« PreviousContinue »
Mr. Tierney proceeds to a description of the Castle, in which his remarks are pleasingly illustrated by several etchings, contributed by his friend the Rev. C. B. Ottley. Our author does not sacrifice his love of truth, to flatter the late Duke's taste in architecture. He praises where he can ; but unfortunately there is very little deserving of praise in the modern Castle of Arundel. With respect to the great hall, he corrects a very prevalent mistake, which Mr. Dallaway had contributed to circulate,
“that, “with certain exceptions,' the plan which was ultimately adopted resembles Crosby Hall. In what, however, (adds Mr. Tierney) the resemblance consists, it were perhaps difficult to discover. Both indeed are large rooms, both are covered with a pannelled roof, and both are intended to answer the purpose of festive halls. But here all the similarity terminates. Neither the form of the apartments, nor the structure of the roofs, nor the ornaments by which they are characterized, bear the slightest affinity to each other; and if, therefore, the Duke ever designed to copy the splendid model which Crosby Place presents, it is evident at least that, in the composition of the work, the principal features of the original were omitted.”
The windows of the Barons’ hall at Arundel are perfectly different to those of Crosby Hall. The great window contains the splendid performance by Backler, from a design by Lonsdale, of King John signing Magna Charta; the six on either side were intended to present figures of the twelve principal Barons, executed by Egginton, of Birmingham. Only eight are completed; the heads, by a happy idea, are portraits of the modern members of the House of Howard.
It is well known that the Earldom of Arundel is the only peerage now acknowledged to be held by tenure; and it has, in consequence, been a prolific source of discussion to writers on Dignities. The present author is not tedious in his review of the subject; but he treats it with all due consideration and attention, being naturally deeply impressed with the preeminence to which his Castle has been advanced by the ascription to it of the peculiar privilege of conferring the title of Earl on its possessor. It would lead us to too great length to enter
upon the question in this place; and therefore we will only avow our opinion that, notwithstanding all that has been advanced in favour of the alleged privilege, we still think that, when the history of the Earldoms of England shall have been properly investigated, that of Arundel will be proved to have been originally only another name for the Earldom of Sussex, not different in its constitution from other Earldoms, whilst its peculiarities have arisen from the decisions and dogmas of comparatively recent times. Nor will our limits permit us to take more than a brief review of Mr. Tierney's interesting and elegantly written biography of the Earls. He enumerates them as altogether thirtythree in number, occupying (with a few short intervals) the whole period from the Conquest to the present time; namely, three of the race of Montgomery; five of the house of Albini; fourteen of that of Fitz-Alan ;” and eleven of the Howards, Dukes of Norfolk. Like most of the chieftains on whom the Conqueror bestowed large portions of the fair lands of England, the first Earl, Roger Montgomery, was his kinsman. Theirconnection was through Gunnora Duchess of Normandy, the Conqueror's great-grandmother. Roger commanded the centre of the invading army at the battle of Hastings. Besides the Earldom of Chichester and Arundel (or Sussex), he was enriched with that of Shrewsbury, or Shropshire, where his authority was that of a Count Palatine. He also accomplished, in the year 1091, the conquest of the district of Powis, to which he gave his own name, and it has ever since been known as the shire of Montgomery. He was buried in 1094 in the Abbey of Shrewsbury, where there is still a monumental effigy which bears his name; but it may be doubted whether it can be justly attributed to so early a date. Roger Montgomery followed the example of his sovereign, in assigning his English possessions to his younger son; but the elder subsequently succeeded to them. The last was one of
* These, according to the reckoning adopted in our subsequent remarks, are reduced to twelve.
the most ferocious characters of that tyrannical aera; he was at length effectually crushed by King Henry the First in 1102, deprived of his estates, and banished; and was the last of his family that flourished in England. During the remainder of his reign, for more than thirty years, King Henry I. appears to have kept the earldom of Sussex in his own hands, and on his death he left it as the dower of his Queen, Adeliza. She shortly after bestowed her hand on William de Albini, who was the royal Butler, and whose name in ancient records, generally occurs with the adjunct Pincerna, to distinguish him from a contemporary namesake, William de Albini, Brito. By this marriage she is supposed to have been mother to a numerous family; although during the fourteen years she was Queen, she had been childless. William de Albini continued to hold the Sussex lands after her death in 1151, with the title of Earl, as appears from a charter of King Stephen in 1153, which he witnesses as “William Earl of Chichester.” Yet we learn from the Testa de Nevill, that the Rape of Arundel was considered an escheat in the hands of the Crown (which must have been by the death of Adeliza), when, shortly after his accession, King Henry II. conferred it anew on William de Albini, with the third penny of the County of Sussex. William survived, in high favour with his sovereign, and was employed on several important occasions, until the year • 1176. William his son succeeded. It has been supposed that he was a minor at that period; but this could not have been the case if he was the eldest son of Queen Adeliza, who died twentythree years before. If the children of the Pincerna were by a second wife, not hitherto discovered, then he may have been scarcely of age at his father's death. However, he was almost immediately invested with the Earldom of Sussex, though the Castle of Arundel, and part of the estates, were for some years withheld from him, on what account it is not now known. The third Earl William de Albini died on the crusade in 1221; with his sons William and Hugh this race was closed : and their four sisters (or their issue) became the coheirs.
The ancestors of John Fitz-Alan, the coheir (in right of his mother) to whose share Arundel and its immediate dependencies devolved, had been seated in Shropshire, and were descended from a daughter of Warin the bald, to whom Robert Montgomery had given the shrievalty of that county, and the hand of his niece Aimeria. Walter, son of the same marriage, was the progenitor of the royal and widespreading house of Stuart, in Scotland; and Simon, and ther son, of the Boyds, the paternal ancestors of the Earl of Errol.
Mr. Tierney says:
“To Fitz-Alan the Castle and honour of Arundel were assigned. With the former he, of course, succeeded to the appendant dignity of Earl.” (p. 195.)
To support the claim of Tenure, or “the privilege which the castle claims of conferring the title of Earl on its possessor,” this assumption is necessary; but, though our author has contended manfully and skilfully in defence of this important claim, there remain several essential difficulties which he has not overcome; among which are the following, connected with the passage of the title from the name of Albini to Fitz-Alan : 1. in the partition award, the Castle is mentioned with its privileges, but clearly no Earldom is implied, for its other rights were something inferior to forests and chases 1 (Castrum de Arundell, cum forest' chac’ et aliis lib’t. eidem spectant”); this was in 1243; 2. in 1273 it is said that John Fitz-Alan then held the Castle and Honour of Arundel, not as an Earldom, but only “the fourth part of one Barony” (p. 22; it had previously been called a Barony in 1209, see p. 20) ; 3. though the title of Earl may have been attributed to the two first of the family who possessed the castle, in records of subsequent date, yet all contemporary authorities (as far as we perceive) call them plain John FitzAlan; 4. this remarkable circumstance, —that, of the twenty-six notices of Richard (the next in succession to the Johns), which occur in the first volume of Palgrave's Parliamentary Writs, the first four speak of him as plain Richard Fitz-Alan, the twenty last uniformly as Earl of Arundel; which seems to show that, when he
had acquired the title of Earl, it was
. Second. Having joined the party in
opposition to the King, he became the
* He is first found with the title of Earl in 18 Edw. I. (1290), in an Inquis. taken in the Exchequer. (Tierney, p. 127). The only documents which attribute to him the title previously to this (Tierney, p. 126) are 1. Record. Pasch. 35 Edw. I., rot. 1, and its correspondent patent, Rot. Pat. 35. Edw. I., m. 14, which, bearing date seventeen years after he became Earl, cannot have the weight of contemporary records; and 2. the continuator of Matthew Paris, who also must have written some time after Richard had become Earl. And only two instances are adduced which omit the title of Earl after 1290 (Tierney, p. 127); which, opposed to a multitude in which he is called Earl, are not more than might arise from accidental omission when a party was mentioned who had been untitled, and who occurred without his title in previous re
cords which the clerks were following.
(By the way, however, we think, on referring
to his authorities, Mr. Tierney will find these “two entries” are in reality but one.)
Thomas his son lived a courtier's and domestic life; as did William the next in descent. Of Henry the twelfth and last Earl of the Fitz-Alans, “the warrior, the statesman, and the patriot,” Mr. Tierney, as contrasting him with his immediate predecessors, compares him to that last gleam of the expiring lamp which is often the brightest. His active and useful career has been recently described at length in the pages of the Gentleman's Magazine.
The life of Philip the first Howard Earl is a pathetic narrative of patience under the most grievous religious persecution, and a tedious imprisonment terminated only by death. His conduct appears to have been entirely influenced by his sense of religious duty; consoling himself under the reflection which he left engraved on the walls of the Tower: “Quanto plus afflictionis pro Christo in hoc saculo, tanto plus gloria cum Christo in futuro.”
After this period, Mr. Tierney's memoirs, which throughout are written in a very pleasing style, are made the more interesting by the introduction of many original letters from the Howard papers. Among those belonging to Earl Thomas, the first English virtuoso, are several relating to his ruling taste. In a letter written at Salisbury in 1620, when accompanying the King on his summer Progress, the Earl tells his Countess:
“Upon Thursday nexte, the Kinge dineth at Wilton, by which time my Lo. of Pembroke hopes Mr. Jones will be come hither. I tell him I hope he will ; but I cannot promise, because I spake not with him of it when I came out of towne. I meane (by God his grace) to be at Arundell on Tuesday or Wednesday come seaven night, which is the eighth or ninth of Auguste: if Mr. Jones come hither, I will bringe him wome; if not, you must woh you.”
We believe Inigo Jones did repair to the Court in Wiltshire; and it was upon this occasion that he was commissioned by the King to write his Essay on Stonehenge.
In a subsequent page we have an interesting letter of the celebrated architect himself, written in the year 1620, in which he speaks of the repairs of St. Paul's Cathedral, then proceeding under his direction, and
the building of his chef-d'oeuvre, the Banqueting house at Whitehall. This memoir of Earl Thomas is perhaps the most interesting in the work. Those of his successors, the Dukes of Norfolk, are necessarily less historical, from their adherence to the Church of Rome having generally excluded them from public employment. However, as the heads, in respect of rank, of the members of that communion, they are closely connected with the history of Catholic politics. From his valuable biography, Mr. Tierney proceeds to the ecclesiastical foundations of Arundel : including a description of the Church, and the once splendid monuments of the FitzAlans. With respect to the latter, we feel called upon to take some brief notice of the very severe censure which he has hastily passed, at the close of his preface, on an article which was recently inserted in our pages. It will be recollected that in our number for last July appeared a description of the Fitz-Alan Chapel by our valuable correspondent, an Architectural Antiquary. This Mr. Tierney, in the postscript to his preface, has termed “a most ridiculously incorrect account.” Now this censure will be naturally considered to apply to our friend’s general description; but, as we believe that to be minutely accurate, we must be allowed to explain (as we are sure Mr. Tierney would have done, had he written less hastily), that the incorrectness consists not in the description of the architecture or the monuments, but in the historical particulars which were appropriated to them.* Our correspondent's account of the neglect and injuries of the Chapel, is, we regret to say, only too fully confirmed by Mr. Tierney. The circumstances attendant on the removal of the roof, furnish a close parallel to those which characterized the uncovering of the nave of St. Saviour's, Southwark,
* Gent. Mag. July, 1833, p. 23, col. 1, for “William son of the Earl of Arundel,” read “Henry Earl of Arundel,” and for 1629 read 1579. In col. 2, erase the five lines, from “Thomas,” to the word “father.” These appear to be the principal inaccuracies alluded to. Our correspondent was misled by some previous confusion in Mr. Dallaway's book.
and which have indeed been too often repeated in various quarters, but we trust will in future be controlled by the better spirit which has certainly arisen throughout the country with reference to ancient art and architecture.
“In the year 1722 the partial decay of the roof seemed to promise an advantageous object of speculation to the cupidity of certain parties employed by Charles Duke of Norfolk : and the representations which they made, as to the dangerous state of the timber, at length induced him to order its removal. The first step was to strip the building of its lead, and demolish the ancient parapet. When the workmen came to the carved timber frame, immediately beneath the roof, they discovered that, with the exception of the parts which had already given way, the whole was generally sound; that to take it down would actually require violence; and that to repair it would be infinitely more adviseable than to attempt to replace it with another. But the spirit of destruction was awakened ; and there were other interests to be consulted, besides those of either the Chapel or its proprietor. Force was ordered to be applied. What the mallet or the crow could not achieve, the saw was called in to effect; and the splendour of this magnificent piece of architecture was speedily lost amidst its ruins. Nor did the work of demolition terminate with its roof. As if to efface every record of its former glory, the little that yet survived of ornament in the lower part of the building, was consigned to the general wreck. As the immense timbers from above were torn from the walls, or cut from their supporters, they were suffered to fall, at random, on whatever might chance to lie beneath. Beam after beam was thus plunged from the extreme height of the Chapel; the stalls were crushed; the tombs were shattered; and the floor itself, which is laid over the vaults, was in many instances, broken and forced in. A modern slated covering, without parapets, was now substituted for the ancient roof; and the conversion of the Chapel into a temporary workshop, a few years later, by enabling the workmen to purloin the brass ornaments that still remained, completed the desolation of the edifice.”— (p.622.)
Such is the fate of a building which once rivalled the glorious Chapel of the Beauchamps of Warwick. Now how great the contrast! We are grieved to find, from a subsequent page,
that even recently, two of the brass inscriptions have been “torn away, and broken, by the workmen who have access to the chapel.” Shame on its appointed guardians ! But what shall we say of the apathy of its noble owner: Is this the gratitude he evinces to his ancestors of the house of Arundel, without whose strictly entailed possessions the Duke of Norfolk would now be a poor man It will be strange if the Company of Fishmongers of London should come forward to repair the Duke of Norfolk's chapel. Yet such an event is not improbable; for we find that, by the Act relating to the Earldom of Arundel in 1627, that Company are entitled to demand the annual sum of 210l. from the Sussex estates, with “full power to distrain in the premises for all and every the arrearages of the said yearly sum,” to be expended on the repairs of Arundel Castle, Arundel House in London, and the Chapel at Arundel. Now, when we regard the well-known patriotism of the Fishmongers, and the good taste which has now become so prevalent on works of ancient art, we say it would be a strange, but not an unaccountable event, that a Company of Citizens, having the authority by Act of Parliament, should come forward and force a Peer of the Realm to repair his own ancestral monuments. The Howard family have themselves never erected monuments. Though the virtuoso Earl when in Italy had ordered astatue of himself, and another of his eldest son, his second son and successor neglected his father's will in that and most other respects. Yet their interments have generally been made in this forlorn and neglected edifice; and some of the earliest coffin plates, the series of which is now for the first time published, contain long inscriptions which may be called epitaphs. Mr. Tierney's concluding chapter treats of the borough and municipal matters; which is followed by an Appendix, containing, among other valuable documents, a series of unpublished letters from the Howard Papers relating to Mary Queen of Scots: but it is with great regret we notice that the volumes are deficient in that very desirable adjunct to all works of the kind, an adequate Index. The Author