"This monument having become dilapidated was restored by voluntary contributions in the year 1833.

"Rev. J. W. LOCKWOOD, Rector."

Of this restoration, Faulkner contributed the following account to the Gentleman's Magazine in December 1833:

"A committee of gentlemen was appointed to superintend the renovation, including the Rev. J. W. Lockwood, Rector, C. Hatchett Esq., the Rev. J. Harding, Curate, J. C. Neild Esq., R. N. Cumming Esq., J. Mullins Esq., and the present writer.

"After various meetings held in the Church, an accurate survey was made of the state of the monument and a plan was decided on for its renovation, the execution of which was finally entrusted into the hands of Mr. J. Faulkner, statuary, of Chelsea, who has accomplished his difficult task with so much skill in imitating and preserving the antique style of the various mouldings, frieze, foliage, etc., so that the whole monument now displays a uniform appearance.

"It was the wish of many gentlemen that the large black slab which contains the inscription should be taken down and examined, with the idea that the back might contain the original epitaph as written and erected by Sir Thomas in his lifetime: but upon its removal their expectations were not realised, the slab never having been polished but on one side."

How far the original character of the monument was altered by Lawrence, it is of course impossible to say; for, in addition to the foregoing evidence, there are two other points, hitherto unnoticed, which seem to indicate something more than a mere restoration.

In the first place, the crest, a Moor's head, is now shown upon the tomb as full faced; whereas on the carved capital in the chapel, it is correctly given, namely in profile. But a more important, and at the same time more interesting piece of evidence, is a description of the arms upon the tomb, given by Randle Holme, during the first half of the seventeenth century (MS. Harl., 2113, fol. 114).

In a note of Chelsea Church, Holme writes: "St Thomas More Knight ber ar. a chevron engrelde betweene 3 more cocks passant sa.

combes beakes and legges or quartred with ar. a chevron sa. charged wth 3 bezants betweene 3 unycornes heads rasyd sa. passant impald with armyn a fess compound of or et azure. Gu. 3 coronets or in a bordure ingrayld. Or a cross gu. voyded of the field."

These arms are tricked in the margin of the MS. as five quarters; nor is it absolutely clear from the description that the two last shields were "impaled," as stated. At the present time, however, only the first three of these five coats are shown anywhere on the tomb.

After reading the epitaph, and the passages from Weever and Aubrey which I have had occasion to quote, the reader may have taken it for granted that More's body was interred at Chelsea. But, unless established facts are to give place to a romantic tradition, I think it will have to be admitted that the body still lies in the chapel of St. Peter within the Tower, where it is known to have been buried immediately after More's execution on Tower Hill. On the other hand, there is a good deal of evidence in favour of the tradition; and some fresh matter came to light a few years ago which occasioned an article in "The Month" (February 1891) by the late Father John Morris, that goes far towards establishing it. far towards establishing it. As that was the last word that has been said on the subject it will be well, I think, to look into it more fully.

Weever evidently takes it for granted that the body was removed to Chelsea; and, though he gives no authority for his statements, he is careful to say no more than he knows. Thus, in describing the chapel of St. Peter, he writes:

"The sixt day of July following the decollation of Bishop Fisher, Sir Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England, was likewise beheaded on the Tower Hill, for the like deniall of the King's Supremacie; he was first buried in this chappell, and the body of his deare friend Fisher was removed out of Barking Churchyard, and buried with him in the same grave: for agreeing so unanimously in their opinions living, it was (be like) thought unfitting to part them being dead; but how long they lay together in this their house of rest, I certainly know not: yet

this is certain, that Margaret, the wife of Master Roper, and daughter of the said Sir Thomas More, removed her father's corps, not long after, to Chelsey; and whether she honoured the Bishop by another remove to the place of her father's buriall, or not, I know not; yet she might, by all probabilitie" (p. 505).

The Rev. Father Bridgett, in the second edition of his recent "Life of Blessed John Fisher," quotes a passage from a Latin Life of Fisher in the British Museum (Arundel MSS. 152, fol. 234), which states that Fisher's body, by reason of the concourse of devout people to his grave at All Hallows, Barking, was "exhumed, and with the relics of Sir Thomas More cast into an obscure place." The historian continues :

"But certain chroniclers [rerum observatores] have left on record that the bodies of these holy men did not even rest there, but when the heat of persecution somewhat abated, they were devoutly carried to the village of Chelsea, where Thomas More had resided, near London, and are there kept to this day, entombed in a new monument which he had prepared for himself when he was in favour. But while I was endeavouring to discover by common report or by written records where the precious treasure is hidden, I was interrupted. [Impedita res fuit.] May God . . . grant that some day, when religion revives, and peace is restored to the Church, it may be made known to the faithful where are these longed for relics."

Such being the tradition, let us now review the evidence for and against it. The earliest and most reliable witness is, without doubt, William Roper; and of More's burial Roper says nothing in his Memoir. But in his will, which was proved a few months after his death in the year 1578, though he makes no positive statement, the inference is clear. "My body to be buried at Chelsea," he says, "in the County of Middlesex, in the vault with the body of my dearly beloved wife (whose soul our Lord pardon) where my father-in-law, Sir Thomas More (whose soul Jesus bless), did mind to be buried."

The next evidence is that of Cresacre More: "His head was put upon London-bridge, where traitors' heads are set up upon poles; his body was buried in the chapel of St. Peter-in-the-Tower, in the belfry,

[or as some say, as one entereth into the vestry],* near unto the body of the holy martyr Bishop Fisher, who being put to death just a fortnight before, had small respect done unto him all this while. But that which happened about Sir Thomas' winding sheet was reported as a miracle by my aunt Roper, Mrs. Clement, and Dorothy Collie, wife unto Mr. Harris. Thus it was: his daughter Margaret, having distributed all her money to the poor, for her father's soul, when she came to bury his body at the Tower she had forgotten to bring a sheet ; and there was not a penny of money left amongst them all; wherefore Mrs. Harris went to the next draper's shop, and agreeing upon the price, made as though she would look for some money in her purse, and then try whether they would trust her or no; and she found in her purse the same sum for which they agreed, not one penny over or under; though she knew before, certainly, that she had not one cross about her. This the same Dorothy affirmed constantly to Doctor Stapleton, when they both lived at Doway, in Flanders, in Queen Elizabeth's reign. His shirt, wherein he suffered, all embrued with his blood, was kept very carefully by Doctor Clement's wife, living also beyond the seas, as also his shirt of hair. His head having remained about a month upon London-bridge, and being to be cast into the Thames, because room should be made for divers others, who in plentiful sort suffered martyrdom for the same supremacy, shortly after, it was bought by his daughter Margaret, lest (as she stoutly affirmed before the council, being called before them after for the same matter) it should be food for fishes; which she buried, where she thought fittest; it was very well to be known, as well by the lively favour of him which was not all this while in any thing almost diminished; as also by reason of one tooth which he wanted whilst he lived" (p. 288. ed. Hunter).

Here again there is no mention of the removal to Chelsea, but a circumstantial account, by a member of the family, of the interment in the Tower, and of the removal of the head from London Bridge. If we accept Roper's testimony we must admit that his wife is buried at Chelsea. And of this, notwithstanding the epitaph at

* This clause is wanting in the MS,

Canterbury, there can be but little doubt. It is probable, however, that More's head, which his daughter had been at such pains to secure, was placed by her in the Roper vault at St. Dunstan's, Canterbury, where it yet remains. Why then, Father Morris argues, should Margaret Roper be buried at Chelsea if her father's head was at Canterbury, unless his body were there? "It was not," he says, "because she had her father's house at Chelsea to live in, for that belonged to the family no longer, but was escheated to the Crown: and again, "Why, at considerable inconvenience and expense should they (Roper and his wife) have wished to lie at Chelsea, when close to their own doors they had their own family vault, in which was the carum caput of Sir Thomas More himself?"

The answer to this is twofold. In the first place, apart from all other considerations, there can be nothing surprising in Margaret Roper's desire to be buried beside her mother, at Chelsea, where she had spent the greater part of her married life in her father's house. In the second place, Father Morris appears to have overlooked a good deal of evidence which proves that the Ropers' connection with Chelsea was not ended by the confiscation of More's property. In 1541, for instance, William Roper obtained a lease of land in Battersea which was formerly leased to More. (S. P. Hen. 8, 1541.) In the following year Lady More had a grant from the Crown of one of her husband's smaller houses in Chelsea. In 1543, the year before his wife's death, Roper is mentioned in a Court Roll as a freeholder of the Manor of Chelsea (P. R. O. General Series Portfolios 188 and 205).

Further evidence in this direction may be gathered from the account of the disposal of More's property given by Cresacre More.

"All the land," he says, "was taken away by two Acts of Parliament immediately after Sir Thomas' death; the one Act was to take away lands which the king had given him, and this was somewhat tolerable; the other most violent and tyrannical, to frustrate utterly a

The house is thus described in the grant :-Unum messuagium in Chelsey cum pertinentibus in comitatu nostro de Midd : quondam in tenura Mewtes ac nuper in

tenura Edwardi Barker et Edmundi Middleton et modo in tenura rectoris ecclesiae parochialis de Chelsey..." (S. P, Hen. 8, 1542, grant 714 (2) 4 Aug.)