jecture, that the foundation was due to one of the Multons, seeing that the heirs of the Lord Dacres, who married the heiress of Multon,' were not only patrons at the time of the Dissolution, but for a great while before. To which one of that family in particular, however, is perhaps, just possibly, not quite so certain. So far as is known, the earliest document bearing on the subject is a fine or agreement, effected between Ralph de Multon and his over-lord, Ralph de Lenham, in 10 Ric. I (1198), on account of the former having alienated all the lands which he held of him at Eggleston, without his sanction, to the abbot and convent there; and which, from the circumstance of its date agreeing so closely with that of the earliest parts of the actual buildings, seems to point in a way which leaves little or no room for doubt, that this same Ralph was not merely a benefactor, but the donor, of the very site on which the Abbey stood. It runs as follows:-" 10 Ric. I. Ibid. die Veneris proxima ante festum S. Luce Euangeliste, Inter Radulfum de Lenham petentem, et Radulfum de Moleton et Abbatem de Egleston, tenentes, de tota terra de Egleston quam predictus Radulfus de Moleton tenuit de predicto Radulfo de Lenham. Vnde placitum fuit inter eos in prefata Curia, scilicet, quod predictus Radulfus de Lenham, per donum predicti Radulfi de Moleton, remisit et concessit predicto Abbati de Egleston et successoribus suis totam predictam terram de Egle(s)ton tenendam in perpetuum de eodem Radulfo de Lenham et her. suis, reddendo inde annuatim predicto Radulfo de Lenham uel her. suis sex marcas argenti die S. Botulphi uel in crastino, in domo Senescalli de Richem (unde) apud Hoilande; et per seruicium sexte partis feodi unius militis, pro omni seruicio. Et pro hac remissione et concessione, predictus Radulfus de Moleton dedit predicto Radulfo de Lenham quindecim marcas argenti."

Yet, in face of such apparently conclusive evidence, we find that curiously original authority, the late Mr. Plantagenet Harrison," in his account of the Abbey, stating in the most positive terms-though, as

1 This was Margaret, Baroness de Multon, of Gillesland, daughter and heir of Thomas de Multon, Lord of Gillesland, Patron of the Abbey of Eggleston, Hereditary Forester of Cumberland, summoned to Parliament 26th Aug., 1307, and died 1314. She married Ranulph, second Lord Dacre of the North, who levied a fine of the Manor of Dacre, 18 Edw. II, and was son and heir of William, Lord Dacre, summoned to Parliament 28 Edw. I. This Margaret was living a widow 15 Edw. III, and died 1361. Tonge also, in his Visitation, (Surtees Society xli, 42), says :-"Be yt

noted that my Lord Dacres ys founderes
of Eglyston Abbey in Rychemontshyre,
of White Chanons." "Of this priory
(sic), says Dr. Whitaker, "the founder is
not certainly known. It would have
been pleasing to add it to the other
achievements of the Rokebys, but unfor-
tunately they have no claim, though the
priory church was the place of their
interment."

2 Feet of Fines (Yorkshire), File 1 (4-10 Ric. I), No. 17.

3 The late "Marshal General Plantaganet Harrison, H.K.G." (i.e. Hereditary Knight of the Garter), was a very

usual, without any reference as to his sources of information-that the real founder was one Hervey fil. Ketel de Multon, conjointly with his wife Constance, daughter of Gernegan de Bassingbourne, temp. Henry II, who were both living in the fourth year of King John. How this could be when, beyond all dispute, as the agreement above quoted proves, Ralph de Multon at some period shortly prior to 1198 had endowed the house with the lands held by him on the spot does not appear; any more, indeed, than the very name of the same Ralph in Mr. Harrison's own subjoined pedigree of the Multons. Until clear proof of the fact, therefore, can be adduced that Hervey fil. Ketel de Multon and his wife Constance were, as alleged, both the real founders, and still living in 4 John (1202), we must certainly hold, I think, to the clear testimony of the fine of 1198, and accept Ralph de Multon in that capacity.

For though in some cases the foundation of a religious house took place before any permanent buildings were erected, such was not generally the case, especially in respect of such small and poor establishments as that at Eggleston, which was neither an offshoot from an old and wealthy foundation,' nor yet composed of men of ample means. In such like instances the inmates necessarily depended on the bounty of the founder, who first built the domicile,

singular personage indeed. Of his military career in South America, whence his title was derived, he told many strange stories, which required all the margin accordable to those of travellers. His personal appearance (as indicated by the full length folio portrait which served as frontispiece to his History, and which lacks only the accessories of gold and colour for its adequate display) must certainly have been very striking. Fully six feet in height, broad in proportion, and-when out of regimentals-arrayed in ample, loosely-fitting garments, he appeared a veritable son of Anak. After

his return to this country he devoted himself to the somewhat incongruous task of searching muniments-especially the Plea, and De Banco Rolls of the Public Record Office-for materials bearing on the history of his native county, Yorkshire. In this pursuit he spent many years, gathering together the fruits of his labours in volumes of abstracts (some of which have been purchased by the Office authorities) and in his History of Yorkshire, of which one volume only was published, in 1879, viz. that relating to the Wapentake of Gilling West. Unfortunately this is of somewhat repellent form, very unwieldy, and con

taining little more than mere genealogy. The writer's acquaintance with Latin may, moreover, be pretty accurately gauged by his motto, "Deo laus et gloriam," which appears on page 8. Notwithstanding, the work is not without its merits, for it contains the results of many years' patient labour in fields till then very imperfectly explored, and from which his gleanings have been made in a fairly satisfactory way. The most serious defect is the systematic absence of all reference to the authorities on which his statements are founded. This, however, was not an oversight; but, on the contrary, deliberate and intentional, the author's object being to compel enquirers to apply to himself personally for particulars, obtainable only for a consideration.

1 In the sense, that is, of a colony thrown off by the independent action of a mother house. That the three or four canons, however, who constituted the original establishment at Eggleston might have been derived from the older and neighbouring foundation of Easby, is a circumstance not only antecedently probable by itself, but one confirmed by the testimony of John, abbot of the latter place, who, in 1411, speaks of

and then stocked it with members of whatever order he preferred. And here, moreover, the architectural and historical witnesses agree together in the most perfect and exact way possible. For the internal evidence of style as exhibited in the earliest parts of the existing remains, both of the church and conventual buildings, as well as in those recently destroyed, point in the clearest way to a period somewhat later than the end of Henry II's reign, but falling distinctly within that of his son and successor, Richard I, 1189–99. And Ralph de Multon's fine of 1198, it will be noted, speaks of the transfer of his land as a past, though presumably not long past, event; and therefore, since the architectural details cannot, without somewhat violent stretching, be assigned to an earlier date than 1190, while they are in perfect harmony with those of the intervening years, i.e. circa 1195-6, we come, as close as the most exacting critic could require, to the date of the actual foundation, as suggested, though not definitely specified, in that instrument.

CHAPTER II.

OF THE CHURCH, AND CONVENTUAL BUILDINGS.

I.

THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTIONS.

By whomsoever founded, and in whatsoever precise year commenced, the endowments and structural features of Eggleston Abbey were, beyond all question, in the first instance, on a very small and humble scale indeed. In every part the severest and most rigid simplicity reigned supreme. Not the least pretence of ornament or architectural display was, so far as can be judged, apparent anywhere. If the principle of "When unadorned, adorned the most," had any application in such like cases, then its designers must have touched the very counsels of perfection. Of course, it is only possible to judge from such portions as at present, or did till quite recently, remain; but then, these were at once so extensive, and uniform in character, as to preclude all idea of their having differed in any marked manner from the rest. Though now for the most part greatly ruined-" down even to the ground"-they yet suffice to supply the actual dimensions, as regards length, breadth, and height,

Eggleston as a daughter house--"ecclesia filialis," the same term being used also by his successor, Robert, in 1449 (see post, in List of Abbots, pp. 177-8). In this way, and to this extent, therefore,

it cannot be doubted that Easby was the mother house of Eggleston, though established solely through the action, and at the cost, of the family of the Multons.

of the nave and transepts; the area, north, south, and east, of the cloister court; the length and breadth, more or less, of the dorter, frater, western range of claustral buildings; and position, as well as a slight fragment, of the kitchen-the latter lying towards the extreme north-west. All these point pretty clearly as regards date to the last few years of the twelfth, and first, of the thirteenth centuries, and to such restriction of means and detail as could hardly be surpassed. Nothing, indeed, beyond a narrow chamfer in the single order of the round-headed doorways, or a somewhat broader one in the pointed windows, with the slight semi-hexagonal hood-mould of the Transitional period, is applied to either.

Of the original choir, which was probably somewhat shorter as well as certainly narrower than that now existing, there is nothing whatever to indicate the length-at any rate above ground. If only proportionately shorter, then the plan of the church would be reduced to the exact form of a simple aisleless cross, as austere in character as the life and conversation of the inmates, and as limited in extent as themselves in number and emoluments. How very limited in the first of these respects they were we learn indirectly, and in the absence of all original documents, from a grant of Gilbert de Leya, circa 1200, conveying the Manor of Kilvington to the abbot and convent for the support of nine canons, in addition to those already established there. Now, since it appears, from a convention entered into between John de Bretagne, Earl of Richmond, and the same abbot and convent in 1275, that the number of canons at that date was twelve only, it follows that, previous to the time of Gilbert de Leya's augmentation there could have been, besides the abbot, no more than three. For so small a community as this, even

1 Reference to the view- Plate II, exhibiting the north side of the nave, and destroyed north transept, will show that the walling of the former, up to, and including one or two courses over the line of the cloister roof, consists of small squared stones, very characteristic of pure twelfth century work, whereas the upper part is of thin, flat rubble. The question not unnaturally arises whether this part may not have practically formed, along with the now destroyed south side, the lateral boundaries of the first, and, in some sort, temporary chapel of the abbot and four canons who, apparently, constituted the first settlement, and for whose accommodation it might very well have sufficed. At any rate, this sort of masonry occurs nowhere else, not even in the actually, or nearly contemporary work

of the eastern cloister range. Furthermore, if Gilbert de Leya's provision for nine extra canons was not in augmentation of Ralph de Multon's apparent foundation, as indicated by his fine of 1198, to whom is the primitive foundation to be referred-to Hervey fitz Ketel de Multon and Constantia his wife (temp. Hen. II), as asserted positively by Harrison in one place, or to Conan, Earl of Richmond, as stated with equal confidence by him in another? It seems as difficult to understand so great a man as Conan founding such a small and poor house as that of Eggleston must have been in the first instance, as to ascertain who Hervey and his wife Constantia really were, seeing that Mr. Harrison himself omits all mention of them in his genealogy.