The shaft is about 12 feet high, and, for about three-fourths of its height, square, the angles being carved into slender columns, with finial heads, above which the corners are cut down, so as to make the top of the shaft octagonal. The front face of the shaft bears a defaced figure under a tabernacled arch; and Hutchins states it to be our Saviour with the lamb at his feet. The top of the shaft widens into an octagonal head, bearing on four of its sides as many coats of arms, one of which Hutchins thought bore a chevron or fess between three roses or escallops. Above this member is a square block, having its faces worked into tabernacled niches, with corner and division columns and arches running up into finials. The niches on the east and west faces bear the cru cifix with the Virgin and St. John. On the last described block is a smaller one somewhat like it, encing in a finial, upon which was once a cross. The whole structure is one of rich workmanship and fine symmetry, and superior to most objects of the kind. W. BARNES. MARRIAGES OF ALLEYNE, FOUNDER OF DULWICH COLLEGE. April 6. MAKING it an invariable rule to inspect the Church Registers of whatever parish I may reside or visit in, my researches not unfrequently meet with a reward, as in the following extract from the books of Camberwell old Church: “Married December 3d, 1623, Edw. Alleyne, esq. to Mrs. Constance Donn.” This important document will at length set at rest the many conjectures concerning one of Alleyne's marriages. It is well known that the liberal tradition of Dulwich has always allowed three wives to the founder of "God's Gift;" but of the three, the name of one, and that involved in some obscurity, with the Christian name of another, taken from his will, alone could be given. Under these circumstances we will suppose that he was only married twice, and consider his wife Joan, who died 28th June, 1623, and who lies buried with her husband in the Chapel of Dulwich College, as the first. This lady is stated to be the daughter of one Woodward, whose widow afterwards married Philip Henslowe the player. Yet throughout the various Visitations of Surrey she is made the daughter of this gentleman, whose arms are there impaled with those of Alleyne, and subscribed in some instances by Alleyne himself,— a remarkable oversight, the incorrectness of which is considered to be established by the following memorandum, extracted from Henslowe's (or Alleyne's) Diary, preserved at Dulwich, and quoted by Collier in his History of English Dramatic Poetry : "Edward Alen wasse maryed unto Jane Woodward, the 22 day of Octob3, 1592, in the iiij and thirtie yeare of the Quene's Maties Rayne elizabeth, by the grace of god of Ingland, france, and Iarland, defender of the fayth." Oldys (Biog. Brit.) on the erroneous information of the Rev. Thomas Waterhouse, says, that about a year or two after her decease, Alleyne married his second wife Constance, who survived him,-the daughter of Mr. Hinchtoe, to whom he sold, a little before his death, his share and patent of the Royal Bear Garden. Constance Donne, the wife here discovered, was the eldest daughter of the celebrated Dean of St. Paul's, by his wife Anne, daughter of Sir George More of Loseley, Surrey. She survived her husband, who died in 1626, and who bequeathed her 1,600l. besides jewels, and became the wife of Samuel Harvey, esq. of Abury Hatch, Essex, at whose house Dr. Donne was seized with his fatal illness, in August 1630. It is worthy of remark that a short half year only intervened between the death of Alleyne's first wife and his marriage with a second. The Rev. T. Waterhouse also informed Oldys, that upon one of the organpipes in the College Chapel, the founder's arms, impaling Azure, a wolf rampant Ermine, might be seen. These arms, which he thought to be those of Hinchtoe, are the bearings of Donne, save that the wolf is merely charged with one Ermine spot, as in the funeral certificate of his son. It is said that Alleyne received considerable dowries with his wives; an assertion that does not seem to agree with the circumstances of either of the families in which he married. Camberwell. G. STEINMAN STEINMAN. REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. The History and Antiquities of the Castle and Town of Arundel; including the Biography of its Earls, from the Conquest to the present time. By the Rev. M. A. Tierney, F.S.A. Chaplain to his Grace the Duke of Norfolk. Royal 8vo. pp. 784. THE County of Sussex is apportioned into a large number of hundreds, like other counties; but it also possesses another partition into six great sections, called Rapes, a name peculiar to itself. The boundaries of each Rape run down the county from Surrey to the sea, so that, in travelling from east to west, they occur in the following succession: Hastings, Pevensey, Lewes, Bramber, Arundel, and Chichester. Each of these Rapes had a great castle; of which the two first were seated on the coast; the three next respectively on the rivers Ouse, Adur, and Arun, and the last at one side of the harbour of Portsmouth. These scignories were given after the Norman conquest to five great Barons, Arundel and Chichester being united under one tenure, which led to the early demolition of Chichester castle, as being unnecessary. * The oblong shape of Sussex, and the near equality in size of the six Rapes,' occasioned an obvious distinction between the three on one side, and the three on the other; and it required no Reform Bill Commissioner to point out which was the East and which was the West division. The late Duke of Norfolk, who was aware of the value of topography, determined to patronize a History of Western Sussex, which comprised the most valuable portion of his territorial possessions. Very ample materials for this purpose had previously been collected by Sir Charles Burrell, a Sussex baronet; and the result was three handsome quarto volumes, splendidly illustrated by engravings, edited by the Rev. It is remarkable that Brighton, which may be regarded as the modern metropolis of the county (as it is indeed the marine metropolis of England), is nearly in the centre of the Sussex coast. GENT. MAG. VOL. 1. James Dallaway and the Rev. Edmund Cartwright. We are not now required to enter into any discussion upon the merits of that magnificent work; but will only remark that the industry of Sir Charles Burrell, and the splendour of its embellishments, are certainly more conspicuous in it than either the labour or care of the editors. The hireling author is seldom equal to the volunteer; and in no branch of inquiry is the willing spirit more essential than in the abstruse and laborious researches of the antiquary. The present author, however, is too modest to found his claims for attention upon any charges of negligence which might be alleged against his predecessors; he rather excuses them by pointing out the circumscribed limits which can be allowed to a single place in the arrangement of a county history; whilst in confining his own range to the Town, Castle, and Earls of Arundel, he has selected that portion of their subject which is most deserving of further study and amplification, and most likely to prove generally interesting, beyond the sphere of persons immediately connected with the district. When we add that more than one half of his work is biography, and that biography immediately connected with the general history of England, it will be perceived that this is a work of a more attractive character than can generally be assigned to topography. As a town, indeed, independent of the castle, Arundel has little history to boast. It has never been large nor opulent; neither rich from monastic establishments, nor successful in manufactures or commerce. Nor were its present Corporation, as it appears from Mr. Tierney's preface, ambitious to achieve a more extended fame: they refused him the satisfaction of perusing their records; though we are happy to find that he supposes those records would have added in a very insignificant degree to his previous information. After a clear and concise account of the descent of the honour of Arundel, 3 T 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. Their connection 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 æra; 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. 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, another 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.) 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 which he has not overcome; among 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. 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 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! (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, Occur that, of the twenty-six notices of Richard (the next in succession to the Johns), which 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 |