Church Monuments Society

An interesting monument, ascribed to the Stanton atelier, in the church at Hinxton brings home how important it is to read inscriptions.  It was erected by Sir Marmaduke Dayrell (c.1641 – 1729) to his father Sir Thomas (?1603-1669), and has a triple purpose: to stress the Dayrell loyalty to the Crown; to celebrate Dayrell connections to the great & the good, both locally and nationally, and to highlight the most important and glamorous moment of Sir Thomas’s life. It incidentally demonstrates the enormous and devastating impact of smallpox at the period.

The monument consists of an inscription-tablet in a classical frame surmounted by three achievements. (Fig. 1) It seems not to be mentioned in Pevsner, which describes two other Dayrell monuments, ascribed (incorrectly) to William Stanton.[1] Mrs Esdaile ascribes that of Sir Thomas to Edward Stanton,[2] while the new Gunnis ascribes it to William Stanton,[3] and this monument is by far the most important of the three as an historical document.

The inscription reads

IN MEMORY OF S^R THOMAS DAYRELL OF Y^E ANCIENT FAMILY OF LILLINGSTONE
DAYRELL IN Y^E COVNTY OF BUCKS WHERE IT HATH CONTINUED FROM Y^E REIGNE
OF KING WILLIAM THE FIRST CALLED THE CONQUEROUR.
HE WAS EMINENT FOR HIS LOYALTY & SERVICES TO THEIR SACRED MAJESTIES
KING CHARLES Y^E  1^ST & KING CHARLES Y^E 2^ND OF BLESSED MEMORY DURING
THE LATE CIVIL WARRS. HE WAS UNIVERSALLY ESTEEMED FOR HIS GREAT LEARNING
& BLELOV’D BY ALL Y^T KNEW HIM & PERTICULARLY BY THIS COUNTY WHERE IN
HIS OLD AGE HE SERVED IN THE QUALITY OF DEPUTY LIEUTENANT & IUSTICE
OF PEACE TO THE TIME OF HIS DEATH.
IN HIS YOUNGER YEARES HE WAS OF LINCOLNS INN, WHERE  FOR Y^E  COMELINESSE
OF HIS PERSON HE WAS CHOSEN BY CONSENT OF Y^E FOUR INNS OF COURT
TO COMMAND Y^E GRAND MASQUE (IN W^CH MANY GENTLEMEN OF EMINENT NOTE
& QUALITY IN Y^E SUCCEEDING TIMES HAD THEIR SEVERALL PARTS) THAT WAS
REPRESENTED BEFORE THEIR MAJ^TIES Y^E KING & QUEEN IN Y^E BANQUETING
HOUSE AT WHITE HALL ON CANDLEMASS-NIGHT IN Y^E YEAR 1633
AND A SECOND TIME BY SPECIALL DIRECTIONS FROM THEIR MAJ^TIES TO S^R RALPH
FREEMAN THEN LORD MAYOR OF LONDON AT MERCHANT TAYLORS
HALL WHERE HIS MAJ^TIE AS A MARKE OF HIS ROYAL FAVOUR WAS PLEASD
TO CONFER ON HIM THE HONOUR OF K^THOOD
HE WAS SOMETIME OF THIS PLACE & OF CASTLE CAMPS IN THIS COUNTY
WHERE HE DEPARTED THIS LIFE ON THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL AN. DOM.1669
IN Y^E 66^TH YEAR OF HIS AGE  & WAS INTERR’D IN Y^E CHANCEL OF Y^E PARISH
CHURCH NEAR THE ALTAR TABLE ON THE LEFT HAND
HE MARRIED SARAH ONE OF Y^E DAUGHTERS & COHEIRS OF S^R HUGH
WYNDHAM OF PILSDEN COURT IN Y^E COUNTY OF DORSET K^T  & BAR^T
BY WHOM HE HAD ISSUE 4 SONS VIZ THOMAS FRANCIS MARMADUKE
& WYNDHAM & 2 DAUGHTERS MARY, & SARAH.
HIS ELDEST SON THOMAS DYED OF Y^E SMALL POX IN Y^E  23^RD YEAR OF HIS
AGE AN. DOM. 1664, & LIES BURIED NEAR THIS MONUMENT.
HIS 2^ND SON S^R FRANCIS MARRIED ELIZABETH ONE OF Y^E DAUGHTERS
& COHEIRS OF EDWARD LEWES OF Y^E VANN IN Y^E COUNTY OF GLAMORGAN
ESQ BY MARGARETT HIS WIFE AFTERWARDS DUCHESS OF RICHMOND& LENOX
S^R FRANCIS HAD BY HIS SAID WIFE 2 DAUGHTERS ELIZABETH
& MARY BOTH DYED IN THEIR INFANCY. HE DYED OF Y^E SMALL POX IN Y^E 30^TH
YEAR OF HIS AGE AN. DOM. 1675 & WAS INTERR’D NEAR HIS FATHER IN Y^E
CHURCH OF CASTLE CAMPS. HIS 3^RD SON S^R MARMADUKE MARRIED MARY
ONLY DAUGHTER OF S^R IUSTINIAN ISHAM OF LAMPORT IN Y^E COUNTY OF
NORTHAMPTON BAR^T BY Y^E LADY VERE HIS WIFE ONE OF Y^E DAUGH^TERS OF Y^E RIGH^T
HON^BLE THOMAS LORD LEIGH OF STONELY IN Y^ECOUNTY OF WARWICK. SHE
DIED Y^E [?] OF IUNE AN. DOM. 1679 OF Y^E SMALL POX IN Y^E 23^RD YEAR OF HER AGE
THIS S^R MARMADUKES 2^ND WIFE WAS MARY Y^E ONLY DAUGHTER  & HEIR OF W^M
GLASSCOCK OF FARNHAM IN Y^E COUNTY OF ESSEX ESQ BY WHOM HE HATH ISSUE
[?4] SONNES & 2 DAUGHTERS. HIS 4 ^TH SON WYNDHAM DYED OF Y^E SMALL POX
IN Y^E 22^RD YEAR OF HIS AGE AN. DOM. 1674 & WAS INTERR’D IN Y^E PARISH
CHURCH OF S^T GILES IN Y^E FIELDS IN Y^E COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX. HE WAS OF
LINCOLNS INN WHERE HE WAS LAMENTED BY ALL THAT KNEW HIM.
HIS DAUGHTER MARY DYED OF Y^E SMALL POX IN Y^E 26^TH YEAR OF HER AGE
AN. DOM. 1670 AND WAS BURIED IN Y^E S CHAPEL OF S^T GILES
HIS DAUGHTER SARAH WAS MARRIED TO FRANCIS WENDHAM OF CROMER
IN Y^E COUNTY OF NORFOLK ESQ WHO HATH ISSUE BY HER
3 SONS & 2 DAUGHTERS

The apron bears the inscription, in a different font, and possibly by a different hand,

Also in the Chancel of the s^d Church of Castle Camps lyes Innterr’d the
body of BARBARA Lady HINDE Daughter of  ANTHONY POWELL als HERBERT
Esqr first y^e wife of FRANCIS DAYRELL, Esqr to whom she bare y^e s^d S^r THOMAS
DAYRELL & also SUSANNA afterwards wife of THOMAS WYNNE Esqr
Her 2^d husband was EUSEBIUS ANDREW of Edmonton Com Middsx Esqr
(Father of Coll EUSEBIUS ANDREW who was Beheaded Aug: y^e 22^d 1650).
by whom she had Issue KATHARINE afterwards Married to S^r IOHN
LENTHALL of Burford in y^e County of Oxford Kn^t who died An^o. 1691
in y^e 72^d year of her Age & was buried near her Husband in the
Parish Church of Besilsilee in the County of Berks. Her 3^d Husband
was S^r EDWARD HINDE of  Maddingley in this County K^t whom she
survived many years & died A^o. Do1667 in y^e 89^th year of her Age

Patri Optimo et Charissimo officiosæ pietatis
et memoriæ ergo
Hoc Monumentum
Posuit
M.D.

Granted that the latest date on the main monument is 1679, and on the apron 1691 it seems possible that the apron represents a later addition to the ensemble, but the fact that the main inscription refers to Sir Marmaduke’s second marriage, and the children thereof, suggests that a date in the 1690s for both parts of the monument is plausible, and that the difference in format is designed to distinguish the paternal from the maternal lines.

This inscription bears all the signs of being raised by a royalist family attempting to regain the loss of status brought on them by their devotion to the crown. It starts by asserting the antiquity of the line, then Sir Thomas’s loyalty to the king, and only then moves on to a laudatory enumeration of his personal qualities, exemplified in his service in local positions of responsibility, as DL and JP. It concludes with an indication of the exact location of his interment, possibly in a family vault, as other of his family are said to be buried by him, and goes on to list the details of his family, including the cause of many of their deaths – smallpox.

Sir Thomas Dayrell’s connections, both local and national, were impressive, but the purpose of this posthumous name-dropping – ‘Duchess of Richmond and Lennox’, ‘Lady Vere’, ‘Leigh of Stonleigh’ – was of course to emphasise the powerful connections of the patron of the monument, Sir Thomas’s son, Sir Marmaduke. This theme is continued in the inscription on the apron to Sir Thomas’s mother, Barbara, née Powell, afterwards Dayrell, Andrew and Hinde.: the connections to the father of a Royalist martyr and to one of the most powerful Cambridgeshire families, the Hindes of Madingley, are being used to enhance the Dayrell family’s status.

But the greatest interest of this monument is the account of Sir Thomas’s participation in the most lavish and expensive court masque of the Stuart period – the  February 1634 Triumph of Peace, commissioned by the four Inns of Court, written by James Shirley, and designed by Inigo Jones (the inscription dates it 1633, but this is the old style when the year began on March 25).

The Triumph Peace is one of the best-documented of all Stuart Masques,[4] and Sir Thomas’s role in it was central – for once an epitaph is telling the truth, including about his stunning good looks. Bulstrode Whitelocke, who was one of the most important participants, described it in his 1682 Memoirs. The masquers went in procession from Ely-house in Holborn down Chancery-Lane to Whitehall:

‘The first that marched were twenty Footmen, in Scarlet liveries with Silver-lace, each one having his Sword by his side, a Baton in his hand, and a Torch lighted in the other hand; these were the Marshal’s-men who cleared the Streets, made way, and were all about the Marshal, waiting his Commands. After them, and some-times in the midst of them came the Marshall, then Mr DarrelI, afterwards Knighted by the King: He was of Lincolns-Inn, an extraordinary handsom proper Gentleman; he was mounted upon one of the King’s best Horses, and richest Saddles, and his own habit was exceeding rich and glorious; his Horsemanship very gallant; and besides his Marshals-men, he had two Lacquies, who carried Torches by him, and a Page in Livery that went by him, carrying his Cloak’[5]

 We learn more about Dayrell’s role from the official account of the masque:

‘The marshal followed these, bravely mounted, attended with ten horse and forty foot, in coats and hose of scarlet trimmed with silver lace, white hats and feathers, their truncheons tipped with silver: these upon every occasion moving to and fro, to preserve the order of their march and restrain the rudeness of people, that in such triumphs are wont to be insolent and tumultary’[6]

It is clear that Dayrell’s role, although he did not perform in the masque, was one of great responsibility: he had to get the huge procession of masquers and attendants, numbering about a thousand persons, from what is now Ely Place to Whitehall, a distance of about 1.4 miles, through crowded streets, making sure all was kept in order.

Although it was the culmination of a long tradition of the performance of court entertainments by the Inns of Court, the masque itself was a symbol of loyalty – although participation did not guarantee being on the Royalist side during the Civil War. The Cities of London and Westminster were centres of opposition to the attempt by the king to rule without Parliament, and the Inns of Court had good reason to affirm their loyalty after the Queen had been publicly insulted by the lawyer William Prynne in his attack on the theatre, Histriomastix (1633).[7] So the great procession which Dayrell marshalled showed not only the loyalty of the Inns of Court but demonstrated, by extension, royal power to the disaffected citizens of London and Westminster who were forced to make way for it. The importance which it is given in his inscription is entirely justified.

The other two monuments mentioned above also raise the importance of reading inscriptions. These are to Dame Mary Dayrell, Marmaduke her son and Sarah her daughter, grey and white marble with a garlanded urn on pedestal, and to Sir Marmaduke Dayrell, grey and white marble with two putti holding symbols of mortality and a shield of arms. There is some confusion over the authorship of the monuments: Robert Walker says that the monument to Sir Marmaduke (which he ascribes to Edward Stanton) is  “identical … to his mother”, presumably referring to the monument to Dame Mary, who was his wife,[8] to which it is not identical. None of this is correct: the monuments post-date 1760, and were erected according to the terms of the will of Francis Dayrell (will dated 18 April 1757, proved 10 December 1760) by his son Marmaduke.

The relevant passage reads

‘And I do desire my Executors within two years after my Decease to Expend and lay out the sum of One hundred pounds in Erecting a Monument on the North Side of the Altar at Hinxston in the County of Cambridge in Memory of my Father S^r  Marmaduke Dayrell Also One hundred pounds in Erecting a Monument on the South side of the Altar aforesaid in Memory of my Mother Dame Mary Dayrell and my Sister Sarah Dayrell my Brother Marmaduke Dayrell and my sister Catherine Dayrell’

The monumental inscriptions show that this was indeed carried out by Marmaduke Dayrell, Esq, son to Francis (Fig.2):

To the Memory of Sir MARMADUKE DAYRELL, Son of
Sir THOMAS DAYRELL of the ancient Family of the
DAYRELLS of Lillingston Bucks, who for his Various and
Eminent Services had the Honour of Knighthood
Conferrd on him by his Majesty King JAMES the Second
His first Wife was MARY, Daughter of Sir JUSTINIAN ISHAM
of Lamport in the County of Northampton
          He afterwards Married MARY Daughter of
WILLIAM GLASSCOCK Esq^r of Farnham in the County of Essex
by whom he had Issue three Sons and two Daughters
his Eldest Son dying in his Life time he was Succeeded
in his Estate by his second Son FRANCIS DAYRELL Esq^r
by whose direction in grateful remembrance of his Father
this Monument is Erected by his grandson
MARMADUKE DAYRELL Esq^r

(Fig.3)

In grateful remembrance of Dame MARY DAYRELL
Daughter of WILLIAM GLASSCOCK Esq^r  and Wife of
Sir MARMADUKE DAYRELL and also of her Son MARMADUKE
her Daughter SARAH and her Daughter CATHERINE
her Grandson MARMADUKE DAYRELL Esq^r in persuance
of the direction of his late Father FRANCIS DAYRELL Esq^r
                   Hath Erected this Monument

The dates preclude these being by any Stanton: it is almost a century later than those proposed for them. The confusion has arisen because of the Dayrells’ lack of imagination in naming their children, and of their longevity: as a close reading of the inscriptions makes clear the Marmaduke (c. 1723 – 1790) who was patron of these monuments was the grandson of the patron of the monument to Sir Thomas (and dedicatee of the first 1760 monument), who lived from about 1641 until 1729, as may be found from reading his ledger in Hinxton.

The monuments are sufficiently similar in style to ascribe them to the same atelier, and this is likely also to be the source for the contemporaneous monument to Francis Dayrell himself, for which he also made provision in his will, and which, following his directions, is in the church at Shudy Camps. The provision for Shudy Camps was fifty pounds for a tomb (probably for a vault + ledger) and one hundred pounds for a monument, but while it is stylistically compatible with those at Hinxton, it is much more lavish, suggesting that Marmaduke Dayrell made have added to his father’s provision. None of the 1760 monuments seemed to be signed, but in 1768 Francis Dayrell’s widow, Elizabeth, died and was commemorated by a large monument signed by Thomas Carter II, so it is possible that the 1760 monuments come from the Cater atelier – all suggestions gratefully received.

Jean Wilson

[1] Simon Bradley and Nikolaus Pevsner, The Buildings of England: Cambridgeshire(New Haven and London, 2014), p.570.

[2] Norman Scarfe, Shell Guide: Cambridgeshire (London, 1983), p.148.

[3]  Ingrid Roscoe, Emma Hardy and M G Sullivan (eds), A Biographical Dictionary of Sculptors in Britain 1660-1851, (New Haven & London, 2009), p.1182. That the Dayrells should have gone to the Stanton atelier for a monument is plausible granted the family connection to the Ishams, who had previously used them and continued to do so, see Roscoe et al. 2009, pp. 1178, 118

[4] Stephen Orgel and Roy Strong, Inigo Jones: The theatre of the Stuart Court (2 vols, London, 1973), pp. 536-565. It is also edited by Clifford Leech in T.J.B.Spencer and Stanley Wells (eds), A Book of Masques in Honour of Allardyce Nicoll, (Cambridge, 1967), pp, 275-313

[5] Orgel and Strong, p.541

[6] Orgel and Strong, p.547

[7] Martin Butler, The Stuart Court Masque and Political Culture, (Cambridge, 2008), pp298ff.

[8] Robert Walker, ‘Eighteenth-Century Churches” in Carola Hicks (ed) Cambridgeshire Churches (Stamford, 1997), pp.131-145, 145.

Gallery

• Fig1 Monument to Sir Thomas Dayrell †1669
• Fig2 Monument to Marmaduke Dayrell †1729
• Fig3 Monument to Mary Dayrell †1717