The original fortress of Dolwyddelan was a scarped rock; much stronger as a stronghold than Aber, from the character of the ground. A good idea of it is given by the woodcut of Mr. Worthington Smith, but it is doubtful that this identical building was in existence at the time that Iorwerth selected it as a safe residence. For some cause he seems to have altered his mind, and moved his residence to the more remote and safe retreat in the sanctuary of St. Monacella, known by the Welsh as Melangel. As the sequel, however, proved, he might have remained in Carnarvonshire, as Pennant informs us that he was slain in the neighbourhood of his new retreat, at a place called "Bwlch Croes Iorwerth", or the Pass of the Cross of Iorwerth.

Pennant, in his notice, states that the effigy of the knight he saw in the churchyard was that of Iorwerth Drwmdwn, and that the shield bore this inscription, HIC JACET ETWART. Mr. Pugh repeats this statement; and it may be inferred that the inscription existed at the time of his visit, at the commencement of the present century. But he adds a curious story when he tells us the malformation of this unfortunate prince was not confined to his nose, but extended to the lower part of his legs. He, however, in his drawing (p. 267) represents the legs perfect. The legs were mutilated by an eccentric clergyman, Thomas Jones, who was made vicar in 1757, and is thought to have died in 1790. He was a superior scholar. According to a contributor to the interesting work, Bygones (July 1877), he was known as "Eccentric Jones", and, as not unusual at that time, kept a small school in a room adjoining the east end of the chancel, called "Cell y Bedd", according to tradition

1 He does not explain whether the inscription was on the face of the shield, or on the edge of the stone, the more usual place for inscriptions; but as the earliest effigy with arms on a shield is that of Geoffrey de Magnaville, Earl of Essex, in the Temple Church, who died in 1144 (according to Gough), it is highly improbable that Iorwerth, whose father died in 1169, had his shield similarly treated, especially when the circumstances of his death, and the remote position of the place of burial, are taken into consideration.

the grave of St. Monacella herself. This worthy man one day, in the middle of school-time, in the presence of his scholars, rushed out, and with a large stone broke the legs of the figure, saying, in Welsh, words to this effect, You rascal, Ned! As you have broken the legs of others, so I will break yours, you rascal!" If Pennant, whose first volume of his Welsh Tour was published in 1778, visited the churchyard, as he seems to have done, it is curious that he makes no remarks on the broken limbs. He certainly had not heard of this enthusiastic vicar. Pugh seems to have mistaken this mutilation of the legs as a natural deformity, and thought that his toes as well as his nose had deprived him of his legal rights. Whatever truth there is in the story of the vicar, Thos. Jones, it is clear Pugh had not heard of it, for he would never have made such an absurd statement. The author of the article of Pennant Melangel, in Lewis' Top. Dict., does little more than transcribe Pennant's remarks. The writer of the two notices of the church and antiquities in the Arch. Camb., the late Rev. H. Longueville Jones, tells us that both figures are so weatherworn and defaced that it is difficult to ascertain their character with precision. The effigy of the knight may be fourteenth century.

Southey, of course, paid a visit to this retired and romantic spot, but saw at once that the real dates are much later than the traditional ones. Had the inscription mentioned by Pennant existed at the time of his visit, it is incredible that he would not have mentioned the fact. Southey informed his daughter that the peasants attending the church services seemed to have brought their dinners with them, and used to sharpen their knives on these stones; and if so, it is not surprising that the letters have been effaced. The late Lady Marshall, granddaughter of Dr. Parr, the learned Grecian, says in a note to her poem, A Prince of Wales Long Ago, that after the poem was written she and some friends paid a visit to this churchyard, and found the tomb of Iorwerth with an effigy of Llywelyn re

posing thereon; but on the shield between the lions rampant was a date of the nineteenth century. The visitors were informed that J. J., a wealthy farmer, having died, the coffin-lid had been lifted up, and the body deposited beneath. Whether this story has any foundation or not, it is evident that Lady Marshall did not observe the inscription, although she found lions on the shield, which up to that time had not been discovered. She evidently thinks the said lions were the heraldic badge of Iorwerth, which they were not.

Little is known of Welsh heraldry in early times, except that it was very different from that of England of the same period. The ordinary charges of chevron, fess, bend, etc., are not found in Welsh coats, which were either those of families or tribes. The usual charge is that of animals with which they were acquainted, such as wolves, bears, eagles, ravens, etc., for it was not until the Edwardian period that lions came into fashion. So that unless the effigy is much later than the time of Yorwerth, Lady Marshall's lions existed only in her imagination.

The true history of this effigy must still be considered doubtful. All that can be said about it is that the form of the shield is that of the fourteenth century; and that it is not probable that so many years after his death his memory was so much revered that some Welsh gentleman would have caused this monument to be made for him. On the other hand, Pennant's statement cannot be set aside, however unsupported it is by others. Perhaps the whole story of this unaccountable, mad act has no foundation in fact. But an explanation of the difficulty may be suggested, namely, that the two monuments are those of some distinguished knight and his wife. If not exactly of the same age, the difference, apparently, is so small that they may be the gravestones of man and wife. They were, no doubt, originally within the church of the time.

E. L. BARNWELL.

57

SIR WILLIAM STANLEY.

WHATEVER the custom of using the same Christian name in a family may have in its favour, there are certainly some disadvantages attached to it, one being the difficulty often thereby occasioned of distinguishing between two individuals; and, no doubt, it is a fruitful source of confusion in our histories and genealogies. The father becomes confused with the son or grandson; and two cousins of the same name are frequently involved in an unity of historical, though enjoying a duality of corporeal personalities. Some such confusion seems to surround the name of Sir William Stanley, and it would be well if more light could be thrown upon the subject.

As is well known, the Stanleys deduce their line of descent from the house of Alditheley, now Audley, which is itself sprung from that of Verdon; and the family, though now connected with Cheshire, was originally of Staffordshire origin. Talk-on-the-Hill, one of the seven townships of the parish of Audley, which is situated five miles north-west of Newcastle-underLyne, is said to have belonged to the family of Verdon of Alton before the Norman conquest. Adam (Verdon) de Aldeleigh or Audley had two sons, Lidulph, ancestor of the Lords Audley, and Adam, whose son William exchanged the manor of Talk with his cousin for that of Standleigh, by which he was subsequently designated. An old book of pedigrees in the possession of the family of Madocks, of Vron Iw, has the following: "Audley Lord Audley bore aunciently B 3 chusoes (or chrysoes or butterflies) A; and leaving that bearing, bore G fretty O in imitation of Verdon (as may be supposed), who bore O fretty G, of whom the manor of Audley was held; and the first Audley is by some supposed to be a younger brother of Verdon, who was most

evidently a man of great possessions; and Nicholas of Verdon gave to the Audleys the manor of Audley, from which they derive their surname."

Sir William d'Audley "als. Stanley" (as the Cheshire Visitation of 1580 calls him), great-grandson of the last mentioned William Stanley, married Johanna or Joan, the eldest daughter and coheir of Sir Thomas Bamvile (or, on a chief gu. three trefoils argt.) and Agnes, his wife, daughter and coheir of Alexander Silvester of Stourton (argt., on a mount a tree vert). This connected the family with Cheshire, Stourton being in that county. Their son John succeeded to Stanley and Stourton, and by Mabel, his wife, daughter of Sir James Hanshett, had a son and successor, Sir William Stanley the elder, living in 1352, who married Alice, daughter of Hugh Massey of Timperley (quarterly, argt. and gu., over all a bend az.), by Agnes, daughter of John Leigh of Boothes (az., two bars argt., over all a bend gu.). They had two sons: 1st, Sir William Stanley the younger; and 2ndly, Sir John Stanley; and it is of the descendants of these two progenitors, and their connection with Wales, that we intend to speak.

Sir John Stanley, the second son, married Isabella, daughter and sole heir of Sir Thomas Lathom or Leatham of Lancashire (or, on a chief az. three plates), the descendant of Robert Fitz-Henry, founder of Burscough Priory, and had issue by her two sons: Sir John Stanley, Steward of the House to King Henry IV; and Thomas Stanley, jure uxoris, of Elford in the county of Stafford. The Elford estate had been in the family of Arderne (gu., three crosslets fitchées and a chief or) since the time of Henry III at least, when John de Arderne held it; sixth in descent from whom came another Sir John Arderne, who married Katherine, daughter and heir of Sir Richard Stafford, Lord Stafford of Clifton (or, a chevron gu. inter three martlets sa.). She brought in the estates of Clifton-Camville, Pipe, Haseloure, and Statfold, co. Stafford, and was mother of Sir John Arderne, who, by Mathildis his wife