and to sit no more there; and that he would retire himself to his house
at Raby.” And again, a month later, “This day, by an order of the
House, Sir H. Vane was sent out of town to his house in Lincolnshire.”
In 1661 he, with Lambert and others, was sent prisoner to Scilly.
He had in former years been joined with Sir William Russell in the
office of Treasurer of the Navy, which yielded an annual income of
£30,000; but although, as survivor of Russell, the whole of this was
his by patent for life, he voluntarily and disinterestedly gave it up
to Parliament, reserving only a salary of £2,000 a year for an agent.
A series of charges having been drawn up against Vane—principally
arising out of his just indignation at the title of Raby having been
bestowed upon the Earl of Strafford—he was, on the 6th of June, 1662,
found guilty of high treason, and, on the 14th of the same month,
beheaded on Tower Hill. Of this execution it is needless to give any
particulars beyond those written, the same day, by Pepys. He says, “Up
by four o’clock in the morning and upon business at my office. Then we
sat down to business, and about eleven o’clock, having a room got ready
for us, we all went out to the Tower Hill; and there over against the
scaffold, made on purpose this day, saw Sir Henry Vane brought. A very
great press of people. He made a long speech, many times interrupted by
the sheriffe and others there; and they would have taken his paper out
of his hand, but he would not let it go. But they caused all the books
of those that writ after him to be given the sheriffe; and the trumpets
were brought under the scaffold that he might not be heard. Then he
prayed and so fitted himself, and received the blow; but the scaffold
was so crowded that we could not see it done. But Boreman, who had been
upon the scaffold, came to us and told us, that first he began to speak
of the irregular proceeding against him; that he was, against Magna
Charta, denied to have his exceptions against the indictment allowed:
and that there he was stopped by the sheriffe. Then he drew out his
paper of notes, and began to tell them first his life; that he was born
a gentleman, that he was bred up and had the quality of a gentleman,
and to make him in the opinion of the world more a gentleman, he
had been till he was seventeen years old a good fellow, but then it
pleased God to lay a foundation of grace in his heart by which he was
persuaded, against his worldly interest, to leave all preferment and
go abroad, where he might serve God with more freedom. Then he was
called home and made a member of the Long Parliament, where he never
did to this day anything against his conscience, but all for the glory
of God. Here he would have given them an account of the proceedings of
the Long Parliament, but they so often interrupted him that at last
he was forced to give over, and so fell into prayer for England in
generall, then for the churches of England, and then for the City of
London: and so fitted himself for the block, and received the blow. He
had a blister, or issue, upon his neck, which he desired them not hurt:
he changed not his colour or speech to the last, but died justifying
himself and the cause he had stood for; and spake very confidently of
his being presently at the right hand of Christ; and in all things
appeared the most resolved man that ever died in that manner, and
showed more of heate than cowardice, but yet with all humility and
gravity. One asked him why he did not pray for the King? He answered,
‘Nay,’ says he, ‘you shall see I can pray for the King: I pray God
bless him!’ The King had given his body to his friends, and, therefore,
he told them that he hoped they would be civil to his body when dead;
and desired they would let him die like a gentleman and a Christian,
and not crowded and pressed as he was.”
This unfortunate, but gifted member of the family of Vane had married,
in 1639, Frances, daughter of Sir Christopher Wray, Bart., of Ashby
and Glentworth, in Lincolnshire, by whom he had issue seven sons,
five of whom died young. The fifth son was Sir Christopher Vane, who
was knighted in 1688, made a Privy Councillor, and in July, 1699,
created Baron Barnard of Barnard Castle, county of Durham. He married
Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Gilbert Holles, third Earl of Clare, and
sister of John Holles, Duke of Newcastle. By her Baron Barnard had
issue, with others, a son—Gilbert Vane, who succeeded him; and another
son—William Vane, who was created Viscount Vane and Baron Duncannon.
This Viscount Vane married Lucy, daughter of William Jolliffe, Esq.,
of Caverswall, in Staffordshire, and was father, by her, of William
Holles Vane, second Viscount, whose wife (Frances, daughter of Francis
Hawes, of Purley Hall, and widow of Lord William Hamilton) was the
notorious Lady Vane, whose intrigues and disreputable course of life
form the subject of the “Memoirs of a Lady of Quality” in “Peregrine
Pickle,” which were “written by herself, which she coolly told her lord
to read.”
Gilbert Vane, second Baron Barnard, who succeeded his father, the first
baron, in 1723, and died in 1753, married Mary, daughter and heiress
of Morgan Randyll, of Chilworth, by whom he had six sons and three
daughters. His eldest son and successor was Henry, third Baron Barnard,
a Lord of the Treasury, who, in 1754, was advanced to the dignity of
Viscount Barnard and Earl of Darlington. This nobleman, of whom Lord
Orford wrote, “He never said a false thing nor did a bad one,” married,
in 1725, the Lady Grace, daughter of Charles Fitzroy, first Duke of
Cleveland, by whom he had issue three sons and three daughters. The
eldest son was Lord Henry Vane, who succeeded his father as second Earl
of Darlington and fourth Baron Barnard; he married Margaret, sister of
the first Earl of Lonsdale; and, dying in 1792, was succeeded by their
eldest son, William Henry, as fifth baron and third earl.
This nobleman, who held many important appointments, was born in 1766;
in 1827 he was advanced to the dignity of Marquis of Cleveland; and
in 1833 was again advanced to the title of Duke of Cleveland, and had
the barony of Raby conferred upon him. He was married twice: first, in
1787, to the Lady Katharine Margaretta Powlett, daughter and co-heiress
of the sixth and last Duke of Bolton, and a co-heiress of the barony
of St. John of Basing; and secondly, in 1813, to Elizabeth Russell,
of Newton House, Yorkshire. By his first marriage the Duke had issue
three sons (who have each in succession become Dukes of Cleveland) and
five daughters—one of whom, Lady Louisa Catherine Barbara, married a
brother of the first Lord Forester, and another, the Lady Arabella,
married the third Lord Alvanley. The Duke was succeeded at his death,
in 1842, by his eldest son—
Henry Vane, second duke and marquis, third earl and viscount, and sixth
baron, who was born in 1788, and died, without issue, in 1864, having
married, in 1809, Lady Sophia, daughter of the fourth Earl Powlett. He
was succeeded by his brother, William John Frederick Vane, as third
duke and marquis, fourth earl and viscount, and seventh baron, who
assumed the surname of Powlett in lieu of that of Vane, but in 1864
resumed his original patronymic of Vane. His grace married, in 1815,
Caroline, fourth daughter of the first Earl of Lonsdale, but died
without issue in 1864, when he was in turn succeeded in his titles and
estates by his brother, the present Duke of Cleveland.
The present noble head of this grand old family, whose genealogy we
have thus briefly traced, is Harry George Powlett (late Vane), Duke
of Cleveland, Marquis of Cleveland, Earl of Darlington, Viscount
Barnard of Barnard Castle, Baron Barnard, and Baron Raby, a Knight of
the Garter, &c. His grace is, as has been shown, a son of the first
Duke of Cleveland, and brother of the second and third dukes. He was
born in 1803, and succeeded to the titles and estates in 1864, when,
by royal license, he assumed the surname and arms of Powlett in lieu
of those of Vane. His grace, who was educated at Eton and at Oriel
College, Oxford, was attached to the embassy at Paris in 1829, and
was appointed Secretary of Legation at Stockholm in 1839. In 1854 he
married Lady Catherine Lucy Wilhelmina Stanhope, daughter of the late
Earl Stanhope (President of the Society of Antiquaries), and widow of
Lord Dalmeny, son of the Earl of Rosebery, by whom, however, he has
no issue, so that at his decease—his brothers, the second and third
dukes, having also died without issue—the titles, with the exception
of that of Baron Barnard, will become extinct. The heir to the barony
of Barnard is Morgan Vane, Esq. (only son of the late Rev. Robert
Morgan Vane), great-grandson of the Hon. Morgan Vane, brother of Henry,
third Baron Barnard, who, as we have shown, was created Viscount
Barnard and Earl of Darlington. This Robert Morgan Vane married, as
his first wife, Margaretta, daughter of Robert Knight, and ultimately
heiress to Robert, Earl of Catherlough, from which marriage the present
heir-presumptive is descended.
The arms of Vane are (as already explained, from the circumstance of
one of the family taking the French king prisoner at the battle of
Poitiers)—_azure_, three dexter gauntlets, _or_. These were borne
by the Duke of Cleveland quarterly with those of Fitzroy, being the
royal arms of King Charles II., viz.—one and four France and England
quarterly, two Ireland, three Scotland; the whole debruised by a baton
sinister, componé of six pieces, _ermine_ and _azure_, the supporters
being dexter, a lion guardant, _or_, ducally crowned with a ducal
coronet, _azure_, gorged with a collar counter-componé, _ermine_ and
_azure_; sinister, a greyhound, _argent_, gorged with a collar,
counter-componé, _ermine_ and _azure_, being the supporters of Fitzroy,
Duke of Cleveland, granted to Vane on being advanced to the marquisate
in 1827. Crests: Vane—a dexter arm in a gauntlet grasping a dagger;
Fitzroy—on a chapeau, _gules_, turned up, _ermine_, a lion passant
guardant, _or_, crowned with a ducal coronet, _argent_, and gorged with
a collar, counter-componé, _ermine_ and _azure_. Motto—“Nec temere,
nec timide.” On the assumption of the name and arms of Powlett, the
arms, as now borne by the Duke of Cleveland, are—_sable_, three swords
in pile, points downwards, _proper_, pomels and hilts, _or_. Crest,
on a wreath, a falcon rising, _or_, belled of the last, and ducally
crowned, _gules_. Supporters and motto as before. The arms of the Earl
of Catherlough, which the heir-presumptive is entitled to quarter with
his own of Vane, are—_argent_, three bendlets, _gules_; on a canton,
_azure_, a spur with the rowel downwards, strapped, _or_. Crest, on a
wreath, _argent_ and _gules_, a spur, _or_, between two wings erect,
_gules_. Motto—“Te digna sequere.”
The Duke of Cleveland is patron of twenty-four livings, thirteen of
which are in Shropshire, one in Northamptonshire, two in Durham, two
in Somersetshire, one in Yorkshire, two in Devonshire, two in Dorset,
and one in Cornwall. His principal seats are Raby Castle, Durham, and
Battle Abbey, Sussex.
The present castle of Raby, it would appear, was built by John, Lord
Nevil, who died in 1388. In 1379 he had license from Thomas Hatfield,
Bishop of Durham, to crenellate. Whether the old castle was mainly
pulled down and rebuilt by John Nevil, or whether he simply added to
it fresh towers and fortifications, is a matter we have not space, nor
is it necessary to our purpose, to inquire into. That it could not all
have been taken down is, however, pretty evident, as the lozenge-shaped
tower in the centre is said to have been built by Bertram de Bulmer,
or Bolemes, in 1162. The Nevils, who were at the same time Lords of
Raby, Brancepath, Sheriff-Hutton, and Middleham, were all described as
“Dominus de Raby;” and thus it is evident that Raby was their chief
residence and stronghold.
Raby, says the Rev. Mr. Hodgson (who has done more than any other
antiquary in searching into and elucidating the history of this grand
old pile, and to whom we express our deep obligation for much of the
critical description of the building we are about to give), in its
present state (although some parts of the older edifice were left and
incorporated in it) “presents essentially the work and ideas of one
period,” the fourteenth century. Leland speaks of it as “the largest
castell of logginges in al the north cuntrey, and is of a strong
building, but not set other on the hill or very strong ground;” but he
does not mention the moat, which was probably filled up and the water
drawn off before his time.
[Illustration: _East Side._]
The general arrangement of the castle is as follows:—First, the
central nucleus, or castle proper, consisting of a compact mass of
towers connected by short curtains, and of which the block shape may be
described as something between a right-angled triangle and a square,
having the right angle to the south-west. Next, a spacious platform
entirely surrounding this central mass; then a low embattled wall of
enceinte, strengthened by a moat-house, and perhaps a barbican, as
well as by numerous small square bastions rising from its exterior
base; and then the moat. The south front of the castle being so
amply defended by water, its structural defences were naturally less
important.
[Illustration: _Raby Castle, from the West._]
Quite unlike the others, it was, with the exception of the flanking
towers at either end, nearly flat. The first, or western of these,
called the Duke’s Tower, is very large and square, and of different
heights, being, in fact, two towers laid together. Considerably in
recess, a rather low curtain connected it with the end of the Great
Hall, which, till lately, rose up tower-like, but without projection.
Beyond, and nearly in a line, came another curtain, short, but lofty;
and then the wedge-like projection of Bulmer’s Tower, which flanked the
whole towards the east. This tower, which commemorates Bertram Bulmer,
one of the Saxon ancestors of the Nevils, by two raised B’s in its
upper story, being of somewhat unusual shape, viz. a pentagon, formed
by the application of an equilateral triangle to a square, has given
rise to comments and conjectures of the wildest sort. An underground
passage, there is little or no doubt, extends from the substructure of
this tower to a small blocked-up doorway in one of the bastions of the
wall of enceinte above the lake, from which, again, there is reason to
think, another traverses its whole length westwards. Passing onwards,
we come to the east or north-east front. This is a very fine work,
extremely bold and vigorous, set thick with towers, and broken by deep
re-entering angles into immense masses. Thoroughly fortress-like and
utilitarian in its character, without the least pretence to ornament,
it is a masterpiece no less of artistic than constructive skill.
Beginning at the south-east angle, we have, in the first place, the
great pentagon of Bulmer’s Tower, and the short curtain spoken of
as connecting it with the Hall, standing out transept-wise from the
latter, and defending it to the east.
A little farther on, and about midway in its length, the Chapel, with
its substructure terminating in a lofty tower, performs the same
service. Projecting from the lower part of this tower, until destroyed
in modern times, was an advanced portal, the exact nature of which
cannot be particularised. Again, at about an equal distance, a third
transeptal mass, terminating in a tower called Mount Raskelf, stands
out from and protects the Hall. A short high curtain, extending between
the Chapel Tower and this last, forms at the same time the limit of a
small court-yard and a screen to that portion of the Hall which lies
behind it. Mount Raskelf is the angle tower between what are, strictly
speaking, the east and north fronts. Its northern face and curtain fall
back deeply till they join the great square of the Kitchen Tower, which
projects at right angles, and is connected by a strong machicolated
curtain to the east fabric of Clifford’s Tower, by far the largest
in the castle, and of immense strength. This tower is planned with
consummate skill. In shape an oblong square, standing almost detached,
and set diagonally to the north and west fronts, it not only completely
flanks them both, but also, from its close proximity to the Moat-house,
could either lend it effectual aid in case of an assault, or render
it, if captured, utterly untenable. Turning the angle of Clifford’s
Tower, we gain the west front. A strong machicolated curtain, bending
slightly westward, connects it with a lofty tower of slight projection,
and separated by a short wall space from the well-advanced and
diagonally set turrets of the great Gatehouse. A deep recess in the
elevation intervenes between the latter and our starting-point, the
Duke’s Tower, which stands well out again, and terminates the whole.
Passing under the long vault of the great Gatehouse, we reach the
Court-yard. Lofty walls close it in on all sides with very picturesque
and fine effect, the Great Hall lying to the east. A central tower of
beautiful proportion, which stands out at right angles to it, shuts
off a smaller court-yard to the north. There are many points about the
exterior which require careful examination. First as to detail. What
may be considered the typical form of window is very characteristic
and peculiar—a single square-topped light, with a rounded trefoil
in the head, the eye of which is either sunk or pierced. It is very
domestic, and has an excellent effect. In Clifford’s Tower they
are superimposed. The windows of the Chapel, which, though good in
themselves, are of an ordinary form, square-headed, with net tracery,
raise an important and interesting question, viz. What is their
probable date, and can we possibly assign them to what may fairly
be called the time of the builder of the great Gatehouse? Now the
Chapel, which is unquestionably the earliest part of the castle, and
thoroughly fortress-like in character, determines by its date the
period when the general work of reconstruction and fortifying began. In
the Moat Tower, above segmental, circular, and depressed four-centred
arches, we have on the summit concave, shoulder-arched doorways of
wonderfully pure and early-looking character. The side-windows of the
Great Hall, again—pairs of long lancets set closely together, and
without hood-moulds—though Transition or Early Perpendicular in date,
are almost Early English in composition. We need feel no very great
surprise, therefore, if in the Chapel we find a type adopted which
was generally expiring. An examination of the masonry on either hand
of the great Gate Tower will show that an extensive alteration was
made in that part of the castle. It would seem that the face of the
original Gatehouse, which probably stood midway between the back and
front of the present one, just about where the inner doorway spans
the passage, was taken down, and the whole structure brought forward
as we see it. The roof proves this almost to demonstration. Within
the central archway, towards the Court-yard, it is a simple barrel
vault, strengthened with plain chamfered ribs. Without it, where
the passage-way widens, it is a well-moulded, beautiful lierne, the
ribs producing, perhaps intentionally, the Nevil saltire four times
repeated. At the same time the short curtain which connected the old
Gatehouse with the tower to the north was advanced level with the
face of the latter, and the western half of the Duke’s Tower, already
described as a double one, added, so as to flank the front, which now,
instead of having a salient angle in the centre, as at first, was,
so to say, made square. The outer entrance of the Gatehouse is very
fine. Its boldly moulded four-centred arch is surmounted by a second
of the same contour, but richly cusped and trefoiled. Above it are
three shields, each surrounded with the garter. They are—1st, Nevil;
2nd, St. George; 3rd, Latimer; and fix certainly the erection of this
Gatehouse, though it looks so much later, between 1382—the probable
date of John Nevil’s second marriage with Elizabeth Latimer—and his
death in 1389.
Another most noticeable point about the work is the entire absence of
buttresses. Every tower and curtain stands in its own unaided strength.
The great diversities of design, especially as seen in the towers,
should also be noticed. Without the least approach to affectation or
extravagance in any, yet of all the nine included in the central group
there are no two which bear the faintest resemblance to each other—the
variety and beauty of proportion in its parts, and the admirable way
in which they are combined, producing, as they did once, a sky-line
perhaps unmatched in England, are really the glories of the castle. A
perfect simplicity and directness of purpose, with infinite change and
play of line, characterize the building throughout, and stamp it as the
work of a master.
Modern alterations have so obscured and destroyed John Nevil’s work in
the interior that there is little of it left to see. Still there is
something. Leland, who mentions it, says, “The Haul and al the Houses
of Offices be large and stately. The Great Chaumber was exceeding
large, but now it is fals rofid and divided into two or three partes.”
Now if by the “Haul” and “Great Chaumber” he refers to the same
thing, which internal evidence seems to show he must, then the worthy
itinerant was entirely mistaken. “A recent investigation, accompanied
by a vigorous use of the pick, has shown me,” says Mr. Hodgson, “that
the Hall, as its external appearance indicates, was always, from
the very first, a double one, consisting, that is, of two halls of
nearly equal height, one above the other. About ten feet below the
present floor I came upon the line of the old one, which had been of
wood carried on pillars (whence, perhaps, the mistake of being ‘fals
rofid’), the mutilated remains of the great fire-place, and three
doorways, all of which I partially opened out. The upper, or Baron’s
Hall, called so, perhaps, to distinguish it from the lower, was a noble
room. Ranges of long narrow transomed windows lighted it on each side,
as well as two large traceried ones of three lights to the south, and
another to the north. The roof, a very fine one of oak, was carried
on cambered beams, each displaying the saltire on its centre. These
were the ordinary arrangements. Extending the full width of the north
end was a lofty stone music gallery, with arch cornice. In advance
of it the screens, behind which, and leading to the Kitchen, Pantry,
and Buttery, were once most likely the usual three doorways, but of
these, owing to mutilations, I could only find one. At either end of
the passage was a large arched doorway. One of these opened upon a
staircase close to the Chapel door, the other upon the roof of a sort
of cloister in the Great Court, which must have formed a promenade, and
of which also I have found the traces. Platforms of this sort, carried
on arches, and occupying an exactly similar position, occur in the
castles of Coucy and Creil.”