PREFACE 
 
 I have to offer very many apologies to tlie members of the 
 Monmouthshire Antiqiioriau Association for tlie very great delay which 
 has occurred ui the production of the present book, which I regret to 
 say has been so very long due. But I can assure them that it has not 
 arisen from any wilful neglect, carelessness, or idleness on my part ; 
 and I must trust to their kind indulgence for forgiveness ; for I fear 
 that gi-eat disappointment has been the result of the delay. The work 
 I found was one which I could not take ujj and write off hand ; and had 
 I known, when I promised to write an account of the Ancient Monu- 
 ments, the length to which it would extend, and the number and 
 variety of the subjects, the consideration of which would be necessary 
 for a due explanation of these interesting remains, and the large amount 
 of information on minute points which would be required, I should 
 hardly have ventured to undertake the task ; for T should have known 
 well, that the completion of the work would have occupied a longer time 
 than I should have wished, or indeed, 2:)roperly speaking, should have had 
 at my command ; and that consequent delay in bringing out the book would 
 occur, which must result in the disappointment which I fear has already 
 been felt. I have, however, endeavoured fully to describe, explain, and 
 illustrate these interesting remains, although I am well aware that the 
 work has been but imperfectly done ; and for the imperfections and short- 
 comings I must throw myself on the kind indulgence of our members. 
 
 O.M. 
 
 r^^ 
 
 G2SDli
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Introduction ... 
 
 Barony of Abergavexny ... 
 
 Armour of XIII., XIV., and XV. Centuries 
 
 Churchyard's Poem 
 
 The IMoNUMENTs and Church 
 
 I. — George de Cantelure .. 
 
 Effigies and Funerals 
 
 II. — Sir Willi.\ji Hastings? 
 
 III. — Lawrence de Hastings 
 
 IV. — Sir Willi.am ap Thomas 
 
 v.— Sir Richard Herbert, of Coldbrook 
 
 VI.— Sir Richard Herbert, of Ewyas 
 
 VII.— Eva de Braose? 
 VIII. — Eva di; Cantelupe 
 IX. — Judge Andrew Powell 
 X. — Dr. David Lewis 
 XI. — Figure of Jesse 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 . 3 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 . 15 
 
 ... 
 
 . 19 
 
 Wood. . 
 
 . 21 
 
 
 . 23 
 
 ... stone. 
 
 . 31 
 
 Stenc. 
 
 . 36 
 
 Alabaster.. 
 
 . 41 
 
 ... Alabaster.. 
 
 . 56 
 
 ... Alabaster.. 
 
 . 63 
 
 ... Stone. 
 
 , 70 
 
 Stone. 
 
 . 72 
 
 Stone. 
 
 . 75 
 
 ... Stone. 
 
 . 79 
 
 JFood. . 
 
 . 85 
 
 PHOTOGRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 I. — George de Cantelupe. 
 IL — Sir William Hastincs? 
 III. — Lawrence de Hastings. 
 IV. — Sir William ap Thojlvs. 
 V. — Ditto Ditto. 
 
 VI. — Sir Rich.\i;u Herbert, of Coldbrook. 
 VII. — Ditto Dmo. 
 
 A 111. —Sir Richard Herbert, of Ewyas. 
 IX. — Eva de Braose? 
 X. — Eva de Cantelupe. 
 XL— Judge Andrew Powell. 
 XII. — Dr. David Lewis. 
 XIII. — Figure ok Je.sse.
 
 ,-uo , 'pvdx ,'jo , .w/'05 3un '6i 
 /s^pjBcIoai xo 'sii-op-sjnag , irodx /s^pat'doai 'jo sji-ap-sjngy , /o/ '5 1 ani^ 'f ^ 
 
 /^3ai3°iBy\[ '^pB'j , /)«?.« /?9Jt'SaBj^ ^pB^ , Mf 'f f aui^ '85 
 .•siqx » • sraau , pvtj, .'siiix „ 'sraii! , j,of 'qz ^nn 'ZS 
 
 ,•8311^ 9S8l[J, , ^JBW ,'90Jl[ 18S01JX , Mf 'g 9ni[ '^g 
 
 /sdiqspjoq; , pvti ,'s,dii{spjo'^ , Mif '\ 3ui[ '13 
 
 /SB 'paiuqiui , p»3.« /sB ponjquii , Mf %z 8ni| 'g^ 
 
 /aoBds, pvix 'xreds , io/'gi sxxv[ 'f\ 
 
 /^i Suiips , pvdx 'm. Sni^i'BS , ^/ 'gg aui| 'gg 
 
 /raojj f S9§uBqo, pvvj, ,'niojj 'sgSatjqo , .«o/'eg 9ni| 'gy aovj
 
 SOME ACCOUNT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 MONUMENTS IN THE PrvIORY CHURCH, 
 AT ABERGAVENNY. 
 
 The Monuments in the Priory Church, at Abergavenny, have long 
 been objects of interest, especially to those who have carefully examined 
 and studied them. They have not, however, received that attention 
 which they deserve, nor have they in times past experienced that care 
 which they have merited. It is, indeed, sad to see the wanton injuries 
 and disfigurements to which these beautiful works of art have been sub- 
 jected at some period in days gone by ; but of late years more care has 
 been taken of them, and further mischief prevented ; and it is to be 
 hoped, now that attention has been directed to them, what remains may 
 be carefully preserved from further mutilation, as well as from injudicious 
 restoration. They all seem to have been much injured at some i^ar- 
 ticular period, and to have been subsequently rudely and inartistically 
 repaired ; and many of the parts seem to have been misplaced, if they 
 did not belong to some other structures. 
 
 These Monuments are very instructive on three grounds. — First : they 
 form a remarkably good and most instructive series of monumental 
 effigies from the XITI to the XVII century, shewing the various 
 forms and characters of such structures, and displaying in an admirable 
 manner the various changes which successively took place in the arms 
 and armour of the knightly warriors ; exhibiting a valuable and consecu- 
 tive series of illustrations, not only of armour, but also of costume, as 
 well of ladies as of knights, during a period of four centuries. The 
 second ground of interest is that this series of Mommients afibrds 
 beautiful examples of the various substances which have been used for 
 the construction of monumental effigies, wood, stone, alabaster, and 
 formerly of brass or bronze ; and the examples are all of remarkably
 
 good type and character, and I think it will be difficult to find a Church 
 •which can exhibit so complete and regular a series, for there are not only 
 the effigies and tombs of men, but we have those also of ladies. Thirdly 
 and lastly ; we have the historical interest attached to them, as being the 
 Monuments of distinguished personages connected not only with the 
 special locality, but also with the general history of the country, and I 
 hope to be able to identify these early effigies, respecting which there are 
 now doubts. 
 
 The Church of Abergavenny, however, is not an ordinary Parish 
 Church, having been origmally the Church and Chapel of the Priory, and 
 the Monks settled there. This Priory was a Monastery of Benedictine 
 or Black Monks, founded in the reign of Henry I. (1100 — 1135), by 
 Hameline de Balun or Baladun, the first Norman Lord of Abergavenny, 
 and was therefore intimately connected with the Lordshija, and was at a 
 subsequent period further endowed by, and received gifts from several of 
 his successoi's. 
 
 The town of Abergavenny was the Capital of the Lordship, and was a 
 walled town ; and the ancient Parish Chm-ch of St. John stood within 
 the walls ; the Priory and its Church being outside the town by the 
 East Gate. After the dissolution of the Monasteries, in 1543, Henry VIII 
 founded the Grammar School, which he endowed Avith some of the pos- 
 sessions of the suppressed Priory, and granted the old Parish Church of 
 St. John as the site for hia new school, and at that time, in all proba- 
 bility, the Priory Cliurch, instead of being pulled down as was fre- 
 quently the case, was granted in lieu of it for the parish Church ; and it 
 is very likely that the North Aisle was added at that time. 
 
 At the dissolution, the estai^lishment of the Priory consisted of a 
 Prior and only four Monks ; and according to Mr. Wakeman, in 1546, 
 all the possessions of the Monastery, which amounted in value to £80 per 
 annum, were granted to James Gunter, of Brcconshire, and continued in 
 his family till the beginning of the last century, when IMary, daughter 
 and heiress of James Gunter, of the Priory, married George Milbourne, 
 of Wonastow, and so conveyed the Priory Estates to him, and they, 
 together with Wonastow, descended to their son Charles, who married 
 Lady ]\Iartha Ilarley, daughter of the Earl of Oxford, and their only 
 daughter and heiress Mary carried them to her husband, Thomas 
 Swinnerton, Esq., of Butterton, in Stafibrdshire, whose daughter and co- 
 heiress married Charles Kemeys Tynte, Esq. 
 
 It will be necessary to give a short account of the Barony of Aber- 
 gavenny, and the various personages who held the Lordship, as reference 
 will liereafter be made to many of them ; and for this lam greatly in- 
 debted to the beautiful "Iliatory of the Neville Family," by Powland 
 "W'illiiims, Esq. ; as also to the pajiers of the late Thomas Wakeman, Escj., 
 the careful ;ind accurate historian of our local Antiquarian Association, 
 whose loss we all have so much reason to lament.
 
 THE BAKONY OF ABERGAVENNY. 
 
 The Honor or Lordship of Abergavenny is one of the most Ancient 
 Baronies, and was probably granted very soon after the conrpicst, whea 
 divers Princely Baronies were formed with Royal or Palatine powers, for 
 the purpose of guarding the country ngainst the incursions of the Welsh. 
 The Earldom of Chester was planted in the North Border of Wales 
 and was erected into a county Palatine. In the south borders many 
 Baronies and Lordships were also erected; stretching from Chester to the 
 Severn, called Lordship's IMarches, having Palatine jurisdiction, a court 
 of Chancery, and writs and pleadings of their own, with jiowers of life 
 and death ; and into them the Kings's wi-its did not run. The Lordship 
 of Abergavenny was one of the most important and powerful of these, 
 and was at one time considered a Barony by tenure, which entitled the 
 possessor of it to a writ of summons to Parliament ; a detailed history of 
 it would be out of place, and it will be sufficient to enumerate the list of 
 Barons, with such few particulars as may be necessary to shew the 
 descent. 
 
 I. The first Baron is usually believed to be Drogo or Dru de Baladun, 
 or Balun, (supposed to be Boulogne), who came over with William the 
 Conqueror. He was Lord of Abergavenny in the reign of Henry I ; and 
 the Lordship granted consisted of the country of Overwent, which he held 
 in capite of the King, and was to defend it at his own cost and charges 
 against the Welsh : he was succeeded by his son, 
 
 n. Hameline de Balun, who probably built a castle, and founded the 
 Priory in the reign of Henry I. ; having no issue, he ber[ueathed his es- 
 tates to his nephew, Brian de" Insula," son of his youngest sister Lucy. 
 He died before 1128, and is believed to have been buried in the Priory. 
 
 III. (1128). Bryan de Insula, aZi'as He Wallingford, was in possession 
 of the estates of his uncle in 1128. He had two sons, whom as they 
 were afflicted with leprosy, he placed in the Priory of Abergavenny, 
 and on their account made large gi-ants and endowments to the institu- 
 tion. On account of the incapacity of his sons;, he gave his Barony to 
 his cousin Walter of Gloucester, and departed for the Holy Land, where 
 he died. He was a strong siipporter of the Empress Maud in her Avars 
 with King Stephen. 
 
 IV. Walter of Gloucester, son of Milo Fitz Walter, Earl of Herefoi-d, 
 and Emma, sister of Hameline de Balun, was High Constable of England ; 
 having no issue, he granted his Barony to his younger brother Henry, 
 and retiring from the world, became a Monk in the Priory of Llanthony, 
 where he died and was buried. 
 
 V. Henry, of Hereford, 4th son of MUo Fitz Walter, Earl of Here- 
 ford, to which Earldom on the death of his brother Roger he succeeded.
 
 becoming at the same time Lord of Brecknock and the Forest of Dean ; 
 Sitsyllt ap Djfnwall, Lord of Castle Arnold,, succeeded in drawing him 
 into his power and murdered him. He had no issue, and his Baronies and 
 Estates passed to his sisters and their children. The regular descent was 
 by this event interrupted for a shoi't time, but was soon restored in the 
 pei-son of 
 
 YI. William de Braose, ■\^•ho was son of Philip de Braose and 
 Bertha, second daughter of Milo Fitz Walter, and co-heiress of her 
 brother Henry the last Baron. In 1172, the castle of Abergavenny was 
 surprised and taken by Sitsyllt ap Dyfnwall, but was restored to de 
 Braose in 1 1 76, and subsequent!)^ in revenge de Braose invited Sitsyllt 
 and his son and others to a festivity at the castle, and then treacherously 
 massacred them, and proceeding to Castle Arnold murdered the wife and 
 inflmt child, and took jiossession of the estates. He became suspected by 
 Kino- John, who banished him and seized his estates, and havinof es- 
 caped to France died in Paris 1213. 
 
 VH. Giles, Bishop of Hereford, eldest surviving son of William de 
 Braose the elder, and uncle to the last Baron, ultimately obtained from 
 the King the restitution of a large portion of the family estates, and 
 died 1215, leaving his possessions to his brother Reginald. 
 
 VIII. Beginald de Braose, who in 1217 had a grant of safe conduct 
 into the King's presence, had also a grant of a great part of his father 
 and brother's lands. He married Griselda, diiughter of William, Lord 
 Bruere, and left issue William and John, and a daughter. He died 
 1222 ; and in the same year William de Cantelupe and John of Mon- 
 mouth were ordered to seize his castles. 
 
 IX. William de Braose, his eldest son, (called junior, to distinguish 
 him from his grandfather), succeeded him. He was true to the King, and 
 being hostile to the Welsh, united his forces with those of Henry III 
 against them. He was taken prisoner in the war by Llewellyn, Prince 
 of North Wales, who refused ransom, and caused him to be hanged in 
 1230. He married Eva, daughter of Willluin Marshall, E.irl of Pem- 
 bi'oke, but had no male issue, and left only lour daughters, who were all 
 under age at their father's death. Eva married William de Cantelupe, 
 of whom hereafter. Eleonora was wife of Ilunijihry do Bohun ; Matilda 
 married Iloger Mortimer, of Wigmore ; and Isabella married David 
 Prince of Wales. Upon a partition of the estates between the sisters. 
 Abergavenny fell to the share of Ev;i, who in 1238 was given in w;\rd to 
 William de Cantelupe, a powerful Baron of Aston Cantelupe, in the 
 county of Warwick ; and in 1248 she was married to William de Cante- 
 hipo the son of lier guardian, who thereupon had livery of her estates. 
 
 X. William de Cantelupe, son and heir of William Lt)rd Cantelupe, 
 held the Lordship of Abergavenny in right of his wife Eva, daughter 
 and co-heiress of William do Braose the last Lord, and was summoned 
 to parliament by the King's \\\\t under the style and title of Baron of
 
 Burgavenny, by whicli name the Lordship contmued to be called for a 
 veiy long period. He died in 125G, and was succeeded in the Barony by 
 his wife, by whom he left issue a son George, about three years of age, 
 and two daughters, Milicent, who afterwards married Ivo do la Zouch, and 
 Joan, who married Henry, Lord Hastings. 
 
 XI. (125G). Eva, widow of William de Cantelupe, the last Lord, suc- 
 ceeded her husband in tlie Lordsliip as Ixironcss ni her own right, but she 
 did not survive hhn above a year, and died in 1257, leaving her son 
 George, a minor, only four years old. 
 
 XII (1257). George, Lord Cantelupe, succeeded to the Barony on 
 the death of his mother, but being only four yeai-s old, was on account of 
 his minority in wai'd to the King, in whose hands were the castle and 
 Lordship. He gave them into the custody of John Breton, Bishop of 
 Hereford, but in 1265 they seem to have been in the hands of the re- 
 bellious Barons, as Simon de Montfort conveyed hither the King, then 
 a prisonei', but soon removed him to Hereford, George married the 
 daughter of Edmund Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, and had by her a son who died 
 during his life time, and he himself died in 1273 at the age of twenty, 
 being the last Lord of the line of Cantelupe, and leaving his estates and 
 manors to be divided between his two sisters, Milicent and Joan ; and 
 upon the partition, to Joan the youngest, who had married Henry, Lord 
 Hastings, was awarded the Lordship of Abergavenny, and the manors 
 and estates in "Wales. Hemy, Lord Hastings, the husband of Joan, died in 
 12GS, leaving a son John de Hastings, a minor, Avho therefore succeeded to 
 the Barony of Burgavenny as heir, on the death of George the last Baron. 
 
 XIII. (1273). John de Hastings, being a minor, hardly more than a 
 year old. was confided by the King to the care of William de Valence, 
 Earl of Pembroke, who in 1283 had also cliarge of the castle. Upon 
 attaining his majority he did homage and had livery of his lands, and 
 married first Isabella daughter of his guardian William de Valence, 
 (who afterwards became co-heiress to her brother Aymer de Valence), 
 and in 1295 was summoned to Parliament as Lord Hastings, though he 
 was unquestionably Baron of Burgavenny. He particularly distinguished 
 himself in the wars in France and Scotland, and died in 1313, seized of 
 the Lordship of Abergavenny which he held of the King in capite, and if 
 ■war should happen between the King and the Prince of Wales, he was 
 bound to keep the country of Overwent at his own chai'ge for his own 
 benefit and for the King's use. By his first wife he had a son John, who 
 succeeded him, and a daughter Elizabetli, who married Lord Grey de 
 Euthyn. He married secondly, Isabel, daughter of Hugh Despenser, 
 Earl of Winchester, and had other issue. 
 
 XIV. (1313). John de Hastings, son of the preceding, and called junior 
 to distingiush him from his father whom he succeeded, being twenty-six 
 yeai's of age. In 131 7 he was charged to raise 20O foot soldiers from his 
 estates in Gwent for the Scotch Wars, when he served under hLs maternal
 
 uncle, Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke. In 1322 lie was ordered 
 to raise 400 men in Gwent, "by a second writ, and 300 men out of 
 Abergavenny and Gwent for tbe King's service. He married Juliana, 
 daughter and heiress of Thomas de Leybourne, and died 1325, seized of 
 the castle and Lordship ; leaving a son and heir Lawrence, a minor. His 
 widow within a year married Thomas Le Blound, and thirdly, William de 
 Clinton, Earl of Huntingdon. 
 
 XY. (1325). Lawrence de Hastings succeeded his father when very 
 yovmg, and being a minor, both he and his estates were in ward to the 
 King, who in 1337 committed him to the custody of William de Clin- 
 ton, Earl of Huntingdon, who had married his mother, with a yearly 
 allowance of 200 marks, equal to £133 : G : 8 out of the exchequer. 
 The castle and estates were given into the custody of various parties in 
 succession. lie came of age in 1339, and on the 13th of October was 
 created Earl of Pembroke on account of his descent from Isabella, the 
 eldest sister and co-heiress of Aylmer de Valence, and the same year he 
 accompanied the King in his expedition to Flanders, and in the year fol- 
 lowing he was in the naval battle of Sluys, when the French fleet was 
 defeated. In 1344 he attended the King into Britany with six men 
 at arms, two bannerets, twelve knights, forty-five esquires, and one 
 hundred archers on horseback. The names of this company ai'e not re- 
 corded, but there can be no doubt that many of his Gwentiair retamers 
 and tenants were among them. He remained in Britany till the fol- 
 lowing year, when he served in Gascony tuider Henry, Duke of Lan- 
 caster in the ISth, 19th, 20th and 21st of Edward III, and in 1348 he 
 died seized of the Lordsliip and Castle of Abergavenny, leaving by his 
 wife Agnes, daughter of Boger Mortimer, Etui of March, John his son 
 and heir, then only one year old, and was buried at the Priory at Aber- 
 gavenny. His widow married John de Hackelut, and at her death m 
 1368, bequeatlied to the Priory " of Buigavcnny, where my Lord lieth 
 bviriecl, a suit of rich vestments of green cloth of gold." He had a 
 half-ljrother, who was illegitimate and was called Sir William de Hastings, 
 to whom he was much attached, and gave him several manors and estates 
 out of his Lordshiji of Abergavenny, which, however, reverted to the 
 superior Lord, Sir WUliam dying without issue, 23rd March, 1349. 
 
 XVI. (13G9). John de Hastings Lord of Abergavenny and Earl of 
 Pembroke, the thu'd of that name, being only one year old at his father's 
 death, came of age in 13G9, the year after his mother's death. He mar- 
 ried Anna, only daughter and heucss of Sir Walter Manncy, and with 
 her had the Lordship of Chejjstow and other extensive po.ssessions. For 
 this marriage he was obliged to obtain a special dispensation from the 
 Pope, iiiasiiiudi as he had furmerly married Margaivl, daughter of King 
 Edward HI, she being allied to Margai'ct in the third and I'ourth degrees 
 of consanguinity ; for this he gave 1000 florins of gold for the repair of the 
 church and nionastciy at Urbino. This Julni de Ha.stings Avas an cmini'nt
 
 commander in the wai's in France under the Bhxck Prince ; and in 1372 
 for his valoiu" was created a Knight of the Garter, and made the King's 
 Lieutenant of A("|uitaino, whither he was sent with a reinforcement of 
 troops and 2000 marks in money to carry on the war against the French 
 and Spaniards. In that expedition he was unfortunate, for the enemy's 
 fleet lay oft* Roehclle, and although he maintained the contest for two 
 whole days against a greatly superior force, he and many others were 
 taken prisoners, and all his ships bm'nt simk, or taken. He remained a 
 prisoner till 1373, when he was ransomed, but died at Calais on his way 
 home on the 16th April, (it was rci^ortcd that he had been poisoned by 
 the Siianiards,) being seized of the Lordships of Abergavenny, Chepstow, 
 and many others, and leaving John his son, only two years and a half old. 
 He was biu-ied at the church of the Friars Preachers, at Hereford, but 
 the body was afterwards for the sum of £100 (equal to £1500 of modern 
 money,) translated to the Grey Friars iii London. His widow Ann 
 held the Castle and Lordship in dower, and died seized thereof in 1381, 
 John her son being then only eleven years old. 
 
 XVn. John de Hastings, son and heir of the last Lord of Aberga- 
 venny and Earl of Pembroke, being only three years old at his father's 
 death, was a ward of the Cro'wn, and his castles and estates were in the 
 King's hands. At the coi'onation of Ilichard II, 1381, being then accord- 
 ing to Dugdale, eleven years old, he claimed to carry the gold S2:>urs, and 
 having proved his right, it was adjudged that by reason of his minority, 
 he should be allowed to perform the service by deputy. The office was 
 served for hun by Edmund Mortimer, Earl of Mai'ch, whose daughter 
 Phillippa he seems to have married, although so young. He lived but to 
 attain the age of seventeen ; for in the year 1389 the King was keeping 
 his Christmas at Woodstock, and on the 13th December, at the tourna- 
 ment held that day, he ventured to tilt with Sir John St. John, and by 
 an unfortunate sUp of Sir John's lance, it entered his body and produced 
 instant death. He was buried in the Chm-ch of the Grey Friars in 
 London, where according to Stowe there was a splendid monument 
 erected over him, which remained till after the dissolution of the reli- 
 gious houses under Henry VIII, when it was destroyed. 
 
 As he had no issue, he was the last Lord of Abergavenny of the line 
 of Hastings, and his title of Earl of Pembroke ceased at his death. The 
 Bai'onies however which were vested in him, devolved by law xipou 
 Reginald Lord Grey de Ptuthyn as descended lineally from Elizabeth sister 
 John de Hastings, the father of Lawrence, who was the first Earl of 
 Pembi-oke. The Earl of March claimed the dower of his widowed 
 daughter, and after some disputes the third part of the Castle and Lord- 
 ship was assigned to her, and the subsequent descent of the Lordship 
 and estates was a fruitful som'ce of long disputes and litigation. With 
 that descent we have nothincr to do, as it has no relation to the Monu- 
 ments which we have to consider.
 
 SOME REMAEKS 
 
 ox THE 
 
 ANCIENT AEMOUK OF THE XIII, XIV, & XV CENTUEIES. 
 
 As in the examination of these Momiments we shall be much guided 
 bj the Armour displayed upon tliem, as being most probably an exact 
 representation of that which was actually worn by the persons whom 
 they were intended to commemoi'ate, or if not their very Armour, cei- 
 tainly that which was worn at the period of their deaths, I think it may 
 be desirable to gi\c a brief description of the defensive Armour worn 
 by Knights during the XIII, XIV, and XV centuries, with such 
 explanations as will make the subject generally intelligible, which a 
 simply strict adherence to technical terms might not be. Our chief 
 authorities on tliis subject are sujjplied by moniunents, knightly effigies 
 of known date, manuscript illuminations, seals, chasings in metal, carvings 
 in ivory, and the writers of chronicles and metrical romances. 
 
 The armour of a Mau-at-Arms during the XIII century, and till nearly 
 the middle of the XIV century, consisted of the following particulars : 
 a loose garment stuffed with cotton or wool, and quilted, covering the 
 body, called a gambeson, from the French word gamboisc ; and it may 
 be here remarked that most of the names of the various parts of armour 
 are taken from the Norman or French. Over this was worn a coat of 
 mail, fonued of double rings or mascles of ii'on interwoven like the 
 meshes of a net, called a hauberk ; this hauberk was a complete covering 
 of mail from head to foot ; it consisted of a hood joined to a, jacket with 
 sleeves, also breeches, stockings, and shoes of double chain mail all in one 
 piece ; to which were added gloves or gauntlets of the same. These 
 gauntlets had an opening in the palm through which the hand could bo 
 passed when it Avas required to put them off". In the second half of the 
 XI n ccntuiy the fingers began to be divided, jirobably from improved 
 skill In the manuf icture. In tlic hood, which was continuous from the 
 coat of mail of the body, and called the coif, thci'e was an aperture for 
 the face, and in the early part of the century the top of the head was 
 fi'cqucntly formed nearly flat, but the round topped coif is found through-
 
 out the centiuy. It was frequently sunouuded by a fillet or Ixind, 
 sometimes plain, sometimes ornamented. There was also another kind of 
 chain mail introduced at a later period, having the appearance of rows 
 or bands of ruigs laid one over another. I believe no instance exists, 
 and its construction is not veiy well imderstood. The coif was dra\\ni 
 over the head by means of an opening in the side, which was fastened up 
 with a strap or lace. The upper part above the face was towards the end 
 of the century occasionally replaced or covered by a skull cap or cervelliero 
 of iron plate, and which was probably the origin of the biiscinet. Some- 
 times the sleeves of the hauberk terminated at the wrist, the gloves or 
 gauntlets being separate. To the elbows of the hauberk were sometimes 
 athxed towards the close of the century plates of metal called coudidres ; 
 the covering of the legs were called chausses, and in the early part of 
 the century covered the w^hole leg, but afterwards poleyns or knee 
 pieces of plate were occasionally added, and towards the close of the 
 centuiy they were accompanied with a chausson of leather or quilted 
 work on the thighs, probably to obviate the inconvenience of long 
 chausses of chain mail in riding. The armour of chain mail was cleaned 
 by rolling it m a barrel, ^n'obably with sand. 
 
 The head was further defended by a helmet of various forms, worn 
 over the hood of chain mail m battle. These helms were fi-equently of 
 cylindrical form, with naiTow slits to admit au- and enable the wearer 
 to see. Over the hauberk was worn a loose surcoat, a loose garment 
 without sleeves, reachuig below^ the knees, and which, in the case of per- 
 sons of considerable distinction, were of rich materials, and charged with 
 their annorial bearings ; hence the term coat of arms. The hauberk and 
 surcoat which was open in front part of the way to the waist, were girt 
 round the body with a leather strap or belt, called the balteus, and by 
 the French baucb'ier, we are told from being made of tanned leather ; 
 whence our tenn baldrick. To this belt was attached the sword, which 
 was straight, of large size, and had a cross hilt. A leather thong called 
 the guige passed round the neck, from w^hich the shield was suspended. 
 The eaidiest shields were of the long heater fomi, and they became shorter 
 as the centuiy advanced towards the end, \\lien they were nearly tri- 
 angular. 
 
 At fii-st the hauberk, hood, and sleeves were all of one piece ; but in 
 process of time, when the chapel de fer and afterwards the bascinet were 
 introduced as a covering for the head, the hood was separated from the 
 hauberk, and fastened by a lace to the bascinet, and covering the throat, 
 fell over the neck upon the shoulders like a tippet, and was called the 
 camail. This at a much later period was formed of plate and was 
 called the gorget or throat piece, and was the last piece of plate armour 
 used, having been continued, though in a very diminished size, and as an 
 ornament only, tUl within the last forty years. When, in process of 
 time, the hood and sleeves were separated from the hauberk, it was
 
 10 
 
 called a haiibergeon, which is therefore a hauberk without hood or sleeves. 
 The haketon was a ganiient stuffed or wadded, Avorn above the shirt, and 
 under the haubergeon, as the gambeson was under the hauberk, and was 
 probably of lighter materials. The heels of the knights were equijjped 
 with spurs, which were generally the goad or prick sj^ur of short length, 
 the rowel being only found in one or two instances at the end of the 
 centiuy. 
 
 The XIV century was essentially a jieriod of transition in all military 
 matters of attack and defence, the invention and use of gunpowder 
 operating to produce great changes. The body armour oilers many di- 
 versities of form, but towards the end of the century there is more uni- 
 formity. The materials employed were iron, steel, brass, leather, whale- 
 bone, and the stuffs used for qudted defences. The ii'on was worn in 
 the form of chain mad, scale work, splinted or studded armour and plate : 
 sj^liiited armour was of two kinds, either haA'ing the metal strips or 
 sjilints in view, or ha^'ing the sphnts covered with leather or a textUe 
 material of quilted j^om-pointerie, with the studs of the rivets which 
 fasten them together appearing on the surface like small roundels, and 
 being fi-equently gilt. Pourpoint or pourpointerie, from the latin ^jer 
 puncium, indicates its construction, being composed of several thicknesses 
 of materiid sewed through and faced with sUk or velvet, on which armorial 
 bearings were embroidered, and thus the gamient was frequently called 
 pourpoint ; its manufacture was a sj^ecial trade in Paris, which was under 
 particular I'egulations to prevent the making and selling fraudulent 
 stuffs. Brass was only used for ornamental piu'poses ; but the jacked 
 leather, called cuir bouilli, whicli consisted of hides hardened and rendered 
 wateqiroof by bemg boUed, probably in oil, and pressed into sha2)e in 
 moidds was often substituted for metal in the defences of the body, legs; 
 and amis ; and, indeed, bascinets of cuii- bouilli have been mentioned ; 
 the material being smooth and rigid, it is imj)ossible to distiuguisli arti- 
 cles made of it fi-om those of metal in sculpture and pictiu'es. Quilted 
 or ]-)ourpoint garments occur throughout the period, sometimes as the 
 undercoat of a steel defence, sometimes as tlie principal body armour, 
 and sometimes as the ai-morial sm-coat. Defences of ii-on and steel are 
 often mentioned for body, arms, and legs ; and plate armour, whether 
 of metal or other rigid substance came gradually into use as the century 
 aflvanced, till at its close the old fabric of chain mail is only seen at the 
 bottom of the skirt, and at the neck. Isolated examples may be found 
 of tlie plate gorget and plate tassets at the liij^s, but it is not till tlic XV 
 centuiy, by the general adoption of these pieces, the Ivnight became en- 
 cased in ])late arnioiu-. 
 
 The body defence of plate is variously termed " plates of steel," 
 " a lireast plate," and a jiair of plates. These were at lu'st worn under 
 the fjuiltcd garment, but were aftenvards woj-it externally, and at length, 
 Hup])lantiiig the quilted garment, became afuU suit of body armour. A
 
 11 
 
 gi'eat change was now made in the surcoat, which had been a long loose 
 gannent open to a certain extent up the front for the convenience of 
 riding ; l)ut when tlio horsemen adopted the practice of dismoimtinf at 
 times, and fighting on foot, this long garment was found inconvenient, 
 and the front part was cut away. This uneven surcoat was still incon- 
 venient, and certainly unsightly, and the sheai-s being apphed behind, 
 it was shortened all round. The full sku-t, a necessity*of the long ch-esa, 
 had now neither use nor meaning ; it was therefore abandoned, and the 
 garment became the short close-fitting surcoat, familiar to us in the 
 monuments of the middle and latter part of the century, and to this the 
 name of j upon was frequently given. The arm defences are various; 
 those of plate alone are seen as early as 1325, but they are not general 
 till the middle or latter half of the century. The earliest were roundels, 
 or discs, affixed to the sleeve of mail to pi'otect the joints of the shoulder 
 and arm : the jointed epaidettes first appear in the second quarter of 
 the centuiy, and form a shoulder cap. The elbow jiieces, coudieres, 
 were either disc-formed, cup-shaped, or articulated ; and they are com- 
 bined, with nmch variety, with the other parts of the dress, until 
 towards the end of the century the whole arm was encased in plate. 
 The gauntlets exhibit a similar ^^I'ogress with the rest of the ai-mour, 
 beginning with chain mail, and offering as they advance various examples 
 of scale Avork, stud work, and other fabrics. About the middle of the 
 century arose the use of plate gauntlets, the fingers being articulated, 
 the remainder of a broad piece or pieces, and in some there is a show of 
 a leather cuff. 
 
 The leg harness of the knights made a similar steady progress towards 
 complete equipment in plate. The old fabrics of chain mail, scale woik, 
 pouipointerie, splint, and stud work are of frequent appearance. In the 
 fii'st quarter these are all found ; by the end of the second quarter the 
 full ai-ming of j)late is attained, and in the second half it became general. 
 Chain mail chausses of the XIII century are of frequent occurrence in 
 the eai'ly ^^art. This leg armour consisted of three parts — the chaussons 
 with the genouilleres attached, the greaves or leg annour, and the 
 solleret or anned shoe. The knee piece formed part of the chausson, 
 and was strapped on the leg ; the chaussons were frequently of leather, 
 or quilted splint work, having the studs or rivets outside ; the greaves 
 were either of chain mail, cuir bouilli, or some splint work with the 
 splmts outside, or all plate, and were at times highly ornamented. 
 Some may have been of cuir bouilli, to which a highly ornamental sur- 
 face might be given by pressure in a mould : these leg defences now 
 ended in an entire casing of plate. The armour for the feet j^assed 
 through similar phases, being at first of chain or banded mail, but 
 when greaves were introduced as the covering of the shin, the covering 
 of the feet, then called sollerets, was composed either of scale work, or 
 of a series of articulated joints from the instep to the toe ; the back of
 
 12 
 
 the leg, heel, aud sole remaining of chain mail. When the back of the 
 leg was protected bj plate, the heel and whole foot were also defended 
 in a similar way. The spur characteristic of the XIV centuiy is of the 
 rowel kind, with the arms curving under the ankle, the neck short and 
 straight ; the goad or prick sjDur is, however, not uncommon. 
 
 The head defences of this century consisted of the bascinet with the 
 camail, and the helm or heaume. The bascinet was a conical pointed 
 cap of iron, of curvihnear form, terminating in a rounded point ; in 
 front it was cut away m a square form for the face, and to it was fastened 
 by a lace the hood or tippet of chain mail, called the camail. The 
 1)order of the bascinet was frequently enriched with ornamental work. 
 Sometimes the bascinet had a visor attached to it, which could be raised 
 or lowered, or removed at pleasure ; this visor was pierced with holes, 
 to enable the wearer to see and breathe. With this visor the warrior 
 might go into battle without his helm, which was very large and heavy, 
 and only worn in battle, or at a tournament. The helms were of 
 various forms ; the lower part being generally somewhat in form of a 
 cyhnder, and having a conical toj), on which was fixed the crest with its 
 mantling : there were small apertures made for the admission of breath- 
 ing air, and to enable the knight to see ; but they were very small. 
 
 The shields of this century offer considerable diversity of form. The 
 most usual are the triangulai- or heater shaped, the heart shaped, the 
 circular or round buckler, or the curved or notched shield, according to 
 the time of the century. The materials were leather, cuir bouilli, aud 
 wood, sometimes covered \vith iron or steel. They occasionally displayed 
 armorial bearings, and were suspended at the neck by the guige, and had 
 also enarmes or sti'aps by ^^■hich they were attached to the arm. The 
 knightly sword was broad, straight, and two edged, acutely pointed with 
 a simple cross piece for its guard, and the pommel shewed a variety of 
 forms. The scabbard was usually of leather, either embellished with 
 stamped ornaments or mounted in gUt metal, the patterns of which 
 were those employed in the architectural enrichments of the day. The 
 sword belt underwent great changes, from being the mere strap for sus- 
 pension of the weapon, it gradually increased in richness till it became 
 the most brilliant and costly portion of the knight's equipment : the 
 precious metals, enamels, and even jewels were used in its construction, 
 and the skill of the goldsmith was taxed to furnish the most elaborate 
 designs. The old method of arrangement is still fomid in the early 
 monuments ; but when the tight surcoat came into fashion, the military 
 belt also became tight, and it was bound round the hips in a manner 
 which seems to be most inconvenient. This enriched beltM'as sometimes 
 prolonged; and the portion hanging from beyond the clasp or buckle was 
 called the pendant ; these pendants were much embellished and termi- 
 nated in a highly (>nriched ornament. The dagger does not commonly 
 appear on knightly moniuncnts till the second (quarter of the century,
 
 13 
 
 but after that it is very fref[iicnt ; it was suspended by a chain fronr the 
 belt on the right side, and varied much in size and form. 
 
 By the XV century, defences of plate amiour had been generally 
 adopted, and the diflerenccs of suits of armour are principally diJlbrcncca 
 of form ; and as numerous suits and examples of real armour and weapons 
 of this age are to be found in many collections, there is no longer the 
 same uncertainty as to their forms or construction. Chain or banded 
 mail still however continued to be used ; but the plates for the dcfeucca 
 of the bi'east and back had become the outer defences of the body, and 
 the jupon or short surcoat is rarely found be^'ond the first quarter of 
 the century. The breast and back plates terminated at the waist, and 
 the defences below the waist were formed of overlapping hoops of iron 
 or steel called tassets, and the skirt of mail terminating in an escalopcd 
 edge appears beneath them. The gorget of mail was partly covered by 
 the plate gorget, and ultimately superseded by it ; the visored bascinet 
 gives place to the salads with the mentoniere or chin plate ; this was a 
 round topped skull cap, with a chin piece attached to it, which was 
 fixed, whilst the upper part followed the movement of the head. The 
 shoulder pieces of many articulated strips of metal are superseded by a 
 pauldron of broad plates, and these plates overlapping the defaut de la 
 cuirasse at the joint of the arm, displace the gussets of steel or roundell 
 plates in front of each arm. As the century advances the tassets, 
 instead of terminating in a wide hoop, have tile pieces or tuiles attached 
 to them by hinges or straps, at first very small, but gradually increasing 
 in length, and the number of the tasset hoops decreasing, till at the 
 end of the century we find them of great size covering the thighs like 
 large flaps, whilst the number of the tasset hoops is reduced from seven 
 to three. The skirt of chain mail still shews below them, and frequently 
 terminates in a point in the centre. The soUerets of natiu-al form and 
 ingenious construction give way to the long toed cracowe, terminating 
 in a long sharp point, which was absurd in appearance and most incon- 
 venient in use ; and the spurs, at first of mtjclerate dimensions, were 
 laid aside for others of preposterous length of neck, and remarkable for 
 the great size of the rowel. As the century advances the excess of 
 fashion in armour became ludicrous from the gioat size of the pauldrons, 
 and fantastic and inconvenient forms of the elbow plates. The armour 
 of the thighs and legs is of plate throughout the century, without any- 
 thing remarkable beyond some large and inconvenient plates attached to 
 the genoitilleres. The sword and dagger continued much as before, but 
 with the jupon the large and costly belt on the hips was disjieused with, 
 and the sword was supported by a strap passing across the body in a 
 slanting direction, not remarkable for its decoration. With this I may 
 close the brief and imperfect account I have endeavoured to give of the 
 armour worn at the time when the heroes of our monuments flourished ; 
 but I think it will be foimd suflicient to guide us in the consideration of 
 the matters which may come under our review.
 
 CHURCHYArvD'S POEM. 
 
 We have some early notices of these Monuments. The first is a 
 description of Abergavenny, the Castle, Church, and IMonxuuents in a poem 
 instituted " The Worthiness of Wales," written near the end of the XVI 
 century by Thomas Chiirchyard. He lived in the time of Queen 
 Elizabeth, and seems to have made a tour in AVales in 15SG ; that is 
 between the time of the death of Dr. David Lewis in 1585, and the pub- 
 lication of his poem in 1587. This tour he has described in a poem 
 which he has called " The Worthiness of Wales," and dedicated it to Her 
 Most Excellent Majesty Queen Elizabeth ; and as this poem is but little 
 known, and gives much information respecting the church and the 
 monuments, I have thought it desirable to give at length so much of it 
 as relates to the subject. He seems to have greatly admired the monu- 
 ments, and has given a long description of them as accurately as his 
 verses would permit, and it is clear that they were then in perfect 
 condition, and the church must have presented a very different appear- 
 ance when the windows displayed in stained glass the escutcheons of the 
 families of the different Lords, and coats of arms were emblazoned on 
 the different moniiments. The poem was first published in 1587, and 
 subsequently reprinted in 1 77G. It is from the latter edition that I have 
 transcribed the poem together with the marginal notes, Avhich in some 
 places amplify, supplement, and explain the text. 
 
 In the " Diary of the Marchings of the Royal Army" in 1G45, kept by 
 Richard Symonds, who accompanied King Charles I in his visit to Mon- 
 mouthshire in that year, we have in some respects a more detailed 
 accoiuit of the monuments and stained glass windows, with their armorial 
 bearings, in the Piiory Church at Al )ergavcnny. Symonds seems to liave 
 kept an exact account of eveiything monumental, genealogical, and 
 armoi'ial in every church and mansion in the various parts of the country 
 through which he ])assed. These dcsciiptions will be noticed when we 
 come to the respective monuments. Richard Symond's diary was printed 
 by the Camden Society in 1859. 
 
 These Monuments are also mentioned by Gough in liis edition of 
 Camden, in the additions A\'hich lie made to the original text, from a 
 inanu.scrlpt in his jio.sscssion, dated July 8, 1G4G. This nmst have been 
 prior to the destruction, as they were all standing xuidisturl)cd at that 
 date ; and since that time we have no record of them, and it neither 
 seems to be known at what in-ecise iimc they were destroyed, nor when 
 they were repaired.
 
 CHURCHY AllirS POEM. 
 
 Exlrad of so much of the Poem of Thonvts C^crchynrdadlal -The xmihincss of miles," 
 ■' j.,1, /., /J... .ir,„„r>,«„/o i-,i //;.,■ Prinni Church at Abcrnavennn. 
 
 as rehxics to the Monimeiits in the Priory Church at Abergavenny. 
 
 In this Clmrch 
 a most famous 
 worko in manor of 
 a goncalogio of 
 Kings, calleJ tho 
 rooto of Jesse, 
 which worko is 
 defaced and pulled 
 downc in pccces. 
 
 No. II. 
 
 On tho right hand 
 ina faire chappell. 
 
 Both tho window 
 and other parts 
 ahout him shew 
 that ho was a 
 stranger. 
 
 Blcweisthelabell 
 whereon aro nync 
 flower-de-luces. 
 
 Ko. III. 
 On the left hand 
 a Lord of Ahor- 
 ganv. 
 
 Xo. IV. 
 Sir 'William 
 Thomas, Knight. 
 alias Ilarbert. 
 
 Sir- David Gam 
 father to this 
 Knight's wife. 
 
 Tlu)\i^'h castle liei-e through trackt of tymc is wonie 
 A church rcuiaiucs that worthio is of noto : 
 Where ^\•orthie uieu tliat hath l)euo nobly bomu 
 Were layil in touibe, which els h:v\ been forgot, 
 And bufieil ch>ano in grave past inynd of man 
 As thousaus are, forgot since worhl began : 
 Whose race was great, and who for want of tome 
 In dust doth dwell, unknowue till day of dome. 
 
 In church there lyes a noble knight, 
 
 Enclosde in wall right well : 
 
 Cross legged as it seems to sight 
 
 (Or as record doth tell). 
 
 He was of high and princely blood, 
 
 His armes doth show the same, 
 
 For thereby may be understood, 
 
 He was a man of fame. 
 
 His shield of blackc he bears on brcst, 
 
 A white crow(! plaine thereon : 
 
 A r.agged sleeve in top and crest. 
 
 All wrought in goodly stone, 
 
 And under feete a grc}diound lyes. 
 
 Three golden lyons gay, 
 
 Nine flower-dednces there likewise 
 
 His arms doth full display. 
 
 A Lord that once enjoyde that seate 
 
 Lyes there in sumptuous sort ; 
 
 They say as loe his race was great, 
 
 So auncient men report. 
 
 His force was much, for he by strength 
 
 With Bull did struggle so. 
 
 He liroke cleauc off his homes at length. 
 
 And therewith let him go. 
 
 This Lord a bull hath under feete. 
 
 And as it may be thought 
 
 A dragon umler head doth lye. 
 
 In stone full finely wrought. 
 
 The worke and tombe so auncient is 
 
 (And of the earliest guyse). 
 
 My first bare view, full well may mis, 
 
 To shcwc how well he lyes. 
 
 A tombe indeede of charge and showe 
 
 Amid the chapp(dl stands : 
 
 Where William Tiioraas, knight ye knowe 
 
 Lyes long, with stretched hands ; 
 
 A Harbert was ho cal'd of right, 
 
 Who from great kindred cam. 
 
 And married to a worthy wight 
 
 Daughter to Davie Gam, 
 
 (A knight likewise of right and name).
 
 16 
 
 This Kniglit was 
 slain at EJgiii- 
 court field. 
 
 His tombe in of 
 hard and good 
 alataster. 
 
 Sir William 
 Thomaswas father 
 to the next that 
 foUowcs, called 
 Sir Kichard Har- 
 bert, of Col- 
 broke, Knight. 
 
 Xo. V. 
 
 In the chronicle 
 this is rehearsed. 
 
 On the left hand 
 of the chappell 
 they lye. 
 
 She was daughter 
 to Thomas ap 
 Griffith, father 
 to Sii- Eice ap 
 Thomas, knight. 
 
 This HarLert and his feore 
 
 Lj-i's there like one that purehast f;ime 
 
 As phiinely doth appeere. 
 
 His tomhe is rich and rare to viewe 
 
 Well wrought of great device 
 
 Though it he old, tombcs made hut new 
 
 Are of no greater price. 
 
 His armes three ramj ing Ij'ons white 
 
 Behind his liead in shield : 
 
 A crowned lyon black is heis 
 
 Set out in most rich field : 
 
 Behind her head is likewise there, 
 
 Loo what our elders did 
 
 To make those famous every where 
 
 Whose vertues are not hid. 
 
 In tomhe as trim as that before 
 
 Sir Kichard Harbert lyes : 
 
 He was at Banljiie field of yore 
 
 And through the battaile twise 
 
 He passed with pollax in his Lauds, 
 
 A manly act indeede 
 
 To preace among so many bauds, 
 
 As you of him may rede. 
 
 This valiant knight at Colbroke dwelt, 
 
 Nere Aborgaynie towne, 
 
 Who when his fatall dcstnie felt 
 
 And fortune flong him downe. 
 
 Among his enemies lost his head, 
 
 A rufull tale to tell : 
 
 Yet buryed was as I have .said 
 
 In sumptuous tombe full well, 
 
 His wife, Dame JMargret, by his side 
 
 Lyes there likewise for troth ; 
 
 There armes as yet may be tryed 
 
 (In honor of them both), 
 
 Stands at their heads three lyons white, 
 
 He gives as well he might 
 
 Three ravens blacke in shield she gives, 
 
 As daughter to a knight ; 
 
 A sheafe of arrowes \uuler head 
 
 He hath as due to him ; 
 
 Thus there these woithie couple lye 
 
 In tombe full fine and trim. 
 
 No. VI. 
 On the right hand 
 of the chappell. 
 
 Now in another passing tombe 
 
 Of beautie and of charge, 
 
 There lyes a sfpiire (that Ilarbert hight) 
 
 With cost set out at large. 
 
 Two daughters and si.\e sonncs also 
 
 Are there set nobly forth ; 
 
 With other woikes that makes the showc 
 
 And monument more wf.rtli. 
 
 IlimseU'e liis wife, and children toe 
 
 Lyes shrouded in that .scale.
 
 17 
 
 The old Earlo of 
 Pomtroko, ono of 
 tho Priry Coun- 
 seU. 
 
 So. I ? 
 In tho window 
 now he lj-C3. 
 
 Now somcwliat for that siiuire I do, 
 
 Because his race was great. 
 
 He was tho father of that cailo, 
 
 That ilyed Lord Steward hito, 
 
 A man of might, of spreet most rare, 
 
 And lioriio to happie fate. 
 
 His father hij-ed so ricldy licre. 
 
 So h)iig agoe witliall 
 
 Shewes to the lookers on full clecre, 
 
 (When tins to myud they call) 
 
 This sijuirc was of an auucient race. 
 
 And borne of nolile blood, 
 
 Sith that he dyed in such a cace, 
 
 And left such wordly good, 
 
 To make a tombc so rich and brave : 
 
 Nay further now to saj', 
 
 The three Avhite lyons that he gave 
 
 In armes doth rare liewray : 
 
 And makes them blush and hold downe browe 
 
 That babble out of square, 
 
 Kest there and to my matter now ; 
 
 Upon this tombc there arc 
 
 Three 13-ons and three white bore's heads, 
 
 The first three arc his owne. 
 
 The white bores heads his wife she gave 
 
 As well in AA'alcs is knowne, 
 
 A lyon at his fcetc doth lye. 
 
 At head a dragon greene : 
 
 !More things who lists to search with eye. 
 
 On tombe may well be scene. 
 
 Amid the church Lord Hastings lay 
 
 Lord Aborgaynie then : 
 
 And since his death rcmov'd away, 
 
 By fine device of man : 
 
 And layd within a windowe light. 
 
 Full flat on stonie wall, 
 
 Where now he doth in open sight 
 
 Kemaino to people all. 
 
 The window is well made and wrought, 
 
 A costly worke to see : 
 
 In which Ids noble armes arc thougl,t 
 
 Of purpose there to bee. 
 
 A ragged sleeve and si.\e red birds 
 
 Is pourtrayd in the glasse ; 
 
 His wife hath there her left arme bare. 
 
 It seems her sleeve it was 
 
 That hangs about his neckc full fine. 
 
 Eight ore a purple weede, 
 
 A robe of that same colour too 
 
 The ladie wears indeede. 
 
 Under his legges a lyon red ; 
 
 His aimes are rare and ritcli 
 
 A harrold that could shewe them welle 
 
 Can blase not many sitch. 
 
 Sixc lyom wliite, the ground %re Hew, 
 
 Ihree fiower-de-luces gold
 
 18 
 
 Some say this 
 great Lord was 
 called Bruce and 
 not Hastings, but 
 most doe hold 
 opinion he was 
 called Hastings. 
 
 No. VIIT. 
 A Ladio of Abor- 
 gaynie. 
 
 No. vn. 
 
 A ladio of some 
 noble house whote 
 name I know not. 
 
 Ko. X. 
 
 Doctor Lewis 
 lately judge of 
 he Amoraltio. 
 
 The ground of them is red of hew 
 
 And goodly to behold. 
 
 But note a greater matter now 
 
 Upon his tombe in stone 
 
 Were fourteene lords that knees did bow 
 
 Unto this lord alone. 
 
 Of this rare worke a porch is made 
 
 The barrons there remaine, 
 
 In good old stone and auncient trade 
 
 To shew all ages plaine, 
 
 What homage vras to Hastings due, 
 
 What honor he did win, 
 
 AVhat amies he gave, and so to blaze 
 
 What Lord had Hastings bin. 
 
 Eight ore against this windowc loe 
 
 In stone a ladie lyes ; 
 
 And in her hands a hart I troe, 
 
 She holds before your eyes, 
 
 And on her breast a great fayre shield, 
 
 In which she beares no more 
 
 But three great flower-de-lnccs large ; 
 
 And even loe, right ore 
 
 Her head another ladie lyes 
 
 With squirrell on her hand, 
 
 And at her feete in stone likewise 
 
 A couching hound doth stand : 
 
 They say her sciuirrell lept a^^■ay, 
 
 And toward it she run ; 
 
 And as from lall she sought to stay 
 
 The little jjretic bun, 
 
 Eight do^^■ne from top of w.dl she fell 
 
 And tookc her death thereby, 
 
 This what I heard, I doc you tell 
 
 And what is scene with eye. 
 
 A friend of myne who lately dyed 
 
 That Doctor Lewis hight. 
 
 Within that church his tombe I spyed 
 
 V'ell wrought and fayre to sight. 
 
 Lord ((|Uoth 1) we all must dye. 
 
 No lawe, nor learning's lore, 
 
 No judgement deepo nor knowledge hye, 
 
 No riches lessc or more ; 
 
 No othce, place, nor calling great, 
 
 No worldly ptimpc at all, 
 
 Can keepe us from the mortall threat. 
 
 Of death wlicn (iod doth call. 
 
 Sith none of these good gifts on earth, 
 
 Have power to rtiake us live, 
 
 And no good fortune from our birtli. 
 
 No hower of breath can give. 
 
 Thiiike not on life and pleasure hccrc, 
 
 They passe lil<(! beame.s of sunnc : 
 
 ]''or nought from hence we cariie clcere, 
 
 When man his race hath luiiiu". 
 
 NoTB. — The numbers refer to the different Jlonumonts in the order in which they are described.
 
 THE MONUxMEXTS. 
 
 "We now come to the consideration of the Monumental Eihgies tliem- 
 selves, whicli have beenadmirably illustrated by abeautiful series of photo- 
 graphs, numbered from I to XII I. Many years ago they were most 
 accurately and exquisitely drawn by my esteemed friend Edward Bloro, 
 Esq., the distinguished architect, who paid much attention to them ; and 
 it is greatly to be regretted that his most beautiful drawings of Monii- 
 mentil Effigies have never been published, for they form the most 
 complete and valuable series ever made. As these effigies are so inti- 
 mately connected with the church in which they are, and of which they 
 form part, it will be desirable to say a few words concerning it and what 
 appears to be its history. The Piiory, as has been stated, was foimded 
 in the beginning of the XIII centurj-, and there was of course a church 
 or chapel belonging to it, which must have been in the Norman style of 
 ai'chitecture of the period. It was probably not very large and pei-haps of 
 rude execution. It was a common practice to take down, altei-, enlarge, 
 and rebuild these churches as the conventual community advanced in 
 importance and wealth, and these imjirovements were often the result of 
 special benefoctions. It is veiy likely therefore that something of the 
 kind took place here, for from the style of the tower, transepts, choir, 
 aisles, and chancel, this present structure appears to have been erected 
 in the early part of the XIV century. There are now no ajipreciable re- 
 mains of the oriofiual Norman architecture, though there seem to have 
 been formerly traces cf an archway in one transept. This chin-ch was 
 cruciform, with a centi'al tower, eastwards of which was the monks' 
 choir, with its twenty-four stalls, twelve on each side, of carved oak of 
 the XIV century, which remain to the present time : and Richard 
 Symonds in his diary states that at the time of his visit in IG45, there was 
 " A very faire roode loft and old organs," but does not say in what j^art of 
 the church. The transepts were extended eastward by the erection of 
 aisles opening into the choir, and these aisles seem to have been used 
 as burial places first of the Lords of Abergavenny, and subsequently of 
 other gi'eat notable personages of the district ; the south aisle having 
 acquired the name of the Herljert Chapel, and the north that of the 
 Lewis Aisle or Chapel. The choir and chancel are of great length, and 
 it is possible there may have been a Lady Chapel beyond the High Altar, 
 seeing that the church was dedicated to the blessed Virgin Mary.
 
 20 
 
 Repairs and alterations liave doubtless been made in tbe church at 
 various periods. The pavement of the Herbert Chapel seems at one 
 time to have been considerably raised, so as to buiy the bases of all the 
 monuments, and to build up the lower portion of a doorway which led. 
 from the chapel into the Priory. In 1828 very extensive alterations and 
 repairs were made. The south transept was parted off from the Herbert 
 Chapel and converted into a vestry, the floor was raised many feet, by 
 which operation one monument against the south wall, and several slabs 
 are said to lie buried beneath it. A school was also for some time held 
 in the vestry, and the boys having access to the Herbert Chapel, have 
 sadly contributed to the mjury and disfigurment of the monuments by 
 cutting their initials all over the figTires, and perhaps breaking ofi" and 
 carrying away many portions. But there must have been at some earlier 
 period a great systematic and more violent destruction of the tombs, of 
 which we have no record. The tombs were certainly perfect at the time 
 of Chm-chyard's visit at the end of the XVI century, (and indeed as late 
 as the visit of Eichard Symonds in 1645,) though he certainly mentions 
 that one had been removed, and not only the tombs remained but also the 
 stained glass in the windows, displaying sundry coats of arms ; some of 
 these however appear to have been lost or desti'oyed in IS 28 during the 
 alterations in the Church. The most probable time of this destruction 
 was the period of the Bebellion, when sad destruction of j\Ionuments 
 and other objects in chm'ches was committed by the soldiers of the Com- 
 monwealth throughout the land. At some subsequent period siich of 
 the fragments as could be found seem to have been collected and fitted 
 together so as to make up the tombs again, and it is difficult to deter- 
 mine whether the various parts so refitted I'eally belonged to them, or 
 formed a portion of the reredos of some desti'oyed altar, as many of the 
 figures of saints and holy persons have sjDecial allusion to the Virgia 
 Mary. 
 
 These Monuments are chiefly in the form of altar tombs, or tombs in 
 recesses, having recumbent efligies of the deceased lying \ipon them, 
 which were intended for accurate portraits. ]\Ionuments of this kind 
 were occasionally erected by pai-tics during their lifetime, blanks being 
 left in the inscription to be filled up with the date when the person 
 should die, which in some cases was never done, and the blanks still re- 
 main. These recumbent figures ai-e thought to have had their origin 
 fi'om the practice in early times of making effigies in wax or other 
 material of great personages to represent them as nearly as possil)le aa 
 when living ; they were used and carried at their funerals, and may have 
 been placed for some time on their graves, and subsequently replaced by 
 figures in stone.
 
 21 
 
 No. I. 
 
 GEORGE DE CANTELUPE ? 
 
 The most ancient of those Knightly Effigies is ;i wooden figure curved 
 in oak, and though it has been but little cared for, is perhaps the most 
 interesting of the series; for thesi^ wooden Effigies are not cnimnon, and 
 I have httie doubt that I shall be able to identify the individual. The 
 Effigy represents a very young man of slender and graceful frame and 
 handsome countenance. He is habited in his full suit of armour, reclin- 
 ing on his back, as laid out in death, with his hands raised in prayer on his 
 breast, and his feet resting on a lion. The calm and easy pose of the 
 figure, and the mild and i)lacid expression of the features, which together 
 with all the accessories of the various parts of the armour are most 
 carefully executed, shew that it was the work of no mean hand, and that 
 there were statuary aiiists of much talent and skill in those days ; and 
 this figure gives reason for believing the Effigy to be a fliithful portrait 
 of the individual it represents, for the eyes are wide open, thus shewing 
 that it was not intended to repi'eseut a corpse, but a living man, though 
 in that posture ; and it is by no means improbable that it wan the Effigy 
 used at his funeral, and subsequently placed on his grave or tomb. The 
 features are small, regular, and youthful, and there is no appearance of 
 any trace of moustache or beard. The aperture in tlie hood of mail 
 shewing the face is five inches and thi-ee-fourths long and four and a half 
 wide, and the figure is five feet nine inches from the crown of the head 
 to the bottom of the heel. The head rests on two cushions, the upper 
 being placed diagonally on the lower ; the left leg is crossed over the 
 right ; the feet are perfect, and rest on a boldly carved lion, whose head 
 however has lono- been wanting. 
 
 The figure is habited in a hauberk and hood of chain mail, which 
 though the rings are not marked on the wood is most perfectly indicated 
 by the very carefid manner in wdiich the folds or rather the set of the 
 amiour is shewn at the neck and sleeves ; and \\ itli such care has this 
 been attended to, that the swell of the chain mail over the ears is most 
 accurately given ; the rings of the mail would appear marked on the 
 coloiu" with which the figiu'c was covered. Kouud the coif at the tem- 
 ples is a naiTow" baud or fillet, which was probably gilt. The sleeves 
 ternunate at the wrists, and are edged with a fillet. The hands from 
 the slenderness of the fingers seem to be uncovered, but if they represent 
 gloves of mail the fingers of them are divided. Over the hauberk is the 
 sleveless surcoat, which is open partly up the flont fur the convenience 
 of riding, and the folds of it are arranged in a veiy gi-acefid and artistic 
 manner. This surcoat is confined at the waist by a narrow stra])-like 
 belt fastened by a small buckle, and the end passing through a sliding 
 loop falls down in front. Below this the sword belt crosses the figiu'e in
 
 QO 
 
 a slantmg- dii-ection ; it is about three inches broad, and is festened with 
 a buckle in front, — the end of it after passing through the buckle, being 
 turned back behind the hilt of the sword, hangs down on the left side, 
 and shews the metal ornaments at the end of it. The sword and hilt 
 have unfortunately been broken away, and all that remains is the cross 
 guard and the loojj attached to the belt, through wh^ch the scabbard 
 passed as its support, and which is shewn by a small row of studs, which 
 clearly points out how this loop formed part of the belt. The legs are 
 clothed with chausses of chain maU, and above the knees the thighs 
 appear to be covered with chaussons which terminate at the knee with 
 genouUleres of plate. The spurs are the single short prick sj^i^i^' of the 
 time. These are mentioned by Gough as having been gilt, and originally 
 the whole Effigy was finely coated with gesso, and painted in its pi'oper 
 colours, for small traces of colour still remain in parts, especially at the 
 under folds of the siucoat, which shew that it was of a bright red colour ; 
 and there is no doubt that the fillet round the head and wrists, the spurs 
 and ornamental parts of the sword and belt were gilt. These particular 
 details of the armour, compared with other effigies of known date, as 
 well as from Avhat is also certainly known of the armour at particular 
 periods, indicate the date of this figure as of the latter part of the XIII 
 century, and would fix it about 1275. 
 
 Chiu'chyard does not mention any wooden figure, and the earliest 
 notice of it seems to be by Rd. Symonds in 1045. He describes the 
 windowthus: — " North window, old : theborderj are : gules, three fleurs- 
 de-lis or ; a maunch gules ; and Valance ; his coate, and azure, six lions 
 i-ampant argent." He then adds a sketch of the shield with the three 
 fleu)'s-de-lis, which are the Cantelupc coat. " At the bottome of the 
 wdndow lies a statue in wood ; two cushions under his head, crosse-legd, 
 a loose coate and bolt. Tliey call him the builder of the Church." This 
 seems to identify it with the figure mentioned by Churchyard in his day, 
 as " Layd within a window, right, full flat on stonie wall." It was 
 seen in 1G4G by the author of the manuscript as given in Gough's Cam- 
 den, which Coxe quotes, and calls it " the recumbent efligies of a man 
 coar.sely carved in wood." The author of the M.S. in question thus 
 describes it : — " In a windoAv in an isle of the North end of the (^uire 
 of the said Chui-ch is there a very ould Monument ol' Irish Oake, lying 
 cross legged, the left leg uppermost, crossing the right with gilt S2)urs on. 
 On his armour Ins surcoat, but there is neither any expression of Anns 
 or Crest. Who's it is I could not learn, most prol)al)ly one of the ancient 
 Lords of Abergavenny, for in the window over him, in the border of the 
 window is Valence, for they have been anciently Lords of Abergavenny 
 likewise." It is to lie regretted that no traces of armorial beai-ings now 
 exist in any of the windows, but it is not at all necessary that the arms 
 in the window shonlrl have belonged to this effigy, which was never 
 fixed tlicri', but was in nH probniiility only placid uiinlnft on (lie window
 
 23 
 
 sill out of the way, uo one kuowing auythiug about it, aud Laving no 
 settled resting place of its own, lias remained there ever since ; for its 
 date is earlier than the present Chui-ch, which is of the XIV century ; 
 and seems to be of the Hastings period ; and it is most probable that to 
 its having been so put aloft out of hann's way, we are indebted for its 
 preservation ; for notwithstanding the lapse of six centuries, there is little 
 appearance of wanton injury. It must be remarked that the figure and 
 the bed on which it lies are of one block of wood, and that the body of 
 the figure is roughly hollowed out. The head seems to have cracked 
 ■whcTi newly made, and a piece of wood has been skilfully inserted to fill 
 up the flaw, which was concealed under the painting. 
 
 HaAnng now ascertained the date of the effigy, the next step will be to en- 
 deavour to identify it with the person whom it was intended to represent. 
 When we look to the series of the Lords of Abergavenny, and to the 
 period to which this figure belongs, we find one with whoni it accords in 
 every particulai', viz : — George de Cantelupe, Lord of Abergavenny, who 
 died in the year of 1273, at the age of twenty. The youthful figiu'e 
 and countenance of the Effigy are so exactly suited to that age, and the 
 time of his death coincides so precisely with the date indicated by the 
 characteristics of the armour, as I think to leave no reasonable doubt 
 that this figure is the representation and portrait of George de Cantelupe, 
 "who was the son of William de Cantelupe and Eva, the daughter of 
 Wilham de Braose, and heii'ess in her own right of the Lordship of Aber- 
 gavenny. The arms of Cantelupe were gules, three fleurs-de-lis or — and 
 would have been emblazoned on the surcoat in proper colours, and the 
 actual red colour of the surcoat as shewn by the remains of the paint 
 ■which are still to be seen on the under part where it is protected from In- 
 jury, is just the colour of the surcoat which a Cantelupe would have 
 'worn ^vith the three large flem-s-de-lis emblazoned on his breast, and is a 
 strong confirmation of my supposition. His father died in 1256, ;aid his 
 mother Eva, of whom we shall speak hereafter, in 1257, when he suc- 
 ceeded as heu* to the Lordship, being then a minor of only four years of 
 age. He was born at Abergavenny on Good Friday, 1253, 36th of 
 Heniy III, and died on St. J\lark's L)ay, 25th April, 1273, at the age of 
 twenty. Although so young he had man-ied the daughter of Edrnond 
 Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, but having only one son who died during his life- 
 tune, he left no issue, and was the last of the line of Cantelupe who held 
 the Lordship of Abergavenny. 
 
 Before proceeding to the other Monuments it may not be out of place 
 to make some observations on these wooden effigies, several of which are 
 to he found in different Churches in various parts of the country. The 
 subject is somewhat new, and not altogether devoid of interest, and will 
 serve to illustrate the figure of which we have been treating. The most 
 celebrated of the wooden figiu-es is perhaps that in Gloucester Cathedi'al,
 
 24 
 
 generally considered to be the Mouiiment of Robert Curthose, Dnke of 
 Normandy, son of AVilllam the Conqueror. At Bareham in Norfolk, in 
 the North aisle of the Church, under an arch in the wall, there is one 
 which the arms bespeak to be the Eifigy of Sir Hugh Bardolph, who died 
 1203 ; it is described as a cumbent statue of wood, cut out of the same 
 piece of wood on which it Ues, but some of the smaller or more sahent 
 parts were made separately and fastened to the rest witli wooden pins. 
 The whole is hollow and open at the bottom. It was originally painted all 
 over but is now almost bare. This is exactly the description of our effigy 
 here. At Clifton Eeynes in Buckinghamshire, are four wooden effigies, 
 two knights and two ladies. One knight and one lady bemg separate 
 figures lie beside each other within a canopied recess of the decorated 
 period in the chancel aisle. The figures, however, fi-om the armour 
 and costume of the lady, are of the XIII century, that of the 
 knio-ht is assigned to Simon de Borard, who died 1267. The other two 
 lie side by side on a stone altar tomb Avhich stands beneath the arch- 
 way between the chapel and the aisle. The costume and armour of 
 the knight, and the costume of the lady indicate a later date, and the 
 history of the parish attributes it to Balph de Ileynes who died aboiit 
 1310, with which date the armour and shields of arms agree. "The 
 effigies are hollow and unconnected with the slabs on which they rest ; 
 they have been deeply scooped out and the cavity left in a rough and a 
 jagged state. There is no certainty that any of them occupy their 
 original position." That is just the case with ours. These Monuments 
 have been minutely described in the Archocological Journal for 1854, 
 Vol. XL 
 
 These wooden Effigies seem to have prevailed during the XIII century. 
 Robert Curthose would appear to be an exception, but it is very possible 
 that they may have l^een used carher, although we have now not any 
 of a very early date. It has however been thought questionable whether 
 that of Robert Curthose is really his Effigy, althougli it has for 
 centuries passed under liis name. He died 1134, and certainly the 
 armour of the figure does not at all correspond in detail with that re- 
 presented on the seals of the Royal and other great personages who 
 were his contemporaries, but it does exactly with the known armour of 
 the XIII century. It has however undergone serious misadventures, for 
 Sandford who saw it describes it, and has cfiven an onsfravino; of it as it 
 was in IGGo, and he tells us that " the rebellious .soldiers of the Parlia- 
 mentary Army tore it to pieces, but the parcels tliereof ready to be 
 bui-nt were by the care of Sir Humphrey Tracy bought of the soldiers 
 and pi'ivately laid uj) till tlie restoration of His Majesty Cha.rlcs II, when 
 the old piecesput together again, were repaired and beautified with gold and 
 colours at the charge of that wortliy person." This seems to have been 
 done in anticipation of a Restoration, which is rather a curious circum- 
 stance, and it is in \;iln to sjiecuhite on what sort of a renovation of
 
 25 
 
 the figure from the fragments took phice, beautified with gold and colours 
 as it has since been, without a close examination of the wooden structure 
 of the figure, which now looks like a knight of the XIII century. 
 Rowelled spurs of the XIV century have been added. The coronet 
 seems also part of the later restoration. This history may account for 
 the figure as it now is, not corresponding with the period of his denth. 
 A cpiestion arises as to the use of these wooden figures, whether they 
 were originally intended as sepulchral Monuments like the stone cofKn 
 lids and efligies of cross-legged knights of the same period. It was the 
 custom in early times, on the death of great personages, to prepare an 
 effigy of the deceased to be arrayed Uke him and carried in the procession 
 at the state funeral, and the impression on my mind at one time was that 
 they were originally jjrepared for such state ceremony ; but the care and 
 pains taken in the sculpture, painting, gilding, and decoi'ation of them 
 is hardly compatible with the haste required in the preparation of a 
 funeral, and I am therefore disposed to think that they were designed 
 for more permanent Monumental Effigies or portraits, being very care- 
 fully and skilfully prepared so as to exclude all idea of haste ; and when 
 we consider the very beautiful Monument in Westminster Abbey of 
 WiUiam de Valence, who died 1296, which consists of a recumbent 
 figure of carved oak, cased in plates of gilt-copper richly and beautifiiUy 
 ornamented with enamel, there can I think be little doubt that they 
 were intended for ornamental Monuments, and that when froni age and 
 cleaning they had become shabby, and the colours and gilding worn away, 
 they were often removed from their origmal sites, and either destroyed 
 or stowed away in some less important position, and there not being on 
 them any name, or inscription, or other means of identification, it was 
 forgotten whom they represented, and no flu-ther interest was taken in 
 them ; and that may have been the case with this effigy, when at some 
 time prior to the visit of Chiu-chyard it had been moved from the middle 
 of the church, and all certain knowledge of the person it was intended 
 to represent having passed away, it was put aside on the sill of a window, 
 with which jirobably it had no connexion, and was no longer heeded. 
 The wood was once coated with fine plaster on wliich links of the mail 
 were moulded, and the whole richly painted in the proper colours and 
 gilt. These effigies therefore must have been brilliant and beautiful 
 objects when newly made, and the enamelled monument of de Valence 
 in Westminister Abbey was therefore only a more permanent and costly 
 exemplification of the style then prevailing. 
 
 It is e\'ident that these wooden effigies were not chance pieces of 
 work, for there is one pecuHarity which pervades them all wherever 
 they are found, and seems to shew that they were systematically con- 
 structed. They are always made as portraits with the eyes open. 
 They are always hollow, the block of wood which forms the body 
 being roughly scooped out. There must have been some reason for-
 
 26 
 
 tliis. The object may have been to render the figitfes as light as possi- 
 ble when they were to be moved about, but it was most 23i"obably done 
 to prevent the effigy from splitting or cracking, which might have been 
 the case from the more speedy drying of the wood at the surface, when 
 there was a large block of less diy wood within, which would prevent 
 any internal shrinkage, and this the excavation of the block would tend 
 to prevent ; to have tb-essed a simple lay figure in armour would cer- 
 tainly have made a very heavy and inconvenient object, and its weight 
 would have made it very unwieldly, and liable to shift from its position 
 when transported and moved about, whereas that inconvenience would 
 hardly have been felt when the figure was only arrayed in light robes, 
 and might itself have been of Hgiiter construction. Therefore for an 
 effig}' clad in chain mail, a firm carved wooden figure properly coloured, 
 would have been found in every respect more convenient than one di'essed 
 in loose chain armom*, and might afterwards have served for a Monu- 
 mental effigy for a great length of time. 
 
 As a matter cognate to, and illustrative of the subject in hand, it may 
 not be amiss to say something respecting ancient state funerals, and the 
 effigies of the deceased persons used on those occasions, inasmuch as the 
 effigies on the altar tombs seem to have been suggested by those em- 
 ployed at the funerals, and to have been made after them as permanent 
 portraits of the deceased. For obvious reasons the actual bodies of 
 deceased persons could not generally have been exposed to public view. 
 In many cases it wovdd have been impossible, though I beheve in cases 
 where circumstances required, or would admit of it, the actual body was 
 occasionally laid out arrayed in the habits which he wore, and exposed to 
 view, perhaps to affiard evidence of his death, or to gratify the feelings 
 of fond relations and friends, and possibly to satisfy a morbid curiosity of 
 jjersons in general ; and so the corpse lay in state, guarded and watched 
 by various attendants for a short time before it was coffined, and this was 
 most probably the origin of " lying in state." The usual practice, how- 
 ever, with persons of very high distinction, was very soon after 
 death to disembowel and embalm the body, (the heart being bui'ied in 
 an urn in one j)liice, and the bowels sometimes in another), sometimes 
 salting in, wrapping it closely in cere cloth, or casing it in lead, and en- 
 closing it in a chest or coffin. An effigy of the deceased was speedily 
 prepared, firmed of wood, the face and hands being ca re rully carved and 
 coated with fine plasterer wax, so modelled and tinted as to be an exact 
 portrait of the defunct person. This seems to have been arrayed in the 
 richest dress or robes of state which the person was entitled to wear, in 
 ordur to shew his state and degree. 
 
 These Effigies being pi'epared in portraiture of the deceased ])roduced 
 the Siiiiic efi'ect as if tlie actual corpse were carried in the funeral pro- 
 cession, and was jilaced under the herse in the churcli. As they were 
 canled on the coflin which contained the body, that may be considered
 
 as represented I)y the altar tomb, and the sculptured figure lying thereon 
 as holding the place of the funeral efligy. The wooden figuie (jf Iloherfc 
 Cui'those in Gloucester Cathedral still lies on an ornamented oaken chest 
 which may he well considered to represent the coffin. In the beautiful 
 enamelled Monument of William de Valence, the effigy also reposes on a 
 wooden chest, enriched with enamelled metal plates. 
 
 A short account of a few great funerals taken from Gough's sepulchral 
 Monuments, will serve to shew how these effigies were used, and liow 
 imjiortant a part they played in the state ceremonial. At tlio funeral of 
 Richard, Uuke of York, father of Edward the IV, who died 14G0, it is 
 stilted " he was taken and placed in the choir of the church within a 
 hei-se garnished very richly." " He was upon the herse in portrcdture, 
 the face uncovered, the hands joined, clothed in a mantle of pers (tliat 
 is of a grey colour), furred with ermine, on his head a cap of maintenance 
 of purple velvet, furred with ermine." 
 
 At the interment of Edward IV, " The body after it was cered was 
 laid in the Chapel of St. Stephen, at Westminster for eight days, and was 
 conveyed into the Abbey of Westminster, having on it a large black 
 cloth of gold, with a cross of silver. In the herse in Westminster 
 Abbey, above the body and cloth of gold was the figure of the King, 
 royally habited. A Pioyal Crown on his head, a Sceptre in one hand, and 
 in the other a Ball of silver gilt with a cross patde." 
 
 Of Heniy VII — " Dying at Richmond, his body was brought into the 
 Great Chamber, and rested three days, and the same in the Hall and 
 Chapel. On Wednesday, the 9th May, 1509, it was conveyed in a chair, 
 (car ?), covered with black cloth of gold, garnished with escocheons of 
 fine gold, with his effigies over it apparrelled in rich robes, the crown on 
 his head, and the Sceptre and gilt Ball in his hands." 
 
 " Queen Elizabeth of Yoi-k, consort of Henry VII, died at the Tower 
 in 1503 ; after being embalmed the coi-pse was conveyed into a chau-, 
 whose sides and cofier were covered vnth. white velvet, with a cross of 
 white cloth of gold, well fringed, and an image or person dressed like 
 the Queen in her very robes of estate, her very rich Crown upon her 
 head, her hair about her shoulders, her Sceptre in her right hand, and 
 her fingers well garnished with rings of gold and precious stones." 
 
 Henry VIII. — " On the 14th day of February, 1547, about ten in the 
 morning, the King's body set forward towards Windsor, in a state 
 chaniot, Ms Effigies lying upon the coffin, with the true Imperial Crown 
 on the head, and under it a nightcap of black satin, set full of precious 
 stones, and apparelled in robes of crimson velvet, furred with miniver, 
 powdered with ermine. The Collar of the Garter with the Order of St. 
 George about the neck, a crimson satin doublet, embroidered with gold, 
 two bracelets about the wrists set with stones and pearl, a fair arming 
 sword by his side, the Sceptre in his right hand, the Ball in his left, a 
 pair of scarlet hose and crimson velvet shoes, gloves on the hands, and
 
 28 
 
 several diamond rings on the fingers, di-awn by eiglit great horses, 
 trapped with black, adorned with escocheons, and a shafteroon on theu- 
 heads, on each of which rode a child of honour carrying a, bannerol of 
 the King's arms. Thus with exceeding great train of four miles in 
 leng-th the body was conveyeth to Syon, where it was received at the 
 church door by the Bishops of London, Bristol, and Gloucester, who per- 
 formed Dirge that night, and next morning the corpse being brought into 
 the church, was placed in a herse like that at Whitehall, but the effigies 
 was conveyed into the vestry." 
 
 Edwai'd VI. — " A chariot covered with cloth of gold, tissued with 
 silver, can-ied the King's corpse with the King's pictiire from Wliitehall 
 to Westminster, where it was placed under a stately herse." 
 
 Queen Mary. — " Her body being embalmed, was put into a coffin 
 enclosed in lead, covered with purple velvet, which at the tune of the 
 funeral was put in a chariot, having thereupon the representation of the 
 Queen, and so they solemnly proceeded to the Abbey of Westminster'." 
 
 Queen Elizabeth. — At her funeral there was " a lively picture of Her 
 [Majesty's whole body in her Parliament robes, with a cro'oai on her 
 head, and a sceptre in her hand, lying on the corpse enshrined in lead 
 and balmed, borne in a chariot, drawn by four horses trapt in black vel- 
 vet ;'' and so it was conveyed with great solemnity to Westminster 
 Abbey, 28 April, 1G02. A detailed drawing of this procession is given 
 in the Vetusta Monumenta, Vol. IH, and there the effigy is shewn lying 
 on the coffin exactly as here described, and just so is the figure of the 
 Queen represented on her monument in Henry VII's Chapel, lying be- 
 neath a stately canopy, which may well be considered as the monumental 
 representative of the funeral herse used at the ceremonj^ 
 
 James I died at Theobald's, 27 March, 1G25 — and "the body was for 
 greater state conveyed by torchlight to Denmark House," the Queen's 
 new Palace in the Strand, which Ijcfore her death in 1618, she had greatly 
 enlarged and beautified, and which thoiigh before called Somerset House, 
 the King had ordered to be called Denmark House. Here it rested from 
 the 13th April to the 7th May, when it was "carried to Westminster 
 Abbey to a stately herse, and interred in the Chapel of Henry VII." 
 An engraving of this herse is given in Sandford, and there is seen an 
 effigy of the King, arrayed in his royal robes with the crown on his head, 
 and a sceptre aird orb in his hands. James I. has no monument erected 
 to his memory, and he was, I believe, the last of the Sovereigns of 
 England, whose effigy was prepared and carried at the funeral ; and at 
 tliis time the practise of erecting stately architectural canopies over 
 altar tombs bearing monumental effigies seems to have ceased. The funeral 
 of Charles the II. was private. At the funeral of Queen Mary II, the 
 cipffiii was placed under a rich herse or mausoleum in Westminster 
 Abl>ey, but only the crown, sceptre, and orb were placed on the coffin. 
 
 The wooden forms of many of these effigies still exist in Westminster
 
 29 
 
 Abbey, and by the kind permission of the Uean, I was enabled to inspect 
 them. Dait in his History of Westminster Aljbey, 1723, describes them 
 as being then in a broken and tattered condition, and " stripp'd of their 
 robes which he supi)oses to have been done by the late rebels.'' They 
 were then kept in wainscoat presses as they are now, and are very un- 
 sightly objects, for the state robes and clothes having been removed after 
 the funerals, they are now like great jointed dolls much broken ; the 
 faces, however, of all have been most carefully carved, and reminded me 
 by their work and style very much of our wooden effigy in the Priory 
 Church. Their eyes are all open, and they are evidently intended as 
 portraits of living persons, and I at once recognised in one the features 
 of Henry VII. The faces and hands of these figures, unless they wore 
 gloves, were coated with wax jirepared and tinted to represent life, like 
 the figures of that distinguished artist Madame Tussaud, who has simply 
 perpetuated an ai-t which has been practised in this country for centuries. 
 A similar exhibition I remember to have seen ii^ Fleet-street, upwards 
 of sixty years ago, in which was a celebrated figure of the old witch 
 Mother Shipton, which by an ingenious arrangement of a board in the 
 floor in front of the figure, on any one approaching her, threw out her 
 foot, and greeted them with a kick on the shin. 
 
 In early times state funerals were under the direction of the heralds and 
 the clergy, who were great adepts in the arts, and especially in matters of 
 ceremonial and decoration. These effigies when they were arrayed in royal 
 robes and jewels, were of course carefully dismantled after the fimeral cere- 
 monies, but when the dresses and decorations were only " furnished " by 
 those who " undertook" to "perform funerals,'' they were frequently laid 
 aside and preserved in the church, and this was particularly the case in 
 Westminster Abbey, where many grand state funerals took place, and 
 there was space for their preservation. They were put in glass cases, 
 and this is the origin of the wax works which were formerly exhibited in 
 the Abbey. Several of these figTu-es still remain in these cases, though 
 dirty, faded, and tattered from age. The figure of Queen Elizabeth is 
 described by Dart as being stripped in 1 723. It was, however, re-dressed 
 for a special occasion in the last century, and I have no doubt that the 
 wooden block is the identical one which was prepared and carried at her 
 funeral obsequies. 
 
 With regard to the exposition of the actual body after death, I will 
 relate what I myself witnessed in the year 1828, at Rome, where ancient 
 customs are or were very long continued. I was there in the early part 
 of that year, and the Carnival was to commence on the 9th of February. 
 A Cardinal who had died the previous day was to be buried at the church 
 of Ara Coeli, which is close to the Capitol, on the morning of that same 
 day. This ceremony had to be got over early, as the solemnity of the 
 fiiueral, and the noisy gaiety of the Car-nival were incompatible in such 
 close proximity at the same moment. When I reached the church I
 
 30 
 
 found the fimei-al obsequies were over, the Pope and Cardinals who as- 
 sisted at the ceremony ha^ving been there early in the morning. The church 
 was hung all over with draperies and festoons of black and gold. The 
 seats of their Eminences covered with black cloth, and the thi'one of his 
 HoUness of purple and gold, were placed in front of the altai'. In the 
 middle of the church, on a highly elevated and inclined bed, which was 
 covered -with cloth of gold, bordered with black velvet, embroidered in 
 gold, siu-rounded with one hundred large tapers lay the corpse of the de- 
 ceased Cardinal, arrayed in his episcopal vestments of purple and silver, 
 having his mitra preciosa on his head, which rested on a cushion of purple 
 velvet, and his pastoral staff lying by his side. His countenance was 
 very placid and composed, and being a handsome man of middle age, his 
 profile was remarkably fine, and if my memory rightly serves me, the 
 cheeks were sHghtly tinged with rouge to take off the ghastly paleness of 
 death. The figure presented precisely the appearance of those early 
 episcoj)al monuments which we see in oiu- cathedrals ; and the impression 
 on my mind has ever smce been that these monuments were intended to 
 represent the Bishop as he lay in state after his death. It was the cus- 
 tom to leave the funeral efligies on or near the grave for some time after 
 the funei-al ceremony, and I am disposed to consider the altar tomb as 
 representmg the coffin, the sculptured recumbent statue, the effigy lying 
 upon it, and the beautiftil canopies erected over so many fine altar tombs 
 as rej^resenting the gorgeous herses or catafalques which were set up in 
 the churches, and under which the coffins with the effigies upon them 
 were placed diu'ing the perfonnance of the funeral ceremonies.
 
 31 
 
 No. 11. 
 Sill WILLIAM HASTINGS ? 
 
 We now come to the consideration of the Monuments marked II and 
 III in the photographic illustrations, and as they are contemporary with 
 each other they may lie groujied together. They are sculptured in freestone, 
 the material of which such permanent Momunental Effigies were usually 
 made during the XIII and XIV centuries. Such stone is not found in 
 any pai-t of this district, and as it is hardly probable that in so remote a 
 part of the coiuitry, and in so small a place as Abergavenny then was, 
 there were artists capable of executing such a piece of sculpture, the 
 artists must have come from a distance, and it is very probable that the 
 entire moniunents, or at least the effigies were broiight from some other 
 region to be erected here. It is difficidt to say fi-om what exact place 
 the stone came, but it was probably from Uundry, as it is quite certain 
 fi"om documents in my possession that large quantities of freestone from 
 the Dimdry quarries were brouglit to Newport in 1447 and 1448 for the 
 repair or rebuilding part of the castle. An examination of the armour 
 wiU shew us that theu* age is about the middle of the XIV century, and 
 fii-st of No. II. 
 
 This occupies the lower part of the recess of a window which has been 
 filled in with stone panelling of decorated architecture of later date 
 tlian that of the chapel. It consists of a recumbent figure of a knight 
 in armour, i-eclining rather on his left side, his face, which is seen through 
 the opening in tlie armour, being turned towards the spectator, and as 
 the eyes are wide open, it is evident that it is not intended to represent 
 a man as laid out in death ; it must therefore be considered to be a like- 
 ness of the person to be commemorated, and seems to represent a man of 
 at least thirty years of age. The features have a fat swollen appearance 
 and the expression is not pleasing. There is no appearance of moustache 
 on the upper lip. By the head of the figure, joined to the wall, stands 
 a small semi-octagonal pedestal, ten inches wide and six inches deep, the 
 use of which is not obvious, unless it served as a support for the helm as 
 sketched by Symonds, and for that purpose it would ajipear to have been 
 very small if the helm was of full size. The figure is a very good piece 
 of sculpture, and the attitude graceful and easy, bilt it has unfortunately 
 been very seriously mutilated and then roughly repaired, some fragments 
 being fitted up together, and vacancies filled up with common mortar or 
 plaster, so as to preserve the general character of an anned figure, which 
 work is concealed as far as apjiearance goes l)y the frequent coats of 
 coloured wash it has received, and which I should like to remove were I 
 not apprehensive of disclosing more mischief than we could afterwards 
 conceal, without revealing anything that would be of sei'vice. 
 
 The figm'e is six feet six inches in length from the point of the bascinet
 
 32 
 
 to tlie bottom of tlie heel. The head rests on a single cushion, the ends 
 of which are brought to a point and terminated m a tassel. It is armed 
 with a bascinet and camaQ of banded mail, which descends to and Hes on 
 the shoulders like a tippet, and exhibits well the opening for the face 
 and the mode of attaching the chain mail to the bascinet by means of 
 staples which pass through the 23late, and are kept in their position by a 
 lace which runs through their loops. The body was clad in a haubei'k 
 of banded mail, which is visible at the arm holes, over which is a sleeve- 
 less jupon, or close fitting surcoat of quilted or emliroidered material as 
 appears at the folds at the sides, which reached halfway down the thighs 
 and had a border of fur round the bottom. The shoulders are guarded 
 with epaidieres of two plates Avhich appear from beneath the camail, and 
 the arms are encased in plate armour, having coudidres with roundels at 
 the elbow joints. The body and right arm have sustained much injuiy, 
 and have been clumsily repaired ; and there was probably a shield on the 
 breast as mentioned by Church^^ard. The left hand is gone, the right 
 side of the body and the right arm with it, and this is just where the 
 shield should have been, the left hand holding the strap. All this has 
 been broken away, and the arm and body made good with common mortar 
 or plaster well coated with the usual colouring. The right hand grasps 
 the hilt of his dagger, and wears a gauntlet of plate with separate 
 fingers, the overlapjsing plates of which may be felt. The chaussous 
 are of studded work, which may have represented leather, or pour- 
 pointerie attached by studs to metal sjilints underneath ; to these are at- 
 tached the genouilli(ires or knee pieces of plate, \\'hich terminate m a fringe 
 of some material. The legs are cased in plate, and the feet which are too 
 much broken to determine exactly their covering, rest on an animal with 
 long legs and tail, said by Churchyard and Symonds to be a greyhound, 
 then probably more perfect and less clogged with colour than now. The 
 kniglitly belt encircled the body at the hips, and was of ricli work, being 
 ornamented with quatrcfbils in square panels, and four-leaved tiowers 
 set cornerwise, alternating Avith each other, which would have been of 
 Goldsmith's work. The swoixl lies by the left side, and had a cross hilt, 
 and the scabbard like that of the dagger is ornamented with a band of 
 small quatrefoils by which it was attached to the belt, but the con- 
 nexion is now broken away. The cfTigy fills up the whole of the recess, 
 and the right leg is crossed over the left in an easy postui-e to suit the 
 arrangement of the figure, \vithout havmg any other significance. Of 
 this Monument Symonds says " In the south window of the same 
 chappel a statue cross-legged. This stands up right at his head ;" and 
 here he gives a rough and hasty sketch of a helmet, such as was worn at 
 jousts and III battle in tlie XIV century; tlio form is somewhat cylin- 
 drical, and there is a narrow horizontal opening oi)j)Osite the eyes ; the 
 upper part is encircled by a coronet, above which rises something of a 
 conical form, the to]) of which seems to be broken fill", but whctlier it is
 
 33 
 
 intended to represent the top of the hehii, or the base of a crest issuing 
 from the coronet, it is not possible to say. Churchyai'd speaks of a 
 " sleeve in top and crest ;" but Low a sleeve, which is only a piece of 
 drapery could form a crest it is not easy to see. The coronet is like the 
 crowns represented iin the helms of sovereigns or royal princes, but there 
 is no royal prince or personage whom it could represent, as an examina- 
 tion of Sandford's Geoealogical History will shew ; it is therefore most 
 probably a coronet out of which the crest issued, and as the Hastings 
 crest is a bull's head erased, gorged with a ducal coronet, it is very likely 
 that was represented here, the cone beuig part of the bull's neck, and 
 this will be in favour of its being a Hastings monument. Symonds 
 fiulher says, " A greyhound at his feet. Dyed because he killud his 
 greyhound say they." 
 
 The identitication of this monument with the person who lies buried 
 here has always been a matter of much difliculty, and it is somewliat 
 presumptuous in me to attempt to solve that which has pirzzled many 
 others much more learned in such matters who have tiuiied their atten- 
 tion to the subject. The moiiument itself supplies us with no informa- 
 tion except the date of the armour, which refers it to the middle of the 
 XIV century. Had that been all, there would have been httle difficulty, 
 though without any actual proof, in attributing it to the gallant 
 knight Sir William Hastings, illegitimate son of John, Lord Hastings, 
 and so half brother of Lawrence Hastings, Lord of Abergavenny, who 
 being much attached to his half-brother, granted him several manors, 
 and among them Castle Arnold, whei-e he is supjjosed to have resided. 
 Sir William died munarried 1349. Churchyard has, however, given us an 
 accoimt of some armoiial bearings which in his day were apparent on the 
 monument, but his knowledge of heraldry was perhaps not great, and his 
 mode of describing them so puzzling and unintelligible, possibly owing 
 to the necessities of his rhymes, that he has thrown additional perplexity 
 into the matter ; he savs 
 
 " His shield of black he bears on brest, 
 A white crowe plain thereon, 
 A ragged sleeve in top and crest 
 All wrought in goodly stone." 
 
 With the kind aid of a valued friend who is very learned in hei'aldic 
 niatters, I shall hope to be able to offer some sohition of the enigma. 
 No such coat as sa, a crow argent is kno^\^l to have been borne by any 
 family at that time, and it may even be doubted if there was such a 
 coat. He may have been mistaken in his bird, which might have been 
 a falcon or a dove, but which he has called a crow ; but that will not 
 help us to identify the bearer. The " ragged sleeve '' or maimch cer- 
 tainly points to Hastings as if he were one of that family, the arms of 
 Hastings being or, a maunch gules. But what is the meaning of " in
 
 34 
 
 top and crest T It is well known tliat in those days tlie crest was never 
 borne but on the top of the heaume or helm, and in that case it would 
 have been on the heaume underneath the head of the effigy ; but there 
 is no heaume as the head rests on a cushion, so that the word crest does 
 not apply to the monument, at least as it now is, and was probably only 
 introduced to supply a rhyme for " brest." It is therefore not clear 
 that the maunch or i-agged sleeve was a crest on a helm at all ; and it 
 might very probably have been in the arms, on a chief on a canton, and 
 so have been at the upper part or " in top " of the shield, and is favour- 
 able to the supposition that the effigy represents a Hastings, though he 
 may have been illegitimate. The bend sinister or baton was not then the 
 general mark of bastardy. The arms of such illegitimate sons as had 
 any were variously composed of portions of their father's arms ; some- 
 times the arms of their father were borne on a bend or a fess. I there- 
 fore consider it veiy possible that when Sir William Hastings was made 
 a knight, he may have obtained a coat of arms of his own, and that the 
 arms of his father may have been placed on a canton or on a chief, either 
 of which would have been at the upper part of the shield, and so would 
 explain Churchyard's expression " in top," and indicate his coimexion 
 with the family of Hastmgs, and in that case the coat might well be sa, 
 a crow, or any other bird argent, with the Hastings coat in chief or can- 
 ton ; and as he died witht)ut issue, his coat, as it began with him would 
 also cease with him, and would therefore never appear as the coat of any 
 family. In the marginal note to tlie poem it is stated that the window 
 and other parts about him sliew th;it he was a stranger, but we are not 
 told what these indications were. He certainly was not a Lord of Aber- 
 gavenny, and so might have been considered a stranger in that chapel, 
 and the different coat of arms on his sliield miglit have caused him to have 
 been so considered at a later period, when all about the early monuments 
 seems to have been forgotten. Cluu'chyai'd, however, makes a further 
 perpk'xing statement ; he says " Three gold lyons gay, and nine flower- 
 de-luces his arms doth full display ;" and in the margin he says " Blewe 
 is the label whereon are nyne flow(>r-de-luces." He however omits to 
 state where these arms are, whctlier on the tomb oi- in the window. 
 This coat ])oints to royalty, the three lyons being the royal arms of 
 England, and the label of three ]>oints, charged with nin(» flcnrs-de-lia 
 hcing the royal maik of Cadency, indicating the arms of the Earls of 
 Lancaster. It cannot possibly be any member or connexion of the 
 royal house, for Sandford gives a most minute account of every member 
 of the royal line, male and li'malc : it is tlicrefoi-e not jiossible that the 
 knight represented shoidd be one of royal extraction or connexion. It 
 is vi'iy |)ossiblo lliat the aims of the i*]arls of LniicasttT may have ap- 
 
 t>eared in the window glass without h;iving any i-elation to the monument 
 )elow. Tlie E;ir]s of Lancaster had manors, castles, and estates in that 
 part of the country, and it is by no means imj))-obabl(> that he may
 
 35 
 
 have been a knight in the service of the Earl of Lancaster, and thuo his 
 ai'ms might have been introduced into the window aw those of the patron 
 and chief under whom tbe knight served who was buried below. Having 
 tiiken all these various circumstances into consideration, I feel strongly 
 disposed to assign this monument to Sir William Hastings, as the most 
 probable personage to whom it can be attributed, although it is not pos- 
 sible to pronounce with any certainty.
 
 36 
 
 No. III. 
 
 LAWRENCE DE HASTINGS. 
 
 This Monument is of freestone, and is certainly of that of an miportant 
 personage. It is an altar tomb, on the upper slab of which lies the re- 
 cumbent effigy of a knight in armour of the XIV century. It stands 
 between the main piers, under the archway which divides the aisle, or 
 Herbert Chapel as it is called, from the original choir of the monastery, 
 and close against the back of the panelling of the stalls. This tomb has 
 been very ill-used, having been intruded upon by the monument of 
 William Baker, erected in the XVII century, which has been built 
 close up against the head of it, and to make room for which the slab 
 bearing the effigy has been forced forward, and so made to overhang the 
 tomb by eight inches, and thus the slab Avith the figure is made to look 
 as if it did not beltjug to it. Both tomb and iigure are so close against the 
 oak panelling that it is not possible to see the other side of either. In 
 the alterations which this jaart of the church has undergone by the 
 raising of the pavement, the base of the monument has been buried. 
 The altar tomb is one of very good decorated character of tlie middle of 
 the XIV centuiy. The sides consist of a series of five niches with jiroject- 
 ing ogee canopies, crocheted and cusped ; each niche is flanked by small 
 square tin-rets set cornerwise, having small ornamented buttresses of two 
 sets ofl". In each of these niches stood a small statue ; only one however now 
 remains, which is the figure of a knight in armour of the period. It has 
 unfortunately lost its head, Ijut tlic camail of banded mail on the 
 shoulders shews that it probably had a bascmet. The sculpture of this 
 figiu-e is so minute that every part of the armour may be distinctly re- 
 cognised. A long flowing beard hangs over the camail of banded mail, 
 and the shield of trianmilar heater form is slunof behind the left sJKndder, 
 supported by tlie guige ; he wears a close jupon buttoned down the front, 
 a belt round the waist supporting a pouch on the left side, behind which 
 is a short daggei', whiLst on the I'ight is a longer one or couteau, and the 
 long sword reaching to the ground hangs on the left side. The legs are 
 cased in plate, with a ridge down the shin. The eiligy is that of a tall 
 powerful man with a full and rather fat face, of any age from thirty up- 
 wards, and is extended at full length, his liead resting on his heaume, 
 and his feet on a bull, the hands being raised over the breast in the atti- 
 tufle of pi-ayer. Tlie head is covered with a basciuet pointed at the top, 
 with camail of banded mail attached, and the face is seen through the 
 aperture. The eyes are wide open, and on the upper lip are moustaches 
 Avhich extend over the cheek ]iart of the hood; here also is seen the 
 mode of attaching the camail to the bascinet, which is also enriched with 
 an ornamental border. The figui-e is represented as wearing the hauberk 
 of banded mail, the jiqion or pom point with its scaloped edge, over which
 
 37 
 
 there is a surcoat closely buttoned down the front, but open at the side, 
 up to the hips, where it seems to be bordered with fine fur or fringe. 
 The arms are cased in plate, the epaulidres being of two overlapping 
 plates, with rouudels in frorit, as also at the elbow joints of the coudici'es, 
 where the banded mail of the hauberk is seen. The hands are covered 
 with gauntlets of plate. The chaussons are of studded work, and are 
 riveted on to plain genuuillieres, these project much. The legs are 
 cased in plate, and the greaves have a ridge down the front of the shin ; 
 the sollerets are of plate, and the spurs have large rowels, and are fastened 
 with buckles. Across the chest is tlie guigo to which tlae shield is at- 
 tached ; it is small, of triangular heater shape, and hangs behind the left 
 ami. It appears to be plain, but from its close proximity to the pan- 
 nelling by the side of the tomb, its surface cannot be seen. Around 
 the hips is the rich knightly belt or baldrick, ornamented with precisely 
 the same quatrefoils and four leaved flowers as appear on the last monu- 
 ment No. II, and to it is attaclied by the usual chain the dagger, which is 
 of very considerable length and lies along the right side. The figure is 
 also crossed by a slanting belt to support the sword, which Ues on the 
 left side beneath the shield. The total length of the dagger is twenty- 
 eight inches, the blade being twenty-one ; the total length of the sword 
 is four feet two inches, the blade being three feet six inches. The orna- 
 ments of the belt and the sword and dagger are precisely the same in 
 both monuments, producing the impression that both were made at the 
 same time and by the same artist. The length of the figure from the 
 point of the bascinet to the bottom of the heel is six feet six inches ; 
 and the entu-e length of the monument from the point of the head to 
 the extremity of the slab is eight feet f )ur inches. This figure has not es- 
 caped mutilation, for part of the right arm '.; s been broken away and 
 replaced with plaster, and the crest has also been broken from the 
 heaume, so that we have here nothing heral'Uc lo guide us. 
 
 Now the question arises as to whom tlii monument is intended to 
 commemorate. Both Archdeacon Coxe and L.^r. Daniel Rowland in his 
 beautiful work " The History of the Neville Family," consider it the mon- 
 ument of Edward Neville, the first Lord of Abergavenny of that name, who 
 married Elizabeth, daughter and sole heiress of Ptichard Beauchamp Lord 
 of Abergavenny, and died 1476. This can however hardly be the case, 
 as the armour of the figiu-e indicates the date as the middle of the pre- 
 vious century, and this will be apparent at once to any one who compares 
 it with the monuments of the XV century, which we shall soon have to 
 consider. They have probably arrived at this erroneous conclusion by 
 being misled by the bull at the feet of the figure, the bull being the 
 crest of the Neville family, but the knight would hardly have had liis 
 crest at his feet. A bull's head was also the crest of the Hastings 
 family, and it is quite possible that the bull may have had some henddic 
 signification, or have had relation to some circumstance connected with
 
 38 
 
 the family. Churchyard gives in his poem a traditional stoiy of the 
 knight having had an encounter with a bull ; such a thing is very possible ; 
 he must however have been a bold as well as a powerful man to have 
 taken the bull by the horns in the way described, and I must leave the 
 readers to decide what amount of faith they will place in the story so re- 
 lated. Of this monument Symonds says, — " Another monument between 
 the pillars of this chappel and the quu-e, not much unlike the former 
 statue. Upon an altar tombe. A sword and long dagger. Not crosse- 
 legged. On his left arme a large shield, under his head a wyverne. A 
 Neville say they, " and accompanies it by a rough sketch of a helmet 
 surmounted by the crest, a wivern. Churchyard also says, — " under his 
 head a dragon ;" therefore there can be no ei-ror, but the crest is certainly 
 perplexing, as it is neither the family crest of the Hastings or Neville, 
 but cf the latest of the Herberts. Crests were, however, arbiti'ary in 
 many instances, and may have been assumed by an individual for some 
 special reason, and, perhaps, not continued by his successor. The armour 
 clearly points to the middle of the XIV century, and when we look at 
 the succession of the Barons of Abergaveimy, we shall find one, the date of 
 whose death precisely coincides with the date of the armour, viz : — Law- 
 rence de Hastings, who died 1348, aged thirty ; and we are moreover ex- 
 pressly informed that he was buried in the Priory Church at Abergavenny. 
 His father died earlier in the century in 1325, and the armour will not 
 suit that date, nor do we know if he was buried there. His son and 
 successor died 1373, and was buried first at Hereford, and afterwards re- 
 moved to the Grey Friars in London ; and his son, again, died 1389, and 
 was also buried in the Cliurch of the Grey Friars, so that there is no 
 other Lord that it can be, and if it is not the monument of Lawrence, 
 where is his monument ? The richness of armoiu- and dress at once 
 indicate that he was a personage of high consideration, so that I think 
 we may fiirly come to the conclusion that tliis is really the nioniunent 
 of Lawrence de Hastmgs, Lord of Abergavenny, who died 13th August, 
 1348, and was buried in the Priory Church. 
 
 This is the last of the Lords of Abergavenny who are recorded to have 
 been buried here, for on the failure of the male line of Hastings, the 
 Barony passed to other noble families, whose chief seats, residences, and 
 estates were not at Abergavenny. 
 
 There is, however, one momunent or effigy mentioned by Churchyard 
 which is not easily identified, unless it be the wooden figure, of which he 
 makes no special mention. He descrilies it as having been removed fi-om 
 the middle of the churc;h, and placed in a window, but he does not say at 
 what time. His words are " Amid the clnn-cli Lord Hastings lay," and 
 that " since liis deatli his tonibo liad been i-cmoveil away by fine device 
 of man," and " layd within a windowe right full flat on .stonie wall." Cer- 
 tainly the wooden efligy has rejioscd on the window sill for a very long 
 tiiiii', and if li<; does not speak o( that figure it is difficult to luiderstand
 
 39 
 
 to what he alludes ; he does not aay more of it than that " under his 
 legges was a lion red." The feet of the wooden figure rest on a lion ; 
 he also speaks of the window above as filled with stained glass, and hav- 
 ing portraits or figures of a lady and gentleman with armorial hearings. 
 As the figiu'e was moveable, it need not have had any connexion with 
 the window, on the sill of which it was placed, or the coats of arms in 
 it ; and the wooden figure may very well have been placed there in 
 safety out of the way ; for being older than the church, it had no fixed 
 resting place of its own, and was a loose and moveable object. The arms 
 mentioned by Churcliyard as being in the window, viz : — " the ragged 
 sleeve'' are those of Hastings, or, a maunch gules ; " and the sixe red 
 birds " are clearly intended for those of de Valence, and these coats indi- 
 cate John de Hastings the first of the name, who lived from 1272 to 
 1313, and probably built or contributed to the building of the New 
 Church, and Isabella his wife, who was daughter of William de Valence, 
 Earl of Pembroke, and sister and co-heiress of Aymer de Valence. The 
 " Sixe white lyons the gi'ound fayre blew,'' is the coat of Leybourne, and 
 the " three flower-de-luces on gi'ound of red hew " is that of Cantelupe. 
 All these coats together pointed to John de Hastings, the second of that 
 name, who man-ied Juliana, daughter and heiress of Thomas de Leybourne. 
 He seems to have assumed the de Valence arms, viz : — barry arg. and az. 
 with an orle of six martlets gules, and borne them in the form of a 
 bordure to his own, by placing his own Hastings coat, or, a maunch gu. 
 on an escutcheon in the middle of the de Valence shield, the orle of 
 birds serving fir a bordure to it ; thus incorporating the devices of two 
 distinct shields into one coat, viz, or, a maunch gules, within a border of 
 Valence; and as Mr. Boutel observes, is "a remarkable instance of the 
 use of a bordure for the purpose of marshalling arms as a jirelude to 
 quartering." The coat of Valence was, however, peculiarly adapted for 
 such an arrangement. The amis mentioned by Churchyard are thus all 
 explained and identified, and being in a window, seem rather to have 
 more reference to the structure of a church than to a monument, and to 
 point to the builder of that portion of the church, the individuals 
 who bore the arms, and the architecture of the church being contem- 
 poraneous. 
 
 But there is still a missing monument, which must have been de- 
 stroyed before the time of Churchyard ; for he most distinctly states that 
 upon the " tombe in stone " of this or some Lord Hastings " Were four- 
 teene lords that knees did bow ujito this lord alone ;" and then concludes 
 
 " Of this rare worke a porch is made 
 i hu b.arons there remaine, 
 In good old stone and auncient trade 
 To shew all ages plaine." 
 
 And in the margin is added, " Some say this great Lord was called Bruce
 
 40 
 
 and not Hastings, but most doe liold opinion he was called Hastings.'' 
 The ^YOoden effigy will not explaui this, and would have formed no part 
 of this tomb. This account can only refer to the early destruction of 
 some altar tomb, the stone work of which had been used in the con- 
 struction of a porch. Whatever may have been the date it is impossible 
 to say, for all traces of both monument and porch have now vanished ; 
 but it may very probably have been the tomb of either the first or 
 second John, Lord Hastings.
 
 41 
 
 No. IV. 
 
 SIPv WILLIAM AP THOMAS. 
 
 "We now arrive at another series of knightly monuments of a different 
 age, a different family, and a different material. The Barony of Aber- 
 gavenny had by marriage passed into other families who were settled in 
 distant parts of the country, where they held important ancestral Lord- 
 ships, and as they ceased to live here, they ceased also to be buried in 
 the Priory Church ; and perhaps having been personally but little known 
 in the locality, their ancestors seem to have been less thought of or cared 
 for, and have in consequence been pushed into the cold shade of oblivion, 
 from which I have endeavoured to rescue them, by another family, who 
 were neither Lords of Abergavenny, nor indeed connected with the 
 Lordship. These have taken their place in the church which the Lords 
 of the XIII and XIV centuries had verj- probably built and ndorned, 
 and liave given their name to this part of the structure, which is now 
 called the Herbert Chapel ; and it is very possible that the monumental 
 tomb of Lord Hastings, which Churchyard informs us " laye amid the 
 church," and had since his death been " I'emoved away by fine device of 
 man," was removed to make room for one of these monuments which now 
 stiind amid the church. These monuments were erected to different 
 members of the Herbert family ; they are of the XV century, and in- 
 stead of being of freestone are constructed of alabaster. 
 
 This material is perhaps the most beautiful and best adapted for tJiis 
 kind of monumental sculpture of any that has been used. Its rich 
 creamy and mellow tone of colour and waxy lustre contrast favourably 
 with the hiU'd, sharp, and cold whiteness of statuary marble, and its soft- 
 ness enables it to be easily worked with great delicacy and precision of 
 detail. There is a paper upon this subject in Vol. X of the Archaeo- 
 logical Journal, which gives much inforuTation. The most ancient 
 remaining example of a finely sculptured effigy in alabaster is the cross- 
 legged figure, said to represent Sir John Hanbury, in Hanbury Church, 
 Staffordshire, of the date 1240. The material, however, does not seem 
 to have been much employed till a century later ; but from the middle 
 of the XIV century it gradually came into general use, and so continued 
 till the beginning of the XVII century. Its substance is a compact 
 gypsum or sulphate of lime, and when burned forms plaster of Paris, 
 and this quality may probably have caused the destruction in ruthless 
 times of many examples, certainly of the fragments of statues. Its 
 geological position is in the new red sandstone, and its chief deposit is 
 in Derbyshire, where at Chella-ston and Burton-upon-Trent it has been 
 largely worked for sculpture and monumental purposes for many cen- 
 turies. The "marbeUers" in alabaster of Burton were early celebrated, 
 and the execution or production of these sculptured monuments was
 
 42 
 
 a gi'eat trade of the district. Most of the finest medieval monumental 
 sculptiu'es were of this material, and so greatly was it prized, that Gough 
 infoiTQs us that an alabaster monument for John, Duke of Bretagne, who 
 died in 1399, was exported from this country to be erected in the 
 Cathedral at Nantes, and that it was executed by three English workmen 
 Thomas Colyn, Thomas Holewell, and Thomas Popplehouse, to whom 
 Eong Henry IV granted a passport to carry it over in February, 1408. 
 The monument, however, no longer exists. We may therefore infer that 
 the making of these monuments was a peculiar English trade, and that 
 the monuments were all executed at the quarries, and sent thence to their 
 destination to be ei'ected. 
 
 Here we have still to encoimter the difficulty of identification, although 
 the })ersonages to whom they were raised were not only well known by 
 their historical fame, but were also connected with families long resident 
 in the country, so that in early times there never was any doubt respect- 
 ing them ; nevertheless Gough in his additions to the text of Camden, 
 from a manuscript of the date of 1046, docs throw some doubt on the 
 fii-st we are about to consider, especially on the lady, and this difficulty 
 is strengthenec. by the information given us by Symonds, who visited 
 the chvu'ch the. previous year. The first which comes chronologically 
 vmder our notice is that of Sir William ap Thomas, illustrated by Nos. 
 TV. and V. in the photogi'aphs. This is in the form of an altar tomb 
 having on it two recumbent effigies of a knight and a lady, representing as 
 has ever been believed, Srr William ap Thomas and his last wife, Gwladys, 
 daughter of Sir David Gam. The tomb has been fearfully mutilated, if 
 not altogether destroyed, for T have very great doubts whether anytliing 
 which we now see, except the two recumbent figures formed any part of 
 the original monument ; and the best descri])tion of it would be a large 
 block of rough masonry cased on the two sides and one end with t^labs 
 of sculptured alabaster, having on it two recumbent effigies of the 
 same material. Through the raising of the pavement the lower part is 
 altogether biuied, and it also wants the upper slab with bevelled margin 
 on which was usually the inscription ; but as no mscription is mentioned 
 in Churchyard, Symonds, or Gough, jjcrhaps there never was one. The 
 two sides are ciised with sculptvu-ed slabs, there biiiug fi)ur on each side, 
 eacli two feet wide, but so put together that the south side of the tomb 
 is eiglit feet seven inches long, and the north side nine feet long, one 
 •slab projecting six inches beyond tlie length of the tomb. Each of these 
 slabs is divided into four shallow niches or compartments, on which stand 
 on biaekct pedestals small figui'cs of saints ai^d ollic^r holy persons, each 
 Ijnkliiig ;t long U2)right scroll, on which however tliere are no legends. 
 Tlu? backs of these niches, if not the figures themselves have been painted 
 red, and most of the figures lriv(! at the; back of tlio liead a nimbus of 
 blue, red, and gold. Over tlui heads ol" each of these figures is a small 
 canopy, which projects but. slightly, and has not a high triangular
 
 43 
 
 crocketed head as is usual, but one nearly lidrizoiUal, composed of small 
 triangular pediinents between small angular buttress-shaped pendants 
 which form the angles, whereby the unfinished top of these canopies is 
 exposed to view. The foot of the monument which is four feet wide, is 
 similarly cased with three slabs in as many compartments, the centre 
 being two feet wide, and rejiresenting the Annunciation of the Virgin 
 under a wider canopy, of similai- form to tliose at tlie sides ; the two side 
 compartments have each an Angel censing the Vu-gin. The three slabs 
 were, however, rather too wide fir the four foot space, and a portion of 
 one h;us been cut off, ap})arently shewing that tliese sculptured slabs were 
 not intended for the position they now occujiy. The end of the tomb at 
 the head is made up with a portion of a gravestone, an incised slab with a 
 cross of very late date. These alabaster slabs, which are much broken 
 and injured, reach from the pavement without moulding or ornament of 
 any kind to the top of the tomb, on which are placed the slabs of the 
 figures imbedded in common mortar. At the head of each eIHgy is 
 placed a mutilated canopy ; that over the lady being smaller than that 
 over the knight. They are painted internally with red, blue, and yellow, 
 exactly corresponding in style and design with those which form the 
 sides of the tomb. The entire length of the tomb is nine feet, whilst 
 the slabs with the figures are only six feet seven. None of these slabs 
 have the least appearance of having been intended for a tomb, but on the 
 contrary have much more the character of having been decorations for an 
 altar. The church was as we know dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, and 
 I have little doubt that what is now the chancel, where the communion 
 table stands, was anciently the Lady Chapel, at the back of the high 
 altar, which would have stood at the end of the choir in fi-orit of it, 
 being probably parted from it by a screen, but having an entrance to it 
 by dooi-s on either side ; and that the altar of the Lady Chapel was 
 ornamented ^vith a reredos of sculptured alabaster. This was of course 
 removed at the Reformation, and when the monuments were destroyed 
 by the Parliamentarian soldiers, the slabs and other remains of this re- 
 redos may probably have been used for their reparation. The canopies 
 at the heads of the figures were never intended to be in their present 
 position, for independent of their mutilation they were never wrought 
 out or finished at the top, and all the rough work appears, and that is 
 more conspicuous in the smaller canopy than in the larger. This idea seems 
 to be confiiTned by Symonds, who says nothing of the canopies, but 
 speaks of angels and shields of arms behind the heads ; and had they been 
 there in the original state of the monument, it is strange that neither 
 Churchyard, Symonds, or the author of Cough's manuscript should have 
 made any mention of such striking and important portions of it. Now 
 these eight slabs are just calculated to form a reredos of two tiers, four 
 being in each tier, having in the centre of the lower the Annunciation, 
 with the two Angels censing, and over that centre compartment the
 
 u 
 
 larger canopy, beneath wldcli would stand the crucifix, whilst in the 
 upper tier there might have been in the centre the coronation of the 
 Virgin, now placed at the back of the recess among the children, over 
 the monument of Sir Richard Herbert, of Ewyas, with whom or with 
 whose childi'en the coronation of the Virgin could have no sjiecial con- 
 nexion ; whereas these two, the most important events in the history of 
 the Virgin, would find their proper place in such a reredos, each being 
 surmounted by a canopy. If this were tlae original arrangement of the 
 church, it would exactly explain the jjurpose of a small single light win- 
 dow looking into the church from some apartment in the Priory, from 
 which the high altar would be seen ; whereas, if it stood where the present 
 connnuiiion table stands, it could not be so seen. It therefore seems 
 to me probable that this monument was altogether destroyed, and that 
 when it was repaired, a block of masonry was prepared of sufficient size 
 to take four of these alabaster slabs on each side, and whereas the effigies 
 Avere not sufficiently long to occupy the span on the top, the two canopies 
 were placed there to fill up the vacancies ; besides, one being smaller 
 than the other, they do not look as if they were intended to lie side by 
 side, but might very well have been placed one above the other. This 
 idea has been suggested to my mind, not merely by the patchwork condi- 
 tion of the tomb, but by the appaient age of the work. The date of 
 the monument of" Sir William ap Thomas must be as nearly as possible 
 1450, a very good period of art, whilst all this alabaster work, except 
 the two effigies, has all the character of being the work of the end of the 
 centvuy. 
 
 We wUl now proceed to consider the effigies themselves, but we are 
 met in limine by the description given of tbis monument in Symonds' 
 Diary 1045, as also of 1G4(3, (juoted by Goiigh. Symonds describing 
 this monument says, " In the middle of the chappel a stately fairo altar 
 tombc ; divers faLro statues round about the sides. Upon the surface 
 lyes two statues a man and woman, the man on the left hand. Under 
 his head a helmc, and forth of a wreath a maiden's head. A collar of 
 S about his neck. At his head two angels support the shield." (A 
 sketch is given shewing the arms of Herbert )'' " Behmd her head this." 
 (Skctcli of anotber sliield giving arg : alien rampant, sa1)le crowned or.) 
 " Ijodies in akibaster. They call this forementioncd moninuent Sir William 
 Thomas, who was ancestor of the Herberts of Coldbrook, Eagland, and 
 Weindee." The statement from Gouffh is as follows : — " Two altar 
 iiiniiiiinents with the effigies in portraiture in alabaster in their armour. 
 The first is Sir William ;ip Thomas, as there said, who married the daughter 
 of Sir David Jones," — (A mistake for Gam.) — " but T believe it is 
 Thomas ap Gwillim Jenkin, lather to Sir William Thomas, because that at 
 the licad of his wife that lies on his right hand in I'ull ])ortraiturc, in an 
 escocheon, is the black lion i-ampant crowned or, being tlic arms of Mor- 
 ley, who, as divers books being in my custody doth evident, the wife of
 
 45 
 
 Thomas Gwillim ap Jeukiii. She indeed was the daughtei' and heu'esa 
 of Su' John Morley of Raglan, by whom the mheritanco of Raglan and 
 a great estate belonging to it tirst came to that family. Whether tho 
 daughter and heiress of Sir John Morley was wife to Thomas Gwillim 
 Jenkin, or wife to Sir William Thomas, his son, it is by tradition di- 
 versely reported. The arms on this monument at the man's head is paly 
 B : and G : three lions rampant or. The crest the Prior's head with a 
 wreath above it." This seems to throw some doubt as to the monument 
 being that of Sir Wilham ap Thomas. Churchyard also mentions the same 
 arms as being at the heads of both figures, at the tune of his visit in 
 1586, except that he says that the Herbert lions are white. There- 
 fore the fact of there being at that time an escocheon of arms 
 " behind '' the lady's head bearing a black lion rampant crowned or 
 is confirmed, and is not easy to explain. These arms are the reputed coat 
 of Su- John Morley, and if so, were not those of either of the wives of 
 feii' William ap Ihomas ; and the tomb cannot be that of Thomas ap 
 Gwilym Jenkin and Maud his wife, as Gough's M.S. supposes, for they 
 are both recorded on the memorial stone in the church of Llansaiutfraed, 
 to have been buried there. This stone was set up in the chancel by William 
 Jones, in 1624, to the memory of his ancestors, beginning with Thomas 
 ap Gwilym Jenkin, who died i43S, and ending with Walter Jones, and 
 Lettice his wife, his father and mother, who died in 1606 and 1623, 
 giving the dates, and stating where they were buried. This effigy, more- 
 over, could not have been that of Thomas ap Gwilym Jenkin, for he was 
 not a knight, and could hardly have worn the collar of SS, even if he 
 had been buried there, and he was not a person of such consequenci; ;i3 
 to have such a monument. Maud is styled co-heiress of Sir John Mor- 
 ley, but that strictly speaking she could not be, as Su- John had a son 
 Gwilym, who was a father to a Philip. It must, however, l>e olisei-ved 
 that the Welsh heralds generally styled those ladies heu'essts who carried 
 any landed property to their husbands, but she does not aj^jxav to have 
 been so considered, as her arms were not quartered by the family. 
 
 How then came the arms of Morley at this lady's head ? Of Sir John 
 Morley, Mr. Wakeman writes as follows : — " Who Sir John Morley was, 
 " whence he came, or who he married appears to be totally unknown. 
 " Most probably he was some retainer of the Beauchanips, who were then 
 " Lords of Abergavenny , and either by grant fi-om them, or by marriage ob- 
 " tained a little estate. The marriage of his daughter with Thomas ap 
 " Gwilym is prominently put forward in all the pedigrees of the Herberts, 
 " and not without reason, for Thomas ap GwUym himself appears to have 
 " been a person of unimportant condition. He is the first of the family of 
 " whom we have any certain account, and the rise of the family must be 
 " attributed to his son. Sir Wilham ap Thomas." There is no doubt that 
 at the time of the creation of the second Earl of Pembroke, in the 
 reign of Edward VI., gi'eat exertions were made to raise his ancestoi-a
 
 46 
 
 into liigla importance, and it is possible, thougli hardly j^robable, that 
 in the XVI. century the monument, having been injured, or become 
 shabby, may have been "restored," and the arms which j^assed for those 
 of ]\Iorley have beeir painted on the shield at the head of the lady, 
 either to record the match which was considered important, or in conse- 
 quence of a beUef which seems to have prevailed, that Sir William ap 
 Thomas had married the daughter and co-heifess of Sn John Morley, 
 and with her inherited large estates ; but it is equally possible that that 
 belief arose in consequence of the arms painted at the lady's head being 
 wi-ongly attributed to Sir John Morley. There may be some ambiguity 
 in the precise meaning of the words by which the position of this shield 
 is described. Churchyard says that the shields stand " behind his 
 head" and "behind her head." Gough's M.S. says the shield is "at 
 the head of his wife," and in describing the next monument, which ia 
 in a similar style, he says, " her arms were in her escocheon at her head." 
 Symonds says, "at his head two angels support the shield," and 
 " behind her head is a shield." These words might apply to figures 
 bearing .shields on the body of the tomb, but nothing is said about 
 the body of the tomb, and all the angels, shields, and arms ai-e 
 utterly destroyed ; fi-om these expressions I am inclined to infer that 
 the angels and shields were on the top of the tomb close behind 
 the heads of the effigies ; and that the arms on the shield at her 
 head were those which she bore ; they therefore could hardly be 
 the arms of Morley, with which family she had no connexion. Being 
 the daughter of Sir David Gam, she would naturally have borne 
 those of her father, though a widow. I am, however, not able to 
 ascertain what arms he actually bore. He was entitled to bear the 
 arms of Blethyn ap Maynarch, sa : a chevron between three spear heads 
 arg : imln'ued as also of Einion Sais, argent, thi-ee cocks gules, being 
 lineally descended from them ; but he may have gained or assumed a 
 special coat for himself, which his daughter may have taken. Jones, in 
 Lis history of Breconshire, give these arms as the coat of Bhys Grug, 
 who was the son of Gryfiydd ap Rhys, Prince of South Wales, and 
 makes no mention of Morley ; his daughter was the second wife of 
 Einion Sals, and Sir David Gam may also have assumed the coat ; at all 
 events his daughter bore it, and it subsequently became a quartering 
 in the shield of the second Earl of Pembroke. These arms were not 
 borne by the first Earl of Pembroke, for in a M.S. in the British 
 Museum (Add : M.S. G298) where the arms of the Knights of the 
 Garter of that ])eriod are carefully drawn, these arms do not appear in 
 his coat. But in the coat of the P'arl of Pembi'oke, the second creation 
 in the time of Edward VI., 1549, in a shield of seven quartcrings this 
 crowned lion is found, following close on the arms which we know Sir 
 David Gam was entitled to bear. They are in this order : — 1. Herbert 
 with a borduru bezantd (a substitution for the bendlet of illegitimacy);
 
 47 
 
 2. Blethyn ap Majuai-cli ; 3. Einion Sais ; and then follows 4. Arg : a 
 lion ramp: sa : crowned, or, the coat in nuestiou ; and this is fullowed 
 by 5. Oradock ; 6. Horton ; and 7. Canlelupe. To these qiiartciinga 
 the names are all given, and to this No 1 is given the name " Asheley." 
 Now no such name or family is known in the district, it therefore seems 
 as if this coat was then a jiuzzle, and that the English herald who com- 
 piled the M.S. not being able to identify the coat with any arms which 
 he knew, put the name of some English family. It seems to have 
 perplexed many, and I nuist confess I am unable to give any satisfactory 
 explanation of the matter, except by supposing that this was the coat 
 which her father. Sir David Gam, himself boi-e, or that she ai-bitrarily 
 assumed some coat wliich did not belong to her ftimily, which may or 
 may not have been the coat of Morley, but which may have acquired 
 that name in consequence of later generations not knowing to whom to 
 attribute it. 
 
 The length of the figm-e of the knight is six feet four inches from the 
 heel to the top of the head, which is we see still cased m a bascinet, the 
 face being uncovered, but instead of a camail there is a mentonidre and 
 gorget of plate, and round the bascinet is a wreath of some ornamental 
 work, formed of cordate leaves, twisted with a band studded with pearls. 
 The body is armed ^vith a breast plate, having a slight ridge down the 
 centi'e, and the arms are also cased in regular plate armour. The 
 shoulders are protected by small fluted j^auldrons, like epaulettes, and 
 there is also a fluted fan-shaped plate at the elbow joint. The gauntlets 
 are fonned of overlapping jilates, the fingers not being separate, and the 
 plates do not extend to the ends of the fingers. The various jiarts of 
 the annour were enriched by a hatched border, which was prol^ably 
 gUded. Iloimd the neck is a collar of S.S., having a lozenge shaped 
 jewel appended to it. Below the bi'east plate at the waist are six taces, 
 or broad overlapping hoops, to the lowest of which are attached by 
 straps and buckles thi'ee small tuiles three inches deep, the centre one 
 having a small notch cut in it for the convenience of the saddle. The 
 legsai'e altogether cased in plates, having the same hatched border ; and 
 at the knees are fluted fan-shaped plates similar to those at the arms. 
 The sollerets are formed by a series of overlapping pointed plates ; the 
 toes are, however, broken away. The spurs were very long, with large 
 rowels, the traces of which only remain. Round the hips is the broad 
 knightly belt of leather or some such material, ornamented \vith square 
 plates of leaves and single roses, large and small, probably of goldsmith's 
 work ; it was fastened with a buckle, and the end terminated in a lich pen- 
 dant. The sword is broken away, and the dagger is on the right side. 
 The head rests on the helm, being the helmet worn over the bascinet in 
 battle and in tilting, on the top of which is the crest, so placed as to be 
 looking close against the canopy, which seems to indicate that the canopy 
 is not in its proper place. The crest is a very imj3ortant and interesting
 
 48 
 
 matter, because it is very peculiai', and is very faithfully and minutely 
 given, and therefore as it is the crest still borne by some members of the 
 Herbert family, it should be carefully described, as it has not always 
 been, especially by the author of Gough's M.S.. Who first assumed and 
 handed down this crest T cannot say, but it seems to bear relation to the 
 wars wath the Saracens. It is commonly mentioned as a " Moor's head,'' 
 and that would signify a man's head, which it is not. According to the 
 late Sii- Charles Yovmg, gai'ter, this Herbert crest is a Mooi'ish women's 
 head, aS'rontee, couped at the shoulders, with long hair sable, three 
 rings pendant at the ears, or, a wreath or band about the head tied 
 at the end by a button. This agrees with the monument 
 in every paii;icular but the wreath or band, which is here shewn 
 more in the natvire of a turban, confined by a band. Laving 
 long flowing ends hanging down. There can be no doubt 
 that this is the crest which Sir William ap Thomas used and wore, and 
 he seems to have borne the old Herbert arms, per pale az. and gu. tlnee 
 lions rampant, or, as Churchyard and Gough describe them. The lions 
 have since been changed to argent. The same crests were not always 
 continued by the descendants, for we have here in this family and ia 
 these very monuments instances to the contrary, for Sir Wm. Herbert 
 Sometimes bore a wyvern, and Sir Hichard Herbert a sheaf of arrows. 
 The feet of the knight rest on a lion ; and if the engraving given in Coxe 
 was correct, the monument was then in tolerably good condition, but 
 since thit time it must have been sadly defaced. The nose is broken 
 away, and the enthe surface disfigured by the handiwork of tl. school- 
 boys in cutting out their initials on every part of it. 
 
 The effigy of the Lady Gwladis, for so we must consider her, ia a good 
 example of the co.stume of her time. The head ia dressed in the high 
 horned headgear, rising in two points or lobes, one on either side of the 
 face to a considerable hei<2fht above the head, the hair beiu''- confined and 
 kept m its place by a fret or network havmg jewels at I he points of in- 
 tersection, the other parts being ornamented witli bands of gold 
 embroidery. A long veil hangs down behind ; round the neck are two rows 
 of chain with a cruciform locket. She wears a close fitting undergar- 
 ment witli tight sleeves ; over this is the usual sleeveless gown with 
 large armholes, close fitting at the top, but gettiug fuller after it passes 
 the hips, and descending to the feet which it covers. Over all she wears 
 a mantle fastened across the breast with a double cord, which hangs 
 down in front, terminating in a tassel ; at the feet are the figures of two 
 small boys, who hold the ends of the mantle. 
 
 Sir William ap Thomas, wlio is believed to be buried beneo^h this 
 monument was a distinguished jiersonage, as well from his reputni per- 
 sonal valour, and the great possessions which ho had ia this distort (for 
 there was then no county) as from the cii'cumstauce of his behi;; the 
 ancestor of all the noble families of Herbert. He was a native I this
 
 49 
 
 pai't of tbe country and jiroLably of Abei'gavenny, wliicli lias reason to 
 be proud of liiui and his descendants. He must have been the author 
 of his own fortune, as he was the fifth son of Thomas ap Gwilym 
 ap Jenkin, called of Perthire, who, as we have seen, married Maud, 
 daughter of Sir Julin Morley, and here his upward pedigree must stop 
 as far as any authentic documentary proof is known to exist, although 
 tbe Heralds carry it back to the time of Henry I. The late Mr. Wake- 
 man, (as also the late Mr. H. M. Hawkins,) after the most carefid and 
 persevering researches by the examination of every accessible document 
 relating to the subject has failed to trace it higher by any valid docu- 
 mentary evidence, and has left on record his confirmed opinion that 
 'thf^ Herbert family owes its rise and subsequent importance fir.-<tly to 
 
 * Sir William ap Thomas, who was steward of the Lordships of Usk and 
 ' Caerleon, &c., imder Richard, Duke of York, and secondly to his son, 
 ' Sir William Herbert, the first Earl of Pembroke. Being his steward. Sir 
 'William was high in the confidence of Richard D. of York, and Ids son 
 ' Edwai-d, afterward'* Edward IV., and in that situation acquired exten- 
 ' sive estates in this part of the country, which were considerably 
 ' augmented by marriages. On his death he was succeeded in his office 
 ' of steward of Usk and Caerleon by his son William, afterw^ards created 
 ' Earl of Pembroke. Both father and son were no doubt men of first- 
 ' rate abilities, and the offices they held and the favour of the York 
 ' family afiorded them opportiuiity of acquiring possessioiis and enriching 
 ' themselves and their relations." He also observes, "Previous to t^e 
 ' reigns of Henry VI. and Edward IV. none of the descendants of 
 ' Jenkin, who lived in the reign of Edward 111. and Ptichard II. appear 
 ' in any authentic records as landed prop: ietors, and we have only the 
 
 * statemenls of the Arwydd Feirdd or Welsh bardic heralds, the compilers 
 ' of pedigrees, that they w^ere Lords of Werndee, near Abergavenny 
 ' and Perthire, neai' Monmouth. But the records prove that neither of 
 ' these places belonged to them at any time like so early a period as that 
 ' represented. Llanllowell and Beachley never belonged to them at all, 
 ' and the sons of Sir William ap Thomas were the first who were called 
 ' Herbert." Who this Jenkin, or John as he is sometimes called (for 
 
 Jenkin and John are said to be in reality the same name) was, has been 
 a matter of doubt ; and Mr. Wakeman not having found any authentic 
 documents to guide him, begins his pedigree with him, whom he calls 
 Jenkin or John ap Adam, that being the reputed name of his father, and 
 who Adam was has been the point of difficulty. All that he had been 
 able to learn of Jenkin is that he was " magister serviens," master 
 sergeant, whatever office that may have been, of the Lordshijj of Aber- 
 gavenny, and had a small estate in Llanvapley. In a dncument signed 
 by hira as a witness, his name follows immediately after that of the 
 steward, who was the Lord's deputy; the office may therefore may have 
 been of some importance. After his signature follows that of the 
 prsepositus or bailiff, the cliief authority of the town or borough.
 
 50 
 
 Sir William ap Thomas married first Elizabeth, daughter of Sir James 
 Bluett, of Raglan, and widow of Sir James Berkeley, by whom he had 
 no issue, and who died 1420. He married secondly Gwladys, daughter 
 of Sir David Gam, and widow of Sir Roger Vaughan, of Bredwardine, 
 who fell with her father at the battle of Agiucourt, in 1415. By some 
 he is thought to have had an intermediate wife, Cary ddu of Troy. 
 But Cary ddu is generally thought to have been his mistress, and not 
 his wife, and the children by her are marked in most pedigrees as illegi- 
 timate, though in one by Hugh Thomas they are not so. It is strange 
 that none of the genealogies say whose daughter she was, although she 
 is invariably described as of Troy, as if it had been her estate ; and soon 
 after 1432 Sir William ap Thomas was Lord of Troy parva, but whether 
 in right of Cary ddu or by purchase does not appear. It is, however, 
 certain that Sir Thomas Herbert, her son by Sir William ap Thomas, 
 held that manor, till he was attainted and his estates seized by the 
 crown. 
 
 By his second wife Gwladys, he had Sir William Herbert the first 
 created Earl of Pembroke of that family. Sir Richard Herbert of Cold- 
 brook, and three daughters. He is commonly considered to have been 
 at the battle of Agincourt, in 1415 ; and Edmondson in his Baronagium 
 Genealogium p. 263 states that he was made knight banneret, I4l5 ; 
 but the authority for this statement does not appear. The third year 
 of Henry V. was from March 2 1st, 1415, to March 20, 1416. In 
 Auo'ust, 1415, the King landed in France and there knighted divers 
 gentlemen, whose names are not recorded. In October following he 
 fought the battle of Agincourt, but no mention is made of knights or 
 kni'>-hts bannerets made there, except the three who were knighted on 
 the field for saving his life. Sir Harris Nicolas, in his " History of the 
 Battle of Agincourt," gives the name of every kniglit, man-at-arms, and 
 esquire in the army, but docs not name any William ap Thomas. Hence 
 Edmondson's statement seems to be erroneous ; and in confirmation of this. 
 In the calendar of Inq : post mortem, for the 8th year of Heiuy V., 1 420, 
 occurs this entry : — " Elizabctha qua; liiit uxor Gulidini app Thomas, 
 " armigeri'' (not equitis nor militis), nulla tenuit in com : Hereford, nee. 
 " March ; Wall.'' 'I'his seems conclusive ; but fi^irthermore, if he were 
 knifhted as Edmondson states in 1415, he was certainly kiiiglitcd a 
 second time by Henry VI. in 1426, which could not have occurred, for 
 we find in Leland's Collectanea, Vol. II., p. 491, in a copy made ''Oute 
 " of a booke of Clirnniqnes in Peter Ccjllege Libi-ary,'' the following entry : 
 " Henry VI scant XII months old began his reign, anno. 1422. In the 
 " fourth year of his reigne (1426), Henry was made knight at Leycester, 
 " by tlie Duke of Bedford, on Whit-Sunday, and after the King made 
 " these kniglits," wliich knights are all mentioned by name, and among 
 them is " Syr William ap Thomas." It is therefore quite clear that he 
 was kni"-htcd by Henry VI. in 1420, and not by Homy V. in 1115; 
 and that he did not then bear the name of Herbert.
 
 51 
 
 As steward of the Lorrlsliip's marcher of Usk and Caerleon, which 
 were small i5ovcreigntie3, he was an iinportaut personage, being the lord's 
 deputy, and the chief person in authority during the lord's absence. 
 Besides this he was himself possessed of very large estates, being the 
 owner of Raglan Castle. It must however be 1)orne in mind that the 
 Castle of Raglan was not at that time the magnificent structure which 
 it afterwards became, and of which we now see the splendid ruins ; but 
 judging from the architecture, great additions seem to have been made 
 in his time or that of his son the Earl ; and, it is by no means imjirobable 
 that the magnificent gatehouse, with its angular towers and bold machi- 
 colated parapets, may have been his work. 
 
 On the subject of his being owner of Raglan Castle and estate, Mr. 
 "Wakeman says " The often repeated assertion that the Herberts acquired 
 'the estate of Raglan, by the m;UTiage of the father of Sir William ap 
 ' Thomas with the heu-ess of a Sir John Morley, is totally erroneous. No 
 ' such person aa Sir John Morley ever possessed this manor, nor any 
 'other manor in the county that I can find." The descent of Raglan 
 was as follows : — "The famdy of Bluet were Lords of Raglan through 
 ' seven generations in the direct male line from Sir Walter Bluet the first 
 ' subinfeudist under Strong-bow, in the reign of Henry II. John Bluet 
 
 * the seventh in descent from Sir Walter, left an only daughter Elizabeth, 
 ' the wife of Bartholomew Pychard or Pycot, who In right of his wife had 
 ' Raglan. Both were living In 13G9, and had only one son John P^^chard, 
 ' who died withfnit Issue, and the estate descended to Elizabeth, the only 
 
 * daughter of Sir John Bluet, of Dagllnworth in Gloucestershire, as 
 ' second cousin and heir-at-law. This lady was then wife of Sir James 
 ' Berkeley, to whom Henry IV. confirmed the manor by j^atent. Sir James 
 ' Berkeley died in 1405, and his widow afterwards married Sir William ap 
 ' Thomas, the ancestor of the Herberts. He did not however take Raglan 
 ' in her right, but purchased it of her eldest son, James, Lord Berkeley, 
 ' and the original conveyance deed is still among the muniments of the 
 ' Duke of Beaufort, at Badminton." 
 
 Sir William ap Thomas died in 144G, and his wife, the Lady Gwladys, 
 in 1454, wlilch years give us the date of this monument. His will is 
 not to be found, nor is there any inqiilsltlo post mortem to shew what 
 estates he possessed. As his first wife died In 1420, he could hardly 
 have married Gwladys before 1 422. Sir William Herbert, his eldest 
 son, may therefore probably have been born about 1423 or 4. I have 
 not found the date of his knighthood, which would be some guide. Im- 
 mediately, however, on the accession of Edward IV, 4th March, 14G1, 
 he was summoned as Sir William Herbert to the King's first council, 
 held March lOth. On the 4th November the same year, a parliament 
 was held, at which Sir Johu Skldmore of Herefordshire and divers other 
 persons were attainted, and their lands forfeited to the crown, and on that 
 same day he was created Baron Herbert of Chepstow, Raglan, and
 
 52 
 
 Gower ; and sliortly after liis creation lie had a grant by patent of the 
 Castle and Lordship of Pembroke, and several other manors in tail 
 general among them the Lordship of Magor, Redwick, the Castle and 
 Lordship of Caldicot in the Marches of Wales ; also the Castle of 
 Goderich and Lordship of Urkenfield in Co : Hereford, late the estate of 
 James, Earl of Wiltshire, attainted. Thus we see how persons in favour 
 with the crown were enriched, and how thev obtained such lara^e 
 
 ...1 .*' ® 
 
 possessions by the acquisition of the forfeited estates. In 1462 he was 
 elected Knight of the Garter, and in 1463 he was appointed by patent 
 Chief-justice of North Wales for life, and a grant of the Castle and Lord- 
 ship of Dunster and Myuehede, late the possessions of James Lutterel, 
 attainted Tn 146*^, 27th May, he was created Earl of Pembroke, and 
 in 1469 he was at the battle of Banbury, where he was taken prisoner, 
 together with his brother, and beheaded. As, however, this is a lois- 
 torical event of much interest, and especially concerns his brother Sir 
 Pdchard Herbert, whose monument comes next in our series, I have 
 subjoined tlie account of the circumstances attending the battle and ex- 
 ecution, extracted from Uall's Chronicles where everything is minutely 
 detailed. 
 
 His will, dated 27th July, 9 Edward IV., 1469, was duly proved, and 
 taken fi'om the copy given in the Testamenta Vetusta of Sir Harris 
 Nicolas is as follows : — 
 
 In nomine Jesu. — Item : I to be buried in the Priory of Burgavenny, 
 under charge between my fader's tomb and the chancell, ami the cost that 
 should have be at Tynterue to be set u])on the chancell as my confessor, 
 &c., shall say ; and you my wife and brother Thomas Herbert and wyfe 
 that ye remember your promise to me to take the order of wydowhood, 
 aa ye may be the better master of yoiu- owne to perform my w}lle, and 
 to help my children as I love and trust you, &c. And that C. tonne of 
 * * * » * he geven to the cloyster of Tyuterne, &c. ; and XX I. to the 
 Greyfreres, where my body shall lyght, and that my body be sent for 
 home in all haste secretly by Mr. Leisone and certain freres with him, 
 &c. To Dr. Leisone X. marks a yere to sing for my soule during his 
 life, &c. Item : to two prestes to be found to sing afore the Trinitie at 
 Lanteliowe for my soule, and for all the soules slayn in the field for two 
 yere, &c. Item : that my alsmshouse have as much livelode as shall 
 suffice to fiude six poure men and one to serve them. Wife pray forme, 
 and take the said order that yc promised me, as ye had in my lyfe my 
 hert and love. God have mercy upon me and save you and our children, 
 and our Lady and all the saints in lievyn helj) me to salvation.— Amen. 
 With my liaiid the 27th day of July.— William Pembroke. 
 
 His wife of whom he speaks so aflectiontitely was Ann, daughter of 
 Sir Walter Devercux, and his brother Thomas was his half-l^rother, Su" 
 Thomas Uerbei't of Troy, son of his father, by Cary ddu. His wish to 
 be buried at Burgavenny, although he so precisely fixes the spot, docs
 
 53 
 
 not seem to have been attended to, for be seems to bave been buried at 
 Tynteru, and his brother occupies the spot he selected for himself The 
 will is however important in one particular, as it identifies the tomb we 
 have been considering as that of bis father Sir William ap Thomas, and 
 not that of Gwilym Jenkin, as the author of Gougb's M.S. was led to 
 think from the Morley arms. An inquisition was held on his death, 
 wherein are enumerated all his vast j^ossessions in the counties of 
 Hereford, Gloucester, and the marches of Wales, wherein are included 
 Glamorganshire, Pembrokeshire, and Brecon, and the district which now 
 forms the County of Monmouth. 
 
 Extract from Tl all's Chronicle, Cqfo. p. 273^), loritten, 1548, the StJi 
 year of King Edward IV., 14G9. 
 
 " When King Edward was by divers letters sent to him certified that 
 the great arni}^ of the northern men were with all speed coming to 
 London, therefore in great baste he sent to Wyllyam, Lord Herbert, 
 whom within two years before he bad created Earl of Pembroke, that he 
 should without delay encounter the northern men with the extremity of 
 all bis power. The Earl of Pembroke, commonly culled the Lord Herbert, 
 was not a little joyous of the King's letters, partly to deserve the Kir.g'c; 
 liberality, which of a meane gentleman bad promoted him to the estate 
 of an Earl, partly for the malice that he bore to the Earl of Warwick, bemg 
 the sole obstacle (as bethought) why be obtained not the wardship of the 
 Lord Bonvile's daughter and heir for bis eldest son. Whereupon he, 
 accompanied with his brother Su- Pdchard Herbert, a valiant knight, and 
 above six or seven thousand AVelsbmen well furnished, marched forward 
 to encounter with the northern men. And to assist and furnish liini 
 with archers was appointed Humfray, Loid of Stafibrd of South wick, 
 (named but not created) Earl of Devonsbir-e, by the King, in hope that 
 he valiantly would serve him in that journey, and with him be bad 
 eight hundred archers. When these two lords met at Cottisbold, they 
 made diligent enquiry to learn where the northern men weie, and so by 
 their explorators they were ascertained that they were passing toward 
 Northampton ; wherexipon the Lord Stafford and Sir Eichard Herbert, 
 with two thousand well horsed Welshmen, said they would go, view, 
 and see the demeanour of the northern men, and so under a wO' 1 -ide they 
 covertly espied them pass forward, and suddenly set on tbt :i:\/ard, 
 but the northern men with such agility so C(uickly turned aboi that in 
 a moment of an hovu- the Welshmen were clean discoi iid and 
 scattered, and many taken, and the remnant returned to the ly with 
 small gain. 
 
 King Edward, being nothing abashed of this small chance, j't good 
 wordes to the Earl of Pembroke, animating and bidding him '...• be of a 
 good courage, promising him not a lonely aid in a short time, but also be
 
 54 
 
 himself in person royal Tvould follow liim with all his puissance and 
 power. The Yorkshire raen being glad of this small victory were well 
 cooled, and went no further southward, but took their way toward 
 Warwick, looking for aid of the Earl, which was lately come from Calais, 
 with the Duke of Clarence, his son-in-law, and was gathering and raising 
 men to succour his friends and kinsfolk. The King likewise assembled 
 people on every side to aid and assist the Earl of Pembroke and his 
 company. But before or any part received comfort or succour from his 
 friend or partaker, both annies met by chance in a foir plain, near a 
 town called Hedgecote, three mile fi-om Banbury, wherein be thi-ee hills, 
 not in equal distance, nor yet in equal quantity, but lying in manner 
 althouo-h not fully triangle. The Welshmen got first the west hiU, 
 hoping to have recovered the east hUl, which if they had obtained, 
 the victory had been theirs, as their unwise prophesies promised them 
 before. The northern men encamped themselves on the south hill. The 
 Earl of Pembroke and the Lord Staftbrd, of Southwick, were lodged at 
 Banbmy the day before the field, which was St. James's-day, and there 
 the Earl of Pembroke put the Lord of Staftbrd out of an inn, wherein 
 he delighted much to be for the love of a damsel that dwelt in the house, 
 contrary to their mutual agreement by them taken, which was that 
 whosoever obtained first a lodging should not be deceived nor removed. 
 After many great words and crakes had between these two captains, the 
 Lord Staftbrd of Southwick in great despite departed with his whole 
 company and band of archers, leaving the Earl of Pembroke almost deso- 
 late in the town, which with all diligence to his post lying in the field 
 unpurveyed of archers, abiding such fortune as God would send and 
 provide. Sir Hemy Neville, son to the Lord liatimer, took with him 
 certain light horsemen, and sku-mished with the Welshman in the 
 evening, even before their camp, where he did divers vaUant feats of 
 aims, but a little too haidy he went so far forward that he was taken 
 and yielded, and yet cruelly slain, which unmerciful act the Welshmen 
 sore rued the next day or night, for the northern men being inflamed and 
 not a little discontented with the death of this noble man, in the morn- 
 ing valiantly set on the Welshmen, and by force of arcliers caused them 
 quickly to descend the hill into the valley, where both the hosts fought. 
 The Earl of Pembroke behaved himself like a hardy knight and expert 
 captain, but his l)n)ther Sii' Ilichard Herbert so valiantly actpiitted 
 himself, that with his poleaxe in his hand (as his enemies did afteiwiU'ds 
 report) he twice by fine force passed through the battle of his adver- 
 saries, and without any mortal wound returned. If every one of his 
 fellows and companions-in-arms had done but half the acts which he 
 that day by his noble prowess achieved, the northern men had obtained 
 neither salety nor victory. 
 
 Besides this behold the mutability of fortune. When the Welshmen 
 were at the very point to Ikivc o])taincd the victory, the northern men
 
 55 
 
 being in a manner discomfited, John Clappam, Esq., servant to the 
 Earl of Warwick, mounted up the side of the east hill, accompanied 
 with only 500 meu gathered of all the rascal at Northampton, and other 
 vilhiges about, having before them the standanl of the Earl with the 
 white, crying, " a Warwick, a Warwick !'' The Welshmen thinking 
 that the Earl of Warwick had come on them with all puissance, suddenly 
 as men am;ized they fled. The northern men pursued and slew without 
 mercy, for the cruelty they had shewn to Lord Latimer's son ; so that of 
 the Welshmen there were slain about 5000, besides them that were fled 
 and taken. 
 
 The Earl of Pembroke, Sir Richard Herbert his brother, and divers 
 gentlemen were taken and brought to Banbury to be beheaded. Much 
 lamentation and no less entreaty was made to save the life of Sir 
 Richard Herbert, both for his goodly personage, which excelled all men 
 there, and aJso for the noble chivalry that he had shewed in the field the 
 day of the battle, in so much that his brother the Earl when he shoidd 
 lay down his head on the block to suffer, said to Sir John Cunyers and 
 Clappam, "Masters, let me die for I am old, but save my brother which 
 " is young, lusty, and hardy, mete and apt to serve the greatest Prince 
 " in Christendom, But Sir John Conyers and Clappam, remembering 
 " the death of the young knight. Sir Henry Neville, cousin to the Earl 
 " of Warwick, could not hear on that side, but caused the Earl and his 
 " brother, with divers other gentlemen to the number of ten to be 
 " beheaded." 
 
 There is a remarkable expression in the early part of this narrative, 
 where it is said that the Earl of Pembroke had been promoted from a 
 meanc gentleman to the estate of an Earl ; this certainly does not look 
 aa if he was considered to be descended fi-om an ancient and distinguished 
 line of ancestors.
 
 56 
 
 No. V. 
 
 SIR RICHARD HERBERT, OF COLDBROOK. 
 
 Our next monnment in chronological succession is the tomb beneath 
 which Sir Richard Herbert, of Coldbrook, and his wife, Margaret, are 
 believed to rest, and which is represented in Photographs VI and VII. 
 This, like the last, is an altar-tomb of alabaster, once very rich and 
 beautiful, l)ut alas ! it has undergone disfigurement, mutilation, and 
 destruction equally with the last described. It stands under the arch, 
 between the chapel and the choir, the head being veiy close to the pier 
 of the arch, and occupies the precise spot designed by the Earl of Pem- 
 broke for himself; the body of the tomb is eight feet five inches long, and 
 three feet nine inches wide ; the base is buried, but the height of the 
 tomb above the pavement is two feet nine inches ; the north side consists 
 of an arcade or series of nine shallow niches, with the backs flat and 
 not recessed, surmounted with crocketed ogee canopies, and separated 
 fi-om each other by small buttresses terminating in pinnacles. This side 
 is composed of four slabs, two containing three niches each, one of two 
 niches, and one, the last, at the foot of the tomb consisting of a single 
 niche, having no buttress at the angle. This will all be well seen in 
 Photograph VII. In eight of these niches, standing on bracket pedes- 
 tals, are angels or winged figures clothed in long robes, and having on 
 their heads crowns, with a fleur-de-lis in the front, and a cross on the 
 summit of an arch which spans the head from side to side, their hair 
 being parted and spread out at the sides, forming as it were a brim to 
 the crown. They all bear in fi'ont of tliem large shields. In the ninth 
 and last at the head of the tomb, the figure is that of a man in armom", 
 who hevLTs before his breast a large shield similar to the rest. The whole 
 is surmounted with an eiiibattled cap moulding. The south side of the 
 tomb is a mass of patchwork, as will appear in Photograjih VI ; at the 
 bead is a slab of three niches, similar to those on the north side ; the 
 figures are, however, two men in armour, with their hair parted, and 
 spread out wide at the sides, the third figure being an angel ; all three 
 bear shields ; then comes a slab of greater width, the centre of which 
 contains a seated female figure holding a child in her right arm, a])pa- 
 reiitly intended for the Virgin. In the niche on her right is a standing 
 female figui-e, holding in her right hand before her body a s\\H)rd pointing 
 downwai-ds ; her left hand and some other object is broken away, but it 
 was pi()l)ably a portion of a wliecl, and the figure is most likely that of 
 St. Catharine : there seems to have been something at her feet, but it is 
 tof) much broken to detenninc wljat it was. In the other niche is a. i'emalc 
 figure standing on a di'agnn, ink) wlio.se mouth she is thi'U.sling the end 
 of a long .staff, tin- (nji (.f wlil.li probal)ly terminated in a cross, now 
 broken olV, Iml, the small supports of the alabaster which sustaijied it
 
 67 
 
 still remain : this figure would, therefore, represent St. Margaret, very 
 probably the patron saint of the Lady who bore her name. Theset hree 
 figures are each crowned with a coronet of ornamented trefoils or straw- 
 berry leaves as they are heraldically termed. Then follows a small 
 narrow niche without figure, and the remaining portion is made up of 
 fi"agmentary odds and ends of similar niches. Both ends of the tomb 
 are blank ; that at the feet being composed of jiart of a flat grave-stone, 
 whilst at the head it is seen that the alabaster casinsf extends sLx inches 
 beyond the rough block of masonry, of which the body of the tomb is 
 composed, and does not form part of it, being only attached by cccr.r'ional 
 iron cramps. These slabs of alabaster most probably formed part of the 
 original tomb, which seems to have been quite destroyed, and the frag- 
 ments refitted as far as could be, in the best manner their state would 
 iJlow. The slab with the three Saints in all likelihood was at the foot 
 of the monument, having the Holy Virgin in the middle, and the Pati'on 
 Saints of the Knight and his Lady on either side, each below the proper 
 effigy. 
 
 The two statues have both suffered much injury, the Knight more 
 than the Lady. At the head of each is a sadly mutilated alabaster 
 canopy, but that these belonged originally to the monuments may be 
 doubtful, for no mention of them is made in any of the early accounts, 
 and we are told in some that at the heads of each figure were escocheons 
 with their arms. Symonds speaking of this monument says "the shields 
 "are supported by angels round about the sides," also, "at his head not 
 "impaled at all;" giving a sketch of the Herbert arms, " This at her 
 "head;" and gives another sketch of a chevron between three eagles 
 heads, sa : the birds are properly ravens, which he has mistaken for 
 eagles heads. " He is in long black hair, under his head a helmet sur- 
 " mounted by the crest, on a wreath, a bundle of arrows or," — again 
 from Goughs M.S. we learn that " her arms were in her escocheon at her 
 "head, three ravens proper, sa:," therefore as the shields of arms were 
 at the heads of the figures, it would be difficult to place the large 
 canopies. 
 
 The effigy of the Knight is much injured, the right ami is broken 
 away from the shoulder to the wrist ; it seems, however, to have been 
 repaired at some time, as the dowel holes remain. The figure, from the 
 crown of the head to the bottom of the heel, is six feet four inches, and 
 represents a very tall spare and bony man. The head rests on the helm, 
 which is surmonted by his crest on a wreath, a sheaf of arrows the points 
 downwards ; and the lambrequin or mantling of the helm, lying on each 
 side of the figiu-e, fonns a scaloped bordering drajjery which terminates 
 in the tassel ; this, however, on the outer side of the tomb has been 
 broken away. It will be seen that he did not adopt his father's crest. 
 He his bare-headed, having no bascinet ; the hair is cut short and squai'e 
 across the forehead, and is curled up at the points, and spread out at the
 
 58 
 
 sides of the head, and there is neither beard, whiskers, nor moustaches. 
 The lace is thin and looks older than his age (which could not possibly 
 have been above 45, and was probably much below) would warrant. 
 The throat is bare, and the under-garment which would be equivalent 
 to the gambeson appeai-s aljove the upper portion of the body armoui". 
 This consisted of an articulated cuirass or breast plate, formed for greater 
 facility of motion of an upper and a lower plate, the lower part from 
 the waist ujjwards rising in a point, and being fastened on the breast of 
 the upper plate by a strap and buckle, which is clearly shown. The 
 lower part of the cuirass is very small round the waist, below which it 
 spreads out, and terminates in seven scaloped overlapping tassets, Avhich 
 are fastened together at the sides by small straps. To the fourth of these 
 over each thigh are flisteued also by straps and buckles the tuiles, Avhich 
 are scaloped and fluted. There are also tuiles behind, which are attached 
 by similar means to those in front. Below the tassets, both in front and 
 at the sides between the tuiles is still seen the skirt of chain-mail. The 
 vambraces and rerebraces (the plates covering the front and back of the 
 arms) were also joined with straps and buckles. The pauldrons were 
 very large and heavy, and were attached to the cuirass in front with 
 turn buttons, the ujaper parts of them standing up like a high collar. 
 Round his neck he wears a chain or collar composed of alternate single 
 roses and suns, two of the badges of the house of York, and to this is 
 appended, as a jewel, a lion sejant. The gauntlets have cufts, and are 
 formed of overlapping round-topped plates, the ends of the fingers being 
 bai'e. The plate armour, covering the legs and thighs, is fastened like 
 the other parts with straps and jjuckles, and the genouilleres have two 
 overlapping plates above, and two below the knees, and are buckled 
 round the leg. The soUerets are also formed of articulated plates, whicli 
 lap over upwards towards the knee; the feet rest on a lion, but the 
 toes and spurs have ])een broken away ; and, indeed, the legs have 
 been broken and repaii-ed, and, together with the lion, have evidently 
 been exposed to the weather for a long period, as the stone is much 
 weather worn and washed away from long exposure to the action of water. 
 The whole figure is very spare, and the legs and thighs are remarkably 
 slender for so tall and powerful a man as he is recorded to have been. 
 Tlie sword lay on the left side, but is broken away, it was attached to a 
 narrow oblique cross belt, fastened with bmkles in front. On the right 
 side are the remains of a small dagger which was fastened to the armoui- 
 by an oval link, and lay underneath the figure. Coxe has given an 
 engniving of the upper half of this figure, taken on the left side. The 
 features are made to look too old, and the helm supj)oi-tiiig the head is 
 omitted ; the scaloped edges of the lambrequin are made to look like 
 leaves, the draughtsman not knowing what they were. 
 
 We now come to the consideration of the Lady Margaret his wife; 
 and if this efiigy is a correct representation of her in point of size, she
 
 59 
 
 iuu3t have been of colossal stature and prodigious power, for the statue 
 is of the same length as that of her husband, viz. : G feet 4 inches, and 
 her whole figure is stout in due proportion. She has a full and perhaps 
 handsome face ; but her nose, as well as that of her husband, is broken 
 qiiite away, and the features are otherwise disfigured by the schoolboys' 
 initials which have been cut upon them, as well as on every other smooth 
 part of both statues. The head I'ests upon a cushion, which has a tassel 
 at the back and at each side, and is supported l)y small figures of angels 
 rising from little brackets. The hair is parted in the middle, and flows 
 down on each side of the head, around which she wears an orle or 
 wreath, in form similar to that round the helmet of Sir William ap 
 Thomas ; it appears to be made of some material covered with a fret or 
 network of gold, having what appear to be jewels, or some enrichment, 
 at the points of intersection, and at intervals round the head are single 
 roses probably of white enamel, being one of the Yorkist badges. 
 Attached to it in front, and lying on the forehead, is a semicircular 
 ornament, having in the centre a large square pointed diamond, with a 
 row of other flat-topped stones, probably table diamonds, set round it. 
 It may be well to observe here, that at that time the ai't of cutting 
 diamonds was not known ; there were, tlierefore, neither rose-cut nor 
 brilliant-cut diamonds, those which were worn being either flat-topped 
 table stones, or the pyrimidal pointed fbamonds, which were the natural 
 octohecb'al crystal of the stone, and this form is indicated in the orna- 
 ment in question. Round her throat she wears a rich carcanet, from 
 which hang a row of pear-shaped drops, probably pearls, alternating 
 with small crosses. Her dress, as far as we can see, consists of a close- 
 fitting gown or juste au corps, coming up to tlie neck, and having tight- 
 sleeves, ending in cuffs at the wrists ; over this is the sleeveless gown 
 or kirtle with very large arm holes, through which we see a narrow strap 
 or girdle, fastened with a buckle, passing oblic[uely across the body 
 underneath it, the use of which is not a]>parent, but it may possibly 
 have sustained a gypciere or purse. The kirtle becomes full at the skirt 
 below the hips, and flows down, covering all the feet except the toes, 
 which are broken off. Over all she wears a mantle, fastened across the 
 chest with a double cord, which is attached to two ornaments at the 
 edge of the mantle, in form of single roses ; this, after lying in loops 
 upon the chest, passes thiough a fi-etted slide, and hanging down in 
 firont, ended in two tassels, which are broken off*. The feet rest on two 
 little dogs, wearing collars with bells on them, and they hold the corners 
 of the mantle in their mouths. The hands, which are joined in the 
 attitude of prayer, have rings on each finger, but each on a different 
 joint, so that they may not come in contact with each other ; the little 
 fingers have been broken away. The rings seem to have consisted of 
 flat, fluted, or plain hoops of gold, set with single stones. The detail 
 of this costume is most carefully and elaborately given, and it is a fine 
 specimen of such artistic work.
 
 60 
 
 I find the effigies of tliis monument are figured, in an engraving in 
 Sir Richaixl Colt Hoare's "History of Wiltshire," Vol. III., p. 140, 
 where he is treating of Wilton and the family of the Earl of Pembroke. 
 By some strange mistake they are given as the monument of Sir Richard 
 Herbert, of Ewyas, ancestor of the Earls of Pembroke, being really the 
 effigies of Sir Richard Herbert, of Coldbrook, and his wife, who had 
 nothing to do with the Earls of Pembroke. In the plate they are 
 accompanied with shields of the arms of Herbert, without the bendlet, 
 which is most conspicuous in the real tomb of Sir R. Herbert, of Ewyas, 
 and also the arms of Cradock, thus mixing up the two monuments by 
 giving the figiu'es of one with the arms of the other ; and in the letter- 
 ing it is styled the monument of Sir R. Herbert, of Ewyas. It is a 
 very remarkable circumstance that so able a man as Su- Richard Hoare, 
 who had visited Monmouthshire in comj^any with Archdeacon Coxe, and 
 made many of the drawings for his tour of the county, should have 
 made so great a mistake, and fallen into such an error, for on the Ewyas 
 monument that word is most distinct, that being, in fact, the only 
 monument of the series which has any inscription. This is an instance 
 how serious errors sometimes find their way into works of great weight 
 and authority, and having once so appeared are perpetuated by sub- 
 sequent writers copying what they see in jjrint, without taking the 
 pains, or perhaps not having the means, of verifying the statements. 
 I do not know whether this error has ever been discovered or noted 
 before ; probably not, for the Abergavenny monuments have hitherto 
 been little known or cared for. 
 
 Sir Richard Herbert, of Coldbrook, was second son of Sir William ap 
 Thomas and his wife, Gwladys, daughter of Sir David Gam ; he was 
 therefore, as we have seen, younger brother to the Earl of Pembroke. 
 Of the date of his birth we have no knowledge, but it could not possibly 
 have been before 1425, and most probably did not occur till many years 
 after, for his brother, the Earl, at the time of his death when he could 
 not have been above 45, describes himself as old, and calls his brother 
 young ; there must therefore most likely have been a considerable disparity 
 of years between them. He married Margaret, daughter of Thomas ap 
 Gryffydd, and sister to the renowned Sir Rhys ap Thomas, so celebrated 
 in the placing Henry VII on the throne. When he was knighted does 
 not appear ; but Lewis Dwn, in his " Visitations of Wales," p. 312, calls 
 liim a " Knight of War, and of the Coronation," leaving it to be inferred 
 that he was knighted at the coronation of Edward IV. This, however, 
 is certainly not correct, for there exists a most important document 
 whicli ])r(jves the contrary, 'lit'- accission of Edward IV. was on the 
 4tli March, 14GI, his coronation (odk [>lace on tlu; ^Dtli June that year, 
 a most iniportant Parliament was held on the 4th November following, 
 and in a (locumcnt, wliicli is dated the 20th February following (14G2), 
 ho is styled Richardus Herbert Arniiger. Two things arc quite clear
 
 61 
 
 from this document first, that he was not then a knight ; and secondly, 
 that at that date, although his father was only Sir William ap Thomas, he 
 and of course his brother, then Sir WUliam, had assumed the name of 
 Herbert as their permanent surname. This document is one of very 
 great importance in the history of Su- Richard Herbert, and seems to 
 shew how persons and families of small estate and importance were en- 
 riched and elevated in the social scale ; and we have seen how this 
 family was enriched from its comparatively inconsiderable origin to be 
 one of the wealthiest and most powerful in the realm. Thomas Gwilym 
 Jenkyn, father of Sir William ap Thomas, was not in any way dis- 
 tinguished by position or wealth ; and Su- William was the first who laid 
 the foundation of the family by becoming steward of the Lordship's 
 marchera in this part of the country to Richard, Duke of York, and 
 thus, being a man of much ability, gained the confidence of his patron, 
 and consequently got into favour with Edwai'd IV. ; his sons also gained 
 the King's favour, and by then- zealous services acquired considerable 
 estates as well as high distingiiished and well deserved dignities. This 
 document is found among the Patent Rolls of the 1st Edward IV., and 
 bears date 20th February, and the accession of the King being the 4th 
 March, 14G1, the first year extends to the same day, 1462 ; and it must 
 have been in that year as that was the first February in his reign. 
 
 My kind fi-iend Mr. Burtt, of the Record Office, has been so obliging as 
 to give me a copy of this curious j^atent, and I will give the principal 
 portions of a literal ti'anslation : 
 
 " For Richard Herbert. — The King to all whom, &c. Health. — Know 
 " that we of our special grace, and for good and laudable service which 
 " GUI' beloved servant Ricardus Herbert, armiger, hath rendered to 
 " us before this time, have granted, and for our heirs by these presents do 
 " grant to him the manor and Lordship of Mockas, and the manor of 
 " Grove with its appiu-tenances in the County of Hereford, and all the 
 " lands, tenements, possessions, and hereditaments, which Avere of late 
 " the property of John Skidmore, knight, in the aforesaid county, and 
 " in the counties of Gloucester and Salop, as also in Wales and the 
 " marches of Wales, which manors. Lordships, land, and tenements and 
 " other premises by reason of the forfeitures of the same John, and of a 
 " certain act passed in our Parliament at Westminster, on the 4th day 
 " of November last passed, came into our hands as they ought to come.'' 
 " We moreover granted to the same Richard Herbert the manor of 
 " Mounton, the manor of Feii, and the moiety of the manor of Eton, 
 " near Rosse, in the said county, and other lauds and possessions which 
 " were the jaroperty of Thomas Fitzhany, late of Hereford, Esquii-e, 
 " which by reason of his forfeiture have come into our hands, to be held 
 " by the said Richard Herbert and his heii-s in tail male, at the value of 
 *' £lOO of us and oiu- heirs, &c. Teste Rege apud Westmonasteriam,
 
 62 
 
 " XX die Februarii. By writ of privy seal of same date." This shews 
 how these things were done, and it is possible that many estates were 
 so given without the formality of a patent. 
 
 The attainder of Sir John Scudamore was, howevei', reversed in 1 4 72-3, 
 saving of letters patent in favour of William Herbert, sou and heir of 
 Su- Richard Herbert, Knight, except as to grants to Richard Herbert of 
 the lands of Sir John Scudamore. It is therefore evident from this 
 document that he had been early a staunch adherent and faithful ser- 
 vant of the Yorkist cause. He appears to have been a man of fine 
 pei'sonal appearance, great stature, and physical strength and power, 
 though I think we should hardly infer from the features any unusual 
 personal beauty. 
 
 How or when the family acquired Coldbrook does not a^^pear, but he 
 is not described in that document as of Coldbrook. It is possible that he 
 may have received it from his father, who had large possessions in these 
 parts ; all that is known for certain is that Sir Richard was settled there 
 as his chief residence, though he also resided in the Castle of Mont- 
 gomery, of which he either had a grant, or held it in virtue of some 
 office. As jjart of the present mansion of Coldbrook is of great 
 antiquity, it is very probable that he may have built the first dwelling 
 house, which has ^vith the advance of time necessarily received consider- 
 able additions, and imdergone great alterations at various later periods. 
 
 His eldest son. Sir William Herbert, succeeded him in that estate, and 
 continued to reside at Coldbrook. His second son, Su- Richard, was 
 steward of the Lordshi}js and marches of North Wales, and resided at 
 Montgomery Castle, and from him was lineally descended Lord Herbert 
 of Cherbury, who married Maiy, daughter and heiress of Sir William 
 Herbert of St. Julians, where he came to reside. Lord Herbert of 
 Cherbury, iu the introduction to his own autobiography, describes the 
 wonderful and gallant prowess of the Earl of Pembroke and Sir Richard 
 Herbert of Coldbrook at the field of Banbury.
 
 o 
 
 63 
 
 No. VI. 
 
 SIR RICHARD HERBERT, OF EWYAS. 
 
 "We now come to the last of the Herbert Mouuments, that oi" Sir 
 Richard Herbert, of Ewyas, as he is called, which is represented in photo- 
 graph VIIT. Tliis is also of alabaster and occupies a recess in the south 
 wall of the Herbert chapel, flanked by two buttresses set cornerwise, 
 and Ciipped with crocketed pinnacles. Over the recess is a crocketed 
 ogee canopy, and the face of the wall above the recess between the 
 buttresses terminates in an embattled cap moulding, above which rise 
 the pinnacles of the buttresses at the ends, and the finial of the canopy 
 in the centre. This monument has fortunately not suflered cpiite svich 
 destructive mutilation, though it has jn'obably been disturbed from its 
 original position, as all the stones appear to have been removed and reset in 
 their former places. The basement, as will be seen by the photograph, 
 is below the present pavement, and that portion of the bed of the 
 monument which is above it, exhibits a row of nine niches or panels, 
 capped each with two small crocketed canopies, having a small angular 
 buttress shaped pendant between them, the centre niche being wider 
 than the others. The group or whatever else may have been there has 
 been removed, and the piece of carved stone which now stands there does 
 not belong to it, having been placed there not many years ago, and was 
 certainly not there when Mr. Blore made his beautiful drawing of the 
 monument. It seems to have been portion of a spandrel of some other 
 .structure, and contains a figure of an angel kneeling; to what it belonged 
 cannot now be determined, but there is a fragment exactly similar fixed 
 vqi against the side of the tomb of Andrew Powell. The other eight 
 niches are occupied by as many seated figures, two of which on each 
 side bear shields before their breasts ; the remainder seem to be persons 
 in ecclesiastical garb, two of them holding open books in their hands. 
 Above this is the slab on which the efHgy lies, on the sloping verge of 
 which is sculptured in raised black letter characters the monumental 
 inscription, which by the aid of a magnifying glass may be clearly read 
 in the photograph, and it is the only inscription we meet with in the 
 whole series of tombs, to indicate whom they belong ; it is now as 
 follows : "Hie jacet Richardus Herbert de Ewyas miles c^ui obiit nono die 
 ****anno regni regis Henrici Octavi 2°cujusaiapropitietur Jes. — Amen." 
 There is, however, .some mystery about this inscription, for only the 
 latter half is original. It was of course first carved in the alabaster 
 from end to end of the tomb, but unfortunately only the latter portion 
 of the original alabaster inscription beginning with the words " Regni 
 Regis " now remains. This will be clearly perceived in the photograph. 
 All the former jmrt has at some time been broken away, and replaced by 
 an inscnption cut in rough stone, in a style to coiTCspond with the latter
 
 u 
 
 part, and that not in one continuous length, but seems to be formed with 
 various fragments patched together with common mortar. Chui'chyard 
 makes no mention of the inscription, but both Sjuiouds and the author 
 of Gough's M.S. saw the tomb in its original state, and both in- 
 dependently of each other copied the inscription, and here we fortunately 
 have their respective versions of it. Symonds says " upon the verge 
 this inscription guilt fairely" — " Hie jacet Richardus Herbert, ai'miger, qui 
 " obiit XII die Septemb. a D'ni MCCCCCX." a Regni Eegis Henrici 
 " Octavi 2" cujus a' i' e p. d. a." Gough's author renders it, " Hie jacet 
 " Richardus Herbert ar. qui obiit ij die Septemb. anno Dom, 1520, et 
 " anno R. R. H. VIII. II.'' The date 1520 is clearly a clerical error, 
 as the second year of H. VIII. was 1510. Thus we see that these two 
 independent authorities concur in every important particular, that the 
 words " miles'' and E\vyas have been gratuitous interpolations in the in- 
 scription for some unexplained reason, probably at the time of the 
 reparation of the monument ; and lastly, that he was simply an esquire 
 and not a knight as we shall soon see further proved by iucontestible 
 contemporaneous documentary evidence. Churchyard also calls him a 
 Squire three times. 
 
 The effigy measures six feet six inches from the heel to the crown of 
 the head, which rests on a helm from which the crest is broken away, 
 but Gough informs us it was a green dragon, that is a wyvei-n, the crest 
 borne by the Earls of Pembroke. The figure is bare headed, the hair is 
 cut short and straight across the forehead, and falling down on each side 
 of the face, is also cut straight at the bottom. The cuirass which is now 
 a single breast plate comes up to the throat, shewing the under garment 
 in puckered folds above it ; it has a slight angular projection or ridge 
 down the centre, and on the right side is shewn the contrivance for 
 fixing the lance rest. The pauldrons are large and cut square at the 
 arms, the u^Jpcr part at the neck rising like a high stand up collar. He 
 wears a large collar of SS, having as a pendant a large cross patee, of 
 whicli the lower limb is the longest. The arms are cased in plate, and the 
 coudidres or elbow pieces are of large size and fantastic shape. The 
 hands are bare and raised upon the breast in prayer, the gauntlets formed 
 of large overlapping plates lying beside the figure. Round the small 
 of the waist is a cord, below which the armour spreads out over the 
 hips, and there are seen three tassets, to which are attached by straps 
 large fluted tuiles, fourteen inches long, whicli meet in front, and are 
 turned back at the edges, as if to give the appearance of being made of 
 some flexible material. Below the tuiles is seen a skirt of chain mad, 
 reaching nearly to tlie knee. The thighs as well as the legs are cased in 
 plate, and the gunDuilliuros having at tlie sides ornamental plates are 
 simple, without any overlapping plates above or below the knees, such 
 jis we have seen. The soUerets instead of luMug pointed and flat to the 
 foot as heretofure, are very broad and liigh at tbo toes. The sword is
 
 65 
 
 broken away, but it lay on the left side, and was susj^ended by a nairow 
 belt, which passes obliquely across the figure and is fastened with a 
 buckle, the end being folded over in a knot, and terminating in an orna- 
 mented pendant. In the triangidar space or spandrel between the low 
 arch of the recess, and the ogee canopy above it, is a large scaloped 
 shield of good form, bearing the arms of Sir Richard, viz : the later arms 
 of Herbert, pr. pale az. and gides, three lions rampant argent, debruised 
 with a bendlet or baton argent, as a mark of illegitimacy, impaled with 
 the arms of Cradock, being those of his wife, azure, senice of cross 
 crosslets, three boar's heads couped argent. At the back of the recess is 
 a singular group sculptured in alabaster. In the centre is a tall female 
 figure in the costume of a lady of the time, wearing a close fitting gown, 
 and over it a mantle fastened across the chest with a cord, the ends x)f 
 which hang down. On her head she wears a veil which falls down be- 
 hind. Her ai-ms are broken oft", but there is no appearance of her having 
 held a child in them. Her feet are supported by an angel, and at her 
 right side kneels a man in armour, and at her left a lady ; above these 
 on either side are two angels, one above the other as if supporting hei-. 
 There is neither nimbus nor glory apparent about the head, but above it 
 there seems to be an object like a triple crown held by a figure above, 
 whilst on either side of it above her shoulders are two larger figiu'es 
 having very large glories or nimbi behind their heads, which are however 
 broken off. On either side of the main figure are groups consisting of 
 three small figures of men in armoiu-, kneeling, having their helmets 
 below them, and one female figiu'e also kneeling; beneath each figure is 
 a shield bearing the arms of Herbert and Cradock alternately. On the 
 Herbert shield is the bendlet and also a small cresent in chief for a 
 diflerence or mark of cadency. Beneath this I'ow of figui-es is an em- 
 battled cap moulding partly coloured, which hardly seems in its proper 
 place. The whole has evidently been taken down from some other place, 
 for it does not fit its present position, and having been greatly injured 
 has been clmnsily refitted ; it is very dark and discoloured, and being at 
 the back of the recess, and close under the soffit, it is not easy to 
 discern clearly what is there. Some have thought that the chief figure 
 represented his wife, the idea probably arising from her costume. But 
 he and his wife with their eight children are there in adoration of the 
 central figure ; and it seems to me that the group can only represent the 
 crowning of the Virgin, and so Symonds who saw them uninjiu-ed de- 
 scribes it, and gives a nide sketch of it as it then was ; in tliis it is quite 
 clear that the object over the Virgin's head is a triple crown, which has 
 been gi-eatly injured, and that the three figiu-es represent the three 
 persons of the Holy Trinity who are jointly placing the crown on 
 her head. Each figure himself wears a crown, and the right hands are 
 raised in the act of benediction : the centre figure represents the Father 
 having on his right hand the Sou, who bore a cross, the stem of which 
 may stUl be seen, and on his left the Holy Spirit. As the Son was
 
 66 
 
 represented In the Trinity there covxld be no infant in the arms of the 
 Virgin. This central portion of the group is just 3 feet high, and what 
 remains of it is so close to the soffit of the arch, that there could hardly 
 have been space for the upper figure when entire, and certainly not 
 for any border or margin. It is therefore evident to me that this was 
 not its original position. These slabs have all been embedded in mortar, 
 which is brought up level with their surface. 
 
 Sir Eichard Herbert, of Ewyas, (for we must I suppose still con- 
 tinue so to call him, although his Knighthood seems to be a myth, not 
 having been originally recorded on his tomb, and not found there till 
 after 1647, and Ewyas seems to have been also an invention after that 
 date) was a natural son of Sir William Herbert, Kt., tlie first Earl 
 of Pembroke, by his concubine Maude, said to be the daughter and 
 heiress of Howell Gwyn or Graunt, as the name is sometimes given, 
 but which is uncertain as there is no known authority. Where she came 
 from I know not, nor did Mr. Wakeman succeed in discovering. 
 Whether he was of Ewyas may even now be doubted, for I have never 
 been able to discover the reason why he was especially described as 
 Sir Richard Herbert, of Ewyas, except from the name being found on 
 his tomb. There were two very ancient Lordships Marcher of that 
 name, Ewyas Lacy, and Ewyas Harold. The name Ewyas is of great 
 antiquity, and existed before the Norman conquest, and its origin, 
 derivation and meaning have never been satisfactorily explained. 
 Ewyas Lacy very soon after the conquest was granted to William Fitz 
 Osberne, and so became a border or Marcher Lordship. He was 
 succeeded in possession by Walter de Lacy who gave his name to it, 
 which it has ever since retained, and his son Roger held it at the time 
 of the Domesday survey. In the latter part of the XV century, it 
 was in ])ossession of the Lords of Abergavenny, and has so continued. 
 It was of considerable extent, and in the 27th of Henry VIII. A. D. 
 1531, was annexed to the County of Hereford as a separate Hundred, 
 and occupies the south west corner of the County, being boiuided by 
 the Coimties of Mormiouth and Brecon, and is within a few miles of 
 Abergavenny. Ewyas Harold (from whom its name is dei-ived is not 
 certainly known) was a Lordship of less extent, and was by the same 
 act added to the hundred of Wel)tree, and was also at the same i:)eriod 
 in ])OSsession of the Lords of Abergavenny. He therefore has no 
 connexion with the Lordships, and as an illegitimate son he could not 
 have inherited any estate from his fither, though it is (]uite jjossible 
 that out of his vast [)Ossessions his flither may have given him an estate, 
 or lie may have held or ac(|uired some estate there on whicli he resided, 
 and thus have obtained that description, 1 have not found any Inqui- 
 sition to give the information, nor any will. Collins in his ])eerage states 
 tliat he had a sc;it at Crove Radnor, but no one seems to know exnctly 
 where that is ; and as Sir Ricliard Ilerberl, of Coldbi'ook, certainly had 
 a gi'ant of a .M^niMr of Gi'ove, it is very jtrobable tliat some conlnslon 
 iii.iy have liccn ni;idi; lictween the two Knights.
 
 67 
 
 He man-ied Margaret, daugliter and lieiress of Sir Matthew Cradock, 
 of Swansea, knight, and widow of John Malefant, of St. George's, and 
 her arms ajipear impaled with his on the shield ahove the monument. 
 By her he had two sons. Sir William Herbert, knight, the eldest, who 
 was created Earl of Pembroke in 1551, from whom descend the Earls of 
 Pembroke and Carnarvon, and the Marquis of Bute. His second son 
 was Sir George Herbert, of Swansea, knight, who married Elizabeth, 
 daughter and co-heiress of Su- Thomas Berkeley, of Vine, Co. 
 Southampton, by Elizabeth Nevill, daughter of George Nevill, second 
 Lord Abergavenny of that family. This Sir Thomas Berkeley bore the 
 coat of Berkeley within a bordure, and his daughter, though not an 
 heiress, quartered the Nevill coat of arms with that of Berkeley to 
 mark her descent. Sir George Herbert died 1570. Symonds in hia 
 notes on this monument says, " these coats ujjon it," and then gives a 
 rough sketeli of a shield clearly intended for Herbert, impaling Berkeley 
 and Nevill c^uarterly, which two coats are most clearly given, supported 
 on one side by a man in armour, and on the other by a woman, 
 with a mermaid for a crest. This can be no other than the shield 
 of Sir George Herbert, impaling his wife's arms. The shield is 
 now lost, but there can be no doubt that with its supporters it 
 originally occupied the now vacant space in the middle of the 
 front the of tomb, and would seem to indicate that he, Sir George 
 Herbert, of Swansea, erected this monument to the memory of his 
 father. In the catalogue of state papers of the time of Henry VIII. 
 we find notice of the following writs of Privy seal extant in the Public 
 Record Office which concern Richard Herbert : 
 
 1st. — An appointment for Richard Herbert, gentleman usher to 
 Henry VII. to be Constable and Porter of Bergavenny Castle, 
 dated Greenwich, 22nd July. 1. Henry VIII. (1509). 
 2nd. — For Richard Hei'bert to be receiver during pleasure of Ber- 
 gavenny, in Marches of Wales, as fonnerly — dated Croydon, l2th 
 April. I.Henry VIII. (1510). 
 3rd. — For Charles Somerset, Lord Herbert, Chamberlain, to be Consta- 
 ble and Porter of the Castle of Bergavenny, and receiver of the 
 said Lordship, in the King's gift by the decease of Richard 
 Herliert — Also grant for 20 years of the farm of the demesnes 
 and lands in the said Lordship at the rent paid by the said Richard 
 dated 23rd September, 2. Henry VIII. (1510.) 
 The King held the Lordship and Castle of Abergavenny in his own 
 hands at that time, and though the Castle was not inhabited, the usual 
 officers seem to have been regularly appointed, and from these docu- 
 ments we learn that he was Gentleman Usher to Henry VII, and 
 Constable and Porter of Bergavenny Castle ; also, receiver at Berga- 
 venny of the Lord's revenues, and that he also had a grant to farm the 
 demesnes and lands of the Lordship. In the second document he is 
 de.scribed as Armiger ; but in neither of them is any mention made of 
 Ewyas, nor is it said that he was of any place ; the earliest mention of
 
 68 
 
 E-\vyas is in Goiigli's M.S., 1646. Dugdale calls him only Richard 
 Herbert, of Ewjas ; but Collins and all other peerages, dub him a 
 Knight. I have not been able to learn any more of the history of this 
 worthy ancestor of so many distinguished families, and I regret mvich 
 that doubts shoidd be thrown on any part of his I'eputed history. But 
 in these investigations I am bound to set forth the evidence as I find 
 it, and leave eveiy one to di-aw liis own conclusions. 
 
 Before closing the account of the Herbert Monuments it may be as 
 well to mention one other gravestone, inlaid with brass, which is no 
 longer to be found, unless it may be somewhere buried beneath the 
 raised pavement. It is an important tombstone, inasmuch as it gives Xis 
 valuable genealogical information. We learn of its existence in 1646, 
 from Gough's M.S., in the following words : — " In the same chapel, 
 " between the monuments of Sir William ap Thomas and Sir Richard 
 " Herbert is a fan- great flat stone on the ground with this inscrip- 
 "tion. "Underneath this stone lieth buried the body of William 
 ■' Herbert of Coldbrook, Esq., son and heu- of Rees Herbert, Esq., 
 " son and heii" of Sir William Herbert, Knight, son and heir of 
 " Sir Richard Herbert, Knight, which William Herbert had three 
 "wives, Denis, Jane, and Anne. By the fii'st he had a son and 
 " a daughter, by the second six sons and five daughters ; which 
 "William departed out of this world Anno Dom : 1579." On this 
 " stone is in brass the portraiture of the said William with the 
 "first wife on the right hand, and the portraiture of the two 
 " children under her. And on his left hand his other two wives, and 
 " under the first of them the eleven children had by her. None by 
 " tlie last there mentioned." In the pedigrees I find no mention of this 
 third wife, nor of the daughter by the first, and of the children by the 
 second, only two sons and three daughters. It is probable that there 
 being no issue, tlie third wife may have been omitted or forgotten, and 
 it is also likely that the children of the second marriage may have died 
 young or unmarried and so have been unnoticed. The position of the 
 stone is now occupied by the gravestone of Sir James Herbert, of Cold- 
 brook, who died in 1709. It is "a fair great stone" and it is by no 
 means unlikely that at the time of the destructive mutilation of the 
 monuments, not very long after the visit of the writer of the M.S., the 
 brasses may all have been stripped off* the stone, which having remained 
 for some 60 yeare or more without any inscription to indicate whose 
 grave it was, may have been used for the gravestone of Sir James 
 Herbert, and had the present inscription cut upon it. To complete this 
 series it may be of iiitei-cst to give this inscription on this stone, 
 although it has already been ]Miblishe(l in Cnxc, as it gives much historical 
 information and brings tlu^ family dcnvii to the year 1709 : — 
 
 IIKUK LIF/J'II THE lUIDV (»F SIR .lAMES 
 IIKKIJKKT, OF COI-DBKOOK, KNT. 
 AVIIO DEPAKTED TUIS LIFE Y" Otii
 
 69 
 
 DAY OF JUNE, 1709, IN THE 6oth YEAR 
 
 OF UIS AGE; HAVING IN HIS 
 
 LIFE TIME ENJOY i;n IN HIS NATIVE 
 
 COUNTRY ALL THK CHIKK HONOURS 
 
 DUE TO HIS BERTH AND QUALLITY, AS MEMBER 
 
 OF PARLIAJIENT, &c., AS THEY WERE ENJOYED 
 
 BY HIS AS'CESTORS EVER SINCE THE REIGN 
 
 OF KING IIKNRY THE FIRST, HE BEING THE 
 
 NINETEENTH IN DESCENT FKOJr HERBERT, 
 
 LORD CHAMBERLAIN TO THE SAID KING, 
 
 AND NINTH FROM SIR RICHARD HERBERT 
 
 OF COLDBROOK, INTERRED UNDER THE TOMB 
 
 ON HIS LEFT SIDE, WHO WITH HIS BROTHER 
 
 AVILLIAM, FIRST EAftL OF I'EJIBKOKE OF THAT 
 
 NAME, WAS (VALIENTLY FKaiTINU »•«•• 
 
 KING EDWARD THE FOURTH IN THAT GREAT 
 
 GREAT QUARREL BETWEEN THE HOUSES OF YORK 
 
 AND LANCASTER) TAKEN PRISONER *•»• 
 
 BANBURY, AND BEHEADED AT NORTHAMPTON 
 
 IN THE YEAR, 14C9 ; BOTH THE SAID BROTHERS 
 
 BEING SONS OF SIR WILLIAM THOMAS AND 
 
 GLADICE DE GAM, WHO ARE INTERRED UNDER 
 
 THE MIDDLE TOMB; Ye SAME SIR JAMES 
 
 HERBERT LEVEING BEHIND HIM LADY JUDITH 
 
 HERBERT, WHO DECEASED THE 12th DAY 
 
 OF NOVEMBER THE SAME YEAR. THEY 
 
 LEFT BEHIND THEM ONE DAUGHTER, HIS 
 
 SOLE HEIR, NAMED JUDITH, MARRIED TO 
 
 SIR THOMAS POWELL OF BROADWAY, 
 
 IN THE COUNTY OF CARMARTHEN, BARONET, 
 
 TO WHOM SHE HATH BORNE SEVERAL SONS 
 
 AND DAUGHTERS. HERE ALSO LYETH THE BODY 
 
 OF SIR JAMES POWELL, FIFTH SON OF Ye SAID SIR THOS. 
 
 POWELL, GRANSON OF Ye SAID SIR JAMES 
 
 HERBERT, WHO DIED AN INFANT Ye Uth 
 
 DAY OF APRIL, 1709.
 
 70 
 
 No. VII. 
 
 EVA DE BKA0SE1 
 
 Having completed the series of knightly monuments, we now arrive 
 at the last of the very ancient tombs, namely, those of the two female 
 figiii-es, which although the last, are not the least important either in in- 
 terest or antiquity, for they are of earlier date than any of the others, and 
 one is of paramount importance. Symonds speaks of these monuments 
 in the following terms : " Between the north yle and quu-e upon two 
 " altar tombes lyes two statues of women, escocheons on the sides of 
 " this form (giving a sketch of them). One was killed with a fixll 
 •' following a squirrel from the top of the castle wall. One of the family 
 " of Neville. The other lyes with a peare between her hands, and a 
 " shield very large upon her breast ; they say she was choked with a 
 " peare. A Neville, a hound at her feet." These monuments are much 
 earlier than the time of the Nevills, and what was taken for a pear is a 
 heart, by no means an uncommon object to be held between the hands 
 of monumental effigies. The large end of the heart is, however, always 
 turned downwards, which gives the object some resemblance to a pear. 
 They have both been very roughly treated and are sadly injured, 
 especially that represented in photograph IX. which we will now con- 
 sider. This is the remains of a small raised altar tomb on which there is a 
 recumbent female figure. The head of the tojnb now stands close against 
 the pier of the arch between the choir and north aisle, but as the effigy is 
 very much earlier than the present structure of the church which covers 
 it, it may be doubtful whether it is in its original position. But we 
 have only to take it as and where we find it. The effigy is of small 
 size, being only four feet six inches from the feet to so much of the head 
 as now remains, the upper part having been broken away. This rests 
 on two cushions, the lower one square, with a tassel at each corner ; the 
 upper one long, with, one tassel at each end. The head is uncovered, 
 the hail- being arranged in two long flowing curled ringlets or tresses, 
 on either side of the face, which descend as low as the shoulders, and 
 rest on the tomb below them. The upper part of the head being broken 
 away, we are in ignorance of how the head dress terminated. The 
 fio-ure is i-epresented as wearing a close fitting kirtle or cote bardie, 
 w-liich is closed in the front witha row of close set sm;ill flat buttons 
 down to the waist, where it becomes nuich fuller, and ilows down over 
 tlie feet, tlie toes only appearing ; these rest on an animal like a dog, but 
 all are very much mutilated. The sleeves fit closely, and seem to terminate 
 inn band above the elbow. There seems to be a, close fitting sleeve of an 
 iinilcr g.irmeut, which descends to the wrist. The right hand lies across 
 t\n: body at the waist, and the loft linnd held something said by Cluu-ch- 
 yard to have been a, squirrel, and he speaks of it as existing in his time,
 
 71 
 
 but it is now broken away. Whatever it was, it seems to have been 
 attai-hed by a chain, which passes over the body with a sweep, and 
 terminates in a sht or pocket in the side of the kirtle, which pocket is 
 of lumsual character, being strengthened all round with a very wide 
 margin. The figure is of soft freestone, and both it and the tomb have 
 been sadly broken, and patched up with very roiigh plaster, so that the 
 details of the costume of the one, and the architecture of the other, are 
 obliterated ; but from there being no wimple, and the hair dressed in 
 flowing curls, and from the clo.se fitting gown with tight sleeves, T am 
 disposed to consider it to be of the first half of the XIIT. century, and 
 to attribute it to Eva, daughter of "William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke, 
 and wife of William de Braose, the last Lord of Abergavenny of that 
 name, who died 1230, leaving only four daughters, all very young. She 
 died 1246, which date will well accord with the costume. The manuscript 
 quoted by Govigh states that it was then considered that these two 
 monuments were those of two heiresses of the family of Braose, thus 
 connecting them with this period. 
 
 With i-esi)ect to the history of the squirrel. Churchyard says t!\at 
 the story handed down was that the lady had a jiet squirrel which 
 escaped, and she, in trying to recover it, overbalanced herself, and fell 
 from the castle wall, and so lost her life ; and that the animal was re- 
 presented on her tomb in commemoration of the event, and this story is 
 corroborated by what Symonds learned. Such an event is quite possible, 
 and it mxist be remembered that the ladies of those times were very fond 
 of pet animals, especially small dogs, and as the event was a remarkable 
 one, it is very likely to have been recorded on her tomb. There is no 
 reason to doubt that the sqnirrel was on the monument ; and the 
 peculiarity of the formation of the pocket, with the long chain issuing 
 from it and crossing the body to the hand which held the animal seems 
 to confirm it, as if it had been her practice to carry her pet animal about 
 with her, and on occasions to have placed it in that peculiar pocket, and 
 its esG^pe from there may easily have been the cause of the fatal acci- 
 dent. It may well be doubted if any part of the tomb except the 
 eflBgy is original.
 
 72 
 
 No. VII r. 
 
 EVA DE CA.NTELUPE. 
 
 This is a monumeut of similar character to the last, but made of a 
 very hai*d gritstone, containing minute sparkling particles ; it has, how- 
 ever, fortunately not suffered quite so much injury. It is also an altar 
 tomb, having the recumbent ethgy of a female figure placed upon it. 
 On one side of the tomb are three quatrefoil panels, having within them 
 heater shaped shields, flat on the surflxce ; on the other side in sqiiare com- 
 partments are six heater shields bowed out on the surface. The two sides of 
 the tomb do not correspond, and the slab itself does not fit the tomb, having 
 only a row of flowers on one side, and rather looks as if it had originally 
 been placed against a wall or in a niche ; and the altar tomb has very 
 much the appearance of being a piece of patchwork. The head of it is 
 built so close up against the foot of the last monument, that the present 
 position can hardly be the original ; moreover, both the tombs are earlier 
 than the church, it is therefore impossible to conjecture how they have 
 been moved. The mouldings have altogether been destroyed, and there 
 is now nothing to be decyphered on the shields. The figure is, however, 
 remarkably curious and interesting ; the total length of it is four feet 
 three inches ; the face has unfortunately been much injured. The head 
 rests on an oblong cushion, and is represented as dressed in a wimjile, 
 with a veil or couvre chef hanging down behind. The wimple made its 
 appearance as a head tire for women about the end of the XII century, 
 and was a sort of hood, which covered not only the head and shoulders, 
 but was usually brought round the neck beneath the chin, and was 
 occasionally pulled over it, and concealed the whole of the throat. The 
 hair was freciuently dressed in plaits or curls, which projected at the 
 sides within the wimple, giving a triangular shape to the head di'ess, 
 and loi)king in some instances as if the ears had been umiatiu'ally strained 
 forward. Over this seems to have been worn a sort of close flat to[)ped 
 cap, from which a veil, sometimes called couvre chef or peplum hung 
 down behind, which could be drawn at pleasure over the shoulders and 
 face. The wimple was much worn thi-oughout the XIII cenluiy, and in 
 the head dress of nuns is I believe continued to the present day. Along 
 one side of the slab on which the effigy lies, within a hollow, is a row of 
 quatrefoil flowers, alternating with curling leaves of early English 
 character, and the feet rest on a dog. The figure is represented as 
 weari)ig what appears to 1)0 a state mantle, which is gathered \\\i in i'olds 
 over the arms, the hands being raised upon the breast in prayer, holding 
 between them what seems to be a, heart. The most ciu'ious and in- 
 terestin" circumstance is that the body of the (iijure below the hands is 
 covered with a long heater shield, in length twenty-three inches, and \n 
 width seventeen across the lop, h:iving on it in iflii'f three hirge fleurs-
 
 73 
 
 de-lis, two and one. T am not aware of any similar monument, and I 
 do not think another example exists of a female figure bearing a large 
 knightly shield on her body. This curious peculiarity will, however, 
 enable us to indentily the individual whose torn!) and monument it is. 
 The wimple liead dress, the border of quatrefoil flowers with the curling 
 leaves, and the heater shield all i)oint to the XIII centuiy, and the coat 
 of arms equally ])oints to the family of Cantelupe, whose arms were 
 gules, three fleurs-de-lis, or ; and I have little doubt that I shall be able 
 to indentify it as the monument of Eva cle Cantelupe, Baroness of 
 Abergavenny in her own right, which tact will remove all difliculty, and 
 explain every anomaly, for it is an anomaly for a lady to bear on her 
 jjerson the shield of a knight. 
 
 It will be i-emembered that she was daughter and co-heiress of 
 William de Braose, Lord of Abergavenny, which Barony she inherited 
 on the partition of his estates among his four daughters, and conveyed 
 to her husband "William de Cantelupe, who thereupon became Lord of 
 Abergavenny, and died in 1256, leaving her, his widow, Baroness in her 
 own right, and as such she was within her own marchership a sovereign 
 Princess, and held the position of one of the barons of the realm, and 
 she had her own tenants by feudal service to follow her standard to the 
 wars, if required ; she was therefore a very great and important per- 
 sonage, and this will, I think, quite explain the unusual circumstance ' 
 of her body in the monument being covered with her shield bearing her 
 coat of arms. She only enjoyed her -honours and dignities for a very 
 short time, as she died in 1257, surviiang her husband only one year, 
 leaving her son and heir George a minor, whom I have endeavoured to 
 identity as the original of the wooden effigy. 
 
 The coat of arms on the shield is of itself of much interest, as it is 
 one of the earliest examples of the arms of Cantelupe, and on so large a 
 scale that there can be no mistake. Archdeacon Coxe was not able to 
 throw any light on the matter, though he mentions the statement in the 
 old manuscript of Gough in 1G46, that these female figures were then 
 considered to have been heiresses of the de Braose family, which tends 
 to confirm my identification ; but there is also a tendency to mislead by 
 the statement that the three fleurs-de-lis were the arms of the Lords of 
 Werndee. It is quite true that a coat of arms of three fleurs-de-lis are 
 borne as a qxiartering by families in Monmouthshire, and they are 
 attributed originally to Ynwyr ddu, one of the early reguli or Kings of 
 Gwent in far distant times, before coats of arms were borne and 
 transmitted to families ; he Avas probably a fabulous personage, but this 
 coat was borne by Gwarin ddu. Lord of Gwerndee, and from him find 
 their way among the Herbert quartcrings. These arms are per pale az : 
 and sa : three fleurs-de-lis or ; but the fleurs-de-lis are generally re- 
 presented as differently formed, in as much as the leaves issue from or are 
 held together by a narrow oblong band, having sharp pointed corners.
 
 u 
 
 and tlie leaves seem to pass each separately through this band, the centre 
 being the longest, and sj^reading out in a trifid leaf; whereas in the 
 fleurs-de-lis on the large shield, the upper leaves issvie from a large oval 
 plate, three and a half inches long and two inches wide, quite smooth at 
 the edges, and without angle, point, or projection, and in their passage 
 through are united, and issue below in one trefoil leaf. The Cantelupe 
 arms have I believe puzzled many, and among the papers of the late 
 Mr. Wakeman I find the following note respecting them. " The seals 
 " of the Cantelupes present the following different bearings. At first 
 " they appear to have been indifferently gules, three fleurs-de-lis oi", and 
 " gules, three leopard's heads or. After a time a fess vair between the 
 " fleurs-de-lis or, leopard's heads, as it may be. Then the two coats com- 
 " bined, gules, three leopard's heads jessaut, fleurs-de-lis or; and Lord Can- 
 " telupe at the siege of Carlaverock bore gules, a fess vair, between three 
 " leopard's heads jessant fleurs-de-lis or.'' And on a seal among his 
 collection of impressions the arms are a fess vair, between three fleurs- 
 de-hs on a heater shield ; and the leo-end on the seal is " S. Willelm de 
 " Cantilupo" in letters of the XIII. or XIV. century — to which William it 
 belonged does not appear. It is to be observed that the name is here spelt 
 Cantilupo, it is however variously written Cantilupe, Cantelupe, and Can- 
 talupe. From this monument it is clear that the arms of the William 
 de Cantelupe who was Lord of Abergavenny were the simple fleurs-de-lis, 
 the leaves issuing from a plain disc. It is well known that a heraldic 
 leopard's head is a lion's front face, the form of it is somewhat round, 
 and the tresses of the mane and beard form projecting points in the cir- 
 cumfei'ence, and it is very possible that these oval plates niiiy have been 
 embellislied, and changed into leopards by way of diflerence, or as a 
 mark of cadency by the junior members of the family, still preserving 
 the general character of the bearing. St. Thomas de Cantelupe, the 
 canonized Bishop of Hereford, who was a younger brother of William 
 de Cantelupe, Lord of Abergavenny, bore the arms so changed, and they 
 seem afterwards to have been adopted as the arms of the see. From all 
 these considerations 1 h.-ive no hesitation in comino- to the conclusion 
 that this is the tomb and monument of the Lady Eva de Cantelupe, 
 wido^v of William de Cantelupe and Bai'oness of Al)ergavenny in her 
 own I'iffht.
 
 75 
 
 No. IX. 
 
 JUDGE POWELL. 
 
 The next monmuent iw that sliewn iu photograph XL and is hi the 
 form of an altar tomh, standing iu the N.E. corner of the Herbert 
 Chapel, and having two recumbent effigies of a lady and gentleman 
 lying on its top. The body of the tomb is now simply a large block of 
 masonry, coated with plaster, without anything like ornament, except 
 the insertion of two small fi'agments from some earlier tomb, and one 
 .shield of arms, all the ornamental parts having been broken up when the 
 great destruction took place. The figures are very much injured. The 
 costume indicates the latter part of the reign of James I. and beginning 
 that of Charles L The head of the male figure rests on two cushi(jns, 
 with tassels at the corners. The hair is cut short, and there are 
 moustaches on the upper Vip ; he wears a ruff round his neck, and is 
 habited in a o-own in form resemblino- that of a master of arts. He 
 
 O O 
 
 wears a doublet, slashed and puffed, as seen by the sleeves as they come 
 through the arm holes of those of the gown. The breeches are also full, 
 and slashed like the doulilet, they descend below the knees, and are 
 fastened round the legs with a broad silk sash, tied in a bow at the side, 
 and having the ends fringed. The female has the costume of the same 
 period, but is sadly mutilated and broken. 
 
 Archdeacon Coxe informs us that this is the tomb of Sir Andrew 
 Powell and his lady, that they are habited as a monk and nun, that he 
 w-as an Englisli judge, and Lord Lieutenant of the counties of Hereford, 
 Monmouth, and Brecknock ; of course he wrote what was told him, but 
 has fallen into a sad mass of bhmders. The costumes at once bespeak 
 the date and the civil condition of the persons, and it is inconceivable 
 how, if ever he looked at the figures, he could have found any resemblance 
 in their dresses to those of a monk and nun, to say nothing of his 
 strange ideas of propriety in the notion of a monk and nun lying side 
 by side. Again, there never was a Sir Andrew Powell among the 
 English judges, but there was a Welsh judge on the Bi'econ circuit for 
 the counties of Glamorgan, Brecon, and Ptadnor, named Andrew Powell, 
 from the year 1615 to 1635, just the period indicated by the costume, 
 and ho probably is the man, but 1 do not find hiin mentioned as a knight, 
 although he may have been one. Iu 1G15 the judges of that Welsh 
 circuit were Sir Walter Pye and Andrew Powell, and in 1635 Sir Walter 
 Pye and Walter Ramsey ; it is therefore prol)able that he died in that 
 yeai'. Lastly, there were then no special Lords Lieutenant for the 
 counties of 5lonmouth and Brecon. The style of this great officer was 
 at that time " Lord Lieutenant of the Princii)alities of North and South 
 Wales and the Marches of Wales adjoining thereto ;" Brecon being in 
 Wales, and Monmouth in the Marches. These officers or presidents as
 
 76 
 
 tliey were afterwards called, had tlie power of appointing dejxities in the 
 different counties ; and being a judge he may very possibly have been so 
 appointed to act in the absence of the Lord Lieutenant or President. 
 The following is a list of the Lords President and Lords Lieutenant of 
 the county of Monmouth, the office of Lord President of Wales and the 
 Marches having been abolished in 1GS9 : — 
 
 Lords President axd Lords Lieutenant of the County of 
 
 Monmouth. 
 
 1633, — The Earl of Bridgewater was styled in the patent of his appoint- 
 ment of this date " Lord Lieutenant " of the Principalities of 
 North "Wales and South "Wales, and the Marches of Wales 
 thereto adjoining, and the several counties of Hereford and 
 Salop.— Ob. 1649. 
 The Commonwealth intervened. 
 
 1660. — liichard Vaughan, Earl of Carberry, was appointed Lord Pi'esi- 
 dent of the Marches on the Restoration, in reward for his 
 services in the Royal cause. 
 
 1672.— The Marquess of Worcester, afterwards Duke of Beaufort was 
 apjjointed Lord President of Wales and Lord Lieutenant of 
 the counties of Gloucester, Hereford, and Monmouth. 
 
 1689. — The Duke of Beaufort was succeeded in the Lieutenancy of the 
 county of Monmouth by Cliaiies Earl of Macclesfield, who 
 was also Lieutenant of Breconshire. The office of Lord Pre- 
 sident was abolished that year. 
 
 1694. — 7th William IIL, Thomas, Earl of Pembroke was made 
 Lieutenant of the county of Momnouth, and Thomas 
 Morgan, of Tredegar, Esq.,' Custos Rotulorum. That office, 
 the chief of the IMagistracy, being then separate from the 
 Lord Lieutenancy. 
 
 1700. — John ]\Iorgan, of Tredegar, was made Custos Rotulorum. 
 
 1715. — John Morgan, of Tredegar, was made Lord Lieutenant of the 
 counties of Monmouth and Brecon. — ob. 1720. Being then 
 Custos Rotulorum, he combined the two offices, and since 
 then they have gone together. 
 
 1720. — William Morgan, of Tredegar, afterwards Sir William Morgan, 
 K.B., was appointed Lord Lieutenant and Custos of both 
 counties. — Ob. 1731. 
 
 1731. — Thomas Morgan, Esq., of Piupcrra and Tredegar, was on the 
 death of his brother. Sir William Morgan, appointed Lord 
 Lieutenant and Custos for both counties. — ^Ob. 1769. 
 
 1769. — Thomas Morgan, Em<(., of Tredi'gar, son of the above, made Lord 
 Jjieutenaiit and Custos for both counties. — Ob. 1771. 
 
 1771. — Charles Moigan, Eh(|., of Tredegar, apjjointed Lord Lieutenant 
 and Custos foi' bulli counties. — Ob. 1787.
 
 77 
 
 1787. — The Duke of Beaufort was appointed Lord Lieutenant and 
 
 Gustos of the counties of Monmouth and Brecon. 
 1803. — The Duke of Beaufort made Lord Lieutenant and Gustos of 
 
 both counties of Monmouth and Brecon. 
 1835. — Gapel Hanbury Leigh, Esq., of Pontypool Park, appointed 
 
 Lord Lieutenant and Gustos Rotulorum of the county of 
 
 Monmouth. 
 1861. — Lord Lkiuover Lord Lieutenant and Gustos Rotulorum of the 
 
 county of Momnouth. 
 1867. — The Duke of Beaufort Lord Lieutenant and Gustos Rotulorum 
 
 of the county of Monmouth. 
 It is usually customary to style these high officers Lords Lieutenant ; 
 it rnvtst, however, be borne in mind that the appointment is the King's or 
 Queen's Lieutenants, and that strictly speaking they are not Lords Lieu- 
 tenant, unless they are Lords in their own right ; but it was generally 
 usual to appoint a Peer, and hence the title. 
 
 There is, I think, little doubt that this monument is that of Andrew 
 Powell and his wife ; I cannot, however, find of what family of Powell he 
 was a member. There is equally little doubt that hLs wife was Margaret, 
 daughter of Matthew Herbert, who was great grandson of Sii- Richard 
 Herbert of Coldbrook, and is recorded by Mr. Wakeman in a pedigree 
 as having married a Powell ; he does not, however, give the Christian 
 name, nor say of what family he came, but simjily states that her wiU is 
 dated 1641. This serves to identify her, for in her will dated 7th January, 
 1641, she styles herself Margaret Powell, late of Dawkins, in the parish 
 of Bergavenny, and directs that " 20s. issuing out of her lands called 
 "y Spittee, should be paid yearly towards the reparacion of the chapel 
 " in St. Mary's Church, Bergavenny, called of the Herbert's Chapel, where 
 " a tomb then prepared lor her was situate." From this we may infer 
 that on the death of her husband Andrew in 1G35, she prepared a tomb 
 for him and herself in the Herbert Chapel, and I think there is everyreason 
 to consider this to be that tomb — for Symonds states that there was " A 
 " faire monument in the same chappel for Judge Powell," and gives a 
 sketch of a coat of arms as on the tomb az. in chief, three castles arg : 
 in base a scaling ladder, impaling Herbert. He has, however, made a mis- 
 take in the arms, though the shield bearing the impaled coat which he 
 sketches, may have been destroyed. There was, however, at this time, at 
 the head of the tomb, let in amidst the plaster, an escocheon bearing a 
 single coat, in chief a castle and in base three upright ladders, but no 
 col lurs are to be jaerceived, and the whole is so injured and clogge ! up 
 that no details are to be discovered ; the coat, h<'wever, is not imp.ded 
 with Herbert as represented by Symonds, but he may pos^ibly have seen 
 another shield before the destruction of the monument. The cor'ect 
 aiTQS are sa : a spear head imbrued between three scaling ladders arg : 
 on a chief gules, a castle triple towered arg. Thiy weie the anus of
 
 78 
 
 Cadivor ap Dinawal, who during one of the frequent feuds between the 
 Welsh and English, is stated to have retaken the Castle of Cardigan by 
 escalade from the Earl of Clare in 1164, and so gained this coat in com- 
 memoration of the act, for which he was also rewarded with the Lordship 
 of Castle HoweU, aud other lauds by the Lord Rhys, Prince of South 
 Wales. He was ancestor of the Lloyds of Castle Howell, Maes y Velin 
 or Millfield in Cardiganshire, and Crickadarn in Breconshire, who 
 according to Jones bore these arms. I have not, however, been able to 
 connect them ^^-ith any family of Powell, though it is very possible that 
 some branch of the flunily may have adopted the name of Powell as a 
 surname. One of this family, Sir Marmaduke Lloyd of Millfield, was 
 in 1637 appointed chief justice of the great sessions for the several 
 counties of Radnor, Brecon, aud Glamorgan, and was therefore a successor 
 to Andrew Powell in that office. His grandson was created a baronet in 
 1708, but the family became extinct in the male line In 1750.
 
 79 
 
 Dr. DAVID LEWIS. 
 
 We now come to the monument of Doctor David Lewis, represented 
 in photograph XII. He was Judge of the High Court of Adminilty in 
 the reign of Queen Elizabeth. This monument, though perhaps not one 
 of veiy superior artistic execution, is nevertheless one of very great in- 
 terest, inasmuch as its decorations have all reference to the individual 
 and the office which he held. It is quite unique, and gives Information on 
 some matters not to be found elsewhere. He is said to have erected his 
 tomb during his life time, not in tliose days a very uncommon circum- 
 stance, and it seems very probable that he did so, as all the curious 
 details have been veiy carefidly considered, and no ordinary artist would 
 have been likely to know them without his special instruction. This is 
 also an altar tomb, but made of freestone. Its height is three feet four 
 inches to the top of the slab, which is seven feet three inches long, the 
 body of the tomb being six feet six inches in length. It has been said to 
 have been formed out of a single block of stone, but that is clearly not the 
 case, as the body is in two blocks, and the upper slab and base are of 
 course in different pieces. All these details will be seen in the photograph. 
 
 The front of the tomb is ornamented with an arcade of three arches, 
 which spring from short broad j^ilasters, the panels in front of which are 
 filled with three oak leaves or stems ; the spandrels between the arches 
 being ornamented with broad leaves, as of water jolants on tall stalks, 
 spread out like a fan to fill up the space. In the centre arch is the 
 anchor, the badge and ensign of the admiralty ; the ring, cross bar, and 
 flukes have, however, been broken away. The space above the bar of the 
 anchor is filled with oak leaves, which together with those on the 
 pilasters may have reference to the " Hearts of Oak'' of which ourshijDS 
 were then built. In the central space below the bar is the following- 
 legend in raised capitals, running across the stem of the anchor, JOHN 
 GILDON MADE THIS TO | WME ; the W probably belongs to the 
 word TO, though parted from it by the stem of the anchor ; if so, neither 
 the grammar nor the spelling are very correct. This, however, may 
 have resulted from the employment of a country sculptor not very well 
 acquainted witli the English language, or its orthography. This inscrip- 
 tion probably indicates the name of the artist (which name however is not 
 Welsh), othenvise its meaning is not very intelligible, and it is certainly 
 rather a prominent position for the sculptor's name. 
 
 In the arch on the left hand are seen three large clasped books, two 
 standing upright, with the third resting upon them, and in the centre, 
 in front of them, is a skull partly broken away. Round these runs a 
 ■wreath ornamented with scroll work, bearing this legend EN GLORIA 
 MVNDI. This curious device, Avith the books, skid 1, and motto must
 
 80 
 
 assuredly have had some significance ; but no such device or motto is 
 known in the modern court, nor does any one- know to what it aUudes : 
 it is, however, possible that there might have been found some trace in the 
 old Court of Doctor's Commons before it was dismantled and taken down 
 in 1858. The books in all probability represented certain ancient and im- 
 portant volumes belonging to the court. One may have been the famous 
 " Black Book of the Admiralty," another the laws of Oleron, and the 
 third another ancient volume described by Sir John Exton, who was 
 judge of the court in 1G86, as " a thick covered book, with great bosses, 
 kejit in the registry, wherein are set some things of anticjuity." The 
 Black Book of the Admiralty was described by Exton more than two 
 centmies ago, as containing " ancient statutes of the admiralty, to be 
 " observed both in the jaorts and havens, upon the high seas and beyond the 
 " seas, engrossed on vellum and written in an ancient hand, in the ancient 
 " French language, which book had been kept in the registry of the court 
 " for the use of the judges." This important book seems to have continued 
 to maintain its place in the archives during the XVIII. century, but it 
 had disappeared before 1808, when enquiries were made for it, and the 
 then officers of the court said they had never seen such a book and knew 
 nothing of it. At what precise period it was written or compiled is not 
 certainly known ; Su- John Exton says it is of an ancient hand, not 
 written at once, nor by one person, but the first part in the time of 
 Edward III. or Richard 11. , and the latter part in the time of Henry 
 IV., v., and VI. Thus its earliest and latest history are enveloped in 
 the clouds of mystery. Some ancient MSS. exist which were j^robably 
 copies of it. One is in the Cotton Library in the British Museum ; one 
 in the Bodleian ; and there is also a M.S. copy of it at the Admiralty at 
 Whitehall ; and from these Sii" Travers Twiss has been enabled to restore 
 and publish " The Black Book of the Admiralty,'' and its history as far 
 as is known. The laws of Oleron are a code of maritune laws, so 
 called, because they were compiled at the Isle of Oleron, by King 
 Richard I, and were received by all the nations of Europe as the ground 
 of their maritime constitutions. The motto may, therefore, be supposed 
 to apply, either to these precious volumes containing this im})ortant and 
 universally approved code of laws or to the court where they wei"e ad- 
 ministered ; or in the pride of his heart, the judge may have applied the 
 words to the then navy or maritime superiority of England. The 
 meaning of the skull en- its reference to the books oi- motto 1 am not 
 able to exjjlain. 
 
 In the arch on the riglit hand stands the figure of a man, enclosed 
 within a scroll l)earing the legend in raised cajiitals, THE SARGANT 
 OF THE ADMIRALTI^:E. This figure therefore represents the 
 sergeant at mace of the High Court of Admiialty in his official dress, 
 which seems to have been a gown with lung hanging sleeves. He is 
 represented as a broad shouldered, thickset man, and from the closely
 
 81 
 
 trimmed bushy hair, moustache, and beard is very probably a portrait of 
 the actual sergeant at the time. In his left hand ho holds a jxiir of 
 gloves on his breast, and ui his right hand he bears the silver oar, as the 
 peculiar mace of the Admiralty Court is termed. This consists of a 
 stem, here represented very shoit, terminating at the top in a broad 
 blade Pike that of an oar, on which by careful examination may be dis- 
 cerned on the fiat face at the top, a shield with the Royal Arms, France 
 and England quarterly, surmounted by an arched crown, and having as 
 supporters a winged dragon and a greyhound, the supporters of Henry 
 VII, shewino- the mace to be of his date ; and below the ai'ms is the 
 Anchor, the badge of the Admiralty. These arms require a practised eye 
 and careful examination with a magnifying glass to distinguish them, 
 but the scaloped wing of the dragon, the dexter supporter, which is the 
 most important point, is clearly to be perceived. I visited the Admiralty 
 Court this spring, and by the kindness of the oflScers, examined the 
 present mace or silver oar, as it is still called. This form of mace, bearing 
 the same name, is in use at many of the maritime ports where the 
 admiralty jurisdiction extended, and its courts were held at Dover, 
 Yarmouth, Lynn, and some others. Anciently the Admiralty Court used 
 to be held at Doctor's Commons, but since the recent changes it has 
 been accommodated with a temporary court in Westminster Hall. The 
 office of the Sergeant of the admiralty no longer exists, and the officer 
 who is now the mace bearer is termed the Marshal. 
 
 The silver oar now in use is not ancient, and differs somewhat in pro- 
 poi'tion, but not in form from that represented on the monument, being 
 longer in the stem, and shorter in the blade ; but I think it probable 
 that the real proportions may have been somewhat modified in the 
 monument, so as to give a larger surface to the blade for the purpose of 
 better displaying the devices on it ; and I come to that conclusion from 
 what I find on the present mace. The total length is two feet nine 
 inches ; it consists of a stem one foot nine inches long, divided by knops 
 into three parts, from the uppermost of which rises the flat oar blade, 
 one foot in length, spreading out in the shape of that in the monument ; 
 its form therefore is rather that of a paddle. The lower end of the stem 
 tenninates in a foot, three inches wide, having the centre of the flat 
 bottom sunk, and in the depression is the anchor and cable rope, round 
 it is engraved "Jasper Swift, Marshial of the Admiralte." There is no 
 date, nor can any record be found to shew when Jasper Swift was 
 marshal ; but as the office was formerly the sergeant, it is probable that 
 Swift may have either been the first marshal after the title of the officer 
 was ch;mged, or when the new mace was made. There are no Hall 
 marks on the blade, but on the stem there are two at the bottom and 
 two at the knop below the blade. The maker's mark consists of the 
 lettei-3 LP. and T.P., being one of each group. There is no annual 
 letter ; one of the other marks is, however, the duty mark, the
 
 82 
 
 Sovereio"n's head, which is the profile of George III. ; whicli shews that 
 it must have been made after the year 1784, when the duty on silver 
 plate was first imposed, and the Sovereign's head stamped on all plate 
 made after that time in token of its having been paid ; it must therefore 
 have been made between 1784 and 1820. On the upper jJart of the 
 blade, at the top, is raised work laid on a shield bearing the -Royal 
 arms, France and England quarterly, having for supporters a dragon and 
 a greyhound, the arms and supporters of Henry VII, and surmounted 
 by a high arched crown of the same date, which are exactly the same 
 arms, supporters, and crown as are found on the monun^ent. The middle 
 arch of the crown has been broken away, and in the space thereby 
 rendered vacant has been engraved a modern crown. These arms are of 
 far earlier work than the mace, and have evidently been cut from an 
 earlier mace, and laid on this when it was re-made, but which may very 
 probably have been a copy of the ancient oar. It is very interesting to find 
 the details of the monument thus borne out by the preservation of a 
 23ortion of the ancient mace in the more recent work. These ancient 
 arms and supporters are but of small size, and would, therefore, not have 
 required so large a blade as that given in the monument. The list of 
 the judges of the High Court of Admiralty is given as far back as 1514, 
 when Christopher Myddleton appears as the first on the list. This date 
 is, however, subsequent to that of the arms on the silver oar. Beneath 
 the Royal arms are those of the Duke of Clarence, afterwards King- 
 William IV., who was Lord High Admiral, and the last who held that 
 hiiih office. The arms are surrounded with the o-arter, and siuniounted 
 with his Ducal coronet. This must have been done when he was ap- 
 pointed to that office in 1827, and from the appearance of it, it is very 
 probable that a new blade Avas then made for the pm-]30se of introducing 
 his arms between the ancient Royal arms and the anchor of the 
 admiralty, which is below them. Both are in relief, and laid on to the flat 
 surface, and the anchor looks as if taken from an earlier mace. The 
 back of the blade is c^uite plain. 
 
 At each end of the tomb is an arch similar to those in the front. In 
 that at the head is an cscocheon bearing the arms of Wallis, which were 
 his own family coat, viz : chequy or and sable, on a fess gides three 
 leopard's heads jessant, fleurs-de-lis, oi-. Within (he arch at the foot is 
 a similar escocheon with the coat, p. per ]iale, a chevron between tliroe 
 oak leaves, slipped ; but tfi what family tliese arms belong I am uiiable 
 to discover, nor do I find any hcirtss wlm nnnrictl into his family who 
 might liave borne them. 
 
 Oil tlie top of the tomb lies the recinnbcnt I'fligy of the judge, habited 
 in his dress of office ; his head rests on a very small clasped book, 
 beiicalli which is a, very large one, and luider this a cushion. There is 
 notliiiig to indicate what books these were, but their relative sizes 
 suggest a prayer book and l)iblr, if tbiie weie an}- editions published at
 
 83 
 
 that time of corresponding sizes. On his head he wears a flat round 
 cap, siniihxr to that worn by Doctors of Civil Tiaw at Oxford, encircled 
 with an ornamental band. Round his neck is a ruft' and he is habited 
 in a doublet, the sleeves of which are buttoned close below the arm 
 down to the wrist and terminate in a ruff. He wears trunk hose and 
 slashed breeches, and his legs are encircled with bands or garters below 
 the knee, having large bows on the outside of the leg. Round his neck 
 are three chains, which lie upon his breast, one below the other, and at 
 his waist hangs a pouch. Over all he wears a short gown, edged with 
 fur, having long hanging sleeves do^vn to the knee, Avhich are full and 
 puckered at the shoulders, and have an opening about the elbow to 
 allow the arm to pass through ; the lower part of them seems to be 
 ornamented with spiral or diagonal bands, possibly of broad gold lace. 
 The hands are raised on the breast in prayer, and the toes are broken 
 away, but the feet rest on some object which from the injury it has 
 sustained is not possible to describe, but it very much resembles in 
 shape the hull of a ship of that period ; we now proceed to the history 
 of the learned judge himself 
 
 Dr. David Lewis was the eldest son of the Rev. Lewis Wallis, (or 
 Lewis ap John ap Gwilym ap Robert Wallis), vicar of Abergavenny 
 and Llantilio Pertholey, in the time of Henry VITI, by Lucy, daughter 
 of Llewelyn Thomas Lloyd, of Bedwelty, and seems to have taken his 
 father's name Lewis as his permanent surname. He was descended from a 
 junior branch of the family of "Wahis of Ti'eowen and Llanavtli, the 
 original name being Le Galleys, Le Walleys, Walensis, or Wallis, as 
 written at different periods, the original ancestor being Ptich;ird Le 
 Galleys, living in the time of King John. The first of the direct an- 
 cestors of Dr. Lewis of whom we have any certain account is a Robert 
 Wiiliis in the time of Henry YI, but of whom he was the son does not 
 clearly appear, lie is called Robyn in the records of Abergavenny, and 
 married Joan, daughter of John Combray, alias Chinn, and had issue 
 Gwilym ap Robert ap Wallis, who married a daughter of Sir William ap 
 Thomas, and had issue John Wallis, who married ]\Iaro-aret, daughter of 
 David Arwydd, and they had issue the Rev. Lewis Wallis, father to Dr. 
 David Lewis ; from which time Lewis seems to have beeii the continued 
 surname of the family. He was born at Abergavenny, and was elected 
 Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, in the year 1 .54 1 . He aftei-wards be- 
 came Principal of New Inn, and was admitted to the degree of D.C.L. 
 In 1558 he was appointed Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, which 
 post he held to the time of his death. He was named by Queen 
 Elizabeth in the foundation charter of Jesus College, Oxford, the first 
 and original Principal, which post he soon resigned, being at that time a 
 Master in Chanceiy, and also of the Queen's Court of Requests, as well 
 as Master of St. Catharine's Hospital at the Tower of London. In 1575, 
 he and Sir John Herbert were apppointed joint Commissioners of the
 
 84 
 
 High Court of Admiralty. He was owner of the mansion and manor of 
 Llanthewy Rytherch, which he purchased in 1573 of Philip Jones of 
 London, to whom it had been sold in 1572 by George James, in whose 
 family it had been for some generations. This George James married 
 Joan, the daughter and co- heiress of Sir Charles Herbert of Troy. Dr. 
 Lewis's will is dated 27th March, 158 4 ; he leaves legacies to various 
 relatives mentioned by name, among them is his sister Maud, wife of 
 Wilham Baker, whom he appoints one of his executors, describing hun 
 as Recoi'der of Abergavenny. 
 
 Dr. David Lewis died unmarried, 27th April, 1584, and, as we learn 
 from Anthony "Wood (Athence Oxonieuses,Vol. 1, f. 72)" " in the College, 
 " called Doctor's Commons, in London.'' Of his age nothing is recorded, 
 but if we suppose him to have been twenty-one years of age when elected 
 Fellow of All Souls, 1541, he would have been born in 1 520, and so have 
 been sixty-four at the tune of his death. " His body was brought down to 
 " be buried in the great church at his native place, and now lies under a 
 " very fair monument, havmg thereon the ensigns of the admhalty 
 " curiously carved, but without inscription. This monument was built 
 " by him in his life time." Churchyard mentions the monument of his 
 friend Dr. Lewis, then recently deceased, in his account of the church. 
 There can be no doubt that in designing this monument he took consider- 
 able care and pains to illustrate cori-ectly many details connected with 
 himself and liis office, with a desire to perpetuate and convey to future 
 generations the information which those details contamed, and 1 am well 
 pleased to have been able to illustrate and direct attention to those 
 curious details after the lapse of nearly three centuries. 
 
 
 "^wi/JiSi^' i^^
 
 85 
 
 No. XL 
 FIGURE OF JESSE. 
 
 We have now arrived at the last of our photographic illustrations, 
 No. XIII. This, however, is not a sepulchral monument, but the remains 
 of a grand example of a Jesse Tree, perhaps the finest and most perfect 
 now to be found. The Tree of Jesse is am emblematical representation 
 of the genealogy of our Saviour from David, formed by a tree growing 
 out of the body of Jesse, the father of David, who lies asleep, on the 
 branches of which are represented by small statues among the foliage, or 
 in the case of a window by paintings on the glass of the different per- 
 sonages through whom he is descended. The idea seems to have been 
 suggested by the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, in the first and following 
 verses. This figure is the colossal statue of a man representing Jesse, 
 lying asleep, and reclining on his right side. The head, which has along 
 flowing beard, is covered with a cap, and reposes on a cushion su])ported 
 by an angel ; the body and legs being clothed with folds of drapeiy. 
 From the left side of the body issues the stem of the tree, which is 
 usually a vine, and is grasped or supported by the left hand of the 
 figiu-e, above which it is cut short off. These Jesse Trees are by no 
 means common, and are more usually represented in windows ; but 
 they were occasionally made to form the reredos of an altar. Such an 
 altar existed formerly in the fine church of St. Cuthberts at Wells, but 
 was mutilated and destroyed at the reformation, the remains of it having 
 since been discovered. There is also a very fine examjjle in the Priory 
 Church at Christchurch, Hants, where the reredos represents the Stem 
 of Jesse, who lies asleep above the altar, ■whilst a vine stem proceeds 
 upwards from his body, and ramifies into the various niches, each of 
 which has its statue. There is a fine Jesse window in the chapel of the 
 college at Winchester, but of modern glass copied from the old ; and 
 there is also a very celebrated one in the east window of Dorchester 
 Church, Oxfordshire, w^here some of the figures are sculptured and form 
 part of the rauUions, others being painted on the glass. The east win- 
 dow of St. Georges, Hanover Square, is also a Jesse window, which 
 seems to be Swiss glass of about the date 1500, the original glass having 
 been divided to fit it into the Palladian structure. There are also 
 some instances known on the continent. 
 
 The only full description of a Jesse Tree that I can find is in the 
 Iconographie Chreticnne, where such a tree is figured in a wood cut, 
 with the following description : " We should leave incomplete the 
 " Iconographie history of the Virgin Maiy, if we did not speak here of 
 " the Tree of Jesse, which is met with so often at the close of the XII. 
 " centiuy. Jesse asleep serves in some sort as the root of the mysterious 
 " Stem, which issues sometimes from his bi-east, sometimes from his
 
 86 
 
 " mouth, and sometimes from liis brain. Branches diverge from this 
 " stem, and bear on then- extremities one of the ancestors of our Saviour ; 
 " at the smumit one full blown flower serves as the throne of Mary, 
 " sometimes alone, at othei- times holding in her arms the divine Child." 
 It is therefore such a subject as we might well expect to find forming- 
 part of an altar in a church dedicated to the Virgin. In the engraving 
 the figure of Jesse is represented exactly as we find him here, viz : — a 
 man asleep reclining on his riglit side, clad in a flowing robe, and wearing 
 a ca]D on his head, which I'ests on a cushion ; this, however, is not 
 supported Ijy an angel. From the body issues the ti'ee, which consists 
 of an upright stem, having on either side three branches diverging 
 from it, on each of which are represented two or three statues of Kings 
 or other personages, twelve in all ; whilst the central stem terminates in 
 a full blown flower which supports the standing figure of the Virgin, 
 bearing the Child in her arms, and surrounded with an oval Glory. 
 
 This wooden figure is mentioned by Churchyard in the marginal notes 
 to his poem, " In this church was a most famous worke in manner of a 
 " genealogy of Kings, called the Roote of Jesse, which worke is defaced, 
 " and pulled down in pieces." It is also mentioned by Symonds in 
 1G45, who says "At the east end of the north yle church lyes a large 
 " statue for Jesse, and a branch did spring from him, and on the boughs 
 " divers statues, but .spoyld." It must then have been lying under the 
 window in the Lewis Chapel. It was most likely that it was pulled 
 down at the time of the Reformation, and there does not seem now to 
 remain a vestige of it except the grand figui-e of Je-?se, the root of the 
 tree, which is in good jsreservation, and a remarkably fine example of 
 bold oak carving of the XV. century, if not of earlier date. Its size 
 and weight are unusually large, its length being ten feet. It must have 
 l)een a grand and "famous worke'' as Churchyard calls it, and have 
 occuj)ied a very conspicuous and important position in the cluu-ch ; and 
 if it is allowable to hazard a conjecture, without however any autliority, 
 T should be disposed to think it oi'iginally formed the reredos of the 
 Iligli Altar, and so have fonncd part of the screen between the choir and 
 tlic Lady Cha])el, which I have ventured to consider as having occupied 
 what is now tlie [)resent chancel. Wherever it stood, it nuist have 
 been a magnificent object, and a grand specimen of carving in oak ; and 
 it is not unlikely that it was embellished with ])ainting and gilding. 
 The fragmi'nts of it remained at the time of Churchyard's visit in 1586, 
 and from liis expression it seems to liavc been much renowned at that 
 time, though more than thirty years nfter its destruction. At the 
 bottom of tlie l)card, where the curls part, is a small cavity, but whether 
 it ever contained a relic, or was designed to contain one is uncertain ; 
 there is no appearance of any rebate to receive a glass. 
 
 Th(^ figure was placed in its present position at the time of the great 
 alterations in 182S, and now mpuscs nii u bed, I he IVunt of which seems
 
 87 
 
 to have been constructed with [)ortions of the sides of some altar tomb, 
 and consists of eiglit shallow niches or panels, the upper parts of which 
 terminate in cinqnefnled ogees, and are cajiped with crocketed ogee 
 canopies, springing from small pinnacled buttresses, which divide the 
 panels, in each of wliich stands ;i small statuette. The work is in free- 
 stone, and has been much injured ; it seems to be of the latter part of 
 the XIV. century, and may very possibly bave been a jiortion of the 
 tomb of Lord Hastings, whose date it will suit, which was removed from 
 the middle of the church -by " fine device of man," and worked up into 
 a porch, and when the porch was at some subsequent time removed, the 
 panelling may very well have been used to form a bed for the sup2)ort 
 of the Koot of Jesse. 
 
 This closes the series of monuments of ■which photographs have been 
 taken. The ancient monuments, however, in the Priory Church are by 
 no means exhausted, fur there still remain both monuments, slabs, brass 
 plates, and memoi'ial inscriptions, which though not of equal importance 
 with those whicli have come under our consideration, are still of interest, 
 and deserving of consideration and attention.
 
 H. MTJLLOCK, PKINTER, COMMERCIAL STREET, NEWPORT.
 
 t>
 
 V
 
 >
 
 >
 
 >
 
 M 
 
 M
 
 X
 
 X
 
 X
 
 (jf' '
 
 UCSOUTHFRNRfGIONAI I IBHARV l-ACILITY 
 
 D 001 067 712 8