ad officium suum^d. She is also mentioned as holding the office of chamberlain of the Exchequer in 25th^e and 29th^f years of the same king. In the 49th year of Henry the IIId, Isabella Countess of Albemarle, by her attorney, presented Ralph de Stratton to act for her in the office of chamberlain of the Exchequer, during pleasure^g. And in the 52d year she came in person before the barons of this Exchequer, and presented Ralph de Bray as her deputy^h. In the 56th year of Henry III. a cause being depending between Isabella Countess of Albemarle, and her mother Amicia Countess of Devon, the barons were about to transfer the plaint into the common bench, but in regard Isabella was, by her attornies, constantly attending on the king’s service in the office of chamberlain of the Exchequer, the king commanded the barons to adjudge in the Exchequer upon all plaints wherein she was concerned, as according to right and usage they ought to doⁱ. She is also mentioned as holding the same office in 1st^k, 4th^l, and 5th^m years of Edward the First.

^a Mon. Ang. Vl. I. p. 691. ^b Pasch. Communia 9 Hen. III. ^c Pasch. Communia 2 Hen. III. Rot. 3. b. ^d Com. determino Hillarii 20 Hen. III. ^e Ex Memorandis Scacarii 25 Hen. III. Rot. 5. a. ^f Pasch. Communia 29 Hen. III. Rot. 4. 6. ^g Mich. Communia 49 Hen. III. Rot. I. a. ^h Memoranda 52 Hen. III. ⁱ Hill Communia 56 Hen. III. Rot. 5. a. ^k Ex Memor. 1. E. 1. Rot. 7. h. ^l Ex Memor. 1 & 2 E. I. Rot. 6. H. ^m Mich. Commun. 4 & 5 E. I. Rot. 2. a. Pasch. Commun. 6 E. I. printed before the year book of E. II. and Chron. Tho. Wykes, p. 119. Ad A.D. 1289.

How long Aveline lived after her having thus obtained seisin of her patrimony, is uncertain. According to Mr. Dugdale she must have been alive in the 4th year of Edward I, if what he tells us be true, viz. that she in that year came to an agreement with the king to convey to him and his heirs, the Isle of Wight, together with divers lands, &c. In this matter, however, the learned writer is mistaken, for king Edward’s agreement for the purchase of the Isle of Wight, was not made with Aveline, but with Isabella her mother, as I shall endeavour to shew in the sequel; besides there cannot be the least doubt of Aveline’s being dead before that time; not only as her husband Edmund earl of Lancaster, at the very commencement of the 4th year of Edward the First, married to his second wife, Blanch, queen of Navarre, but as sundry inquisitions post mortem Avelinae uxoris Edmundi Fratris Regis [after the death of Aveline, wife of Edmund, the king’s brother], finding that she died, seised of the manors of Kenington and Eastham, and divers sees in Essex, actually occur in the bundles of escheats and inquisitions of the third year of Edward the First.

The death of Aveline Countess of Lancaster, happening in the life-time of her mother, Isabella Countess of Devon, and without her leaving any issue, frustrated the views which king Edward entertained of succeeding in the plan formed by his father king Henry the Third, of bringing back into the royal family the earldom, sovereignty, and property of the Isle of Wight, which had been by Henry the First granted in see to her great maternal ancestor William de Redvers earl of Devon, &c. To compensate for this disappointment, king Edward the First in the 4th year of his reign, entered into a treaty with the Countess Isabella, who in consideration of 20,000 marks, which she received from that king by an instrument still remaining on record, granted, rendered, and quit claimed to him and his heirs, all and every the lands and tenements, with their appurtenances, which she then had in the Isle of Wight (m). Some years after, a doubt arose, whether the Isle of Wight itself, and the sovereignty thereof, passed by the above grant, and therefore in the year 1293, the king, in consideration of 6000 marks, obtained from the Countess a new grant to him and his heirs of the whole Isle of Wight, and the sovereignty and dominion thereof, together with the advowsons of all abbies, priories, and churches therein, the homages, rents, and services of all freeman, &c. &c. as likewise whatever else at the time of making such grant, she had in the Isle, as well in demesne as in dominion, together with their appurtuenances, as well within as without the county of Southampton, the manor of Christ Church, Twynham in the same county, the manor of Lambeth, and the manor of Vauxhall within the parish of Lambeth in the county of Surrey (n); and thereupon the king committed the custody of the Isle to John Fitz-James, steward of the New Forest during pleasure. However fair and honourable the negociation with Isabella de Fortibus may appear to have been, and notwithstanding the authenticity given to her before-mentioned grant of the Isle of Wight to Edward and his heirs, by its being formally and regularly entered on record, yet we find by the register of Ford abbey that such deed was looked upon as fraudulent and unjustly obtained. Edward the First, says that register, being very desirous of having the Isle of Wight, frequently by himself and others, importuned Isabella de Fortibus to grant the same to him and heirs; but she constantly refused to comply with his applications, and declared, that she would not wrong her heirs so much as to pass from them the Isle of Wight, which was part of her ancient inheritance. At length one de Stratton, a priest, who was her confessor, and had a great ascendancy over her, in hopes of ingratiating himself with the king, undertook to gain her consent; but not being able to succeed as long as she lived, he immediately after her death, in order that the king’s expectations might not be frustrated, forged a grant of the Isle to the king, and affixed thereunto her seal which he then had in his keeping. To this account, as given by the monks of Ford abbey, Mr. Dugdale (o) adds, that Ed-[ward]

(l) Rot. Claus. 1 Edw. I. m. 10. Rex vicecomiti Sutht. Saltm. Quia constat nobis per probationes in curia nostra receptas quod Avelyna ux. Edmundi fratris nostri filia et haeres Willielmi de Fortibus quondam comitis Albemarliae dudum defuncti qui de nobis tenuit in capite talis est aetatis quod terrae et tenementa ipsam jure hereditario contingentia sibi restitui debent cepimus fidelitatem praefati Edmundi viri praedictae Avelynae de terris et tenementis predictis et sibi terras et tenementa illa reddidimus et ideo tibi precipimus quod eisdem Edmundo et Avelynae de terris et tenementis in balliva tua ipsam jure hereditario contingentibus et quae occasione mortis predicti Willielmi patris ejusdem Avelynae captae fuerunt in manu patris nostri ratione minoris aetatis heredis praefati Willielmi plenam Sesinam habere facias. Westm. 2 Feb. [see end of document for translation]
(m) Claus. 4 Edw. I. m. 7 cedula.
(n) Recited in Pat. 21 Edw. I. m. 3.
(o) Baronage, vol. I. p. 65.

On the other hand, John de Aston was the lineal descent and great grandson of — — — de Aston and his wife Amicia, youngest daughter and one of the coheirs of William le Grosse earl of Albemarle, which Amicia was also the sister to that Hawise who married, first, William de Magneville earl of Essex, and on his decease without issue took to her second husband William de Fortibus, who in her right became earl of Albemarle and Holdernesse, and was great grandfather to Aveline the wife of Edmund Crouchback; so that upon this Aveline’s dying without issue John de Aston became her right heir as to such honours and estates only as had descended to her from her father, and therefore he, as such, did actually claim the earldom of Albemarle. Further, in the sixth year of Edward the first, this John de Aston came to an agreement with the king, and by deed under his seal released to him all his claim to the earldom of Albemarle, as also to all lands and tenements which did sometime belong to Alice, John, Thomas, and William de Fortibus, William le Grose earl of Albemarle, and Hawise his daughter; and the deed executed by him for that purpose was the very instrument which Dugdale mistook for a release of the Isle of Wight, its sovereignty, &c. None of our national or topographical historians attempt to give us any satisfactory account either of any subsequent claims to the earldom of the Isle of Wight, with the lands thereto appurtenant, being made by the heirs of Isabella de Fortibus during the reign of Edward the First, or of any endeavors used by that king either to clear up the transaction between him and her, or to vindicate his own character, and remove the suspicions thrown out by the abbot and convent of Ford, that the before mentioned conveyance and release of the isle to the king and his heirs was fraudulently and surreptitiously obtained from the countess; and yet certainly that matter appeared in a very dubious and unfavourable light.

Mr. Cleaveland in his genealogical history of the family of Courtenay (s) give us a transcript of a writ directed to the barons of the Exchequer, which appears to have been issued in consequence of an application made to king Edward II. from the second Sir Hugh de Courtenay, baron of Okehampton, relative to the Isle of Wight, which he claimed by right of inheritance, and as having descended to him on the death of Isabella de Fortibus, to whom he was next heir (t): but that writer mentions nothing further relative to this claim, except that Sir Hugh by all his endeavours could not get the isle, it being too great a thing for a subject to possess. This matter, however, is fully set forth in the parliament rolls of the eighth and ninth years of Edward the Second (u). Those valuable records take notice that Hugh de Courtenay having petitioned the king to restore to him all the lands and tenements in the Isle of Wight which belonged to Isabella de Fortibus countess of Devon, together with the manor of Christ Church in Hampshire, of which her ancestors died seised in their demesne as of fee, and alleging that he was the next heir; the king issued his writ directed to the treasurer and chamberlains of his exchequer, commanding them to examine such charter rolls and other muniments as were then in their custody, and to certify to him, how, in what manner, and for what cause, those estates came into the hands of his father king Edward the First. In obedience to this mandate, the treasurer and chamberlains in the next parliament certified to the king a charter, dated at Stockwell near Lambeth, on Monday next after the feast of St. Martin, in winter, in the year 1293. Whereby, as they there alledge, Isabella de Fortibus, by the stile and title of countess of Devon and lady of the isle of Wight, in consideration of six thousand marks, granted to the king and his heirs, the whole Isle of Wight with its apurtenances, the manor of Christ Church in Hampshire, the manor of Lambeth in Surry, and the manor of Fawkeshall situate within the before mentioned manor of Lambeth; And which charter was witnessed by Anthony bishop of Durham, Richard de Aston, and many others. To this return are annexed the depositions of several persons, who, as they alledge, were present not only at the time of the execution of that instrument, but when the countess gave instructions for its being prepared. These depositions are curious, and as a specimen of them, I here subjoin a transcript of that made by Walter bishop of Coventry and Litchfield, and William de Gaynesburg who was Isabella’s confessor, as from that deposition a tolerable good judgment may be formed of the manner in which a transaction that for several years made no small noise in the world was conducted, and how far the conduct of king Edward the First and his ministers, in regard thereto, was either justifiable or censurable.

(r) Baronage, Vol. I. p. 62 and 63.
(s) In the collection of deeds referred to in his history, p. 15.
(t) Cleaveland’s genealogical history of the family of Courtenay, p. 145.
(u) Vol. I. p. 334.

Et cartam illam liberavit prefato Ep̃o Dunolm̃. qui cum eadem adivit predictam Comitissam ad consignandam, et postea reportavit eandem cartam ipsi licentiam Sigillo predce Comitisse signatam. Et dicit quod postea quando prefatus Ep̃us Dunolm̃ retornavit ad predcam Comitissam ad et audivit suam de ea capiendam, ipse Walterus cum prefato Epõ intravit Cameram ubi prefata Comitissa jacuit, circa horam tertiam, Waltero, eam loquentem cum predco Episcopo.

Frater WILLUS DE GAYNESBURGH’ DICIT, quod ipse suit Confessor predce Comitisse per quatuor Annos ante mortem suam: & quod ipse ad mandatum predce Comitisse venit ad quoddam Manerium de Sutton extra Dertford, ubi eadem Comitissa in veniendo de Cantuar̃ cepit infirmari, & sic fuit continue cum eadem ibidem, et apud Stokewell usq; ad mortem ipsius Comitisse. Et dicit quod fuit presens predicto die Lune quando predcus Ep̃us Dunolm̃ venit ad Comitiassam apud Stokewell, et vidit & audivit ubi predcus Epus allocutus fuit eandem super quadam prelocutione inter Dñum Regem & ipsam prius habita de Insula de Wyght, Maner̃ de Cristechurch & de Faukeshalo cum pertiñ. Et quesivit ab eadem, si ad tunc esset in eadem voluntate reddendi predca Insulam & Maneria Dño Regi, sicut antea prelocutam fuit? Que dixit quod sic. Quesita etiam per ipum Episcopum, si vellet quod Carta inde fieret? dixit quod sic. Et tunc predcus Ep̃us fecit predcm Walterum scribere predcum Cartam; qua scripta idem Ep̃us reportavit eam coram eadem Comitissa, et eam coram ipsa Comitissa in presentia ipsius fratris Willi, Gilberti de Knovill, Galfridi Capellani, hic dicit ut credit, Agnetis de Mounceals, domicelle ejusdem Comitisse, et plurium aliorum de familia Comitisse Cartam illam fecit legere. Et a predca Comitissa quesivit si vellet quod Carta illa sub illa forma signaretur? Que dixit quod sic. Et precipit predicte Agneti, quod Sigillum suum deferret ad Cartam illam consignandam. Quod sic factum est. Post cujus consignationem in presentia predictor̃ fcãm eadem Comitissa tradidit predco Ep̃o predcam Cartam et seisinam predictorum Insule et Maneriorum in predca Carta contentorum in manus ipsius Episcopi, nomine Domini Regis et ad arus ejusdem, p Cirotecas ipsius Ep̃i, quas eadem Comitissa in manum suam tenuit, ex mera voluntate sua & sponte reddidit. Et postea circa horam tertiam quando idem Ep̃us sic recesserat eadem Comitissa sic requievit. Et postea idem Frater Willus post horam nonam rogavit predcam Comitissam quod Testamentum suum faceret; que respondit, quod ita fatigata fuit, quod si multum in loquendo laboraret, timebat sibi per hoc gravari multum & debilitari; set postea ipsa Comitissa post horam vesperarum per ipsum Fratrem iterum requisita de eodem faciendo, fecit Testamentum suum et nominavit per digitos suos Executores suos, videlicet Abbatem de Querera, Priorem de Brommore, Priorem de Christechirche, Gilbertum de Knovill; et six fatigata quievit. Et postea per aliquod tempus fecit se comunicari per ip̃m Fratrem Willũm ad hoc faciendum revestitum, et toto tempore predco erat bone & sane memorie; & postea inter mediam noctem et Aurorem expiravit. [see end of document for translation]


THE MONUMENT OF KING SEBERT stands between the two easternmost of those pillars, which on the south side of the altar separate the presbytery from the ambulatory, leading to the chapels, and hath two fronts, the one facing to the south ambulatory and the other to the area before the altar. These fronts in their forms, mode of construction, and ornaments, differ widely from each other; a circumstance that doth not occur in any other sepulchral monuments that I can recollect, and which circumstance in this particular case, is favoured by the floor of the presbytery being raised about five feet higher than that of the adjoining ambulatory.

That front which faces to the south ambulatory, and is visible from thence only, consists of a plain altar tomb of touchstone, six feet six inches in length, and two feet six inches in height above its plinth, and of a magnificent and lofty canopy of fram’d oak, supported by a very flat Gothic arch of masonry turned over the tomb, at the height of two feet or thereabouts above its covering stone: this tomb, which contains the royal remains of the pious and munificent first founder of the abbey, together with those of his consort Ethelgoda, is, together with the arch that spans over it, placed within a recess formed for their reception in the wall built there for the purpose of supporting the southern flank of the floor and pavement of the presbytery, and for preventing the ground from colting down into the adjoining ambulatory. The vaulting or under side of the before mentioned arch, as also the side and two end walls of the recess, are divided into several compartments of various forms and sizes, separated from each other by Gothic mouldings. Some of these compartments have been adorned with paintings, as is evident from a human face and several parts of figures still visible on them.

The front of the canopy on this side, is formed by four boarded pannels or panes, each nine feet in height and two feet seven inches in width, framed into narrow pilasters, which likewise serve to separate the pannels from each other. These pannels rise flush with the face of the wall, within which the tomb is placed, and each of them terminate in an acute Gothic head, rising pyramidically and ornamented with Quator foils, and a variety of light Gothic mouldings.

The historians of the church of Westminster say, that the pictures of St. John the Baptist, St. Peter, King Sebert, and Edward the Confessor, were painted in these pannels, with verses by way of question and answer placed underneath them. And Weever expressly tells us, that one of these pictures represented St. Peter talking to King Sebert, who was painted in the adjoining pannel, and these verses underneath:

Hic Rex Seberte pausas, mihi condita per te
Haec loca lustravi, demum lustrando dicavi.
[The King, you rest, Sebert,
I purified this place, built for me (Henry III)
On account of you.]

The only figure of which there are any tolerable remains is that of a venerable elderly man, cloathed in a tunic and loose robe, with a long curled dark coloured beard, and a nimbus, round his head on which he wears a kind of wreath or turban. His left hand holds a sceptre, and his right is elevated and with its fore finger pointed towards heaven. From these circumstances it may not improbably be suggested, that the figure was intended to represent St. Edward the Confessor.

The principal front of this monument faces the area before the altar. It is in height, from the underside of its plinth to the summits of its fynials on the canopy, thirteen feet nine inches, and is formed on a design much more elegant and enriched than that which faces to the south ambulatory, and happily is in far better preservation (v).

Here, under the canopy, and on a stone plinth of eight inches rise, is placed a chest of oak twelve feet six inches in length, three feet four inches in height, and two feet eleven inches in width; evidently intended to represent the Sarcophagus of Sebert, as well as to serve for an altar table on the day of his anniversary, and at such other times when mass was to be said there for the repose of his soul. This chest is of very plain and rude workmanship; however, a greater elegance in making it seems to have been unnecessary, its being evident from the several large broad-headed nails which have been drove into it, and are there now remaining, as also from some filaments of gold adhering to them, that anciently this chest was covered with carpeting, either of cloth of gold, or other such like rich stuff.

Immediately without the front of this chest stand four Gothic pilasters, two of them placed near its head and the other two near its foot. These pilasters serve to support the canopy towards the north, which is there formed by four acute arches or pyramidical Gothic heads, richly ornamented and placed close to each other, and at the height of six feet from the top or cover of the chest, rest upon, or rather abut against, the before mentioned pilasters. The center of each of these pyramidical heads is occupied by a circular compartment, within which is another shaped like a trefoil, and formed by three semicircular convex mouldings conjoined in point. The faces of both these compartments are covered with thick transparent red glass, laid on a gold foil, spread on a thin coat of distemper, or very fine plaister. At their greatest diameter they extend fourteen inches and an half, and are encompassed by moulded frames, raised in plaister and gilt with burnish’d gold. The spandrils and other parts of the fronts of these heads are in like manner faced with transparent glass, but of a fine blue colour set on a silver foil, and evidently designed to imitate Lapis Lazuli. The upper edge of the weatherings which lie on the hips of the pediments is ornamented with crockets placed at equal distances from each other; and beneath them runs a kind of cornish or facia consisting of one hollow and two swelling mouldings. These crockets, together with the swelling mouldings of the cornishes and those of the arches, indentings, tracery, and ramifications which decorate the lower parts of the canopy, are gilt partly with frosted and partly with burnished gold; but all the hollow mouldings are painted a bright full scarlet. In the middle of the fore part of this canopy, at the point where the two middlemost of the acute arches or pyramids join each other (w), is fixed the bust of a bishop with a mitre on his head, grounded white, and richly spangled with pieces of glass of different colours in imitation of precious stones; and on the pilasters which stand next thereto on the right and left, is the busto of a king wearing his crown gilt with gold, and set with jewellry in the same manner as the bishop’s mitre just described. Whether these bustos were here introduced by the architect as meer matter of ornament to the canopy, or whether he intended them to represent any, and what particular persons, cannot at this distance of time be ascertained. There are, however, some circumstances in the life of King Sebert, that may afford some help towards explaining that matter. According to the account given to us by the generality of our historians, Sebert was converted to christianity by the preaching of St. Austin, and at the persuasion of his uncle Ethelbert King of Kent, who had a little time before embraced the true faith. The latter, say they, having erected a church in London, and dedicated it to St. Paul; Sebert, in imitation of his pious relation, built the church at Westminster, and ordered Mellitus, then newly appointed bishop of London, to consecrate and dedicate it to St. Peter. Hence then we may not unreasonably suggest, that the three bustos which we see on the front of the canopy were not placed there merely as dressings or matter of ornament and decoration, but in allusion to those persons who are principally concerned in the primary foundation of Westminster abbey; and therefore, that the bustos of the two kings were intended to represent Sebert, and his uncle Ethelbert; and that the mitred head was designed either for that of St. Austin, from whom these kings received baptism, or that of Mellitus bishop of London, who consecrated the fabric.

(v) See plate IV.
(w) See plate IV. and plate VI. fig. 1. 2. 3.

These pannels, like those on the south front, were anciently adorned with human figures painted in distemper, two of which figures, viz. those on the first and third pannels fortunately still remain. In the first of these pannels (x), and on a dark brown back ground, is painted the figure, as large as life, of a tall elderly man with a long curled beard, dressed in a rose-coloured tunic, over which is thrown a loose robe or mantle of green sattin, lined with fur, and guarded or bordered with a green, white and red, mixed lace (y). In his right hand he bears a sceptre surmounted by the figure of a gothic church (z), and he holds up his left, the fore finger whereof is pointed upwards, whilst with a grave and sedate countenance, and his eyes fixed as on an object in the adjoining pannel, he seems to be dictating on some important subject. He hath gloves on his hands, and on his head is placed a circlet or crown of gold, the rim whereof is plain and surmounted by strawberry leaves (a).

In the third pannel, on a dark mazarine-blue ground, richly powdered with Lions passant Guardant-Gold, is the picture of a middle-aged round-faced beardless man, five feet nine inches and an half high, dressed in a red tunic or dalmatic, girded about his waist by a figured girdle of most elegant workmanship, the ends or tassels whereof hang down as low as to his feet. Over the tunic is a brown robe lined with fur, and guarded about the edges with a fancy-lace of mixed colours, viz. pale brown, red and white. This robe is fastened over the right shoulder by a square fibula, coloured black, yellow, red and white (b). The tops of his gloves are richly embroidered, and on the back of each is fixed a handsome quarter foil of red, green and white (c). He holds his right hand across his breast, and between the fore finger and thumb of his left hand he supports a sceptre surmounted by a fancy flower or husk (d). On his head is a circlet of gold, which is dissimilar to that of the last-mentioned figure, its rim being set with rubies and emeralds, and surmounted with balls and strawberry leaves placed alternately on its edge (e).

However presumptuous it may be, positively to determine what particular persons these pictures were designed to represent, yet the mere offer of a conjecture that possibly may lead to the discovery may be venial. It hath already been observed, that the first of these figures, of which we are now treating, is represented as holding in his hands a scepter surmounted with the model of a gothic church. Now it is well known that the statues of many kings, who have been the founders of churches, abbies, or other religious houses, or who otherwise became considerable benefactors thereunto, in allusion to such acts of pious generosity, represent them either as holding in their hands the model of such church or abbey, or otherwise bearing in their hands sceptres surmounted with the like figure. Hence, therefore, it may reasonably be supported, that the figure painting in the first pannel on the north side of the beforementioned canopy was designed to represent King Sebert, the original founder of the church of Westminster, a supposition that seems to be strengthened by the gravity and serious attention expressed in the countenance of the figure, and perfectly suitable to Sebert’s conduct in founding the abbey; in relation to which religious act, the painter in all probability used his best endeavours to represent that king as speaking.

The back ground of the third pannel being powdered with golden Lions passant Guardant of England, makes it certain that the figure painted thereon was intended for that of one of the kings who swayed the English sceptre in times subsequent to the Norman invasion, no one of whom, all circumstances considered, it can better suit than King Henry the Third, who was the rebuilder and munificent re-founder of Westminster-abbey.

The picture, whatever it might be that was painted in the second pannel, hath purposefully been scraped off, as is evident from the marks of the tool, and some fragments of the painting still visible, near the edge of the pannel. Under this circumstance of the painting being purposely scraped off, it may perhaps be imagined that the picture was that of Thomas of Becket; it being well known that Henry VII. ordered all such pictures, statues, or representations of that pretended saint, as were in churches or elsewhere, to be erased, broke to pieces, or otherwise destroyed. On the other hand, as it doth not appear that Archbishop Becket was in any wise connected with the church of Westminster, or that he interested himself in regard to the disposal and preservation of the body of King Sebert; we cannot well account for his picture being painted on the shrine of that monarch, unless we indulge the supposition that Becket’s figure was painted on one of those pannels, in a memory of his having been the person who instigated King Henry the Second to procure the canonization of Edward the Confessor, the second founder of the abbey of Westminster, and to translate his body into

(x) See plate V. Fig. 1.
(y) See plate VI. Fig. 9.
(z) See plate VI. Fig. 6.
(a) See plate VI. Fig. 4.
(b) See plate VI. Fig. 11.
(c) See plate VI. Fig. 8.
(d) See plate VI. Fig. 7.
(e) See plate VI. Fig. 5.

Each of the pannels on which the before mentioned figures are painted, is separated from that adjoining, by a pilaster, whose edges are ornamented with a half rounded moulding. The flats of these pilasters are coloured red, and the ground of the mouldings, which is white, is divided by black lines into small lozenges of two inches in length, each charged with a red tracery.

The vaulting of the under side of the canopy is divided into four arches, each of which in point of width and position correspond with that of the pannel, to which they are respectively opposite.

The surfaces of these arches are divided into compartments by sundry small moulded ribs tinctured black, which fly diagonally from pilaster to pilaster. And each compartment, as are also the spandrils, is filled with a white tracery of trailing sprigs and leaves laid on a red ground (f).

From this imperfect description in may reasonably be imagined, that when Sebert’s monument was complete and entire, when the tapers which stood lighted before it shewed the paintings that were within its recess, and when the different coloured glass on the front of its canopy it reflected the lights that were kept burning on the high altar near which it stood, it made a most noble and luminous appearance, and carried with it a magnificence not to be exceeded by any monument, either in Westminster abbey or in any other church.

Our ancient historians are so short in the account they give us of King Sebert, that we cannot but deplore the want of knowing further particulars relative to the reign of a monarch, who banished idolatry out of his dominions, and proved himself most zealous in supporting the cause of Christianity, which he had chearfully embraced. All that we can learn of his story further than what hath been already mentioned, is this: He was son of Sledda king of the East Saxons, by Ricula daughter of Hermenrick, and sister to Ethelbert king of Kent. In the year 600 he ascended the throne of Essex, and having reigned fifteen years was, together with his Queen Ethelgoda, interred near to the high altar, in the church which he himself had built at Westminster. Upon the rebuilding of the abbey by Henry the Third on its present scite, which is somewhat north of that whereon Sebert had erected his church, the bodies of Sebert and Ethelgoda, together with those of Hugolin chamberlain to Edward the Confessor, Abbot Edwine, and Sulcardus the historian, were taken up from the respective places of their primary interments, and put under one monument in the vaulted room, on the east side of the great cloisters, wherein the regalia were formally kept, and where the trial pieces of the Pix are now deposited; and not in that place some years since walled up which adjoins to the passage leading from the eastern cloyster into the chapter-house and library, as Mr. Widmore, by mistake, says they were.

In the year 1308, the monks of Westminster, animated by a laudable zeal for the preservation of the remains of their first royal founder, and in grateful remembrance of that liberality to which they stood indebted for their maintenance and support, a practice which, (altho’ highly commendable, is in modern times too much neglected), again took up the bodies of Sebert and Ethelgoda, and reinclosing them in leaden coffins, with great ceremony and devotion deposited them within their present tomb, then newly prepared for their reception. At the time of this removal, as Walsingham assures us, the right arm of King Sebert was found in all respects as whole and perfect as if he was but newly dead, notwithstanding its having been buried upwards of seven hundred years. Of this circumstance, and the character of Sebert, a very ancient manuscript of Robert of Gloucester (g) speaks thus,

‘Segbrit that I nempned was a right holy man
‘For the Abbey of Westminster he formest began
‘He was the first King that, thilk stete gan rere
‘And sithe at his ende day he was buried there
‘Seven hundred yere and six there were nigh agon
‘Sithe that he was buried faire under a Ston.
‘And Som del of him was also hool y found
‘As thilk day that he was first laid in the Ground.’

Abbot Ware on his return into England, brought with him Peter Cevallini, who was one of the most eminent painters and sculptors of his time; and it was from Cevallini’s designs, and under his directions, that the Mosaic pavement before the high altar was laid, and the tomb or shrine of the Confessor either totally made anew, or, what is more likely, greatly altered and enriched. In the latter, the Roman artist introduced the Greek style of architecture, by judiciously placing on the top of the Mosaic stone work of the shrine, a very nice and elegant architectonic frame of wood two stories in height, formed according to the Doric order, and inlaid on its fronts with various pieces of ivory and coloured stained glass.

The same style of architecture was likewise observed by Cevallini in making his design for the monument, which in the year 1273 he erected in the Confessor’s chapel in Westminster abbey, for King Henry the Third. After that time we do not meet with a single instance of its being used either in buildings, or in sepulchral monuments, within this kingdom, until it was revived towards the close of the reign of Henry the Eighth. From hence then it may reasonably be inferred, that the Greek architecture fell into disuse in this kingdom soon after its introduction, as not being suitable to the taste of the nobility of Edward the First’s court; who having been familiarized to pointed arches, lofty vaulting, and tall, slender, and disproportioned pillars and pilasters, gave the preference to that which is commonly called the Gothic. Of this, the monuments I have here described, the former of which was erected about the year 1275, and the latter in 1308, are convincing proofs. As history hath not transmitted to us any account of the architects who flourished in the times of which we are speaking, we are at a loss to ascertain the person, to whose great skill and abilities in his profession, we are indebted for the monuments of Aveline and Sebert. Mr. Walpole, in his Anecdotes of Painting, speaking of Cevallini’s being the person who made the Confessor’s shrine, says, that in all probability he was the person who gave the designs for the crosses erected by king Edward the First to the memory of his beloved Eleanor. Allowing that to be a fact, may we not then with an equal degree of probability suppose, that the same painter and sculptor not only made the designs for the monuments of Aveline Countess of Lancaster and king Sebert; but that the paintings in distemper, wherewith those monuments are respectively adorned, were the produce of his pencil? As it is likely that Cevallini was a young man when he first came into England, the difference of time between his building the Confessor’s shrine, and the erecting Sebert’s monument, will not discountenance the suggestion. Certain it is, that they are works of a very able master, and have more than their antiquity to recommend them to our attention.

It is generally said, that the old painters, that is, those who flourished before the invention of oil colours, when they painted on walls, used size, or what is called distemper; but that it is not to be supposed that they painted on board in the same manner. And Sandrart informs us, that the paintings on board, of those early times, had cloth under them.

These rules of practical painting might perhaps be generally observed by the old artists, but it is certain that they did not invariably adhere to them; for the paintings on the canopy of king Sebert’s monument, so far from being executed agreeable to those rules, are existing evidences that the person who painted them deviated therefrom, and pursued a quite different method as well in the preparation of his ground, as in the mixing, grinding, and laying on his colours. These paintings are on boards, but the boards are not overlaid, or covered with cloth, closely glued down to them, for the purpose of receiving thereon the paintings conformable to the method which Sandrart says was anciently used, but spread over with a very thin coat of fine plaister, not thicker than an egg-shell; and on that coat the figures are painted and colours mixed and prepared with size or distemper; notwithstanding which they are now nearly as clear and brilliant as they were when first laid on. Other pictures painted in those time were indisputably grounded and painted in the same manner, but few if any of them now remain. Mr. Walpole (b) very candidly owns, that he could not find any vestiges of the Art of Painting during the reigns of the two first Edwards, although, as he confesseth, it was certainly preserved here in those times, at least by painting on glass. After such a declaration made by that ingenious and accurate enquirer, and the researches of the late industrious Mr. George Vertue, little if any hopes could be entertained of finding any pictures that were painted in England during the two before-mentioned reigns. Fortunately, however, the paintings on Aveline and Sebert’s monuments are incontestably products of those very times; they are desiderata which have been much searched for, and they well supply that lacuna in the history of the progress of the art of painting in England, which our best antiquaries have deplored for many years past.

(b) Anecdotes of Painting, p. 21.

so that no part of it is now visible excepting one of the smallest pannels or compartments carved on the south side of the tomb; and which pannel, standing flush with the face of such part of the wall as runs between the two last-mentioned monuments, seems as if it had been placed there by way of ornament.

This monument, in its present state (i), consists of a large altar-tomb, and two detached pedestals of free stone, formed in the Grecian style of architecture, and placed on a plinth which rises five inches and a quarter above the level of the adjoining pavement; the whole being executed in a masterly manner, and extending eighteen feet in length. The tomb itself is composed of a head-stone and foot-stone, each of them three feet in height, and ten inches and a half in breadth, two side slabs of eight feet five inches in length, and a covering or top-stone of black marble, eleven feet two inches long, and five inches thick.

The faces of the side slabs are embellished with a variety of ornaments in basso-relievo, and particularly with two tier or rows of square pannels or compartments, of which those in the lowermost tier are each of them charged with two thigh-bones in saltier surmounted by a death’s head. The ground of these last-mentioned pannels is tinged black, in order to throw out and give a further relief to the thigh-bones and death’s heads which are left of the colour of the freestone in which they are carved. On the face of the head-stone, and within an oval frame, surmounted by a ducal coronet, is carved an escarbuncle, being the arms of the dukes of Cleves; and on the face of the foot-stone are the letters A.C. in cyphers within an oval similar to that on the head-stone, and likewise surmounted by a ducal coronet. The two pedestals are placed, one at the head and the other at the foot of the tomb, and at the distance of two feet and three inches from it. They are of equal dimensions with the head and foot stones; and the dye of each of them is in front, ornamented with a lion’s head, set within an oval frame decorated with foliages; and, on its sides, with the letters A C in cypher.

The elegance and good taste, which appears in such parts of this monument as are finished, evinces that it was designed by a very skilful and able architect. And when we reflect on the forms in which sepulchral monuments were built in the reigns of Edward the Sixth, Mary, and Elizabeth; and likewise consider, that the head and foot-stones of this tomb are in every respect formed similar to the pedestals that are placed at a small distance from its extremities; there is little or no room to doubt of the artists having intended to finish the whole with a semicircular arched canopy, spanning over the tomb, and supported by double pillars set on the present pedestals.

If we were puzzled to find out the name of any one architect in the reign of the first Edward, under much greater difficulties are we amongst the plenty of such artists, who flourished in the reigns of king Henry the Eighth and his successors, to ascertain which of them in particular was the person employed to make the design for this monument.

On the revival of learning in England, Henry the Eighth entertained in his service a variety of artists, and amongst them several Italians and other foreigners, skilled in architecture, who introduced the Grecian style, and taught it here to their pupils; so that in a few years time England could justly boast of many able architects; the names and works of several of whom, as Holbein, Sir Richard Lee, Simons, John of Padua, &c. &c. are known in these times. In the year 1576, a very curious column, now taking down, ornamented with sixty sun-dials, was erected in Caius College at Cambridge, and inscribed as follows: “Theodorus Haeveus, Cleviensis, Artifex Egredius et insignis Architecturae professor fecit.” This person appears to have been several years employed by Dr. Keys in building his college; where in token of his great merit, his portrait is still preserved. Now, as we are not any where told who was the person that made the design for the Lady Anne’s monument, and as it well known that the several persons who composed her household, as well after as before her divorce from the king, were natives of the duchy of Cleves; and as this Theodore Haeveus was of that country, and famous in his profession, it may reasonably be imagined that he was the draftsman who made the design for her monument.

As this memoir hath swelled to a greater length than I at first expected, I dare not at present trespass on the patience of the Society further than just to observe, that the Lady Anne of Cleves died at Chelsea, the usual place of her residence, on the sixteenth day of July, in the year 1557, and was on the fourth day of August following deposited in this tomb.

(i) PLATE VII.