## The Project Gutenberg eBook of Historical sketches of old Charing.

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Historical sketches of old Charing.

Author: Sir James Galloway

Release date: November 9, 2022 [eBook #69321]
Most recently updated: October 19, 2024

Language: English

Original publication: United Kingdom: John Bale, Sons & Danielsson, 1914

Credits: MWS, Barry Abrahamsen, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORICAL SKETCHES OF OLD CHARING. ***

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

# HISTORICAL SKETCHES OF OLD CHARING

The Hospital and Chapel of Saint
Mary Roncevall
Eleanor of Castile, Queen of England
AND THE
Monuments Erected in Her Memory
BY
JAMES GALLOWAY,
A.M., M.D.
Senior Physician, and a Vice-President, Charing Cross Hospital.
LONDON
JOHN BALE, SONS & DANIELSSON, Ltd.
OXFORD HOUSE
83-91, GREAT TITCHFIELD STREET, OXFORD STREET, W.

PREFACE.

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

London,

Easter, 1914.

THE HOSPITAL AND CHAPEL OF
SAINT MARY RONCEVALL

7

## THE HOSPITAL AND CHAPEL OF
SAINT MARY RONCEVALL
AT CHARING CROSS.

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

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

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

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

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

8This attempt to fill up a gap in the history of London hospitals may be of some service to the students of the history of medicine, and of interest to the larger number who are unwilling to forget the stories of Old London.

### Roncesvalles.

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

In the course of the succeeding centuries the Pass of Roncesvalles occupies on more than one occasion a prominent place in British history. One of the most picturesque passages in Froissart tells how the army of Edward the Black Prince traversed the Pass in the ill-omened invasion of Spain that led to his fatal illness. His remarkable victory at Navarrete scarcely relieves the gloomy record of this adventure. Little more than one hundred years have elapsed since Roncesvalles and the neighbouring defiles once more saw the advance of war-worn British soldiery. In the defence of these passes against the advance of the French under Soult, so nearly successful in overwhelming Wellington’s right flank, and in the subsequent pursuit of 9the retreating French armies, some of the most remarkable of the feats of arms which distinguished the Peninsular War took place. British military history contains few more stirring episodes than the combats between the French and the allied troops in the Passes of Maya and Roncesvalles.

Fig. 2.
Stanfords Geog. Estab. London.
A chart of the Western Pyrenees, showing the roads through the passes and the position of Roncesvalles and Ibañeta.

The memories of Roncesvalles, therefore, are in no danger of being forgotten, but it has passed from knowledge that for a period of more than three hundred years the name of Roncesvalles was more familiar to the citizens of Westminster and London than to the dwellers in Pamplona and Bayonne. How it came about that an important 10religious house dedicated to Our Lady of Roncesvalles should have been established at Charing will best be understood if we consider the nature of the activities of the ancient Monastery in the Pass of Roncesvalles, the numbers of those on whom it conferred benefits, and the character of its benefactors in England.

### The Convent of St. Mary Roncesvalles in Navarre.

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

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

In the course of time the members of this military-religious community received the Augustinian Rule, but they retained much of their independence, the memories of their original order, and especially held to the traditions of hospitality and charitable succour to pilgrims and 11to those in distress. The Convent and its Hospital gradually acquired wide renown on account of the good works carried on by the Canons. Their house was on the main road between France and Spain. The military expeditions so frequently traversing the frontiers marched along the highway passing its doors, pilgrims visiting the shrine of St. James at Compostella must have halted there on their way to and from the south, and the road through the Pass was the chief highway for peaceful travellers of every kind. The community, therefore, increased in importance and in wealth by gifts from princes, nobles, knights, and the common folk, and came to possess property not only in Spain, but also in Portugal, Italy and in France, and, as the records show, in England and Wales, in Ireland, and in Scotland. It is stated that at the height of its prosperity the Convent distributed annually from 25,000 to 30,000 rations, each consisting of a loaf of 16 oz., half a pint of wine, with sufficient soup and meat, or fish on days of fast. Those who were infirm had chicken broth and mutton. The Hospital had a staff consisting of the physicians, with whom were associated surgeons and an apothecary, and one of the distinguishing features of the Order at a very early period was that it included sisters. In the case of patients dying while in hospital, free interment was given after the celebration of masses in due form. It is expressly stated that the daughter house in England, with its possessions in that country, in Ireland, and in Scotland, remitted annually the sum of 4,000 ducats for the support of the Mother House at Roncesvalles.[3]

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

During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the community of Roncesvalles fell on evil days. The march of events deprived them of their property abroad, while laxity in the observance of their Rule and the continually disturbed state of the Franco-Spanish frontier brought about the loss of the greater part of their accumulated possessions and wealth. Unfortunately the ancient records of the Monastery have nearly all been destroyed; but there remains in the library an unpublished manuscript giving the history of the Order and the Convent, written by Don Juan Huarte, about the middle of the seventeenth century, which incorporates information received from a certain Don Francisco Olastro[4] (who is stated to have been an ambassador from England in Madrid) respecting the history of their daughter house in London. But even at the time when this document was written, many 12statements it contains appear to have acquired the characteristics of tradition and can be accepted only after careful collation and criticism. We have, therefore, to depend almost entirely on the English records for the history of the House of Roncesvalles in London.

4. ? Francis Oliver.

### The Convent of Saint Mary Roncevall at Charing.

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

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

13

### William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke (1219-31), Founder of St. Mary Roncevall.

The House of Roncesvalles appears to have owed most of its property in England and in Ireland to the liberality of William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke, the eldest son of the great William Marshall—Rector regis et regni—the Protector of the King and his kingdom after the death of John. The elder Marshall stands out in conspicuous fashion as the most steadfast of all the advisers of the king during the dark period coinciding with the reigns of Richard I and John. His early years were passed in France, acquiring skill in the martial exercises commonly practised by the young nobles of the day, and his courage and proficiency in arms were such that he had early acquired the reputation of being one of the most redoubtable knights in Christendom. If no other evidence remained of his prowess, the historic passage of arms against Richard Cœur de Lion while still Count of Poitiers will be sufficient proof.[5] On this occasion he overthrew Richard and held him at his mercy, preventing the mad attack on his father, and probably saved the Prince from the fate of being a parricide. In addition to his skill in the use of arms, he gradually built up for himself a reputation for prudence, sagacity and loyalty, so that while still a young man he was entrusted with the guardianship of the young Henry, son of Henry II, and in the succeeding reigns occupied the most prominent positions under the English Crown, trusted by the barons and even by John. The testimony of the French King Philip Augustus, when informed of the death of William Marshall, as to his reputation for loyalty and honour 14remains on record: “Et, en vérité le Maréchal fut l’homme le plus loyal que j’aie jamais connu.”[6]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15During the lifetime of William Marshall and his son, and for long before and after, the high road through the Pass of Roncesvalles was much frequented. It was the main line of communication by land between France and Spain on the western frontier, and was used both by peaceful travellers and by the numerous military expeditions passing from one country to the other. These expeditions resulted not only from the constant warfare of the border but were also organized by Crusaders on their way to help the Spaniard against the Moor, frequently with the purpose of travelling farther to the Holy Land. At this time also the relationships formed by Henry II and his sons with the Courts of the new kingdoms in the north of Spain, which were beginning to arise as the tide of Moorish invasion receded, were of the most intimate character. It will be remembered that Richard, when King of England, married Berengaria, daughter of Sancho VI of Navarre, after a very troublesome wooing, and that the younger Sancho took the part of Richard while the latter was on crusade against their common enemies in the South of France. The relationship between the Courts of Aragon and Castile and the Angevin Kings was no less intimate. William Marshall and his eldest son were in the closest association with the Royal House. They both travelled far and wide over France and Northern Spain, so that the Angevin dominions in Aquitaine and the neighbouring kingdom of Navarre must at one time have been as well known to the Marshall family as their home in England.

Another reason which brought many travellers along the road through Roncesvalles was the attraction of the Shrine of St. James at Compostella. The pilgrimage to Compostella was undertaken by knights and their squires as the result of vows made on the field of battle, and was famed for its efficacy among all engaged in military affairs. But the pilgrimage even to armed bands was a dangerous one on account of the disturbed state of the frontier. An interesting example of this is presented in the relationships between Richard and his neighbour the Count of Toulouse. The ostensible cause for Richard’s warfare against the Count of Toulouse was the inveterate inclination of the latter to acts of brigandage. When war was declared the Count of Toulouse had actually captured and ill-treated two English knights named Robert le Poer and Ralph Fraser, on their return from a pilgrimage to Compostella. The reputation of the Hospital of St. Mary in the Pass of Roncesvalles and of the Convent which supported the Hospital was known to every traveller—peaceful or 16warlike—in Western Europe, and would certainly have appealed to the benevolence of such a man as the younger William Marshall. The probability is that both father and son had stronger motives for giving alms to the Community—the result of benefits received from the Convent and Hospital during their journeys between France and Spain.

### The Coming of the Brethren to England (1229) and the Foundation of the Convent at Charing.

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

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

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

17

### Saint Mary Roncevall to the Year 1348.

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

The little that is known of the domestic progress of the House at Charing, in addition to such general indications as are given of its financial condition, concerns the appointment of certain officials. In the year 1278, and again in 1280, a certain Henry, son of William of Smalebrook, was appointed as his attorney for two years on each occasion by the Prior of the Hospital of Roncesvalles. The inference to be derived from this is that the weakness inherent in all the alien houses had already begun to show itself in the community at Charing. The management of the estates in England was entrusted to agents in this country, with the consequence that maladministration of their 18affairs was very apt to take place, and, as a result, opportunities frequently arose for the interference of neighbouring magnates or of the King himself with the affairs of the alien religious houses.

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

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

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

The year 1290 must have been notable in the annals of the Hospital, for in that year died Eleanor of Castile, the wife of Edward I, at Harby, near Lincoln, and the King in pious memory built a sculptured cross at every place where the body of his consort rested during the funeral procession to Westminster. The last station in this progress was at the village of Charing. The hospitality of the brethren must have been taxed to the utmost to provide accommodation for the retinue 19accompanying the King, even if supplemented by the exertions of the neighbouring hermitage of St. Catherine. The cross at Charing was completed in the year 1294, and the brethren no doubt at this time had many opportunities of conversing with the artists and handicraftsmen who formed the very flourishing and remarkable school of art at Westminster, and who were so enthusiastically encouraged both by Henry III and his son Edward. It is quite possible that the Chapel of the Convent may have benefited by the advice, or even by the workmanship of Alexander “the Imaginator,” of Abingdon, and William de Ireland, whose artistic handiwork formed so prominent a feature of the Eleanor Crosses.

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

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

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

In the year 1294, the Prior of the Hospital claimed, by writ of entry, one toft with appurtenances in Westminster from Adam, son of Walter 20the Scot. It was admitted that the toft and tenements had been held fifteen years previously by the Prior, who had lost them by default, as he did not appear before the Court when the ownership of the property was in question. The Convent made good its claim, though it seems that Adam was quite willing to restore the property to the Convent, but a special inquiry had to be made to show that there was no collusion in permitting this property to pass in mortmain to the religious house. It is of interest to note that the Prior, Garcia de Ochoa, died in November, 1278, and was succeeded by the Prior Juan. In the year 1279, when this property passed by default, difficulties may have arisen on account of an interregnum at Roncesvalles.

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

During the troubled times when England was engaged in Continental wars, soon to become almost continuous, communication between Gascony and England must have been so difficult as to be well-nigh impossible to men of peace. Convoys under military protection were in imminent danger of capture, and from what we know, especially in the case of naval warfare at this period, there were few of the vanquished who escaped death. In addition to the dangers of travelling another source of great difficulty was felt by the Prior and his officials. The King was in constant and urgent need of money to permit of the prosecution of his warlike policy, and his agents were not too scrupulous as to how it was obtained. If it could be represented that the property of the alien religious houses in the King’s dominions could be used for the support of his enemies abroad, or if it could be urged in extenuation that funds sent abroad by the alien communities could be captured in transit, it is evident that the King would have many excuses and would exercise little scruple in levying heavy 21contributions on the property of the alien clergy in this country, or even of confiscating it entirely. It was under these conditions that the earliest suppressions and confiscations of the alien houses took place.

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

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

10. Andrés Ruiz de Medrano; ob. August 21, 1327 (?).

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

22At Charing Cross itself the Priory possessed a piece of land fronting on the river and extending back to the roadway between London and Westminster. The depth of this plot was then not so great as it is now, for the waters of the river extended much nearer to Charing Cross than at present.[11] The position of Inigo Jones’s well-known watergate at the foot of Buckingham Street, the last relic remaining of York House, indicates the line of the river bank at a date over two hundred years subsequent to the time now under consideration.

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

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

The pitch of the chapel roof was steep, the form most easily constructed at the period of which we speak, and was no doubt covered with lead. A belfry was situated at the north-eastern end of the 23chapel. Certain buildings of a much later date than the main part of the edifice, and probably built of brick, are seen to have been added to the northern and southern ends of the chapel, and along the river front. From a terrace on the south-east side of the chapel stairs led down to the water’s edge. Immediately to the west of the chapel were the Convent gardens, extending in the direction of the roadway to Westminster, and partly terraced to the river bank. Lying back from the chapel were the conventual buildings and other tenements in the possession of the community. These appear to have been arranged on both sides of a court which opened on the high road close to the cross.

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

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

24

### The Black Death (1348-49).

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

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

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

When the plague ceased, and for some time after, the affairs of the Convent appear to have been in complete confusion. The immense mortality during the year of the prevalence of the plague disordered to a serious extent the whole executive of the country, and especially affected the Church. In some cases the community in the smaller convents died out entirely, in others the senior members and officials completely disappeared from the records, and in all cases serious losses must have occurred. This fatality was not confined to the monastic clergy alone; those holding benefices outside the religious houses perished probably in greater numbers. The consequence was that throughout the country rapid institutions to vacant benefices had to be made to carry on the duties of those who had fallen, and frequently unlettered, and in some cases unworthy, clerks succeeded to important charges. These difficulties must have been much accentuated in the 25case of alien houses. They suffered, as did all the other religious communities, and in addition, they felt the difficulty of being remote from the parent House. Officials who would have had the interests of the House at heart could not be sent from abroad to take charge on short notice, and the Prior at Roncesvalles, no doubt, did not even know of the deaths of his subordinates at Charing Cross. The vacant benefices in the possession of the alien houses were sought for and obtained by clergy on the spot who had influence, and there can be no doubt that the conclusion is correct, that many of these persons were more concerned in advancing their own interests and in retaining the possessions thus secured, than in guarding the rights of the foreign abbey or priory. Not only, however, did the local clergy secure the vacant benefices and property, but in many cases the property of the alien houses was taken possession of by their influential neighbours, sometimes without opposition, when the original possessors had entirely disappeared, at other times by the high hand when the rightful owners were few or feeble.

### The Conflict of Interest between Alien and English Clergy at Saint Mary Roncevall (1350-1414).

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

The first records after the Plague are of special significance. In 1379, in the reign of Richard II, the chapel and lands of St. Mary Roncevall were seized into the King’s hands in accordance with the statute dated at Gloucester, “for the forfeiture of the lands of schismatic aliens,” and in accordance with the policy of the Crown at this period to suppress all the alien religious houses. At this time there was a certain Nicholas Slake, a clerk, who, wise in his generation, had not failed in procuring preferment and much advantage from the Church. 26He possessed various benefices throughout the country, and finally became Dean of the Chapel Royal of St. Stephen, Westminster, in the year 1396.[13] Nicholas Slake had obtained possession of the revenues and had become Warden of the Hospital and Chapel of “Rounsyvale,” probably when the Crown took possession of the property after the forfeiture of 1379. In 1383, we find that the King grants a writ of aid for Ralph Archer, Proctor of Nicholas Slake, Master of the Hospital of St. Mary Roncevall, “to arrest and bring before the King and Council all persons whom he shall prove to have collected alms in the realm as Proctor of the Hospital, and converted the same to their own use.”

13. Hennessy, “Novum Repertorium Ecclesiasticum Parochiale Londinense.”

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

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

The following years must have brought much anxiety to the remnants of the alien clergy in England. They must have become more and more conscious of the insecurity of their tenure. England was once more engaged in deadly war with France; communications between the two countries were constantly interrupted or carried on with great risk and danger, and in the case of the Hospital of St. Mary, the sending of their surplus revenue to Navarre through France must 27have been regarded by the King, constantly seeking funds for military purposes, with the utmost jealousy. Most of the alien houses had already been suppressed. The continued existence of the House of St. Mary Roncevall, as mentioned above, had been seriously threatened. The affairs, therefore, of the community of Charing Cross must have been in great disorder and can have afforded little satisfaction to the parent House. That the Prior did make efforts to supervise the affairs of the Convent in England is clear, but the control must have been very ineffective.

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

### Saint Mary Roncevall passes into the Hands of English Clergy (1414).

The end of the strife between the Navarrese and English clergy for supremacy in the House at Charing Cross was not far off. By the year 1414 the few remaining alien priories and convents were suppressed by Henry V, but what influence this final suppression had on the activities of the Convent of St. Mary Roncevall is not quite clear. English clergy were already in possession of the appointments in the 28Church and Hospital, and the services of the Convent to the people of London seem to have continued. There arose no question of handing over the property for secular purposes, and probably there was no serious dislocation of the usual work of the House. The management of its affairs must simply have been recognized to be entirely independent of the Prior and his officials. It is to the credit of both parties that this separation was accomplished without severe disturbance, for, as we shall see, communications between the Prior at Roncesvalles and the Warden of St. Mary Roncevall remained on what seems to have been a friendly basis. The English wardens who were now appointed were, so far as is known, men of note, and frequently in close relationship with the Court.

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

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

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

29

### The Establishment of the Fraternity of St. Mary Roncevall (1475).

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

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

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

30

### Dissolution of the Fraternity by Henry VIII (1544).

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

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

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

31

### The Later History of the Estate of Roncevall.

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

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

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

Cawarden died in the year 1559. In the meantime the Roncevall property had passed to Sir Robert Brett. It was purchased early in the seventeenth century by Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton, who built himself a town house, described as a “sumptuous palace,” on the site, using for the purpose the material of the ancient Convent. This house was completed in the year 1605 and was known for some years as Northampton House. It consisted of buildings arranged on three sides of a quadrangle, and open towards the garden and river. From him the property passed by inheritance to his nephew, Thomas Howard, first Earl of Suffolk, the second son of Thomas, fourth Duke of Norfolk, who completed the quadrangle, the house being then known as Suffolk House. From the Howard family the property passed by an heiress to Algernon Percy, Earl of Northumberland, in 1642; another heiress of the Percy family brought the property to Charles Seymour, Duke of Somerset. While in the possession of the Somerset family and their immediate successors, the Strand front was much improved and acquired the architectural features so long associated with Northumberland House at Charing Cross. By another heiress, Lady Elizabeth 32Seymour, the property passed into the possession of the present Duke of Northumberland’s family.

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

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

33

### The Roncevall Property in London; from Information in an unpublished Manuscript of the beginning of the Seventeenth Century in the Library at Roncesvalles.[16]

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

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

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

The document goes on to say that the Priory possessed in England property including the Chapel and Convent at Charing Cross (“Caringrasso”) of the yearly value of 9,300 pounds English money, corresponding to 8,223 Spanish 34ducats, and that it also owned property in Canterbury (“Conturbel”) of the yearly value of 4,000 pounds, and in Oxford (“Oxonia”) of 5,700 pounds. A Procurator was appointed directly by the Abbot at Roncesvalles, who had his headquarters in London at Charing Cross, and had complete powers of administration to deal with the property of the Convent scattered through England, Scotland, and Ireland, and he also directed the Hospital and other enterprises of the Brotherhood.

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

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

35

## The Illustrations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘SIGILLU(M COĒ FRATER)NITATIS BĒ MARIE DE ROUNCIVA(LL).’”
(Birch’s Catalogue of Seals.)

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

37

### Calendar of the Hospital of St. Mary Roncevall, Charing Cross.

ANNO 1229.

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

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

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

Calendar Patent Rolls, 13 Henry III, p. 265.
1232.

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

Calend. Charter Rolls, 16 Henry III, p. 168.
1240.

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

Calend. Close Rolls, 24 Henry III, m. 8.
1242.

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

Calend. Pat. Rolls, 26-27 Henry III, p. 334.
1242.

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

Calend. Pat. Rolls, 27 Henry III, p. 349.
1253.

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

Calend. Pat. Rolls, 37 Henry III, m. 17.
1253.

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

Calend. Pat. Rolls, 37-38 Henry III, m. 20.
1254.

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

Calend. Pat. Rolls, 37-38 Henry III, m. 8.
1278.

38Henry, son of William of Smalebrok, nominated Attorney for 2 years for the Prior of the Hospital of Roncevaux. Westminster.

Calend. Pat. Rolls, 6 Ed. I, p. 283.
1279.

The sum of 16l. 13s. 4d. charged on the pedage of “Maramande” (Myramand), to be paid to the hospital of Roncevaux (Rossidevall). Westminster.

Calend. Pat. Rolls, 7 Ed. I, p. 7.
1280.

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

Calend. Pat. Rolls, 8 Ed. I, p. 382.
1281.

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

Calend. Pat. Rolls, 9 Ed. I, p. 447.
1283.

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

Calend. Pat. Rolls, 11 Ed. I, p. 75.
1290.

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

Ancient Correspondence, vol. xx, No. 44.
1291.

Emendæ. Item, fratre Lupo procuratori Hospitali Runcivallis dampnis fratrum dicti Hospitalis adjudicatis coram auditoribus querelarum pro domibus suis Suthamtonæ xiiij li, ij s. xiiij li, ij s.

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

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

1292.

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

Calend. Pat. Rolls, 20 Ed. I, p. 476.
1293.

39Lupus de Canone, preceptor of the Houses of Ronceval in Bordeaux, and Arnaldus de Sancto Johanne, a lay person, nominated attorneys for the Prior of Ronceval (Roscidevall), staying beyond seas for three years. 12th May; Westminster.

Calend. Pat. Rolls, 21 Ed. I, p. 14.
1293-94.

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

Assize Rolls, No. 544, 22 Ed. I, m. 21.
Probably late Ed. I, or Ed. II.

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

Ancient Petitions, 9635.
1310.

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

Calend. Pat. Rolls, 3 Ed. II, p. 222.
1321.

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

Calend. Pat. Rolls, 15 Ed. II, p. 23.
1321.

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

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

40F. (?) Prior and the Hospital of Roncevaux to Edward II, on behalf of the citizens of Bayonne, greatly impoverished by the late wars.

Ancient Correspondence, xxxiv, No. 167.
1335.

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

Calend. Close Rolls, 9 Ed. III, p. 423.
1348-49.

The Black Death.

1379.

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

Cf. Close Rolls, 10 Henry IV, m. 7. 1409, vide infra.
1382.

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

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

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

Calend. Pat. Rolls, 6 Ric. II, p. 195.
1383.

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

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

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

Cf. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, edit. 1820, vi, pt. 2, p. 677.
1389.

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

Calend. Pat. Rolls, 13 Ric. II, p. 152.
1390.

41John Hadham, the King’s clerk, Warden of the Hospital of St. Mary of Ronsyvale at Charryng by Westminster. 18th February; Westminster.

Calend. Pat. Rolls, 13 Ric. II, p. 205.
1396.

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

Calend. Pat. Rolls, 20 Ric. II, p. 30, pt. 1, m. 15.
1396.

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

Calend. Pat. Rolls, 20 Ric. II, p. 44, pt. 1, m. 6.
1399.

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

Calend. Pat. Rolls, 1 Henry IV, p. 25, pt. 1, m. 16.
1409.

Exemplification at the request of John Newerk, of:—

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

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

Calend. Pat. Rolls, 10 Henry IV, pt. 1, m. 10.
1409.

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

Close Roll, 10 Henry IV, m. 7 (see also m. 11).
1409.

42Record of the above-mentioned plea between Francis, Prior of St. Mary de Rouncyvall, and John Newerk, Clerk, returned on a writ de causis certiorari, dated 1st September, 5 Henry V, 1417.

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

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

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

Chancery Miscellanea, 68/466.
1411.

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

Calend. Pat. Rolls, 12 Henry IV, m. 12.
1417.

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

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

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

1418.

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

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

1432.

Royal licence to “our chaplain,” Roger Westwode,[19] Master of the Chapel or Hospital of St. Marie de Roncidevall by Charyngcroix in the diocese of London, his successors or their proctors, to 43receive bulls and other letters of indulgence for the profit of the said Chapel, from the Prior and Convent of Rouncidevall in Navarre, in the diocese of Pamploma, and to remit alms for the poor and other moneys to the Priory in Navarre, because the said Priory is outside our allegiance, to last so long as there is no war between us and the King of Navarre. Westminster.

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

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

1440.

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

Calend. Pat. Rolls, 18 Henry VI, pt. 3, m. 12.
1440.

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

Rymer’s Fœdera. 12th September, 19 Henry VI.
1475.

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

Calend. Pat. Rolls, 15 Ed. IV, pt. 2, m. 10, p. 542.
1478.

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

Calend. Pat. Rolls, 18 Ed. IV, pt. 2, m. 34, p. 114.
1494-95.

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

Year Book. 10 Henry VII, Easter Term (No. 5).
1495-96.

44Argument as to whether the Hospital can plead under the name of the Master and Wardens only, or under the full title of Master, Wardens, Brethren and Sisters of Rounceval.

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

Year Book. 11 Henry VII, Trinity Term (No. 12).
1509-10.

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

L.T.R. Originalia Roll. 1 Henry VIII, Rot. 139.
1539-44.

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

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

Roll 2 B., pt. 1, m. 80.
1542.

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

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

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

1544.

The Deed of Surrender, whereby the Master, Wardens, Brethren and Sisters of the Fraternity or Gild of the Chapel of Saint Mary of Rounsidevall by Charinge-crosse, in the suburbs of London, concede to the King in perpetuity all rights and ownership in the said 45Chapel and Church of Saint Mary of Rounsidevall, the Belfry and Cemetery adjacent to the Chapel, likewise all messuages, houses, buildings, lands, tenements, meadows, grazing-lands, pastures, rents, reversions, services, and other hereditaments whatsoever. (11th November.)

Deed of Surrender. No. 138, Augmentation Office.

The impression of the Common Seal of the Fraternity is attached.

1550.

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

Pat. Roll, 3 Ed. VI, pt. 10.
46

### Augmentation Office. Miscellaneous Books. No. 259.

Book of payments from 20th March, 4 Edward VI, to 20th March, 5 Edward VI.
1551-52.

“Pencions out of Monasteries”

f. 16 d. Roundesivall.

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

21. The above sum is written below viij li, crossed out.

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

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

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

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

49 ELEANOR OF CASTILE

52

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

53

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

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

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

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

### The Coming of Eleanor to England.

The omens at the commencement of Eleanor’s career in England were by no means favourable, and little indicated the event. At the age of about nine, Eleanor, a princess of Castile, was married to Edward, the heir to the English Crown, who had reached the mature age of fifteen years. The marriage took place in the year 1254, in the ancient 54city of Burgos, and was celebrated with the utmost pomp; but the magnificence of the occasion fails to conceal the features of the hard diplomatic bargain driven between Henry III, the father of the bridegroom, and Alfonso X of Leon and Castile, Eleanor’s half-brother. As a condition of this treaty Alfonso merged all his claims and rights in Guienne and the South of France in the English Crown; and the marriage, arranged after much difficulty, placed the seal on this compact, terminating a long period of petty warfare and intrigue, during which Alfonso had sought to encourage the Gascons and other Gallic subjects of Henry against their liege lord.

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

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

55The young Prince, her husband, appears to have been a headstrong and undisciplined young man; though nominally in possession of great estates in France and England, his actual income in money was small, and he and his friends and retainers seem to have lived on the land as if they were a band of foreign robbers. Edward’s thoughtlessness and the harshness and cruelty of those around him are unfavourably commented on at this time. The hard discipline, which the young Prince received in the years immediately following, was very necessary to render him the great king of England which he subsequently became, and many years also were required before the little Princess acquired the gracious firmness of character which is recognized in the “Regina bonæ memoriæ” of English history.

### The Early Influences affecting Eleanor’s Character.

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

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

It was not till the Barons’ Wars were approaching their termination that Eleanor definitely took up her residence in England. The domestic 56life of the young Prince and Princess may be reckoned as commencing about the year 1264, ten years after their marriage, when their eldest child, named after her mother, was born. Eleanor seems to have lived a very domesticated life,[23] principally at Windsor and in her Castle at Guildford, and there is evidence that her gracious character and many acts of kindness to the neighbouring people soon began to have their inevitable effect. She showed early the desire to accompany her husband on his travels, one of the most characteristic features of her later life. Edward, on the other hand, was still under the shadow of his father. The state of English politics was exceedingly perturbed, and the King’s eldest son was much involved in the intrigues of the time. The strength of Edward’s character frequently showed itself by courage and enterprise in the field of battle, by political insight and evidences of good statesmanship; but his impetuosity and his lack of consideration led to frequent acts of harshness which must have alienated many who would otherwise have been supporters of the royal house, and his conduct in private must have frequently been a cause of anxiety and mental distress to his young Princess.

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

### Eleanor journeys to the Holy Land with Edward.

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

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

The next two years were spent in the East. The crusade ended in failure, scarcely relieved by the exploits of Edward in raising the siege of 57Acre, at the battle of Nazareth, and in one or two smaller engagements. From among the incidents of the crusade, the attempted assassination of Edward by an emissary of one of the Sultan’s emirs stands out most clearly. During the struggle Edward was badly wounded in his arm. The wound suppurated, the arm swelled, and threatened to become gangrenous. At this juncture the physician in the household of the Master of the Temple was called in to advise, and stated his opinion that the only chance of recovery was by means of free incision of the affected arm. Edward decided that this should be done. On hearing the decision of her husband, the Princess, worn out with anxiety, broke down completely, and had to be conveyed from the tent in charge of her brother-in-law, Edmund, and John De Vescy.[24] The operation was then performed, and Edward made a satisfactory recovery. During his convalescence, he must have owed much to the devoted care of his wife and to the skill of his medical attendants. It was during these three years of close association, while Edward had to bear the trial of repeated disappointments in addition to the severe hardships and imminent perils of foreign warfare, that a bond of firm comradeship was formed between the future King and Queen.

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

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

### The Return to England.

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

It was not till late in the following year that they returned to 58England, when both Edward and Eleanor were hallowed and crowned at Westminster amidst surroundings of the greatest magnificence, and with the promise of a fortunate reign, especially in their relationship with the King of Scotland (19th August, 1273).

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

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

The Queen, however, did not entirely escape trial and mental anxiety even in her relationship with her daughters. She keenly felt Edward’s decision that her daughter, Princess Mary, a girl aged 6, should take the 59veil and enter the great Benedictine nunnery of Amesbury. Edward seems to have been forced to this harsh decision by the masterful influence of the Queen Mother, Eleanor of Provence, who was living in retirement in this convent. The Princess Mary survived to the year 1332, and saw much of the trouble which subsequently befell the Royal House.

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

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

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

### The Last Year of the Queen’s Life.

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

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

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

Already, however, the tragic events which closed this year were 60throwing their shadows over the land. The Queen’s health was not as it should be,[28] and a rumour rapidly gained credence that Margaret was dead in Orkney, where she had rested on her voyage from Norway to Scotland. The question of the succession to the Scottish Crown, with all its dangerous consequences, was immediately opened up, and it is clear that Edward promptly came to the conclusion that he must be in a position to bring about a result favourable to the English interest.

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

### The Journey to Harby and the Queen’s Fatal Illness.

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

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

During the whole of this period the Queen was steadily declining in health. It is interesting to note one or two indications of the nature of her long illness. It is on record that a certain Henry de Montepessulano[30] received on 18th October the sum of 13s. 4d. on account of syrups and other medicines purchased for the Queen at Lincoln.[31] The Queen’s physician was a certain Magister Leopardus, who is specially mentioned in the Queen’s will as receiving a legacy of 20 marks. In addition to the physician attached to her household she seems to have been attended by some of her own countrymen—the physician to the King 61of Aragon is especially mentioned. To him the Queen presented a silver goblet, worth 12-1/2 marks, and Sir Garcia de Ispannia, who was evidently of the King and Queen’s household, received a certain sum for a cross given to the Queen.

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

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

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

32. Wykes, Thomas. Ann. de Oseneia. Annales monastici: Rolls series, iv, p. 326, “Modicæ febris igniculo contabescens.”

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

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

Evidence of the King’s grief and depression is given not only by the contemporary writers, but by Edward’s actions at the time of the death of Eleanor and during the subsequent months. The gracious character of the Queen’s influence on her consort, and the affection she inspired in her people, is amply testified by the contemporary annalists. Walsingham, once more quoting his predecessors such as Rishanger, describes her shortly in the following sentence: “She was in very truth a woman of pious, gracious, and compassionate disposition, the friend of all English folk, and as a pillar of the whole realm.”[34] The important point of this description is the emphasis laid on the fact that Eleanor was the friend of her English subjects. This had not been the characteristic of her predecessors. In the time of Henry III, the foreign relatives of both the Queen and the King swarmed into England, and memories of the unjust favours showered upon them still rankled in the 62minds of the people. An echo of this can still be heard on listening to the tale of the annalist at Dunstable. He writes from the English point of view, and is chiefly concerned with describing the benefits received by his Convent from the King and Queen.[35]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

63

### King Edward’s Plan for the Commemoration of Queen Eleanor.

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

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

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

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

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

Three tombs were to be erected in memory of the Queen—one in the Cathedral Church of Lincoln, where the viscera were buried; one in the Church of the Dominican Friars in London, a religious fraternity which had early gained the sympathy of the King and Queen. In this beautiful Church of the Black Friars, built mainly by the munificence of 64Edward and his consort, the heart of the Queen was to be enshrined at her own request. The third tomb was erected in the Chapel of St. Edward the Confessor, where the body is interred. The King determined that at every station on this route where the Queen’s body rested for the night a memorial cross should be erected in the most sumptuous manner possible.

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

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

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

The idea of this impressive ceremonial was no doubt suggested to the mind of Edward by the funeral of his old leader on crusade—Louis IX of France. After the death of Louis in Tunis, his body was conveyed to France for entombment. It was carried on men’s shoulders from Paris to St. Denis, and at the places where the bearers rested on their journey a cross was subsequently built. It is well known that Edward held the memory of Louis in great veneration, and was well aware of these circumstances; no doubt he had seen the crosses in 65memory of St. Louis while in France and accompanied by the Queen.

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

### The Builders of the Queen’s Monuments.

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

There is, however, a good deal of evidence to show that Edward inherited the collecting proclivities of his father, and was encouraged in this amiable failing by Eleanor. He spent very large sums of money in buying gold and silver plate, jewellery, carvings and embroideries. Records remain not only of his own possessions, but of the lavish way in which he and the Queen presented such works of art to religious houses which they visited from time to time, and in which they took special 66interest. An example may be found in the accounts of the Queen’s executors, where we find that a certain Brother Nicholas received the sum of £10 for bringing jewels, and, apparently, other works of art, from Acre to England for the Queen’s service.[39]

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

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

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

In association with Crundale, there were at work in Westminster two sculptors (“Imaginatores”) of renown, namely—Alexander of Abingdon, and William of Ireland; these were the men who carved the statues. Ralph of Chichester carved much of the decorative stone work. The painter who decorated the tombs had also a high reputation in his time—Master Walter of Durham. Master William Torel, a citizen of London and goldsmith, had the good fortune to be chosen to mould and cast the metal effigies of the Queen, which found their places on the tombs at Westminster and Lincoln. His work was carried out in material of more durable character, and his reputation as an accomplished craftsman in metal rests firmly on the evidence of one of the most perfect remaining examples of mediæval art. Another worker in 67metal, Master Thomas de Leighton, has left evidence of his skill in the fine iron grille over the Queen’s tomb. The executry accounts tell us also of the men employed by Crundale to bring the stone and Purbeck marble from Corfe, Caen, and other places, and the names of others associated with the works at Westminster are still preserved.

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

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

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

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

68The building of the five Midland Eleanor Crosses—namely, at St. Albans, Dunstable, Woburn, Stony Stratford and Northampton—is of special interest, inasmuch as the work was entrusted to what seems to have been the mediæval representative of a firm of architects and builders in Northampton. The most prominent member of the firm was a certain Johannes de Bello, or de la Bataille, in whose name most of the payments are made out, but with him was one scarcely less important, namely, Simon de Pabeham (Pabenham). These two builders were also of the Westminster School, and appear later in connection with works at Westminster itself. At this time, however, they were working at Northampton as their centre. Nearly £400 was noted as being paid to John Battle, but we can form little opinion as to how the money was distributed. The cross at Northampton, a beautiful example of Battle’s handiwork, still exists.

Fig. 13.
The Cross at Geddington in the eighteenth century. Published by the
Society of Antiquaries: drawn by Schnebbelie, engraved by Basire:
Vetusta Monumenta, iii, plate xiv, 1791.

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

At Lincoln, the rebuilding of the Cathedral had given rise to a local school of art, influenced no doubt by, but independent of, the greater school at Westminster. The master builder of this school at the time was Richard de Stowe, sometimes called “de Gaynisburgh,” evidently a 71man of local birth and training, whose tombstone is still to be seen in the cloisters of Lincoln Minster. To him was entrusted the erection of the cross at Lincoln, but some finer decorative work was done by the Westminster artists. William of Ireland furnished the statues and the ornaments so frequently mentioned in the accounts as the “virgæ, capita et annuli,” and special mention is made of payments to him for their carriage to Lincoln.

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

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

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

The area on which the cross stood was covered with stone pavement, on this pavement a smaller platform, attained by a varying number of steps, was built, from this platform arose the cross proper. The architectural decorations surrounding the column were arranged in three stages. The first stage presented three, six, or eight faces, arranged in panels; in these panels were carved shields, emblazoned with the Queen’s heraldic bearings, giving the coats of England, Castile and Leon, and Ponthieu.[41] The second stage consisted of a platform for displaying the statues of the Queen, the number of statues corresponding to the faces of the cross—three, four, or more, as the case might be. Protecting the statues was arranged an elaborate system of “tabernacles,” giving to the passer-by the impression of a shrine. The third stage showed the continuation of the solid column, probably in most cases surmounted by a cross. The whole of the monument was ornamented with the 72decorations characteristic of Early English decorated architecture. The work was done at the best period of this school, and shows how beautifully the artistic ideas of the time could be utilised for monumental purposes.

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

## THE ELEANOR MEMORIALS AND THEIR FATE.

### Lincoln.

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

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

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

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

In 1901 a monument in memory of the Queen, copying the original 75tomb, was placed on the southern side of the retro-choir by the late Mr. Joseph Ruston. Sufficient information was obtained from drawings of the original monument by Dugdale and Bishop Sanderson, now in the possession of the Earl of Winchilsea, to permit of this being done. This monument, however, could not be placed in the original position on the north side of the “Angel Choir” as the site had been used for a recent interment, and the Bishop’s Chair had been erected close to the site.[42] No fragments of the original tomb were discovered when this work was being done.

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

### Grantham.

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

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

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

A note in Camden is as follows:—

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

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

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

### Stamford.

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

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

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

76In Camden’s “Britannia” there is the note:—

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

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

### Geddington.

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

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

The cross stands in the middle of the village, where the main road from Stamford to Northampton turns in a southerly direction to pass over the old bridge across the small river Ise. There is here a widening of the road caused by the junction of a road from the east, allowing of a clear space, so that the cross is well seen from all sides. The cross itself rises from a platform led up to by a series of eight steps, arranged in hexagonal form. It is exceptional in being triangular in section. The first story consists of three faces, each face being divided by firm mouldings into four panels. These panels show a beautiful example of stone carving in various diaper designs. Even now the effect is rich, but before the outlines had faded, the diaper work must have shown great firmness and strength. The upper panels of the lower story present the shields bearing alternately the arms of England, Castile and Leon quarterly, and Ponthieu, as in the case of the other crosses. The second story also gives the effect of a triangular outline, the angles corresponding with the middle of each side of the lower story. At each angle rises a beautifully moulded pillar which, with similar pillars from the other sides, support the series of canopies sheltering the three statues of the Queen. These tabernacles are richly ornamented in the characteristic style of decoration of the period. The third story continues the main column of the cross upwards, and consists of a cluster of pillars ending in decorated finials, repeating the designs of the 79tabernacle work below. The column may have been originally surmounted by a cross. Fortunately no attempt has yet been made to replace the terminal feature. The triangular design of the cross gives a very curious effect when it is looked at from certain directions. It will be evident that when seen from a line parallel to one of the faces of the second story, the whole of the cross presents a lop-sided aspect. Its symmetry of outline becomes obvious on changing the point of view a little to one side or the other.

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

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

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

### Northampton.

The cross at Northampton is the only one remaining of the five built by John Battle and his partners. It occupies a site on the east of the main road leading south, at a distance of about a mile from the town, in the parish of Hardingston. The road rises slightly as it leaves the flat land of the Nene Valley, and on this little elevation the cross was erected. It was the proximity of the religious house of Cluniac nuns (S. Maria de Pratis), now Delapré Abbey, which determined the spot where the funeral procession stopped for the night. This cross stands quite in the open country, and its fine proportions can be easily seen. Unfortunately it has suffered much, both at the hands of time, but especially from the restorer, and much of the original decorative work 80has disappeared. Its strong, beautiful outlines give the observer a high idea of John Battle’s skill as a designer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the money which passed into the hands of Battle, considerable sums were paid to William of Ireland and Ralph of Chichester, who were entrusted with the sculpture of the statues of 83the Queen, and the finer ornamental work represented by the constantly recurring item, the “virgæ, capita et annuli.”

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

### Stony Stratford.

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

Dr. Lipscomb, writing in 1847, says:—

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

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

### Woburn.

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

### Dunstable.

The cross at Dunstable was built by Battle of Northampton and his partners, part of the sculpture being supplied by Ralph of Chichester. It stood in the main street of Dunstable, where Watling Street crosses the Icknield Way. The Church and remains of the Augustinian Priory of Dunstable are situated a very short distance to the east, along the Icknield Way. Mention has already been made of the description given 84by the Dunstable annalist of the arrival of the funeral procession, and the ceremony of consecration of the site where the “lofty cross” was subsequently erected. The cross is said to have been demolished by troops under the Earl of Essex, in 1643. Parts of the foundation of the cross have been met with during recent alterations in the roadway.

### St. Albans.

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

### Waltham.

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

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

The cross occupies a position on the main road at Waltham, where a side road branched off leading to the important Augustinian house of Waltham Abbey. The platform from which the cross arose seems originally to have had ten steps. As the result of restorations this number has been diminished to four. From this platform the cross, which is hexagonal in design, arises. Each side of the lower story is 87divided into two panels, which show alternately the shields charged with the arms of England, Castile and Leon quarterly, and Ponthieu. The panels are surmounted by pointed three-cusped arches supporting a quatre-foil decoration, and finally a gable-like ornament. The whole panel is richly decorated, the upper part with diaper work. The second story, which is separated from the first by a perforated battlement, consists of a series of open tabernacles in pairs, sheltering three statues of the Queen. The tabernacles terminated in profusely decorated triangular gables. The third story, still hexagonal in shape, is ornamented with tabernacle work, reproducing the designs of the story below. From this arose the shaft of the cross, which has been replaced during a recent restoration. Considering the ruinous state into which Waltham Cross had been allowed to pass in the beginning of the eighteenth century, it is almost a wonder that so much of the original structure still remains. The lowest story still gives a good representation of the original work. The Queen’s statues remain after having suffered many indignities. Most of the rest of the cross gives evidence of restoration.

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

In the beginning of last century a local committee undertook its restoration, £1,200 being expended at this time. This work was finished in 1834. In 1893 more complete restoration was carried out, nearly £1,200 being again expended on the cross.[49] The Falcon Inn, which had encroached on the cross so as actually to be in contact, was set back, and now the roadway surrounds the cross on all sides, allowing its proportions to be seen, and aiding in its preservation. It is interesting to compare the sums expended on restoration with the amount noted as being paid to the original builders. The sum of a little over 88£90 can be traced into the hands of Dyminge de Legeri and Roger de Crundale. Alexander the Imaginator aided a little in its construction, and a good deal of the stone, especially the Caen stone, so much in use at the time, was conveyed directly from the works at Charing.

49. Vide Weekly Telegraph for Waltham Abbey, Cheshunt and District, Friday, 6th January, 1893.

### Chepe.

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

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

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

In the course of time the citizens of London seem to have lost interest in the cross and its significance, and it is only necessary to refer to the pages of John Stow, published in 1603, to sympathize with this worthy’s indignation at the desecration which the cross had suffered even in his time. It had been partly restored on several occasions subsequent to the time of John Hatherley, including various re-gildings and re-burnishings in honour of various important royal functions, but in the year 1581 “diuers Juries” of the citizens having considered that it stood in the “highway to the let of carriages,” so much prejudice was aroused that on the night of 21st June a band of roughs destroyed the lowest images round the cross. These, however, were images totally different from those originally on the cross, and included one of the 91Virgin Mary. In the year 1595, according to Stow, this image “was againe fastened and repaired, and the yeare next following a new misshapen son born out of time all naked was laid in her arms.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

### Charing.

The cross at Charing was the work of Richard de Crundale. He was responsible for the design of this cross, but his design no doubt influenced the ideas of the other builders, for we know that much of the finer work of the other crosses was executed under his observation. 92Most of the statues of the Queen were carved near Charing, and many of the ornaments so frequently referred to as the “virgæ, capita et annuli,” were also made by the Westminster artists. The cross was built approximately on the plot of ground now occupied by the statue of Charles I, facing the great thoroughfare now known as “Charing Cross.”

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

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

52. Vide fig. 1.

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

93

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

95Charing Cross suffered many indignities in the Parliamentary period. After many years of neglect, it was sentenced by Parliament to be taken down in 1643. An old rhyme mentions the event:—

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

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

54. Lilly, “Observations on the Life of King Charles I.” cf. Edward Walford, “Old and New London,” iii, pp. 123 et seq.

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

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

### Blackfriars, London.

It was a custom of the time for devout persons to desire that the heart should be removed after death, and taken to some peculiarly holy place. Queen Eleanor had taken special interest in the community of the Black Friars, and especially in the Church which they had just 96built in London. By her own special request her heart was to be taken to this church, and Edward took special pains that a tomb should be erected worthy of containing this relic.

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

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

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

### Westminster.

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

The tomb itself seems to have been designed by Richard Crundale, and the work was completed by himself and his brother Roger. Under their supervision the stone chest was ornamented with the characteristic decorated carving of the period, and with the shields bearing the arms which are so prominent on all the Eleanor memorials. Walter of Durham was employed to decorate the tomb with paintings, while Thomas de Leighton, a skilful worker in metal, made the iron grille 98protecting the effigy. The perishable part of the stonework is unfortunately fast disappearing, and faint shadows only of the paintings may be observed.

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

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

99The chief glory, however, of the tomb still remains, namely, the great bronze effigy of the Queen, the work of William Torel, goldsmith and citizen of London. Torel designed and cast not only the effigy at Westminster, but the replica which reposed on the tomb at Lincoln. Records remain of enormous quantities of wax and of metal supplied to Torel for this purpose. The effigies appear to have been cast in one mould, and the work must have been difficult to execute. After their completion the bronze castings were gilt, and special reference is made to the purchase of gold florins for this purpose. These coins appear to have come from abroad, and were obtained from the merchants of “Luka” and others. The figure shown is of so noble a design that the wish arises that it might be regarded as a portrait of the Queen. The evidence, however, seems to be complete that the effigy represents Torel’s ideal of a queen’s statue; nevertheless it remains to this day perhaps the most remarkable example of a statue in metal dating from the early “decorated” period of English art (fig. 12). Special financial provision was made for the purpose of the religious services at Queen Eleanor’s tomb, including gifts of land and money to the Abbey, the proper employment of which was subsequently the source of much discussion in the chapter.[56]

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

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

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

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

100During the history of the next three hundred years, references are made to the magnificence of the tomb and of the religious celebrations in memory of the Queen. A distinguished foreign visitor to the Church in the fourteenth century describes how “the radiant lights like the glory of the starry sky exhilarated the souls of the beholders with joyousness.”

### Bibliography.

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

(1) THE EARLY CHRONICLES, especially—

Rishanger, William of, at St. Albans; Rolls Series, by H. T. Riley.

Wykes, Thomas, Monk of Osney; Rolls Series, by Luard.

Hemingburgh, Walter of; English Historical Society. H. C. Hamilton.

Dunstable, Annals of; Rolls Series, by Luard.

Walsingham, Thomas of, a St. Albans Monk, writing in the fifteenth century, quotes the earlier Chronicles in the Historia Anglicana; Rolls Series, by Riley.

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

Rymer, “Fœdera,” Record Edition.

Gough, Henry, “Itinerary of King Edward I.”

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

(3) SPECIAL REFERENCES:—

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

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

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

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

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

Abel, John, “Memorials of Queen Eleanor,” published by the author, 1864.

Scott, George Gilbert, “Gleanings from Westminster Abbey,” Oxford and London, 1863.

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

- Transcriber’s Notes:
  - Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.
  - Typographical errors were silently corrected.
  - Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only when a predominant form was found in this book.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORICAL SKETCHES OF OLD CHARING. ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

## THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

> This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.