````- ：º ：→ ºſº • • • • && （ ∞ √≠ ≠ × × × ！ º«.*... º ````！ S’N ： --... * * * * *· · · · · * */ ， ， ，（ ）*... *, ！wae º** …... * §**º štººssºs** *， º* º *s*.， ！ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■º. s. » . . . . .Šis * ， ， ！ §****- } * ， †`№,№, º º· • • •••• • • RS，};s~\\s*';§“N， （* º NSvº）， � （ ） ！“ s º！ №， ， ， ， ， ， ， * ∞ √° √» （ ， * * · * * * * · * *،-→· }, ~ ~ ！， -： • • • • • • • • • •s ºs „sººs • • • • • • • • • • • • * * * *， ** * · * •· • × ، ، ،-^` s …"º ,•∞ º º∞، ،- · · · * * * ·，·，≤）| v. s.， &， … ~~~~ （čet syves. « sº • • • • • •**• • • • • • •ț¢ ， ' ~º sººſ … ;） <！-- ************** ſº ºsv.） * ， ~~~~，~sºs， ex ſº^ºº^ *?） F*3 º ? ? « … … • & - saer， ſºº°°°° . . . . . . ^ ^ ^ ^ ）* * · ********, ** ** * · * （ ` ）. ∞C ， ſaes., „ºs ºsſ （e ~ ~~~~2. . … ： „ , •... • • • • • • • • ** * * * * · * * * * * L •� sage · · · · · · ºſº _° *…Tº ！！！-- -*=---→ · · · · *********）: *** 3tlanningbale, South ſtormoon, Surrey. 24. Ø.2.4 & 24 2 ºz º, 2×2222- *: 2%. ZF %. 64-voice2, of 732, accele-Calé.cº- &2. 2%. - Ø42,... 2ea. 4- 4-4-a-zz… , . o/224, 2 e” º º 2,2-az-62-2 /…º.º. ººz, 42-z-z-e-Z 2%. 22. * * - JR (Sūromicſe ulemunaluru. A #ecorb of #t. (Biles' in the £ielba amb ſgloomsbury, muitly ()riginal #laps, granuittge, & Jeeba. bºy WALTER BLOTT, F. R. HIST. S. 1892. PRINTED BY JOHN WOOLNOUGH, 71, HIGH STREET, South Norwood. PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR, AT “MANNINGDALE,” South Norwood. ########## ~ *- *- e- -1. º EE + - 4 × . º-ºº: * * Ełºśs *** ** Frºgs: º-º-º-º: ############ º sº º Tºsº.ºr-Fi Rºssº; #ſº Wºłºś. # = #: : º Rºº. º º * * * * * * * * Y. Cº - º Biº- sº Gra Nº. º é% # #ºsº º Nºtº irº ſº f G P | U * sº º t |'É ºvaſı, i I | | || ſº | # G # §§ 2- s: tº º |º: º #ſº i t ; ; I ſ H ſ * º º ſº º # º º # D [] | | :f # iń. ſ: *Cº. ººº-º-# - §:# iiff iii. Pºzº. ººº-º-º-º: º º cº- º "Sºlº siſſi * º -º-º-º- . . . . ::::::::::: º: ~. a 3-3 - :”. Hº- PREFACE, IF the readers of this Chronicle will turn to the Title-page and mark the names on the partly unrolled scroll, they will see it is a record of great and mighty men, who left their mark in English history and made it what it is. Those names are not slightly strung together “to adorn a tale;” they are placed there because they bring to me the Chronicle of Blemundsbury. Modern Bloomsbury is a faint echo of an almost forgotten history, for these men of Norman times lived and moved in Blemundsbury when St. Giles’ in the Fields had no existence. The two maps—East and West Blemunds- bury—are not placed in the Chronicle as a conjectural fancy. Many of the buildings date from the reigns of the Norman Kings. In Blemundsbury, the Preaching Friars, the Lepers, the Templars, and great Bishops and mighty Barons had “a local habitation.” To me this fact has been a revelation. In County Histories, The Pell Records, The Issue Rolls, and the voluminous collection of State Papers, I have found “confirmation strong” of the existence of the Royal Manor of Blemundsbury. I do not know whether—in the face of so much that has been written to the contrary—my readers will be inclined to accept my statements. I have striven as far as possible to base this record upon dates and to make it exhaustive. Turning to a later period, I have been fortunate in obtaining many of the original leases for building on Aldewyche Close, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, Drury Lane, and Seven Dials, so that the dates given are beyond contradiction. The several annotations of Stow have been closely exam- ined; MAITLAND, PENNANT, BRAYLEY, ALLEN, HUGHsON, LAMBERT WEEvKR, FULLER, RAPIN, LAMB, and others have not been passed over but I owe much to John PARTon’s work:-Some Account of the Hospital and Parish of St. Giles in the Fields, for by its errors I was led to greater research and found the Chronicle of Blemundsbury underlying the early history of St. Giles’ in the Fields. CONTENTS, The Chronicle of Blemundsbury The Hospital of St. Giles for Lepers The Manor of Tateshall Blemundsbury——The Fields of Mont Ficquet The Fields of Mont Ficquet—Lincoln Place, Holborn The Fields of Mont Fiequet—Staple Inn, Holborn Betweene ye Turnynge Styles—Lincoln’s Inn Fields and Holborn The Lords of Blemundsbury Dudley House and its Associations Blemundsbury—Mereslade—The Fields of St. Giles in Westminster Blemundsbury—The Fields of Aldewyche—Drury Lane and Great Queen Street ... Miscellaneous Memoranda—Drury Lane PAGE. I to 17 5I IO5 , I55 I93 233 265 283 333 373 I6 50 68 IO4 I54 I92 232 264 282 332 372 400 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS, y The Frontispiece. Wignettes from the Tabula. Eliensis. J Blemundsbury—East. J Blemundsbury—West. . Map of the Parish of St. Giles in the Fields. v. A Knight Templar. - VThe Execution of Sir John Oldeastle. v Staple Inn. * Y. N Kºi... . . a º § º sº tº : § 3. S.S A ſº ºf .. º º * * & º & º § §..º.º. # 㺠. ** §§ Sº S N * [. º * > * & ; , , º º Nº. 5 ºf ſº : - liº. ... A N º \ iº Sº, , .N º w \º 38 gº.- g - * N - ~ & [s A. x Sº º º º sº ...r.t. " ºr , as tº JEARL of Z.EICE,STER, , Plan of Holborn by Staple Inn. * Tateshall Op Tottenhall, - v. Gibbon’s Tennis Court, Lincoln’s Inn Fields. v. Plan of Lineoln’s Inn. - v. The House by the Upper Turnstile. VChimney-Piece in the House by the Upper Turnstile. v. The House by the Little Turnstile. y Plan of Holborn between the Turnstiles. y The Cock and Pye. r-r-z-z-z-z ** * *T-". VI: 2. ' ^ - . . . * * ... r. • BLOTT's CHRONICLE OF BLEMUNDSBURY. ~. ~. .* O º' sº .." easºesot; ‘Yº : s...” ----- * /. • EA | * ~...~ «. * * &ºm sº ſº * gº?, ?, JR ~...' M . ...? > \ º f = S-3.3 . • * : * ::, ; Mo Na = -r E R Y * * & - ... • *- g ... ? - - * . . #, Sºº = 1 ×. rºº, º 5 - a º, flººx. - - 22:... - - -=- ITaTºTSſ. VºIT. 2* * • *III 2 * ~... 3 ... ? ... " “. ...' * • * * g *: iſ: § & a • ‘. .2%. 3. ‘’.2:tº: f t-4 (5 Jºe E. 1 w *. “,s*, : ; * g tºy. & ºm • -- . - 1-4 a s T -> B. c 1+ c. 4 a. *śs # 6. D E Rep. v ER,Sºj -- ~ * :º & & % º -3 . . . _’’’ ‘’’: . zºº. º * … . * * > o's Sºc, Aº ‘f ^, # , . . . . ; &-". - ‘..." * 2. % * . à :: *%; *—º - 4. A zºº.º. *... c -u tº 5 tº T b . * ſ% | # / 2 ..º * - . sº _º - T-9. ( * * * * * T.A. - “A Tº. f . C.? -º*ē, : ". T, 's N t ºn A zº gº %. s ** * sºn - • * * (** a 2 "X ‘’’;3:22, ! ...; - - g * e-8 & * .*A*- ! ~ : *- : f 4 Le Vu K2". Jºe Trr; I lºº I TvT, #*\ \\\\\\\\\\ºś |HºpſAITEly, i r º § Nišſº www.wrw WV& Cº. IIITITIATITIII] The Earl of Lincoln's House—page 12. : Portpole Manor—page 181. Richard de Berkyng's Grant—page 168. Lincoln Place—page Ios. Holborn Bridge—page 83. Fleet Bridge—page 83. The Fleet or River of Wells. 7 The Domus Conversorum—page 112. 8 Hereflete—page 44. . . The White Hart Inn, XIVth Century—page 338. Blois Pond—page 72. Clare Hall—page 338. The Conygarth—page 89. Ely Monastery—page 4. Essex House—page 72. Montfitchett Castle—page 7. Spencer House—page 193. THE CHRONICLE OF filemundsbury. HE opening chapter of this “Chronicle” is intended to be introductory and prefatory; a prelude or prologue to foreshadow the plan of a complex and difficult history, contained in the sections into which this work is divided. The matter is founded on the following assertions, which the writer hopes the reader will, when he has perused the book, feel that the assertions have been based upon facts. The first scene is the brow of Holborn Hill. The The sºn casus battle of Hastings has been fought, King Harold is slain, on Holborn Hill. and William the Norman, by virtue of conquest, is King of England, has taken up his quarters in an abandoned fortress or castle outside the western wall of London, and is busily engaged making ready to attack the citizens if they do not recognize him as their lawful Sovereign. Finding that all attempts to drive away the Conqueror were useless, and that resistance would involve them and their city in irretrievable ruin, the citizens wisely opened their gates to him, and pledged themselves to be his true and faithful servants. A. 2 The building of the Tower of London. King William, not caring to trust himself and his followers within the walls of the city, knowing that the inhabitants only waited a fitting opportunity to free them- selves from the galling yoke of Norman tyranny, was content to entrench himself in the old buildings that had stood for centuries on the declivity of Holborn, with the river Fleet in the valley. The same policy that prompted the King to fringe the Principality of Wales with castles, led him to environ London with forts or towers, the strong- est of which was on the east side, and important, because it commanded the river and effectually prevented supplies and assistance from that quarter. It now remains a lasting memorial of him, but the ancient fortress on Holborn Hill has changed into Staple Inn. - About 1079, the Conqueror caused the present white square Tower of London to be erected, for the more effectually keeping the citizens in obedience, whose fidelity at this time it seems he had some reason to suspect. The Surveyor of the work was Gundulph, Bishop of Rochester.—MAITLAND. It may fairly be assumed that prior to the completion of the White Tower, the King held and occupied the castle in Holborn. MAITLAND says: We may, by the situation of those fortresses, suppose that they were erected at the extremeties of the wall at the river side as places the most exposed to sudden attacks from the land at low water: Which supposition is very much corroborated by the Tower of London being erected within the ancient course of the tide, as was lately discovered in digging foundations for some houses in the Mint, contiguous to the north side of the interior circumferal wall, where they dug a considerable depth into the ancient bed of the river; and is fully confirmed by Fitz-Stephen's authority, who writes in the reign of Henry II. “That the wall is high and great, well towered on the north side, with due distances between the towers. On the South side also the city was walled and towered; but the fish-abounding river Thames, with his ebbing and flowing, hath long since subverted them.’ Wherefore I think 3 it is not to be doubted that the wall on the river side ran along from the Tower of London, in the east, where Thames Street now is situate, to the castle of Montfitchet, in the west, where the King's printing-house and those contiguous are erected. CAMDEN confirms this, as under:— At each end of the wall that runs along by the river, were strong forts; the one, toward the east, remains to this day, call’d commonly the Tower of London. . . . . . . . That the two castles, which Fitz-Stephens has told us were at the east end of the city, may have been turn’d into this one, would be plausible enough. At the west end of the city, was another fort, where the little river Fleet empties itself into the Thames. Fitz-Stephens calls this fort the Palatine Tower, and tradition affirms it to have been burnt down in William the Conqueror's time. Out of the ruins whereof was built a great part of St. Paul's Church; as also a Monastery for Dominican Friers (from whom we call the place Black-Friers), founded in the very area or plot of it by Robert Kilwarby, Archbishop of Canterbury, from whence you may easily take an estimate of its largeness. And yet, in Henry the Second’s time, there were in the same place (as Gervasius Tilburiensis affirms) two pergama or castles, with walls and rampires; one whereof belong'd to Bainard, the other to the barons of Mont- fitchett by inheritance. But there is nothing now to be seen of them; though some are inclin'd to think that Pembroch House was part of them; which we call Bainard's Castle, from a noble- man, one William Bainard, Lord of Dunmow, formerly owner of it; whose successors were hereditary Standard-bearers of London. A reference to the drawing, “Blemundsbury East,” will illustrate the statement of CAMDEN, who refers to events of a later date than 1086. Essex House, in the drawing, marks the site of the old Saxon castle, but is not intended to represent its extent or its defences. Stow marks the time and the circumstances which led to its destruction. He says: In the year IoS6, a devouring fire spread abroad over almost all the cities of England; the church of St. Paul's in London was burnt, with the most part of the citie, which fire began at the entry of the west gate, and consumed to the east gate. Maurice, then Byshhoppe of London, afterward began the foundation of 4. The Monks of Ely. the newe church of St. Paul, a worke that men of that time judged would never have been finished, it was then so wonderfull. King William gave toward the building of the east ende of this church the choyce stones of his castell, standing neare the banke of the river Thames, at the west ende of the citie. After Maurice, Richard, his successor, did also wonderfully increase the same church, purchasing of his own cost the large streets about it, where were wont to dwell many lay people, which ground he began to compasse about with a strong wall of stone and gates: and King Henry the First gave to the sayd Richard, Bishop of London, so much of the mote or wall of the castell on the Thames side, to the south, as shoulde bee needfull to make the sayde wall of the church, and so much as would suffice to make a way without the wall on the north side, etc. The gift of the King of “the choyce stones of his castell” to rebuild the church of St. Paul proves that his demolished castle was an old one, built before his successful invasion, and that it was occupied by him; moreover, its proximity to the church of St. Paul, its nearness to the Thames and the west end of the city, suggest very forcibly that the west side of the Fleet, the silent highway of the Thames, and the old highway of Oldbourn defined the boundaries of the castle and its precincts. Those who may feel inclined to differ from these conclusions, are bound to find, if they can, another site. Nestling under the shadow of its walls was a small band of Christian brothers, connected with the conventual church of Ely. When they first founded this settlement is not known; it was so long ago that time has blurred the date. The first Norman King had reason to remember the “Monks of Ely.” ſº King Edward the Peaceable died at London, January 5th, 1066, the day after Harold, Son of Earl Godwin, agreeably as it is said to the nomination of King Edward, was elected by all the great men of the nation, and on the same day was crowned by Aldred, Archbishop of York. Soon after, the Abbey of Ely having been some time vacant by the death of Wilfric, the King j appointed Thurlestan Abbot in his room; a man of approved virtue and moderation, who was born at Wichford, near Ely, and had been bred up in the Monastery from a child, and was suffici- ently learned both in English and Latin. Thurlestan, from a sense of his own danger, and remembering the injury done to his benefactor, King Harold, determined to support the interests of Edgar Atheling. He readily gave shelter to such English lords as fled into the Isle of Ely, particularly to Edwin, Earl of Chester, and Morchar, Earl of Northumberland. Among others who joined them was Hereward, son of Leofric, Lord of Brumie or Burne in Lincolnshire. The King, having given his inheritance to Ivo de Tailboise, whom he dispossessed by force of arms; and retiring into the Isle of Ely, was elected General, and took all necessary to act both on the defensive and offensive against the Normans, who arrived in the beginning of the Summer, Io99. Victory declared for the King; many nobles were taken prisoners. Hereward only of all the leaders in this confederacy had the good fortune to escape. The King sent a large detachment to Ely, to take possession of the Monastery, and himself soon after paid his devotions at the altar of St. Etheldreda, with an offering of one Mark of Gold. The monastery, situate opposite his castle on the north side of Holborn, then came into his possession. This rebellion was not lightly passed over. Forty of the principal knights from Normandy were quartered upon the Abbey, to be maintained out of its revenues, and to each of them was assigned a “Monk of Ely” to be his chaplain. Some of these knights have largely contributed to the Chronicle of Blemundsbury, and their names are inscribed on the partly unrolled scroll depicted in the frontispiece. BENTHAM says:—“They appear to have been most of them gentlemen quartered on the Monastery, and whose Arms were afterwards set up in the Refectory or Great Hall there.” Not only were their Arms set up there, but what is most extraordinary, the portraits of the forty Knights and forty Monks, painted in oil, formed one picture in the days when oil painting is alleged to be unknown. The Monastery of Ely in Holborn. 6 The Tabula Eliensis. These forty Knights and Monks occupied forty squares. It is not suggested that their features were drawn with photo- graphic accuracy, or that an exact likeness was guaranteed by the unknown artist. Six of these squares are reproduced in this opening chapter, because they tell of the great men of Blemundsbury. The names on the Scroll are not the creation of “Historic Fancies,” evolved from traditional myths, or the product of a revelation of some obscure Mahatma; but they are the designations of mighty men, who wandered over Lincoln’s Inn Fields, Saffron Hill, and Drury Lane, long before those places were so named. The picture has passed away, but the memory of it remains. It would serve but little purpose to revive now the question of its antiquity. The Tabula Eliensis has been well discussed by Antiquarians and Archaeologists. The Monks and the Knights got on very well together. The Hostes made exceeding much of their Guestes, and the Guestes of their Hostes. At length when the Cyvill broyles were cleane extinguished, and all indevours to the Kinge's mind atteyned, his rage being asswaged, he was content to ease the Monks of this yoke, wherewith their pride was nowe sufficiently abated, and called these Souldiours awaye againe to be sent into Normandy to represse the pride of his insolent Sonne Robert, which at that tyme havying the raynes at libertye, made great hurly-burly there. These Souldiours were sorry to depart; but our Monkes (marvel it is to tell) did not only with teares bewail the departure of their deere fellows the noble Souldiours, but also with howling, fearfull to be heard, did cry out, beating their brestes voyd of all hope. When these Gentlemen shoulde departe, all our Monkes (whose number was great) wearing copes did curteously bring them as farre as Hadenham in procession with singing and with all the solemnitie that could be. And when they were returned home, they very curiously caused every man's Armes to be painted upon the walls of the Hall where they dined and supped for a perpetual memory of them. Which Armes have been from time to time, from predecessors to successors, from antiquity to this present, diligently kept and polished. 7 Alexanberbeſtlantettigime, One of the “deere fellows” who cum Babibefttºmacho. made the Monks weep at his #Rºž|Pºliſã - Jºã departure from Ely was Alex- -sº ander de Monte Viginte. His * = companion and bosom friend º was Monk David. Heraldry has * : * preserved the identity of this Knight. DR. STUKELEY speaks e... º. º.º.º. º. of him as Alexander de Monte, and states that he bore Gules, 3 Chevrons Or. Full ER calls him Monte Vigente or Viginite, but MR. Cole, says these names “are a false orthography for Montefichet, the old Barons of which name actually gave for Coat Armour Gules, 3 Chevrons Or; as is evident from a curious MS. of heraldry in my possession.” Whether Monk David jour- neyed with him from Ely to Holborn is not recorded, but it is known that not far from the Monks of Ely in Holborn the Baron Montefitchett built his castle, and gave his name (Fitchett’s Fields) to the land around it, part of which is now Lincoln’s Inn Fields. [- º-2 | `-- E-3 sº- *-ºsmºsºms ** *ms= Fº- B- E- [a--- E- ... -- ~ g Another noble Knight was • *:::::::º º: Walter de Lacy, whose spiritual * * * * * * a s > * s & & * e s - 3 tº Monk Occha or Ocham. “Nei- º sº ther do I think,” says MR. sº Coles, “DR. Stukeley is º altogether exact, when he trans- º lates Walterus de Lacy, Scuti- º fer Conquestoris, by Sword Bearer to the Conqueror; when in reality he was Shield-bearer; probably at that time a very different office from the former.” To the illustrious Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, Lincoln’s Inn Fields owes its name. - - - Alexander de Montfitchet. Walter de Lacy. 8 Paganus de Grey, Hugh Paganus. .# ºlºmº Paganus le Graye was another * mätädgålſłlomacho. member of the “Church Mili- #< H Yºgal. DR. Stukeley, com- 2 menting on this illustration, sº says: — “Paganus le Lorain : Equitum Signifer, bears Barry - # , of 8 Pieces Ar. O Az; the well- known coat of the noble and numerous family of Grey.” “This alone,” says MR. Col.F., “was sufficient one would have thought to have directed an able Antiquarian to the bearer’s name, which was Pagan le Graye. FULLER, in his Church History, did not put down anything at random he thought proper, but thus cautiously worded it: Pagan- Standard-bearer of the Horse-men.” The union of Paganus and Graye in one name is to be noted, and it is remark- able that Pagan le Graye, so closely associated with Ely, should have his estate on Holborn Hill, nearly opposite the present “Gray’s Inn.” * - - ES º-ºº: *E § – ºf Nº. :=== § : º:s§ gº: :i- ºt-3: --~3 2sº tº º ºfflº, #E The descendant of Pagan le Graye, alias Paganus le Lorain, played a very prominent part in the history of Blemundsbury. On the death of Godfrey, Duke of Lorain, Hugo de Planca de Paganis appears to have given up his interest in his Holborn estate and presented it to a newly- formed order of Knights, known as the Templars, on which land they built their Temple.* STow, speaking of the Templars, says:— They entertained the Nobility, Foreign Ambassadors, and the Prince himself very often. Insomuch that Matthew Paris cryeth out on them for their Pride, who being at the first so poor as they had but one Horse to serve two of them, in Token whereof, they gave on their Seal, two Men riding on one Horse.” * See page Io'7. 9 This is scarcely correct. The seal of the Arms of Paganus le Graye did not indicate poverty, but pointed to his high office of “Standard-bearer of the Horsemen.” geommºng &gnonunſtagiſte. The Master of the Conqueror's * Tonqueſtoſis cum othefilº mado, Horse was Beaumunde or Ble- ma- ** * ~ms-sm. # º == # mund, and he has found a place in the Tabula Eliensis Eº : as one of the forty, with his Monk Gurthe. According to Hol.1Ns.HED Beaumunde was named Roger, Earl of Beau- mont, with the surname of “A la Barbe.” This bearded knight entered into possession of the royal manor of Holborn, and the place for many gene- rations preserved the family name in Blemundsbury. *= Hugh de Montfort was Captain of the Horsemen. To him was assigned Monk Odon. In Hol- jºinshed’s Chronicle he is termed #Guillaume Mallet, Seig. de #Montfort. The history of the : Montforts will be found in the §pages of this work. £xpan be £Iane betramug, cm. Clitone ſºlomacho. Bryan de Clare is described as Roger, Earl of Beaumont. Hugh de Montfort. gº Hºº an old soldier, who had Monk Pºyan * Clare. Hºt Cliton for his companion. A reference to the index of this º. work will indicate the connec- B 10 The King's Justiciary. These six knights are selected out of the forty, because they stand on the threshold of this history and play no insignificant part therein. This noble band of forty knights quartered upon Ely knew how to take care of themselves, and were doubtless regarded by the Anglo-Saxons as “the forty thieves.” The church blessed the plunderers and profited by the blessing. The alleged “Book of Grants” is a record of death-bed exactions by the priests for the benefit of the Church. The endowment, which purchased “masses for the repose of the soul,” placed many a fair estate that had been cruelly obtained in the hands of the Church. PROLOGUE—Second Division. º The King’s residence on Holborn Hill has changed from a royal domain to the great manor of Blemundsbury. The King’s absence in Normandy necessitated the creation of an office of the highest importance, no other than that of deputy King, who acted as the King’s Justiciary, the fountain of justice, and the great dispenser of Anglo- Norman law, which made the nation bend beneath the weight of feudalism and its degrading servitude. The Conqueror has been removed from the scene by death; also his successor, Rufus, and Henry the First is King of England. The Monks of Ely have gained the friendship and assistance of the King. The Church of Rome is the established church of the nation, and also of Wales. Hervey is Bishop of Bangor, who, being in favour with Henry I., had the administration of the Abbey of Ely granted him, which, by royal consent, he converted into a bishoprick, and became the first Bishop of Ely. The singular part of this transaction is that the Bishop of Lin- coln (Robert Bloet) was residing in Holborn, and had juris- diction over the little community of monks attached to the conventual church of Ely on the opposite side of the way. The Charter creating Ely a bishoprick sets forth:—% The Monks of Ely and Bishop Bloet. * Bentham's Ely. 11 That the King having taken into his consideration the state of his Kingdom of England, and finding that the harvest was great, but the labourers few, and therefore the labour too much upon them; and particularly the Church [i.e. the Diocese] of Lincoln was very full of people;—He had by the authority and advice of Pope Paschal, with the assent and request of Robert [Bloet], then Bishop of Lincoln, and his Chapter, and with the approbation of Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, of blessed memory, and of Thomas II., Archbishop of York, and of all the Bishops aud Abbots of England, and of all the great men of his Kingdom, erected the Monastery of Ely (in which abbots had presided to his time), with the County of Cambridge, namely, as much as did heretofore belong to the jurisdiction of the Church of Lincoln, including two Abbeys of Thorney and Chateriz, into an Episcopal See, in as free and absolute a manner in all respects as the other Bishopricks of his Kingdom, and to be for ever absolved from all subjection to, and all Episcopal claims of the See of Lincoln, . . . . . . . and to Robert, Bishop of the same See, and to his successors for ever, in as free and ample a manner as ever the Monastery of Ely held and enjoyed it.—[And there the Charter concludes thus]. This business was first moved at London, in the Feast of Pentecost, at Westminster, and debated in my presence, and before Archbishop Anselm, of blessed memory, and all the Bishops and Great men of my Kingdom, and obtained the common consent of them all: And after the death of the aforesaid Archbishop Anselm (by the authority of Lord Pope Paschal, as is above said), was by the mercy of God, happily concluded and determined in the Council, held at the Castle of Nottingham, on the Feast of the Translation of St. Etheldreda, the Virgin, namely, on the 16th day of the Calends of November. The Bishop took over the conventual church of Ely and its obligations. The monks had a vested interest therein. The old Prior and the new Bishop did not work together in a friendly spirit. The Prior was Chief Officer, but subordinated to the Bishop, and my Lord Prior soon went to the wall when my Lord Bishop of Ely became the trusted servant of the King. The Monks of Ely died, but the Bishops of Ely were destined to live as long as the The Creation of the Bishoprick of Ely. 12 The Bishop of Ely and the Knights Templars. Church of England exists. The seventy Monks of Ely were reduced to fifty, and the precedent was followed until the monastic claims were extinguished. The rights of the Monks of Ely in Holborn were given to Bishop Hotham, who gave “the Vineyard and a Garden in Holborn for the augmentation of the revenues of his bishoprick.” The part that Holborn played in the early history of England deserves more than a passing notice. Lincoln House in Holborn was the trysting place of the nobility and clergy. Through the influence of Bloet the Ely bishop- rick had been created, and he, in conjunction with others, assisted to establish the new order of the Knights Templars in Holborn, where they built their Temple close to his residence. There is little mention of the domestic build- ings and offices which surrounded the Temple, such as the Common Hall or Refectory, the Kitchens and Dormitories, etc. The Bishop of Ely, having no Capital Place or Man- sion-house near London, it appears that by an agreement with the Templars, the Bishop for the time being was to have the right of residence within the precincts of the Temple. On the removal of the Knights Templars to Fleet Street, this claim was considered by the Templars to be no longer in force; litigation followed:— Hugh de Balsham, Bishop of Ely, soon after his return from Rome in the year 1258, sued the Master of the Knights Templars before Hugh Bigot, Justiciary of England, for his right of Hostil- age in the New Temple, when he set forth that Hugh Norwold and William de Kilkenny, and others his predecessors, had and were in rightful possession of Hostilage there, whenever they came to London, and particularly the use of the Great Hall, the Chapel at the entrance into the Hall, Chambers, a Kitchen, Pantry, Buttery, a Cellar for wine throughout the year, a stable, and all other easements to the said Hostilage belonging; with free ingress and egress at all times; of which the said Master had disseised him and denied him entrance; and laid his damage at 24, 200. 13 The result was—the Bishop “recovered his right with costs.” This proves that the Bishops of Ely had ancient rights and vested interests in the “Old Temple,” which were not destroyed when the Templars removed from Holborn. It also proves that they had no other episcopal residence near London. His successor, John de Kirkeby, by his Will, left to his successors “a messuage and nine cottages, situate in the suburbs of London in Holbourn, which messuage became thenceforth the Capital Mansion of the Bishops of Ely.” Hervey, as Bishop of Bangor, may have had his Inn in Holborn, for there are dim and vague traditions of Bangor House, near the Temple, leading to the inference that the Bishop of Bangor, when trans- lated to Ely, gave Bangor House to the Templars, on condition that he and his successors should have the right of hostilage therein when they came to London. In the month of January, I327, the Great Seal was given to John Hotham, the Bishop of Ely, by Edward III. The same year, says BENTHAM, he purchased of Henry de Grey, Heir of John de Grey, Lord of Rythin, a House and several parcels of Land, contiguous to his Manor of Holbourn, in the Suburbs of London, consisting of a Vineyard, Kitchen-Garden, Orchard, and inclosed pasture; he also purchased other Lands and Tenements of John de Pelham, situate near the said Manor of Holbourn, within the parish of St. Sepulchre's, London, all which he settled on the Church of Ely; dividing them between his Suc- cessors, the Bishops, and the Convent.* The district was honoured by the great prelates of London, Bangor, Ely, Lincoln, and Chichester, who resided therein. The creation of the bishoprick of Ely; the estab- lishment of the Knights Templars, and the foundation of *The Dean and Chapter of Ely are now possessed of their share of this estate, part of which is still called the Vineyard, situate in St. Andrew's Parish, Holbourn, with other Lands and Tenements there, and in St. Sepul- chre's Parish in the Suburbs of London. How the Bishops of Ely came to be dispossessed of their part of it, and other Lands, &c., contiguous to their Manor-House, Holborn, the curious Reader may find in No. 3789, page 15 of the Harleian MSS. in the British Museum. Ely House, Holborn. John de Grey, Lord of Holborn Manor. 14. an institution for the care of lepers, dedicated to St. Giles, were almost simultaneous events. The curse of leprosy infected the great baron as well as the common people. It came as an uninvited and unwel- come guest into the palace of the King, the banqueting hall, and the council chamber. So frequent and so disas- trous were these visits, that urgent necessity prompted the King and the Templars to found and endow a royal hospital for lepers in Blemundsbury. The site chosen was by the old church in Aldewyche, that stood on the upper land or fringe of the solitary mere or great marsh which lay between it and the embryo Westminster Abbey on Thorney Island. The little church was old, very old, and that is all that is known of its antiquity. Some earnest missionary from the Church of Rome told here the story of the Cross, and then the dawning light of Christianity glimmered through the surrounding darkness, proclaiming the new faith. The church in Aldewyche and the church on Thorney Island were doubtless under the same pastoral government. It would be impossible to state with certainty which was the more ancient. The name Alde Wych is proof of its antiquity. It was known in those times only as “The Old Village.” A small community had gathered there and carried on their peaceful avocations, until the fluctuating wave of power dispersed the inhabitants and destroyed the village. This must have happened a long time before the Norman invasion, for then it was nameless and only remem- bered as “The Old Village.” At the western end of it stood the manor-house that probably in the forgotten past gave to the village its owner’s name. It stood on the site of what is now the newly-made Charing Cross Road. There was no thoroughfare existing then, for Hog Lane was not formed until centuries afterwards. The road that led from the village to the river, now Drury Lane, was known as the 15 way to the old village—the Via de Aldewyche, on the top of which was Aldewyche Cross, and on the east side of the Via de Aldewyche was Aldewyche Close, that stretched down to Ficquet's Fields, a name that it retained until the reign of Charles I., when the buildings thereon changed it to Queen Street, afterwards designated “Great,” to distin- guish it from the “Little.” Everything about the district was old. The street that ran behind the church was called Elde or Alde Street; it ran from the north-east to the south-west, and there are indicative marks that Old Street, in Aldewyche, and Old Street, St. Luke's, were, in ancient times, a contiuuous way. The wide open space, rightly named Broad Street, where the Poor Law Administrative Offices now are, was in Anglo- Saxon times the old Village Green. The advent of the Normans wrought great changes in Aldewyche. The manor- house fell to the share of the Lords Bellomont, corrupted to Blemund, and the old village became a part of the great manor of Blemundsbury. It was then that the Lord of Lincoln and Leicester built the Clochier or Bell-House by the church-yard gate, and when the fading light of a sum- mer evening deepened into darker shadows, and a stillness gathered over the village, when all around was sinking into darkness, quietude, and repose, the bell of the Clochier broke the prevailing silence and proclaimed “the knell of a departing day,” the sound of which was a mandate to cover fires and extinguish lights. It may seem strange that the clangour of the Curfew Bell should ring over the mere-land and meadow-land of Blemundsbury before St. Giles’ in the Fields had an existence, yet such was the case. PART.on confirms it by old documents, but he misinterprets them and transforms the Clochier into “Le Cloch Hose Inn.” He illustrates its position by his conjectural map, wherein is placed in the roadway a post with a swinging sign, but Blemundsbury and the Curfew Bell. 16 where the sign came from history makes no mention. PART.on has incorporated the village church with the church of the lepers attached to the hospital, and by means of a wall, built in the centre of the church, has placed the villa- gers on one side and the lepers on the other. To bring the two congregations into such close proximity would be the most effectual way to disseminate the disease and make the whole village a colony of lepers. Both places of worship, for obvious reasons, must have been separate and distinct. Each would have their own priests, and those attached to the hospital were most likely lepers, who would frequently have to discharge the painful duty of reading the burial service over a brother in their own church-yard, and it seems to be that the east end of the present church-yard of Saint Giles in the Fields was formerly the leper's resting place. In the Pell Records there is an item of a payment (I Ed. I.): To the brethren of the hospital of Saint Giles, London, 3os. in part payment of 60s, yearly, which they receive at the King's Exchequer by charter of the Lord King Henry, great grandfather of the present King and royal progenitor of the Kings of Eng- land, for the support of a chaplain to perform divine service in the chapel of the hospital aforesaid. Alde Wych has an earlier history than Blemundsbury, and centuries before there was any parish of St. Giles in the Fields, Blemundsbury existed. The parish of St. George, Bloomsbury, is a modern creation, and yet Blemundsbury, corrupted to Bloomsbury, gave to the parish that grew out of the village of Alde- Wych the name of St. Giles in the Fields, because St. Giles was the patron Saint of one of the national institutions built on the land of the Bellomonts, fostered and supported by Sovereigns and Popes, Bishops and Barons, Crusaders and Knights Templars, who had for their object the sup- pression or mitigation of the foul disease of leprosy. THE jogpital of St. (5ileg FOR LEPERS. FOUNDED BY QUEEN MATILDA. T H E L E PER. “Room for the Leper Room P' And as he came, The cry passed on—“Room for the Leper Room " Sunrise was slanting on the city gates Rosy and beautiful, and from the hills The early risen poor were coming in Duly and cheerfully to their toil, and up Rose the sharp hammer's clink, and the far hum Of moving wheels and multitudes astir, And all that in a city murmur swells, Unheard but by the watcher's weary ear, Aching with night's dull silence, or the sick Hailing the welcome light, and Sounds that chase The death-like images of the dark away. I) 18 “Room for the Leper P’ And aside they stood— Matron and child, and pitiless manhood—all Who met him on his way—and let him pass. And onward through the open gate he came, A leper with the ashes on his brow, Sackloth about his loins, and on his lip A covering, stepping painfully and slow, And with a difficult utterance, like one Whose heart is with an iron nerve put down, Crying “Unclean | Unclean l’” * And he went forth—alonel not one of all The many whom he loved, nor she whose name Was woven in the fibres of the heart | Breaking within him now, to come and speak Comfort unto him. Yea—he went his way, Sick, and heart-broken, and alone—to die! For God had cursed the leper N. P. WILLIS, Alsº House or Leper Hospital in St. Giles.” How strange and retrospective are these words; how they conjure up the forgotten past and bring back to modern times unfamiliar scenes that have happily long since passed away. Who was the first inmate of this Leper Hospital, and who was the first occupant of that little green spot round the church, set apart for those who fell victims to this dire disease? A small wooden cross reared by some kind hand may have marked his grave. What was his name? Better that name should be unknown and his life unchro- nicled. Is the dust of this first dead leper lying undisturbed after the lapse of successive centuries in the disused burial ground of St. Giles’ in the Fields? No history answers these questions. Could he arise and speak he would thrill the listener with horror as he told the story of his life. He would tell it in words similár to the following narrative, for it was a common story then. * * . . . . . . 19 THE LEPER's HISTORY. remember well, although it is nearly eight centuries ago, the ..] first dark presentiment of my disease, which made this earth a hell and robbed me of all that could make my life happy. In its early or first stage I cherished the hope that it was not leprosy, for its premonitory symptoms were too occult for me to be certain. Racked with uncertainty and hope that these doubtful signs would pass away and all would yet be well. But, alas, they did pass away, and then followed the unmistakeable and infallible signs that always mark the intermediate stage and revealed me to all a leper, incurable; cursed myself, and bringing a curse upon all who associated with me. Then I prayed for an early death, and God in his mercy granted my request, for I soon reached the final stage that brings with it the fatal evidence of the disease. My heart sank within me as day by day I saw my skin thickening and the white scales come; and then I saw that my skin lost its Soft- ness and became coarse, hard, dry, and rugged, so that my flesh resembled more the rude rough bark of some great forest tree than a human covering. My cup of bitterness was not yet full. All parts of my frame, from the skin to the bone, became successively a prey to the fell disease, consuming me like an un- quenchable fire that had obtained the mastery and would not go out until all within its reach had been reduced to ashes. Bones, ligaments, cartilages, all succumbed to its malignant influence, and then death, my best friend, put an end to my baneful exist- ence. Some regarded me with horror, some with pity, and some, strange to say, with religious veneration. I was unmolested and had my liberty, until the second or intermediate stage arrived, when my face became distorted and my features disfigured. This was considered the infallible test, without which no one was con- sidered justly devoted to incarceration. They found me out, and one dreary afternoon in the autumn, when the leaves of the trees in the great forest near Blemundsbury were thickly falling, for I had been out for a walk near the Leper Hospital of St. Giles, because I thought if I was discovered, that place would be my living tomb—a spirit or an undefined something drew me there. My forebodings proved too true, as I found on my return home a priest, robed in surplice and stole, holding a large cross in his hand, 20 was waiting for me. After some dreary formalities, he exhorted me to suffer with a patient and penitent spirit the horrible incurable curse with which God had stricken me. He then sprinkled me with holy water, but no water, holy or unholy, could benefit me or give me one ray of hope in my dark despair. He told me that I was dead to the world and the world was dead to me. Then he conducted me to the little old Church of St Giles, which stood at the eastern corner of the hospital grounds towards the city, and the newly-built hospital was a little way off on the west side. What a dreary march that was; I, a living man, dead! dead! Death's sleep to that is Elysium. As we went along, the living priest and his few attendants sang the appointed burial verses for my questionable benefit; still it is not every man who has the privilege of attending his own burial service in that fashion. When I got to the church and was fairly inside, I was ordered to take off all my clothes and was told I should never wear them again As they were not worth much that did not trouble me. I found I had to act the part of a dead man, for they put upon my wretched naked limbs a funeral pall. I was glad of this for my condition was such that I was thoroughly ashamed of myself. I was then placed before the altar and made to stand between two trestles, like a kind of imaginary coffin in a vertical position—but, by the way, they did not give us coffins in those days—the hymns for the dead were then sung and the mass for the dead celebrated for my especial benefit. The mass being concluded, I was sprinkled with more holy water and then taken under the great gate-house, which stood at the north-west corner, into the Leper Hospital, my future home. Here I was divested of my funeral pall and to some extent came back to life, but it was a new life; everything was new around me. I had given to me a new pair of clappers, a barell, a stick, a cowl, a dress, &c. I had not yet done with the priest, who evidently did not believe I was dead; he made me feel “Life is real, life is earnest,” for with the most solemn formalities I was told what to do and what to leave undone. I was interdicted from appearing in public without my leper's garb ; from entering inns, churches, mills, and bakehouses; perdition awaited me if I gave a child anything I had touched, or even touched a child with my fingers; I was not to wash my hands or anything belonging to me in the common 21 fountains and streams; if I wanted to buy anything in the markets I was prohibited from touching it, except with my stick. Lepers only were to be my companions; I was to eat and drink with no others, and very grave penalties were imposed upon me if I wandered through narrow paths, or if I answered those who spoke to me in the roads or streets louder than in a whisper, lest my pestilential breath should infect them, and then, after all these injunctions, the priest, before he left, threw over me a shovelful of earth as a symbol of my close connection with the grave. Other lepers quickly followed, went through the same ceremonies, and then became my companions in misery. My case was pro- nounced to be a bad one, and I was told that if I ventured outside the walls, the penalty for so doing would be death, and I have heard that at the Greenside Leper Hospital, in Edinburgh, a gibbet was actually erected in front of the hospital to show that the declaration was not to be regarded as an idle threat. My fellow sufferers had much more liberty than I had. When they went out on their perigrinations they had to take with them their rattles and clappers to make a noise and give warning of their approach; and they also carried with them cups or small baskets, called clap dishes, into which, without fear of contact, the alms could be placed. . For a time my leprous friends of St. Giles, attended the markets about London, and received in their clap dishes plenty of gifts, but that practice was discontinued on account of their offensive and objectionable appearance. One of my friends, who was in the early part of his second stage, related to me his adventures with Queen Matilda, in I Ios, when David of Scotland, the Queen's brother, came over to England to visit her, and she invited him one evening to come and see her, and when he came he found her apartment in the palace full of lepers, and my friend was one of the number. The Queen was standing in the midst of them, having laid aside her cloak and girded herself with a towel, was engaged in washing their feet, wiping them with the towel, and then, embracing them with both her hands, kissed them with the utmost devotion. Her brother, surprised at this conduct, inquired of her:-‘‘What is this you are doing my lady? truly if the King knew this he would never kiss with his lips your mouth thus contaminated by the pollution of the leper's feet.” She smilingly replied:—“Who knows not 22 that the feet of an Eternal King are to be preferred to the lips of an earthly King P behold it was for this that I invited you, most dear brother, that you might learn by my example to perform similar actions. I beseech you do that which you see me doing " David, however, was not disposed to adopt his sister's suggestions, he therefore declined; she persevered in her employment and he, with a Smile, withdrew. When my narrator returned he said it was worth being a leper to have his feet kissed by a queen. Poor man, it did not cure him ; I lived to see him out, and that brings my melancholy tale to a close, which is indeed “an owre true tale.” This Hospital may be assumed to owe its foundation to the controversy that arose regarding the proposed marriage of HENRY I with Maud, a Scottish Princess. The motives that prompted this Norman king of England to unite himself with the Saxon line of Scotland were great and powerful. His accession to the throne had been obtained by means that rendered him very unpopular with his subjects, and he knew nothing would secure to him the crown and the adherence and popularity of the English people more than this alliance, whereby the two races might blend into one, and old grudges and antipathies die away. Policy and possibly love urged his suit. The object of his choice came from a noble stock; she was the granddaughter of Duncan—murdered by Macbeth, whose memory Shakespeare has kept alive—daughter of Malcolm, and niece to Edgar Atheling; young, pious, and beautiful. But the course of true love did not run smoothly. One terrible calamity stood in the way. Rumour proclaimed everywhere that she had taken the veil, and if such were the case, no power on earth could dissolve that union with the church. Her father’s death and the subsequent troubles in Scotland compelled her to seek refuge in an English nunnery, and place herself under the care of her aunt Christina, Abbess of Wilton, who, with a woman’s fervid 23 zeal, brought her completely under the influence of the church, and bestowed upon her an education more fitting an abbess than a queen. The story is told by Eadmerus, who describes himself as an eye and ear witness. “The aforesaid Maud, when a girl, lived under the tuition and correction of Christina, her aunt and Abbess of Wilton; at what time the Norman soldiers, conquering the kingdom, did much destroy and more endanger virgins by their violence. Christina, there- fore, to preserve this her niece, clapped a black cloth on her head, in imitation of a nun's vail, which she unwillingly wore in the presence of her aunt, but in her absence off it went, and above her head to under her heels, so that in despiteful manner she used to trample upon it. Yea, if Malcolm, her father, chanced to behold her wearing that mock vail, with rage he would tear it off, cursing the causers of it, and avowing that he intended her no votary, but a wife to Count Allan. Besides, two grave archdeacons, sent down to Wilton to inquire into the matter, reported that, for aught they could learn from the nuns there, this Maud was never solemnly entered into their order.” Another writer, more uncharitable and less trustworthy states:—“Matilda had been a professed votary, and was pressed by the importunities of her parents and friends for politic ends to this marriage, insomuch that in the bitter- ness of her soul (able to appal the writer hereof, seeing bis ink outblackened with her expression), she devoted the fruit of her body to the devil, because they would not permit her to perform her promise of virginity.” Matilda, in this dilemma, personally consulted Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, and he, in order to clothe the decision on the question with ecclesiastical authority, summoned a great council of prelates and nobles to meet at Lambeth Palace, there to discuss and determine the issue. Matilda Fuller's Church History. 24 & gave her evidence, and some grave men attested of their own knowledge, that at the Norman Conquest, to avoid the fury of the soldiers, many maids, out of fear not affection, for protection not piety, made a cloister their refuge not their choice; were nuns in their own defence, running their heads, but without their hearts, into a vail. And in this case it was resolved by learned Sanfrank, that such virgins were bound, by an extraordinary obligation above other women, which is in effect, that they must be chaste wives, though they need not be constant maids.” The influence of Anselm was exerted on behalf of the royal pair. The council declared them free to marry, and Anselm pronounced the nunship of Matilda of none effect, the marriage rites being shortly afterwards performed by that prelate with great solemnity and magnificence, amidst the general joy of the king’s subjects. This great service having been rendered to the royal bride and bride- groom by the church, Anselm, as the representative, of ecclesiastical authority was not the man to grant special favours gratuitously. By his consent the obstacles were removed and Matilda was transformed from a nun into a queen. All through this delicate transaction he had been her friend, and was now entrusted with her confidence, and guided her benevolent intentions. This influence of Anselm over the queen is thus alluded to by Stow:—“In the year of Christ, 1108, and in the 8th - year of KING HENRY, was the Church of the Holy Trinity, within Aldgate, London, founded by the venerable Lady Maud, wife unto the said king, by the persuasion of the Archbishop Anselm. The pious grateful spirit of Matilda could not refuse any request coming from Anselm, and in the words of Leland:—Matilda, “at the time of her marri- age, founded over against the west suburb of London, a house for the maintenance of lepers, with an oratory and offices, called the Hospital of St. Giles.” 25 Stow asserts:– “The hospital was founded about 1117,” and Maitland, copying from Stow, makes use of the same doubtful phrase—“about 1117.” Leland, on the other hand, confirms his statement by an undisputed historical event—the royal marriage—taking place the same year. The difference between them is not considerable and is easily reconciled. Leland took his date from its earliest stage, viz.:-the preparing and granting the foundation charter, while it is almost certain other old writers dated from the time of its consecration and opening. A period of some years must have elapsed between the first preli- minaries and the final completion, when it was ready for the reception of lepers. If this be so, then QUEEN MATILDA just lived to see the inauguration of this new hospital, for she died the following year. If not—and assuming Stow and Maitland to be correct—then the whole construction of the buildings, the large outlay, and the numerous details arising from an institution of this important character, must have been carried on after her decease. Her adviser, Anselm, had pre-deceased her nearly ten years. Her husband, the King—at this time, 1117—was abroad, waging war in Normandy. His quarrel with the church had ended in his defeat. The Pope, as far back as 1106, had gained a victory on the question of investitures, and wrested from the King the power of appointment to St. Giles' Leper Hospital, founded A. D. IIOI, Anselm's Death, A.D. IIo'7, church offices. That wound remained unhealed, and under the circumstances it would have been hardly possible to found an institution that partook so largely of a civil and semi-ecclesiastical character. Grave reasons existed for the creation of leper hos- pitals that admitted of no delay. Leprosy, that foul, fatal, and infectious disease, was spreading, not only over England, but the whole of Europe. In the preceding E 26 A.D. Io95. Hume's History of England, Chap. vi. reign of William Rufus it had been allowed to grow with- out any measures being adopted to check its ravages. Hugh de Orivall, Bishop of London, after trying useless . and painful experiments on himself, fell a victim to its malign influence. It infected the households of kings, prelates, nobles, and peasants. A separation of the diseased from the healthy became inevitable for self-preservation, so that at last the establishment of a leper hospital, was not merely an act of charity, but a national necessity. The Archbishop was well aware of the urgency of the situation, and must have made the royal pair fully acquainted with it. To his representations the queen gave a willing ear. With her, obedience to the church was a sacred duty. The first question that would naturally arise would be the choice of a site. There was the royal manor of St. Giles held by the King; but this manor was in Westminster and under the government of the Abbot. To separate St. Giles’ Manor from Westminster, vest its jurisdiction in the King and Archbishop, and so to render it free from all claims and interference, was doubtless the first step in the history of the hospital. This plan appears to have been successfully carried out, for there is no record of any exercise of autho- rity, civil or ecclesiastical, by the Abbots of Westminster, in after times, excepting the claims made in 1222; but these were finally decided against them in that year, when the hospital charters and grants were confirmed. This is made more clear by the charter of HENRY I., in the first year of his reign. The following translated extract from it has an important bearing on the history of St. Giles’ and serves to show how its separation from Westminster was thereby accomplished. - “Henry, by the grace of God, King of England, to the Bishop of Canterbury, and to the bishops and abbots, 27 earls and barons, justices and sheriffs, and to all his faithful subjects of England, French and English, greeting. Know ye that I have granted to my citizens of London, to hold Middlesex to farm for three hundred pounds, upon accompt to them and their heirs; so that the said citizens shall place as Sheriff whom they will of themselves, and shall place whomsoever, or such a one, as they will of themselves, for keeping the pleas of the crown, and of the pleading of the same, and none others shall be Justice over the same men of London; and the citizens of London shall not plead without the walls of London for any plea. And be they free from scot and lot and daneguilt, and of all murder, and none of them shall wage battle. And if any of the citizens shall be impleaded concerning the pleas of the crown, the man of London shall discharge himself by his oath, which shall be adjudged within the city; and none shall lodge within the walls, neither of my household nor any other, nor lodging delivered by force.” Maitland, enlarging on this charter, says that one of its provisions was: — “That the churches, barons, and citizens should enjoy their several sokes; that is, that the incumbent of no parish shall be molested on account of the glebe or other lands belonging to the cure.” The first gift to the hospital was the grant of eight acres of land by KING HENRY I., which, as a matter of courtesy, has been ascribed to his queen. The cost of the buildings, defrayed out of the royal purse, gave the King a property in the hospital, that enabled its destroyer, KING HENRY VIII., in after times, to claim it as his inheritance. No further grant or gift came from the King, but QUEEN MATILDA gave to it an endowment of £3 per annum, arising from the Queen’s Wharf (Queenhithe), to buy food for the inmates; a scanty allowance, even after taking into consideration the greater value of money in those days. Middlesex farmed by London. Maitland's London, Book I, page 40. 28 Public Records, by authority of The Record Commission. I83 I. A pound in that age contained three times the weight of silver that it does at present; and the same weight of silver, by the most probable computation, would purchase near ten times more of the necessaries of life, though not in the same proportion of the finer manufactures. Both the mark and the half-mark were computations of money only; and such also was the “ora,” whatever it might have been in other parts of Europe. In many articles of bargain and sale it is used for the ounce or twelfth-part of a pound, The Shilling of the Domesday survey, like the Pound, the Mark, and the Ora, was only money of account. The Saxon Shilling consisted of five pence: that of Domesday Book is always twelve pence. The Penny was the only coin known in England till long after the date of the Domesday Book. In the survey it is usually called T)enarius; but in a few instances nummi occur for denarii. The Obolus or halfpenny, and the Ferding, Ferting, or Quad- rans, were literally fractions or broken parts of the penny. Maitland, in noticing the smallness of this first endow- ment, finds considerable difficulty in accounting how the sum should have been sufficient, notwithstanding the immense difference in the price of provisions then and now. An endeavour has been made to explain the difficulty away by referring to a privilege accorded to lazar houses, when first built, as a means of augmenting their incomes, viz:—to send upon every market day to the markets, and with a dish, called a clap dish, to beg corn. Means so precarious do not solve the problem, for instead of benefit- ing the hospital it did it an injury. Leprous beggars of loathsome appearance, pestering the frequenters of the markets for alms, became an intolerable nuisance, and instead of evoking sympathy and charity, created great disgust and aversion to them, so much so, that they were restrained from begging at large, and in lieu thereof it 29 became the general practice of these lazar houses to send the proctor with a box one day a month to the churches and other religious houses, at time of service, to receive the voluntary gifts of the congregations. This practice doubt- less led to many a bequest and endowment to these insti- tutions, but it was not likely, in the early days of this foundation, to be sufficient to supplement the small grant of £3 per annum without other sources of income. The difficulty is got over if it is conceded that the revenues of the old parish church, with its tithes and other emolu- ments, were placed in the hands of the brethren of the hospital by Anselm, the Archbishop of the diocese. It is not reasonable, that while he was prompting the Queen to found this hospital, he would be so forgetful of its interest as to suggest an endowment so small, if he was not well aware there were other funds, not specified, to maintain it. The married life of the Queen was one long-continued penance, as if some secret sin or sorrow was cankering within and driving her to perform those rigorous austerities that are matters of history, and which the Romish priests were pleased to impose. May there not have been in all these penances the voice of an uneasy conscience in respect to those disputed vows, which were said to have been made in the nunnery, but whether those vows were registered or not was known only to the Queen and her aunt Christina. Fuller, in his Church History, remarks:—“Some infer the unlawfulness of this match from the unhappiness of their children, all their issue male coming to untimely deaths.” There is no mention of the Queen ever increasing her grant, neither did she further endow it by will. The peculiar bent of her mind would lead her to take an inter- est in the institution she had founded and inquire about its welfare. She was well aware its interests would be looked after by the church; she knew the spirit of the age was 30 to endow institutions of this character; she knew also the necessity for them, and she must have foreseen that it would grow to be important and wealthy, for she had ample evidence that the royal patronage given to the Leper Hospital of St. Giles exercised a powerful influence on the friends and adherents of the King, who held the highest and most lucrative offices in the state, and were his trüsted followers and counsellors. During its erection they gladly assisted in the work and afterwards maintained it by donations and voluntary subscriptions. These temporary unrecorded gifts would in a short time be forgotten, but court favour and Church influence led to benefactions'of a more permanent character. Endowments and grants of manors, supplemented the Queen's gift of eight acres of land, and these offerings have been preserved and handed on, and are still remembered by their title deeds and charters. The early benefactors deserve something more than a passing notice; they played a prominent part in the Baronial Councils and Kingly Courts; their names are enshrined in English history, and the “Old Nobility” of to-day, in many instances, owe their vast estates and pow- erful influence to their almost forgotten ancestors. To interweave their lives in the Chronicle of St Giles’ and to keep their memory green, is the writer's plea for intro- ducing them in this local history. Although no record exists that Anselm contributed anything to this hospital except his advice, it would be unfair to assume he did not. The short period that intervened between the royal marriage and his death, may have prevented him from carrying out some beneficent scheme, which would have more closely linked his memory with it. His quarrel with the King also severed him from the work which at one time he had so much at heart. *** 31 One of the first to supplement the Queen's gift was (as described by Parton) “Robert, the son of Ralph, who gave before the reign of Henry II., tenements and lands in the City of London—not particularized—besides ground in various parishes, as described in the hospital grants.” Taking English history as a guide, this “Robert” would be more correctly described as brother of Ralph and Earl of Mellent. In the early years of Henry I.’s reign, Robert, Earl of Mellent, occupied the important post of King’s Coun- sellor. The next office of importance was held by his son or nephew, Bernard de Walerico, who acted in the capacity of Chaplain to the Queen. Parton omits to state that he held this office, but simply records his gift to be “Alms, or pensions (the amount not stated) from the hundred of Isleworth, Middlesex, by Bernard de Walerico,” who took his surname from his ancestor, Bernard Newmarch, from whom descended, Robert, Earl of Mellent. Bernard Newmarch was related to William the Conqueror, and one of the foremost warriors in his army, and as he heartily joined in the struggles and dangers of the invasion of England, so he freely shared in the plunder and spoil of the conquered English. His success prompted him to further aggressions in Wales, and, having obtained the King's permission to build a castle, overlooking and domi- nating the rugged mountainous district of Brecknockshire, which he finished, A.D. 1094, he then, in concert with other Norman Knights, - commenced a career of invasion, conquest, and slaughter. Seizing the estates which fell into his hands by virtue of his victories, he became, with other. powerful Norman warriors, who surrounded the border land of Wales, a Lordship Marcher, and Bernard, the victor, assumed the name of Bernard Newmarch. Robert, Earl of Mellent. Thierry's History of the Norman Conquest. Vol. 2, page 295. ones' Brecknockshire. 32 Atkyn's Gloucestershire. Robert, the first Earl of Mellent, was associated with him in this enterprise, together with Bernard, who took the surname of Waleron or Walerico, derived from the old Bardic name, Wallia, signifying Wales. Bernard Walerico, acting as Clerk and Chaplain to Her Majesty, must have been in constant communication with the Queen and Anselm, her spiritual father, and thus would be well acquainted with all details relating to the founding, building, consecrating, and endowing this leprous institution. While Bernard Walerico was exercising a powerful spiritual authority over the Queen, Robert, Earl of Mellent, as King's Counsellor, “possessed such mighty influence in England in HENRY I.’s time, as to change, by his single example, the long established modes of dress and of diet. Finally, the custom of one meal a day was observed in the palaces of the nobility through his means.” An event now took place—A.D. 1114—— which led to the removal of Bernard de Walerico from court. The Archbishopric of Canterbury, which had been vacant since the death of Anselm, owing to the ecclesiasti- cal war raging between the Pontiff and the King, as to the right of appointing his successor, had grown, after six years, somewhat less fierce, and the King, urged by the Pope, and to the great joy of the clergy, appointed Rudulphus Roffensis, surnamed Nugax, Bishop of Rochester, to the see of Canterbury, who appears to be the Ralph mentioned by Parton and a near relative to the Queen’s chaplain. This state appointment met with the approval of the church. Ralph was in all respects a sound churchman, and the first work of this prelate was to bring about by all available means the submission of the Welsh churches to the authority of his Archbishopric. 33 To accomplish this end he most unwisely declares war against the freedom of the Welsh churches by appointing the Queen’s chaplain or adviser, Bernard de Walerico, to the important bishopric of St. David’s, the condition of the appointment being that he should acknowledge the authority of his great patron and relative, the Archbishop. It was not long since that these prelates, together with their ancestors, had subjugated, plundered, and massacred the Welsh people. Norman castles fringed the principality, and Norman bishops were appointed to bless the exploits of Norman marauders. The spirit of opposition was in- tensified by the fact that the Archbishop’s supremacy having been acknowledged by the Bishop of St. David’s, he used it as a precedent and called upon all the other Welsh bishops to do the same. The pretext for this high-handed procedure was based upon the allegation that the late Bishop Wilfrid gave up (under compulsion) certain lands belonging to the church. Anselm, seizing the opportunity to exercise his authority and establish a claim to rule over the churches in Wales, censured and suspended him for so doing, until he made his submission to him, when he condescended to restore him to his bishopric. Upon the death of Wilfrid—1115, the clergy imme- diately elected Daniel, son of Bishop Sulien, to succeed him, but the see of St. David’s was too important for the aggressive Normans to allow it to be filled up by any other authority than their own. KING HENRY determined to bestow it upon his court favourite. The Welsh had exercised their right to fill the vacant benefice, and Bernard, who was acting as chaplain to the Queen, was not as yet in priest’s orders. No time was to be lost; so, to get over this disqualification, Bernard F Jones & Freeman's History of St. David's, p. 270. 34 A.D., II2I. was ordained priest on Saturday, and the next day, Sunday, was consecrated Bishop of St. David’s. This unique instance of church preferment was strongly resented by the clergy of St. David’s, but they were forced to acknow- ledge this newly-fledged dignitary of the Anglo-Norman Church. Daniel, the bishop elect, resigns his see, but priestly arrogance and kingly tyranny stood paralysed and powerless before the supreme arbitrator, death. QUEEN MATILDA, the Archbishop’s friend and supporter dies, A.D. 1118; Robert, Earl of Mellent, another staunch friend, who had the ear of the King, dies the same year; the heir to the throne is wrecked and meets with an untimely death near Barfleur; the King has another Queen; and the Norman Knights were wanted by him for his war in Nor- mandy. Ralph, the author of all this religious strife, dies, leaving behind him a legacy of evil to the Anglican and Welsh churches which bore bitter fruit, until the happy union of England and Wales, in the reign of Edward I., brought this deplorable struggle to an end. Times have seriously changed. The new Earl of Mellent declares war against the King; is taken prisoner; his Norman castle is besieged and surrendered, and his estates forfeited to the crown. The Bishop of St. David’s, who was appointed to uphold the supremacy of Canterbury, wishing to conciliate the Welsh, resents the intolerable interference of Theobald, the new Archbishop. A serious rupture ensues, and the people of St. David’s, who had opposed the election of Bernard, now, in defence of their rights, support him. An appeal is made to Pope Eugenius III., who decides provi- sionally in favour of Theobald, but the ultimate settlement of the suit was postponed for a further hearing until the 18th October, 1149. Before the day arrived, the contro- versy ended by the death of Bernard of St. David’s. 35 Great historic names cluster round the early days of this leper hospital, and the Queen's influence with the powerful barons who held high position at court, is strongly marked by gifts to this royal foundation. The King's cup-bearer (Pincerna Regis), William de Albini, or, as he is termed in his grant, Sir William Pincerna, animated by loyalty and sympathy in the work that his sovereign had so much at heart, gave to the hospital by way of endowment “four acres of land.” Although the site of these four acres of ground is now unknown, they were probably near to the institution, and formed a portion of the estate which eventually comprised the greater part of the parish of St. Giles, owing to the numerous grants of subsequent benefactors. At this time there were two illustrious Normans who bore the coveted title of Albini. William, the eldest son of Robert de Todenei, standard bearer to the Conqueror, according to Dugdale, took the surname of Albini, with the addition of Brito, to distinguish him from William de Albini, the king’s chief butler, called, from his office, Pincerna. William de Albini Brito inherited Belvoir Castle, now by unbroken descent in the possession of the Duke of Rutland. He died, A.D. 1154, and was buried near his father, on the north side of the chapter house at Belvoir. William de Albini Pincerna, surnamed Strong-arm, was the eldest son of William de Albini, who had accompa- nied the Conqueror from Normandy and had obtained from that monarch the lordship of Buckenham, in Norfolk, to which was appended the office of chief butler to the king. Whilst he held this supreme honour of cup-bearer, serving at royal banquets, the king married a second wife, Adeliza, the beautiful daughter of Godfrey, first Earl of Brabant, who gave her in dower the castle and earldom Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica, Book G. Bibliotheca Topographica Britannia. A.D. I790. 36 Rapin's Tindal's Hist. of Eng., Note 6, p. 295. ap. II39. of Arundel. No issue resulted from the union which lasted fourteen years, when the king died, and Adeliza, his widowed queen, after a brief interval united herself to Sir William Pincerna, who in her right, became Earl of Arundel, and by whom she had William, second Earl of Arundel, and from him, by the Fitz Alans, Earls of Arundel, Thomas Howard, the present Duke of Norfolk and Earl of Arundel derives his descent. She had also by this marriage two other children, Godfrey de Albini and Alice, wife of John, Earl of Anjou. With the earldom, Albini appears to have assumed much of the enterprising spirit, without the treachery and ferocity, which had been latterly attached to it. He was one of the councillors, who, by their repeated messages, advised the landing of the Empress Matilda. He received her on her arrival and was present at Arundel to superintend the defence of his castle against Stephen; but with the departure of that princess to join her brother at Bristol, the efforts of Albini in her cause terminated. Arundel, in simple but energetic terms, afterwards reminded Stephen of the weakness of his cause and assumed the blessed task of peacemaker. He dwelt on the horrors of a contest in which brother would be arrayed against brother and father against son, and prayed the King to make some arrangement with his enemies. The advice was not without effect. A solemn instrument was ratified by which Stephen adopted Henry as his successor on the throne, and gave the kingdom after his own death to him and his heirs for ever. To this instrument Albini attached his signature as a subscribing witness at the head of the barons, under the title of Earl of Chichester. Henry remembered these services when he came to the throne; he invested him with the dignity of the Earl of Sussex; granted him livery of the third penny from the pleas of the county, and gave him 37 many other important offices. He built the abbey of Buckenham, in Norfolk, and endowed it with eighty acres of land, that formed the site of a castle he then possessed. In conjunction with his wife he founded the priory of Pynham, near Arundel. He also founded the chapel of St. Thomas, in Wymondham, and died at Waverley, in Surrey, in the third year of KING HENRY II., on the 12th of October, and was buried in the abbey church, at Wymondham, on the 19th of the same month. He was the first Earl of the family and upon his monument this epitaph was engraven:— HUNC PINCERNA LOCUM FUNDAVIT, ET HIC JACET ILLA, QUAE DEDIT HUIC DOMUI, JAM SINE FINE TENET. The appellation which he bore of Strong-arm was derived from a legendary story, which says: “that during his residence at the French court, being decoyed by the jealousy of the queen, whom he had refused to marry, to the den of a lion, and suddenly enclosed with the animal, he wrapped his mantle round his arm, then, thrusting his hand into the lion’s mouth, tore out its tongue by the roots.” The tale is seriously told by Dugdale. Vincent thinks that Albini was too lenient with the lion. When his arm was once in the beast’s mouth, he should have thrust it farther, “seized him by the tail, and turned him inside out.” The office of Pincerna is still held by the Earls of Arundel. Historians differ on this point. Rapin says — “On the occasion of the coronation of Richard I., when, at the feast which was kept in Westminster Hall, the Citi- zens of London acted as the king’s butlers, and those of Winchester served up the meat.” This arrangement occa- sioned disputes at subsequent coronations and at the accession of Richard III., several made their claims at Tierney's History of Arundel, p. I39. A.D. II89. Rapin's Tindal's Hist. of Eng., Vol. I. A.D. I.483. Stow. 38 Coronation of Richard I. The King's Chief Butler. the coronation of the said king. Stow states or rather misstates that:— “It is also for the Honour of this Great Magistrate of the City, that at any Prince's Coronation he is to attend as Chief Butler of England, and has a Benefit thereby. For (as it is found in the City's Records) the Maior of the City, by reason of his Office of Maioralty, According to the Liberties and Customs of the City, as the Maiors, Aldermen, Sheriffs and Citizens of the same City, have accustomed to do from all times; claimed this Right I Rich’ III. by Prescription, and had it allowed at the Coronation. And so it is done in succeeding times.” This erroneous assertion is repeated in the following:— “Memorandum :—that the Maior and Citizens, of the City of London before the Lord Steward, appearing by the Recorder of the said City, claimed by mouth according to the said Liberty and Custom of the said City, that the same Maior, on account of his Office of Maioralty, may serve in his own person our Lord as after Dinner in his Chamber, to serve him with the King on the Day of his Coronation, a Cup of Gold. And the same Cup, when he departed from the Feast of the said Lord King, together with an Ewer of Gold, to have for his Fee, and to carry away with him. And that the other Citizens, who should be chosen by the City, ought to serve the same day in the Office of Butler, in aid of the Chief Butler, as well at the Table in the Hall at Dinner, as after Dinner in the Chamber, to the Nobles and others; as the Maiors and Citizens of the said City, their Predecessors, hitherto have, as is asserted, accustomed to do. And it was admitted by the King.” There is a large entry made in one of the City Records of this matter. The coronation of the Lord Richard III. and the Lady Anne, his wife, etc. “The said King and Queen were crowned at Westminster, the 6th of July. And in the day of the Coronation of the said King and Queen, after the Feast was finished; in which as well Edmund Shaa, Maior, as the Alderman and other Citizens elected by the Common Council, to attend upon the Chief Butler of England, according to Custom, were kindly and honourably 39 handled. And the same Maior, after dinner ended, as before was said, offered to the said Lord the King, Wine in a Gold Cup, with a Golden Viol full of Water to temper the Wine. After that the Wine was taken by the Lord King, the Maior retained the said Cup and Viol of Gold to his own proper use. In like manner the Maior offered to the Queen, after the Feast ended, Wine in a Golden Cup, with a Gold Viol full of Water. And after Wine taken by the said Queen, she gave the Cup with the Viol to the Maior, according to the Privileges, Liberties, and Customs of the City of London in such cases used.” With all deference to Stow, the Mayor never attended as Chief Butler, neither does the large entry say so. Allen, describing the coronation of George III., reconciles this seeming contradiction. “The office of chief butler of England was executed by the Duke of Norfolk, as Earl of Arundel and lord of the manor of Keninghall, who received a gold basin and ewer as his fee. Dinner being concluded, the Lord Mayor and twelve principal citizens of London, as assistants to the chief butler of England, accompanied by the king's cup-bearer and assistant, presented to His Majesty wine in a gold cup; and the king having drunk thereof, returned the gold cup to the Lord Mayor as his fee.” Contemporary with the Albinis were the Baldwins, and few names are so deeply imprinted in the annals of England as theirs. The Baldwin family was the lepers’ friend, and the hospital of St. Giles’, in the west suburb of London, evoked the sympathy and support of Earl Baldwin, who enriched it with the valuable endowment of Feltham Manor, in Middlesex. Baldwin’s ancestor (Fitz Osborn) bore the banner of St. Michael in the Norman army, and saw it wave triumph- antly on the battle field near Hastings. His close relation- ship to the king enabled him to subjugate the Isle of Wight and assume the lordship of the island. Foremost in all warlike enterprises, the family reaped a rich harvest Stow, Book v. The Baldwins. 40 Thierry's Norman Conquest, Book iv. Warner's Hampshire, P. 35. Annual Register, I781. A. D. II/4. of lands and honours, which, by inheritance, fell to Earl Baldwin, who became Earl of Devon and Lord of the Isle of Wight. He was known in Normandy as Baudoin de Riviers; in England as Baudoin of the Island; and in Wales as Baldwin, on account of his building the first Norman fort in that country. The Welsh named it Bald- win’s fort, but the Normans called it Mont Gomery, from the name of Baudoin’s successor, Roger de Montgomery. He is better known in history as Baldwin de Redvers, and distinguished as the son of Richard de Redvers. In connection with his possession of the Isle of Wight he founded the manor of Quarr, and to it he either gave the manor of Arreton or purchased it for his new founda- tion. At the commencement of KING STEPHEN’s reign he grants a confirmatory charter of the Priory of Carisbrooke, registered in the chartulary, in which he is described as “Balwin, Earl of Devon, and Lord of the Island,” who con- firms to the Abbot and Convent of Lyra all tithes, lands, etc., as the same were held in the time of Fitz Osborn, or Richard de Redvers, father of the said Baldwin. A subsequent charter of William de Vernun mentions a chapel of the infirm, which implies that a lazar house existed here. These grants to lazar houses and care for lepers suggest inferentially that Baldwin de Redvers was a leper. Leprosy was rife in the family of the Baldwins, Kings of Jerusalem. Fuller, writing at a later date (1174), says:— “The King was enclined to the leprosie, called elephant- iasis, noysome to the patient, but not infectious to the company. The kingdom was as sick as the king. As for King Baldwin, the leprosie had arrested him prisoner and kept him at home.” He died from this disease at the early age of twenty-five years. 41 The name of Baldwin de Redvers was closely connected with the Hospital of the Knights Templars, in Holborn, and the two institutions were so inseparably united that they form one history. Bellomont, Baldwin, Albemarle, Fontibus, etc., appear and reappear in connection with the º: ãº. institutions of Chivalry and Leprosy. They were founded about the same time, and were supported and governed by the same persons—“the mighty barons of the realm.”— whose lives and deeds have contributed a large chapter to the History of England. Both these hospitals were in Ble- mundsbury; the union between the Leper and the Crusader being much closer than is generally supposed. The duty of a Knight Templar was to protect and provide for the sick and infirm; and this provision for the infirm necessitated the building of infirmaries or lazar- houses, to confine, if not to cure, the patients afflicted with the contagious and terrible disease of leprosy. The lazar houses throughout England were founded, fostered, and governed by the Knights Templars, more especially the one in which GUEEN MATILDA was so deeply interested in Blemundsbury. The Baldwins and the Magna- villes, Masters of the Temple, were also the first Masters of the Queen’s Hospital. Nearly the first endowment given to the Hospital for Lepers was a tract of land. (or the revenue derivable from it), situated exactly opposite the Temple in Holborn, extending “breadthways on the King’s highway” from what is now Gray’s Inn Road, to a doubtful boundary westward, beyond Warwick Court. The vague words, “Grant to Hospital,” make it difficult to determine whether one or both hospitals are included in the “Grant,” there being no “parish of St. Giles’ in the Fields;” but both institutions were established in the same manor. The government of the lepers continued with the Templars until 1308, when all the Templars in England were apprehended - (! (!, 42 The Errors of Parton. and committed to prison. The Leper Hospital in Blemunds- bury was then placed under the guardianship of the Master of the great house of Burton St. Lazar, in Leicestershire. The list of the Masters of Burton and St. Giles’, in the suburbs of London, is set out as follows:— 1308 Rojº NT DE DANDY. 1392 ABBOT OF ToweR HILL. 13 lo RoperT DE LEIGHTON. 1402 WALTERUS DE LYNTON. I 3 I I JoHN CRYSPYNG. ROGER DE RERESBY. WILLIAM DE TYTN’T. 1431 SIR GEOFY. SHRIGLY. 1324 WALTER DE NOVO. 1456 RICHARD GERMIN. — CASTRO — 146 I WILLIAM SUTTON. I 347 HUGO MITCHEL. 1491 GEORGE SUTTON. I 35o Rol; FRT GER All N. 1493 THOMAS HARINGWOLD. I SSo Roll:NT I IALLIDAY. 1508 SIR THOMAS NORTON. I 387 NICIIOLAS DE DOVER. THOS, MAGNUs, Resident Visitor. 1389 JoHN MACCLESFIELD. *53° jRD. LAYTON, Visitor. St. Giles' Hospital closed. 1390 RICHARD DE CLIFFORD, 1537 Bro. RATCLYFFE. Durton St. Lazar Hospital dissolved. The Book of Grants to St. Giles’s Hospital can readily be seen at the British Museum. Those who have time and patience to decipher its contents will soon discover that the so-called grants or leases frequently refer to both institutions, but PARTON, in his numerous extracts, makes them all apply solely to the Hospital for Lepers. He defines the precise spot where the persons mentioned in the grants resided, and although many of them flourished in the early part of the eleventh century, and some before, they all lived in little houses, marked on his imaginary plan, “between the years 1,200 and 1,300.” Men, who stood foremost on the threshold of English history in the reign of William I., are dwelling in semi-detached cottages, in the parish of St. Giles’ in the Fields, in the reign of Edward I. PART.ox’s map should be placed amongst the “things not generally known,” for by it the discovery is made that the parish of St. Giles’ in the Fields existed in the time of KING Joli.N, and was of the same extent, and contained within the same boundaries as are now marked by boundary-stones, which 43 bear various dates of the latter half of the 17th century. This is most extraordinary, because PART.on speaks of the parish boundaries being defined, and the parish involved in litigation to maintain jurisdiction over a much larger area than the present parish covers, which in every instance was lost. No one living would have known that Great Queen Street (wisely kept nameless) ran from Lincoln’s Inn Fields to Drury Lane in the time of John, if PART.on had not published his map, especially as no way existed in that direction across Aldewyche Close until later times. The name “Aldewych Close” is sufficient proof. The old church is put on the map in the wrong place, and strange, “passing strange,” the hospital does not exist; it has gone “like the baseless fabrick of a vision.” The reader must not be surprised to find that the “grants to hospital” have been interpolated, and that PARTON has made his allotments of land suit the dimensions of his map, and his grants fit the allotments, and thereby has shown his want of principle in dealing with history, which has no excuse but that of ignorance. The following extracts serve as illustrations. They are curious and are printed in full from his book. OWNERS GRANTORS, Date of Doed of, bºre SOUTH SIDE. #. of, to egº; or after OSPITAL, ATE HospitaL. HOUSES, LAND, &c. when known. mentioned. Paganus de Premises of granted by him to Grantor to Reigns of Wriginel, Geoffery le Gardiner, by the de- hospital | Henry III. afterwards scription of “certain his land in unknown. and Geoffery le the parish of the Queen's hospital, Edward I. Gardiner. situate between land late of Robert Lonecote, and land of the said Paganus, and containing in length, from the King's highway towards Mag' (Henry Maggy's land), 30.2% feet, and in breadth, 603 feet two inches.” Paganus de Wriginel—Hugh Paganus (Pain), alias Hugh de Bellomont, was the first Master of the Knights Templars, who founded the order in conjunction with 44 Hereflete Inn, Afterwards IRed House Inn. Geoffrey de S. Audemer, printed in error—Geoffrey le Gardiner. The “King’s highway” was Holborn, and Mag’ (Henry Maggy) was Henry de Magnaville, and it seems that Geoffrey S. Audemer was Geoffrey de Magnaville. Both these Normans “lived before” and “ or after Hospital;” in other words, they founded it. They did not give the land to St. Giles’ Hospital for Lepers, no one knows who did (grantor unknown) and no one knows when, for this is not the land included in QUEEN MATILDA’s grant. Some time between the “Reigns of Henry III. and Edward I.”— 1216 to 1307—a little over 90 years, a period long enough to show how vague his information on this subject is. Hugh Paganus was the intimate friend of William Rufus, who, it is said, conferred upon Payn (second son but eventual heir of Hugh de Bellomonte) the Honour of Bedford. They appear to have been near neighbours, residing just outside the City walls by “Ye Barres of Holeburn,” on the estate afterwards granted to the Knights Templars. This is incidentally proved by a reference to the map of the Ordnance survey, and if the reader will turn to that part of it, behind the houses in Holborn, on the east side of Chancery Lane, there will be seen in faint letters “Site of the Red House Inn.” It is also indicated in Newton’s Map and Memoir of London in the Olden Time. This “Red House Inn” must have been built before the days of the Templars, as after their time other buildings stood on that site. It has no history but its name, and that name points to William the Red or William Rufus, who probably lived here in the time of his father, William I., afterwards granted to Baldwin de Redvers. Another glance at the Ordnance map will show that opposite “Red House Inn,” on the west side, are other letters, faintly indicating “Hereflete Inn.” This name points to the days before the Conquest, the time of Harold Harefoot. PENNANT says:— 45 “Between Clement’s Inn and the Strand is the church of St. Clement Danes, called so, either from being the place of interment of Harold the Harefoot, or of the massacre of certain Danes who had taken refuge there; it was one of the churches built on this tract before the Conquest.” Stow refers to it, mixing together, without note of time, “Here- flete Inn '' and the house of the “Six Clerks of the Chancery,” as follows:— On the west side (Chancery Lane) sometime was an house, pertaining to the Prior of Nocton Park, a House of Canons in Lincolnshire. This was commonly called “Hereſlete Inn,” and was a Brewhouse; but now fair builded for the six Clerks of the Chancery, and standeth over against the said house, called the Rolls; and near unto the Lane which now entreth Ficket's Croft or Ficket's Field. There was an Act made for Assurance of a Teno- ment to the Six Clerks of the Chancery, called “Harflete Inn” in Chancery Lane; and for making them a Corporation. See Acts of Parliament, enrolled 32 Henry VIII. (1541). Upon the Dissolution, “Harflu Inn” came to Henry VIII., who, in the 3o of his Reign (1539) gave it to Charles, Duke of Suffolk, and Katharine, his Wife. It consisted of a Messuage, Garden, and Curtelage. And here the Six Clerks sat. In the 31 Hy. 8, the said Duke and Dutchess parted with it to the said Six Clerks, and to hold it of the King in fealty. Strype's Stow. “And was a brew-house” points with some certainty to the conclusion that this brew-house was a brew-house in connection with Hereflete Inn, and that Hereflete Inn, the residence of Harold, surnamed Harefoot, by virtue of con- quest became Red House Inn, because it was possessed and occupied afterwards by William the Red or Rufus, that is to the Red House Inn, on the east side, was formerly say: Hereflete Inn, and the brewhouse, on the west side, was virtually the brewhouse of Hereflete Inn, long before the estate was divided by a right-of-way, now known as Chan- cery Lane. Turning to history, in support of the argument, it is stated that “IIarold, surnamed IIarefoot, upon his The Brewhouse of Hereflete Inn. 46 coming to the Crown in 1035, was opposed by his younger brother, Hardicanute, but by the intervention of the nobles a compromise was made between them, by which it was agreed that Harold Hereflete should have London and all the provinces north of the Thames.” He died in 1039. The Red House Inn stands upon the Ordnance map on the estate of the Baldwins. Baldwin, surnamed de Redvers (or Reviers), played an important part in the history of Blemundsbury, and linked together the hospitals of the Templars and the Lepers. Paganus de Wriginel and Geoffrey S. Audemer lived in the reign of Henry I. Both hospitals were situated in the “parish of the Queen’s Hospital.” There was no distinction or division at that time; the undivided district was wholly contained in Blemundsbury, and the Templars, before they could build their Temple, must by purchase or grant secure the land on which to erect it. In PARTON’s map, Robert Lonecote is allotted a small plot of land and a house thereon, which, by-the-way, is semi- detached, his next door neighbour being Stephen de Pistrino. The offices of the District Board mark the site. It is a bold suggestion, but there is enough in the grants to justify it:—They were grants of the land on which the Old Temple was built, given to the Hospital of the Knights Templars. There is no mention in after times of any such grant, or the land comprised therein, in connec- tion with the Hospital for Lepers. The grantor—Geoffrey’s land is shown on PARTON’s allotment map as a garden plot, running from Holborn to Parker Street, extending along what is now Newton Street. It is bounded on the City side by a semi-detached house, occupied by Siward, whose estate is given to the hospital by an unknown donor at an unknown time. Another grant brings the land to the nearest possible point to the Old Temple the map will allow, viz: the parish boundary at Fenwick Court, thus:– 47 77 º; SOUTH-EAST SIDE. Gººs *...* Hº. HOUSES, LAND, &c. withº. #. Robert Land and Houses of, with their Adam de Osgod. appurtenances, situate without the Basing. bars of Holeburn, lying between land which Robert Paage held on the east, and land of Wm. Spencer, west, and extending lengthways from the King's highway (Holborn) Reigns of north, unto Fikattesfeld, south. Henºn. 2I] Robert Land of, afterwards granted to Adam de Edward I. Paage. hospital, and described as “that Basing. their certain land, late of Robert Adam de Paage, lying lengthways between Basing. land of Robert Bretford (after- wards Osgod), west, and land of said hospital, east. º: SOUTH SIDE. *...* *::::::.." Or after oSPITAL, + + Hºl. LAND, &c. when known. I mentioned. William A messuage & land in the parish | William | Reigns of Xtmasse. of St. Giles's,” lying breadthways Cristemasse. Henry III. between land of William Xtmasse, and west, and land late of Siward, Edward I. east, bounded north by Holborn, and south by the land of Henry Maggy, the son of Richard, being II.8% feet broad on its north end next Holborn, and I18 at its south end, and in léngth, from north to south, 373 feet. *—“In the parish of St. Giles’s ” is an interpolation. º BLOOMSBURY SIDE. Gººs, Pattººed or after HOUSES, &c. AND GARDEN.S. HospitaL, ESTATE HospitaL. h when known. I mentioned. Stephen A tenement, with a garden, etc., | Enfeoffed Reign of Hereward. late John Hereward's (father of by Adam | Edwd. I. or said Stephen), adjoining Gerv' le Godchere beginning Lyngedrap's house, west. to John of reign of N.B.-These premises were afterwards | Lambourne | Edward II. anted by Juliana Hereward to Jno. in trust for e Rothinge, and subsequently be: H ital came the hºspital's, which granted ospital. them to Thomas de Stowe. : 48 OWNERS GRANTORS, Date of Deed of, SOUTH SIDE. &c. of, to where before or after HOUSES, LAND, &c HospitaL, ESTATE HospitaL, y y º when known. mentioned, Siward, Land (part of the above William | William | Reigns of afterwards Cristemasse), first of Siward, then Cristemasse. Henry III. of William of William Xtmasse, and subse- and Xtmasse, quently of Paganus de Wriginel, Edward I. etc. Siward, surnamed the Strong, lived before Paganus, and died, 1044. This Northumbrian' chief held for a time lands on the western upland, by the walls of London. Henry Maggy is the son of Richard Maggy, better known as Richard de Magnaville, in after years, as Mandeville. Robert Lonecote is a mystery, but that will become plain if the reader will allow Robert Lonecote to be recognized as Robert, Earl of Mellent, alias Robert de Bellomonte; he was Lord of Blemundsbury and led a lonely life—see p. 235—and probably bore the surname of Lonecote. Osgod is KING Oswald of Northumbria, who embraced the new faith, an event probably commemorated by the cross, known as Oswald’s or Osgod's Cross, now corrupted into Osgoldcross, which gave its name to the Wapentake or Weapontake. THIERRY writes:—“Gilbert de Clare and Guillaume de Garenne, having procured possession on the Isle of Ely by the treachery of the monks there, they all surrendered except Hereward, who to the last made his retreat through the most dangerous places, where the Normans did not venture to pursue him. . . . . Thus was destroyed, in the year 1072, the camp of Ely, which had for a moment given hopes of liberty to five provinces. Long after the dispersion of the brave men who had taken refuge in it, there were still to be found in that swampy corner of land, the traces of their entrenchments and the remains of a wooden fort, which the inhabitants of the place called Hereward’s Castle.” BLOTT'S CHRONICLE OF BLEMUNDSBURY, | }||}|| ſį 27: Øſº ！| \ !}#ffff; }} | '';}^;, ſººſ { { { | }ſae|}\ 1 !Z∞ √° 8ģ%| #}; % r.»**%ae//%Š%) §：//ſºſ¿ №ſºſ %/ Ø%%Ź77ſſºff/;/ſ ſ.ſaeſý\|||||||||#ffffffff - f·• • • • • • • • •`,\\.ſººſ%%- -·Ø• • • Nºw\XSNx^yÑN§3•ź/;%Ž ſ'%• N `NNS§§ÑNŅNŅ•§§fffffffff;ýſ.• ） Șg?///%ſ', ŞÇÉae ffºſſºſ ÈĂ%%%%%%%%%% -（~~~~）;Ă№%ſ,%ſ，%ſ，%ſ,%ſ,%ſ，%ſ,%ſ, -• ~Ă，2%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% șĂ%ğźģ%%%% º º[]ſ∞， JWY! 2222，2）;|-ſaeſ ģ#ffffffffffffffffffff; ， ！%%%%%%%% ØØŹ.aeZſae， //%77， ſø: "Zºº-2 ae -Z， Zae， ，： §¿?%%%%ºffſŹ,， ，£2， §%%%%%%&！！?！！?！！！ ºyº ae źēģãſ §S. ， ， ， ， ， . ！-- ŹŹź22222&ļi %22}}） ∞',،Ø. ŹŹ §RG ... ~~ ~~~~ { *-** -\ \\ -}}\R- %22%22;×|iRR （"ØŒØ%22%| {{RNNſ) ----32332%º●|№t:0 №aeae%%%%%∞Ļ| '';|}NČA * ~* → … -~）.ģŹźº232，2}&\;{{ii};º)\RR ！-~ . . .**~）.■■■■>№&&：Źź2，2%2>sae.№∞ SSSSS）… »----- ∞•••%22%2，23 §§-„ …T • •~232，2%-2% *：§©®°¶• −<！2 Qaedae 、、SS ž№| §<ā•） Qyſ：�NĶ-_- Nº Y V· § ^,|- \\·* №º uſ ！•} % }}\\ ſº ſłyſ N· • • • •#\ ... ;;;; \， \ }} . \, }}\ # : ^ }- A JKN II (G IIT TTE M PIAAR a 49 One of the founders of the Knights Templars was Robert of Artois, Earl of Bellomont. He was interred in the “Old Church, by the Old Bourne,” and afterwards removed to the “Ancient Church of the Black Fryers.” Stow says: These Knights Templars took their beginning about the year II 18, in manner following.—Certain Noblemen, Horsemen, religiously bent, bound by vow themselves in the hands of the Patriarch of Jerusalem to serve Christ after the Regular Canons, in Chastity and Obedience, and to renounce their own proper wills for ever. And whereas at first they had no certain Habitation, Baldwin, King of Jerusalem, granted to them a Dwelling Place in his Palace, by the Temple; and the Canons of the same Temple, gave them the Street, thereby to build therein their Houses of Office. And the Patriarch, the King, the Nobles, and Prelates gave them certain Revenues out of their Lordships. Their first profession was for Safeguard of the Pilgrims coming to visit the Sepulchre, and to Keep the Highways against the lying in wait of thieves, etc. About ten years after, they had a Rule appointed them, and a white Habit, by Honorius II., then Pope. And whereas they had but nine in Number, they began to increase daily. Afterward, in Pope Eugenius's Time, they bore Crosses of Red Cloth on their upper Garments, to be known from others. And in short time, because they had their first Mansion hard by the Temple of our Lord in Jerusalem, they were called Knights of the Temple. The Old Temple was builded of Caen Stone, round in form as the New Temple by Temple Bar, and other temples in England. Adjoining to this ‘Old Temple’ was the Bishop of Lincoln's Inn, wherein he lodged when he repaired to this City. This Temple fell to ruin since the year I 184, when the Templars had builded them a new Temple in Fleet Street. Mention is made in the Grants of Sir John de Cliderow or Clitheroe, so called because he built Clitheroe. He was better known as John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, who married Alice de Vere, and died in 1179. John de Cliderowe, who flourished in 1213, was his descendant. He is styled John de Lacy of Lincoln, John de Chester, and also John de Cliderowe. He married Margaret, the co-heir of Saer de Quincy, Earl of Winchester. b b The Old Temple in Holeburn. 50 Parton's History of St. Giles' in the Fields. PART.on, having an idea he was connected with Lin- coln’s Inn Fields, gives him a plot of land in Gate Street, which bounds it on the east, extending to another way' on the south, now called Great Queen Street, but which street in those times was enclosed fields and gardens and did not exist as a way. The north is bounded by a narrow water- course, lately called Stonecutters’ Alley, now Twyford’s Buildings. The water-course is correctly marked, for here ran Spencer’s Dig or Spencer’s Ditch. On the west is a way running from Great Queen Street into Holborn. It is no explanation to say:—“The grants of these estates are undated;” but the time when the transfers took place may be pretty nearly ascertained from the names of the parties occurring in other deeds, the dates of which are known. They were mostly made “in the reigns of Henry III. and Edward I.” This does not justify placing Geoffrey de Magnaville, Hereward, Siward, Osgod, Paganus, Blemund, etc., in cottages, and making them Linen Drapers, Tailors, Chandler’s-shop Keepers, etc., “between 1200 and 1300.” Enough has been said of this burlesque of history, but it would be impossible to write a consistent chronicle of Blem- undsbury without coming into direct conflict with PARTon’s account of St. Giles’ in the Fields, and this must be the accepted reason for entering upon this compulsory criticism. There is much valuable information to be found in its pages, because its greatest errors have stimulated to greater research, so that the names and dates, though wrongly registered, have formed a clue to fix them in their right places in English history. - * Osgod, Siward, Hereward, Paganus, Bellomont, and others being found together in the same locality, are not mere coincidences; they are rather the broken fragments of a shattered history, and as the geologist can in a fossil read the record of ages long since past, so these names bring back the memory of the olden times, and their dry bones' are clothed and live again in the present. : * 51. the attanor of Gateeball. This ancient Place or Court of Tateshall was probably erected in Anglo-Saxon times, if not before. It is supposed to have belonged to Edward the Confessor. The illustration below is reproduced from PART.on. The archi- tecture indicates the Norman period. The other parts of the structure, although of an early date, appear to have been so altered, that their original features have been destroyed. ſ .C --. |: --. : -º: º--sº H-2 # ! - *: Us ººr. |- |||s|}; ºr ºf ºs - * * º, Sºil * * = ...? rº, e- * - sºs - sº tº - * * - º Fºº ºrrº-ºººº... • 5 ...rº Yº: tº Pººr º ºf º º sº-ºw ºr . ºzººsººr ºº: *ś *º-2 & 3- Fººtººººº-ºº: *_º Torrs Nºtall. o R ºr Avrts.<5 ti At- The various renderings of Tateshall, Tatshall, Tanshall, Tanshelf, and Tatham have at last permanently passed into Tottenham Court, the designation of the road that was the private way to Tateshall Place or Palace. The history of Tateshall (Blemundsbury) will be found in the history of Tateshall in Yorkshire. The same lord owned both manors. Booth Royd, in his History of Pontefract, says:– “The The North End of Tottenham Court Road, A.D, IOgo. 52 Tateshall in Yorkshire and the Lacy's. Hugh de Tatteshall alias Hugh de Spencer. Tateshall and the De Spencers. manor of Tateshall is the present township of Tanshelf, which, though not within the borough, forms a part of the present town of Pontefract.” In the Domesday Survey the Burgh of Kirkby is not mentioned by name, but is included as a part of the manor of Tateshall. KING WILLIAM I. seized the manor and gave that immense territory, which included within it the Honor of Pontefract, to Ilbert de Lacy. The Lacys, adopting the custom of the times, assumed the name of Kirkby. HAzlitt says:—“Shortly after the Conquest, the lordship of Tattershall (called otherwise Tateshall) and other estates were bestowed on two Norman nobles, Eudo and Pinso.” W RIGHT, in his History of Essea, calls Eudo de Tateshall “Eudo De Spencer,” son of the King’s Steward. Pinso, the father, was the King’s Pincerna, and is sometimes described as Hubert de Rie, a favourite of William, when Duke of Normandy, and was sent by him on an embassy to Edward the Confessor, then lying on his death-bed, and is said to have prevailed on that monarch to appoint William as his successor, and for this important service Hubert was made Steward of the royal household. He seems also to have borne the name of Hugh de Bellomont. A rebellion breaking out in Normandy, his three sons were sent over to quell it. Eudo, his son, remained in England, and shortly afterwards was made Steward of the King’s household instead of William Fitz Osbert. The connection of Tateshall with the Albinis is shown by the following extract from the Cottonian Manuscripts:– De dominis de Tateshale post conquestum per successionem; et de descensu Hugonis de Albanico (Albini) Comitis Arundeliae, et partitione ipsius haereditatis inter quatuor Sorores, Ao 28 Hen. III. Sunt autem collectanea de istorum dominorum stirpe, haereditariis terris et possessionibus, cum inquisitionibus captis de feodis mili- taribus, de advocationibus ecclesiarum, de releviis, aliisque ad istam familiam pertinentibus. De prima fundatione abbatiae de Kirkstede, A° 1139; et inde plura alia de Dnis, de Tateshale, 48. b. 53 Margaret, the daughter of Eudo Despencer, married Geoffrey de Magnaville. He left issue, two sons, Geoffrey de Magnaville, Earl of Essex, and Walter de Magnaville, who married the daughter of Fitz Gilbert de Clare. This union of the families of the Lacys, the De Spencers, the Magnavilles, and the Clares became blended and united to- gether in the Norman family of the Blemunds, who changed. the name of the Tottenhall estate to Blemundsbury. There is another Tateshall or Tattershall in Lincoln- shire, a small market-town, situated on the river Bain, just before it joins the Witham. BRITTon says:– In the time of William the Conqueror, this place formed part of the possessions which he granted to Eudo. Robert Fitz-Eudo obtained a grant from King John by presenting that monarch with a well-trained “Goshawk,” for the inhabitants of this town to have the privilege of holding a weekly market on Fridays. Ralph, Lord Cromwell, in 1438, obtained a license to make the church of Tattershall collegiate. The whole of the foundation was valued (1536) at 24,348 5s. I Id. per annum. The revenues were granted to Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. - The old grants show the close connection between the Lords of Tateshall and the De Spencers, thus:— Land and appurtenances held by John, the son of Walter de Totehale, granted to Gervase le Lyngedrap, subject to a yearly rent of Iod., lying between land of the said John, on the north, abutting west upon land held by the hospital, and east upon the way leading towards Tateshall. An acre of land of the prebend of Tottenhall, once the land of William De Spencer. A quit rent of one penny per annum, arising from half an acre of land, once the land of Robert De Spencer, son of William. BRAYLEY, speaking of Tottenham in Middlesex, states that: “The name of this place is written Toteham in Domesday.” In the reign of Edward the Confessor, this manor of Toteham had been the property of Earl Waltheof, son to Siward, Earl of Northumberland. The name of Siward, previously mentioned in the Book of Grants, proves his connection with the early history of Blemundsbury, and Tateshall in Lincolnshire. Walter de Totehale alias Walter de Spencer. Tateshall— Tottenham in Middlesex. 54 Tateshall, afterwards Blemundsbury. points to Tateshall. THIERRY, in his History of the Norman Conquest, says: “The government, or (to use the Norman expression) the County of Northumbria was given to Waltheof, son of Siward, who, like Gospatric, had fought in the Saxon ranks at York, but whose fatal hour had not yet arrived.” * * * * * 3& * * * 3& * “Waltheof was accused of having called the Danes over by messages. His Norman wife, the Conqueror's niece, Judith, whom he had received from William, became his denouncer, and bore testimony against him. The voices of the assembly, or the court (as it was figuratively expressed), the place in which the council was held, being taken for the council itself. His enemies prevailed in one of the courts, which were held three times a year. He was condemned to death and executed without the walls of Winchester in 1075. The Normans coveted the three counties governed by Waltheof the Saxon. Ives Taillebois and other power- ful nobles were most eager for his destruction.” PARTON, speaking of Tateshall, says:— Tottenhall was a lordship belonging to the Deans of St. Paul's before the Conquest. It was demised to the crown in 1560, and has always since been held on lease. It is mentioned, or at least its then supposed owner, William de Tottenhall, as early as the reign of Henry III., at which time it seems to have been a mansion of eminence, probably the court-house of the manor of the same name. There is no record to warrant this suggestion. Totten- hall Court or Court-house was merged shortly after the Conquest into the more important manor of Blemundsbury, the court-house of which was built, as shewn on the map, at the southern end of the way to Tateshall. Tateshall Court, in pre-Norman times, was probably the palace or court of the King, until the fortune of war caused the various Tateshalls to be bestowed on the warriors who had served the victor best. Tateshall was not a family name. 55 William de Bellomonte, alias William de Kirkeby, was the Lord of Tateshall, and is described as “William de Totten- hall,” but he neither founded nor sprung from a family of that name. The statement that “Tateshall belonged to the Canons of St. Paul’s” suggests that this particular Tates- hall was obtained by a grant from Waltheof, sanctioned by Edward the Confessor. Robinson, in his History of Tottenham, gives several unsatisfactory reasons to account for the name as follows:— “The etymology of the name is from the Saxon words, “Totia” and ‘Ham,” the first of which signifies to project with a long end or corner like a horn, and is supposed in this instance to originate from the form of the western part of the parish.” What was the western form of the parish when Tateshall was built need not be discussed. The same author says:—“MR. PERKINs makes ‘Tot’ or “Tut” the name of a rivulet, and thence derives the name, and Mr. BEDw ELL finds a resemblance in situation between Totham in Essex, putting itself far into the sea, and Totness in Devonshire. It occurs in many places besides, as Totehall, Totehale, now Tottenham Court, Totteridge, etc. It may also be conjectured that Tottenham was the mansion, resi- dence, or estate of Tota; for places have more frequently derived their names from their owners than their situation.” RoBINson cites the opinion of MR. WILLIAM BAxTER, the master of the Free Grammar School at Tottenham, who says “the Saxon words ‘deedholm’ and ‘deodenholm.” were corrupted by the Normans into Toteham.” This is scarcely accurate. The blending of the Saxons with the English led to the corruption of Saxon words, which became interwoven and incorporated with the Anglo-Saxon language. The judges and lawyers were all clergymen, and, with few exceptions, Normans. This being so, the pleadings and judgments must of necessity have been in the Norman 56 Tateshall. The Aula Regis or King's Court. language, with which they were familiar, and all legal pro- ceedings were so continued (in Norman-French) until the time of Edward III., 1327-1377, when they were appointed to be in the English tongue, but entered and enrolled in Latin; that the ancient “terms” in law might be still re- tained, as being more apt. The Lords of the Manor had their minor courts of law, their houses being the Aula Halls or Courts, in contradistinction to the King, whose palace or court was the Aula Regis. These facts throw a ray of light on the name of “Tate Hale,” which originally were “Etat” Halls or Halls of State. The numerous Tates Halls scattered throughout England, which still exist, while an unknown number have passed away into oblivion, tend to prove that the buildings were erected and so named from their official rather than their residential character. They all appear to have had a common origin, built by the barons within their manors to receive the King when he came to that district or county with his movable court, in order to administer justice therein. It was the King's Court, the Aula Regis, the Royal Court of Justice, where the Great Justiciary and titled ecclesiastics pleaded and argued for common right and equity, based upon Norman jurispru- dence, the principles of which still form the broad solid foundations on which rest the “Common Law” of England. It is curious to note how frequently Tattershall is mentioned in connection with the King or affairs of State, and the following miscellaneous papers are introduced (which may be thought a digression) because by side-lights they reveal the history of the Tates Halls. Information by William Wright of speeches used by the Earl of Lincoln, at his house in Cannon Row, two or three days after the arraignment of the Earl of Essex; Henry Hollywell, William Hollidge, and William Wright, present. He said:—‘I cannot be persuaded that the Queen will consent to the death of one with whom she has been so familiar. I myself have seen her kiss him 57 twenty times. The reasons why I (Wright) did not acquaint the Council with this before were—First, for the confederacy. After I had acquainted the Earl of Lincoln with the words spoken by Sir Arthur Gorges, his Lordship—then making relation of a certain hunting and hawking by the Duke of Norfolk and other nobles at Tattershall, and how at their departure, they all going to a tree, pulled everyone a bough, and took hands and swore to meet in the same place that time twelve months.” This pledge of secrecy is illustrated by SHAKESPEARE: Let every soldier hew him down a bough, And bear’t before him; thereby shall we shadow The numbers of our host, and make discovery Err in report of us. The plucking of a rose in the “Temple Gardens” and a bough at Tattershall had a similar significance. In a letter (missing) bearing date Nov. 5th, 1605 (the appointed day for the destruction of the Lords and Com- mons), written by Mrs. Vaux, occurs this strange sentence: “Fast and pray that that may come to pass which wee purpose, which yf it doe, wee shall see Totnam turned French.” The writer of the letter, Mrs. Elizabeth Vaux, was examined respecting it, and admitted that she “wrote to Lady Wenman last Easter, and said that ‘Tottenham would turn French, etc.’” Sir Richard Wenman writes from Tamepark to Lord Chief Justice Popham, inclosing account of the- Examination of Agnes, Lady Wenman:-She kept Mrs. Vaux’s letter at first to shew it to her husband, because she was angry with her mother-in-law, Lady Tasburgh, for opening it, but has lost or burnt it since; her mother, Lady Fermor, wrote to ask her to send it, or a copy of it, to Mrs. Vaux, who had heard that she was called in question for it, but she could not; it was chiefly about Lord Vaux’s marriage with Lady Suffolk's daughter, and about the disgrace of the Catholics; adding:—‘notwithstanding, pray, for Tottenham may turne French.' - - C C Tottenhall and Gunpowder Piot. 58 The Earl of Lincoln and Tattershall Castle. Examination of Margaret Payn, Lady Wenman's maid:– Remembers Mrs. Vaux’s letter, and the sentence about Tottenham turning French, but nothing about fasting for any purpose that was in hand. December 5th, 1605. - The Earl of Lincoln writes to the King from Tattershall Castle, September 20th, 1616, stating ‘that Sir Henry Fiennes, refusing the King's order that they should appoint mediators in their dispute about the possession of a deer-park, daily kills the deer, illtreats the keepers, etc. Craves redress.’ Letter from Secretary Conway to Lady Heybourne (of Tot- tenham), Sir Edward Barkham, and Mr. Cratt, of Colney Hatch: ‘The King is much inconvenienced in his hunting in Tottenham woods by the want of convenient gates, and they damaged by their fences being ridden over and broken down. His Majesty therefore wishes them to cause gates to be made for convenient passage, and if they are kept locked, one key to be sent to him, which will be reserved for his exclusive use. Requests an answer by the bearer.' June 18th, 1623. Tottenhall, at the time of its erection, stood embosomed in the great forest of Middlesex, until the cruelty of the ‘forest laws’ brought about its disafforesting, and then the place was surrounded by (and known as) the woods and fields of Tottenhall. The sluggish winding stream, ‘Mary's Bourne,’ watered the fields and supplied its tribute to the reservoirs that fed the City Conduits. A little church, erected probably by the Lord of Tottenhall, was built within its precincts, and men, earnest and devout, thinking of the river, named it “St. Mary le Bon,’ and in after ages, when the church gathered unto itself a “Vestry,’ and those who formed the Vestry became local administrators, having a jurisdiction within defined boundaries; then the woods of Tottenhall gave place to the parish of St. Marylebone. And as the forest of Middlesex was lost and contracted within the smaller boundaries of Tottenhall Wood, so Tottenhall Wood was lost and further limited within the area of Marybone Park, and Marybone Park in its turn shrank into the Marybone Gardens, and they lived, flourished, withered, and passed away, and all that now remains to mark the old associations is the ‘Regents Park.” The history of the Tottenhall estate virtually concludes with the battle of Bosworth Field, and Henry VII., after that decisive 59 victory, imparked the lands of Tattershall, and by royal permis- sion the enclosure was named Marybone Park. Mention is made of it in the reign of Queen Mary, in reference to the treason of Sir Nicholas Throgmorton, whose followers, on the 26th day of January, 1554, marched by way of Brentford and Marybone Park to London, the Queen being then at Westminster, but they were overthrown by her army. Record of a payment in 1582 exists “for the making of two new standings in Marebone and Hide Parkes for the Queene's Majestie and the Noblemen of Fraunce to see the Huntinge.” This is evidently an allusion to “Conduit Day,' when the Corpora- tion of London by ancient right inspected the conduits that supplied the City. As early as 1237 its Citizens had supplied their conduit in Cheapside with the water from ‘Mary's Bourne.’ Business and pleasure, pageantry and pleasantry, feasting and hunting was the programme for “Conduit Day.’ Civic pomp was well represented, and if display was tinged with vulgarity, the mob admired their prosperous representatives, and gazed with delight on the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and many worshipful persons who rode to the Conduit Heads, accompanied by the Citizens on horseback, with their wives in waggons. The hounds, kept for the amusement of the Lord Mayor, under the control of ‘Master Common Hunt, joined in the procession, and added to the excite- ment and interest of the day's proceedings, which usually took place on the 18th September. It was a merrier journey than some that had been made from the City to Tyburn; all was life and anima- tion. Cheers from surging crowds rent the air as the gorgeous cavalcade passed along Cheapside westward to Snow Hill, to halt at the conduit; then forwards to Holborn Bars, more halting and more cheering; then away across the fields (or up the Lane) to Lamb's New Conduit, a taste of the water and a brief speech, ending with deafening hurrahs. Horns blowing, hounds yelping, the banners of the City Companies flaunting in the cool breeze of the waning summer; handkerchiefs waving with enthusiastic energy from fair hands over bright faces, made brighter still by their holiday attire. Three more cheers for William Lamb, London's benefactor, cries the Lord Mayor, Sir Thomas Blancke, and a shout rings over the pasture lands of Blemundsbury, which was seldom heard in that dreary solitude. A few more paces and Marybone Park and Conduit Day. 60 The Devil's Conduit. The Keepership of Marybone Park. then another halt at the fountain of His Satanic Majesty (still existing), better known as the “Devil's Conduit.’ The waggons, with the ladies and the unprivileged crowd, pass into Holborn, and the hounds and the hunters speed across fields and over hedges and ditches by Tattershall Court to Marybone Park, where some unfortunate hare or fox is startled from the undergrowth and butchered to make an ‘English Holiday.’ The Banqueting House at Tye Bourne Bridge is reached, and feasting and revelry refresh and reward the arduous toilers who have taken part in “Conduit Day.’ The return journey was accompanied with more hunting, but those who had done justice to the City feast left the sport in the hands of friends who were not invited to the banquet. Sir Hugh Middleton put an end to the institution of ‘Couduit Day' - The “Old Bourne' had to give place to the ‘New River.’ The King kept in his hands Marybone Park, and on the 8th June, 1611, ‘Granted to Edward Forsett the Manor of Tyburn, co. Middlesex.' The Keepership of Marybone Park was bestowed on Sir Edward Carey, Master of the Jewel House, who held it under Queen Elizabeth, and on the 26th of July, 1604, the reversion of it was granted by James I. to Sir Henry Carey, Gentleman of the Privy Chamber, and on May 5th, 16 Io, a precept was issued ‘to pay Sir Henry Carey and Robert Treswell 480 for repairing the hedges and pales of Marybone Park.’ On the 25th of January, 1612, another precept was issued ‘to pay to William Stacey, Under- keeper of Marybone Park, 24, Ioo for his great charge in keeping deer there for His Majesty's recreation in hunting.” On the 27th of July, 1614, there was issued a “Warrant to pay Sir Henry Carey, Keeper of Marybone Park, 24, 25 3s. 6d. for repairs and building six new bridges.’ The following year Sir Henry Carey had probably died, for the Keepership of Marybone Park was granted to Sir Philip Carey for life. February 27th, 1615. These grants indicate that changes were taking place here. William Garway was the “Contractor’ of Marybone Park, as shewn by a “Petition of Sir William Waad to Earl Salisbury, to be allowed the preference of purchasing a piece of ground in Marybone Park from Wm. Garway, the Contractor.” April, 1610. John Carey by royal grant obtained the reversion of the Keepership of Marybone Park, Middlesex, for life, March, 1623. 6] John Carey, the Loyalist, was ousted from his office by the Cromwellians, and when their reign of tyranny came to an end, John Carey, Master of the Buckhounds, in August, 1660, petitioned for his reinstatement in that office, trusting ‘that he may not be prejudiced in his right to the custody of Marybone Park, long held by his ancestors, of which he was deprived in 1642 for waiting on the late King at Oxford, and now a mortgage thereof is pre- tended; also, that he may have a grant of the timber felled during his sequestration, and now on the ground, for repairing the lodges.’ The petition was of no avail; the Keepership had come to an end. King Charles II. had no love for the ‘flat, stale, and unpro- fitable’ Marybone Park. The ‘pretended mortgage’ was based on a ‘claim made by Sir George Strode and John Wandesford with the late King to hold Marybone Park until the arrears due to them for making gunpowder were paid. They alleged that they agreed with the late King's Council at Oxford to make it at 12d. per pound, materials being scarce, and it was to continue at the same rate for a whole year after the rebellion, and then till the arrears were paid.’ The mortgage referred to a time when Charles I. granted Marybone Park to Sir George Strode and John Wandesford by letters patent, dated from Oxford, May 6th, 1646, as security for a debt of 24, 2,318 1 1s. 9d., due to them for supplying the King with arms and ammunition. Parliament seized the park and sold it for 24, 13,215 6s. 8d. At the Restoration the King recognised the claim of Strode and Wandesford by granting them a portion of the park. The value of the land for building purposes was sufficient inducement for the King to destroy this royal park, and on the 23rd of November, 1660, a petition is sent to the King's Council for the tenancy (or lease) of the disparked park of Marybone, by Clara, widow of Theophilus Bolton, Linen Draper of London, on the ground ‘that her late husband lost £6,000, and being forced often to change his residence for his loyalty, at length died in consequence of a violent attack on their house by Col. Baxter, in November, 1657; since that time she has been diligent in pro- tecting and concealing faithful subjects, etc.” The reply to this petition, by recommendation and report of the Lord High Trea- surer, ‘Clara’ received a pension of 4.2 oo a year for life, with an advance of £400 on account, to pay her debts, in consideration of her constant and hazardous Services. January 5th, 1661. The Royal Mortgage of Marybone Park. Tottenhall was cut off from Marybone Park in the month of December, 1660, a lease of Tottenham was granted to William Coventry and William Ashburnham, nominees of Mary, wife of Sir Henry Wood, Bart., and John Denham, and in trust for them of several messuages, etc., at Totten- hall, alias Tottenham Court, co. Middlesex. This Tottenhall Tottenhall was afterwards granted by KING CHARLEs II. to Barbara granted to Williers, his mistress, whom he created, 3rd August, 1670, Barbara Villiers. - Baroness of Nonsuch, Countess of Southampton, and Duchess of Cleveland. Her five illegitimate children, Charles, George, Henry, Ann, and Charlotte, were the “Fitzroys,” and Tateshall was inherited by her sons, the Dukes of Grafton. Augustus Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Grafton, married, 29th January, 1756, Anne, daughter and heiress of Henry, Lord Ravensworth, which marriage was dissolved by Parliament, 23rd March, 1767, and on the 26th of May following, he married Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Richard Wrottesley, who brought him thirteen children. In consequence of this marriage, a part of the estate of Tottenhall was vested in trustees to the use of Charles Fitzroy, Esq. and his heirs. Tottenhall, in its last days, appears to have been one of the lodges or gate-house entrances into Marybone Park. *. BRAYLEY says, referring to Tateshall in Blemunds- bury:—“A second manor (now Tottenham Court), within this parish (St. Pancras), was likewise held by the Canons of St. Paul’s (but this seems to refer to the year 1550). Walter, a Canon of the same church, also held one hide in St. Pancras.” Tottenhall evidently belonged to the Lords of Blemundsbury until Lovell—the last branch of that family—was attainted, and his estates then escheated to the Crown in the time of Henry VII, and passed to his suc- cessor, Henry VIII, and, as some recompense for the latter monarch's wholesale plunder of ecclesiastical property, he seems to have granted a lease of Tottenhall to Dr. John Story, which lease he had the power to assign to Sir William Herbert, Master of the Horse. 63 Calendered documents, gleaned from State Papers, admit of no dispute, in one of which there is an— Indenture of Assignment from Dr. John Storye to Sir William Herbert (Master of the Horse), of the lease of the prebend of Tottenhall or Tottenham Court, within the church of St. Paul's, London, February 21st, 155o. 4 Edward VI. By another document it appears that the above-men- tioned “lease” had passed into the hands of Thomas Wattz. Lease from Thomas Wattz to Henry, Earl of Arundel (Lord Steward), Lord Robert Duddeley (Master of the Horse), Sir Thomas Parry (Treasurer), Sir Edward Rogers (Comptroller), and Thomas Weldon (Cofferer), of the prebend, manor, and lordship of Tottenhall or Tottenham Court, in trust for the Crown, for 99 years, at the rent of 4,46 per annum. June 26th, 1560. This corresponds with the amount put down in the “King’s Books,” in which the importance of Tottenhall is manifest by its standing highest in the list of the pre- bendaries, thus:—Tottenhall, £46; Finsbury, £39 13s 4d; St. Pancras, £28 15s. 0d.; Islington, £11 10s 10d.; and Holborn, £8 5s. 5d., etc.—Seymour’s Stow. Dr. John Story, who assigned the original lease of Tottenhall, had fled the country and was abroad at this time. Ten years later he is by a ruse captured and brought to England. On his landing he writes to Sir William Cecil, “Informing him of his arrival at Yarmouth. If he is to be restored to his former keeper, hopes he shall not have more than one iron on his legs.” August 15th, 1570. His former keeper appears to be Thomas Wattz (Wattes), who had conveyed the lease of Tottenhall to the Crown. A few days after the foregoing letter was written Tho- mas Wattes sends a communication to Sir William Cecil “Informing him that Dr. Storye has been brought to his house from Yarmouth. The Lollards’ Tower, of which the locks and bolts of the doors were broken off at the death of Queen Mary, and never since repaired, shall be got ready for his reception.” August 26th, 1570. Tottenhall in trust for the Crown. 64 On the following day, John Mershe writes to Sir William Cecil, respecting the transactions of Dr. Storye at Yarmouth, where he was tampered with by one Gosling, one of the bailiffs:—“The Lollards’ Tower is being prepared for him. Advises Parker should be present when Storye is examined.” August 27th, 1571. Letter from Thomas Wattes to Sir William Cecill states the “Committal of Dr. Storye to the Lollards’ Tower. Strict order is given that he shall be kept from conference with any person whatever.” Sept. 4th, 1570. The arrest of Story, hereafter to be told, was accomplished by three young men at considerable risk and expense, for which they could get neither acknowledgment nor payment. John Mershe interests himself on their behalf, and in one of his letters to Leicester and Cecill, says:—“Concerning the charges of the young men who brought Dr. Storye from Antwerp, which, though unreasonable, admit of considera- tion. Statement of the charges inclosed.” Sept. 14th, 1570. This was of no avail, and the three young men write to Sir William Cecill:—“Roger Ramsden, Martin Bragge, and Simon Jewkes, merchants, regret their account of charges in bringing Dr. Storye into England has not been satisfac- tory. Explains several items and request his favour in the settlement of it.” October, 1570. In another document, Sir Owyn Hopton sets out in his account “the sums due to him for the diet and charges of prisoners in the Tower, from the 1st of February to the 7th of April, 1571, including the names of Tho. Hussye, William and Marmaduke Norton, William Parker, Dr. Storye, etc.” An indictment for high treason was laid in Middlesex against Dr. John Storye, William Parker, John Prestall, etc., in April, 1571. The graphic pen of FULLER, in his Church History, fills in the details of the foregoing events. 65 Dr. Story, Dean of St. Paul's, must not be forgotten, being under Bonner a most cruel persecutor. Well; so it seemed good to Divine Providence, as conducing most to the peace of the church, that one place, rather than two, should be troubled with such damnable tyrants. Bonner persecuted by wholesale, Story by retail; the former enjoined—the latter attended—the execution. What Bonner bade—Story beheld—to be performed. Yea, some- times he made cruel additions of his own invention; as when he caused a faggot to be tossed in the face of Mr. Denlie, the martyr, when he was ready to be burned. Dr. Story witnessed and assisted in the burning of Mr. John Rogers, in Smithfield, Feb. 4th, 1555. But, O the misery of God's poor saints in Newgate, in Lollards' Tower, the Clinck, and Bonner's Coal-house—a place which minded them of the manner of their death—first kept amongst coal, before they were burned to ashes. 3% * 36 * # % 3% # # # John Story, Doctor of Law, a cruel persecutor in the days of Queen Mary (being said for his share to have martyred two or three hundred), fled afterwards over into Brabant, and because great with the Duke of Alva (like cup like cover!) he made him searcher at Antwerp for English Goods, where if he could detect either Bible or heretical books, as they termed them, in any ship, it either cost their persons imprisonment or goods confiscation. But now being trained into the ship of Mr. Parker, an Englishman, the master hoisted sail (time and tide, wind and water, consenting to that design), and over was this tyrant and traitor brought into England; where, refusing to take the Oath of Supremacy, and professing himself subject to the King of Spain, he was executed at Tyburn, where being cut down half dead, after his privy mem- bers were cut off, he rushed on the executioner and gave him a blow on the ear, to the wonder (saith my author) of all the standers by; and I (who was not there) wonder more that it was not recounted amongst the Romish miracles. - Tottenhall Court was shortly afterwards occupied by Alexander Glover, Esq., for according to an epitaph in old St. Pancras Church, Tateshall became known as Tottenham Court, and was occupied in 1588 by Alexander Glover. At this pew's end here lyeth buried Mary Beresford, the daughter of Alexander Glover, of Tottenham Court, and the late -- w d d Execution of Dr. Story at Tyburn. 66 William Stacey, Under-keeper of Marybone Park. dear and well-beloved wife of John Beresford, gentleman, and Utter Barrister of Staple Inn, who departed this life the third day of August, in the year of our Lord God, 1588. - Phillis Oldernshaw, wife of William Oldernshaw, Gent, of Tottenhall Court, in this parish (St. Pancras), gave, the 9th day of February, A.D. 1627, a black cloth for ever, to be laid on the poor deceased people of this parish, without fee, and all others to pay for the use of it to the Church-wardens. Tottenham Court, with its fine view of Hampstead and extensive pleasure grounds, was converted into a plea- sant suburban retreat, and was well patronized by the better class of citizens. PART.on says:– z Its appropriation as an inn, or house of entertainment, took place many ages later, it not being noticed in that character in the parish books till 1645, when the following entry occurs:— “I645. Reca. of Mr. Bringhurst, constable, which he had of) Mrs. Stacye's maid and others, for drinking at Tottenhall Court 3s. on the Sabbath daie, xijd. apiece.” - - - - , – PART.on makes a slight mistake here, for in another part of his book he quotes the following minute:— 1644. Rec' of three poore men, for drinking on the Sabbath S daie at Tottenham Court. - - - - - - - -i tº These entries do not conclusively prove that Tottenham Court at this time had degenerated into a common licensed tavern. The Puritans had faith in the weapons of persecu- tion, and refreshments given to “Mrs. Stacye's maid” and “three poore men” (on the Sabbath), rendered the recipi- ents liable to a fine for their irreligious conduct, which fine was probably paid by the host of Tottenham Court. If the “refreshment” were not supplied gratis, then the Inn- keeper would have committed the chief offence, and some record of his fine or imprisonment would have been pre- served; but it is not improbable that Mrs. Stacey was residing at Tottenham Court when her maid was fined. She was doubtless the widow of William Stacey, Under-keeper of Marybone Park, who by virtue of his office might have been permitted to occupy Tottenham Court. These fines 67 were inflicted to justify the seizure of Tottenham Court by the Regicides; it was quite in accordance with their notions of honesty that the rebel should enjoy the property of a loyalist, and this was the case with John Carey, the Keeper of Marybone Park, Mr. Stacey’s master. It is a curious fact that when Middlesex forest, in common with others, came to an end by KING Jo HN’s “Charter of Forests,” that one of the clauses in that docu- ment should stipulate (see Matthew Paris) that “no Forester or Bedell for the time to come should make any “Ale Shots.” BRAYLEY, in explanation, says:—“It was when an officer of the forest sold ale, causing men to spend their money for fear that he should inform against them.” William Stacey was an officer, and there is every probability when 5 he was alive he did sell “Ale Shots.” His Under-keepership must have been a lucrative post, for he seems to have acquired sufficient property in St. Giles’ to perpetuate his name by “Stacey Street.” PARTON, speaking of Tateshall, says:— Part of this antient mansion is still occupied (1822) as a public-house, called “The Adam and Eve.” Why its name was changed to the “Adam and Eve’ does not appear. It may have been because that sign was the arms of the Fruiterers’ Company, and the produce of the old garden or orchard supplied its customers with fruit. RICHARDsoN describes the place in 1819, and says:— The place had long been celebrated as a tea-garden; there was an organ in the long room, and the company was generally respectable, till the end of the last century, when highwaymen, footpads, pickpockets, and low women, beginning to take a fancy to it, the magistrates interfered. The organ was banished, and the gardens were dug up for the foundation of Eden Street. In these gardens Lunardi came down after his unsuccessful balloon ascent from the Artillery Ground, May 16, 1783. Hogarth has represented it in “The March of the Guards to Finchley.” Upon the signboard of which is inscribed “Tottenham Court Nursery.” 68 The Adam and Eve Tea Gardens. The aged ‘Cockneys’ now living, who were boys in the forties of the present century, can well remember the suburban places of resort which then fringed the metropolis, known as ‘Tea Gardens,’ where porter and spirits were dispensed to amorous couples, who seated themselves in leafy bowers, or rather wooden boxes, Con- nected together in such a way that they formed a large quad- rangle, from which they gazed on the sports or games that were held on the lawn for their amusement. To many of these places was attached a flower and fruit garden, an extra charge of three pence per head giving admission thereto, with the privilege of gathering a reasonable amount of its produce. - Tottenham Court Nursery was a place of this character, but its popularity was eclipsed by its more fashionable and attractive neighbour, Marybone Gardens. Tottenham Court, bereft of its ‘Nursery,’ changed its name to the ‘Adam and Eve Tea Gardens.’ and after a time, like places of a similar character, it sank into ill repute, and became simply a public house with a tarnished repu- tation; but the opening up of Tottenham Court Road to the north, the construction of the New Road, and the formation of the Regent's Park, placed the Adam and Eve in a commanding position in the new and busy neighbourhood, bringing such an increase of business to it as rapidly to enhance its value, insomuch that the wealth of its ancient owner, William de Tottenhall, would be barely sufficient to purchase now the freehold of the premises with the ‘goodwill’ of this fully-licensed house. This place must not be confounded with the Adam and Eve Tea Gardens by old St. Pancras Church, which flourished about the same period. Tottenham Court Road is but an echo of Tateshall; Blemundsbury is lost in Bloomsbury; the unchanging law of change brings all things to an end. All has its date below; the fatal hour Was register'd in heav'n ere time began. We turn to dust, and all our mightiest works Die too: the deep foundations that we lay, Time ploughs them up, and not a trace remains. We build with what we deem eternal rock: A distant age asks where the fabric stood; And in the dust, sifted and search'd in vain, The undiscoverable secret sleeps. (39 33lemunthaburn): Gºlje jielog of +lonut jicantet. HE Tower of Mont Ficquet or Montfitchette Castle was named after its owner—Le Sire Montficquet, a Norman baron, who erected it for the purpose of defence or attack as occasion served. The recently conquered citizens of London were loyal by compulsion, and the frowning fortress on the river bank kept them from open rebellion and made them peaceable against their will. The water-way was virtually under the control of the barons, who held the castles on the northern bank of the Thames. The grounds around Montfitchette Castle were known as Fitchette Fields, Ficquet Fields, Fikate’s Fields, Ficattes- fields, Thicket Fields, and lastly, a portion of this domain changed its name to Lincoln’s Inn and Lincoln’s Inn Fields. The Thames formed its southern boundary, the Fleet the eastern, and extending on the north and west to no clearly defined limits. Acting in conjunction with the Lord of Montfitchette, was the great and powerful Baron de Magnaville. His castle stood on the north side of this estate, on the crest of Holeburn Hill, and not only from the high land dominated London, but also commanded the great highway by “The Barres.” It was too important a position to remain un- fortified, and was tenaciously held by the various contending forces that struggled for supremacy, and who knew the advantages it gave to its possessors. It was an ancient Malakoff. The “Roman road” which ran by it on the north; the Danish encampment on the south, that has given the name to St. Clement Danes; and the great chiefs pre- viously mentioned, Siward and Hereward, all bear indisput- able testimony to the military importance of this little spot. 70 The Castle of Geoffrey de Magnaville. From the time when the Ancient Briton went to the battle- field armed with his weapons of flint, to the bow-and-arrow period (before the world had received the blessings of gun- powder), it was a position for defence and attack not to be despised, and gives probability to the tradition that here Dunwallo Molmutius, King of the Britons, and Mercia, Queen of the Britons, reigned and ruled in their fortified palace on Holeburn Hill. The tradition varies—SEYMoUR says:–“Molmutius Dunwallo, son of Cloton, Duke of Cornwall, having vanquished his competitors and estab- lished himself on the Throne, caused a temple to be erected, called The Temple of Peace, on or near the place where Blackwell-Hall, or as some will have it, St. Paul’s now stands.” He was looked upon as a “Law Giver,” and legions of his disciples, law expounders and law dispensers, are still to be found in this neighbourhood. The union between Magnaville and Montfitchette cannot now be clearly defined. Their interests appear to be identical, and family alliances “unregistered and unchronicled,” combined with numerous surnames and branches illegitimate, make it impossible, at this later time, to explain much that has happened in connection with the Lords of Ficquet Fields. Magnaville Castle, named after its owner, Geoffrey de Magnaville, a Norman chief, who accompanied the Conqueror into England, and, distinguishing himself by his bravery in the great and decisive battle, was rewarded by a grant of one-hundred-and-eighteen lordships, forty of which were in Essex. The manor of Easton, containing 2,290 acres, was one of them, being mentioned in the Domesday Survey as belonging to Geoffrey de Magna-ville, so called because it was situated in (Great) Essex, and of such great extent. Whether he was the ancestor of the Bellomonts or Ble- 71. munds, who were in after times the lords of Blemundsbury, cannot now be proved, but there is sufficient evidence to show that he was the owner of that great domain. Ellis, in his Domesday, says: “among the lands of Geoffrey de Mandeville (Magnaville) in Middlesex, in the Hundred of Ossulston, we find Eia entered in Domesday. Where Eia was situated is not mentioned, but in the Chartulary of Westminster the manor of Eia or Eye is described as at no great distance from St. Peter’s Church, and is therein stated to have been granted by Geoffrey de Magnaville to the abbot and convent of ‘Westmonaster,’ about the time of the ‘Domesday Survey.” . The manor of Eye was after- wards known as Eyebury, Aubery, then Ebury, and has given the title of Lord Ebury to the Grosvenors. - & It is to be noted that while Eia manor appears in Domesday, there is no record of “Aldewyche” or St. Giles’. Aldewyche, afterwards St. Giles’, was a settlement of the Middle Saxons, situated midway between Magnaville’s Castle and Magnaville's manor of Eia. Their lord, Geoffrey, pro- bably burnt the village of Aldewyche and took possession of the place, which seems to have been given him by the King, and at the time of the survey was unpeopled, deso- late, and nameless. All the intervening land between the rivers Fleet on the east and Tye Bourne on the west was held by Geoffrey de Magnaville, and large as this grant may appear, there is evidence that leads to the inference that Geoffrey de Magnaville had granted to him the whole of the county of Middlesex by William I., which is corro- borated by subsequent history. - The turbulent spirit of the Magnavilles led them to take part against the Crown, and were punished by the loss of the family inheritance; but the accession of Stephen placed them again in favour. The King, to secure the support of Geoffrey, the grandson, created him Earl of The Manor of Eia. 72 Blois Pond, Holeburn. Essex, and appointed him Keeper of the Tower, but kept in his own hands a great part of the possessions granted to his grandfather. Magnaville Castle seems now to have been known as Essex House, and adjoining thereto was the Bishop of Lincoln’s palace. * Alexander de Blois, Archdeacon of Salisbury and Chief Justice of England, had just succeeded Bishop Bloet and taken up his residence in Lincoln’s Inn, by the “Old Temple.” On the opposite side of the way was a pond, which afterwards bore his name—“Blois Pond.” Alexander de Blois, fearing the treachery of KING STEPHEN, erected a castle at Newark, and his uncle, the Bishop of Salisbury, followed his example. The feeling of mistrust thus created prompted Stephen to seize and imprison the two ecclesias- tical castle-builders, and they only obtained their release by surrendering their castles to the King. w The Church took up the quarrel, and Matilda, seizing the opportunity which the rising storm afforded, landed in England with Robert, Earl of Gloucester, and was received at Arundel Castle by William de Albini, who had married the Queen Dowager. The Knights Templars were barons, warriors, and priests, and they saw in the seizure of the bishops’ castles the preliminary step of the King to obtain possession of their strongholds. The King was defeated and taken prisoner, 1141. Matilda was crowned Queen of England. Geoffrey de Magnaville took up the cause of the Queen and as a reward, Noor THOUCK says:– Matilda granted to Geoffrey, Earl of Essex, all the posses- sions which his grandfather, father, or himself had held of the Crown, in lands, tenements, Castles, and bailiwicks; among which were the Tower of London and the Sheriffwicks of London and Middlesex, and a fee farm rent of 24,300 per annum, as held by his grandfather. She further granted to the said Geoffrey the office of Justiciary of the city and of the county of Middlesex; so that no person whatever could hold pleas either in the city or county without his special permission. 73 A civil war raged throughout England during 1142, when the Citizens of London took the part of Stephen and demanded his release, which he obtained in 1143. The tide of victory turned to the King; Matilda fled to Oxford, and Geoffrey de Magnaville was defeated and taken prisoner by Stephen at St. Albans, and could only regain his liberty by the surrender of his castles and estates. On his release, thirsting for revenge, he rallied his discomfited party, and laid siege to Burwell Castle, in Cambridgeshire, where he was mortally wounded by an arrow (1144). His body was arrayed by his friends, the Knights Templars, in the habit of their Order, and “home they brought their warrior dead " to the “Temple” in Holborn, but as he had died under excommunication, the body could not be buried. After being enveloped in lead, it was deposited in a crooked tree in the orchard. He was afterwards absolved by the Pope, it being proved that he expressed great penitence in his last moments; and his remains were interred in the church of the Old Temple, and subsequently removed to the New Temple by the Thames.—see page 49. Geoffrey de Magnaville and Robert de Bellomont reposed in the little churchyard of the Templars in Holborn, and their venerated remains were not allowed to be left to the rude treatment of the new tenants of their vacated premises. Essex House, or Magnaville Castle, passed into the hands of Stephen, and he, to make his triumph more com- plete, went and kept his Christmas at Lincoln, where he would put on his crown, notwithstanding it was foretold by a certain prophecy—“that great misfortune should befall the kings who shall appear in that city with their crowns on,” insomuch “that Henry II., having been crowned, was after- wards crowned at Wickford, a suburb of Lincoln, out of a prudent compliance with the superstitious people that he must not wear his crown in that city.” Death of Geoffrey de Magnaville. 6 € 74 Essex House by the Barres of Holeburn. Lincoln and Leicester were the central points of the great conspiracy, and the Christmas journey of the King to those fortified places, which had belonged to his defeated barons, emphasised his victory. Great changes have taken place in the interval. Robert de Chisney, called also Chesneto or Querceto, has succeeded Alexander de Blois as Bishop of Lincoln, and is at Lincoln House by “Ye Barres of Holeburn.” The reigns of Hen. II. and Richard I. have begun and ended; John is King; Mag- naville Castle is Essex House; the Magnavilles are now the Mandevilles; the family attainder has been reversed, and” the treason forgiven, especially the cowardice of Henry de Essex (Magnaville), Hereditary Standard-bearer of England, who, on a rumour that the King was slain, threw down the standard and fled. John “grants to Geoffrey Fitz-Peter de Mandeville, Earl of Essex, ‘Gueenhithe, London, paying yearly £30 to the King and 60s. to the lepers of St. Giles, London.”—Sept. 11th, 1207. He is Grand Master of the Templars, and by virtue of that office, Master of the Hos- pital for Lepers in St. Giles’, for that institution had not an independent existence. The 60s. secured on Queenhithe was the original endowment given to support the lepers by QUEEN MATILDA, and John respected it and preserved it. The Magnavilles, Earls of Essex, soon after by marriage were better known as Earls of Lincoln. Robert de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, died without issue, and the estate descended to his sister, Awbrey de Lacy. She married Richard Fitz- Eustace, and at his death the joint estates came to John de Lacy, who married Alice de Magnaville, also known as Alice de Vere. He died, 1179, leaving three sons—Roger, Richard, and Peter. Roger, the heir, assumed the name of Roger de Lacy, having dropped the family name of Magnaville. His enemies, who had suffered from his ferocity and cruelty, surnamed him Roger de Hell, and Man-Devil (Mandeville). 75 He married Maud de Clare, by whom he had one daughter and one son, John de Lacy, who succeeded to his possessions in 1213. The large estate of the Templars in Holborn John de Lacy seems by agreement to have been divided between John tº: Estate de Lacy and Geoffrey, son of Roger de Mandeville, who in Holeburn. had ingratiated himself into royal favour, and KING JoHN, relying on his support, made him Earl of Essex and Con- stable of the Tower. At his death, Geoffrey Fitzpiers Mandeville became Earl of Essex (1214), who in this year ‘succeeded to the title of the Earl of Gloucester, in right of his wife Isabel, daughter of William de Mellent, second Earl of Gloucester, but he, like his ancestors, quarrelled with the King, and John, in 1214, demanded of Geoffrey the delivery of the Tower of London, with the prison- ers, armour, and all other things found therein belong- ing to the King, to William, Archdeacon of Huntingdon. This led to his rebellion, and in 1215, he, with William de Mandeville and the Lacys, openly declared war against John. Their attainder followed, and Essex House, Holborn, again fell to the Crown. The quarrel came to an unexpected termination by the death of KING John and Geoffrey de Mandeville in the same year—1216. William de Mandeville succeeded to the title of the Earl of Essex. On the accession of Henry III., the barons, wearied with revolt, and the King, willing and desirous for peace, freely condoned and pardoned his rebellious lords, which they gladly accepted. The King, it is said, did not meet with any opposition but from William de Mandeville, Earl of Albemarle, Governor of Rockingham Castle, who, having set up for a petty sovereign, or rather a tyrant, took little or no notice of the orders sent from the Court. The King attacked and took the castle, when the Earl fled and fortified himself in his castle at Biham, in Lincolnshire, and set the King at 76 William de Mandeville and the Black Friars. defiance. As soon as he heard that the King, with a large army, were marching against him, he withdrew into the north. William de Mandeville had a friend at Court in the Archbishop of York, whose mediation with the King on his behalf, obtained for him a free pardon. “A fatal precedent,” says RAPIN, “which afterwards gave encourage- ment to other barons to commit the same crime without dread of punishment.” The King restored to him the Manor of Cockermouth in 1221. He is described as:— William de Mandeville, Earl of Essex, the second William de Fortibus, by right of his wife, Earl of Albemarle. He is some- times styled William le Gros, Earl of Albemarle. He became a great favourite at Court and was Lord Treasurer of England. The Monastery of the Dominicans or Black Friars, called Friars Preachers, which stood between St. George’s Gate and Tenter Meadow, in Stamford, Lincolnshire, was founded about the year 1220 by William de Fortibus, the second Earl of Albemarle, and doubtless the Monastery of the Black Friars in London was greatly aided by his instrumentality. He died, 8th of January, 1227, when the title of the Earl of Essex became extinct. The estate of the Mandevilles does not appear to have been given back by the Crown; a part of it had been dealt with before William de Mandeville made his peace with the King, who granted portions of it to the Preaching Fryers and the Bishops of Lincoln and Chichester, whereon the bishops built a costly and permanent episcopal Inn. Hitherto the Bishops of Lincoln had resided on the spot in the old buildings, by permission of the Templars. . John de Lacy, the great rebel, seems to have been better known as John of Hierusalem (Jerusalem). He mar- ried Margaret de Quincy, whose mother, Hawys (Hawise) was Countess of Lincoln in her own right, and John de Lacy thus became the Earl of Lincoln. He was one of the 77 twenty-five appointed to see the Magna Charta carried into execution, and on their cantoning the kingdom among them- selves, he had Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire allotted for his share. KING John subverted the barons by disgrace- fully giving the Crown to the See of Rome, and the wicked barons were then excommunicated by the Pope. The estate of John de Lacy, in Holborn, fell into the hands of the church, and this accounts for the numerous episcopal residences afterwards built thereon. John de Lacy sued for peace, which the King granted, and in a penitential spirit he took the cross and went to the Holy Land the following year, and gained the surname of John Hierusalem. He died, July 22nd, 1240. Now, under the changed condition of things, STow says: Ralph de Nova Villa, or Nevell, Bishop of Chichester, and Chancellor of England, sometime builded a Noble House, even from the ground, not far from the New Temple and House of Converts, in the which place, he deceased in the year 1244. (His gardens on the other side of the street, mentioned before). Matthew Paris called it the Bishop of Chichester's Palace (such, it seems, was the magnificence of it). STow.further adds:— The King granted to Ralph Nevil, Bishop of Chichester, Chancellor, that Place with the Garden, which John Herlinium forfeited in that Street, called New Street, over against the Land of the said Bishop, in the same Street, called New street, which Place, with the Garden, and Appurtenance was the King's Exchete, by the Liberty of the City of London, as it was acknow- ledged by the King, in his Court of the Tower of London, in the last Pleas of the Crown of that City. Cart ii Hen. III., 1217. At this period Hubert de Burgh seems to have entered into the possession of the mansion-house of the Mande- villes in Holborn. In 1219 he was made Chief Justiciary of England, and like his predecessor appears to have occupied the house by the old Temple as his official resi- dence. The Justiciary’s Court would naturally draw around The Bishop of Chichester’s Inn. 78 Hubert de Burgh and the Templars' Estate. it those members who were allowed to practice therein. If this be so, the ancient legal character attached to the immediate district furnishes a reason hitherto not known or suggested by those who have tried to account for the lawyers in Lincoln’s Inn. LANE, in his History of Lincoln’s Inn, says without reservation:-‘‘There does not seem to be any mention on record of any certain or flourishing estate of this college until the time of KING HENRY I.; when, as appears by the records of the house, it was a college fully established, domiciliating many famous professors and students of municipal law.” The close connection of Hubert de Burgh with the Templars’ estate is further illu- cidated by LANE:—“On the settlement of the Preaching Friars in Holborn they were materially aided by the bene- factions of the famous Hubert de Burgh and Margaret, widow of the Earl Marshal Geoffrey, both of whom were interred in Holborn; but they were afterwards removed to Ludgate,” the house of the Black Friars. There is a statement, in reference to this period, made by Sir George Buck:-that a part of Lincoln’s Inn “was of old the messuage or mansion-house of a gentleman called William de Haverhyll, Treasurer to KING HENRY III., who was attainted of treason, and his house and lands confiscated to the King, who then gave his house to Ralph Neville, Chancellor of England and Bishop of Chichester, and he built there a fair house for him and his successors, Bishops of Chichester, etc.” The question arises and has never been answered—Who was the “gentleman called William de Haverhyll”? He appears and disappears like Melchisedeck. The only explanation seems to be that William de Haverhyll and John Hierusalem were both Templars, belonged to the same family—the Mandevilles, and that John and William were attainted for treason and deprived of their estates. 79 It is on record that John Hierusalem was Sheriff of London in 1189, and William de Haverhyll was Sheriff the following year, 1190, and a Thomas de Haverhyll was Sheriff in 1203. PART.on says: “The name of Thomas Harvyle (Haverhyll) occurs as a witness in a great number of the hospital grants.” MoRANT, in his History and Antiquities of Essea, throws some light on William de Haverhyll. He states “that the village of Haverhill was situated in the lordship of Sturmere, which was part of the barony of Helion, which barony was given by QUEEN MAUD to Albini de Vere, the first Earl of Oxford. In KING HENRY III’s reign an extent was made of the lands of William, son of Roger, and of John, Chamberlain in Sturmere, which the King took into his own hands.” This unites in the same person William de Haverhyll of Holborn and William de Haverhyll of Essex, and suggests that he was William de Mandeville, the owner of the estates connected with the Old Temple, then known as Ficquet Fields. At the time of the grant to Chichester, another piece of land was carved out of the estate, as recorded by STow: On this west side of New Street or (Chancery Lane), towards the North end thereof was of old time the Church and House of the Preaching Fryers (New Street was not made at this time), of the which house I find that, in the year of Christ, 1221, the Fryers Preachers, thirteen in number, came into England, and having to their Prior one named Gilbert de Fraximento, who, in company of Peter de la Roche, Bishop of Winchester, came to Canterbury, where, presenting themselves before the Archbishop Steven, he commanded the said Prior to preach, whose Sermon he liked so well that ever after he loved that Order. These Fryers came to London and had their first House without the Wall of the City by Holborn. Hubert de Burgo, Earl of Kent, was a great Benefactor unto these Fryers, and deceasing at his Mannor at Bansted in Surrey, or after some Writers, at his Castle at Bark- hamstead in Hartfordshire, in the year 1242, was buried in their Hubert de Burgh and the Preaching Fryers. 80 The Preaching Fryers and the Holy Stone. Church, unto the which Church he had given his Place at Westminster, which the said Fryers afterward sold to Walter Gray, Archbishop of York, and he left it to his successors in that See, for ever to be their House, when they should repair to the City of London. And therefore the same was called York Place. In the year 1250, the Fryers of this Order of Preachers, through Christendome, and from Jerusalem, were by a convocation assembled together at this their house by Holborn, to entreat of their Estate, to the Number of 400, having Meat and Drink found them of Alms, because they had no Possessions of their own. The first Day the King came to their Chapter, found them Meat and Drink, and dined with them. Another Day the Queen found them Meat and Drink: Afterward the Bishop of London, then Abbots of Westminster, of St. Albans, Waltham, and others. STow omits “the reason why” all this royal liberality and patronage were bestowed upon them. These Preaching Fryers traded upon the superstitious ignorance of the times, and brought to England the marble stone whereon our Saviour stood at His Ascension, and which bore the marks of His Footsteps. This priceless gift was presented to the King, and he gave this “holy relic” or rather “dangerous white elephant” to the Abbey of Westminster. The Knights Templars had shortly before imported a more precious relic, having obtained, Anno 1247, “Letters Testimonials from the Patriarch of Jerusalem” of a relic which was no other than “the blood that issued from our Saviour’s side on the cross,” which they presented to the King on the day of his favourite Saint—Edward; “upon which solemn occasion, the King sent orders to the clergy of London to meet at the cathedral church of St. Paul and to bear crosses and wax tapers lighted, whither the King likewise came, and taking the vessel of crystal in which this holy treasure was contained, he carried it in a dish elevated above his forehead, being poorly habited, viz: barefoot, in a Cape without a Hood, and so proceeded, without resting, to the church of Westminster . . . . who 81 carried it first round the church, then round his palace, and lastly, offer'd it to St. Peter, and his favourite Saint— Edward. . . . . . This day the King made a splendid feast for the monks of this church in the refectory.” The Black Friars removed from the corner of Chancery Lane to the place now known by their name, as follows:— In 1276, Gregory Rokesby, Maior, and the Barons of London granted and gave to Robert Kilwarby, Archbishop of Canterbury, two Lanes or ways next the Street of Baynard's Castle, and the Tower of Mount-fichet, on the which Place the said Robert builded the late new church, with the rest of the Stones that were left of the said Tower. And thus the Black Fryers left their Church and House by Holborn and departed to their new. The building of the new monastery of the Black Friars does not seem to have been completed before 1285, when the old premises were vacated. They did not possess any freehold interest therein. The King gave it by Patent to Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln; the building being described as “The Old Friar House, juxta Holborn,” and called upon the Friars to confirm the same, which was a virtual renunciation of all claim to the premises they had lately occupied, which they did as under:- Know all men present, that we, brother William de Hothum, prior provincial of the Friars Preachers in England, and brother Nicholas, prior of the friars of the same order, dwelling in the city of London, and the convent of the same place, of our com- mon have demised and granted, and by this present deed have confirmed to the noble Lord, Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, all our place, and all our houses and our habitation nigh Holborn, where we before used to inhabit and reside, with all places there adjoining, and all their appurtenances; to have and to hold to the said Lord Henry, his heirs and assigns, freely, quietly, and peace- fully for ever. Doing therefore the secular service, due and accustomed to the lords of the fee, etc. In witness, etc., the 3rd of March, in the 14th year of KING EDWARD. No consideration-money being mentioned in the deed, makes it extremely probable that this estate was formerly ff Destruction of the Tower of Mount-fichet. Grant to Henry de Lacy of the Old Friary in Holborn. 82 The Old Bourne and the River of Wells. in the possession of the Earls of Lincoln, and lost by the rebellion and attainder of John de Lacy in the time of KING John. The name of Lacy is met with in connection with Blemundsbury long before this date. Stow says:- “He builded his Inn and for the most part was lodged there.” It fronted Holborn, opposite what is now the west side of Warwick Court, standing back from the highway, with a large forecourt between it and the Inn. This forecourt is very distinctly marked on the parish maps. The garden . extended westward to Great Turnstile, between Holborn and Ficquet’s Fields. At the side of the Inn was once a way l, from Garden Place to Chancery Lane, but before it was a “way,” it was a river, and washed the banks of Henry de Lacy’s garden. This river or stream fed a fish-pond or vivary in the garden. In a return by the Earl’s bailiff, 24 Edward I., there is an “expenditure of eight shillings in the purchase of small fish, frogs, and eels to feed the pikes.” This stream is mentioned in Strype's Stow : Oldborne or Holdborne, was the like water, breaking out about the Place where the Bars do stand, and it ran down the whole Street to Oldborne Bridge, and into the River of Wells, or Turnmill Brook. This Bourne was likewise (long since) stopped up at the Head, and in other Places, where the same hath broken out; but yet till this Day, the said Street is there called High Olborne Hill, and both the Sides thereof (together with all the Grounds adjoining, that lie betwixt it and the River of Thames) remain full of Springs, so that Water is there found at hand, and hard to be stopped in every House. It was the fouling of this stream by the Templars’ mills, that caused the following complaint:— In the year 1307, the 25th of Edward I., in a parliament at Carlisle, Henry Lacie, Earl of Lincoln, complained of annoyances done to the water of the Fleet; whereupon it was granted that the said mill should be removed and destroyed. * 83 And not only this noble Earl, but the Commoners of London, and especially the inhabitants of Holborn, were complainants and petitioners to the said parliament. And the annoyances they complained of were these: that the course of the water was stopp'd that run under the bridges of Holborn and the Fleet into the Thames, so that the vessels that used to come up to that part of the City, with goods and commodities, under Fleet Bridge, as far as Holborn Bridge, could not pass. The cause of which stoppage was not only the key belonging to the said mills, but the filth thrown in, &c., &c. This may more at large be understood by repeating the record of the same, viz.: “The petition of the Com- monalty of London, complaining that whereas the course of the water, which runs at London, under the bridge at Holborn, and the Bridge of the Fleet into the Thames, was wont to be so large and broad, and deep, that Io or 12 ships used to come up to the said Fleet Bridge, with divers things and merchandizes; and some of those ships went under the aforesaid Holborn Bridge. Now that course was obstructed by filth and inundation of Tanners, and by various other stoppages made in the said water; and chiefly by raising of the key, and by diverting of the water, which they of the New Temple had made for their mills without Baynard Castle, so that the same ships cannot come in as they were wont and ought to do. Whereupon the Commons pray that the Mayor taking with him the Sheriffs and the discreeter Aldermen, view the course of the water; that by the view and oath of honest and lawful men, he cause to remove all the annoyances of the said water which he shall find, and to repair the aforesaid course, and to maintain it in such a state wherein it was wont to be antiently.” To this it was answered thus: “Let Roger de Brabazon, and the Constable of the Tower of London, the Mayor and Sheriffs of London, be assigned, that they, taking with them certain discreeter Aldermen of London, induire by oath, &c., how it hath been wont to be, and what course; and let them remove the annoyances which they find, and cause it to be maintained in the same state wherein it was accustomed to be of old.” And this is further explained by King Edward I., his patent, An. 35, to Roger de Brabanzon, Ralph de Sandewye, and John le Bland, Mayor of the City, to this tenor: “Whereas by a com- plaint of some, we have heard, that the course of the water of The Earl of Lincoln and his Complaint in Parliament. 84 The Earl of Lincoln's Garden. Fleet under the bridge of Holbourn, running down to the Thames, as well by dung and manifold filth cast into the said water, as by the exaltation of a certain key, by the Master and Brethren of the New Temple, London, for their mills upon the Thames, near Castle Baignard, new made, is so stopp'd up and streightned, that boats with corn, wine, faggots, and other necessaries, cannot pass as they were wont, by the passage of the course of water, from the Thames to the said bridge; to the no little grievance and annoyance of the men that inhabit near the Fleet, and the neighbouring parts, etc.” STow further says:— About this Castle-lane was some time a mill, or mills, belong- ing to the Templars of the New Temple, as appears on record. For King John, in the first year of his reign, granted a place in the Fleet, near to Baynard's Castle, to make a mill; and the whole course of water of the Fleet, to serve the said mill. Also, in the year 1274, the 2nd of Edward I., Richard Raison and Atheline, his wife, did give to Nicho. de Musely, Clerk, Ios. yearly, free and quit-rent, out of all his tenements, with the houses and their appurtenances, which they had of the Demise of the Master and Brethren of Knights Templars in England, next to their mill of Fleet, over against the houses of Laurence de Brooke, in the Parish of St. Andrew, next to Baynard's Castle, Judging by a return of the Earl’s bailiff, the garden of Lincoln’s Inn must have been very productive, as it yielded in one year enough to realize, by sale of its produce, £910s. a sum now equal to £135. The Earl’s dining-table was probably covered with dust when this sale took place, on account of his absence from Holborn, and his bailiff, left in charge by the Earl’s authority, sold the fruits and vegetables to cover the household expenses. This suggestion is partly confirmed by the contra-account, mention being made in the return of the head gardener and numerous assistants, whose collective wages amounted to £5 per annum, and if the servants were boarded, there would not be much left for the Earl out of £9 10s. DUGDALE, writing of Henry de Lacy, remarks “that he assigned his residence to the professors of 85 the law.” The following account of Lincoln’s Inn shows that he had no power to assign. DUGDALE says: “Henry de Lacy died 1312.” STow states: “He deceased, 1310;” but 1312 appears to be correct, if WALsiNGHAM and RAPIN are to be trusted. It was in this year that the barons confederated against the King and his favourite, Gaveston. RAPIN says:– - The Earl of Lincoln was one of the most considerable of the Party, as well on account of his Birth and high Offices, as of his Age and Experience. As he was confined to his bed by a Fit of Sickness, which in all Appearance would lay him in his Grave, he was apprehensive that after his Death the Confederates would grow cool, and was willing to endeavour to prevent that Accident, which would have caused their Ruin. To this End, having sent for the Earl of Lancaster, his Son-in-law, Grandson to Henry III., he conjured him, in the strongest and most moving Terms, not to abandon the Church and People of England to the Mercy of the Popes and Kings, Thus passed away Henry de Lacy, “the last and greatest of his race.” The bishops and the barons crowded the chambers of Lincoln’s Inn and joined in the funeral procession to St. Paul’s, the Earl’s last resting-place. A noble monument was erected to his memory, and destroyed when the cathedral succumbed to the flames that enwrapt it in the great conflagration of London. His death-bed advice (previously narrated) was followed, and Lincoln’s Inn again was forfeited and became the possession of Edward II. The marriage of Henry de Lacy with the heiress of the wealthy family of Longspee, had probably something to do with the partial restoration to him of the estate in Holborn. His bride was the daughter of William Longspee, first Earl of Salisbury, eldest natural son of Henry II, by fair Rosamond. Henry de Lacy, in her right, became Earl of Salisbury. By this marriage he had two sons and one daughter. Both sons came to an untimely end; one fell from a tower at Death of Henry de Lacy. 86 Alice de Lacy marries Thomas, Earl of Lancaster. The Suppression of the Knights Templars. Pontefract Castle, and the other was drowned in a draw-well of the Red Tower of Denbigh. Being without sons, he surrendered his estates to the King, who re-granted them to him for life, 28th December, 1294, with remainder to Edmund, Earl of Iancaster. This was the outcome of a marriage settlement, when Alice, only daughter of Henry de Lacy, became the wife of Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, surnamed Plantagenet, son of Edmund. This event took place on the eve of the coming struggle between the houses of Lancaster and York. Henry de Lacy died at a grave crisis. The Pope had resolved to crush the Templars, and Lacy saw, in the foreign conspiracy against that order, the ruin of his family, his friends, and his country. The Knights, on false charges, were confined in prisons in London, Lincoln, and York. . Commissioners were appointed to try them, consisting (with others) of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York; the Bishops of London, Chichester, and Lincoln. All were ecclesiastics and the majority had something to gain by the destruction of the Templars. The Bishop of Lincoln, John de Alderby, must have stood by the bedside of his friend and neighbour, the Earl of Lincoln, and listened to the dying injunction that fell from the lips of Henry de Lacy. He was an unwilling Commissioner and destitute of that courage which makes a hero; he did not attend the Council to support the right, but prudently stayed away. On the 18th of March, 1309, he wrote to his fellow commissioners, from the Old Temple in Holborn, “excusing his absence from their meeting in London, convened for the purpose of making out an inventory of the Templars’ goods, to be forwarded to the Pope, because he was obliged to be in Lincoln to conduct an examination of Templars there.” This was most fortunate for Bishop de Alderby, as he was at that time enjoying “the goods of the Templars.” At the 87 beginning of October, 1809, Bishop de Alderby sent to his brother commissioners what is entered in his register under the title “Excusatio,” as follows:– * To the venerable fathers in Christ, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Bishops of London and Chichester, to the Abbot of Lagny, of the Diocese of Paris, to Master Sicard de Vaur, Canon of Nar- bonne, John by Divine permission Bishop of Lincoln, greeting. Occupied as I am in many ways by the arduous affairs of our Church, and by the pressing needs thereof, which cannot be avoided, and hindered by the infirmities of the Body of Christ, I cannot perform the Apostolic commands with that assiduity which I could wish. Wherefore, though being ready to attend to the Inquisition against the persons and the Order of the Militia of the Temple, committed to you and to me by the Apostolic See, when I can, I desire our kindness to excuse my absense whenever I am unable to come. Similar excuses appear in the Register during the years 1310–1311. The sentence of condemnation and confiscation was passed by the Provincial Synod of Canterbury in July, 1311. The Bishop of Lincoln agreed with the report sent to the Pope, and stated “that he had been able to inves- tigate the matter but little, but that he must be held to concur in the reports of his colleagues.” The stirring events of the time snatched the plunder of the Templars from the grasp of the Pope and gave a portion to a kindred order—The Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem. The Templars, if obedient to the confiscatory decree of the Church, were to be provided for—“For which the Lord King of England has granted for each person fourpence per day.” For this generous allowance, the remainder of their possessions escheated to the Crown. The Earl of Pembroke obtained possession of a portion of their estates in 1313, by grant from the King, but the Earl of Lancaster claiming it as immediate lord of the fee, and as part of his Honour of Leicester, it was surrendered to 88 Robert of Canterbury and the Leper Hospital of St. Giles. him. On his attainder it reverted back to Pembroke, and at his death, his estates were attainted and fell to the Crown, who gave them to the younger Despenser; he in turn was attainted, and in 1324, by an Order of Council, all the possessions of the Templars were granted to the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. The Decree of Confiscation in 1309 was given to Robert, by Divine permission Archbishop of Canterbury. LAMBARD, of Lincoln’s Inne, Gent., speaks of him as:— “Robertus de Winchelsey, a notable traitour to the King, and true servant to the Pope.” Here again is manifest the connection between the two hospitals of the Templars and the Lepers. This Robert of Canterbury appealed to the King against the brethren of the Hospital for Lepers opposing his claim to visitation, and the King most un- wisely and unjustly supported his claim, for until now the hospital had been under the government of the Templars, with the sanction of the Crown. The King issued a mandate, strangely inconsistent, as follows:— To His beloved and faithful Walter de Gloucester, Roger de Mathcote, and John de Foxelyere, greeting.—On the complaint of brother John Cryspin, Keeper of the hospital of St. Giles, without London, we do allow, that whereas the said hospital, from its foundation, existed of us, so the same was clearly and in all respects exempted from all ordinary jurisdiction, insomuch that no one might or did assume the right of visiting the same, or exercising therein any sort of control, until of late certain evil-doers forcibly seized possession of the said hospital and the gates thereof, and held the same by force and arms against Robert, Archbishop of Canterbury, who, coming to visit as an official duty the same hospital, was prevented and shut out, to our prejudice, and certain Papal letters, writings, charters, and other muniments were taken away, and outrages committed in contempt of us and against our peace, we have assigned you our justices to enquire thereof— EDWARD I, 89 These events make the lists of PART.on and NICHOLs incorrect—see page 42. Robertus de Winchelsey died in 1311 and Edward I. in 1307. John Cryspin was specially appointed by the Church to inaugurate a new system without the consent of the hospital authorities, and was created Nominal Master in 1306; the names in NICHOLs’ list being only Deputies or Under-Masters; and the assertion of rights by the Pope against the King was no new thing in early English history. The garden of Lincoln’s Inn was enclosed by a paling and fosse. The paling must have been close in the days when wire netting was unknown and rabbits were numerous, for adjoining this garden was the “Coney-garth” or enclo- sed place for rabbits, and it is very possible its ownership was vested in the Earl of Lincoln. It seems to have been fenced in along the entire length of “Ficquet’s Fields” on the south side. This warren was a new institution, and ELLIs, in his Early English Poets illustrates, in a remark- able way, the origin of the Coney-garth, as follows:—“From 1280 to 1480 the strange practice of sleeping naked pre- vailed at a time when the day dress of both sexes was much warmer than at present, being generally bordered and often lined with furs, insomuch that numberless warrens were established in the neighbourhood of London for the purpose of supplying its inhabitants with the skins.” This custom is often alluded to by CHAUCER, Gower, LYDGATE, and all our ancient writers. In the Squire of Low Degree there is a curious instance;— She toge that Iabpe bere, SJIg take leabe of that 34mpte, 3All 30 taken agghe tuag born She gtool her chamber boot befor’tt. In the 35th of Henry III. Edmund de Lacy obtained a charter for free warren in all his demesnes, which gave to the lord of the manor an exclusive right to kill game Ficquet's Fields and the Coney-garth. 9.9 90 15xecution of Thomas, Earl of Lancaster and Lincoln. therein. MAN wood says that — “the hare, the coney, the pheasant, and the partridge were beasts and fowls of warren.” Lacy died in the life-time of his mother, and never assumed the title of Earl of Lincoln. The great Henry de Lacy, as heir, succeeded to his estates. Thomas Planta- genet, Earl of Lincoln and Lancaster, Lord of Pontefract, succeeded him, but rebelling against Edward II. was taken prisoner and confined in Swillington Tower, in his own Castle of Pontefract, then executed outside its walls on the hill, falling an early victim in the direful quarrel known as “the Wars of the Roses.” Another account says: Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, cousin german to the King and first prince of the blood, was by far the most opulent and powerful subject in England, and possessed in his own right and in that of his wife, heiress of the family of Lincoln, six earldoms. The high office of Hereditary Steward was conferred on Lancaster and he became Thomas de Spencer. His father-in-law, Henry de Lacy, was bought off by concessions; the Earl of Warwick was also arranged with. King Edward II., Smarting with the indignity and ingratitude he had received from Lancaster, indulged his revenge and ordered him to be clothed as a serf, and to ride on a broken-down horse, without a bridle, with a hood upon his head, through a jeering crowd to the hill of Pontefract, where his castle stood, and there to be beheaded. March 23rd, 1322. So perished the proud possessor of Lincoln’s Inn. The mansion-house was left deserted and desolate during the remainder of the reign of Edward II., and on the accession of Edward III., 1327, great changes took place. HUME says— The violent party, which had taken arms against Edward II. and finally deposed that unfortunate monarch, deemed it requisite for their future security, to pay So far an exterior obeisance to the law, as to desire a parliamentary indemnity for all their illegal proceedings; on account of the necessity which, it was pretended, they lay under, of employing force against the Spensers and other evil counsellors, enemies of the kingdom. All the attainders also, which had passed against the Earl of Lancaster, and his 91 adherents, when the chance of war turned against them, were easily reversed during the triumph of their party; and the Spensers, whose former attainder had been reversed by parliament, were now again, in this change of fortune, Condemned by the votes of their enemies. The palace of the Bishop of Chichester stood close by on the opposite side of Chancery Lane, and that great and powerful prelate, by his influence with the King, obtained permission to occupy Lincoln’s Inn as a school or college for apprentices to the law, and Lincoln’s Inn became Lin- coln Academy or School in connection with Chichester House. Frequent mention is made in history of these young gentlemen, who amused themselves with hunting the rabbits in the Coney-garth and killing them with bows and arrows. Penalties for so doing were enforced by Acts of Parliament in the 8th of Edward IV., 12th of Henry VII., and 24th of Henry VIII. These statutes prove the conti- nuous occupation of Lincoln’s Inn, by students of the law, from the reign of Edward II. to Henry VIII., and all that time under the supervision of the Bishop of Chichester. If the reader will turn to page 250 he will see how Lincoln’s Inn fell into the hands of the King, and whatever the claim of Sir Thomas Lovell might have been, Lincoln’s ” and at one time Inn “to the last penny, 'tis the King’s, probably it was His Most Gracious Majesty’s intention to have granted it to Sir Thomas Lovell, as the next heir; but good intentions, when delayed, are seldom carried out, and in this case the King’s sister, most unfortunately for Lovell, intervened. Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, the royal favourite, had married her, and in consequence thereof a domestic event occurred at Bath Place, on the 11th of May, 1516, when Mary, late Queen of France, but now Duchess of Suffolk, gave birth to a son. The King had anticipated the event by a “grant to Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk and his heirs, the possessions forfeited by Lincoln's Inn and the Bishop of Chichester. Birth of the Earl of Lincoln. 92 Death of the Earl of Lincoln. Edmund de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, and John, Earl of Lincoln, with the reversion of the possessions now held by Queen Catherine and Margaret, Countess of Suffolk, for life. This grant not to extend to the manors of Eweline Oxon., and Wardelham, Hants., etc.” 1st February, 1516. The King was at the christening, and if it had been his own child, the ceremony and the feast could not have been surpassed in magnificence and extravagance. The King named his sister’s child like a good godfather after himself —“Henry,” and the infant was created Earl of Lincoln. What different lots our stars accordſ This babe to be hail'd and woo'd as a Lord! And that to be shunn’d like a leper! One, to the world's wine, honey, and corn, Another, like Colohester native, born To its vinegar, only, and pepper. Gold' still gold it rain’d on the nurse, Who, unlike Danáe, was none the worse; There was nothing but guineas glistening! Fifty were given to Doctor James, For calling the little baby names, And for saying, Amen The Clerk had ten, And that was the end of the Christening.—HooD. The happy mother, according to HERBERT, “brought with her from France to England, jewels, plate, and tapestry to the value of two hundred thousand crowns; amongst which was a great diamond, called “Le Miroir de Naples,” which Francis would fain have redeemed at a great price. Mrs. Ann Bollen staid behind in the French Court.” DU GDALE gives the finishing touch :—“Charles Bran- don, Duke of Suffolk, lies buried in St. George's Chapel, at Windsor, by the door of the quire, near the place where Henry VI. is interred. He had four wives. His third was Mary, daughter of Henry VII. and widow of Lewis XII. of France. He had a son by her, who died before him, and two daughters. His two other sons, by his last wife, died without issue, 5th Edward VI.” 03 Lord Dacre writes to Lady Dacre informing her that “yesterday morning died the Earl of Lincoln, my lord of Suffolk’s son and heir. He has no more sons.—1534.” The Duke of Suffolk died in 1545, thus leaving the King free to deal with the Lincoln property, and one of the last acts of his life was the granting of what was left of the Lincoln estate in London to the newly-founded hospital of St. Bartholomew, in Smithfield, on the 13th of January, 1547. This long tenure of Lincoln's Inn was not sufficient to prevent Henry VIII. disputing the Bishop’s right of possession. At that time Robert Sherborne was Bishop of Chichester and Master of Lincoln’s Inn. He had no title but that of undisputed possession by sufferance. Sir Tho- mas Lovell claimed it as heir of the Earls of Lincoln and so far enforced his claim that it is said “he built at his own cost the present gate-house in Chancery Lane.” Robert Sherborne knew the uncertain tenure of his holding. He saw old venerated institutions passing from the church to the laity at the will of the King, without any recognition of the rights of the occupiers to compensation. The King had asserted his right of ownership by certain acts which Chichester considered destroyed his vested interests. He saw that the time had come when Lincoln’s Inn might pass from the Church to the Crown as in old times it had passed from the Crown to the Church. The sands of his life were fast running out, for he had reached the age of ninety-six, and he sought to preserve Lincoln’s Inn as an appurtenant to the See of Chichester by leasing it for ninety-nine years, as follows:— Now this Indenture witnesseth that Robert, Bishop of Chi- chester, hath demised unto William Suliard, Esq., All that great messuage called Lincoln's Inn, with the courts, curtilages, orchards, and gardens, with a certain way through the gate, called Field Lease of Lincoln's Inn— Tobert of Chichester to William Suliard. 94. Sale of Lincoln's Inn— Suliard to Kingsmill. …” Gate, opposite the House of Converts, commonly called the Rolls, that is to say, from the common street, called Fickett's Field, and so directly to the messuage aforesaid, to carry and recarry by the same way, with horses, carts, and carriages, at all times of the year, to hold the same from the Feast of St. Michael the Arch- angel last past for the term of 99 years, at the yearly rent of ten marks. December 6th, 1535. This lease was duly ratified and confirmed by the Dean and Chapter of Chichester. On the completion of this deed Bishop Sherborne resigned his See and was succeeded by Richard Sampson. The King did not intend that the new society—the Benchers of Lincoln’s Inn—should be under the control of the Bishops of Chichester, and the compliant Richard Sampson, at the King’s request, surren- dered by a “Deed Poll, under the seal of the said Bishop, to William Suliard, Esqr. and Eustace Suliard, one of the Gentlemen Ushers of the chamber of the King, all the premises described in the before-mentioned lease to hold to them, their heirs and assigns for ever of the capital Lords of the Fee thereof, by the service therefore before due and of right accustomed, that is to say, of the Ilord, the Prior of St. John of Jerusalem in England and his successors by fealty only, in lieu of all services.” July 1st, 1536. Ex-Bishop Sherborne died on the 21st August, 1536. It was now Suliard’s Inn and remained so until about 1580, when Edward Suliard sold the Fee to Richard Kingsmill, who acted for the Benchers, to whom it was conveyed for £520. Richard Kingsmill was Surveyor of the Court of Wards, and left as his heir his daughter Constance, who married Thomas Lucy, of Charlecote, Warwickshire. The old lease from Bishop Sherborne was doubtless recited in the conveyance and placed amongst the title deeds as a document null and void, and there it rested in quiet security in the muniment-room until nearly the time of its expiration, mentioned therein, when, to the surprise of all 95 concerned, Bishop Montague of Chichester claimed Lincoln's Inn at the termination of the lease, on the ground that the conveyance of 1536 was not good in law, and therefore the property demised reverted to the See of Chichester on the expiration of the lease. The bishop's statement of claim was prepared for the information of (Archbishop) Laud, who looked upon it with a favourable eye and endorsed it as having been this day received from Bishop Montague. September 12th, 1634. Annexed to it was a “Copy of a Writ of Recovery from the King to the Escheator of the counties of Surrey and Sussex; for restitution of tempora- lities of the See of Chichester to Richard Sampson, Dean of the King’s chapel, elected Bishop of that See on the resignation of Robert Sherborne, the last bishop. West- minster, July 4th, 28th Henry VIII. In the copy there is a mistake in the date—“tricessimo octavo” instead of “vicessimo octavo” for the regnal year. Before the commencement of his suit, Bishop Montague had taken the precaution of writing to Secretary Winde- banke, as follows:— Will be short for the Secretary’s occasions are urgent, and the Bishop's gout (a new disease) is violent, about his Chancery Lane business. Has written to the Bishop of London, who will acquaint the Secretary therewith. The Lord Treasurer must also be privy to it. Windebanke and the Bishop of London must be the writer's directors. Aldingbourne House, August 5th, 1633. All this back-stairs influence was of no avail. The Bishop's barefaced scheme deservedly failed and added to the growing unpopularity of church and state. The building of the gate-house of Lincoln’s Inn by Sir Thomas Lovell in 1518–previously mentioned—is open to question. Lovell was Treasurer to Henry VII. and doubtless was entrusted with the financial operations of the young King Henry VIII. The new gate-house involved the entire reconstruction of Lincoln’s Inn. Before this time the Claim of the Bishop of Chichester to Lincoln's Inn. 96 The building of the Antelope Inn. carriage entrance to it was from Holborn, and not by way of Chancery Lane. The new approach became necessary in consequence of the forecourt in Holborn being built over, which not only prevented access to the Inn, but blocked up the ancient lights that looked over the fields of Portpole. The new structure marked a fresh building line along the south side of Holborn and was erected for the purpose of a licensed Inn to accommodate the gentry who visited London. It was of considerable extent and extended westward from Chancery Lane to Gridiron Court, which in after years formed the boundary line of the parishes of St. Andrew, Holborn, and St. Giles’ in the Fields. It is no longer a thoroughfare, but the passage in Holborn still remains and is known as Fenwick Buildings. The date of the building of this Inn is fixed by its sign. The badge of Henry VIII. was an Antelope, and as a mark of loyalty to the King the building was designated “The Antelope Inn.” All these extensive building operations were completed before the Bishop of Chichester granted a lease to Suliard, and this fact suggests that Sir Thomas Lovell had made a claim to the inheritance of the Lacys, being supported and assisted by his royal patron, Henry VII., and that this costly work was begun in his reign and completed in the time of Henry VIII., whose arms, placed between those of Lacy and Lovell, indicating ownership, still remain over the gate-house entrance in Chancery Lane, while the arms of the Bishops of Chichester, who had occupied the Inn for centuries, found no place there. Lovell’s right to the Lincoln estate receives further confirmation in the fact that he had possession of the land on the south side of Ficquet Fields, then known as the Coney-garth, which enclosure he de- stroyed by utilizing the soil, for it is said “the buildings were constructed with the bricks dug from the Coney-garth.” STow, speaking of Sir Thomas Lovell, says:— 97 He caused the Lacie's Arms to be cast and wrought in lead on the Lover of the hall of that house, which was in three escut- cheons, a Lion rampant for Lacie's, seven Mascules voided for Quincie, and three Wheat Sheaves for Chester. This Lover being of late repaired, the said escutcheons were left out. Lincoln’s Inn was also known as Chester Inn, the Earls of Lincoln being Earls of Chester. In STow’s first edition, Lincoln’s Inn is mentioned as situated in “Oldborne.” This would be correct before the building of the Antelope Inn; but in a later edition Lincoln's Inn is also correctly described as being in “Chan- cery Lane, by the Old Temple.” Mention is made of the newly-built “Lincoln’s Inn” in the following letter from John Miles to Thomas Cromwell, Secretary of State:— I have showed my Lord of Arundel your goodness to him by your reports to the King of his service in moving the King for the ‘Cup of Gold’ he claims to have at the Queen's coronation (Anne Boleyn), to which the King agrees. I told him it was your pleasure I should receive the cup, as you told me at Chertsey, I have therefore desired John Kyrby and John Hultoft to put you in mind of the making thereof, and when made, to be delivered to my son, in Lincoln's Inn, who will give a receipt. If I bring the cup to my Lord of Arundel I think to obtain my purpose. Written from Hampton. Ist June, 1533. Amongst various grants, published by the Court of Common Council (London), this one was given:— Also all that our messuage and tenement or Inn, called the Antelope, with the appurtenances now or late in the tenure of William Bawbye, in the parish of St. Andrew in Holborn, in our said county of Middlesex, near London. In the same deed there are certain reservations, one of which is:— * Except always, nevertheless, and to us our heirs and success- ors at all times reserved, all those messuages, houses, tenements, and hereditaments called Crokehorne Alley, or by whatsoever other name or names esteemed or known, and all gardens and void h h Lincoln's Inn and the Cup of Gold. 98 The Petition of William Price. lands to the same belonging and appertaining, situate lying and being in the parish of St. Andrew in Holborn, in the county of Middlesex (to wit), between the messuage and tenement commonly called Davis Inn on the east part, and the tenement now or late of Thomas Trappes goldsmith of London on the west part, and a certain parcel of waste land on the south part, and the way of Holborn on the north part. The author of The History of Sign Boards says:—“The Antelope is not very common now, although in 1664 there was a tavern with this sign in West Smithfield, the trade token of this house bearing the following legend:—“BIBIs VINUM SALUTA ANTELoP.” The “Antelope” is mentioned by PARTON, who, quoting from the minutes of St. Giles' Vestry, says:–“In 1605 a brick wall was appointed to be set up by the line from the new wall near the north gate leading to the walks, to the new wall towards the “Antelope;” and £60 was allowed for the same. This encloses the Long Walk.” The Antelope Inn was pulled down about 1637, as shown by the following: Petition of William Price, one of the Grooms of the Chamber, to the Council. The offence of petitioner was for building houses on new foundations. He explains that at his marriage he settled upon his wife an old ruinous Inn called the Antelope, in Holborn, with an undertaking to rebuild it. The premises were no longer suitable for an Inn, the hospital (St. Bartholomew's) having let the stables to another tenant; he therefore built six new houses on the site, in a fair broad street, an eminent place and fit for habitation, fourteen rooms a-piece, fit for persons of quality by means of which he has quit the parts adjoining, especially the garden of Lincoln's Inn, that lieth close thereunto, with a brick wall only, between divers great annoyances. Being upon former foundations he conceived not that these buildings came within the order of the Lords, and afterwards stayed the work, and endeavoured to present a petition for allowance thereof, but was hindered by cir- cumstances here stated. His buildings and the loss of 24.8oo by the deceit of Massey, a Scrivener, who had run away and involved him in 24, 3,000 debt, wherefore he prayed that on payment of a fine he might dispose of his house, 1637. 99 By an Order of the Board, Sir William Becher and Sir Dudley Carleton were required to treat with petitioner and Nicho- las Hudson, concerning the reuniting of certain new buildings in Holborn, which were heretofore one, and if they could not settle the business to that effect, to certify in whom the fault is. Pray that the Order and Certificate of the Referee may be read and a course taken for ending the business. 24th March, 1636-7. Order of Council.—Having considered the petition of Wil- liam Pryce, touching certain new buildings at the Antelope in Holborn, and the reasons which occasioned Price to erect the same, and likewise the petition of Nicholas Hudson, Shoemaker, and a Certificate from the Commissioners for buildings concerning certain other buildings, begun by him to be built, where about twenty years since, part of the stables of the Antelope Inn in Holborn stood; and calling to mind an Order of the 3rd of March, 1637, that Pryce's buildings be reduced into one single house, it was ordered, that the former order be confirmed, and that Hudson's house be reduced to stables as heretofore they were for the use of the said house, heretofore an Inn, and that the Governors of St. Bartholomew's be required to take such course that all the buildings be reunited into one tenement, and if the Governors shall vary in anything the Lords will take order that the Orders of the Board and his Majesty's Proclamation may be obeyed. 1637. George Weatherhead also got into trouble over this property and he petitions Thomas, Earl of Arundel, the Earl Marshal, and Edward, Earl of Dorset, Lord Cham- berlain to the Queen, in which he says that:— Petitioner in January last took a lease of an old stable, having been so employed above fifty years. The stable having of late time been let for a few months to a joiner, divers malicious persons seek to prove it a petty “Oastrie” which they cannot do, petitioner living in a very eminent house in Chancery Lane, near his stables, for which he pays 4.48 rent to Sir Robert Rich, and is able to furnish a dozen beds, and to give security for goods of gentlemen that shall lodge in the house. Prays that he may not be troubled about the stables, or that the view thereof may be referred to Sir Henry Spiller and Laurence Whitaker, Commis- sioners for Buildings. 1637. 100 Another document, anterior to this, shows the changes that were taking place in this neighbourhood:— Grant by John Higden, S.T.P., of Wolsey's College, Oxford, to the King. All that messuage in Chanceler Lane in the suburbs of London, lying between the messuage in the tenure of the Six Clerks on the north, and Ballard's Lane on the south, and abutting on the highway called Chanceler Lane on the east, and the field called “Thicket-field” on the west, as held by the dean and canons of the gift of Sir William Weston, Prior of St. John's, Dated in the College Chapel, January 15th, 1530. This grant was confirmed and extended the following year in the shape of a Possessory Order to:— Sir William Poulet, Christopher Hales, Attorney General, Baldwin Mallet, and Thomas Cromwell, to hold for the King's use, the manor of Hampton Court, Middlesex, with the advowson of the prebend of Blewbery in Salisbury Cathedral, and a messuage in the tenure of the Six Clerks on the north and Ballard's Lane on the south, and abutting on Chancery Lane on the east and ‘Fyckebethfeld’ to the west. Brabazon to enter in the King's name and deliver up possession to him. 1531. Another grant by way of Mortmain License to Sir William Weston, Prior of St. Bartholomew, West Smith- field, gave the said Prior “a clause of destraint on 200 acres of meadow, now in the tenure and occupation of John Hyde and John Butler, commonly called Blomesbury, and on all other lands in the parishes of St. Gyles in the Fields and St. Pancras, Middlesex.” 23rd July, 1531. This is an instance of the corruption of the name Blemundsbury to Blomesbury, which in after years was again corrupted from Blomesbury to Bloomsbury. PEN- NANT, speaking of this district, says:—“Bloomsbury, the antient manor of Lomesbury, in which our kings in early times had their stables: all the space is at present covered with handsome streets and a fine square.” This statement has been frequently denied on the ground that the King's Mewes in old times were situated near Charing Cross. The royal stables in Lomesbury evidently mark an earlier period, BLOTT'S CHRONICLE OF BLEMUNDSBURY. (?/an ofAzzco/zzy Zzzzz-zn Z323. § | §§ A/o/öorzz J't afe | **** * Z.Z.4%%.” * º w - º - 2 ºzzº • - - tº Z 2 #3% , a - - º- - ºf . g Yºº ºr---- T-- - - - - 4%: * * . . . . e. - - - -T - 7+. - - - - - - , , --'ºZºº. º [. sº 2. • tº e - - - - - , - w * * A - - - - - - - 2,... , , a : sº, º – ~~. F.7. --- ‘. . . ; * , , a " ſº : - - - — `- - a . * º º • " T - - - - 2%H e - - - - - º,” . G º T-" - sº , 2/4% . . * :- - - N , 4 "º * - - -" - - º s = --Sº .2/. % ; : t - - Z % , g * % % t º %,”? 1 t ºff . 2 /Zºº " º % : • : - * * * - t •rº - *A º %2/7% % - l º ºž º º à % Z,” & ** * * *-7 - - - 22 º - ozº Audiº tº : S t Sº : S. S. . º .# Wºº. S * . Court & T. Cozn. 2 sº ºf º . .2% = 2 * * Zºº f O - Cz// º żº → ~ Lº– ID ( == º $º J Tº gº 3. º.. ; Hºt º : & -º% ~ ºv : º2.• 't- º º- . *%-. # & ſº : : -º º É º § º 3. º 1()] when Charing Cross was undrained marshy land. The Lomesbury and evidence in favour of the “Lomesbury Stables” is supplied Tottenhalſ. by the fact that the Aula Regis or King’s Court was held at Tottenhall, which Tottenhall was situated in Blemunds- bury (Blomesbury, Lomesbury). See page 51. PART on says:—“Till the beginning of Elizabeth (1558) the enclosure which encompassed the buildings of Lincoln’s Inn and separated them from Chancery Lane on the east side, and from Fickett’s Fields on the west side, was merely an embankment of clay.” This is not correct as regards the east side, but quite true in reference to the division from “Fickett’s Fields,” as a great part of that embankment still remains, and before the building of Lincoln’s Inn Hall, formed “The Terrace Walk.” ELLIs, in his Letters, recounts a practical protest of the gentlemen of Lincoln’s Inn, as under:— On Monday, in the evening, a meeting of diverse gentlemen of Lincoln's Inn, throwing “Brickbattes” at a new-built house at the lower end of their garden, towards Holborn, because the owner had turned his house of office that waye, one out of the house discharged haile shot upon Mr. Attornie's sonne's face, which, though by good chance it mist his eyes, yet it pitifully mangled his visage.—September 28th, 1632. These “diverse gentlemen” were given to practical joking, which was not appreciated by Mr. Stephen Hozyer and his friend, John Skelton. They jointly filed against them the following:— Information of Stephen Hozyer, picture cleaner, a retainer of the Earl of Northumberland, and of John Skelton of Chancery Lane, drinking a pint of wine with a friend, Mr. Anthony Collwich, on Friday evening, 3rd. of July 1640; Mr. William Rochester, a counsellor at law being also with them, six young gentlemen being in the next room, one of them, without any provocation threw over a glass of liquor on Skelton's head, who desired them to forbear; and he was no sooner sat down again than another glass was thrown over on Mr. Rochester. Whereupon they 102 Hozyer & Skelton 7) John Glanville. entreated them in the civilest manner possible to be quiet. But two or three fell on Mr. Hozyer, and Skelton, seeing him beaten, tried to part them, and desired them not to use violence, for Mr. Hozyer belonged to the Earl of Northumberland. One of them, a tall black man, answered that he cared not for him, and if he were there himself, they would jump on him. Then they called for a bottle of canary, and one of them, Mr. Glanville, drank a glass to Mr. Hozyer, using these words:–“Here's a health to the confusion of his Grace of Canterbury,” which went round, and they compelled informants to drink it, for had they refused, they believed they would have done them some mischief. Then they took Mr. Hozyer's cloak and gave it to the vintner's wife for the reckoning, who has it still; and took all things out of his pocket, and a bill of 24, 300 accounts they keep still. Then they brought him to the pump, and one of them pumping some water into his hand said:—“Faith, we must have it again,” meaning the former health, and all drank it, expostulating with him for being so scrupulous to drink it. Then they all beat him so he has kept his bed seven days, and is yet very sore. Informants believe them all to be gentlemen of Lincoln's Inn, but they are certain Mr. Glan- ville and Mr. Morgan were two of them; and they say Thomas Tapping, the drawer, knows them every one. Rochester and Skelton spoke to the mistress of the house and the servants to send for the constables, but they conceived they durst not. Skelton also says that Tapping told him two or three days after this, that these gentlemen with others of Lincoln's Inn, to the number of 40 or 50, held a council among themselves on some prank they intended to do. Informants say these gentlemen were quite sober, July 17th, 1640. Answer of John Glanville of Lincoln's Inn, to the informa- tion of Stephen Hozyer and John Skelton. Skelton came into our room accusing us of throwing over wine into their room, and on this supposition only, using very unmannerly terms, for whose abusive behaviour, a little wine was thrown over in a glass. Skelton then took up a pot and threatened Mr. Churchill, thus provoking the subsequent blows. Denies having heard anything about the Earl of Northumberland or having drunk the health alleged. Hozyer willingly left his cloak for payment of his reckoning. Has no knowledge of the Bill of 24, 300 accounts. 103 Denies that Hozyer was carried to the pump or beaten again in Chancery Lane; and the vintner's boy will verify on oath he never told Skelton of any conspiracy in which Glanville was engaged. July 22nd, I 64o. CLARENDON says:— Some young gentlemen of Lincoln's Inn, heated by their Cups, having drunk confusion to the Archbishop of Canterbury (Laud), were, at his instigation, cited before the Star Chamber. They applied to the Earl of Dorset for protection. “Who bears witness against you?” said Dorset. “One of the drawers,” they said. “Where did he stand when you were supposed to drink this health?” subjoined the Earl, “He was at the door,” they replied, “going out of the room.” “Tush l’ cried he, “the drawer was mistaken; you drank confusion to the Archbishop of Canterbury's enemies, and the fellow was gone before you pronounced the last word.” This saved them from any severer punishment than a reproof and admonition, with which they were dismissed. “Confusion to Laud” was the popular toast and marked the point of the rising storm that swept over England. Mr. William Prynn, Barrister, of Lincoln’s Inn, had published a book to prove that Stage-plays were Antichristian. This book, after a three days’ trial in the Star Chamber, was condemned to be burnt by the common hangman, and the author sentenced to be expelled Lincoln’s Inn, disbenched, degraded of his degree in the University of Oxford, set on the pillory, have his ears cut off, imprisoned during life, and fined £5,000. The sentence was carried out and Prynn was kept a prisoner in a castle in Jersey until, by order of Parliament, he was brought to London. The rebellion had begun. Demonstrations all the way from Southampton to London. “Confusion to Laud!” “Down with the Star Chamber!” was the cry of the people. It is said “upon his approach to London that he was carried into the City by above ten thousand persons, with boughs and flowers in their hands.” The hour of retribution had arrived. Mr. Prynn, on the 11th of November, 1640, moved that the doors of the House should be locked, and the outward room cleared of strangers. Strafford was impeached; Sentence on William Prynn. 104. Windebanke fled to France; he had been the creature of Laud, and was made Secretary by his recommendation. Archbishop Laud was indicted for high treason and sent to the Tower. No one dared to drink now “Confusion to Archbishop Laud’s enemies.” He who said “Tush! Tush!” had to give bail for his appearance before the Commons of £10,000. How things had changed since this tavern brawl in July; only an interval of four months, for in November Laud was a State Prisoner and William Prynn, “that crop- eared dog” of Lincoln’s Inn, had received from the Parlia- ment, by way of compensation, £4,000. By the dictation of Laud the King had trampled on the authority of Parlia- ment in a manner which immediately concerns this history. RAPIN says:–“Doctor Montague, who had given so great offence by his book, entitled “Appeal to Caesar,” was pro- moted to the See of Chichester,” and in a note “Manwaring also (having with Montague procured a ‘Royal Pardon for all Errours”) was, notwithstanding his being disabled by the House of Lords from all future preferment, immediately presented to the Rectory of Stamford Rivers, with a Dis- pensation to hold St. Giles’ in the Fields.” The malicious punishment of Prynn for his silly book was instigated by Laud, as a mean revenge against the Commons for their punishment of Manwaring for his sermon and Montague for his book. Lincoln's Inn Fields was in Manwaring’s parish, and Chichester House, the town residence of Mon- tague, was in Chancery Lane. The letter of Montague to Windebanke “about his Chancery Lane business”* reveals the conspiracy to steal Lincoln's Inn from the Benchers. It was a powerful combination, consisting of the King, Archbishop Laud, Bishop of London, the Lord Treasurer, and Secretary Windebanke; but it failed, and it is not sur- prising that the students of Lincoln’s Inn should drink “Confusion to Archbishop Laud” and pump upon the man who refused to drink the national toast. * See page 95. 105 Çiye Şielbs of #lout £icquet: iſittcoln #9 lace, jolbornt. INCOLN Place, situated by the “Old Temple” in Holborn, was so named from its being the Episcopal residence of the Bishops of Lincoln. It was built prior to the Temple, and appears to have been one of a cluster of buildings that stood on Holborn Hill before the Norman invasion, and came into the possession of William I. by virtue of conquest. The See of Lincoln was the most im- portant diocese in England. BRITTON says:— According to the testimony of the best authorities, the Bishop's See was established at Lincoln in the year Ios 7, previous to which era, the diocess consisted of the two Anglo-Saxon Sees of Dorchester and Sidnacester. This diocess is the largest in the whole kingdom, notwithstanding those of Oxford, Peterborough, and Ely have been detached and taken from it. It comprehends the counties of Lincoln, Leicester, Huntingdon, Bedford, and Buckingham. This See has given to the Romish church three Saints and one Cardinal. From its prelates have been selected six Lord Chancellors, one Lord Treasurer, one Lord Keeper, four Chancellors to the University of Oxford, and two to Cambridge. The power and wealth of this See in early times tes- tify to the historical importance of Lincoln Place, Holborn. The Anglo-Saxon See of Dorchester was held by St. Remi- gius de Fescamp, and he, when Dorchester was divided and impoverished by William I., was the first Bishop of Lincoln. Admitting that St. Remigius took up his quarters by “Ye Barres of Oldbourne,” it is no evidence that he built the place; it rather points to the conclusion that he took possession of vacant premises which by inference were part and parcel of a royal residence. On the other hand, he St. Remigius, Founder of Lincoln Cathedral. i i 106 Robert Bloet, Bishop of Lincoln. IHervey, first Bishop of Ely. owed his position as a Saint in the Romish Calendar to his founding the Cathedral of Lincoln, which he brought to such a state of forwardness in four years, as to be ready for consecration, at which all the bishops of England were summoned to attend; but two days before the intended solemnity. He died May 6th, 1092. His successor Robert Bloet or Blot, owed his prefer- ment to his association with the King. He had held the office of Royal Chaplain or Confessor to William I., and was now the King’s Justiciary or Deputy Governor when William Rufus was absent from England. WEEveR, in his Ancient Funerall Monuments, says:— “Robert Bloet gave for the bishoprick of Lincoln five thousand pounds.” An enormous price in that age; but it was nevertheless a very profitable investment. Lincoln Place stood in the grounds of the “Red House Inn,” the reputed residence of William the Red or Rufus. If it be so, and the evidence is all in this direction, they were near neighbours. The enormous amount of work that devolved upon Bloet prompted him to reduce his diocese into more reasonable limits, and with the assistance and consent of Rufus and the Pope, he accomplished the task by taking out of it an extensive area to form a new See—that of Ely. Hervey, Bishop of Bangor, in Wales, was the first Bishop of Ely. Hervey and Bloet were firm friends, and the Bishop of Lincoln consented to take out of his Episcopal estate in Holborn the ground on which Ely House was built, with its extensive garden, not barren, for it is men- tioned in Domesday as “a vine-yard in Oldborne.” Ely House was nearly opposite Lincoln Place, and not far on the east side, at the foot of the hill, a residence was erected for the Bishop of Bangor, who filled the vacancy caused by the translation of Bishop Hervey to Ely. While all these changes were taking place in Blemundsbury, two important 107 institutions were established on the estate, namely:-the Knights Templars “by Ye Barres of Oldbourne” and the St. Giles’ Lazar House in “ye fields of Westmonaster.” WEEveR, speaking of the Knights Templars, says:— In the yeare 1099, the Citie of Jerusalem being recovered against the impulsions of the Infidels by Godfrey of Bullein, Duke of Lorraine, this order was instituted. The Kings of France were soveraignes of this order, who granted them divers immunities, They have five crosses gules, in forme of that which is at this day called Jerusalem crosse, representing thereby the five wounds that violated the bodie of our Saviour. None were to be admitted if of a defamed life, or not of the Catholike religion. They were to be gentlemen of bloud, and of sufficient meanes to maintaine a port agreeable to that calling, without the exercise of mechanicall sciences, as appeares by these demands propounded by the Pater- Guardian . . . . . Then the Knight, arising and forthwith kneeling close to the Sepulchre, enclining his head upon the same, he was created Knight by the said Pater-Guardian, by receiving three strokes with a sword on his shoulder, and by the saying of these words following thrice over:-I constitute and ordaine thee, N., a Knight of the Holy Sepulchre of our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen. Anno Domini, II 17. Gotfredus Aldemarus Alexandrinus, and Hugo de Planco de Paganus. (Godfrey (aforesaid) being dead and Baldwin then raigning) this order of Knighthood first began, and a seat was granted them in the Temple of Jerusalem, where- upon they were called Knightes Templars, or Knights of the Temple. By entreaty of Stephen, Patriarch of Jerusalem, Pope Honorius brought in this order, and confirmed their societie, giving them a white garment, whereunto Eugenius the Third added a red crosse on the breast. The charge of these Knights was to guide Travellers on the way of Jerusalem, and to entertaine strangers. The Knights Templars before they came to that house, now called the (New) Temple, had an house in Holborne, which is now (1631) Southampton Place, where in their Chappell was a representation of Christ's Sepulchre, which they brought from Jerusalem. This ‘representation’ probably gave the name to the church on Holborn Hill, ‘St. Sepulchre.” The Templars had nine thousand Lordships or manours (the renewes and rents whereof fell afterwards also to these Hospitallers.) The Order of the Knights Templars. The Knights Templars in Holborn, 108 Henry II. and Thomas-á-Becket. Geoffrey Plantagenet, Bishop of Lincoln. Bishop Bloet died suddenly while riding on horseback with Henry I., January 10th, 1123. His successor was Alexander de Blois, who is reputed to have been the builder of a new palace on the site of the old one. During his time the cathedral of Lincoln was destroyed by fire, and he perpetuated his memory by rebuilding a more magnificent edifice. His revenue he devoted to the benefit of his See and thereby obtained the name of Alexander the Benevolent. He died July 2nd, 1147, and was followed by Robert de Chisney. The enormous revenue derived from his See was insufficient to meet his vast expenditure. Through his extravagance, by some writers called his munificence, he left to the See a legacy of unpaid accounts to such an amount that it was heavily encumbered with mortgages. He died 1167. The bishoprick remained vacant for six years on account of the quarrel between the King and Archbishop Becket over the Constitutions of Clarendon. It was enacted in 1164 that all churches belonging to the King’s See should not be granted in perpetuity without his consent. That the revenues of vacant Sees should belong to the King, etc. “None of the prelates,” says HUME, dared to oppose the King’s will, except Becket, who though urged by the Earls of Cornwall and Leicester, obstinately witheld his assent. At last, Richard de Hastings, Grand Prior of the Templars in England, threw himself on his knees before him, and with many tears entreated him to yield. Becket gave a qualified assent. The King held tenaciously to the vacant See; took possession of Lincoln Place, kept it until 1173, and then, as an assertion of right he appointed his illegitimate son, Geoffrey Plantagenet (the offspring of Fair Rosamond), Bishop of Lincoln. The Pope would not allow Geoffrey to be consecrated, and he in defiance nominally held the See for nine years, but the Pope dying, 1183, his successor got rid of this sham Bishop. 109 of Lincoln by sanctioning his elevation to the Archbishop- rick of York. Walter de Constantis, Justiciary, became temporary Bishop of Lincoln in 1183, and resigned in 1184, on his appointment to the Archbishoprick of Rouen. The See remained vacant for two years, during which time its revenues enriched the coffers of the King. A further reason for the vacancy seems to be the pending removal of the Templars from Holborn to Fleet Street. Their new Temple was nearly completed, and this rendered it desirable that there should be no interference while these changes were in progress from the occupier of Lincoln Place. After the Templars had gone, St. Hugh Burgundus was made Bishop of Lincoln, September 21st, 1186, by the Pope, and one of his first acts was to order the tomb of Fair Rosamond to be removed from Godstow Church, where it had been placed with great solemnity by the King. St. Hugh Burgundus died on the 17th November, 1200, and his funeral was carried out with great splendour and cere- mony. KING JoHN of England and KING WILLIAM of Scotland assisted to carry his body to the cathedral doors. A three-years’ vacancy now ensued. Who lived at Lincoln Place during this interval does not appear. The next bishop, William de Mortibus, was consecrated on the 24th August, 1204, and deceased the llth of May, 1206. Another three-years’ vacancy took place, at the expiration of which, Hugh Wallys was consecrated Bishop of Lincoln, December 21st, 1209. RAPIN says:—“This Prelate, having obtained leave to go and be consecrated by the Archbishop of Roam, instead of going to Normandy, went directly to Rome, where he received consecration at the hands of Car- dinal Langton. If the King had had him in his power, he would have shown him no mercy, but was contented with seizing his revenues.” Hugh Wallys [Wells] was also St. Hugh Burgundus, Bishop of Lincoln. Hugh Wallys, Bishop of Lincoln and Justiciary of England, but the King delivered the seal to jºijär. 110 Pope Innocent IV. and Grostest, Bishop of Lincoln. Walter de Grey, Bishop of Chester, and made him. Justi- ciary. The Bishop eventually offended, the Pope by joining the barons against the King, for which he was excommuni- cated, but this was annulled by the payment of one thousand marks. Whether the bishop made his peace with the King and returned to Lincoln Place is not certain. He died on February 8th, 1234. The King had taken advantage of the Bishop's absence from England, and acting under the advice of Hubert de Burgh, his Justiciary, had given the Preaching Friars permission to take possession of what were probably some old buildings, on the west side of Lincoln Place. Wallys’ successor was Robert Grosthead or Grostest, consecrated May 18th, 1235; a Prelate who cared for neither King nor Pope; a man of remarkable courage. He excom- municated a priest for incontinence, and called upon the Sheriff to imprison him. This the Sheriff refused to do and Grostest then excommunicated the Sheriff. Henry III. was incensed and applied to the Pope, which made matters worse. Grostest was cited before the Pope, and returned home like Luther “with an ill opinion of the Court of Rome.” He was called upon to institute an Italian to one of the best livings of his diocese and replied “that to entrust the Cure of Souls to such Pastors was to act in the name of the Devil rather than by the authority of God.” Suspension followed, but he continued his Episcopal func- tions. The Pope retorted by a Bull—“a roaring Bull”—and the Bishop in reply sent the Pope a letter, in which he said “the Pastor who neglects his flock is a downright murderer of the sheep.” This not being quite plain enough he told the Pope what he thought about the Italians as follows:— “Such persons may be said rather to be placed in the Chair of Pestilence, and to sit upon the Bench with the Devil and Antichrist.” This letter put INNOCENT into a terrible rage. “What!” says he, “has this old dotard the confidence 111 to censure my conduct? By St. Peter and St. Paul I will make him such an example that the world shall stand amazed at his punishment. Is not his Sovereign, the King of England, our Vassal? nay, is he not our Slave? It is but therefore signifying our pleasure to the English Court, and this antiquated Prelate will be immediately imprisoned and put to what further disgrace we shall think fit.” The Bishop was excommunicated. “Never was heard such a terrible curse.” It did not trouble the Bishop. “I appeal,” he said, “to the Court of Heaven.” He died Oct. 9, 1253. Fiction says: “A little after his death Grostest appeared in his robes to INNocBNT IV., and striking him a blow on the side with his Crosier, gave him a severe reprimand. If this be so, “This was the most unkindest cut of all.” It was men of his stamp who kindled the tinder that lit the candle of the Reformation. Henry Lexington, Dean of Lincoln, a man more pliant than his predecessor, was consecrated, May 17th, 1254, and died, August 18th, 1258. Richard de Gravesend, Dean of Lincoln, then became Bishop of Lincoln. Consecrated November 3rd, 1258, died December 18th, 1279. A long interval of nine years took place. The revenues of the bishoprick went to the King. It was an important epoch. The “Dead Hand” was unclasped by the Statute of Mortmain, and in consequence thereof the Black Friars had notice to quit their Friary in Holborn. WEEveR, speaking of Hubert de Burgh, says:—“His body was translated at the same time when the Friers removed from Oldborne into London, to that house now called the Blacke Friers, nere unto Ludgate, where belike it takes no better rest than others have done so buried.” Another institution, on the south side of Chichester House, connected with the Jews, known as the “Jews’ House” or “Domus Conversorum,” came to an end about 1290, owing to the persecution of that race. The Black Friers remove from Holborn. 112 The Domus Conversorum, the Jews' Justiciary House, STow says:—“The House of the Converted Jews was founded by KING HENRY III., in place of a Jews’ House to him forfeited in I233. Who builded there a faire Church now used and called the Chappel for the custody of Rolls and Records of Chancery. It standeth not far from the Old Temple, midway between the Old Temple and the New.” The “Rolls” are mentioned at the time of the consecra- tion of the Archbishop of York, A.D., 1109—“Professio ne quid muturetur Sigillo regio inclusae; Literae Sigillo ºregio inclusae fol 101 n 30 & Litera Sigillo regio repositae fol 86.” They were wound up in wax, and had the impres- sion of the King’s Seal. Such as these were called Litera: Clausae, Close Letters or Writs; and the Literae eartra Sigillum pendentes; were the Letters Patents, or Literae Patentes; and the ancient Rolls are to this day called the Patent and Close Rolls. The “Domus Conversorum” appears to be of a much earlier date than historians have given to it. Originally founded as a Justiciary House for the Jews; the appointed official residence of the Jews' Justiciary. “Conversor,” is to converse or keep company with one; to haunt, frequent or be often with, and this implies that here the Jews were allowed a Court of their own, to frequent, converse, and settle the legal differences which concerned only their own people. “Conversus” means turned, converted, changed; but “Domus Conversorum” is very different from “Domus Converto” or “Domus Conversus.” STow says:—“In 1278 this house “sent Friar John the Convert with a letter to KING EDwARD I., soliciting his charitie.” He quotes the Latin record of the transaction which mentions “Fratri Johi Converso,” which is not “Friar John the Convert.” (“Converso” does not mean a convert, but a familiar or familiarity, a keeping of company with many or to keep company with one, and therefore “Brother John Converso” 113 was Brother John, Master of the Company. In other words, he was the “Domo Converso,” the Jews' Justiciary, and was sent to solicit the King’s charity or assistance in the cruel persecution that had then commenced against his people. Stow proves this when he states that “in the year 1290 all the Jews in England were banished out of the Realm.” This is not denied, but his argument is, “whereby the number of Converts in this place was almost decayed. And therefore in the year 1377 [80 years after- wards] this house was annexed by Patent to . William Burstall, Clerk, Custos Rotolorum, or Keeper of the Rolls of Chancery, by Ed. III. And this first Master of the Rolls was sworn in Westminster Hall at the Table of Marble Stone. Since which time that house hath been commonly called the Rolls in Chancery Lane.” This does not agree with DUGDALE, who carries the Office of (Mr.) Master of the Rolls back to the time of Henry III. The following extracts are given as they appear in his Catalogue of Lord Chancellors. Peter de Rievaulx and Mr. Will. de Kilkenny had the custody of the Seal. Claus. 34 H. 3. m. I5. P. Chaceport and John de Lexinton had the custody of the Seal, by reason that Mr. W. (de Kilkenny) was sick. 15 Maii, Rot. Fin, 37 H. 3. m. 9. XXII. Junii the Queen had the custody thereof, the King then going into Gascoign, Pat. 37 H. 3. m. Mr. Will. de Kilkenny, the King's Clerk, supplied the office of Chancellor. John de Kirkeby made Keeper of the Seal (upon the death of Rich, de Middilton Chancellor) which John did thereupon associate to himself in that trust P. de Winton, Keeper of the King's Wardrobe, Pat. 56 H. 3. m. 6. John (Salmon) Bishop of Norwich, named Chancellor by the King in full Parliament, received the Seal, Claus, 13 E. 2, in dorso, m, 9. * Strype's Stow, - k k The Domus Converso not the House of Converts, Anno I250. Anno I253. Anno I254, Anno I272. Anno I320, 114 Anno 1323. Anno 1329, Anno I339. Anno 1340. William Piers— a solitary Jewish Convert. Articles concerning the Jews, given to the Itinerant Justices. William de Ayrmin (Mr. of the Rolls in Chancery) had the custody of the Great Seal, John, Bishop of Norwich being then sick, Claus. I4 E. 2. m. Henry de Clyff Mr. of the Rolls in Chancery, and Will. de Herlaston, Clerk of the Chancery, made Keepers of the Seal, I Martii, Claus. 2 E. 3. Mr. Richard de Bynteworth, elect Bishop of London, made Chancellor and Keeper of the Seal, 6 Julii, Cl, 22 E. 3. p. 2. Upon the death of this Richard the great Seal was committed to the custody of John de St. Paul, Master of the Rolls in Chan- cery, Mich. de Wath and Thomas de Baunburgh, 8 Dec. Claus. I3 E. 3. p. 3. Edward the First banished the Jews from England, 1290, giving them to bear their charges till they were out of his realm. The number of the Jews thus expelled was 15,060 persons, whose houses, being sold, the King made a mighty mass of money. As authenticated documentary evidence has more weight than unsupported testimony in the Court of Chan- cery, the greatly esteemed and much trusted MR. John Stow's Annotator, the Rev. John STRYPE, should have got rid of his “Converts” long before 1377, and applied to the unconverted Jews for information respecting those ques- tionable characters. The Chief Rabbi would doubtless have referred him to Stow's History, by Howes, and therein he would read as worthy of being recorded from its novelty how that “in the year 1391 a certain Jew of London became a Christian and was baptised by the name of William Piers, and had two-pence the day for term of his life given him by the King, as appeareth of record in the Tower.” Hove NDEN conclusively destroys the “House of Converts.” He says:– At the same time the King directed several Articles to the Justices Itinerant about the Jews. That all their debts and pawns should be inventoried, and all their lands, rents, and possessions; and if any Jew concealed any of these matters, he should forfeit his body (that is, should be imprisoned) and the concealment 115 (that is, what they had concealed) and all their possessions and goods: Nor should it be lawful for any Jew to recover the con- cealment; that is, to have it restored. That six or seven places should be allowed where the Jews should lend their money and take pawns, and there should be two legal Christians, and two legal Jews, and two legal Scribes appointed, before whom and the clercs of *William of St. Maries Church and William de Chimelli, the money lent upon the pawns, and the pawns taken should be transacted, and that the charts of the money lent and pawns taken should be in the form of a Chirograph, and one part should remain with the Jew, sealed with his seal that borrowed the money, and the other part to remain in a common chest, to which there were three locks, of which two Christians were to have one key, two Jews another, and the clercs of William of St. Maries Church and William de Chimelli, the third; and besides those locks, three seals were to be affixed by those that kept the keys, and that the Clercs of William and William should have a transcript; and as the charts were changed, the Roll was to be changed. For every charter three pence was to be paid, half from the Jew and half from him that borrowed the money; of which the Scribes were to have two pence and the Keeper of the Roll one penny, and for the future no security should be given or pawns taken, nor no payment made to the Jews, nor no changing of charts, but before the foresaid persons, or the major part, if all could not be present; and that the two Christians should have one Roll of the payment of the Jews to them for the future, and that the two Jews should have one, and the Keeper of the Rolls one. Also every Jew was to swear upon his roll (he did not believe the Gospels). That he would cause all his debts, pawns, and rents, and all his things and possessions to be inventoried, and that he would conceal nothing, and if he knew any thing another man concealed, he would reveal it to the Justices sent about that affair; and that he would disco- ver all falsifiers and forgers of charts, all clippers of money, wherever he knew them. Furthermore, inquisition was to be made what the King's bayliffs had taken or exacted as well as his justices, sheriffs, constables, and foresters, as their servants, after the first coronation of the King, and why those prices were taken, * These in all probability were the Justices of the Jews; for in those ancient times they had particular Justices assigned them by the King, 116 and by whom, and of the chattels or goods offered, gifts and pro- mises made, by occasion of the seisin made of the lands of Earl John and his favourers, who received them, and what; and the delay they received by the Archbishop of Canterbury, then Justi- Ciary of the King. The Jews' Justiciary House was an old institution. The Oath of KING WILLIAM I. brought the Jews from Rouen to inhabit flººd by here (England). He received homage, oath of fidelity, and William I. pledges of the nobles, and commanded that in every town and village a bell should be rung every night at eight of the clock, and that all people should then put forth their fire and candle, and go to bed. The office of Justiciary of England was abolished in 1335. The cruel persecution of the Jews had some time before destroyed the “Domus Conversorum.” They were no longer allowed to have a Justiciary House, and the “Domo Converso” had to give place to the “Master of the Rolls.” It is singular that there is now to be seen in the Royal Courts of Justice a marble bust, recently executed, to perpetuate the memory of Sir George Jessell, Master of the Rolls (a Jew), one of the most distinguished men that ever presided in an English Court of Justice. The oath required of him, on acceptance of that office, was:– Ye shall swear, That well and lawfully ye shall serve the King our Soveraign Lord and his people, in the Office of Clerk or Master of the Rolls, to the which ye be called; Ye shall not assent, ne procure the dis-inheritance, ne perpetual damage of the King, to your power; ne fraud ye shall do, nor cause to be made wrongfully, to any of his People, ne in any thing that toucheth the Seal; and lawfully ye conceal the things that toucheth the King, when ye shall be thereto required; And the Council that ye shall give touching him, ye shall not disclose; And if ye know any thing of the dis-inheritance, or damage of the King, or fraud to be made upon any thing that toucheth the keeping of the Seal, ye shall put your lawful power that to redress and amend; And if that ye cannot, ye shall advise the Chancellor or other, which may that amend, to your power. As God you help, and his Saints, 117 This was the “Oath of Fidelity” taken by the first Jewish Justiciary, in the reign of William I., and when the legal procedure of England was altered in the latter half of the nineteenth century, Sir George Jessel was Master of the Rolls and a Jewish Justiciary. The Master of the Rolls was an office of great dignity, in the gift of the King, either for life or during pleasure. He was the principal Master in Chancery, and had in his gift the office of the Six Clerks in Chancery, of the two Examiners of the same Court, and of the Clerk of the Chapel of the Rolls, who acted immediately under him in that office. He had several revenues belonging to the office of the Rolls, and by Act of Parliament received a handsome annual salary out of the hanaper. All this power was derived from ancient grants given to support the authority of the Jews' Justiciary, and when the special licence was taken from the Jew it was transferred to the Gentile. During the demolition of Nos. 1 and 2, Rolls Yard, Fetter Lane, in 1890, a portion of an ancient building was discovered. This, says The Jewish Chronicle, is the famous “Domus Conversorum” which played so important a part in the early history of our community, and which served as a connecting link between the pre-expulsion period and the resettlement of the seventeenth century.” A sketch of the building has been preserved, drawn by MATTHEw PARIs, and is now in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, a tracing of which was exhibited at the Anglo-Jewish Historical Exhibition. The Master of the “Domus Conversorum.” was so far a “Convert” that he consented to permit his students to lend the Gentiles certain sums of money if they were properly remunerated for so doing. It is one of the “Curiosities of Literature” that in the Jews’ House at Lincoln, tradition (which is often a polite name for a false- hood) says that in 1255 the Jews of Lincoln crucified a boy Demolition of the Domus Conversorum. 118 Ficquet's Fields and the Spensers. in derision of the Saviour, being decoyed into the house by the Jew’s daughter. She's led him in through ae dark door, And sae has she thro’ nine; She's laid him on a dressing table, And stickit him like a swine. 3% *k * 3% * 3K When bells were rung, and mass was sung, And a' the bairns came hame; When every lady gathame her son, The Lady Mary gat nane. This Jew’s house was certainly not a “House of Con- verts” and “Tradition” has probably made a mistake as to the “House of Converts” in Chancery Lane. When all these changes had taken place, the vacant bishoprick of Lincoln was filled up by advancing the Dean of Lincoln, Oliver Sutton, to the See. He was consecrated May 19th, 1288, and died suddenly, while praying, the following year, November 13th, 1299. He was succeeded by John de Alderby (previously noticed) who was conse- crated June 12th, 1300, dying January 5th, 1319. Thomas Beake or Le Bek was appointed his successor, January 27th, 1319, dying a few months afterwards, before consecration. By the interest of Lord Burghersh he obtained for his brother Henry, Prebendary of York, the bishoprick of Lincoln, July 20th, 1320–consecrated at Boulogne. Events now gather thickly around Lincoln Place, Hol- born. The Spensers, the King's favourites, were lords of Ficquet's Fields, for the owner of Lincoln’s Inn, the Earl of Lancaster, by their influence was executed as a traitor at Pontefract. The Bishop of Lincoln took the part of the Lancastrians, and he, with Bishop Orleton of Hereford, was summoned to answer at the King’s Court to the charge of high treason. The church took up the quarrel, as it was considered a violation of its liberty, and forbade the judges to take cognizance of the case, when the proceedings were 119 stayed. The bishop was a dangerous enemy; he, with Hereford, formed a party against the King, and in 1327 these two divines were powerful enough to procure an Act of Parliament, passed nemine contradicente, for the King’s deposition. Voa, Populi was the text of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s sermon, which he preached on that occasion, after which the Bishops of Lincoln and Hereford were deputed to wait on the King and inform him that his son was King of England. The Bishop of Lincoln died three years afterwards at Ghent or Gaunt—December, 1340. The See remained vacant for a time, and Thomas le Bek, the second of that name, was consecrated July 7th, 1342, and died February 1st, 1346. The new bishop, John Gynewell, had scarcely been consecrated, when an order was made, probably by a previous arrangement, in which he is styled “John de Holborn,” as follows:— Ordered. That the Master of the Hospital of St. Giles in the Fields, without London, and John de Holborn, collect certain tolls for two years for the repair of the highway from the said Hospital to the New Temple and another road called Pourtpoole. 24th July, 1346. The roads referred to were three, one which commenced at the east corner of St. Giles’ Hospital (marked 6 on the map of West Blemundsbury) and ran along Holborn to Lincoln Place, at the corner of New Street, now Chancery Lane; another, namely, Chancery Lane, which commenced at Lincoln Place and ended at the New Temple; the third, Pourtpool Road was that way now known as Gray’s Inn Road. This Order was made in consequence of the improved highway communication across the Strand, when the New Temple and the estate of the Templars were divided between the King and the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. MALCOLM says:— When the new sewers were constructing in the Strand in 1802, the workmen discovered an ancient stone bridge of one arch, about 120 The paving of Holborn from Chancery Lane to St. Giles' Lazar House. eleven feet in length. It was covered several feet in depth by rubbish and soil, and found to be of great strength in the con- struction. A doubt arises whether this was the “Pons Novi Templi” or Bridge of the New Temple, passed by the lords and others who attended Parliament at Westminster, after going out of the city to this place by water; which, wanting repair, Edward III. called upon the Knights Templars to effect; or an arch turned over a gully or ditch, when the road, now the street termed the Strand, was a continued scene of filth. MALCOLM appears to have made two mistakes here, for in the first place there were no Knights Templars in the reign of Edward III., and secondly, “a stone bridge of one arch, eleven feet in length, and of great strength,” would not “be turned over a gully or ditch.” The arch was pro- bably built in the reign of Henry II. by Henry de Lacy, when the Knights Templars removed from Holborn, and when the “gully or ditch” at times was a swollen river; that flowed along there to the Thames, and which was repaired in the reign of Edward III., shortly before the “Order” referred to. This is confirmed by STow:— Edward III. granted the New Temple to the Knights Hos- pitalers, of the order of St. John the Baptist, called St. John of Jerusalem, who possessed it. And in the 18th year of the said King's reign (1345) were forced to repair the said Bridge. Another Order of a similar character was made:— Now High-holborn street, from the north end of New-street stretches on the Left Hand up to St. Giles in the Fields; but the way leading from the Bars in Holborn, Westward, towards the Sloughs, and very perilous and noisome to all that repaired and passed that Way, as well on Foot as on Horseback, or with Car- riages; and so were other Lanes and Places that led out of or into Holborn, as Shoe-lane, Fetter-lane, New-street or Chancery- lane, and Grays-inn-lane. Upon Complaint whereof an Act was made in the 32nd of King Henry VIII, An. 1542, in Manner and Form as the Causeway or Highway leading from Strand- bridge to Charing-cross had been made and paved. The extent of this Pavement in Holborn-street was to the far end of it, to St. 121 Giles-in-the-Fields. Which St. Giles was an Hospital founded by Matilda, Wife to Henry I., about the year 1117. This Hospital says the Record of King Edward III., the 19th year, was founded without the Bar.—VETERIs TEMPLI LoNDON ConverSORUM. This evidently applies to the Templars’ Hospital and not to the Hospital of St. Giles, and is an instance of the way writers have confounded together these institutions. The quotation is from Seymour’s Survey, on the title-page of which appears:— The Whole being an Improvement on MR. Stow's and other Surveys, by adding whatever Alterations have happened in the said Cities, etc., to the present year; and retrenching many Superfluities, and correcting many Errors in the former Writers. Noor'THouck thus describes the paving of Holborn: In the year 1417, the King taking notice, that the highway named Holborn in London (alta via regia in Holbourne, Londinia) was so deep and miery, that many obstructions happened to his carriages, as well as those of his subjects, employed two vessels of twenty tons burden, to bring stones at his own expense for paving it, and moreover, in 1533, the Parliament directed the Strand to be paved, by the owners of the adjoining lands, and by another Act in 1534, all Holborn between the Bridge and the Bars, and as the convenience of trade now called for an attention to the bad state of the streets; and the Parliament ordered (1541), that the streets from Aldgate to Whitechapel Church, Chancery- lane, High Holborn, Grays-Inn-lane, Fetter-lane, and Shoe-lane should be paved with stone. The Mayor and Aldermen were impowered to punish defaulters in paving the streets; as also to make and repair the City conduits. These “two vessels” landed their cargoes at Holborn Bridge. PENNANT says:—“The tide flowed up as high as Holborn-bridge, and brought up barges of considerable burden to the sides of extensive quays and warehouses.” The next mitred occupant of Lincoln Place was John Buckingham, consecrated June 25th, 1363. In 1398 he was removed from it against his consent and made Bishop of Lichfield; a diocese greatly inferior to Lincoln. This 7?? 772 The Paving of Holborn, I 2.2 The Bishops of Lincoln. insult he resented, but the half-brother of Henry, Duke of Lancaster, having a personal interest in this old Lancastrian estate, derived from the Lacy's, wanted the bishoprick, and was ordained Bishop of Lincoln in July, 1398, notwith- standing the protest of Bishop Buckingham, who had not resigned that See. The ex-prelate retired to Canterbury and ended his days with the cathedral monks. Shortly afterwards, Henry of Lancaster became Henry IV., King of England. Henry Beaufort resigned Lincoln for the more lucrative See of Winchester; was made Lord Chancellor of England, and honoured by the Church with the dignity of Cardinal. He died, April 11th, 1147. By a strange coinci- dence, his successor to the bishopric of Lincoln, Philip Repington, became a Cardinal; he was consecrated March 29th, 1405; resigned voluntarily in May, 1420, and died about 1423. Richard Fleming, Canon of York, was the next Bishop of Lincoln, and as such, occupied Lincoln Place, the domain of the Lancasters. He was consecrated in 1420, and in 1429 the Pope created him Archbishop of York; but the King, whom he dared not disobey, demanded his non-acceptance of that elevated position and he died Bishop of Lincoln, January 25th, 1430. In these events can be seen the struggle between the houses of York and Lancaster. The next prelate was the Bishop of London, William Gray, who was translated to the more important See of Lincoln in 1431, and died in 1435. Amongst the list of succeeding bishops there occurs the name of John Russell, consecrated in 1480 and died 1494. He followed Thomas Scott (Rolherham) who was made Archbishop of York, being at the time Lord High Chancellor. It is said “he got out of bed and went to the Queen and carried the Great Seal along with him which he left with her, but having been entrusted with it by Edward IV., sent for it again as soon as he came home.” | 23 John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln, was Lord Chancellor in the time of Richard the Third, and lived in his official palace, Lincoln Place, Holborn, afterwards known as South- ampton House, and Russell, Earl of Bedford, in later times, resided in another Southampton House in Bloomesbury. This has led several recent writers to make absurd state- ments, which conclusively prove that they were simply copyists of PA RTON, who, in a chimerical map, shows Southampton House standing north of Bloomsbury Square in the 12th and 13th centuries, the information being derived from a map published about 1600. The next name of note is Thomas Wolsey, Dean of Lincoln, consecrated Bishop of that See, March 26th, 1514. In a deed conveying to him the attainted estate of Empson, he is described as Thomas Wolseye, the King’s Chaplain and Dean of St. Mary’s Chapel, Lincoln, which grants to Thomas Wolseye “All that messuage and garden called the Parsonage, in the Parish of St. Bride, Fleet Street, London, which John, Abbot of St. Peter’s, West- minster, demised on 26th November, 23rd Hen. VII.-for 99 years to Sir Richard Empson, attainted; also the orchard and twelve gardens in the same parish (between the first- named garden and the Thames), which Thomas Dokwra, Prior of the lIospital of St. John of Jerusalem demised for 99 years to the said Sir Richard Empson, to hold for the residue of the term.” Croydon, Oct. 20th–1 Hen. VIII. The property stood upon the ground now occupied by Salisbury Square and Dorset Street, its gardens reaching to the river. Wolsey had not long been Dean of Lincoln when Henry VII. died—22nd April, 1509. A reference to his holding this office is found in a letter from QUEEN KATHARINE, then Queen Regent, to Mr. Almoner Wolsey, which also marks his rapid rise to power. The King was in France, and the Queen, Wolsey, and Sir Thomas Lovell Bishop Russell and Earl Russell. Thomas Wolsey, Bishop of Lincoln. 124 Queen Katharine and Thomas Wolsey. were carrying on the government during his absence. The Queen writes from Holborn as follows:— Mr. Almoner, the King when he was at Calais a little while ago, sent me a letter touching the matter betwixt my Lord of Canterbury and my Lord of Winchester. I did after his com- mandment, and showed the same before Sir Thomas Lovell and Mr. Englefield, unto my Lord of Canterbury, and I prayed him to give answer shortly after the mind, as he knew it; for the matter was so new to me that I would go no further in it. Since that time I have at divers seasons asked him for the said answer, which I could never have till now; and the same in a letter I send you herein also. I pray you, Mr. Almoner, for the tarrying of it so long, for I could have it no sooner. And with this I make an end, praying you to continue your writing, which is to me a great comfort, and methinketh it is a great while ago that I received any from you. At Holborn, September 16th, 1513. (Signed) KATHARINE, the Queen. This letter appears to have been written from Lincoln Place. The See of Lincoln was at that time vacant. The late Bishop, William Smith, died Jan. 2nd, 1513, and Mr. Almoner Wolsey, his successor, was not consecrated until March 26th, 1514. Wolsey was occupying Bridewell Place. This is proved by a letter written by Wolsey to My Lord Admiral “about cables and anchors,” which he concludes with “Written at my poor house at the Bridewell, June 6th, 1513,” This letter implies that Bridewell was not such a magnificent palace at this time as has been represented. At this period the disgraceful marriage between Lewis of France and Mary, the King's younger sister, took place. Happily it was soon ended and Charles Brandon was sent to France to console the disconsolate widow on her sad loss, which he did so effectually that she told Brandon “unless he resolved to marry her in four days, he should not have a second offer.” He did not require a second offer—they immediately married. The King was greatly incensed, but Wolsey brought about a reconciliation, and as previously mentioned, 125 it resulted in the birth of an “Earl of Lincoln.” Wolsey, on his appointment to the See of Lincoln, removed from Bridewell Place to Lincoln Place, but the death of Cardinal Bambridge, Archbishop of York at Rome, on the 14th of July, 1514, enabled the King to raise his favourite to the Archiepiscopate of York. William Atwater was consecrated Bishop of Lincoln, Nov. 12th, 1514. He died Feb. 4th, 1520, at his palace at Woburn, now the seat of the Russells. Lincoln Place passed into the hands of John Longland, Dean of Salisbury, on his appointment to the bishoprick J of Lincoln. He was consecrated on the 3rd of May, 1521. A man of great learning and a popular preacher, but with no firmness of character, and without courage to grapple with the difficulties that surrounded him. As the King’s Confessor, he was in the secrets of the Court and knew the motives that prompted the proceedings for divorce against QUEEN KATHARINE, which raised the whirlwind that drove him on to assist in wrecking the faith he had sworn to support. He was not the man to deal with the complications between the King and the Pope; the King and the Cardinal; the King and his Queens; the King and the plunder of the Church. If the mantle of Grostest had fallen upon him, the Reformed Church of England would have possessed a nobler history. AGNEs STRICKLAND gives some fine researchful touches of the events of the time. She says: “QUEEN KATHARINE passed the Christmas holidays of 1523 at Eltham Palace, where Longland, Bishop of Lincoln, undertook to show and explain to her the plan of the noble foundation of Christ's College, Oxford, just then established by Cardinal Wolsey. It was the eve of the Epiphany. The Queen’s dinner was done, when the Bishop (who is well known in history as the King’s Confessor) entered with the other lords into the ohn Longland, Bishop of Lincoln. John Longland, the Queen’s Chamber.” The Confessorship was no sinecure ºng's Confessor. 126 Persecution of the Reformers. for that lady further says: “The King made thirty-nine wills and confessed his sins every day.” If the reader would suggest that the “thirty-nine Wills” had anything to do with the thirty-nine Articles of the Reformed Church, he deserves “forty strokes, save one.” The confession of the King every day seems to have been rather the daily conference which at this period took place between himself and the timid Bishop of Lincoln. A few of the Longland letters, mostly written from Holborn, are inserted here because they are full of local and general interest. The tenets of the Lutheran Creed were agitating the minor “priests of the Church.” Its literature was being disseminated throughout the schools and colleges of England, and found its way into “Wolsey’s College, Oxford,” and John (Longland), Bishop of Lincoln, writes to Cardinal Wolsey, “Thanking him for the use of meats necessary for his health.” It was at the time of the Lenten fast, and having liberty to break the law of his church, he makes satisfaction by persecuting its reformers, for in the same letter he informs Wolsey:— Since he wrote last about Oxford, has had fresh information about the corruption of youth by Mr. Garrett, and the erroneous books he brought thither, which it is thought came from a book- seller in London, named George, and there is a “priced list” (in his hand). Many books were found hid under the earth. The chief companions of Garrett in this business were Mr. Clark, Mr. Freer, Sir Dyott and Ant. Delabere, and it appears by Garrett's writing, that Dr. Foreman of Honey Lane, has had books from him, and his servant, John Goodhall, has often brought books from London to Garrett. If taken, he might disclose many things about Garrett, Fears he has corrupted the Monastery of Reading, for he has sent to the Prior more than 60 such books. Advises him to apprehend Gough and Goodhall, and call before him some of the principals, The others, who are young and penitent, can be treated by the Dean, Mr. Claymond, Dr. London, and the President of Magdalen College, according to Wolsey’s commission. Would ride thither himself if he were in health. Prays God to extinguish those abominable errors. It is necessary that the Prior of Reading should be attended to. Holborn, 3rd March, 1528. To my Lord Legate, his good grace, | 27 Two days later he writes another letter:— LINCOLN to Wolsey.—The wicked man, Master Garrett, has escaped from Oxford; is now taken as Wolsey will see by the letters enclosed, and is in Ilchester prison, the common gaol of Somersetshire. The Commissary of Oxford has made great search, and did set for his taking:—Dover, Rye, Winchelsea, Hampton, Chester, and Bristowe. He was at Bedminster the last day of Feb. Advises Wolsey to order his examination as soon as possible, as he has many adherents who may be discovered. Now that he is captured, thinks his escape was fortunate, as SO much has been discovered by the search for him. Master Freer was taken yesterday at the Black Friars, London, immediately after Wolsey's departure. Garrett, Clarke, and Freer have done much mischief. “For the love of God, let them be handled hereafter.” Fears they have infected many parts of England. Begs he will remember the Prior of Reading. Hopes now while Wolsey is at Windsor he will send a Chaplain to put the Friar in custody and search for his books, in whose hands they be. Wolsey might find out many infectious persons from the parson of Honey Lane, and Goodhall, by keeping them in custody for a while. Holborn, March 5th, 1528. To my Lord Legate's Grace. This crusade against the Lutherans possesses features of singular interest in connection with this history. The King’s book against Luther, which procured him the title of Defender of the Faith, was evidently the joint compilation of Longland and Wolsey. The King finished his book in September, 1521, but the King’s Confessor, Longland, was made Bishop the preceding May. FULLER says: “Patch, the King’s Fool, perceiving the King very jocund one day, asked him the reason, and when the King told him it was because of his new title—‘Defender of the Faith,’ the Fool made this arch reply: ‘Prithee, good Harry, let thee and I defend one another, and let the Faith alone to defend itself.” The advice of the Fool was followed and the Bishop went to the wall. ~. 128 Longland was the abject slave of the King and the Pope. He was foremost in promoting the persecution and burning of heretics. Those who were fortunate enough to escape from being tortured and burnt alive, were subject to “Ye Penances enjoined under payne of relaps by John Longland, Bishop of Lyncolne.” That every one of them shall upon a market-day, such as shall be limited unto them in the market time, go thrice about the market, at Burford, and then to stand upon the highest greve of the Crosse, there a quarter of an hour, with a fagot of wood every one of them ûpon his shoulder, and every one of them to bear a fagot of wood upon their shoulders, before their procession upon a Sunday, which shall be limited unto them at Burford from the quire door going out to the quire door going in, and all the High Masse time to hold the same fagot upon their shoulders, kneeling upon the greve afore the high altar there, and every of them like- wise, to do likewise in their own parish church, upon such a Sunday as shall be limited unto them: and once to bear a fagot at a general procession at Oxbridge, when they shall be assigned thereto. Also every one of them to fast bread and ale only every Friday during their life, and every even of Corpus Christi, every one of them to fast in bread and water during their life, unless sickness let the same. Also to say every one of them every Sunday and every Friday during their life, once our Lady Psalter, and if they forget it one day, to say as much another day, for the same. Also they nor none of them, shall not hide the mark upon their cheek, neither with hat, cap, hood, kerchief, napkin, nor none otherwise, nor shall not suffer their beards to grow past xiiij days, nor never to haunt again together, with any suspect person or persons, unless it be in the open market, fair, church, or common Inne or alehouse, where other people may see their conversation. And all these instructions, to fulfil with their penance, and every part of the same, under pain of relaps. These inflictions were not sufficient to satisfy this zeal- ous prelate. In some cases the penance was followed by perpetual imprisonment, as appears in “the Bishop’s letter to the Abbot of Ensham.” - 129 My loving Brother—I recommend me heartily unto you; and where, as I have according to the law put this bearer, R.T., to perpetual penance within your Monastery of Ensham, there to live as a penitent, and not otherwise, I pray you and nevertheless, according unto the law command you to receive him, and see ye order him there accordingly to his injunctions which he will shew you, if ye require the same. As for his lodging, he will bring it with him. And his meat and drink, he may have such as ye give of your alms. And if he can so order himself by his labours within your house in your business, whereby he may deserve his meat and drink, so may you order him as ye see convenient to his deserts, so that he pass not the precincts of your Monastery. And thus fare you heartily well. From my Place (Lincoln Place, Holborn.) These heavy punishments were frequently given for light offences. Robert Rane, hearing a certain bell in an uplandyshe steeple, said “Lo, yonder is a fayre bell, and it ought to hang about any cowe's neck in the town.” He was brought before the Bishop—coram nobis. Another blas- phemer incurred the censure of the church for calling a “certaine blynde chappel (beying in wine) an olde fayre milk-house.” On the 23rd of April, 1528, Clement VII. signed a Bull appointing Cardinal Wolsey a J udge in the trial of the King v. Katharine, the Queen; and on the 15th day of May the same year, Longland writes to Wolsey from Holborn, in which he laments he has incurred the King’s displeasure. All his efforts to regain the favour of the King were of no avail. The persecutor became the persecuted, and he was forbidden to visit his diocese of Lincoln, but was to remain at Lincoln Place, Holborn, during the King’s pleasure. No more letters to Wolsey from Longland now. Wol- sey was the setting sun and Thomas Cromwell the rising star. The King was punishing Longland by impoverishing him, and the bishop, in his need, writes to Cromwell, and |\, 72. The Fall of Bishop Longland. 130 Begs him to favour his suit concerning his bonds to the King. Has observed his necessities, and the expenses he has far above any other bishop, by reason of his continual attendance. Has a great house full of young gentlemen. Begs him to spare the payments till the next receipts about St. Andrew's tide, when he will be able tº bear 24,60, and at Whitsuntide afterwards in like manner till the whole be paid. - Dated from the Old Temple, 22nd June, 1532. Longland’s reference to “a great house full of young gentlemen” indicates very clearly that he, like the Bishop of Chichester, had his Inn for students of the law, which was one of the Inns of Court. The “great house” referred to does not appear to be Lincoln Place. The Bishop of Chichester had for his “Inn” the place once belonging to the Earl of Lincoln; the Bishop of Ely had for his “Inn” the place in Chancery Lane known as “Serjeant’s Inn,” and it is extremely probable that the “great house full of young gentlemen” was Staple Inn, Holborn. The letter from Longland appears to have irritated the King, who shut up the “great house full of young gentlemen” and took possession of it. Confirmation of this suggestion is furnished by the Lisle Letters—see page 257. In another letter, Longland to Cromwell: The Bishop thanks the Secretary for his kindness and sends him by his Chaplain his fee, 53s. 4d. Old Temple, Nov. 21, 1532. Another letter, Lincoln to Cromwell:— I have received this day the King's letter of the 3rd, which I intend to put in execution with all diligence. Dated at my house, called the “Old Temple,’ 4th June, 1533. * Chapuys, writing to Charles V. says in a letter:— The Bishop of Lincoln, who was at the beginning one of the promoters of the divorce, has said several times since Christ- mas that he would rather be the poorest man in the world than ever have been the King's Counsellor and Confessor. London, 3rd January, 1534. 131 The Bishop, while detained in Holborn, got into trou- ble for allowing prisoners to escape from Banbury Castle, he being keeper of the same, but as he was virtually a pri- soner in the House of Detention, Lincoln Place, the King granted a “Pardon for John, Bishop of Lincoln, as Keeper of the Gaol or Castle of Banbury, Oxon, for the escape of Thomas Audeley, John Sexton, William Emery, Francis Bene, and nine others.” Westminster, 10th March, 1534. Not receiving this pardon, Longland writes to Cromwell:— Sends now for his pardon, which he has delayed doing hitherto, knowing Cromwell's great continual business for the common weal. Begs that his payment may be less with longer days. Sends five marks of gold as a remembrance of part recompense of his pains. His charges are so great, he shall not be able to keep up his house and servants. Continues here at commandment, in manner all the year, at much greater expense than in the country. Dated from Holborn, 26th April, 1534. To my worshipful friend, Master Cromwell, one of the King's Most Honourable Council. The “house full of young gentlemen” is not mentioned in this letter, it is now “his house and servants” that he will not be able to keep up. In another communication, Longland to Cromwell, he says:— I am content to give your clerk the Chantry of Chalgrave, provided he resigns to my clerk his small vicarage. The Chantry is better than 2620 a year, and but for your sake I would have given it to a good M.A. or preacher. It is much asked for. Please write to Mr. Farmer of Oxfordshire that I be not indicted for breach of my prisons, as the King has given me a pardon in much payment as I must make to His Grace. If I have your letters to-day I will send them forth to-morrow; for the sessions at Oxford are on Tuesday. Dated from Holborn, 14th March, 1534. Shortly after the writing of this letter the Bishop was permitted to visit his diocese, and the reason for his release from Holborn is furnished by preceding events that had just taken place, as follows:— 132 Renunciation by Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canter- bury, of the jurisdiction of the See of Rome and of all allegiance to any foreign potentate. I oth February, 1534. Ditto by John Stokesley, Bishop of London, and Thomas, Bishop of Ely. I Ith February, 1534. Ditto by John Longland, Bishop of Lincoln. 13th Feb., 1534. Ditto by Edward Lee, Archbishop of York, and Robert Sherburn, Bishop of Chichester. 26th February, 1534. After this public renunciation of his allegiance to the Pope, he obtains permission from the King to depart from Lincoln Place, Holborn. He thus writes to Cromwell:— I thank you for getting me licence yesterday to go to my diocese, which I propose to do on Wednesday; also for being so good master to my nephew, the Archdeacon of Lincoln. I beg that he may have your counsel in all he has to do. Holborn, I Ith May, 1534. This creature of the King was deservedly cast off by Henry VIII., who, not being able to unfrock him, seized the numerous estates belonging to his See. This the Bishop resented as best he could, which made his royal master write to him, “Commanding him to appear before himself and the Council in the Starred Chamber at Westminster, on the morrow after the purification of Our Lady. West- minster, 13th January, 1535. (Signed with a Stamp.) His appearance in the Starred Chamber convinced him that his power and his property were fast ebbing away, and that he was only nominally Bishop of Lincoln. His worst fears were shortly afterwards confirmed, when he piteously makes one last appeal to his Sovereign against the uncon- stitutional claims of Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, as follows: w Appeal of John Longland, Bishop of Lincoln, to the King in Chancery, against the right of visitation claimed in his diocese by Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, as Metropolitan, whose commission he received at Wooburn, 11th June, 1534. Dated the 2nd March, 1535. 133 This was of no avail; the only consideration he received was that the confiscatory decree of the possessions of the See of Lincoln to the Crown was partly suspended, and did not come into full force until after his decease. It fell to the lot of Holbech, when Bishop of Rochester, to proclaim at St. Paul’s Church the gift of St. Bartholo- mew’s Hospital to the citizens, on the 12th of January, 1546, and in this gift was included a portion of the estate belonging to the See of Lincoln. The Bishop outlived his enemy, the King. He built a chapel in Lincoln Cathedral to correspond with that erected by Bishop Russell, and designed for himself there a tomb which he never occupied. He greatly improved his palace at Woburn, where he died, May 7th, 1547. He clung to Woburn Abbey with the false hope that it would not be separated from the See of Lincoln. - Henry Holbech was Longland’s successor. His posi- tion was a critical and extremely unpleasant one. His translation from Rochester to Lincoln was not sought by him. The first duty he had to perform in his new diocese was to confirm and ratify what had taken place in the time of his predecessor, some ten years previously, and writers, deserving of respect, forgetful of all that had gone before, have fixed upon him the odium of the surrender of the estates of his bishoprick to the Crown, then under an in- terested and unscrupulous protectorate. They say:— He was translated in 1547, I Ed. VI. to Lincoln, on condition that he would give up the Episcopal estates, to which he readily agreed; and before he had been a month in possession, he confis- cated in one day all the principal manors annexed to the See. He also gave up for ever the Episcopal palace at London, and whatever else the Court required, leaving his successors no other residence than the palace at Lincoln, and reduced the See from one of the richest to one of the poorest in the kingdom, for which his successors will doubtless revere his memory—the list may be Death of Bishop Longland. Henry Holbech, Bishop of Lincoln. 134. seen in Rymer’s Fadeya. In the same year the spire of his cathe- dral, reputed higher than that of Salisbury, fell down. He died August 2nd, 1551, and was privately buried in the cathedral. This statement is manifestly unfair. The social cata- clysm of confiscation, when monastery and abbey, bishop and priest, with all their belongings, were engulphed in the storm that swept away the rights of property in England in 1536, then Lincoln Place, Holborn, fell into the hands of the Crown long before the appointment of Bishop Holbech. He never entered into possession of the estates which he is alleged to have surrendered, and the so-called “surrender in one day,” by the laws of England at that time, would have been an illegal act if there had not been a prior deed to compel Bishop Holbech to do what he did. Lincoln Place appears, in the lifetime of Bishop Long- land, to have passed into the family of the Blunts by grant of the King, who intended it for his illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy. It is in evidence that the Blunts obtained possession of a great portion of the plundered manor of Blemundsbury through the influence of Elizabeth Blunt, the King’s mistress. She was daughter to Sir John Blunt and married Gilbert, Lord Talboys. He died in 1529 and the King took care of his widow. Fitzroy was born in 1519, and at a Parliament held in the Blackfriars Monastery by Ludgate, in 1525, he was created Earl of Nottingham; Duke of Richmond and Somerset; K.G.; Lieut. General from Trent northwards; Warden of the East, Middle, and West Marches for anenst Scotland; and on the 26th of July following, Lord High Admiral. At the same time the King created his nephew, Henry Brandon, a child of two years old, son to the Earl of Suffolk, Earl of Lincoln. These creations were made with the object that Brandon should have one portion of the old Lincoln estate and Fitzroy another portion, comprising Lincoln Place and the lands in and 135 around St. Giles’ in the Fields; but the early death of both these young lords prevented the King’s purpose being accomplished. Earl Fitzroy married Mary, daughter to Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, but died before consummation. The record runs: “Henry, Duke of Richmond and Somerset, a bastard son of KING HENRY, born at Blakamore, in Essex, of the Lady Taileboise, since called Elizabeth Blunt, died at St. James’, this 22nd of July, 1536, and was buried at Thetford in Norfolk.” Katherine Blunt now makes her appearance; she writes to the Right Worshipful Master Cromwell a letter, which follows:— Hears that the King intends to take into his hands certain abbeys and priories and put them to other uses. Desires his help that she may have some of them for her two youngest sons, giving for them as another will. Would be glad if her servant might consult him about certain writings touching her son's marriage. Kynlett, 21st February, 1536. Her knowledge of coming events was correct, for In a parliament, begun in the moneth of February, 1536, was granted the King and his heyres all religious houses in the realme of England, of the value of 2 hundred pound and under, with all landes and goods to them belonging. The number of these houses then suppressed was 376; the value of their landes then, 32,000 pound and more, by yeare, the moveable goods as they were; sold Robin Hoode's penny-houses, amounted to more than Ioo, ooo pounds, and the religious persons that were in the saide houses were put out; some went to other greater houses, some went abroad to the world. It was a pittiful thing to heare the lamentation that the people in the country made for them, for there was great hospita- lity kept among them, and as it was thought, more than ten thousand persons, masters and servants, had lost their livings by the putting downe of those houses at that time. Her request appears to have been answered in an unexpected way, owing to the death of Earl Fitzroy shortly after the letter was written. As he died childless, a portion of his estate was granted to Katharine Blunt. 136 Lincoln Place passes to Chancellor Wriothesley, Lincoln Place, now Southampton House. Lord Rich was enriched by the plunder of the estate of the Lovell's, and became the owner of the houses and land about Lincoln Place, Holborn. His interest in the locality is to be seen in the fact that he was made Lord Chancellor in 1547, the Chancellor’s Court having probably been removed from Staple Inn to Lincoln’s Inn. The needy Lord Mountjoy found in him a willing purchaser. Lord Rich transferred his interest in Lincoln Place to Lord Chan- cellor Wriothesley, the royal favourite. The writer is fully conscious that these statements are in direct opposition to the opinions of others who have dealt with this subject, yet at the same time the surrounding facts point conclusively to the changes which were occurring at Lincoln Place at this time, when John Longland was in disgrace and living under the King’s displeasure at Woburn. Lord Chancellor Audley died April 30th, 1544, when Sir Thomas Wriothesley was created Lord Wriothesley, Lord Keeper and Lord Chancellor; in 1545 Knight of the Garter; in 1547 Earl of Southampton, and then Lincoln Place became Southampton House. He had now reached the zenith of his power. Ambition, faction, and conspiracy were charged against him in consequence of his connection with the Greys and Dudleys, who, it is alleged, poisoned Edward VI. and endeavoured to supplant Queen Mary for Lady Jane, the “Twelve Days Queen.” The strong anti- protestant principles of Wriothesley saved him from a traitor’s death, obtaining the leniency of Queen Mary, who ordered him to remain a prisoner in Southampton House. RAPIN says:— I have observed before that the Lord Chancellor Wriothesley, the new Earl of Southampton, was ambitious, proud, and haughty, very troublesome at the Council-board, and moreover, a great enemy to the Reformation. All these reasons made the Protector (Somerset) wish to be rid of him. An opportunity for so doing soon occurred. 137 Chancellor Wriothesley, without any warrant from Somer- set, put the Great Seal to a Commission, 18th Feby, 1547, directed to the Master of the Rolls, and three Masters of Chancery to act in his absence. A complaint was lodged against him, and the decision of the full Council was “that by so doing he had by the common law forfeited his place, and was liable to fine and imprisonment during the King’s pleasure.” Furious at the result, his unbridled tongue made matters worse. He was immediately confined to his house, with a command not to stir from thence till further orders. He was left under arrest, and the Great Seal was held by Lord St. John till another Lord Chancellor was appointed. So the Earl of Southampton continued in his confinement till the 19th of July, 1547. Two years pass away, and the Southampton party are powerful enough to crush the pro- tector Somerset. On the 6th of October, 1549, the Lord St. John, President of the King’s Council, the Earls of Southampton, Warwick, Arundel, and others met at Ely House, in Holborn, and there formulated their successful scheme which brought Somerset to ruin. The Duke retired to the King at Windsor, and was followed by the Earls of Southampton and Huntingdon on the 14th October, 1549, who brought Somerset from thence and proceeded through Holborn with him as a prisoner betwixt them to Holborn Bridge, and were there met by the Sheriffs of London, who conveyed him to the Tower. The next year, 1550, Thomas Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, died, and was buried in the Church of St. Andrew, Holborn. Somerset was brought to Westminster from the Tower to be tried by his Peers, November, 1551, and was condemned to be hung. The people, thinking he was acquitted, gave “a shout that their cry was heard to Long Acre, beyond Charing Cross, which made the Lords astonished. The Duke returned to the Tower.” This incident is remarkable, and suggests that O O Chancellor Wriothesley and Protector Somerset. 138 “The Elms,” the a mob was waiting at “the Elms,” by Long Acre, the usual Ancient Place of Execution. place of execution, for when the fact became known that the Duke was returning to the Tower, and that there would be no ghastly spectacle for the crowd to witness, then the disappointed rabble inferred that he was acquitted, and shouted their approval of the verdict. Tradition has dealt unkindly with Wriothesley in the alleging that he, dissatisfied with the racking of the gentle and refined lady, Ann Askew, took off his robe, and with his own hands, in his zeal for the old faith, turned the rack till he almost disjointed her. Be this as it may, Ann Askew, helpless and crippled, and unable to walk, was carried to the place of execution and burnt alive. Henry Wriothesley, the second Earl of Southampton, who looked with disfavour on the creed of the Reformers, sanctioned by QUEEN ELIZABETH, was committed to the Tower. From his prison he writes to Lord Burghley:— Hoping that through his favour he may be able to obtain the Queen's goodwill. Denies the charges of misconduct during his imprisonment. Requests to be restored shortly to his liberty and Her Majesty's favour. 4th April, 1572. This letter received favourable consideration. The Queen ordered his release from the Tower and appointed him to a position of trust; but the traitor has no gratitude in his nature. He became involved in further plots which were communicated to the state. Suspicious of his loyalty, spies were set to watch him resulting in the discovery that, secret meetings were held at Southampton House. On the 14th of September, 1586, the charge of treason was The Babington preferred against John Ballard, Anthony Babington, John Savage, Conspiracy. and Henry Dunn, that they at divers times in June and July, not having the fear of God before their eyes, did conspire traitorously to deprive the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty from her royal crown, and agree for the delivery of Mary Queen of Scots from the custody wherein she was, And furthermore that the said John 139 Ballard, didst traitorously go to Southampton House, in Holborn, within the County of Middlesex, to confer with John Charnock and other false traitors, and afterwards, the 2nd day of August, at Southampton House, did assent to perform the best they could in fulfilling of their treasons. And furthermore, that you Anthony Babington, John Savage, Chidiock Titchburne, Robert Barnewell, and other false traitors, most horribly, devilishly, wickedly, and traitorously, with divers other horrible traitors, went to St. Giles's Field on the 24th day of June and at other times, didst conclude and agree to perform the best they could for the compassing of these treasons. And that thou, John Charnock, traitorously did go to Southampton House, in Holborn, the last day of July; and the same day didst confer there with John Ballard how your traitorous imaginations might be brought to pass; and thereupon, the 2nd day of August, at Southampton House, in Holborn, didst agree to do the best for the performance of the treasons aforesaid. Abington, one of the accused, said: My first acquaintance was with Savage, by reason that he and my brother were both of Barnard's Inn. Ballard admitted that before Christmas last he confessed Gage and Tilney at a house in Holborn. Tilney, and Jones, an accomplice, confessed that they promised to attend meetings in Lincoln's Inn Fields. - Charnock said: Savage and I were acquainted when he was at Barnard's Inn, and I of Furnival's Inn. We served in Spain together; and Savage brought me acquainted with Ballard. Being found guilty, Stow states:— These traytors, 14 in number, were executed in Lincoln's Inn Fields, on a stage or Scaffold of timber, strongly made for that purpose, even in the place where they had used to assemble, and conferre of their traitorous practises, there were they hanged, bowelled, and quartered, seven of them on the 20th of September, to wit:—John Ballard, Priest; Anthony Babington, Esquire; John Savage, Gentleman; R. Barnewell, Gentleman; Chidiock Tich- borne, Esquire; Charles Tilney, Esquire; and E. Abington, Esquire. The other seven were likewise executed on the 21st of September, to wit:-Thomas Salsbury, Esquire; Henry Dunn, Gentleman; Edward Jones, Esquire; John Traverse, Gentleman; T. Charnocke, Gentleman; R. Gage, Gentleman; Jerome Belamie, Gentleman, &c. Executions in Lincoln's Inn Fields. | | |0 Southampton’s strong religious faith in the old religion made him disloyal. The advisers of the Queen were determined to destroy the Catholics, and he, from his point of view, had to choose between the surrender of all things that he held most dear or to maintain them, even though it were treason to the State. Rumours had reached the Court that a plan was in preparation on the Continent to invade England and uproot its Protestantism. The following notes from the State Papers illustrate the feeling of the government, and the local events which were taking place around Southampton House. Note of the Privy Search made in High IIolborn, without the Bars, by N. Cole, Messenger of the Chamber, and I&oger Turtle, Constable of High Holborn, for Popish Relics and suspected persons. Search in one Felton's house where they found three Irishmen all in one bed. In Mr. Waferer's house they found three sprigs of palm with crosses bound on them. 13th August, 1586. Note of suspected persons with their places of abode. Nicholas Ridgley liveth in a blue house on the right hand of the upper part of Holborne, nigh the style, going into the fields there. September, 1586. Fortunately for Earl Southampton, his influence at Court saved him from the horrors of the scaffold, but no sooner had his accomplices been put to death, with all the exquisitely-devised cruelty that has discredited the humanity of Englishmen, than Southampton engaged in further plots and involved himself in fresh troubles. One George Dingley gave information to Lord Keeper Pickering, which was important, he having been in the secrets of the Romish party and betrayed them. He was examined before the Lord Keeper on the 27th of August, 1592, and described himself as James Young, alias Thomas Christopher, alias George Dingley. He says:— On first coming to London I went to Thomas Wiseman's, Garnet's Rents, Lincoln's Inn Fields, having heard Ireland, an Englishman at Seville, did give a token to Roberts for Wiseman 141 of the breaking of a cake between them. Went to Mr. Momper- son at Clerkenwell to be tabled, under pretence to make way for a marriage with a young gentlewoman named Temperance Davis. A search being made, he escaped, and went back to Wiseman's, who sent him to Coles, a Schoolmaster at St. Giles', Holborn. Wattes frequents Southampton House, Holborn; after they parted, followed him, and lost sight of him thereabouts late at night. June, I593. Another Spy, Benjamin Beard, informs Lord Keeper Pickering that: - Butler, a priest, keeps with Thos. Leeds, who is with the Lord Chamberlain or with Harrington, who is with Lady South- ampton, and has also lodgings about Lincoln's Inn Grange. He cannot say whether Mr. Cornwallis, of Fisher's Folly, was privy to the mass held at his house on Easter Monday, by Jones, alias Norton and Butler, when Knight and his wife, of Chancery Lane, and two daughters were present. When Tregion’s wife came home, she brought a bottle of holy water. Butler was sometime chamber- fellow with Mr. Harrington, who serves Lady Southampton; thinks that since he has come over he is still harboured by him. They lived about eight years since in Southampton House, in the next chamber to Robert Gage, who was executed, and he fled at being nominated one of Babington’s conspiracy. May 9th, I 594. The constant watching of Southampton incriminated him in the “Essex Plot.” Mr. Henry Cuffe, Secretary to the Earl of Essex, hoping to save himself from a traitor’s death, gave evidence against his master and his accomplices. He deposed that:— When the Earl of Essex was in the Lord Keeper's house, between March and Christmas, it was resolved by the Earl of Southampton, Sir Christopher Blount, Sir Charles Danvers, Sir Gelly Merrick, and others, that the Earl should escape, and either take sea at Portsmouth or make for Wales; but after they had so resolved, they broke it off again, thinking it was not fit to proceed in that manner. 2nd March, I601. Sir Henry Nevill, at the same meeting was examined and read a lengthy document, in which he stated:— Southampton and the Essex Plot. 142 Upon Monday, being Candlemas Day, as I was coming out of Serjeant's Inn, there came by in a coach my Lords of Essex, and Southampton, Sir Christopher Blount, and Sir Charles Danvers, and went towards the Strand. As I had told Cuffe I would be there that day, and they had seen me so near, I went thence to Drury House, and there found my Lord of Southampton with Sir Charles Danvers. . . . . It was proposed to send 40 persons in several companies to the Mewes (who should come in a coach, well attended, with my Lord of Southampton), who should go before to the Court Gate and possess it. Secretary Cecil writes to Attorney General Coke:– Send me the last confessions of Sir Christopher Blount and Lord Southampton, concerning the late Earl of Essex’s purpose to bring over an army from Ireland, as I have occasion to use them. 16th May, I 60 I. George Carleton writes to his brother, Dudley Carleton: The Earl (Essex) was beheaded in the Tower first; Sir Guillam Gelly Merrick, and Cuffe, his Secretary, were afterwards hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn; and lastly, Sir Charles Danvers and Sir Christopher Blount were beheaded on Tower Hill, openly, on Wednesday, 25th March, 1601. The execution of Cuffe took place on March 13th. The last words of his long speech were ‘I am here adjudged to die for plotting a plot never acted, and for acting an act never plotted.’ Secretary Cecil writes to Mr. Winwood:— I hope, seeing Her Majesty has so satisfied justice in execu- tion of the principal conspirators, that the Earl of Southampton shall be spared. I take care of Sir Henry Nevill's fortune, being tied by friendship and nature, 21st March, 1601. Tobie Matthew writes from Gray’s Inn to Dudley Carleton, in which he says:— The Earl of Southampton is almost safe, I think the old Sheriff is out of danger. 25th March, 16or. In a document, dated August, 1601, it is said:— The Earl of Southampton Continues a close prisoner in the Tower, only he has the liberty of the leads over his lodging. Here he remained until the death of the Queen. Dudley Carleton gives an account in French of the death # 1.43 of QUEEN ELIZABET II, as caused by melancholy on the death of the Earl of Essex. 4th April, 1603. There was no sympathy for Elizabeth by James I. She had executed his mother, and those who conspired against her were favoured by him. Secretary Cecil writes to Sir Thomas Lake:— The Earl of Southampton and Sir Hy. Nevill are delivered. I oth April, 1603. In the following July, Henry Danvers is created Baron Danvers; Sir Charles Blount, Baron Mountjoy, to the rank of Earl of Devonshire; creation of Henry, Lord Wrioth- esley, to the rank of Earl Southampton. The same year, December 10th, 1603, “Warrant for the Earl of Southamp- ton to preserve the King’s game in the divisions of Andover, Fawley, and Kingsclerk, co. Hants.” In the following year a “Warrant to deliver to the Earl of Southampton his robe, kirtle, hood, and tippet of the Order of the Garter.” Dudley Carleton writes to John Chamberlain, stating: The Queen and Duke of Holsteine were feasted by the Earl of Southampton and Viscount Cranbourne. I 5th January, 1605. The Earl of Salisbury writes to Sir Thomas Lake:– That he has been to take a last look at Theobalds before it passes into the hands of the King. The Earls of Suffolk, Wor- cester, and Southampton met him at Hatfield, to discuss the site of his future habitation. I 5th April, 1607. The King rewards the Earl of Southampton with the “Grant of an annuity of £2,000 out of the customs on sweet wines.”—7th June, 1611. His daughter, Lady Penelope Spenser, died January, 1616. The name of the Spensers has been so closely connected with Blemundsbury in the past, that the death of Lady Spenser may have induced the King to write Sir Henry Yelverton, in 1617: Ordering him to prepare a bill confirming certain privileges to Henry, Earl of Southampton, in his lands in Hampshire, Mid- dlesex, and Lincolnshire, and to extend the liberties of South- ampton House from Holborn Bars to the Rolls in Chancery Lane. Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton. 144 George Gerrard writes to Dudley Carleton:- The King has given the Earl of Southampton 4, 1,200 a year, in lieu of his land in the New Forest, grown useless by the multitude of the deer. 28th February, 1619. The following letter is marked “Written from South- ampton House, Holborn.” 23rd February, 1619. Captain Thomas Risley to Sir Clement Edmondes:– The Lord Lieutenant of Hampshire (Earl of Southampton) desires the discharge of Mr. Cole, who has submitted to provide arms for the musters. - On the 8th of July, 1620, the Earl of Southampton was made Governor of the Virginia Company. The sun- shine of royal favour became suddenly clouded. John Chamberlain writes to Dudley Carleton:— sº- The Lord Treasurer announced that during the interim of Parliament a proclamation will be issued, suspending all monopo- lies till they can be examined into, and allowed or abrogated. The Earl of Southampton is in custody, but Sir Richard Weston, declining to be his Keeper, Sir William Parkhurst has been appointed. Sir Edw. Sandys and Seldon, a lawyer and studious of antiquities, are also committed, and a commission appointed to examine them; divers rumours of the cause of committal, but it is asserted not to be for anything done in Parliament. The Earl of Southampton refuses to answer, lest he should be drawn, ore tenus, into the Star Chamber, but asks to know the charges against him, and to see his accusers. The late Chancellor (Bacon) has removed from Fulham to his house at Gorhambury, and is vain and idle as ever; his fine of 24, 40,000 to the King, so far from hurting him, proves a bulwark against his other creditors. 1621. The Earl, replying to his examiners, said:— He was not unfaithful to the King, but could not answer for others. Did not plot to thwart his Majesty's ends. Has not spoken against the Government, but has spoken against evils in the State. Did not say there could be no reform while one man governed the King. Did not say he disliked attending Council there being so many boys and base fellows there. Wore his sword in the House because others do so, etc. 145 The following month the Duke of Buckingham, by the -> King’s command, went with an order to release and set at liberty the Earls of Southampton, Oxford, and Northumber- land; the latter had been a prisoner fifteen years. South- ampton, when freed from prison, was kept under restraint until August 30, 1621, when the King ordered his release from restraint and Sir William Parkhurst from attendance on him as Keeper. This the Council confirmed, Sept. 1st, 1621. In 1636 he “moved the King by petition that he might have leave to pull down his house in Holborn and build it into tenements, which would have been much ad- vantage to him, and his fortune hath need of some help.” His Majesty brought the petition with him to the Council table and recommended it to the Lords, telling their lord- ships that my Lord of Southampton was a person whom he much respected, etc., but upon debate it was dashed. The King and the Earl set the decision of the Council aside and let his land on building leases. This is confirmed by the following:— Petition of Richard Forster, Citizen and Vintner of London, to the Council:—In the new buildings to be erected in Southamp- ton Garden, next Chancery Lane, the same being 80 houses, there being but one house for a tavern. Petitioner in January last, at a fine of 24. Io9 and 2470 rent, took the same for 21 years, and bestowed great charges in fitting the house, besides 4,400 for furniture and storing. Upon information that there are five taverns already in Chancery Lane, and that the petitioner's house, which is fit for the reception of a person of quality, would lay open to disorderly persons the privacy of Lincoln's Inn Garden, and be a great annoyance to that Society and to the persons of quality next thereto, petitioner's house was ordered to be closed. The intended tavern lies in the most convenient place for the sale of wines to the inhabitants, and cannot interfere with the taverns in Chancery Lane, or with Lincoln's Inn. Appeals to a certificate of good behaviour and prays to be suffered to proceed in the con- templated employment of his house, February, 1640. A) p Demolition of Southampton House by Chancery Lane. 146 Southampton Chapel. This petition was of no avail and was followed by another from the same person, as follows:— That the Earl of Southampton, having licence from His Majesty to convert his demolished house, called Southampton House, in Holborn, into tenements, to his best benefit, with liberty to make one tavern, encouraged petitioner to take a house at the fine of 24, Iog and 24.70 rent per annum thereof, being the corner house in Chancery Lane of that building, and over against the wall of Lincoln's Inn Garden. Upon some information made by the Society of Lincoln's Inn as petitioner conceives, about the 13th of March last, petitioner's house was suppressed by an Order of Council, his wines lying in an outhouse and himself like to be ruined. Conceives that the situation of the said house cannot offend the Society as alleged, a spacious way lying between the garden wall and the said house. Prays that the consideration thereof may be referred to Sir Henry Spiller. April, 1640. The breaking out of the Civil War put an end to all further petitioning and building for a time. The old chapel stood isolated amidst the surrounding desolation. PENNANT, speaking of this place, says:— A little beyond Southampton Buildings, on the site of South- ampton House, the mansion of the Wriothesleys, Earls of South- ampton, the “King's Head Tavern,” facing Holborn, is the only part of it which now remains. The chapel to the house was lately rented (1790) by Mr. Lockyer Davis, as a magazine for books. Here ended his days Thomas, the last Earl of that title. Not so, it was Thomas, first Earl. Southampton House was pulled down long before Thomas, the last Earl died. An employe “of the Department of Printed Books, in the British Museum,” writing recently on this subject, gives information that no student had ever discovered, for he says that the Duke of Bedford, when living in his Bloomsbury Mansion, let his chapel to an auctioneer for the sale and storage of books. The statement is as follows: THOMAS PENNANT, writing in 1790, mentions that the chapel of Southampton House (i.e., of Bedford House) was at that time 147 rented by Mr. Lockyer Davis as a magazine for Books. Davis was a well-known printer, publisher, and auctioneer of books of the eighteenth Century. . . . He died, 1791. It is remarkable that this modern local historian should presume, under the circumstances, to interpolate PENNANT (i.e., of Bedford House), thereby demonstrating that he gained his information second hand, for PENNANT states the Book Store was by Chancery Lane. It was about time to pull down Bedford House and the Book Store, alias the Duke of Bedford’s Chapel. A sale took place there in 1800, Mr. Christie conducted it, and the same writer informs his readers that it “commenced on May 7th, when the most crowded assemblage was gratified with a last view of this fine old house.” MR. CHARLEs BAILY, in a paper on this subject, read February 22nd, 1850, at a meeting of the British Archaeo- logical Association, says:— For some unexplained reason, this department has been called ‘the chapel,' but after a careful search no evidence of its having been applied to such a use could be detected. It has a fine framed and moulded ceiling in oak timber, flat, and divided into six large panels, having one longitudinal and two transverse moulded girders of large dimensions, with wall-plates to corres- pond; the mouldings are the beads and hollows used at about A.D. 15oo, and not the quarter-rounds of the time of Elizabeth. The panels are filled in with joists, which carry the boarding above. On the north side an opening exists, which appears to have been a large window, and at the west end of the south side is a pointed doorway, now filled up. In consequence of the removal of the ancient roof, this ponderous ceiling was placed in great jeopardy, and its fall is only prevented by shoring. The building is in the rear of Mr. Griffith's house, No. 322, High Holborn, and measures 40 feet by 2 I feet, but has been formerly somewhat longer. The Builder of March, 1847, says: A former entrance of the chapel of Southampton House appears to correspond with the moulding of the flat timbered roof, Southampton Chapel, by Chancery Lane. 1.18 Southampton House, Dloomsbury. which is of the time of Henry VII. This part of the edifice retains its original proportions, except that its height is divided by a modern floor. Its length is about 40 feet by about 20 feet. It is now used by a whipmaker as his warehouse. It was in passing this house, the scene of his domestic happiness, on his way to the scaffold in Lincoln's Inn Fields, that the fortitude of the martyr forsook him. This is another literary curiosity—for the execution of Russell took place in 1683, and this Southampton House was pulled down about 1639. Great confusion does exist between the dates of the two Southampton Houses. No author has attempted to deal with this branch of history. The State Papers say that South- ampton House, by Chancery Lane, was demolished prior to 1610, and Southampton House, Bloomsbury, appears to have been built before that time. The publication of maps, alleged to be of an earlier period, showing Southampton House in Bloomsbury, has added greatly to the difficulty— Notably those of 1563 and 1603; and, without persuing this question further, it is sufficient to remark that RANULP II AGAs’ map is considered by those who have taken up the argument to have been published long after 1563. On Nov. 11th, 1661, a “License was granted to the Earl of Southampton to build houses in Southampton Fields, St. Giles’, near his Mansion-house, with liberty to alter and rebuild some already built.” PEPYs notes the favour of the King to Southampton: Into the Hall and there saw my Lord Treasurer (Southamp- ton), who was sworn to-day at the Exchequer, with a great company of Lords and persons of honour to attend him, go up to the Treasury Offices and take possession thereof; and also saw the heads of Cromwell, Bradshaw, and Ireton Set up at the further end of the Hall. February 5th, 1661. Previously, Major Genl. Harrison; Mr. John Carew, Chief Justice; John Coke; the Rev. Hugh Peters; Mr. Thomas Scot; Mr. Gregory Clement; and the Colonels 149 Adrian, Scroop, John Jones, Frances Hacker, and Daniel Axtell were executed at Charing Cross, October, 1660. This fact points to “The Elms” at the bottom of Long Acre, very near to Charing Cross, as the Tyburn of that age, the common place for the execution of malefactors, and these were probably the last of the executions there. The reasons for this supposition are twofold: — firstly, the ground was being let on building leases; and secondly (ALLEN says), “the King was advised in future not to have the scene so near the Court as Charing Cross.” The scene referred to was indeed a disgraceful one. The remains of Cromwell, Bradshaw, and Ireton were dug up and ordered to be hung on gibbets at the new place of execution, but it seems that corruption prevented the order being carried out. Cromwell’s bones were carted into High Holborn to “the Red Lion Inn” (afterwards the “King's Head Inn”), fronting Dean Street, and on this spot very much of this history has been written. Some writers say that Cromwell was buried under the gallows by Edgeware Road, others that he was buried in Red Lion Square. SEYMoUR says:— - After the Restauration of King Charles II., Ireton's body, with that of Cromwell, was taken up on Saturday, January 26th, 1660, and on the Monday night following, were drawn in two several carts, from Westminster to the Red Lion in Holbourn, where they continued all night; the corpse of Bradshaw, which being buried but little more than a year, was green and stank, therefore was not taking up till the morning following, and then was carried in a cart to the Red Lion, and the day following being the day of the Royal Martyrdom, they were drawn to Tyburn on three sledges, where they were pulled out of their coffins and hanged on the several sides on the gallows, where they hung till next day Sun-set, at which time they were taken down, had their heads cut off, and the trunks thrown into a deep hole under the gallows, which serves for the monument of their grave and merit. Their heads were fixed on Westminster Hall. New Tyburn, near Edgeware Road. “The Red Lion Inn,” 25I, High Holborn. 150 Eliza Cromwell, mother to Oliver, daughter of Sir Richard Steward, Knt., died at Whitehall the 18th of November, 1654, and was buried in King Henry VII's Chapel. Afterwards, at the Restauration, taken up and buried with others in St. Margaret's church-yard. Eliza Claypole, daughter to Oliver, died the 7th of August, 1658, and was buried in a vault, made purposely for her, in King Henry VII’s chapel, and removed with her mother. There was another scene which the Court thought expedient should take place at the new Tyburn rather than at “The Elms,” by Charing Cross, namely, the execution of the late King’s judges: Colonel Barkstead, Corbet, and Okey. Up to this date “the Waye to Uxbridge” was not known as “the Tyburn Road.” 19th April, 1662. PEPYs takes the reader back to Southampton Build- ings, and records the fate of a newly-built house there:— To White Hall; and in the Duke's chamber, while he was dressing; two persons of quality that were there did tell His Royal Highness how the other night in Holborn about midnight, being at cards, a link-boy come by and run into the house and told the people the house was a falling. Upon this the whole family was frighted, concluding that the boy had said that the house was a-fire; so they left their cards above, and one would have got out of the balcony, but it was not open; the other went up to fetch down his children that were in bed: So all got clear out of the house. And no sooner so, but the house fell down indeed from top to bottom. It seems my Lord Southampton's canaille did come too near their foundation, and so weakened the house, and down it come: which in every respect is a most extraordinary passage. I4 h March, 1663-4. PEPYs records his visit to Southampton House on the 20th of April, 1663, in this manner:— With Sir G. Carteret and Sir John Minnes to my Lord Trea- surer's, thinking to have spoken about getting money for paying the yards; but we found him with some ladies at cards; and so, it being a bad time to speak, we parted. This day the little Duke of Monmouth was marryed at the White Hall, in the King's 151 chamber, and to-night is a great supper and dancing at his lodg- ings, near Charing Cross. I observed his coate at the taile of his coache: he gives the arms of England, Scotland, and France, quartered upon some other fields; but what it is that speaks his being a bastard I know not. Another entry in the same Diary records:— After church I walked to my Lady Sandwiche's (in Lincoln's Inn Fields), through my Lord Southampton's new buildings in the fields behind Gray's Inn; and indeed they are a very great and noble work. 2nd October, 1664. My Lord Treasurer he minds his ease and lets things go how they will; if he can have his 48,000 per annum and a game at l'ombre, he is well. My Lord Chancellor he minds getting of money and nothing else; and my Lord Ashley will rob the Devil and the Altar, but he will get the money if it be to be got. 1665. Stillingfleet, they say, was presented to my Lord Treasurer for St. Andrew's, Holborn, where he is now minister, with these words:–“that they (the Bishops of Canterbury, London, and another) believed he is the ablest young man to preach the Gospel of any since the Apostles' 23rd April, 1665. It struck me very deep this afternoon going with a hackney coach from my Lord Treasurer's down Holborn. The coachman I found to drive easily and easily, at last stood still, and come down hardly able to stand, and told me that he was suddenly struck very sick, and almost blind, he could not see; so I light and went in another coach, with a sad heart for the poor man and for myself also, lest he should have been struck with the plague. 17th June, 1665. PEPYs mentions his last visit to the Earl of South- ampton in Southampton Square, but it was too late, the end had come; the Earl had just died. I away to my Lord Treasurer's, where I find the porter crying, and suspected it was that my Lord is dead; and poor Lord! we did find that he was dead just now. There is a good man gone, and I pray God that the Treasury may not be worse ma- naged by the hand or hands it shall now be put into; though, for certain the slowness (though he was of great integrity) of this man and remissness have gone as far to undo the nation as any 152 thing else that has happened; and yet, if I knew all the difficulties that he hath lain under, and his instrument, Sir Philip Warwick, I might be true to another mind. I6th May, 1667. Sir Philip Warwick was Secretary to the Treasury under Lord Southampton. Three days later, 19th May, 1667, the Diarist writes:— Great talk of the good end that my Lord Treasurer made; closing his own eyes, and wetting his mouth, and bidding adieu with the greatest content and freedom in the world; and is said to die with the cleanest hands that ever any Lord Treasurer did. PEPYs knew that this was not the case, for he recorded in his Diary, 19th January, 1662-3:— Singled out Mr. Coventry into the matted gallery, and there I told him the complaints I meet every day about our Treasurer's (Earl Southampton) or his people's paying no money but at the Goldsmith's shop, where they are forced to pay fifteen or twenty sometimes per cent, for their money, which is a most horrid shame, and that which must not be suffered. Nor is it likely that the Treasurer (at least his people) will suffer Maynell the Goldsmith to go away with 24, Io, ooo per annum as he do now get, by making people pay after this manner for their money. So passed away the last of the Wriothesleys, a corrupt man who prospered in a corrupt age. His ill-gotten wealth was spent on buildings in Bloomsbury. The manor of Blemundsbury had long since been destroyed, and he was Lord of the manor of St. Giles, with Bloomsbury; there was no Bloomsbury manor. The Southampton estate was then in the parish of St. Giles in the Fields. His name is preserved in the parish as the founder of the “Alms-house Charity,” and his generosity consisted in granting on lease for 500 years, at one shilling per annum, a piece of ground on the public highway, which he claimed, as Lord of the manor, for the erection of Alms-houses. Long before the manor of St. Giles’ existed, there stood on this piece of ground the village Pound and the original Round-house or Toll-house, afterwards known as “the Cage.” This was in 153 1656, but the shilling kept the right in force, and in conse- quence, more than one hundred years afterwards, litigation ensued, and the shilling put the parish to serious expense. In August, 1782, a case was laid before Chief Justice Kenyon, then Attorney General, as to whether the removal of the Alms-houses would destroy the Charity, as follows:— The said Alms-houses, being situate in the middle of the High Street, rendered the passage adjoining very narrow and incon- venient, and the buildings being in a ruinous decayed state, the select vestry was desirous to take them down, and lay the ground into the public way for accommodation. That His Grace, the Duke of Bedford, was heir at law of the late Earl of Southampton, and was Lord of the Manor of St. Giles, with Bloomsbury; but during His Grace's minority, the legal estates and manorial rights were vested in his trustees, who would consent that the ground should be made part of the public highway. The ground was not made “part of the public highway.” The Duke built upon the vacant land as soon as the Alms- houses were taken down, and the nuisance of Middle Row, St. Giles’, was perpetuated until the formation of Endell Street, when compensation for the removal of his freeholds on the highway was made to the Duke; for the 500 years' lease at one shilling per annum gave him the reversionary interest in the soil. - The Alms-houses were removed to the slums of St. Giles, behind the Coal-yard, and rebuilt out of the rates. In 1885, the Alms-house Committee, wisely or otherwise, re-erected these cheerless homes for the aged poor in this foul cul-de-sac at a cost of £2,723 4s. 0d. It sometimes falls to the lot of unworthy men to benefit the place they live in unintentionally, and this was the case with Earl Southampton. Ralph, first Earl of Montague, married Elizabeth, daughter and co-heiress of the Lord Treasurer Southampton, and he, by right of his wife, having an interest in Bloomsbury, built Montague House on the Q Q The Alms- Houses of St. Giles in the Fields. 154 Southampton estate, and it is very possible that had there not been a Montague House, there would not have been a British Museum in Bloomsbury. The deceased Earl left a widow and two daughters, Lady Rachael, by his first Countess, Rachael de Massey, and Lady Elizabeth, by his second Countess, who was the daughter of Francis Leigh, created Earl of Chichester, 20th Charles I. Mention is made of the widowed Countess in the parish books, thus:— Rec' of the Rt. Hon’ble the Countess of South'ton, money- given in her chapel at the holy communion—48. The widowed Lady Rachel Russell makes mention of Southampton Chapel in one of her letters to Dr. Fitzwilliam, dated October 1st, 1684:— In a short letter, I beg to acquaint you with what I have not yet touch'd on—my resolve to try that desolate habitation of mine at London. The doctor agrees it is the best place for my boy We º 'º º is g º ſº I took into my thought how the chapel should be supplyed—so short a warning as I had given myself, could never secure my being supply'd as I desire, and I considered one of your order is not to be used as other domestics, so that if unhappily I should have entertained one agreeable to me, it would have been hard to have relieved myself; so I lighted on this expedient:-To invite an old acquaintance of yours to pass this winter with me, and if her husband, Mr. Hanbury, could dispense for some weeks with officiating himself at Botley, I would be willing he should supply my chapel; being at present unprovided: so I give myself this approaching winter to fix. I am sure he is conforming enough, and 'twill not be difficult to any, if willing, to act that prudent part I formerly hinted, and at which you seemed almost to have some objections against; but I leave that for a discourse. “My chapel” reminds the reader that the place had passed from the Wriothesleys to the Russells. Gºlje Śielba of #lomt £icquet: #taple 3.11n, Hijolbornt. PENNANT, writing of Staple Inn, gleans its history from its name and calls it “Staple’s Inn, so called from its having been a Staple, in which the wool merchants were used to assemble; but it had given place to students in law, possibly before the reign of Henry V.”—1413. This is writing history by guess-work, for no corrobo- ration of PENNANT’s statement exists, it being based solely on the supposition furnished by its name. All the evidence connected with the place points in an entirely opposite direction. In the long record of parliamentary statutes from Edward the Third to Edward the Fourth, concerning the staple of wool, etc., there is not the slightest allusion to a wool staple in Holborn, neither is there any document in existence recording business of that character being there transacted. WEEveR says:– Staple is a publicke place to which by the Prince, his autho- ritie and priviledge, wool, wine, hides of beasts, corne or graine, and other exoticke or forraine merchandise are transferred, carried or conveyed to be sold, or set to sale. Or staple signifies this or that town or citie, whither the merchants of England, by common order or commandement did carry their wools, wool-sells, clothes, lead, and tinne, and such like commodities of our land, for the utterance of them by the great. The word may probably be taken two wayes; one from Stapel, which in the Saxon or Old English language signifieth the stay or hold of anything, or from the French word Estape, [id est forum Vinarium.] because to those places, whither our English merchants brought their commodities, the French would also meete them with theirs, which most of all consisteth of wines. Now, howsoever, we most commonly finde The Staple of Wool, 156 the Staple to bee kept, and thereupon, as in this place, the mer- chants thereof were stiled Mercatores Stapuleville Calistie, yet you may read of many other places appointed for the Staple in the statutes of the land, according as the Prince, by his counsell, thought good to alter them, from the second yeare of Edward the Third (1328) to the fifth of Edward the Sixth (1552). The fees of the Maiors and Constables of the Staples in England, levied out of 4d. a sacke of wool comming to every Staple, were as followeth:-The Maior of the Staple of Westminster had yearly one hundred pounds, and every of the Constables there ten markes. The Maiors of the Staples of Yorke, Kingstone upon Hull, Norwich, and Winchester, every of them twenty pounds, and every of the Constables of the same places one hundred shillings. The Maiors of Newcastle upon Tine, Chichester, and of Exeter, ten pounds, and every of the Constables of those places five markes. And if any of the Maiors and Constables before named refused the office, he was to pay to the company as much as his fee should amount to. The Maior and Constables had power to record Recognisances of debt taken before them, by virtue of a statute, made the tenth of Henry the Sixth—1432. Another record is—Staple Inne or Hostell of the Merchants of the Staple (as the tradition is), wherewith until I can learne better matter con- cerning the antiquity and foundation thereof I must rest satisfied. The antiquity of buildings on this spot has been pre- viously referred to. WEEvER says, speaking of the Old Temple in Holborn:— The first founder hereof is not certainly recorded; some hold that it was built by Dunwallo Mulmutius, about the yeare of the world's creation, 4748, the precincts whereof he made a Sanctuary or a place of refuge for any person therein to be assured of life, liberty, and limbs, of which I have spoken elsewhere. There is no possibility of getting any further informa- tion of a period so remote; but it is not a little singular that before the Norman Conquest, down to the present time, the place and its precincts should have remained, through all the centuries, so closely connected with the laws of England. It may be thought by some to be a 157 hopeless task to tell the story of an Inn that has no known chronicle, a task made more difficult by its false tradition- ary—“wool staple.” The task is not hopeless, for the clustered buildings on the brow of Holborn Hill had a history of exceeding interest and importance. The lamp of research sheds but a dim ray on the voiceless vault of the past; its light flickers feebly upon partly obliterated records, which were once so well known; the dead lie all around, and in the dense prevailing darkness the lamp is almost useless; but its faint uncertain light falls upon a forgotten name that supplies a clue to the man, the place, the event, and the time when the enclosed dust (now lying there so still) was a living mighty power in the land. Frag- mentary pieces and shreds of a blurred and mutilated record, the salvage of a nearly perished history, lie in meg- lected recesses, encumbered with the dust of ages, which, patiently and carefully gathered together, will clearly reveal that the brow of Holborn Hill possesses a history which hitherto has remained unwritten. Enough is left to show that the incongruous specimen of domestic architecture erected in the time of the Stuarts, and known as Staple Inn, does not in any way represent the ancient buildings which once stood on the site. Suffice it now to say, and an endeavour will be made to prove the assertion, that here stood one of the most important buildings this country ever had. Staple Inn occupies but a small portion of what was in Norman times (and even earlier) an extensive moated domain, surrounded by the Thames, the Fleet, and the Old Bourne. There is inferential evidence that William I. occupied this stronghold before the Tower of London was built. Careful research will confirm rather than disprove this statement. The names that gather round the place tell of facts which have made the coincidences, a series of events that have in some degree shaped the history of England. 158 The Chancellor's Court. Why has the neighbourhood around this spot become one vast legal hive? Who was the first lawyer that founded this great colony? The answer is that here, in Norman times, stood the palace and fortress of the Deputy King, in which the greatest lawyer of the time resided and adminis- tered in his Court the laws of England in Anglo-Norman fashion. He held the office of the King's Justiciary. CAMDEN says:— Immediately after the coming-in of the Normans, and for some time before, was the King's Court, which was held in the King's Palace, and followed the King where-ever he went But besides these Courts and above them, in the administration of justice, was the Justicia Angla, Prima Justitia, Justitiarius Angliae Capitalis, i.e., the Chief Justice of England. The Chancery takes its name from the Chancellor, an office of the greatest dignity and the highest honour in the state. CAssiopoRUs derives the word a cancellis, i.e., rails or balisters, because they examine matters in a private apartment, enclos'd with rails, such as the Latins call’d Cancelli. Consider, says he, by what name you are call’d. What you do within the rails cannot be a secret; your doors are transparent, your cloysters lie open, your gates are all windows. Hence it plainly appears that the Chancellor sat expos'd to every one's view within the rails or cancels. Now, it being the business of that minister to strike or dash with cross lines, lattice-like, such writs or judgments as are against law or prejudicial to the State, which is not improperly call'd cancelling. FITz-STEPHEN thus writes:—The dignity of the Chancellor of England is this; to be reputed the second person in the kingdom and next to the King, with the King's seal to seal his own injunc- tions; to have the ordering of the King's Chapel; to have the custody of all Archbishopricks, Bishopricks, abbeys and baronies, vacant and fallen into the King's hands; to be present at the King's Council, and to repair thither without summons; to seal all things by the hand of a Clerk who carries the King's seal; and to have all matters dispos'd and order'd with his advice. Also that 159 by the Grace of God, leading a just and upright life he may (if he will himself) die Archbishop or Bishop: Whereupon it is that the Chancellorship is not to be bought. There is still to be seen in one of the windows of the hall of Staple Inn a wool-pack, or rather, woolsack, which suggests that this woolsack, being the arms of the wool- packers, the place in ancient times was a Staple for wool; but there is a deeper meaning in that small square of painted glass; it points back to the time when Staple Inn was the court of the King’s Justiciary, a court higher than the Chancellor’s Court, into which in after times it became merged, and although the Chancellorship was an office of great power and dignity, the office of Justiciary gave to its holder supreme power in the King’s absence. THOMAS DE LAUNE, speaking of the Chancellor’s Court (1690), says:— On the left-hand, or south-west corner (of Westminster Hall) sitteth the Lord Chancellor, accompanied with the Master of the Rolls and eleven other men learned in the civil law, and called Masters of Chancery, which have the King's Fee. This court is placed next the King's Bench to mitigate the rigour of it. This court is Officina Justitia, the fountain of all our fundamental laws and proceedings in law, and the original of all other courts. It is as ancient as the civility of the nation, though perhaps by another name. The Chancellor is said to be the Keeper of the King's Conscience, to judge Secundum aquam bonum, according to equity and conscience; he is to moderate the exact rigour and letter of the law, whereunto other judges are exactly tied. For the princes of this realm (in imitation of the King of Kings, governing the world by justice and mercy) have erected two supreme tribunals together, at the upper end of Westminster Hall; one of justice, wherein nothing but the strict letter of the law is observed, and the other of mercy, wherein the rigour of the law is tempered with the Sweetness of equity, which is nothing else but mercy qualifying the sharpness of justice. This court, being a Court of Conscience, the less it is perplexed with the querks of lawyers, the more it is guided by conscience and equity. The Lord Chancellor or Keeper (if the King be present) stands behind the Cloth of * 160 The Courts of Law and the Woolsack. Estate, otherwise sits on the first woolsack, thwart the Chair of State, his Great Seal and Mace by him; he is Lord Speaker of the Lord's House. Upon other woolsacks sit the Judges, the Privy Councillors, and Secretaries of State; the King's Council at Law, the Masters of Chancery, who, being not Barons, have no suffrage by voice in Parliament, but only sit (as was said) to give advice when required. The reason of their sitting upon woolsacks is thought to be to put them in mind of the great importance of our woolen manufactories, which is the Grand Staple Commodity of England, and so not to be by any means neglected. On the lowermost woolsack are placed the Clerk of the Crown and Clerk of the Parliament, whereof the former is concern’d in all Writs of Parliament and Pardons in Parliament, and keepeth the records of the same. This clerk hath also two clerks under him, who kneel behind the same woolsack and write thereon. The first who held the office of Justiciary was Maurice, Bishop of London. The Londoners had little love for the Bishop, appointed by virtue of conquest, and the secure residence within sight of his Cathedral enabled him to carry out his episcopal and judicial duties without danger, being protected by the King’s friend, the great Baron Montfitchet, to whom the estate belonged on which the Justiciary’s house stood. The Baron Montfitchet gave his name to the dis- trict, and Fitchet's Fields, corrupted to Ficquet's Fields, remained as a memorial of him until the days of QUEEN ELIZABETH, when it was lost in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, Clare Market, etc. Bishop Maurice, Baron Montfitchet, the Albinis, and the Bellomonts were so closely allied that they appear to have acted, in this crude condition of Anglo- Norman law, severally and jointly together for mutual protection. Baron Montfitchet, by right of his wife, was Lord of the Manor of Stansted. The said manor first came unto Hugo de Playze by his marriage with the youngest daughter of Richard Montfitchet. The baronie or habitation of this familie de Monte-Fixo or Mountfitchett was Stansted, in the County of Essexe. They were 161 reputed men of very great nobilitie, until that their ample inherit- ance was divided among their sisters, one of which progenie, namely, Richard, was in the raignes of K. John and Hen. III. famous for his high prowese and chivalrie. I (WEEVER), going towards West Ham, saw the remaines of a Monasterie, pleasantly watered about with several streames, which William Montfitchet (a Lord of great name of the Norman race) built in the yeare of our Lord, I 140. Dedicated it was to the honour of Christ, and Mary, his blessed mother, replenished with blacke monkes. The Seale of this Deed is in blouddy waxe. - STow says:–Then the most forcible and valiant Knights of England were Robert Fitz Water, Robert Fitz Roger, and Richard Mont Fitchet. Another name of great antiquity finds a place in this chronicle, that of Aubrey de Vere, the King’s Justiciary, and as such would, if the argument be correct, occupy the official residence on Holborn Hill. In this instance, as in others, Justiciary Vere, by inheritance, had a freehold interest in the land on which the buildings stood. It may raise a smile that Vere Street, Clare Market, should be said to perpetuate his name, yet such appears to be the case. Authors have stated that the Veres built a mansion, some- where in Clare Market, in the seventeenth century, but this is not so; they built the market-house and gave their name to the newly-formed street, but they were lords of the anci- ent estate of the Veres, bearing the old name, if not of direct descent. The history of that family is to be found on the ancient monuments of Earl’s Colne, in Essex, noted by WEEvER:— So called of the Sepulture of the Earles of Oxford, which derive their descent (saith CAMDEN) from the Earles of Guines, in France, and have the surname of Vere, from Vere, a towne in Zeland. In the parish church are two monuments of this familie, the one lieth crosse-legd, with a Sarasin's head upon his tombe, which Sarasin (say the inhabitants) the Earle slew in the Holy Land, the other of them, with his wife, lieth entombed: at her feet is the Talbot, at his feet the Boare; they are both shamefully Aubrey de Vere— Justiciary. 7° 7: 162 The tomb of Aubrey de Vere. defaced. In the booke of Colne Priory I (WEEVER) found this inscription to be engraven upon their monuments:—‘Here lyeth Aulbery de Veer, the whyche Aulbery was the founder of this place, Bettrys, hys wyf, syster of Kyng William the Conqueror.’ Upon one tombe of Alabaster, which is thought to bee the anci- entest, is the portraiture of a man lying in his armour, crosse- legged, but what was carved at his feet cannot be disceined. Upon another is one lying, armed, with the blew-bore under his head, which was also cross-legged, as I was informed. WEEVER further says:–Rohesia, the daughter of Aubery de Vere, Chief Justice of England under Henry the First (sister to Aubery de Vere, the first Earle of Oxford, and wife to Geoffrey Magna-villa or Mandeville, the first Earle of Essex), erected a Crosse in the high-way, which was thought in that age a pious worke; whereupon it was called ‘Crux Rosie' before there was either Church or Towne, which place grew to be a Towne, which, instead of ‘Rohesiae's Crosse’ was called ‘Rohesiae's Towne,’ and now contracted into ‘Roiston.’ This alliance of the Veres with the Magnavilles eluci- dates in some degree the connection of the Magnavilles with Ficquet Fields. The name continually occurs in the old grants connected with Blemundsbury, frequently abbre- viated to Mag or Maggy, PARTON, not knowing anything of Magnaville, has described certain parcels of ground on his map as “Maggy's land.” The Magnavilles have already been mentioned in “Blemundsbury.”* The burial of Geoff- rey de Magnaville by the Old Temple links him and the place together. Saffron Walden, saith CLARENCIEUX, was famous in times past for a Castle of the Magnavilles and an Abbey. The princi- pal and first founder hereof was Geffrey Magnavile or Mandevile, the first Earl of Essex, with Rohesia or Rose, his wife, daughter of Aubrey de Vere, Chief Justice of England. CAMDEN says:–Lower among the fields (which make a pleasant show with the Saffron) is seated Walden, a market town, called thence Saffron Walden (formerly Waldenburg, and after- *See Page 69. 163 wards Cheping-Walden). The fields all about, as I have said before, look very pleasant with Saffron. For in the month of July every third year, when the roots have been taken up, and after twenty days put under the turf again, about the end of September they shoot forth a bluish flower, out of the midst whereof hang three yellow chives of Saffron, which are gathered in the morning before sun-rise, and being taken out of the flower, are dried by a gentle fire. And so wonderful is the increase, that from every acre of ground, they gather eighty or a hundred pounds of wet Saffron, which, when it is dry, makes about twenty pounds. From this account there appears to be a close connec- tion between Saffron Walden, in Essex, and Saffron Hill, Holborn. The same writer says:– Saffron Walden was heretofore famous for a castle of the Magnavils, in which the Magnavils, founders of it, lie interred. Jeffrey de Magnaville was the first that gave life to this place. Here also Stansted Montfitchet presents itself to our view, which I must not pass by in silence, since it was formerly the seat or barony of the family of Montfitchet. The young ladies of the house of Magnaville must have enjoyed the pleasant wanderings over the saffron fields of Walden, and, charmed with their verdant beauty, they appear to have reproduced a similar scene on the northern slope of Holborn, that with a gentle declivity led down to the river. The flowers bloomed luxuriantly, as the ground for some indefinite period had been well culti- vated, and was in the Domesday year a vineyard. The monks of Ely are supposed to have enjoyed the produce of the vine, and bishops, in later times, made the garden famous for its strawberries. Although the place has become filthy and foul; a congested mass of hovels and fever dens, where the wandering minstrels from Italy have made a settlement, the old association still remains, for Saffron Hill and Saffron Walden are links of the past that join together the homes of the Magnavilles in Middlesex and Essex. WEEveR thus writes:— Saffron Walden and Saffron Hill. 164: Walter de Grey— Justiciary. After the death of Geoffrey de Magnaville, Aubery de Vere, the sonne of Aubery, Chamberlain under King Henry the First, or Camerarius Anglie, as I find it in old Cartularies, having lost his office of Great Chamberlain and other dignities in the tur- moiles under Stephen and Maude the Empresse, was by the said Empresse and Henry the Second (as you have it more fully in Vincent's Discovery of Errors), restored to all his former honours and withall created Earle of Oxford. He died, 1194, and was buried at Earl's Colne by his father. His wife, Agnes or Adeliza, was the daughter of Henry de Essexe (Magnaville), Baron of Ralegh, the King's Constable. She lieth by the side of her husband: four generations of the Veres are here entombed. The place or court of the Chief Justiciary bore the name of that high official during the tenure of his office, and sometimes after he had ceased to hold it, when less distinguished and unpopular persons were appointed and removed by the fluctuating tide of favour or power. In 1205 the office of Justiciary was conferred by KING John on Walter de Grey, afterwards Bishop of Worcester, and translated from that See to Chester, and the place became known as “Grey’s Inn.” The reader may cavil at the seeming ignorance of the writer in placing Grey’s Inn on the South side of Holborn. The superficial historians of this age have given Grey’s Inn a history purely fictitious, because in later times, when an Inn of Court was built opposite Staple Inn and named Grey’s Inn, they drew the inference that it was so called on account of the ancient Inn of the Greys having stood on that site. Stow does not pretend to give a history of Grey’s Inn. CAMDEN writes thus:—I have met with nothing upon record concerning Gray's Inn; only there is a tradition that it was the habitation of the Lords Grey. SELDEN says:–For Walter de Gray, of the family of the Greyes of Rotherfield, in Oxfordshire, in VI of King John, Hic receptit W. Gray, Cancellaria, for in the Charter Roll of that year, after the taking his Chancellorship, there is but one Patent or Charter dated by him. 165 WEEveR, writing of St. Pancras Church, informs his readers that:— In this old weather-beaten Church, standing all alone as utterly forsaken, which for antiquitie will not yield to St. Paul's, in London, I finde a wondrous ancient Monument, which by tradition was made to the memorie of one of the right-honourable familie of the Greyes, and his lady; whose pourtraitures are upon the Tombe. Whose mansion-house, say the inhabitants, was in Port-Poole or Greyes-Inn-lane, now an Inne of Court. But these are but suppositions: for by whom Greyes-Inn was first possessed, builded, or begun, I have not yet learned. Yet it seemeth, saith Stow, to bee since Edward the Third, his time. Tradition has given this old monument to the Greyes, but tradition is an untrustworthy witness, and the oldest inhabitant can only speak to what he remembers. The family of Grey was originally of Normandy, and was ancestor to Arlotta, mother of William the Conqueror. John de Grey, the seventh in descent from Rollo, otherwise called Fulbert, the father of Arlotta, was appointed Bishop of Norwich, 4th September, 1200. In the year 1206 he was chosen Archbishop of Canterbury upon the recom- mendation of KING JoHN; but the Pope, incensed at this interference, appointed Stephen Langton to the Archie- piscopal See; and this was the origin of the great contest between KING JoHN and Pop E INNOCENT III. John de Grey was appointed in the year 1200 Chief Justiciary of England, and, having resigned that office, was constituted, 13th August, 1210, Lord Deputy of Ireland, where he governed with singular wisdom and success. He died 18th October, 1214. Walter de Grey died 1255, having been Archbishop of York for nearly forty years. RAPIN says:—He was more famous as a statesman than as a bishop. His successors were enriched by his liberality in pur. chasing the Manor of Thorp and annexing it to his See. He built likewise at London a stately palace, which went by the name The Greys. 166 of York Place; but was afterwards called White Hall. This place is said to be first built by Hugh de Burgh, Earl of Kent, and given to the Dominicans.” In the reign of Edward VI. Henry, Lord Grey, was Lord High Constable of England and Justice-Itinerant of all the King’s Forests. The unfortunate alliance of his daughter, the Lady Jane, with Guildford Dudley,i brought about the catastrophe that wrecked and destroyed the fortune and the honour of the Greyes during the reign of Elizabeth, at whose death the local associations are again renewed. It is said “that all the honours being lost, did so continue till KING JAMEs I. created Sir Henry Grey Baron Grey of Groby.” His daughter married William Sulyard, who has been previously mentioned as the owner of Lincoln’s Inn. An article on “Gray’s Inn” appeared in The Builder, June 16th, 1866, which is an apt illustration of how history is falsified, as follows:– From an inquisition, dated 44th Edward III. (A.D. I371), the above property (Gray's Inn) had been previously let as an Inn of Court at an annual rent of £6 13s. 4d.; therefore it is hard to determine which of the fraternities, Gray's Inn or the Temple is the older as a law institution. - The inquisition referred tof was in respect to the claim of Montague, Bishop of Chichester, to the reversion of Lincoln’s Inn, at the expiration of a ‘cancelled’ lease then expiring, granted by Robert Sherborn, Bishop of Chichester, to William Sulyard, 27th Henry VIII., for 99 years, at an annual rent of £6 13s. 4d. The fact is that the antiquity of Lincoln’s Inn is trans- ferred to Gray’s Inn, and the “inquisition” or law suit of 1634 is dated back to 1371. It is curious that the daughter of Baron Grey of Groby, the family whose name is perpe- tuated in Gray’s Inn, should marry William Sulyard, who, * See page 77. t See Dudley House. # See page 95. 167 under the changed condition of the tenure of Lincoln's Inn, should be the lessee, purchaser, and trustee of Lincoln’s Inn, for he appears to have acted in this three-fold capacity. When Walter de Grey ceased to be Justiciary, his place was taken by IIugh Neville. The Mirror makes an attempt to give information about Gray’s Inn, as follows:– The ancients of this house were necessitated to lodge double; for at a pension held there on the 9th of July, 2 I Henry VIII., John Hales, one of the Barons of the Exchequer, produced a letter directed to him from Sir Thomas Neville, which was to request him to acquaint the Society that he would accept of Mr. Attorney General to be his bed-fellow in his chamber in the Inn, and that entry might be made thereof in the book of the rules. The inference of inefficient accommodation is not correct. The Baron of the Exchequer and the Attorney General, wishing to be together, were permitted to occupy contiguous chambers in the Inn, probably rented as a set and paid by one tenant. Sir Thomas Neville’s name is suggestive of Lincoln’s Inn rather than Gray’s Inn. WEEVER relates how Richard I. for his matchlesse valour surnamed Lions-heart, is by some of our old English writers said to have slaine a Lion, and by the pulling out of his heart, to have gained that denomination; the truth is, that (sic) Hugh Nevill, a gentleman of noble linage, one of King Richard's speciall familiars, is recorded to have slaine a Lion in the Holy Land, driving first an arrow into his breast, and then running him thorough with his sword, whereupon this Hexameter was made. The strength of Hugh a Lion slue, which atchivement belike was transferred from the man to the master. This Hugh was High Justice, Gardian, or Prothoforester of England. He died about the sixt of K. Hen. III. (1221), being full of yeers; and his body was buried in Waltham Church under a noble engraven marble Sepulchre. The enemy of the Nevilles was Robert Passelew. The same author says:— He was one of the King's instruments for gathering up money, in which his office he used such rigor, as multitudes of 168 people were utterly undone. He was Archdeacon of Lewes, and for his good service was preferred to the Bishoprick of Chichester, but the Bishops, withstanding the King, his election was disanuled. He had ruined John Neville, the son of Hugh, and he in turn was swept away by the storm of unpopularity he had caused, and had the mortification to see Ralph de Neville created Bishop of Chichester, and rise by his fall to power. His connection with this district has been referred to.” Ralph de Neville, Bishop of Chichester, holding also the office of Justiciary or Chancellor, would, while residing in Chichester House, Chancellor’s Lane, have control of the Chancery Court, previously presided over by Walter de Grey, and whether Grey’s Inn was known as Neville’s Inn, is a question that is left to the decision of those who wish to dig more deeply into this subject. Richard de Berkyng (Barking) was Justiciary and Treasurer in the time of Henry III. He was Abbot of Westminster 24 years. He died the 23rd day of November, 1246, and was buried in our “Ladies Chappell.” His con- nection with Holborn is shown in an old grant to the Templars by his son, Ralph de Berkyng, in which he gives “A rent of 16s. 4d. from land, premises, etc., situate without Holeburn, between the land of Lyece Longe (Lucy Longspee) and Fuchere’s Lane (Gray’s Inn Road).” There is a further grant of “A rent of 6s., arising from a tene- ment and appurtenances, situate within the Bars of Hole- burn, between the tenement of Richard de Chigwell, without the same Bars, west, and the tenement of Robert 5 east, and another tenement of the said Richard de Chigwell, north, and the King’s highway (Holeburn), south, granted by Richard de Chigwell, who seems to have been a descend- ant of Richard de Berkyng.” It is to be noted that there is no reference in these grants to the Lords Grey or the d * See page 77. 169 Lords of Portpole; even the road which is alleged to have led to Portpole was known as Fuchere’s Lane. Passing on to 1285, the name of Sir John Briton occurs, who was High Steward, Justiciary of England, and Custos of the City. The King (Ed. I.) was away in France, and his absence gave to Sir John Briton greater authority, but to guard against its abuse, Robert Burnell, Archdeacon of York, was made Chancellor and entrusted with the Keepership of the Seal, with which he had to accompany the King on his travels—1284. The connection of Sir John Briton with the neighbourhood of Holborn is marked by a local act which has become a matter of history. He (probably with the consent of the Bishops of Lincoln and Chichester) obstructed the newly-made thoroughfare, then known as New Street, now Chancery Lane, by fixing a bar across it, which for years no one dared to remove. The King took another journey out of England into Scotland about 1296-7. The date is fixed by Stow, who says:—“The King, returning out of Scotland, 1304, by the City of Yorke, commanded the Courts of the King’s Bench and the Exchequer, which had now remained at Yorke 7 yeeres to be removed to their old places at London.” The “gentlemen learned in the law” had to carry on their professional business during this septennial period at York. A part of this time, John de Langton, Bishop of Ely, was Chancellor, whose London residence was in Holborn, and for the last two years, 1302-4, William de Grenefeld, Dean of Chichester, was Chancellor. Robert Brabazon was Custos, another name for Justiciary, and Sir John Blunt, Mayor and Custos of the City of London. It is a curious fact that Roger Brabazon should have the obstructive bar across Chancellor’s Lane removed. The King, on his return from Scotland in 1305, halted at Lincoln, for Stow says:— “KING EDwARD kept his Christmas at Lincolne with the S S Sir John Briton— Justiciary. Robert Brabazon— Justiciary. 170 Queene, his wife, and there he ordained Justices of Trail- bastone against intruders into other men’s lands, truce breakers, extortioners, murderers, and such-like offenders, by which meanes the King’s treasure was marvellously increased. Roger Brabazon and Robert de Rever sate at the Guildhall in London to hear the complaints made concerning the aforesaid articles of Trailebastone.” The power of Roger Brabazon is seen in its exercise over the citizens of London by holding his court in their Guild Hall. The removal of the obstruction across Chancellor’s Lane had become necessary, owing to the reconstruction of the ancient buildings by the Old Temple, for at that time there appears to have been destroyed an old thorough- fare, or rather a private way, that had previously existed from Holborn to the Thames, and in earlier days had con- nected the ancient castles of Magnaville and Montfitchett. º ºf STow informs his readers that this way was known as agnav1.11e e e Castle. “Castle Yard,” which name was retained many years after the castle was destroyed, and when Castle Yard was reduced in dimensions and a lane ran across it, confined within hedges, it took the name of Castle Lane, and when Castle Lane was hedged with houses it became Castle Street, and so continued until the postal authorities, perplexed with so many Castle Streets, blotted out its old associations and christened it Furnival Street. The history of this place at that period has been partly told in preceding pages.* Its antiquity was confirmed by a discovery made in May, 1756, and is reported in Archæologia, vol. 1, as follows:— As the workmen were digging up part of the old foundation of the Black Swan Inn, in Holborn, they met with a stone which was strongly cemented with bricks, chalk, and other stones. The dimensions of the stone were 18 × 9 × 4, and the figures on it were * See page 81. 171 Arabic (Saracenic) numerals—I 144. The form of the building which stood over this foundation, which for grandeur, fastness, and appearance almost exceeded any other antient building within the bills of mortality, led the learned Dr. Stukely to believe it to be as early as the Conquest or thereabouts. This opinion he expressed before the stone was discovered. The Black Swan Inn was a short distance away from Staple Inn, but it nevertheless formed a portion of that ancient range of buildings. Henry de Lacy held the high position of Justiciary, but the Chancellorship was in other hands. The forfeitures that had taken place in the conflict between the barons and the King had resulted in the estate by the Old Temple falling into the hands of the King. The marriage of Thomas Plantagenetº with Alice de Lacy brought it into the possession of the Earl of Leicester and Lancaster. The old range of buildings which stood on the ground now occupied by Staple Inn would be known as Lancaster House. His deatht led to reprisals and bitter revenge. History is repeating itself—the strife between Stephen and Matilda has now its counterpart in the struggle of Ed. II. and his Queen, Isabella. The citizens of London declared for the Queen, they having become incensed against the King by his appointment of Walter de Stapleton, Custos or Guardian of the City. He was Lord High Treasurer, the King’s Justiciary, and Bishop of Exeter, and to him Staple Inn owes its name, as the buildings at this time (1326) were occupied by Walter de Stapleton and known as Staple- ton’s Inn, and from his position as Bishop of Exeter it seems also to have been spoken of as Exeter House. In this residence, outside the City walls, he was secure from the fury of the mob, but being inveigled or persuaded to enter the City, he was seized by the Burgesses and taken to the “west-end of West Cheap Street, where was a * See page S6 | See page go Henry de Lacy— Justiciary. \Valter de Stapleton— Justiciary, 172 Bxeter House and Walter de Stapleton. Cross of Stone, called the Old Cross, then called the Standard, and there, having proclaimed him a public traitor, a seducer of the King, and a destroyer of the liberties of the City, and having stripped him of his armour (probably a coat-of-mail) and other apparel, they beheaded him, without the north door of St. Paul’s Church, and, with his head carried on a pole as a trophy, home to Exeter House they brought the body of the murdered Bishop to the same place where rested for a time the body of Geoffrey de Magnaville; it may have been the same grave.” WALSINGHAM says:—“His body was cast into a pit in a certain old cemetery which had formerly belonged to the Friars' Preachers, by Holborn.” It was removed to Exeter cathedral by order of the Queen, about three months after the outrage, which occurred on the 15th of October, 1326, and in the choir there is to be seen his “splendid monument.” RAPIN gives the reason for this outrage: Meanwhile, the City of London, following the example of the rest of the Kingdom, declared for the Queen. In vain did (Walter de) Stapleton, Bishop of Exeter, whom the King had left Guardian (Custos) of the City, endeavour to keep it for his Majesty. His efforts served only to excite against him the fury of the populace, who, treating him with great indignity, at length cut off his head. He was a great benefactor to Exeter College, and built Hart Hall. The reason of the mob's fury against him was— that being Treasurer of the Kingdom, he had persuaded the King's Council to cause the Itinerant Justices to sit in London, who, finding that the citizens had offended in many things, deprived them of their liberties (by making him Custos); fined some, and inflicting corporal punishment on others. Stow (who apparently unconscious that he is writing of Staple Inn) says:—Amongst other buildings memorable for greatness was Exeter House, so called from the same belonging to the Bishops of Exeter and was their Inn or London Lodging. Who was the first builder thereof I have not read, but that Walter Stapleton was a great builder there in the reign of Edward II. is manifest, for the citizens of London, when they had beheaded 173 him in Cheap, near unto the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, they buried him in a heap of Sand or rubbish in his own house, without Temple Bar, where he had made great building. He further says:—Edmund de Lacy builded the Great Hall in the reign of Henry VI. There is a chasm of about one hundred years from the time of Stapleton to the building of the “Great Hall.” The statement rather tends to prove that Exeter House stood in Holborn in the reign of Edward II., and that another Exeter House was built in the Strand in the reign of Henry VI. Edmund de Lacy was contemporary with Walter de Stapleton, and the Lacy estate was certainly in Holborn, and it might be possible to find Edmund de Lacy in the time of Henry VI., but it would be very difficult to discover Exeter House in the Strand in the time of Ed. II. The following extract from Lodge’s Peerage shows the connection of the Stapleton’s with the Despencers:— Stapleton, Baron Beaumont. Creation by Writ, 1309.- Henry Stapleton, Baron Beaumont, in the Peerage of England, Knight of Justice, of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, Knight Grand Cross of the Holy Sepulchre, &c., &c. His Lordship's father, Miles Thomas, eighth Lord, sole heir of Joan Lovell, Lady Stapleton, eldest daughter of Joan, sister of William, second Viscount and seventh Baron Beaumont, in whom the Barony was vested by descent from her father, John, sixth Baron, who sat in Parliament in the reign of King Henry VI. Motto:—Times will mend. Le Despencer Baroness (Boscawen):—Mary-Frances-Eliza- beth-Boscawen, Baroness Le-Despencer (in the Peerage of England) Hereditary Visitor of Emanuel College, Camb, b. 24 March, 1822. Her Ladyship is the only surviving child of the Hon. Thomas Stapleton (eldest son of Thomas, 22nd Lord Le-Despencer). I874. These names, like “tapers dimly burning,” are insuffi- cient to dispel the surrounding darkness, but still they light the way to hidden facts. The adulterous Queen, in the hour of her triumph, knew no mercy. The Spencers fell into her hands and their fate will be hereafter told.* The notable events of English * See page 347, 174: Stapleton Inn and the Earl of Lancaster. history gather around Lincoln Place and Stapleton’s Inn. The Bishop of Lincoln, Henry Burghesh, was the disloyal prelate, the enemy of the Bishop of Exeter, Walter de Stapleton, and the King. He was safe when the uncer- tain tide of success flowed in favour of the Queen, and was rewarded for his treason with the Chancellorship of England. Stapleton Inn passed into the possession of the Earl of Lancaster, the High Steward of England and Guardian of the King’s person (Justiciary). He was entitled to this office by his past services. Through his influence, Ed. II. was deposed, and it fell to his lot to bestow on his new creation, Edward III., the order of Knighthood on Candle- mas Day, the day of his coronation (1327), and then fol- lowed the outrage at Pontefract, when Thomas de Lancaster was executed. Stapleton Inn passed again to the Lancasters, and probably took the name of Lancaster House. There were two Lancaster Houses, namely, Lancaster House in the Strand, alias the Savoy, and Lancaster House, Holborn, alias Stapleton’s Inn, which has added greatly to the con- fusion of history. Henry of Lancaster watched the course of events. Success obtained by fraud is seldom permanent. He had dethroned his Sovereign and placed in his stead his son, a boy of fifteen, upon the throne, but he had yet to crush King Mortimer, the Queen’s paramour. - No man durst name him any other than the Earle of Marche; a greater route of men waited on his heeles than on the King's person; he would suffer the King to rise to him and would walke with the King equally, step by step, and cheeke by cheeke, never preferring the King, but would goe foremost himselfe with his officers. He greatly rebuked the Earle of Lancaster, cousin to the King, for that without his consent he appointed certaine lodgings for Noble-men in the Towne, demanding who made him so bolde to take up lodgings so nigh unto the Queene: with which 175 words the Constable, being greatly feared, appointed lodging for the Earle of Lancaster one mile out of the towne; and likewise were lodged the Earle of Hereford, John de Bohune of Essex, High Constable of England, and others. By which meanes a contention arose among the Noble-men, and great murmuring among the common people, who said that Roger Mortimer, the Queene's Paragon and the King's Master, sought all the meanes he could to destroy the King's bloud. Then upon a certaine night, the King lying without the castle, both he and his friends were brought by torch-light through a secret way under ground, begin- ning farre offe from the said castle, till they came even to the Queene's chamber, which they by chance found open. They, therefore, being armed with naked swords in their hands, went forwards, leaving the King also armed without the doore of the chamber, least that his mother should espy him: they which entred in slew Hugh Turpinton, Knight, who resisted them, Master John Nevell of Home, by giving him his deadly wound. From thence they went towards the Queene mother, whom they found with the Earle of Marche, ready to have gone to bed: and having taken the sayd Earle, they ledde him out into the Halle, after whom the Queene followed, crying:—‘Bel filz, bel filae, ayes pitie de gentil Mortimer.” Being brought to Westminster was there condemned by the whole parliament ‘to be drawne to The Elms and there hanged on the common gallowes, whereon hee hung two days and two nights by the King's commandment, and then buried in the Gray Fryars Church. He was executed at Tyebourne on the borders of Blemundsbury Manor; not at the end of “Ye Waye to Uxbridge,” in later times called the Oxford Road, now Oxford Street. - I have formerly made mention of a great suddaine encrease of the buildings in London round about the suburbs, with the Skirts and Towns adjacent as you may reade, since which time, there hath been such encrease of buildings in all parts aforesaid, chiefely whereof I now speake; is from the West part of Holbourne and Blomesbury, and the parts on that side and on the other side of the way in a place anciently called ‘The Elmes,’ of Elmes that grew there, where Mortimer was executed, and let hang two dayes and two nights to be seene of the people as you may reade; which The Arrest of the Earl of Marche. Tyburn at “The Elms ” in Long Acre. 176 place hath now lost its name, and is not knowne to one man in a Million where that place was, and from thence to the new faire buildings called Queene's streete leading into Drury Lane, and then on the other side of the highway the great field anciently called Long Acre, with the South side of the streete called Covent Garden that leadeth unto Saint Martin's Lane, which is newly made a faire streete—Howes’ Stow. It was called in the time of Edward the Third, when the gentle Mortimer finished his days there, ‘The Elms;' but the original name, as in the present, was Tybourne; not from tye and burn, as if it was called so from the manner of capital punish- ments, but from bourne, the Saxon word for a brook, and tye, its proper name, which gave name to a manor before the Conquest, when it was held by the Abbess of Berchinges or Berking, in Essex. Here was also a village and church denominated St. John the Evangelist, which fell to decay and was succeeded by that of Mary-bourne, corrupted into Mary-la-bonne–Pennant's London. Tyburn, the modern name of Tyebourne, spelt in Saxon times—Teobourne (Teo signifying two), indicating two rivers, which had merged into one and become united together at some part of their downward course to the tidal river Thames. These two rivers have passed away, but they have left some faint testimony behind them, for they appear to have been the Aldebourne and the Tyebourne. Their immediate point of junction cannot now with cer- tainty be determined. The Aldebourne pursued its serpen- tine course citywards, and the Tyebourne waters, flowing from the north-west, would intersect the Aldebourne, or a branch of it, on its southern journey to the Thames. At the point of contact, wherever that may have been, the Tyebourne became two streams with the same name, one flowing westward over the marshlands by Thorney Island, and the other by Tyburn, alias The Elms, and fell into the Thames somewhere near the steep declivity now St. Martin’s Lane. It is singular that the gallows should be transferred from Tyburn in Blemundsbury to Tyburn in Marybone. 177 Passing from this digression back to Staple Inn, it will be found that the ancient high office of Justiciary has been abolished. It had wrought so much mischief in the past, and Edward III. knew full well that the power which deposed his father could, if the occasion served, dethrone him. A reform in the Norman system of jurisprudence had to be conceded to the growing demands of a people emerging out of Norman feudalism, inspired with the free- dom of national life. By order of Parliament, holden at York in 1335, it was enacted:— That in every County be appointed one Justice of the Peace, learned in the law, who shall be chief; that all offences before them be sued to the Ordinary, and that the Justice do yearly extract their proceedings into the Treasury. The Statutes made shall be observed. That all Justices of the Peace may have some certain Fee. The King will provide therefore:– That all Archbishops shall meekly pronounce in every parish excommunication against all false jurors. That all men may have their Writs out of the Chancery for only the Fees of the Seal without any Fine, according to the great Charter. Such as be of course shall be so, and such as be of grace the King will command the Chancellor to be gracious. It is enacted—That Bigamy shall be tryed only in Court Christian. That remedy may be had against oppressions of the Clergy for probates of Wills and Citations for trifles. That remedy may be had for the true making of Woollen cloths according to the Assize. On the back of this Parliamentary Roll is the follow- ing endorsement:— For that the Staple was ordained to endure at the King's pleasure, it is enacted that the same Staple should be revoked; and that all Merchants strangers may freely buy any Staple- wares, paying the due custom. It is enacted:—The King's Bench shall stay in Warwickshire after Easter next; for that Sir Jeffery le Scroop, Chief Justice, is busie in the King's weighty affairs, The Office of Justiciary abolished. t iſ 178 whose place to supply Sir Richard Willoughby is appointed, and | Sir William Shareshall is assigned with him one of the Justices of the Bench. Where the Chancellor’s Court was situated at this time is doubtful. Staple Inn was then in the ownership of the Duke of Lancaster. A few years later the silence of history is broken, and Stapleton Inn appears to have had attached to it the Chancellor’s Court. The Chancellor was living in the adjoining house, he being Robert de Stratford, Bishop of Chichester. This is manifest by the following anecdote:— - King Edward III., waiting at Tourney for money, which was not sent, he secretly left Tourney and made his unexpected appearance at the Tower of London. Early in the morning he sent for his Chancellour, Treasurer, and Justices, then being at London, and the Bishop of Chichester, being his Chancellour, and the Bishop of Coventry, his Treasurer, he put out of office, mind- ing also to have sent them into Flanders, to have been pledges for money he owed them; but the Bishop of Chichester declared unto him what danger might ensue to him by the Canons of the Church: whereupon the King dismissed them out of the Tower. But as concerning the high Justices, to wit, John, Lord Stoner; Robert, Lord Willoughby; William, Lord Scharshell; and especially Nicholas de la Bech, who before that time was Lieutenant of the Tower of London, and Sir John Molens, Knight, with certain Merchant men, as John Poultney, William Poole, and Richard Poole, his brother, and the Chancellour's chief Clearkes, to wit, Maister John Thorpe, with many other men, the King commanded to be imprisoned, some in one place and some in another, neyther would he suffer them to be discharged thence untill he were tho- roughly pacified of his anger conceived for not sending the money, which should have served at the siege of Tourney. The moving cause of the King's anger was the passive resistance to his finan- cial operations, for the King tooke wooll, to a certain number of sackes, at a low price in every Country; the number that was set upon Staffordshire was 6 hundred sackes, price—nine markes the sacke of good wooll; but nothing was paid. First, the wooll was universally taken; secondly, for the halfe, in whose hands soever 179 it were found, as well merchants as other; and the third time the King tooke a fifteenth of the commonalitie, to be paid in wooll; price of every stone (containing fourteene pound), two shillings. On the dismissal of the Bishop of Chichester from the Chancellorship, Sir Robert Burgheier, Kt., was appointed in his room, and under the new order of things the King considered he had a right to interfere with the ancient liberties of the city. The office of Justiciary having given place to Justices, whom the King ordered— should sit in every Shire, to inquire concerning the Collectors of the tenthes and fifteenthes, and of woolles, and to oversee all Officers. And because the Citie of London would not suffer that any such Officers should sit as Justices within their Citie as inquisitors of such matters, contrary to their Liberties, the King provided that those Justices should hold their Sessions in the Tower of London, to make inquisition of the damages of the Londoners: but because the Londoners would not answer there until their Liberties were fully confirmed, neyther any such con- firmation could be had, either of the King or his Chauncellor, touching Writs and Charters in the Tower, there rose thereof such a great tumult, that the Justices appointed there to sit, fained that they would hold no Session till after Easter. Whereupon the King, being highly offended for the said tumult, and desirous to know the names of them that had raysed it, could not understand but that they were certaine meane persons, who claymed their liberties; whereupon the King, being pacified of his troubled minde, forgave all the offences committed by the Londoners, the Justices breaking up all their sitting touching the said place. It was this question that brought about the late riots, when Bishop Stapleton was murdered, and led to a similar tragedy in connection with Staple Inn, when in the owner- ship of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. The story runs: Henry, Duke of Lancaster, dying, left issue two daughters, Maud and Blanche, the eldest having twice married, died without issue, leaving her sister Blanche sole heir. She married John o' Gaunt, Earl of Richmond, the third son of Edward the Third, and on the death of her father, Henry, Duke of Lancaster, her husband, John of Gaunt, became Duke of Lancaster. He owned 180 the magnificent “Savoy Place” He was High Steward of England and a theologian, who defended Wickliff against the Bishop of London in a Synod, convened in 1377, in the Cathedral Church of St. Paul. The defence of Wickliff brought upon him the censure of the Church, and the death of Edward III. de- stroyed his power and popularity. Richard II. was a minor. The Parliament had the appointment and patronage of the Crown in their hands, and Sir Richardle Scroop, the enemy of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, a man of high principle, was entrusted with the Chancellorship, together with other important offices of the State, and Holborn was honoured in having him for an inhabitant. The site of Scroop’s Inn has not been fixed with any certainty. STow, speaking of the Serjeants, says:— I take it the first peculiar house which they had was in Hol- borne, situate over against S. Andrewe's Church, and went by the name of Sergeants' Inne, until such time as they, taking these other two houses which now they possess (in Fleet Street and Chancery Lane), it came into the hands of the Lord Scroope, and is of him called yet Scroop's Inne, although this honourable family hath also relinquished it many yeares agoe. Serjeants' Inn was connected with Ely House, Holborn, “over against S. Andrewe's Church;” and indisputably an Inn for the Serjeants (or part of it), where they, under the control and guidance of the Bishop of Ely, first entered as Students to become learned in the law and eventually rise to the highest attainable positions in the legal profession. In the uncertainty that prevails, the suggestion that Lord Chancellor Scroop occupied Staple Inn and there held his court, is allowable. If this were so, it would be extremely annoying to John o' Gaunt, who looked upon the Inn as a part of his estate. It has been previously noted that the land and buildings belonged in old time to the Veres, Earls of Oxford, and when Sir Richard le Scroop was made Chancellor, it was enacted (1377):—“That the Chancellor, Treasurer, Chamberlain, &c., during the King’s minority, shall be chosen by the Lords in Parliament, saving the 181 inheritance of the Earl of Oxford, in the Office of Cham- berlain.” On an old monument, in the Church of Castle Hevingham, was this inscription:—“Pray for the soul of Dorothy Scroop, daughter of Richard Scroop, brother to the Lord Scroop of Bolton. . . . who . . 1491.” “This Dorothy was sister to Elisabeth (the widow of William, Lord Beaumont, and daughter of Richard Scroope, Knight), the second wife of John de Vere, Earl of Oxford.” The elevation of Sir Richard Scroop was the humiliation of John, Duke of Lancaster. The ambition of the King was thwarted by his Council, the chief of whom were Alexander Neville, Archbishop of York; Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford; Judge Tresilian, and Michael de la Pole, a mer- chant’s son of London, brother-in-law to Sir Richard le Scroop, by whose influence he obtained the Chancellorship. Another reference occurs in Stow respecting Scroop's Inn, as follows:—“Without Oldbourne Bridge, on the right hand, is Gold Lane. Up higher, on the Hill, be certain Inns, and other fair buildings. Amongst the which of old time was a messuage, called Scroop’s Inn, for so I find the same recorded in the 37th Henry VI.” (1458). This record is eighty years after the time of Sir Richard le Scrope, but it places Scroope’s Inn very near to Staple Inn, so near that it is extremely difficult to find another place for it. Sir Richard Scroop’s brother-in-law, Michael de la Pole, had an estate in Holborn, and although this history may be termed a history of suggestions, yet it is worthy of consider- ation as to whether the ancient lords of Portpole, with their traditionary manor-house somewhere by Liquorpond Street, were located there in Norman times or in Holborn in the 14th Century. For some reason, in 1380, Sir Richard le Scroop resigned the Chancellorship to Simon Sudbury, Archbishop of Canterbury. These events gave a power to the insurrection promoted by Wat Tyler it would not Scroop's Inn, Holborn. 182 The Murder of Archbishop Sudbury. otherwise have possessed in the City. A rumour had been circulated “that at the instance of the Duke of Lancaster, it had been proposed to the King in Council to put down the Office of Lord Mayor, take away the City privileges, and reduce London under the jurisdiction of the Earl Marshall.” The King was at Greenwich, and the Commons, alias the mob, was near Blackheath. They sent to the King, requiring to have the heads of John, Duke of Lan- caster; Simon Sudbury, Chancellor; Sir Robert Hales, Treasurer; the Bishop of London; also that of the Clerk of the Privy Seal; the Chief Justice; the Baron of the Exchequer; the Sergeant at Armes, and others. This request not being granted, murder, fire, and devastation ensued. Simon Sudbury, in supplanting Sir Richard le Scroop, paid the penalty of unpopularity. The rioters, having broken into the Tower, cried: “Where is the traytor?” “I am the Archbishop, not a traytor,” was Simon’s reply, and was then dragged to Tower Hill. Seeing death at hand he spake with comfortable words to the angry crowd, and after granting forgiveness to the executioner that should behead him, he, kneeling down, offered his neck to him that should strike it off; but that being suddenly stricken, his finger ends being cut off and part of the arteries, he fell down, but yet he dyed not, till, being mangled with eight strokes in the necke and in the head, he fulfilled most worthy martyrdom. The Duke of Lancaster, being away, escaped the vengeance of the mob, who wrecked his magnificent palace in the Savoy, with many other buildings, returning to London by Holborn. Before the Church of St. Sepulchre, they burnt the house of Simon the Hostiler and others. Ely House appears to have also greatly suffered from the rioters, judging by what is said of Thomas de Arundel:—“He was a prelate of great magnificence and liberality, and whilst he held the See of Ely, almost rebuilt the Palace in Holbourn.” 183 The Questmongers had made themselves very ob- noxious. “The Duke of Lancaster,” says RAPIN, “being looked upon as a troublesome Inspector.” The office of Deputy Questmonger was held by one Roger, surnamed Leget or Legate, from his deputed authority. The office of Questmonger, although a lucrative one, would bring to the holder much unpopularity, and this Roger Leget greatly in- creased by his unwarrantable encroachments upon Ficquet Fields. He disputed the right of the public to pass over a certain trench, and instead of asserting his right by erecting a barrier across the way, he adopted a more cruel expedient and set “caltrappes” to catch the trespassers. It is not known whether he put up a board cautioning the public to “Beware of Man-traps;” it seems not, for the apprentices, the students, and the citizens made a clamorous complaint to the King, asserting that Ficquet Field was a common walking and sporting place, and that Roger Leget had privily laid and hid many iron engines called “caltrappes” on the top and in the bottom of the trench in Ficquet Field, near the Bishop of Chichester’s house, where the said clerks, citizens, etc., had their common passage, with a malicious and malevolent intent, that all who came upon the said trench should be maimed or else most grievously hurt. The way in dispute seems to have been Castle Lane. In answer to this complaint it was ordered to be inquired into before the King’s Council, in the Chapter- house of the Friars “Preachers” of London. Hereupon the said Roger was brought before the Council, and the said clerks, having possessed themselves of the aforesaid caltrappes, openly shewed them to the Council. Where- upon the said Roger, being examined by the Council, confessed his fault and malice therein, and submitted him- self to the King and his Council, who declared “that any device to interrupt or deprive the clerks and citizens of their free common, walking or disport there, is a nuisance Roger Leget and Ficquet Fields. 184 and offence punishable by the King by fine and long. imprisonment; and that the King has ever been very careful of preserving the liberties and interests of the clerks and citizens in these fields, for their cure and refreshment.” The sentence on the offender was:–“That he be sent to the King’s prison of the Fleet, there to await the King’s grace.” This decision was very important, because it confirmed the right of the citizens to use Ficquet's Fields as a recreation ground for ever. But that right was destroyed in after years by Special Acts of Parliament. Unfortunately for Roger Leget, he soon obtained the King’s grace and was released from the Fleet. He added to his unpopularity, and fell a victim to the fury of the mob during Wat Tyler’s insurrection. June, 1381. BRAYLEY relates how— The same Thursday after the burning of the Savoy, the saide Commons went to Saint Martins le Grand, in London, and tooke from the high altar in that church, one Roger Leget, Chief Sisar (or Questmonger), led him into Cheape and cut off his head. From the City, the mob after having caused eighteen persons to be beheaded and sacrificed to popular fury, they went to the Hospital of St. John, and by the way, burnt the house of Roger Leget, lately beheaded. The right of way disputed by Roger Leget implies that it was near his house, where he resided and carried out his official duties, which was very near if not a portion of Staple Inn. The few buildings erected about here are mentioned by STow in connection with the riots of 1381. You shall reade that in the rebellion of Wat Tyler, he, with his great Army, lay neere Smithfield Barres, which was then a voyde open place, and the King's friends, with their assembled forces, being placed before Saint Bartholomewe's gate in Smithfield, espied King Richard with his nobilitie comming to their ayde, riding over long Acre, which they plainly and joyfully beheld, not being any way hindered of that sight in that place by any manner of Buildings, either in Smithfield, Holbourne, or Chancery Lane. 'N HORTOH ' N N I HIdVJLS ‘ĀŅI (18ISCINQ WIGHT8I HO GI^IOINONIHO SJLJLOT8I 185 Lancaster was forsaken by the King, and his priceless treasures were consumed in the flames that destroyed his palace in the Strand. Staple Inn then passed out of the possession of Lancaster. Blanche, who brought him the estates, had died, and he had married Constantia, the daughter of Peter the Cruel, by whose right he assumed the empty and troublesome title of King of Castile. The last hours of his life were spent in Holborn, and he could probably see from his chamber window the restored Staple Inn, for he passed away in Ely House, February 3, 1399. John Fordham was then Bishop of Ely. Shakespeare has marked the closing scene:— KING RICHARD II. ACT ii. SCENE I.-London. A Room in Ely House. GAUNT on a couch; the Duke of York, and others standing by him. Gaunt. Will the king come 2 that I may breathe my last In wholesome counsel to his unstaied youth. York. Vex not yourself, nor strive not with your breath; For all in vain comes counsel to his ear. Enter KING RICHARD and QUEEN; AUMERLE, BUSHY, GREEN, BAGoT, Ross, and WILLOUGHBY. K. Rich. What comfort, man? How is't with aged Gaunt 2 Gaunt. O, how that name befits my compositionſ Old Gaunt, indeed; and gaunt in being old. Within me grief hath kept a tedious fast; And who abstains from meat, that is not gaunt? For sleeping England long time have I watch'd; Watching breeds leanness, leanness is all gaunt: The pleasure that some fathers feed upon, Is my strict fast, I mean—my children's looks; And, therein fasting, hast thou made me gaunt; Gaunt am I for the grave, gaunt as a grave, Whose hollow womb inherits nought but bones. K. Rich. Can sick men play so nicely with their names? Gaunt. No, misery makes sport to mock itself: Since thou dost seek to kill my name in me, I mock my name, great king, to flatter thee. K. Rich. Should dying men flatter with those that live? Gaunt. No, no; men living flatter those that die. Sir Richard le Scroop, of Scroop's Inn, possibly to pacify the people, was again made Chancellor and Keeper of the Great Seal in 1382, but the Chancellor, being required by the King to affix the Great Seal to an un- reasonable grant to a courtier, he replied that “the duty of Q, M. 186 Sir Richard le Scroop and the Great Seal. his office would not permit him to put the Seal to the deed.” This being reported to the King, he sent a mes- senger to demand the Seal of Scroop, to which Scroop answered “that he had been entrusted with the Seal by Parliament, and to the Parliament he would surrender it when they demanded it.” The King eventually obtained possession of the Seal, kept it for some days, put it with his own hands to his unjust patents, and then bestowed the office of Chancellor on Robert de Braybroke, Bishop of London, giving him the Seal. Braybroke kept it but a short time, for soon after Sir Michael de la Pole, a relative of Scroop, received the Seal with the Chancellorship. The ownership of Staple Inn at this period is not clear. The changing course of events and the turbulent spirit of the times may have governed the fluctuating right of possession. Judging by the surroundings, the Lord Chancellor’s Court was there situated and there continued until the reconstruction of the Earl of Lincoln’s Inn, commenced in the reign of Henry VII. and completed by Henry VIII. Whatever State rights the Crown had over Staple Inn cannot now be defined, but without question the Beaumonts and the Lovells before their attainder had a proprietary interest in Lincoln’s Inn and its vicinity. The disappearance of Lovell, after the Battle of Stoke, left Henry VII. without a claimant to the estate, for even forfeiture and attainder, while it took the property from the attainted, shortly afterwards, by the laws of custom and honour, restored it, although at times somewhat impover- ished, to the next heir. This is apparent in the great confiscation by Henry VIII. The lands on which the monasteries stood were in many instances granted to the descendants of the original owners. Without controversy Staple Inn was the principal Inn of Chancery, in contra- distinction to Lincoln’s Inn, which was an Inn of Court. The students must have been peaceable young men to have remained neutral at this period, for it is on record:— 187 There was a great fray in Fleete-streete between men of court and the inhabitants of the same streete, in which fray the Queene's Attorney was slaine. For this same the King committed the principall governours of Furnival's, Clifford's, and Barnarde's Inn to prison in the Castle of Hertford, 13th April, 1548. Another account says:— There was a great meeting of the hostile factions in London. It was spring when the two parties thus occupied the Capital, holding themselves aloof from one another; Yorkists in the City, and Lancastrians in the western suburbs. A forced recon- ciliation was patched up, ratified by an imposing ceremony at St. Paul's, but nevertheless, stormy councils were the order of the day. . . . . . . On the 12th of April, Warwick pressed for a Commission to check the maritime excesses of the Duke of Burgundy's subjects, in his own interests as Admiral, a step that must have been most distasteful to the Court. On the following day there was a serious faction fight in Holborn. A few months later, a still more violent outbreak took place on the same score, and the Yorkist. nobles withdrew from London. A renewal of civil war quickly followed. On the death of Henry VII., Staple Inn came into the hands of Henry VIII., which is proved by the Lisle Letters.” The application of Lord Lisle for the grant of Staple Inn to him was not favourably received, although backed by the powerful influence of Lady Lisle. This refusal aroused Lisle’s displeasure, which he did not conceal, and brought down upon him the anger of the King. He was removed from the office of Lieutenant of Calais and imprisoned in the Tower of London, upon suspicion of a design to betray Calais to the French. His innocence being proved, the King sent him a congratulatory message assu- ring him of his protection, and a ring, conveyed to him by his Secretary, Sir Thomas Wriothesley, the owner of Lincoln place, adjoining Staple Inn, who was soon to become Lord Chancellor in the room of Sir Thomas Audley. The record runs:– * See page 257, 188 Secretary Wriothesley and Lord Lisle. That Master Secretary Wriothesley set forth his message with such effectual words, as he was an eloquent man, that Lord Lisle tooke such an immoderate joy thereof, that his heart being oppressed therewith, hee died the night following through too much rejoicing (as was said). After whose decease, to wit, 12th March, 1542, Sir John Dudley was at Westminster created Viscount Lisle, by the right of his mother, Lady Elizabeth, sister and heire to Sir John Gray, Viscount Lisle, who was late wife to Arthur Plantagenet, Viscount Lisle, late deceased, as ye have heard. After this time Staple Inn has but little history. Like other Inns it became subject to the new forms and regula- tions brought about through the overthrow of ecclesiastical power by Henry VIII. STow says:— There is Staple Inn, the third Inn of Chancery, but whereof so named I am ignorant. The same of late is (for a great part thereof) fair builded, and not a little augmented. It is seated on the south side, adjoining to Holborn Bars, within, but yet it is out of the Freedom. This is a very large and handsome Inn, with a large court-yard, surrounded with buildings, and a handsome garden behind it; which lying open admits of a good air. On the west side of Staple Inn at this time was “Tennis Court Alley, very ordinary and so called from the Tennis Court adjoining,” that is to say near thereto, or the way that led to the Tennis Court on the south side of Lincoln's Inn Fields. It is well known that when a new building has been constructed out of the materials of a more ancient structure, that there are at its completion certain fragmentary pieces which have not been utilised because there was no suitable place for them: so it is with Staple Inn and the Stapletons, and the following memoranda must be looked upon as gleanings from the confused heap, composed of the crude matter which forms the debris of the unremembered past: The second time, viz., Saturday or Sunday following, came to Hull from Beverley; Rudston; with a perle in his eye. Stapleton, son and heir to Stapleton, a fellow of Graye's Inne, and Metam, son and heir to Mr. Metam. Their message was to have harness, men, money, and ordnance. October, 1536. * 189 There is an old farm-house in Hornsey parish, called Staple- ton Hall, and which was formerly the residence of Sir Thomas Stapleton of Gray's Court, Oxon., Bart., an ancient family, remarkable for the number of eminent men it has produced. In the building are his initials, with those of his wife, with the date— 1609. It was afterwards converted into a publick house, and within memory, had in front the following inscription:- “Ye are welcome all To Stapleton Hall.” Grant of the King to Henry Pierpoint of 4,200 a year during the life of his daughter Elizabeth, now wife of Richard Stapleton. June, 1605. The Earl of Salisbury writes to Sir Henry Hobart, Attorney General, respecting Richard Stapleton, in regard to his claim of half the possessions of Viscount Beaumont, and agrees to relinquish those now in the hands of the King, Queen, or Prince, and is willing to compound for the remainder with the present possessors. The King wishes the Attorney to treat thereon. Whitehall, 21st January, I612. Warrant to pay Edward Blount and Anthony Dyott, one-half the sums accruing to the King from the lands of Viscount Beau- mont. Windsor, 31st January, 1612. The mother of Thomas Sutton, the founder of the Charter House in Bartholomew's, was Jane Stapleton, daughter to Robert Stapleton, Esq., a branch of the noble family of the Stapletons in Yorkshire, one of whom was Sir Miles Stapylton, of Carleton, in the reign of Richard II. - Smalley v. Stapleton:-Petition of Samuel Smalley to the Council. In 1621, Thomas Stapleton, Viscount Beaumont, being in great debt and his lands extended, prevailed upon petitioner and two others to take the extended premises by lease; and out of the profits of his coal mines, valued at 24, 1,000 per annum, to pay his debts. At the end of three years the Viscount died, and his lady entered unlawfully upon the coal mines and took the profits for a year and a half, and then by Order in Chancery restored possession. In 1629, she entered unlawfully again and has ever since taken the profits, but not paid the debts, or disengaged petitioner. On the contrary, in 1630 she arrested and kept petitioner close prisoner for six weeks. Petitioner is now prisoner 190 in the King's Bench for the Viscount's debts, his lands and goods having been seized, and himself left nothing but part of his wearing clothes and a few of his books. The judgments where- upon he is detained had been entered without lawful warrant, but he prays that on account of his poverty his cause may be heard at the Council Table. ~. Petition of Bryan Stapleton to the Council:—Petitioner has been summoned to answer matters objected against him. Knowing his own innocency he hopes to acquit himself, even to clearing his intentions from all manner of disobedience to his Majesty's will and pleasure at any time signified to him. Being lately convented for refusing to contribute to the twelve pence in every constabulary demanded by the Muster-Master, co. York, wherein he protests he has not any intention to decline his Majesty's Service, or to show himself refractory, protests that in any way wherein he has offend- ed he is ready to submit and show his conformity to the future, Prays them to accept his submission. October, 1633. Captain Brian Stapleton of Blackfriars, assessed at 4.5o, Ioth May, 1644. Captain Brian Stapleton ordered to be brought up in custody to show cause why he refused to pay his assess- ment. I 7th May, 1644. Captain Brian Stapleton's assessment descharged, he being driven from Lincoln and his estate under the power of the King's army. I 2th June, I644. Petition of Captain Brian Stapleton:—That having lost an estate of £400 a year by the rebellion in Ireland, has been in service there, and in England often shot, and is now in distress. Begs room for himself and children in Mr. Mollen's house, Shoe Lane, which is granted to some who never inhabited it, nor paid a penny for repairs, and cannot obtain his arrears. 18th Feb., 1646. Ordered a dwelling in the house, Shoe Lane. Granted 7th November, 1645 (2 rooms excepted), to 3 women who lost their estates in Ireland. Lady Stapleton, residing in Gray's Inn Lane, assessed at A 200 by the Committee for advance of public money:-14 days allowed for payment, or in the mean time to procure a certificate that the estate is sequestrated. 29th August, 1645. The above fragments, like the links of a broken chain, have a similarity to each other, and show that in the old 191 time, ere they were severed, they joined together the Stapletons with Staple Inn. In the words of Lord Bacon: “Antiquities are history defaced or remarks that have escaped the shipwreck of time. In these kinds of imperfect history no deficiency need be noted, they being of their own nature imperfect.” Staple Inn fortunately escaped the great fire of 1666, and has outlived its constitution. The Antients disappeared and the dinners in the hall were discarded. Time changed the manners and customs of the members, and Parliament grievously interfered with their legal practice. The tenure became unprofitable, and Staple Inn, as an Inn of Court, ceased to exist, and in 1886, the following announcement appeared in the public papers:— STAPLE INN, HOLBORN. A valuable Freehold Building Site, covering a superficial area of about 33,364 Square feet, and possessing a frontage of I24-ft. 6-in. to High Holborn, and a mean depth of about 211-ft., imme- diately opposite Gray's Inn Road. Mr. Robert Reid, having disposed of the buildings on the South Terrace to her Majesty's Government, is instructed to offer the above for sale on Friday, November 26th, 1886. The shops and chambers produce a net income of about 24, 1,600 per annum. The Daily Telegraph, commenting on the event, said:— The ancients of Staple Inn have wound themselves up, realized their assets, and divided the proceeds, and sold the Inn and its site to an enterprising firm of builders (Messrs. Trollope), who will probably ere long bring the old messuage and tenement to public sale. . . . . The exigencies or even the rights of sentimentality are not recognised in this strictly practical age, and the transformation of London is, we suppose, inevitable, and must continue, although it involves the destruction of many intensely interesting relics of the past. The Holborn front is of the time of James I. The Hall is of a later date, has a clock turret, and originally possessed an open timber roof. Some of the armorial glass in the windows of the hall date as far back as 1500. Eºg Tºyººſ. Tº NS §§ º, #7 º : 2 *::: iº g & º Áºriº || || r * p S. 9T *roarroque; ;...& § *:::::: &gº ; # I º º s *4 ** º tº J ºngº QZ" #2 §3& ɺ § **** § •..." N I [º ãon; N Zīā § &Yo'26N º: § 88 ...º: §§-4 #: Nº. §§ '. *::::: ºš §: * I e º "t § ity :::::: § 5-ºSs § §º & ::::: C g Fºsſ. & HäRS N §: sº \º § ºf * ::::: 22*2C SN N §º § §: 193 getmueene je Gºurmmae gºtijles. iſintcolat’s 3rtn jielº & Jolborn. 66 HAT is there so truly English?” says HoNE, “What is so linked with our rural tastes, our sweetest memories, and our sweetest poetry, as stiles and field paths? GoLDSMITH, THOMson, and MILTON have adorned them with some of their richest wreaths. They have consecrated them to poetry and love.” The names of the “Great” and “Little Turnstiles” remain as landmarks of the past, when Holborn was a country road and the ways or stiles led across meadow and marsh to the river. They tell of a time when the Dispensators or De Spencers owned the land (between the turning stiles) which was known as “Le Spencer’s Lond.” Their capital place or mansion- house stood at the western end. The names of its occupants still exist: William De Spencer, the elder; Robert De Spen- cer; William De Spencer, the grandson; and Milicent and Roysia De Spencer (wives of the two latter) are mentioned as proprietors or witnesses in ancient documents. The southern edge of their garden was bounded by a stream, a branch or offshoot of the Old Bourne, whether formed by nature or art originally is difficult to determine; certain it is (if old deeds are to be relied upon) that it was called “Spencer’s Dig,” but whether the Spencers diverted the stream or deepened and improved an existing water-course is left to those who delight in geological research. The natural channel was doubtless improved by art. If this were not so, it would overflow in rainy seasons and run dry in times - Q) ºy Spencer House. 194. Edmund Spenser and the Earl of Leicester, of drought. The space between the Turnstiles and foot- paths, east and west of Spencer House, can be measured by the extent of Whetstone Park. Roysia De Spencer is mentioned in a deed, wherein she grants to John de Cruce “two acres of land with their appurtenances, situate between land, late of William de Spencer, on the east side, and land • * * * on the west side, extending north and south to Holeburn and Fikattesfield.” PART.on says this part of Holborn was called “Terr juxta Barram de Hole- burn”; but to make this statement clear, it must be kept in mind that Ficquet’s Fields extended eastward beyond the “Great Turnstile,” before the days of Henry de Lacy and the construction of Chancery Lane. The names of the Spencers have been so frequently mentioned in this work that they have written the history of Spencer House. Edmund Spenser (Spencer), the celebrated English poet, descended from this ancient and honourable family. It is said he was born in London, in East Smithfield by the Tower, about 1553. The old friendship that existed between the Spencers and the Leicesters was continued. In July, 1580, when Arthur, Lord Grey of Wilton, was made Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Spencer was appointed his Secretary on the recommendation of the Earl of Leicester, In 1586 Spencer obtained a grant of three thousand and twenty- eight acres, in the County of Cork, out of the forfeited lands of the Earl of Desmond, by the united interest of Lord Grey, Earl Leicester and Sidney. In 1590-1, Eliza- beth conferred on Spencer a pension of fifty pounds a year, the grant of which was discovered some years ago in the chapel of the Rolls. He returned to London about this time, and there is a long interval in his history of which there is no account. He is said to have died January 16th, 1598-9, at an inn or lodging-house in King Street, West- minster. Spencer House appears to have passed into the 195 possession of Sir Walter Mildmay by a grant from Henry VIII. He enjoyed the confidence of that monarch and was appointed by him Surveyor of the Court of Augmentation, erected by Statute, 27 Henry VIII., for determining suits and controversies relating to monasteries and abbey-lands. It took its name from the great augmentation that was made to the revenues of the Crown. Sir Walter Mildmay and Sir Richard Rich jointly benefited by the plunder of the Church and the forfeiture of the estate of the Lovells. Rich became possessed of the Priory of St. Bartholomew and a portion of the Beaumont lands previously given to endow it. QUEEN MARY dispossessed Rich and gave the Priory to the Black Friars, and at her death, QUEEN ELIZABETH restored it to the Rich family, who made it their residence. It was subsequently inhabited by Sir Walter Mildmay, and he by virtue thereof became possessed of the Black Friars' Monastery in Cambridge. He was Chancellor of the Exchequer and one of Her Majesty’s Privy Council. At this time (1585) he founded Emanuel College, Cambridge, on the site of the old Black Friars Monastery, and gave as an endowment to it the land in Holborn where Spencer House stood. FULLER says that “Sir Walter coming to Court, the Queen said to him “I hear you have erected a Puritan foundation.’ ‘No, madam;’ saith he, “far be it from me to countenance anything contrary to your established laws; but I have set an acorn, which, when it becomes an oak, God alone knows what will be the fruit thereof.” He had so much of the Puritan about him, how- ever, as to make the chapel stand north and south, instead of east and west. He died May 31st, 1589. His remains were interred in St. Bartholomew’s Church, and a noble monument erected to his memory. Whether Edmund Spenser the poet occupied Spencer House, Holborn, at the time when Sir Walter Mildmay was living at St. Bartholo- Sir Walter Mildmay and Emanuel College; Cambridge. I96 mew's Priory is not known, but it is exceedingly probable that Sir Walter Mildmay, who had become possessed of a part of the Spencer estate and who was a man of high character, would, “by the recommendation of Leicester,” their mutual friend, allow him to occupy the family seat, and supplement thereby his royal pension of £50 per annum. The side lights of history sometimes illuminate much that is obscure, and this holds good with the windows of º: * Lincoln’s Inn Chapel. It was not consecrated until 1623, t * tº º tº º o & | - s: € and yet the “dim religious light” is rich with the associa- tions of forgotten Blemundsbury. The third light in the middle window on the south side was given by Sir Thomas Fane, Knight, and Mary, Baroness Le Despenser. The fourth light in the next compartment was given by Francis Fane, Earl of Westmoreland, and Maria, daughter of Sir Anthony Mildmay. This Sir Anthony was the eldest son of Sir Walter Mildmay and Mary his wife, sister to Sir Francis Walsingham. The first light in the south-west window was given by Robert Spenser (Spencer) of Worm- leighton; the third was given by Thomas Spencer of Clarendon, and the fourth by John Spencer of Offley, Herts. The Spencer, or rather the Mildmay estate, in Holborn, as it now exists, comprises six shops. It was, The Emanuel at the time Emanuel College was founded, a strip of land ºate forming the forecourt of Spencer House, on which strip these six shops or houses in after times were erected, now numbered inclusively 246—251. These houses, when built, would not only obstruct the front prospect of Spencer House, but they would destroy the carriage approach to it from Holborn. Lincoln House+ furnishes a precedent and a reason for this apparent injury. The plan of the architect evidently was to reverse the original design of the house, and make the front to face Lincoln's Inn Fields, which See Page 96. 107 had the opening prospect before it of becoming a great quadrangle, bordered by the mansions of the aristocracy. The design was carried out, and PARTON, Vestry Clerk of St. Giles in the Fields, speaking officially from the parish minutes, says it was occupied by Sir William Segar, and although there is no record in the badly kept parish books of that time, it is probable that the alterations were carried out when that distinguished personage, Sir William Segar, entered upon possession of Spencer House. As a parish- ioner he was elected a member of St. Giles' Vestry in 1618, the year that Inigo Jones was busy planning out the great [pyramidal] quadrangular space on the waste or common land of St. Giles', hereafter to develop into the incongru- ous Lincoln’s Inn Fields. During the time Sir William Segar filled the office of Select Vestryman (which required no election by the ratepayers) the very old church of St. Giles’ was pulled down and another built. He was a valu- able acquisition to the building committee. He contributed to the new edifice “The King's Arms Window,” a very appropriate gift, considering the heraldic office he so ably filled. The church was consecrated by Laud, Bishop of London, “and to make the Ceremony more imposing,” a committee was appointed to arrange for a banquet to enter- tain the nobility who were parishioners of St. Giles’ in the Fields. Sir William Segar and others subscribed to a fund to defray a part of the cost. This is the last mention of Sir William. The houses were built in Holborn, but the improvements in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, on the north side, were not proceeded with. Buildings, or rather temporary ’ were allowed to be erected, and the “wooden housing’ residence of Sir William Segar, became unsuitable for the habitation of a gentleman. The only access to it was a narrow way running under a house (246) with a character- istic but objectionable name, and was also called Partridge Sir William Segar and Spencer House. The King's Arms Window. 198 Newman's Row. Vestryman Whetstone and Whetstone Park. Alley, which really seems to include a portion of the lane now Whetstone Park, for it is stated in the assessment, taken in 1623, as containing fifty-nine houses, and described as coming from Holborn to the backside of the houses in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, afterwards called Newman’s Row—the present Holborn Row. This is not exactly the case. “The houses in Lincoln’s Inn Fields” were what is known as Squatters' dwellings, and are referred to in a report of the Commissioners for the Improvement of Lincoln’s Inn Fields, wherein they say:—“That the grounds called Lin- coln’s Inn Fields were much planted round with dwellings and lodgings of noble men and qualitie, but at the same time it was deformed by cottages and mean buildings, encroach- ments on the .ield and nuisances to the neighbourhood.” “The slip of ground” says PART.on, “immediately behind Newman’s or Holborn Row, seems to have remained much later unbuilt on, and being a waste piece of ground, was greatly frequented, while in that state, as a scene of low dissipation. The first buildings on it were erected in the reign of Charles II., as we learn from the names of the builders. The eastern half, built by Mr. Whetstone, a parishioner and vestryman of that period, acquired from him the name of Whetstone Park, and the other half, con- tinued by a Mr. Phillips, the name of Phillips’ Rents.” This is scarcely correct, for the whole of the south side of Whetstone Park is connected with the houses in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, which are now mostly back offices, but were formerly gardens and stables attached to the residences in Newman’s Row, named after the builder. On the north or Holborn side several buildings ran through into Whetstone Park, from the time that they were built, and the few mean structures, which were notorious brothels, erected by Messrs. Whetstone and Phillips in this nameless purlieu, perpetuated the memory of vestryman Whetstone. He was 199 Overseer in 1655. Partridge Alley, when first formed, led into the fields. It existed before Whetstone Park, as appears by a Vestry minute, as follows:– 1648. Pd. Thomas Brooks, Deputy Coroher, for viewing the corpse of Elizabeth Otley, and one Grace, who was killed by the fall of a chimney in Partridge Alley—6s. 8d. Spencer House, previous to this time, was converted into an inn, known as “The Bull” or “Bull and Gate.” Sir Anthony Ashley had an estate near this spot, PARTON says in “Thornton’s Alley,” but great men, who frequent Courts, do not reside in alleys. He died 23rd March, 1631. By an Inquisition, he was found to have died possessed of (inter alia) a messuage in Holborn, called the “Black Bull.” This “Black Bull” has a very close resemblance to the “Bull and Gate Inn,” which was entered from Holborn (No. 245), with corresponding exit at the back into the fields. MILTON must have resided very near this Inn, for in 1647 he is said “to have moved to a small house in Holborn which opened behind into Lincoln’s Inn Fields.” An extract of a later date which says “Milton removed to a house in Holborn, looking into the Red Lion Fields,” probably referred to the same house. A reference to the map, published by STRYPE, will make clear the site of Spencer House. It is there shown, surrounded by houses, in a recess on the west side of Partridge Alley. Many now living can remember the old galleries when the place was no longer an Inn. Every chamber that looked into the yard was the home of a poor and populous family; the residents could not be described as either peaceful or virtuous; by some recognized unwritten law, Monday was the appointed day for amazonian conflicts and the settlement of differences; the laws of decency and sanitation were ignored; the closets were in a recess in the galleries, perfectly open to all who passed along them, the doors having been utilized for fuel. Partridge Alley. The Bull and Gate Inn. 200 The Pneumatic Despatch Company. There is no wish to exaggerate facts or overdraw the picture of social life in the Holborn Galleries, but an eye-witness could pourtray it, which, if he did, would necessitate his appearance at Bow Street Police Court. The tenants who occupied the abandoned rooms that encircled Cable's Livery Stables gave place to others of a more degraded character. The place became a shelter for the dissolute and immoral, and could hold its own for drunkenness, quarrelling, and vice, against the “Rookery” of St. Giles. So it continued finding possibilities to sink to a lower level, until it was swept away by the Pneumatic Despatch Company. They commenced operations in Seymour Street, on the 23rd of September, 1863, and by October, 1864, tubes had been laid underground to their station in Holborn, they having in the meantime to fight against a combined opposition of the Duke of Bedford and his tenants. On November 7th, this section of the line was so far completed, that many visitors travelled in the 54-inch tubes from station to station. The line was extended along Holborn to the General Post Office, and then the iron cylinders, in the first instance, were laid on the crown of the sewer; this involved their being taken up and buried again to the great detriment of the shareholders. Like many other companies it lingered out a miserable existence, and finally expired about the year 1877, bequeathing to the parishes through which their line ran, the pneumatic tubes, which had been laid at so much cost and were not worth the trouble of unearthing. They were the only assets not wound up. The Direc- tors reported in 1864:—“About 4,500 trains have been despatched through the tube during the past half-year with perfect regularity, and the wear and tear has proved merely nominal. The tall chimney shaft in Whetstone Park, erected by them, remains as a memorial of this unfortunate Company. 201 In a Deed of 1800, granted by the Master and Fellows, the property is described as:— All those their six messuages or tenements, situate and being in High Holborn, in the parish of St. Giles in the Fields, in the county of Middlesex, abutting and adjoining upon a tenement and ground formerly in the occupation of William Whetstone, and now of John Hays, bookseller, on the east part (No. 252), and upon a tenement and ground, formerly in the occupation of Holy Flavell, Waterman, now of Hopkins, on the west part (No. 245), upon the High Street called Holborn on the north part; upon a certain ground or tenement, formerly of John Williamson and now of , on the south part, which said messuages or tenements were formerly in the several tenures or occupations of John Walker, Charles Huino, John Thompson, Mary Berrisford, and Lewes Laport; since of Francis Cremer, William Walker, William Saxton, John Hilton, George Holdgate, and Amy Page, and now of Messrs. Carmon and Cooper, Hosiers (No. 246), — Hughes, Brazier (No. 247), Messrs. Boak and White, Hosiers (No. 248), — Hooper, Glassman (No. 249), — Knowsley, Widow Milliner (No. 250), and William Eaton, Chemist (No. 251) together with a little house or cottage behind the house (No. 246) in the possession of Gasly, now converted into a kitchen with a room over it; except and reserved out of this demise a passage which goes into Queen's Court and formerly called Partridge's Alley, which passage is not in their possession, but the said tenants are to have the use of the said passage as they now enjoy. All the leases on these six houses expired in the year 1879, and the land being let by the Master and Fellows of Emanuel College on building lease, they were pulled down and the present block of shops and offices erected and christened “Emanuel College Chambers.” The link that holds together the present and the past is unbroken, for the De Spencers still retain by hereditary right the office of Visitor of Emanuel College, Cambridge. A few feet westward is Little Turnstile, and one of the early references to it is a “Petition of the Inhabitants of High Holborn and parishes adjoining to the King:”— - QU) 70) Emanuel College Chambers. 202 The Little Turnstile. There is a dangerous and narrow passage between High Holborn and St. Giles' Fields, by reason of a dead mud wall, and certain old ‘housing’-which lately stood close to the same, where divers people have been murdered and robbed. Pray for leave for building to be erected thereon. Referred to the Earls of Dorset and Carlisle and Viscount Dorchester. St. James's, 17th June, 1630. - Report of the Earl of Dorset to the King.—Petition of the inhabitants of High Holborn and the parishes adjoining the building of Jeremy Turpin. Having viewed the place they judge it necessary to be built for the safety of passengers, the adorning of the street, and the amendment of the highway. Leave should be given so that the building be not made a precedent. 1630. A correspondent, writing to the Editor of Notes and Queries, vol. x, says:— - There is a passage in a work now but little known or referred to, relating first to Dulwich College, and in the next place to the narrow avenue in Holborn now named Little Turnstile, which may deserve consideration. It occurs in the Monthly Magazine, or Memoirs for the Curious, vol. ii, page 179. Mr. Chartwright, who was bred a bookseller and kept a shop at the end of Turnstile Alley, which was at first designed for a Change for the vending of Welsh flannel, as is still visible by the left side as you go from Lincoln's Inn Fields, which is now divided; it is turned with arches. I have not found any mention (says another correspondent) of The Exchange in Turnstile Alley, but the notice in the Monthly Miscellany may be depended upon if it was from Old Bagford. —(See Harl. MSS. 5,900, fol. 546). John Bagford was first a shoemaker and then a bookseller in Turnstile Alley. BRAYLEY says:— Great and Little Turnstile; the former a straight passage, the latter a crooked alley, derived their names from the Turning Stiles, which two centuries ago (1629) stood at their respective ends next Lincoln's Inn Fields. The genuine edition of Sir Edwin Sandy's curious work, entitled: Europa Speculum, or a View or Survey of the State of Religion in the Westerne part of the World, 4to, printed in 1637, was ‘sold by George Hutton, at the Turning Stile in Holborne. The English translation of Bishop Peter Camus's \ 203 Admirable Events, printed in 1639, 4to., was also ‘sold in Holborn in Turnstile Lane.’ BRAYLEY has omitted to state by which Turnstile this book warehouse was situated, but the evidence is in favour of the Little Turnstile. g Be this correct or otherwise, the building there erected was converted into two houses, Nos. 239, 240, High Hol- born, the latter being again divided, so that the corner house, originally one building, has been made into three. The writer of this history must be excused if he lingers by the Little Turnstile. His first prospect in life was from the back window of No. 239, which looked into Little Turnstile. A hallowed interest hangs about the place to him, for a few months afterwards his birth-place was changed into the death-chamber of his mother. The wide panelling and the moulded framing that lined the walls; the carved mantel-piece, with its central urn and its acanthus wreaths; the closed-up doorway in the wall that once communicated with the adjoining house; the recessed cupboards, large enough for a back room in a suburban villa; the oval rings of brickwork in the front wall which lighted those cup- boards, and were bricked up when light and air were taxed, told of a period about the time of Queen Anne. The staircases of the three houses are an evidence of contriving builders rather than designing architects. These houses have ever been a metropolitan nuisance, and ought long since to have been cleared away; also the houses which were allowed to be built on the highway from Little Turnstile to Little Queen Street. The nuisance and obstruction is clearly shown on HoRwooD's map, and it still remains, because the cost of its removal would add greatly to the financial difficulties of the London County Council. The agitation for wider roadways, north and south, and the abolition of the Turnstiles dates back to generations past and is likely to continue for generations yet to come. 204, The Ship Tavern, Little Turnstile. At the other end of the Little Turnstile is The Ship Tavern, which is said to have been when first built in the days of persecution, a hiding place for priests, where they secretly celebrated mass. In later times the Craft met there, as appears by the minutes. Grand Lodge opened in due form at the sign of the Ship, Little Turnstile, Holborn, Feb. 7, 1786. All matters relative to the Constitution being compleated, the G. Secretary in the name of the Most Noble and Right Honourable Earl of Antrim (Grand Master) proclaimed the new Lodge Duly Constituded No. 234 Registered in the Grand Lodge Vol 6 letter F to be held at the Sign of the Ship Little Turnstile Holborn upon the last Monday of each Calendar Month. Closed and adjourned to the General Grand Lodge. * Their meetings here were of short duration, for by a minute, dated 3rd July, 1787, a motion was made by Br. Wood, P.M., seconded by Br. Cook, and carried unanimously: “That this Lodge be mov’d to any Centerale and Reputable House that any Brother or Brothers shall know to be Convenient and Worthy.” The Lodge was removed to “The French Horn,” in High Holborn, on August the 8th, and the following December it came back to Gate Street, and settled at “The Sun,” corner of Whetstone Park. Here it remained until November 1791, when it was removed to the Holborn corner of the Little Turnstile. “The Six Cans,” to which sign was afterwards added the “Punch Bowl,” a house occupied in recent times by the much- respected landlord, Mr. Henry Weston. Behind the “Cans,” as it was then termed, stood hidden away Gate Street Chapel, one of the many conventicles where the Puritans prayed and planned the destruction of monarchy. About 1842, the place was renamed the “National Hall,” and the subjoined programme shows the great question that was occupying the public mind some forty odd years ago. 205 GRAND ORIGINAL AND IMPORTANT FREE TRADE CONCERTS BY THE E"IER, A SIE ER, IE" A-INMIIT, Y, The Original Illustrators of Scottish Song, in the NATIONAL HALL, 242, HIGH HOLBORN, On TH URSDAY, NOVEMBER 6th, 1845. TO COMMENCE AT A QUARTER PAST EIGHT O'CLOCK. ADMISSION–6d. 1s. and 2s. Piano—MR. FRASER................... VIOLIN–The MASTERS FRASER. MR. FRASER respectfully calls the attention of the public to these Evenings, and the great objects for which they are set forth, namely, the promotion of Free Trade and Free Man principles. A selection of beautiful Poetry, fraught with the noblest sentiments and principles will be sung; and it is hoped will afford high gratification to those who support these evenings. PROGRAMME for THURSDAY, November 6th. ~ Patriotic introduction to the objects of the evening. TRIO ........................ º { Friends we bid you welcome here, } Melody— Who Freedom's sacred cause revere.” Scots wha' hae. A friendly and hopeful congratulation in the name of freedom and its blessings to Mr. and the Misses Fºs - numerous patrons and friends. - “Hark! the angel of freedom is coming, 4- SACRED TRIO......... {sº never again will the earth be ...) Music by J. Fraser. The words by the patriotic poet, Prince, of Manchester, in which he shows how little of the beauties and products of nature the poor have the means of enjoying. DUET........................ “There is beauty on earth, etc.” Music by J. Fraser. One of Ebenezer Elliott's beautiful Corn Law hymns, in which he exposes the tyranny that makes the land ring with the voice of distress. - & “Beneath the might of wicked men, & GLEE ..................... { The poor man’s Worth is dying.” } Music by J. Fraser. VERSE AND CHORUS............... “The Trampled Land." ............ Music by J. Fraser. Or the voice of beggared Ireland proclaiming in words of fire, its sufferings, its wrongs, its wants. "CLASSIC DUET............... “O lovely peace with plenty crowned.” .............. . Handel. The people compelled by law to be peaceful, and equally compelled by the same law to submit quietly to starva- tion. The slavish peace of the people fondly desired and commended, but their petition for plenty—the only - rational security for peace, despised. SONG • “The tyrant,s chains are only strong Miss Fraser. e e g g g º e º e º e º sº a tº s is e º 'º & When slaves submit to wear them.” Music by J. Fraser. For a nation to be free, it is sufficient that it wills it—the education of the will and the mind of the people, the t only safe, sure, and peaceful road to freedom. “Disease and want are sitting by my side."......... Miss M. Fraser—Music by J. Fraser. A solitary and broken-hearted victim of misrule, reflecting on the abundance of nature's produce and kindness, contrasted with the disease and want entailed on the toiling many by the Corn Laws, that say to hunger: “Go thou forth, destroyer.” FAVOURITE GLEE............... “The might with the right.”............ Music by Calcott. A fine combination of inspiring sentiments, to encourage the good, and the brave to persevere in the cause of truth till the iniquitous and long acted on principle of might with the wrong be overthrown. The immortal and man-elevating song of BURNs— VERSE AND CHORUS ........... . “A Man's a Man for a’ that.” ............ Scottish Melody. The splendid and powerful teaching of this song is to lead us to estimate highly honest worth, though clothed in rags, to cherish manly and virtuous independence in all;, and lead us to glory in the coming time, when, man to man the world o'er, shall brithers be for a’ that. - 206 The National Hall, High Hollyorn. The Red Lion Inn, High Holborn. A prosecution was instituted against the proprietor of the National Hall, because the entertainments were varied with dancing, and a “True Bill” was found against him for illegally allowing music and dancing. The place, like the present Central Hall, was everything by turns but nothing was permanent. Lovett, Perfitt, Edney, Fraser, and many others, by eloquence and song, drew audiences that filled the Hall. Carpenters met there to discuss strikes and lock-outs; costermongers gathered there to protest against the new street regulations. At length Mr. IIenry Weston transferred the “Cans” to his nephew Edward, who purchased the old chapel, fitted it up as a Music Hall, and opened it with an “Inauguration Banquet” on Friday, November 13th, 1857, and for a time “Weston’s Music Hall” was a mine of wealth to its possessor, whose career of success, like a false light, wrecked him on the rocks of misfortune and ruin. His sad end may “point a moral” but it “adorns no tale.” The name has since been expunged for “The Royal,” which it now retains. Eastward of Bull and Gate Inn stood the adjoining Red Lion Inn. Mention is made of it as early as 1572, in connection with a murder which caused a “sensation” annongst the citizens of London:— Arthur Hall, a well-known merchant, was enticed by Martin Bullocke to the deserted parsonage of St. Martin, situated near the Well with Two Buckets, for the purpose of Selling him some silver plate, which he had stolen from Doctor Gardener. Arthur Hall, having viewed the plate, said “This is none of yours, that is Dr. Gardener's mark upon it, and I know it to be his.’ ‘That is true,' said Martin Bullocke, ‘but hee hath appointed me to sell it ye. After this talke, whiles the said Arthur was weighing the plate, the same Martin fetcht out of the kitchen a thicke leashing beetle, and comming behind him, struck the said Arthur on the head, that he felled him with the first stroke, and then struck him againe, and after tooke the said Arthur's dagger, and stabbed him, and with his knife cut his throat, and after would have trussed him 207 in a Dansyke chest, but the same was too short, whereupon, after mutilating the body, he packed it in straw, and shipped it off in a vat to Rye, before the crime was discovered. Bullocke was arrested on suspicion, but the evidence against him, being slight, Robert Gee was allowed to be bail for him. Bullocke was no sooner at liberty than he fled and endeavoured to hide himself in Okingham Forest. Fearful of being taken, he came back to London, where he lodged at the Red Lion Inn, in Holborn, Robert Gee, his bail, being at this time in prison. While Bullocke was hiding at the Red Lion Inn, the contents of the cask came to light, and about the same time Bullocke was discovered and apprehended at the said Inn in Holborn. He was tried, sentenced, and hanged on a gibbet, close by the Well with Two Buckets in Bishopsgate Street. 24th of May, 1572. John Paston writes to Sir John Paston:— I pray God send you all your desires and me my mewed goss-hawk in haste, or rather than fail a Soar-hawk; there is a grocer dwelling right over against the Well with Two Buckets, a little from St. Helen's Church, hath ever hawks to sell, 1472. The sign was a memory of the well that once existed there and supplied the inhabitants with water. AUBREY thus refers to the Red Lion Inn :— Red Lion Square, Holborn, was called after an Inn known as The Red Lion. Andrew Marvel lies interred under ye pewes in ye south side of St. Giles's Church in ye Fields, under the window which is painted on glasse, a red lyon, given by the Inne- holder of the Red Lion Inne. This was doubtless a memorial window, and given to the new church at the same time as the King's Arm’s window (Segar’s Gift), about 1629. It is to be noted that this Inn was not in the parish of St. Andrew, as many writers have asserted, but in St. Giles’ in the Fields, and it is important to remember that the Red Lion was the badge of the Lacy's and the Lancasters, the Lords of Lin- coln’s Inn. In the History of Sign Boards it is stated:— “The Red Lion is by far the most common; doubtless it originated with the badge of John of Gaunt, Duke of 208 The King's Head Inn, High Holborn. Lancaster, married to Constance, daughter of the King of Castile.” This is not the case, the Red Rampant Lion can be traced back to the early lords of Ficquet’s Fields. The Red Lion Inn, IIolborn, was a memory of the past and its former possessors. It is in evidence that shortly after 1629 the Red Lion Inn gave place to the King’s Head Inn. The claim of the Lovells had not been totally extinguished. Ficquet’s Fields, in the interest of the King, was being planned out for building leases, granted by the Crown, and “mine host of the Red Lion” wisely adapted himself to circumstances, and took for his sign the prophetically onlinous “King’s Head.” When Princess Elizabeth was released from the Tower, Nov. 1558, she returned thanks for her deliverance in the church of All Hallows, Staining, and then dined at the King’s Head in Fenchurch Street on pork and peas. Beaumanor, in Leicestershire, the ancient seat of the Beaumonts, like Lincoln’s Inn Fields, was made part of the Queen’s jointure lands. The Court of the Stuarts had been built with the debris of the houses of York, Lancaster, and Tudor, and everything that could destroy old claims was sanctioned and adopted. Even time-honoured Blemundsbury was supplanted by Bloomsbury. It is said: “At the King’s Head, the corner of Chancery Lane, Cow LEY the poet was born in 1618. It was then a grocer’s shop, kept by his father.”* Such is history. There was no King’s Head at the corner of Chancery Lane. The estate which comprised the Red Lion Inn was divided; the Inn itself became the “King’s Head,” but the stabling and coach-houses, which formerly belonged to it, retained the old name of the Red Lion Inn Yard. This distinction still remains. King’s Head Yard is approached from High * History of Signboards. i See page 146. 209 Holborn under No. 251, and Red Lion Yard under No. 254. The two yards, although adjoining, are separate and distinct properties; but were in the time of Mr. Henry Manning, who died in 1871, in his occupation. The separation of the inn from the yard has led to an historical mistake. It is said the body of Cromwell was brought to the Red Lion in Holborn before being exposed on a gibbet at Tyburne. It should be the Red Lion Yard, which added to the indignity, for it was at that time a stable yard of small repute. The following refers to the King’s Head Inn, Holborn: Affidavit of Andrew White, dwelling at the King's Head Inn, Holborn, and one of the Queen's servants. He recapitulates many payments to the messengers. Some five or six years ago, he paid 26s, to Wainewright for church stuff; last winter Gray apprehended a gentleman upon suspicion to be a priest. Depo- nent compounded with him for 6d., and so the gentleman was let go; Griffith searched deponent's house and seized a book and letter. Deponent paid him 4os. to return them (the same man who kept a brothel); apprehended Francis Smith in Holborn, and carried him first to a tavern, and afterwards to his own house. Deponent paid 4.5 and Smith Ios. for his release, and Griffith promised never to meddle with him more. Wragg apprehended a gentleman in deponent's house on suspicion to be a priest. He found upon him £40 of which he kept 24, Io. The Queen sent the Bishop of London to have the gentleman out of Wragg's hands. 23rd November, 1635. The Red Lion Inn Yard came prominently before the public in 1813. Mrs. Stephens, who kept a shop at Wood- ford, was barbarously murdered while sitting behind her counter on Saturday night, August 9th, 1813. The crime was not discovered until the following Monday. A clue was furnished by a missing silver watch she was known to have possessed. The maker, Thomas Ridley, No. 1544. One William Cornwell had worked as ostler at the Red Lion Inn Yard, in Holborn, but left in consequence of being in debt. He afterwards called in at a public-house .* & ſº The King's Head Inn, Holborn. The Red Lion Inn, Holborn. 210 The Blue Boar Inn, Holborn. near Lincoln's Inn Fields, when, on the landlady upbraid- ing him for leaving the neighbourhood without paying his score; he proposed to give the landlord his watch for a £1 bank note, and to clear off his score of 14s. He afterwards proposed to give the watch, and take Mr. Davis’ old metal watch, and clear the score, provided he would give him half-a-crown, which was agreed to. On Monday morning the advertisement describing the watch appeared, and the landlord gave information at Bow Street of the discovery, which led to his arrest at Woodford, where he was executed after his trial at Chelmsford. - The house (No. 254) between the King’s Head Yard and the Red Lion Yard was for many years occupied as a station of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, since removed to new premises in Theobald’s Road. In 1843, at No. 245 (The Roebuck), “The Street Sellers’ Club” was formed. It was called the House of Lords. Its object was to relieve its members in sickness. A subscription of two pence a week entitled a sick member to as many pennies a week as there were subscribing members to the club, but in urgent necessitous cases an additional half-penny was to be allowed, but such additional sum had to be raised by an extra half- penny subscription. It mustered ninety members, including a few that were honorary. At its commencement, sick members were scarce, so much so that in a short time the “House of Lords” had £30 in hand. Here all the devices and novelties of street hawking were discussed, and these gentlemen, wishing to keep their proceedings secret and select, resolved to black-ball any coster who sought to be admitted a member. Disunion and dishonesty found an entrance and put an end to the Club. The next Inn was the Blue Boar, probably of the same date as the Red Lion, and stood between that Inn and the Antelope, with entrances from Holborn and Ficquet’s 211 Fields, opposite to which was the George Inn of an older date, kept by one William Salcoke in 1519, according to a “Certificate made by Sir Henry Wiatt and Sir John Daunce,” directed and sent “To my Lord Cardinal’s Grace,” in which they declare:— They have made search for such vagabunds and mysdemean- ered persons on Sunday, 15th July, 1519, and attached according to the Cardinal’s order, in Holborn, in the house of William Salcoke, at the signe of the George, one Christopher, a Tyllesley, lay there two nights passed. Has no master and is committed to Newgate. In Saynt Gylys in the Felde, in the house of Richard Forman, George Chillingworth lay there for a week. Has no service. Is committed to the Constable's ward, not Newgate, as Foreman is surety for him, and says he is a true man, and is trying to get into service in London. In a State Paper of later date, 1632, there is an account of John Richardson, victualler, dwelling in George Yard. SEYMoUR, in his History of London, a modern enlarge- ment of Stow, says:—“George Inn, very large, and of a considerable trade; the passage to the yard is through Cow Lane, and the entrance to it in Holbourn is through a paved court, with indifferent good houses on both sides.” A refer- ence to HoRwooD's Map, of a later date, will show that where the George Yard was situated was entered from Eagle , Street, and named Blue Boar Yard, with another entrance under 76, High Holborn, four doors from Red Lion Street. And this suggests that Eagle Street was formerly Cow Lane, and that the Blue Boar Yard, and the George Inn, on the north side of Holborn, were, at the time the map was drawn, connected with the George and Blue Boar on the opposite side of the way. In the Calendar of State Papers there is mention of an “Order made by the Deputy Lieutenants and Com- mittees for co. Surrey, upon receiving a command from the Lord General (Essex), for the raising of 100 horse for the service of the Parliament in cos. Sussex and Surrey.” 212 That 20 horse be raised within the East Division and Io in the Middle Division of Surrey. The horses to be raised before Saturday night and delivered at the Blue Boar in Holborn, for the use of Sir Thomas Middleton. 26th June, 1643. In the Minutes of the Council of State there is the record of a “Warrant to apprehend Mr. Scroop of Lin- colnshire, at the Blue Boar, Holborn.” 14th May, 1640. In the same minutes it is Ordered that Sir William Armyne and Mr. Scott take recog- nizance of Mr. Scroope in 24, 1,000 not to do anything prejudicial to the Commonwealth, and then discharge him, and restore his horses and goods. 8th June, 1650. The tale of the saddle in connection with this inn may be passed over as an historical myth. That the place was visited by both Loyalists and Regicides is well known, and this appears to have been the reason why Cromwell’s body was brought into the neighbourhood. “The Blue Boar” took over the business of “The George” and became “The George and Blue Boar.” The people from Bedfordshire and Hert- fordshire were its great patrons. “The Times” coach from London to Bedford was well known in Holborn until Huskisson, Stephenson, and Hudson brought it to a linger- ing end. Insult was added to injury when Jehu resigned his whip and the place was transformed into a railway booking office. An unfortunate Company, in the infancy of the Limited Liability Act, reared a magnificent hotel on its site, but the well-known saying was verified: “one man soweth and another reapeth.” The Inns of Court Hotel, with its bridge spanning Whetstone Park to its mansion in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, and destroyed all traces of “The George and Blue Boar Inn.” Between Little Turnstile and Little Queen Street is the New Turnstile. If this passage were rightly named it would have been designated Gate Street, for it was situated exactly opposite the King’s Gate in Holborn, and this * :::-：Řºwº-ºº-º-º- =wrxes）; ***<< （~~~~•* • • • E House BY THE OLD or UPPER TURNSTILE, TH ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN THE RESIDENCE OF RICHARD PENDERELL. TAKEN Down—1885. * g BUILT-1660 213 King's Gate was so named because it barred the private , road of the King against trespassers, and was opened when His Majesty made his journey to his palace at Theobald’s from St. James’., New Turnstile, before it was lined with houses, led into Lincoln’s Inn Fields, and seems to have been especially constructed as a private way iato Holborn for royalty, or possibly the adherents of Cromwell, from Queen Street.* Before 1685, there was no carriage entrance into Holborn between Drury Lane and Chancery Lane. Long Acre and Queen Street were newly-formed thorough- fares, but at that time there was no Little Queen Street. The approaches to Lincoln’s Inn Fields from the north were either by Drury Lane into Fortescue Lane, afterwards known as Princes Street, Duke Street, and now Sardinia Street. The ugly arch in the centre of the fields on the west side is an evidence of the antiquity of the way. The building of Little Queen Street blocked the King’s way into the fields, for the houses stretched back into a portion of Pursefield, and their gardens in the rear were transformed into the forecourts of the houses in Gate Street. The way was obstructed because Theobald’s had been destroyed by the Protector, as under: 4 Information about Rich. Cotteler, of Charter House Yard, whose house at Hackney was chiefly built out of the materials of Theobald’s house; also about Capt. Spencer, who is in possession of Theobald's. Dockter, who has engrossed the manor to the value of 24, Io, ooo, and similar offenders. 29th June, 1660. State Papers. Anne, Countess of Bristol, petitions For a lease of Theobald's Park; the walls and tenements are so much out of repair that it is not likely to be again used for pleasure. Gave up her jointure to raise £30,000 imposed by the rebels for redemption of her son John, Lord Digby, of their con- fiscated estates, and her husband, having lost all in His Majesty's service, was unable to settle anything on her. September, 1660. * See page 315. New Turnstile, Holborn. 214 Great Turnstile, Holborn, The petitioner was unsuccessful and shortly afterwards the King bestowed it on the man to whom he owed his crown, as follows:— Grant to George, Duke of Albemarle, Anne, his wife, and their heirs, of the Manor and Park of Theobalds, co. Hertford (excepting mines royal and the passage of the New River), the Manor of Periors, and other lands, cos. Hertford, Middlesex, Berks, Hants, Notts, and York; total value, £4,066 18s. 4d.; with the timber in Chute Manor, and leave to disforest coppices, and have free warren in the Forest of Chute, part of the said grant. February, 1661—State Papers, - Passing from the New Turnstile to the Old or Great Turnstile, there stood at its north-east corner a house, alleged to have been the residence of Richard Penderell, as shewn in the accompanying drawing, made by C. F. Hayward, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., who has kindly allowed me to reproduce it. When built, it fronted Holborn, having a side entrance in Turnstile Lane. A reference to HoRwooD's map, “Between the Turnstiles,” will show that the building line has been advanced and the thoroughfare of Holborn encroached upon. When in after years this took place, this house ceased to be a corner house, it became the last house in Great Turnstile or Turnstile Lane, and is now numbered 17. Its neighbour on the north side, which turned it into Turnstile Lane, is No. 283, High Holborn, and was for many years in the occupation of Mr. Richard Heartwell, Hosier. The pulling down of this house in 1885 was a death blow to the old house in Great Turnstile; it began to bend forward and rifts appeared on its face in unex- pected places; it became a “dangerous structure.” The District Surveyor condemned it and it shortly afterwards ceased to exist. Its last occupant was Mrs. Hannah Haig (widow), Shirt-maker. - The mantel-piece, an illustration of which is given, was 3. one of the fixtures in the house at the time it was pulled 215 down. The writer has endeavoured to discover its first occupant, and a search in that direction points, if not con- clusively 'yet very suggestively, to the famous Richard Penderell, a parishioner, and whose tomb is still to be seen in the churchyard of St. Giles’ in the Fields. The suggestion that Penderell occupied this house by the Turnstile, derives force from the fact that Lincoln’s Inn Fields was the property of the King’s mother, and before the outbreak of the civil war had, by way of jointure, been settled upon her. It was part of the Beaumont-Lovell estate that fell into the hands of Henry VII. and was Richard Penderell d 2.Il Great Turnstile. transmitted downwards. The Earl of Arundel had some interest therein in the time of James I., as is manifest from a letter written by the Rev. Thomas Larkin to Sir Thomas Pickering, as under:—. There is a design in hand of disposing the waste ground that lies in Lincoln's Inn Fields with fair walks, and a collection of money is made to that purpose. The Lords Arundel and Dorset have given either 4, 1oo; my Lord Chancellor and Sir Fulk Greville 4.5o; Sir Thomas Edmondes and Sir Harry Carew, Comptroller of His Majesty's Horse, either of them 420; and they say gentlemen in the country shall be solicited likewise to contribute their benevolenee, which is the reason I have been so particular in setting down other men's proportions, 24th Nov., 1618. This information was based upon the appointment of a commission, consisting of Francis, Lord Wemlam, Lord Chancellor; Edward, Earl of Worcester, Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal, Chancellor of the Household; Thomas, Earl of Arundel, and 71 others, for the purpose of laying out Lincoln's Inn Fields, according to the plan of Inigo Jones, Surveyor General of the King's Works. November, I618. The ground on which Penderell House was built appears to have belonged to the Arundel family. Hum- phrey Penderell resided in it with his brother Richard, and died there in 1662, for, according to old records, he is said 216 The Penderells and Charles II. to have passed away in “Hen. Arundel’s house in Lincoln's Inn Fields,” that is to say, in a house belonging to the Earl of Arundel. This statement, for obvious reasons, cannot mean that he died at Arundel House, the seat of that family. C. F. RUNBAULT,” says:— In the King's account of his escape from Worcester, dictated to Mr. PEPys, there is frequent mention of the Penderells. He says:–“There were six brothers of the Penderells, who all of them were in the secret of my disguising myself in a country fellow's habit, with a pair of grey cloth breeches, a leathern doublet, and a green jerkin, which I took in the house of White Ladys. I also cut my hair very short, and flung my clothes into a privy-house, that nobody might see that anybody had been stripping them- selves. This White Ladys was a private house of Mr. Giffard's, who was a Staffordshire man. I have since learned from one of the Penderells that the man in whose house I changed my clothes came to one of them about two days after, and asking him where I was, told him they might get 24, 1,000 if they would tell, because there was that sum laid upon my head. But this Penderell was so honest, that though he at that time knew where I was, he bade him have a care of what he did; for that I being gone out of all reach, if they should now discover I had ever been there, they would get nothing but hanging for their pains. I would not change my clothes at any of the Penderell's houses, because I meant to make further use of them, and they might be suspected, but rather chose to do it in a house where they were not Papists, I neither knowing them, nor to this day, what the man was at whose house I did it. But the Penderells have since endeavoured to mitigate the business of their being tempted to discover me; but one of them did certainly declare it to me at that time.” Concerning one Yates that married a sister of one of the Penderells, Father Hodlestone says he has heard that the old coarse shirt which the King had on, did belong to him, and conse- quently that the King did shift himself at his house; but believes that the rest of the King's clothes were William Penderell's, he being a tall man, and the breeches the King had on being very long at the knees. * Notes and Queries, vol. i. f * // / /, / ºft|// t // . /(4!" / % \ % J % // CHIMNEY PIECE IN THE OLD House, GREAT TURNSTILE.—See page 214. 217 As soon as I was disguised, I took with me a country fellow, whose name was Richard Penderell, whom Mr. Giffard had under- taken to answer for, to be an honest man. He was a Roman Catholic, and I chose to trust them, because I knew they had hiding-holes for priests, that I thought I might make use of in case of need. So that night, as soon as it was dark, Richard Penderell and I took our journey on foot towards the Severn; we continued our way on to the village upon the Severn, where the fellow told me there was an honest gentleman, one Mr. Woolfe, that lived in that town (Madely), where I might be with great safety, for that he had hiding-holes for priests, Mr. Woolfe, when the country fellow told him that it was one that had escaped from the battle of Worcester, said, that for his part it was so dangerous a thing to harbour anybody that was known, that he would not venture his neck for any man unless it were the King himself; upon which, Richard Penderell, very indiscreetly, and without any leave, told him that it was I; upon which Mr. Woolfe replied, that he should be very ready to venture all he had in the world to secure me. So I came into the house a back way, when Mr. Woolfe told me he durst not put me into any of the hiding-holes of his house, because they had been discovered, and that therefore I had no other way of security but to go into his barn, and there lie behind his corn and hay. So after he had given us some cold meat that was ready, we, without making any bustle in the house, went and lay in the barn all the next day; when toward evening, his son, who had been prisoner at Shrewsbury, an honest man, was released, and came home to his father's house. And as soon as ever it began to be a little darkish, Mr. Woolfe and his son brought meat into the barn, and there we discoursed with them, whether we might safely get over the Severn into Wales; which they advised me by no means to adventure upon, because of the strict guards that were kept all along the Severn. Upon this I took resolution of going that night the very same way back again to Penderell's house, where I knew I should hear some news what was become of my Lord Wilmot. So we set out as soon as it was dark, and, asking Richard Penderell as we came by the mill whether he could swim or no, and how deep the river was, he told me it was a Scurvy river and not easy to be passed in all places, and that he could not swim. So I told him that the river being but a little one, I would undertake to help him over. Upon $/ ?/ 218 The Family of the Penderells. which we entered some closes to the river side, and I, entering the river first, to see whether I could myself go over, who knew how to swim, found it was but a little above my middle; and thereupon taking Richard Penderell by the hand I helped him over. These Penderells were of honest parentage, but mean degree; six brothers, born at Hobbal Grange, in the parish of Tong, and county of Salop—William, John, Richard, Hum- phrey, Thomas, and George; John, Thomas, and George were soldiers in the first way for KING CHARLEs I. Thomas was slain at Stow fight; William was a servant at Boscobel; Humphrey, a miller, and Richard rented part of Hobbal Grange. Through their assistance, the King arrived safely at the George Inn, Brighthelmstone, on the 14th of Oct., and the next day sailed for Normandy in the bark of Captain Tetersall. This bark, after the Restoration, with the same captain, under different auspices, made a return journey to England and sailed along the Thames to the palace at Whitehall, where it lay some months at anchor to keep alive the memory of the happy service it had performed. There is a scrap of paper pasted into Bagford’s Collections, in the British Museum, containing Penderell’s epitaph, and is supposed to have been written by the same hand as wrote the fulsome doggerel for the tomb of Nicholas Tettersell, who conveyed the King to Normandy in a small coal brig, and died in 1674. Two lines from the production of this panegyrist of the dead will be sufficient to illustrate his adulatory composition:— “Since Earth could not reward the Worth him given He now receives it from the King of Heaven.” The Story of the Penderells is continued by GRose,” who says: — It was remarked by King Charles to his courtiers that ‘the simple rustic, who serves his Sovereign in the time of need, to the utmost extent of his ability, is as deserving of our recommendation *Antiquearian Repository, vol. ii. 219 as the victorious leader of thousands'; and turning to Penderell, said:—‘Friend Richard, I am glad to see thee; thou wert my preserver and conductor; the bright star that shewed me to my Bethlehem, for which kindness I will engrave thy memory on the tablet of a grateful heart.” Then, turning to the Lords about him, the King said:—‘My Lords, I pray you respect this good man for my sake.’ w After this kind treatment, becoming proper to dismiss him, but not without settling a sufficient pension on him for life, on which he lived within the vicinity of the Court until the 8th of February, 1671 (twenty years after the fatal battle of Worcester). In the State Paper Office there is a “Warrant” author- ising the payment of £200 to the two Pendereils, as a free gift out of the Privy Seal, dormant for £2,000, as allowed for secret service. 2nd July, 1663. The secret service was the preservation of the King. This £2,000 appears to have been settled on the Penderells as a perpetual annuity, securing to them £100 per annum. The name of Pendrill occurs in a letter of Peter Shakerley, Governor of the City and Castle of Chester, to the Lord Treasurer:- . Account of Invalids resident and non-resident at Chester, in which mention is made of William Pendrill as only a name that has been kept on the Muster Rolls, no man in ye company ever saw him, and to speak plainly it is a “faggott” to fill up the number and noe effective man. Treasury Papers, Ioth April, 1703. In connection with the pension or annuity before- mentioned, there was presented to the Crown a petition from Mary Forbes, setting forth that:— King Charles II. granted to Frances Jones, petitioner's grand- mother, one of the daughters of William Penderell, a pension of 24.50 per annum for services rendered in the preservation of K. Car II. King William III. granted the same pension to Frances Jones for life, and to her eldest son after her, who died before his mother; whereupon Queen Anne granted the same to k The Penderell Annuity, 220 petitioner's uncle, John Jones. Petitioner's husband, James Forbes, is serving as a soldier in General Anstruther's regiment at Gibralter. Prays continuance of the pension.—Treasury Papers, 1715. In the same year there was another petition emanating from “the six relinquent children of Richard Penderell, preserver of the life of His late Majesty, KING CHARLEs the Second,” to the Lords of the Treasury, wherein they state that: “His present Majesty, KING GEORGE, has de- clared in Council that he shall always have a due regard to the services performed to KING CHARLEs the Second by petitioner’s ancestors . . . Are reduced to great straits and pray for relief.” Treasury Papers, 1715. A few years afterwards, the Penderell family was in- volved in a lawsuit, arising out of a question of legitimacy, which was tried in the Court of the King's Bench, February 26th, 1732. The action was on behalf of an infant, claiming to be heir-at-law. The evidence adduced conclusively proved that Mr. Penderell, after marrying the mother of the claimant, retired into Staffordshire two years before he died; that during the time he had no intercourse with his wife, and that the infant was born about the time of her husband’s death. The jury found for the defendant and confirmed the illegitimacy of Mrs. Penderell’s child. The pension was continued as shown by the following letter:— SIR-From a note which I have just seen at the foot of the interesting account of the escape of Charles the Second, in vol. v. of The Mirvoy, the reader is led to conclude that the pension granted to Richard Penderell expired at his death. No such thing. Old Dr. Penderell lived, practised, and died at Alfriston, a little town in the east of Sussex, some forty or fifty years since. His son, John Penderell, died at Eastbourne four or five years ago, His son, Mr. John Penderell, kept a public-house at Lewes a few years since, to which he added the appropriate sign of the “Royal Oak. All these in succession enjoyed the pension, together with something of a sporting character called ‘free 221 warren.’ The last Mr. John Penderell was lately living at or near Brighton. wº W. W. This letter produced the following reply:— SIR-I beg to correct the statement of W. W. in vol. xiii. page 419, respecting this family. It is true that the pension did not expire at Richard Pendrill's death—and it is also true that Dr. Pendrill died about the time as therein stated—but his son, John Pendrill, died at his own residence near the Seahouses, Eastbourne, last year only (1828), leaving issue, one son by his first wife (named John), and one son and three daughters by his second wife; his first son, John, now enjoys the pension of roo marks, and is residing at the Gloucester Hotel, Old Steine, Brighton, in sound health. The privilege granted to this family, under the title of “Free Warren,’ is the liberty of shooting, hunting, fishing, etc. upon any of the King's manors, and upon the manor on which the party enjoying this pension might reside; and I am informed that a certain noble lord made some yearly payment or gift to the deceased, John, not to exercise that privilege on his manor in Sussex. The pension is payable out of, or secured upon, lands in four different counties, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, and Warwickshire, and entitles the party enjoying it to a vote in each of these counties; but whether this has been acted upon, I cannot possibly say. I have seen in the possession of a branch of this loyal family, only a few days ago, a scarce print of the arms, etc. published in 1756, under the regulation of the act of parliament. This family, being commoners, is I believe, the only one which has supporters.” C. C. * Another correspondent, Amicus, states that the grant of the pension was in the possession cf the Rector of Cheriton, in Hampshire, and was “lost by him a short time before his death, in the year 1825.” Penderell’s house was not built until the re-establish- ment of Monarchy. The Commission appointed to improve Lincoln’s Inn Fields made matters worse between the Turnstiles. The documentary evidence commences with a petition of William Newton to KING CHARLEs I., as follows:— There is a field near Lincoln's Inn, called “Pursefield,” with the pightells, being His Majesty's inheritance, and in jointure to the Queen, for which there is answered to the crown but 4.5 6s. 8d. The last of Fickett's Fields, yearly rent, and the same are on lease at the same rent for 47 years to come. Petitioner being interested in part of the premises, prays licence for building on the same 32 houses, to ascend with steps into them, with necessary coach-houses and stables, with back and Outhouses, and for making sewers and altering footways. Reference to the Attorney-General to prepare licence as praycd. Whitehall, 17th January, 1637-8. From the corner house, No. 1, by Gate Street, to the corner of Newman’s Row, there are 29 houses. If the houses in Newman’s Row were counted in, there would be in all about “32 houses,” and the right of “altering footways” produced the miserable thoroughfare, now Whet- stone Park, which served as a back way to the “necessary coach-houses and stables, with back and outhouses, and for making sewers,” to all the houses on the north side of the fields. These sewers drained into a ditch then existing, which in ancient times was a part of “Spencer’s Dig.” Having obtained this licence, William Newton, in his negotiations with the Crown, presented another petition, not to the King, but to QUEEN HENRIETTA, as follows:— The King, at the instance of your Majesty, has granted petitioner licence to build sundry messuages upon part of the fields near Lincoln's Inn, in nooks and angles, where the same lie irregular upon His Majesty's inheritance in jointure to your Majesty. There also rests in Fickett's Fields a parcel of ground, distant from the house of the Society of Lincoln's Inn about 300-ft., which, being built upon, will benefit His Majesty A, 5oo; will secure the passage over the fields, and will beautify and make them more complete. Prays Her Majesty to procure petitioner leave from His Majesty for the said buildings, 1638. Reference to the Earl of Dorset, Her Majesty's Chamberlain, and Lord Chief Justice Finch, her Chancellor, with her Secretary and Treasurer, to certify the fitness of petitioner's desires. Report of the said Referees:—They have viewed the place, and find the same very fit to build upon, and have agreed with Petitioner for building further houses upon the said place. I 6th October, 1638. 223 “The nooks and angles” referred to, and the buildings . which “will secure the passage over the fields,” point to the building of the plot of ground on which stand the buildings with a “passage” between them, now named “Great Turnstile.” William Newton, not satisfied with the concessions he had already obtained from the Crown, doubtless at the insti- gation of Inigo Jones, petitioned the King for a building lease of the land on the east side of the fields, as follows:— Petition of William Newton to the King. Your Majesty lately granted to petitioner license to build upon part of the fields near Lincoln's Inn. There is a parcel of ground, chiefly in Ficket- fields, about 300-ft. from the house of the Society of Lincoln's Inn, which being held in capite, would, if built upon, benefit your Majesty and secure the passage over the said fields. These houses being built with a beautiful front would adorn and make the fields more complete. Prays license to build 14 dwelling houses upon the said fields with back and outhouses, and to ascend with steps into them, with liberty of altering footways, and making a sewer into the Thames. Underwritten. His Majesty is pleased to grant license to petitioner for building the houses, mentioned in the certificate annexed, according to his desire; and the Attorney or Solicitor- General to prepare a Bill accordingly. Whitehall, 6th Sept., 1639. This lease completed the scheme for turning the com- mon rights of Ficquet Fields into a source of revenue for the Queen, and making the place a “square,” surrounded with the mansions of the nobility. Fortunately the over- throw of the Monarchy put an end to the lease. If these 14 houses had been built, the back way to them would be about the same width as Whetstone Park, with the dead wall of Lincoln’s Inn bounding it on the east side. Assum- ing the houses were planned to be of the same depth as those on the west side, which is very great, the area of the fields would have been considerably reduced; but this was not to be, and the attempt to destroy the west “prospect of Lincoln’s Inn” prompted the Benchers to disloyalty. Great Turnstile. 92 || The buildings in Lincoln's Inn lºields, These grants were made with an entire disregard of the Commissioners’ Report in 1618. By another deed it is seen that William Newton was carrying on these negotiations for other parties, as under:— Indenture between Raphael Tartarean, carver to the Queen, of the one part, and Sir William Ford, of Hastings, co. Sussex, Edward Ford, his son; Henry Lygon, of High Holborn; Edward Barden, and four others named, of the other part, regulating the disposal of a lease of Pursefield with appurtenances, in the parish of St Giles in the Fields, co. Middlesex, originally granted by letters patent of Queen Elizabeth, 2nd March, 1598, to Nicholas Morgan and Thomas Horne, then pages of the royal chamber, for a term of 60 years, and subsequently by letters patent of 26th June, 1638, granted to William Newton with power to build, whose title was sold to Sir Humphrey Tufton and Maurice Aubert. 3rd April, 1639. This was followed by another deed, viz:— Grant to William Newton and his heirs, in consideration of A 3,400 to be by him paid to Sir Richard Wynne, Bart., Treasurer to Queen Henrietta Maria, of an annual or fee-farm rent of 4, 2,400, reserved upon a grant lately made from the King to him and his heirs of certain parcels of land, part of Purse Field and Pightell, in the parish of St. Giles in the Fields, to be held in common socage under the said yearly rent of 24, 200, with a discharge of all arrears of rent. 7th August, 1640. So far all seemed in order, and the title to lease or dispose of this estate indisputable; but the quarrel of the Ring with his parliament had now taken place, insomuch that on the 13th of August, 1641, “when the Queen’s jointure came before parliament to be confirmed, grave doubts were expressed concerning it, that it entirely stopped the proposed buildings between the Turnstiles. The ques- tion of confirmation of the Queen’s jointure came before a Parliamentary Committee when “questions arose concerning her Majesty’s Court at Westminster, which, being a Court of Equity, it is doubted that His Majesty cannot by Letters 225 Patent erect without consent of the Parliament; and they profess themselves averse to all such events which are held, as they call it, in an arbitrary way.” 18th August, 1641. The smouldering fire of the civil war was at this time beginning to break out. The houses on the west side were mostly completed and occupied, but the house with the arch running under it was not finished until 1648. One of the occupants was Lady Temple. This is proved by a letter which shows what great changes had taken place in a short interval. It is written by Thomas, Lord Saville, to Lady Temple, wife of Sir Peter Temple, in Lincoln’s Inn Fields:— MADAM, yours of the 29th of October, I received 20th November, so it had a slow passage. All letters are now opened, so I am glad to disguise my hand, neither with SuperScription nor subscription. The bearer will know to whom to deliver it, and you will easily guess from whom it comes. Your desire to know what my aims and intentions are, that my friends may do me . service, I answer the same as ever, since you let in my Lord Loudoun. I would not have the King trample on the Parliament nor the Parliament lessen him so much as to make a way for the people to rule us all. I hate papists so much that I would not have the King necessitated to use them for his defence nor owe them any obligation. I love religion so well that I would not have it put to the hazard of a battle. I love liberty so much that I would not trust it in the hands of a Conquerer. Forasmuch as I love the King I should not be glad he beat the Parliament though they were in the wrong. I would do all good offices I could for the Parliament, and methinks I could do many without losing either my conscience or my master on Christian terms. I would be glād to come to my house at London, where I should be able to enlarge further than I now dare, where nothing can pass without search. You are, I speak freely as I ever did, not biased nor inclined by the Parliament's success, for we here are assured the King is prosperous at this time near London; that the Queen last night landed at Newcastle (Bridlington). Whether I have deserved this usage God will one day determine, and how just it is the authors will feel. I am infinitely glad for all this, that Temple House, Lincoln's Inn Fields. 2 2. 226 Petition against William Newton. my Cleopatra is recovered, and that all yours are well, and would be glad to see both my cousins Carr. Addressed for Lady Temple, Lincoln's Inn Fields. - The flight of the King put an end to all building on the north side of the fields. The act of Elizabeth prohibit- ing the erection of houses on new foundations was put in force. The grant to Newton lay dormant, for the title had become doubtful until 1656, and then William Newton proceeded to act upon the conditions of his lease. A com- bination of those interested in keeping the fields open moved to restrain Newton by the following:— Petition of the Society of Lincoln's Inn and persons of quality about the neighbouring fields, to the Protector.—These fields lie be- tween London and Westminster, and there has always been free pas- sage through them for recreation and exercise, they being the only place left unbuilt thereabouts. But of late William Newton, on a patent from the late King, built on part of the fields, on pretence of laying open and beautifying the rest, whereas such buildings are prohibited by proclamation, and are become the very pest of the City. Lately Horatio Moore, Jas, Hooker, and others, claiming under Newton, have prepared a great Stock of bricks, &c. for building on the fields, and have posted bills inviting men to take leases of the fields and build thereon, taking advantage of the absence of the judges on their circuits. We beg a stay of the buildings till the justices inform you of the inconvenience there- from, and till the legality thereof be examined. With reference thereon to Council. 5th August, I 656. Order thereon:-That there be a stay of building in Lincoln's Inn Fields on any new foundations, and of proceedings on build- ings begun, the Justices of Peace for Westminster to take care thereof. Also that counsel prosecute those who have ordered new buildings on new foundations in London and Westminster. Gabriel Beck is to see to this business. I4th August, 1656. In 1657 the lease to William Newton passed into the hands of Arthur Newman. Fresh negotiations took place, and concessions were made with the consent of the Trustees of the fields, whereby it was ordered: “That the allotted 227 slip of land on the east side of Ficquet’s Fields, named Cup Field, containing by estimation in breadth, measuring from Lincoln's Inn Wall, 30 pole, be the same more or less, and from north to south 33 pole or thereabouts, shall remain unbuilt upon.” The chief reasons for this restriction were: Firstly, to secure the privacy of Lincoln’s Inn Gardens, and secondly, to preserve the prospect over the said fields. The original design of Charles I. to make Lincoln’s Inn Fields a quad- rangle, surrounded with buildings, or rather what is known as a London Square, was happily thwarted, for Thurloe and . Cromwell were not the men to allow this encroachment of the public rights when they had the power to prevent it, and it was further stipulated that the buildings to be erected on the north and south sides of the fields should, at their eastern termination, be forty foot by the standard, distant from the boundary wall of Lincoln's Inn. In 1660, another dispute arose between Newman and his neighbours. His building on “nooks and angles” was strongly objected to, especially the blocking of Turnstile Alley. Litigation arose; an application was made to the Justices of the County of Middlesex to stay Newman proceeding with the houses by the Turnstile, and they made an “Order of Sessions,” as under:— This day, upon reading the humble petition of many of the inhabitants of Lincoln's Inn Fields, in the County of Middlesex, exhibited unto the Courte on behalfe of themselves and other parishes, thereby showing that time out of minde there was a faire and cleare way, both to the Church and Markett through a faire and large passage, of old called and knowne by the name of the Upper or Old Turnstile, on the head or upper part of Holborne; and that the saide passage is of late obstructed and stopped by one Arthur Newman, who is now erecting a small building in and uppon the grounde where the Saide passage was, to the great pre- judice and common annoyance, not only of the neighbouring inhabitants there, but of all other people that way passing, and Arthur Newman and Great Turnstile. 228 Great Turnstile, prayed that the saide buildings may be stopped and hindered, and that he may not proceed any further therein. The Courte doth think it fitt, and thereupon doth desire Mr. Wharton and Mr. Jeggon, twoe of His Majesty's Justices of the Peace for their County, to view the saide building complained of, and to take some steps for the removal of the saide annoyance. Aug., 1660. NoorTHOUCK says:—In the year 1656, Cromwell, with the new parliament, again revived the prohibitions against new buildings in and near London, and passed an act imposing a fine of one year's rent on all houses and edifices erected on new foun- dations in the suburbs, or within ten miles of the walls of London, since the year 1620, that had not four acres of freehold land laid to them, and a penalty of 24, Ioo to be imposed on future erections according to the statute. All houses were also ordered to be built of brick or stone; upright and without projecting the upper stories into the street. Some exceptions were made by this act in favour of new buildings then carrying on, which informs us that Clare Market was just then finished, in the fields called Clement's Inn Fields; and it was by this act declared to be a free market every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. This Order was ignored, for the King had power and interest sufficient to set it aside. The narrow way, “Great Turnstile,” was completed, and the houses he built on the north side of the fields perpetuated his memory as “New- man’s Row.” STow (Strype's) says:–“On the north side is Great Turnstile Alley, a great thoroughfare which leadeth into Holborn. A place inhabited by Shoemakers, Sempsters, and Milliners; for which it is of a considerable trade and well noted; at the entrance of this alley and on the back side of Holborn Row, is Whetstone Park, once famous for its infamous and vicious inhabitants; which some years since were forced away; and out of this place there are several small alleys, which lead into Holborn. And on the north-west end there is a passage into Holborn through little Turnstile Alley, very ordinary.” At the north-west corner of Great Turnstile there stood a tavern of ill repute as far back as the time of 229 Henry VIII. This is clear by the following Presentment of the Jury of Middlesex.-1 Ed. VI. Whereas John Sadler, of the paryshe of Saynte Clements, hath two tenements at the Turne Style in Holborn, and thei that dwellyth in them hath been indyted before, we knowe not how manye tymes for evyle persons, and alwayes the Sayde Coke, their landlord, and other of their affynytie, beareth them oute against all good Justices. I 547. Many years afterwards this house was kept by Anthony Bayley, and is described as “situate at the corner of the turnstile or foot-path leading into Lincoln’s Inn Fields, and thence called Turnstile Tavern.” The said Anthony Bayley, by will dated Oct. 8th, 1610, gave “an annuity of £4 to the poor of St. Giles’s, issuing from this and an adjoining house, therein described as his messuage or tenements, situate at or near the Turnstile in Holborn, which sum was to be paid half-yearly at Christmas and Midsummer to the church-wardens for the time being.” £3 12s. 0d. is now annually received on account of this gift, 8s. being deducted for land tax. The premises are known as 282, IIigh Hol- born, in the occupation of Hope Bros. The “rent charge” being received from Messrs. Briggs, Vaughan, and Briggs, 55, Lincoln’s Inn Fields. This bequest is still in force, and it is a singular coinci- dence that in 1667, in a document having reference to Turnstile Alley, the name of Bayley occurs. It is in a letter from Joseph Strangways, a prisoner committed to the King’s Bench (9th of May, 1667), addressed to Lord Allington, wherein he states that:— Mr. Bedwell, a prisoner there, told him that a certain man went for a pain in his head to consult a doctor, who told him there would be 15 more fires in London after the great fire, but one especially near Whitehall, which would endanger the palace. The informer prefixed a day when that fire should be, and came to London and lay in the Haymarket, till he saw the Guards on fire and then went away. He says that next June the rest of the City Turnstile Tavern, Holborn. 230 The Whetstone Park Riots. will be burned, and as great a battle fought in the ruins as never was in England. This was told also to William Bayley, Milliner, in Turnstile Alley, and his wife; the discoverer was Major Birkhead. Examination of William Bayley and his wife before Lord Allington:-Went to see Mr. Strangways in the King's Bench. A person with him, whom they do not know, said that the burning of the city was foretold, and also that a fire would happen in the suburbs, and there would be bloodshed in the streets. Charles Bennet, a doctor in Holborn, was in their company; he also spoke of a French prophecy made 15 years since. 28th June, 1667. The building of Great Turnstile seems to have led to the pulling down of Turnstile Tavern. The following entry in the parish books records that it had ceased to be:— “1693. Received at the house, formerly the Turnstile Tavern, in clear rent, taxes allowed, £3 3s. 6d.” The completion of Newman’s Row furnished an opportunity to establish in the rear, under royal patronage, the houses of entertainment which made Whetstone Park a place of infamy, so notorious that public feeling was aroused, followed by rioting and bloodshed. PEPYs writes in his Diary:- So Creed, whom I met here, and I to Lincolne's Inn Fields, thinking to have gone into the fields to have seen the prentices; but here we found these fields full of soldiers all in a body, and my Lord Craven commanding of them, and riding up and down to give orders like a madman. 24th March, 1668. The Duke of York and all with him this morning were full of the talk of the prentices, who are not yet put down, though the guards and militia of the town have been in armes all this night and the night before; and the prentices have made fools of them, sometimes by running from them and flinging stones at them. Some blood hath been spilt, but a great many houses pulled down, and among others, the Duke of York was mighty - merry at that of Daman Page's, the great bawd of the seamen; and the Duke of York complained merrily that he hath lost two tenants by their houses being pulled down, who paid him for their wine-licences 24, 15 a year. But these idle fellows have had the confidence to say that they did ill in contenting themselves in 231 pulling down the little brothels, and did not go and pull down the -great one at White Hall. 25th March, 1668. I hear that eight of the ringleaders in the late tumults are condemned to die. 5th April, 1668. MALcolM says:–“It is scarcely necessary to remind the reader of the well-known fact, that all sublunary things are subject to change. He who passes through the Little Turnstile, Holborn, at present will observe on the left hand near Lincoln’s Inn Fields, a narrow street, composed of small buildings, on the corner of which is inscribed Whet- stone Park. The repose and quiet of the place seem to proclaim strong pretentions to regular and moral life in the inhabitants, and well would it have been for the happiness of many a family, had the site always exhibited the same appearance. On the contrary, Whetstone’s Park contributed to increase the dissoluteness of manners which distinguished the period of 1660 and 1700. Being a place of low enter- fainment, numerous disturbances occurred there and ren- dered it subject to the satire of Poor Robin's Intelligence, a paper almost infamous enough for the production of a keeper of this theatre of vice.” The Loyal and Impartial Mercury of Sept. 1st, 1682, gives another account of a riot concerning Whetstone Park: On Saturday last about 500 apprentices and such like, being got together in Smithfield, went into Lincoln's Inn Fields, where they drew up, and, marching into Whetstone Park, fell upon the lewd houses there, where, having broken open the doors, they entered and made great Spoil of the goods; of which the constables and watchmen, having notice, and not finding themselves strong enough to quell the tumult, procured a party of the King's guards, who dispersed them, and took eleven who were committed to New Prison; yet on Sunday night they came again, and made worse havock than before, breaking down all the doors and windows, and cutting the feather beds and other goods in pieces. Another newspaper explains the origin of the riot by saying that:—“A countryman who had been decoyed into 232 one of the houses alluded to, and robbed, lodged a formal and public complaint against them to those he found willing’ to listen to him in Smithfield, and thus raised the ferment.” It is stated in the Life of Russell by his descendant (who has added some original passages from papers at Woburn) that “just as they were entering Lincoln’s Inn Fields, he said “this has been to me a place of sinning, and God now makes it the place of my punishment.” It was the malicious and revengeful spirit of the Duke of York that contrived this “place of sinning ” should be the appointed place of his execution. Its ownership had passed' from the Lords of Blemundsbury to the Crown, and the son of the Lord of Bloomsbury came there to die. It was situated between the two Southampton Houses. That in Bloomsbury was to Russell a hallowed spot, for there was reared the daughter of Lord Southampton, his loving virtuous wife, by whose marriage its name was changed to Bedford House. The house by Chancery Lane was the seat of his wife’s ancestors, the Wriothesleys. It had been pulled down at this time, but the old associations still lingered round the place. The nation remembered the crime, and in a short time the hour of retribution came. The Duke of York ascended the throne as James II.; to be lifted up in order to be cast down into everlasting infamy, amidst the execrations of his people; banished and branded as the vilest monarch that ever disgraced the English throne. In his distress the craven King addressed himself to the Earl of Bedford:— “My Lord, you are an honest man, have great credit, and can do me signal service.” “Ah, Sir,” replied the Earl, “I am old and feeble, I can do you but little service; but I had once a son that could have assisted you, but he is no more.” James was so struck with this reply that he could not speak for some minutes. BLOTT's CHRONICLE OF BLEMUNDSBURY. *- *= ve" * - . - J ~~~~ 2: ,--- ". - - - * - - * SJ'L', .”. zºº § ºr tº t M Awe, ru wo vetº. º 7-5. . . " " " ' Ye U c *::... ºš * “... NA º * * * & . * * * r - * * * •. Sºl' tº . . . * * . . . • - . - **S*:: .….-. * ~ * u • ** **** ...’ >3. #EE #3: ...” $2ſ. 2. t. º”. Tº ºr ...,\ ſºl-fliº’, 3. - ºw - º ſ g ºr 42: º, & A-erº ºr E. R. E.'s L A D E. - w - - ( ~ ; • "*- * º - | - 4. Y x^ \ ...a “ ,------. - - *e º as (* ‘y - - E. º ſ , , r - * ... -- \ f - • * * *. & * > ſ 2 7 - *** , *, J- * A - * - * º lº- - • . * >, > * * sº we • * eº . w g * TH .* w ," -y e .." TX--.. . . . . ~ * * * * * e º •"Tºx_- ^S -. |2 gº E | U RY .r- -, * ~. * *-*. ** y", 2-, \e - * * —º. - º e ... ºw- *a-ºº: * * * *-* sº ºms sº & - :* - - a • * , Jº >. -? 2 * * = wº sººn * - ~~ º e sº 2, " •. " - ºr <--" :- - % z - - - - * .” " — $ * - - º sº • ‘T- º *-i-. *...* * * *. Žº . :- * e ^23- s *... : **** ~. - —º- * s * * * - . - * _E-ź * 5% - - - - • * * ** - 7: -- - - * - * - .." - **: Ż %27- * , #24. * * * *, . 2- . **a-. *~3°- - *~ -. * > mºs - * - * --" " 2- tº ~~~~~. . . . . .22%. , * - =º sº. • - º - *~. - - b. *-* 2- ?? 2 : . . * - >;- * * >, > * - * - 4. • 2. *... . - * , z" - - - º ºr •." - : . . . 22*. ,” * - s:’’. > 2. “ * ~~~~%. '-º'-'. … ". --- • * - - * ... < * ** : rj A --- 2 - 3. – E - " " " ' -r A ~~/. Tº > --> -- - º ~r & • º a •º a tºº, ****, 3 & º º º * T R a. 14 C ºb. ?" ºr A L 2- *- •Tºx-,-- ºr- `s- - ºf * * ºf *>3. - . - * *T- * ,-- ** •-- * s z * - -s ºf - * - "r, - of * - -- ... * - ... 2 ſº * • **', %2% * * * * * *- * - - * - T - *ś NSP iſºſºliºt’sº-a- A - - - 4 * = ,- * a T.; 4 t * * * * * * * * → ... • - - ~3 ... – º ºr RS AN T *. gº”. - f low.wrch gº ºg ‘’’. & $ºs * “...º. $ 3. 2 *- : - - - * : S_º_> * - * . × • * * ~ * * : tº Nº.32°23 z º,. ..., * 'º - . 2&" - " " -- ...; . . . * * * ; : * *... , , , -- . . SS V : \ º *Y gº º 2. : º * * * e * * ... sº-- * , "ºrs * , , , º S § 26% * - - %.-- • * * • *... - * * * ? 2. ; :S ..". Zºº. . • * s s e e º 'º- * Fr.-," . • * * N §§ ź” 7, K. . ... ZZ, - T. W. S.W. * - 263-2 "...' e Za/2,~ •2 •.A. -Zºë Jr. or ZZ 27&lº ** 2: ...) sº - . Sº Nº ºn e * * * Z. & & 4 as • - . . . " §§ *... --. • * f * • * • *fc. . . . . . . . " R. - º < *. Sº... §§ º tº tº w e tº • ** 2: * Zócz. z... S; & * * aº M * * * . * * * * * , •". a 66 & e. | - * * * * * | ‘p . J. & - * T & * * > * • * º • * * * * * * * * º " - - - sº - * * [. * \ \xi < * * T --~~ ; , ... : “@º.” INS/º º :/ººs • f s Was. •e-44. . . : .ſ. A U.NAſ) () Ş. - A. Pºº ** = a- -º º L- W iſ, T ! - e ſ | ,’ ** . . . . . f ſº IIº º º e s- fºx. 2: • -2" \ Q *- 1///zº (cº- * * * - - ==#3 § § iº #. &T =& % --i-º-ºllºlº- § **%. *...* , , º' Wºº-º- ... , , , , fe. * * lººkitºsº 9 The House of Hugh Faber le Smythe-page 335. Totenhall—page 54. Blemundsbury Manor-House—page 233. The Hospital for Lepers, dedicated to St. Giles—page 18. Aldewyche Church, dedicated to St. Giles—page 240. : The Clochier or Bell House—page 285. The Lich Gate— - The Pillory, Stocks, and the Pound—page 289. The Fountain and Cross at the east end of Aldewyche Village—page 333. - Io The Mansion of the Lords of Noseley—page 308. II Christemasse House—page 333. I2 Aldewyche Close—page 15 233. Çiye ājorbs of glenumbebury. Leicestershire and the parish of Bloomsbury (Ble- mundsbury) are many miles distant from each other, but the connection that has existed for centuries between the two places is very remarkable. The chain that bound them together, though frequently broken by attainders and forfeit- ures, did not long remain dissevered. Its first link can be traced to Beaumont-sur-Oise (Bellus Mont), and the date is fixed by the memorable expedition of Duke William from Normandy to England. Amongst that band of marauders was Roger de Bel- lus-Mont, better known as Roger de Bellomonte, alias Blemonte, Blemund. He is described in Holinshed’s Chro- . . nicle as Roger, surnamed a la Barbe (with the Beard). He was one of the Conqueror’s favourites, and had a very ample share of the estates, previously held by the Anglo- Saxons. One of many bestowed on him was bounded on its eastern border by the great forest of Middlesex, but its other boundaries are not at this distance of time ascer- tainable. There is evidence that it covered a much more extended area than that now contained in the joint parishes of St. Giles’ in the Fields and St. George, Bloomsbury. PART.on incidentally remarks that “This family (Blemonte) was the first as well in point of time as of importance, of whom mention is made, and appears to have been seated here nearly as early as the Conquest.” Roger de Bellomonte was the first Lord of Blemunds- bury and the first Earl of Leicester. He is better known under the title of the Earl of Mellent, who, in the strife that raged between William I. and his brother Robert de Curthose, faithfully adhered to the King and received a rich Roger de Bellomonte. H 2 234 The Earl of Leicester the, King's Dispenser. The Earl of Mellent, Earl of Leicester and Lord of Blemundsbury. reward for his loyalty. He was advanced to the highest office in the kingdom, being made the King’s Dispensator (the Dispenser). The holder of this high station at court must, by virtue thereof, be Earl of Leicester, for it was an appendant to that earldom. Leicester City, at this time (1086, Domesday) was in the hands of four lords, viz:— The King, the Bishop of Lincoln, Earl Simon, and Hugh de Grentemaisnil. The last of the four, Hugh, had dis- loyally returned to Normandy, leaving his son behind him to look after his interest (Ivo de Grentemaisnil). This young lord was in open rebellion against the King, and the quarter share, by the attainder of Hugh, was seized by the Ring. Ivo, to expiate his offence, went on a pilgrimage beyond sea, but died shortly after his setting out. The other interests seem to have been extinguished on the creation of the earldom. ~, HUNTINGDoN says:–“The Earl of Mellent subjected all Leicester to his power, after which he exceeded all the nobles in the realm in riches and grandeur, being also esteemed the wisest man betwixt Frgland and Jerusalem.” In 1107 he, in the zenith of his power, holding the Norman title of Earl of Mellent and the English earldom of Leicester, rebuilt the collegiate church of that city. About this time the Leper Hospital of St. Giles’ was erected, to which it may be fairly assumed he was the largest contributor. It was built on his estate, and it must be borne in mind that many of the Norman barons were tainted with leprosy. Probably he was affected with the disease, for it is recorded that he put aside his earthly honours, became a monk, and died in 1118. - William de Bellomont, the eldest son, succeeded his father in the earldom of Mellent; and his second son, Robert, surnamed Bossu or Crouchback, became the second Earl of Leicester. He was much favoured by Henry I., to 235 whom he continued faithful. Little is recorded of him in the succeeding reigns. He founded the Monastery of St. Mary de Pratis, and like his father gave up the pleasures of the world and retired into the monastery he had founded, where he lived a monk fifteen years, and died in 1167; the fell disease of leprosy may have been the cause. His wife, Amicia, became a nun and died at Nuneaton. To him succeeded, as third Earl, Robert de Bellomonte, surnamed Blanchmaines, an ominous name:—Robert with the white hands, not from their delicacy, but from the white scurf of the leprosy then most common in France and England. He married Petronella, an only daughter and the last of the house of Grentemaisnil. Petronella was virtuous and good. To show her ingenuity and devotion to the church, she formed a rope, composed entirely of her own hair, and devoted it to the purpose of suspending and drawing up a lamp in the choir of the Abbey church of St. Mary, Leicester. The Earl, by Lady Petronella, had four sons and two daughters:–William de Britolio, Robert Fitz-Parnell, Roger, Bishop of St. Andrews, and William, who seems to have taken the name of his deceased brother. Amicia, the eldest daughter, married Simon II., surnamed Le Boylde, Lord of Montfort. Margaret married Baron Seyer de Quincy. Troubles fell fast and thickly on the house of Bellomont. William, his eldest son, died, and William, the younger, bore the surname Leporus, who took up arms against the King and involved himself and the whole town of Leicester in one common ruin. His castle was besieged, and held out against the King, but Leicester was wrapped in a vast conflagration and burnt to the ground. The Earl’s castle of Brietuil, in Normandy, was destroyed. In revenge he came over to England with a foreign army, but was defeated, and he and his lady, Petronella, were taken Robert Blanchmaines, Lord of - Blemundsbury. Petronella Blanchmaines. The Siege of Leicester Castle. 236 King Henry II., Lord of Blemundsbury. William de Leporus, Lord of Blemundsbury. prisoners. He was attainted, his forfeited lands fell into the hands of the King, and Blemundsbury became a royal manor. The success of the King made him merciful. In 1179 he partially restored him to his estates in England and in his French dominions, excepting the castles of Mounsorell and Pasci, for the King, profiting by experi- ence, demolished or dismantled all the fortified castles which still remained in private hands, and which were a great check to the power of the sovereign. The curse of leprosy rested upon Robert Blanchmaines, the great Earl. At the desire of Petronella and his family he granted a charter to the Monks of St. Ebrulph, confirm- ing to them all their lands given to them by Hugh de Grentemaisnil, great grandfather to the said Petronella, and by William Fitz-Osborne, his own ancestor. He then set out as a Crusader to Jerusalem, but died on his way thither in the Mediterranean, on St. Giles’ Day, and was buried at Duras, in Greece, 1190. His youngest son, William, surnamed “Leporus,” moved by his sufferings to sympathise with those afflicted with the same disease as himself, founded the leper hospital of St. Leonard’s, Leicester. The early death of his eldest son (probably from leprosy) in the lifetime of his father, led to the succession of his second son, Robert Fitz-Parnell, to the family estates. He was invested with the earldom of Leicester at Messina, in Sicily, February 1, 1190-1, whence, attending the King into the Holy Land, he there unhorsed and slew the Soldan in a tournament. KING RICHARD remembered the losses Robert’s father, with the white hands, had sustained on his behalf, and ratified and confirmed to the new Earl all the estates and honours his father had forfeited for rebelling against Henry II. Fitz- Parnell married Loretta, daughter to William, Lord Braose of Brember; and died in 1204, leaving no children to inherit 237 the lands of his ancestors or to preserve the name of Bellomonte or Blemund. He was therefore the last Lord Blemund of Blemundsbury. Robert's successors in another line, though bearing various names, were chiefly known as the Beaumonts or Beamontes, conjoined with the higher title of Despenser. HILL, in his History of Market Harborough, furnishes an instance of the family name being lost in the official as far back as the Domesday Survey. “In Io&6, Robert Despencer held nine carucates and three bovates; two ploughs were in the demesne; one servant, five villans, six bordars, and nine socmen, held four ploughs; there were ten acres of meadow, and a mill of Ios, value. It was valued at 5os.-CHETwyND MS.” The holder also bore the name and title of Robert de Bello- mont, Earl of Mellent, and first Earl of Leicester. Blemundsbury, by an old grant, appears to have extended into the parish of St. Clement Dane, in which it is stated that “The Countess Leicester gives to St. Giles’ Hospital 2s., arising from land lying before the garden of Peter, son of Meulan (Mellent), which he held of Walter Blundi, and 88., rent arising from a messuage and appur- tenances held by Edwin Bolongarie, adjoining the messuage of the said Walter Blundi.”—“Sit in Pochia Sci, Clement Ecclie.” - The Bellamonts disappear from this time, and the Beamonts or Beaumonts take their place as the Lords of Beaumanor, but before they pass away, let it be remembered that they were the great benefactors of Blemundsbury. They came to this estate when it was chiefly bog and fen; they drained the marshes and changed them into fruitful fields; they drove the wild boar from the thicket, so that their cattle roamed securely over the new pasture lands; their tenants were busy with the plough that furrowed deep Beaumont, Dispenser, Lord of Blemundsbury. Countess Leicester's Grant to St. Giles' Hospital. 238 King John, Lord of Blemundsbury. the newly reclaimed “Mereslade,” and the sturdy strokes of Hugh de Smythe’s hammer on his anvil sounded plea- santly in the ears of the children who played around the forge. Their name and work are preserved in “Spencer’s Dig” and Blemunde’s Ditch.” How long ago it is since Bellamonte de Spencer cut the first sod and dug the first trench to carry the effluent water eastward and southward across “Mereslade,” “Nose- lyngs,” “Aldewych,” “Thicketfield,” and down the valley of “Alde Bourne” must continue unknown. They brought into this little community industry and prosperity, and to their honour be it said that they left the lordship better than they found it. * “The Knights are dust, And their good swords are rust; Their souls are with the Saints we trust.” From this time, 1204, the name of Blemundsbury gradually fell into disuse. The estates of the late Earl were virtually in the hands of KING John, and that un- principled monarch seized the opportunity of plundering the family of the deceased Earl. Petronella, his mother, the dowager Countess of Leicester, in the year of her son’s death, made a bargain with the King, whereby she gave him three thousand marks that she might enjoy Leicester, with its appurtenances, as also all the fees and demesnes belonging to the Honor of Grentemaisnil, both within Leicester and without. In 1205, Saher de Quincy, Earl of Winchester, who married Margaret, the late Earl’s youngest sister, gave the King one thousand marks for the custody of all the lands in England which had belonged to the late Earl, as well in demesne or fee, excepting the Honor of Grentemaisnil, and the doweries of the two Countesses (mother and widow). This was not enough. On the 28th of April of this year, John sent his precept to the Sheriff of Leicester, to make livery to Saher de Quincy 239 of all that land without the wall of Leicester, which had belonged to Robert Fitz-Parnell, late Earl of Leicester (whereof he had granted him the custody), provided it were no part of the Honor of Grentemaisnil, which the Earl had passed to the Bishop of Lincoln by an agreement between them; and in consideration of a further sum of five thou- sand marks, the King grants to him also the livery of all the lands and fees of the Honor of Grentemaisnil, which he had formerly assigned to the Countess Petronella, but had afterwards reassumed. The agreement, incidentally men- tioned, with the Bishop of Lincoln had a most important bearing on the Blemundsbury estate and will be noticed later on in the History of Lincoln’s Inn Fields. Saher de Quincy had a mother-in-law, but she could be settled with; there was something worse than that, there was his wife’s sister, Amicia, the first-born daughter of the late Earl, married to Simon de Montfort, and he was the last man in the kingdom to be trifled with. The great leader of the Barons, who was as powerful as the King, put an end to this arrangement. On March 5th 1206-7, the King was compelled to ratify another agreement which had been made between himself and the Barons by Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, and Saher de Quincy, concerning the partition of the lands of the late Earl, Robert Fitz-Parnell; excepting to Earl Simon, the third penny of the earldom of Leicester and the office of Steward to the King, provided that “f*0 land, of Earl Simon’s property, should remain to Earl Saher, till Earl Simon should secure to him certain lands in Normandy, after the death of the two Countesses, Petronella, the mother, and Loretta, the widow; the doweries to be equally divided between the two Earls.” Simon de Montfort felt that loyalty to such a King was treason to his country. In 1212, Pop E INNocBNT, Saher de Quincy, Lord of Blemundsbury. Simon de Montfort, Lord of Blemundsbury. , 240 King John, Lord of Blemundsbury. King Henry III., Lord of Blemundsbury. encouraged the King of France to put the sentence in execution, promising him the remission of all his sins, together with the Crown of England to him and his heirs for ever, when once he had dethroned the tyrant. He also took under his protection whomsoever should contribute money or any other assistance towards subduing the enemy of the church, and granted them the same privileges with those who visited the Holy Sepulchre. Simon de Montfort, armed with the Pope's blessing, entered into the rebellion against John, who at once attaint- ed him and seized his estates; thus the extensive demesne that encompassed the church of St. Giles (in the Fields) was again in possession of the King. The Church, the Hospital, and the Manor-house drew around their borders a steadily increasing population. Little clusters of humble tenements rose on the margin of the highway and by-way, and their inhabitants called the district, not after the name of their changing lords, but after the old church, “Saynt Gyles’s.” The estate was placed in the custody of a near relation, Randulph Blundeville, Earl of Gloucester, and afterwards in the hands of Stephen de Segrave. On the accession of Henry III., 1216, disputes arose between the Barons. Those that had faithfully served KING JoHN, and to whom he had given the confiscated estates of the rebels, could not bear the thought of restoring them to the old proprietors according to a treaty which had been solemnly entered into. Simon de Montfort came to an untimely end, being slain with a stone before the City of Toulouse, 1218. He died, unrestored, leaving behind him two sons, Almeric and Simon. The agreement between the Barons and KING JoHN, that he should hold the Steward- ship of England, was not fulfilled; it seems to have been given to William de Cantilupe, who was Sheriff of Leices- tershire, and retained it in that family till about 1232. 241 Shortly after Simon’s death, his heir, Almeric de Mont- fort, was restored to the ancestral lands, but divested of some of their great privileges. Whether he, suffering from leprosy, or desiring to undertake more peaceful duties is unknown, but he requested the King to transfer to his younger brother, Simon, the inheritance which had descended to him. In 1232, Simon de Montfort (the younger) was created by the King Earl of Leicester and High Steward of England. He became the King’s favou- rite, who, with his own hand, gave him his sister Eleanor, the widow of William (Marshall), Earl of Pembroke, in marriage, on the day after the feast of Epiphany. Great were the rejoicings in St. Giles’, for the new lord and his royal bride seem to have occupied the Capital- place or Manor-house of the former Lords of Blemunds- bury. They were continually at Court. In the following year, June 21st, 1239, the Earl, accompanied by his Countess, assisted at the ceremony of baptizing Prince Edward, the new-born son of Henry III., and in the ensuing August attended at the grand public ceremonial of church- ing the Queen. Incredible as it may appear, the King and Leicester quarrelled when they met. They had jointly broken the laws of the church. The King reproached him with dishonouring his sister (the Lady Eleanor, Pembroke’s widow), for she had in her widowhood entered into vows of chastity, and that he had bribed the Pope to confirm his marriage. Leicester and his lady immediately left England for France, and remained until the King's displeasure had passed away. That fickle monarch recalled him in 1240. Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, He mistrusted him as a friend, feared him as an enemy, and found that the most convenient way of getting rid of him was by calling upon him as a true penitent to take the cross and go on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land to expiate the sin he had committed against the church. I 2 wº 24.2 King Henry III. quarrels with the Earl of Leicester. This he soon accomplished, made his peace with the church and the state, returned to England, and for a time the restless baron retained the King’s favour. A revolt breaking out in Guienne, of the Gascon lords, 1249, Simon de Montfort was sent to quell it, and gained great reputa- tion by his speedy suppression of the rebellion. The Lords of Gascony were placed under his government, which they strongly resented. The King, jealous of Leicester’s power, plotted against him and recalled him to England. When they met, the haughty Leicester asked for the promised rewards, to which Henry answered “That he did not think himself obliged to keep his word with a traytor.” Leicester, in a passion, rejoined: “He lied; and were he not a king he would make him eat his words. It was hard to believe such a King was a Christian, and had ever been at confession.” “Yes,” says the King, “I am a Christian, and have often been at confession.” “What signifies confession,” replied the Earl, “without repentance?” “I never repented any- thing so much,” said the King, “as the having been so liberal of my favours to one that has so little gratitude, and so much brutishness.” After this storm, Leicester was sent back again to Guienne, to get him out of the way. This post he soon resigned, and the King and the Earl’s followers formed two parties in the state, directly opposed to each other. The Barons, disgusted with the King’s misgovernment, were determined to reform it. They summoned a grand convention at Oxford in 1258, and the first thing to be done was the electing of four-and-twenty Commissioners to draw up articles of the intended reformation. The King chose twelve and the Barons chose twelve, and Simon de Mont- fort, of Leicester, was chosen President of the Council. This election clearly indicates the weakness of the King’s cause. Two of the articles agreed to were:— 243 That the custody of the King's Castles and of all Strong- holds should be left to the care of the four-and-twenty, who should intrust them with such as were well affected to the state. That it should be death for any person of what degree or order soever, to oppose directly or indirectly what should be enacted by the “Four-and-Twenty.” The Parliament ratified the articles; the King demurred to them, and his family protested that they were no use without the King's signature. The Earl of Leicester plainly told them “that if the King refused to join the Barons he should not enjoy one foot of land in England.” The Earl was brother-in-law to the King, whose sister, with her broken vows of chastity, could not help him. It is said:— One day as the King was going to the Tower by water, a sudden storm of thunder and lightning having obliged him to land at the first stairs, it happened to be Durham House, where the Earl of Leicester then lay. He was received, at his coming out of the boat, by the Earl himself, who, willing to hearten him after his fright, told him “He need not be afraid, for the storm was over.” “No Montfort,” replied the King, with a severe look, ‘b , rep 8-> y God's head, the storm is not yet over; and I see none that I fear so much as I do thee.’ The kingdom was governed by the “Four and Twenty,” Leicester being the “Ruling Councillor.” Matters tended towards a revolution. The Barons met, 1263, and unani- mously resolved to maintain the Oxford decrees by force of arms. The Earl was chosen General of the Army of the Barons, and he plundered without mercy the estates of the King’s favourites and counsellors. In 1264, the two armies approached each other near Lewes; a battle ensued, and Henry III., being defeated, was taken prisoner by Leicester. The triumph was but temporary; for Prince Edward escaped by a stratagem out of the Earl’s power. Officers and soldiers came and offered their services to him, and his The King taken Prisoner by Leicester. 2 ſ,ſ, army grew rapidly in strength and numbers, and soon exceeded that of the Barons in magnitude. The Earl of Leicester, seeing his danger, sent urgent orders for his son, Simon de Montfort, to raise the siege of Pevensey and come to his assistance. Prince Edward intercepted Simon near Evesham, surprised, routed, and cut in pieces this intended reinforcement. Another account says:—“The Prince, march- ing all night, came by break of day to Kennelworth, and set upon Simon and his men, who were then in their beds, and killed and took most of them prisoners. Simon escaped into the Castle.” A forced march of the victorious troops brought the Prince near Evesham, where Leicester was encamped. The news of his son’s defeat had not reached him ; he was waiting his arrival, and great was his surprise when he discovered that the army of Edward was close upon him. A battle ensued, 4th August, 1265, when the Earl of Leicester and his son Henry were slain on the spot. The Earl’s body was found among the dead, and Roger Mortimer, after barbarously mangling it, cut off the head and sent it to his wife as a token of gratified revenge. The bodies of the Earl of Leicester, his son Henry, and Hugh le Dispenser were buried in the church belong- ing to the Abbey of Evesham. The widow of Hugh le Dispenser set at liberty all the prisoners she had kept confined in Wallingford Castle, and retired to Philip Basset, her father. Forfeiture and attain- der followed. A parliament was held at Northampton in November, 1266, wherein all the Earl of Leicester’s adherents were disinherited. The Pope’s legate arrived in England and convened a Synod, which solemnly excommunicated all the Earl’s adherents, who were disinherited. Leicester’s estates . 5 “within and without the walls of Leicester,” were seized by the King, including St. Gyles’ in the Fields, London. 245 The High Stewardship of England, le d’Espenser, was given to Edmund, the King’s second son, who was invested with the earldoms of Leicester, Lancaster, and Derby, and was also made Lord of Monmouth. The Montforts, like the Bellomonts, pass away. The office of High Steward has been transferred to royal hands, but the re- membrance of the lords who held it is preserved in the name of the Spencers, who have long since ceased to be Royal Dispensators. Windictive conquerors mostly relent when calm re- flection takes the place of passion, and one of the first of the forfeited estates to be restored to the family was that connected with the earldom of Leicester. NICHOLs, in his History of Leicestershire, says:— Hugh le Despencer was slain at the battle of Evesham, in I265, and his lands seized by the King, who assigned the manor of Loughborough, then valued at 24,60 a year, to Alivia, his widow (out of the love he bore her father), 49 Henry III. It was not the Loughborough of former times. Ed- mund, the King's son, retained the honour and privileges it once enjoyed, and kept in his hands the noble castle of Kennilworth, not far distant; but still he seems to have given back “Spencer’s Land,” the old inheritance of the Bellomonts, in the western suburb, outside the city walls of London. These concessions had to be ratified by Parliament, and in January, 1271, the Barons met and con- firmed the acts and wishes of the King, whereby the dis- inherited were restored to their estates. The Spencers became the lords of “Old Blemunds- bury” (not yet corrupted into Bloomsbury), bearing at the same time the name of Beaumont or Beamonte. This surname was derived from their native place, Beaumont, in France, situate on the River Sarte, in the province of Maine. Being closely allied to the Bellomonts, they built their mansion-house on the manorial lands of Loughborough, and Spencer's Land, Blemundsbury. Beaumont de Spencer, Lord of Old Blemundsbury. 246 The Despensers. to keep up the associations of their early days by the River Sarte, they called it Beaumont Manor (Beaumanor), being part and parcel of the Manor of Loughborough. The Earls of Leicester, for a time, were the Lords of Beaumont, but when the division took place is unknown. In 1239, it was the inheritance of Hugh le Despenser, under whom it was held by John le Despenser, on the term of finding yearly a pair of gilt spurs of 6d. or 7d. value, in lieu of all other service. In 1274, John le Despenser died, and by an inqui- sition, taken the next year, he is found to be possessed of the hundred of Beaumanor, and other lands. Beaumanor was held of Hugh Despenser in socage, and of the house and park there. He left by Anne, his second wife, two sons, Adam, who died young, and William le Despenser his heir, styled of Belton, which gave the name to Belton Street, St. Giles’. William le Despenser retained this estate but a few years. NICHOLs says: John le Despencer died in 1274; and Hugh le Despencer (the younger), afterwards called the elder, son of Hugh and Alivia, was restored to his father's lands in 1321, and was created Earl of Winchester. He had issue, Hugh, his son and heir, who, by virtue of his marriage with Alianore, the eldest of the three daughters and coheirs of Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Glouces- ter, was advanced to that earldom. His connection with St. Giles’ is retained by “Clare Market.” The memorable career of the “two Spencers” needs little amplification in a local history. They were the King’s favourites, and for a time withstood the malice of the Barons and the hatred of the Queen. The Londoners rose in revolt against them, and the King most unwillingly decreed their banishment, for he trembled before the rising storm. The King recalled the Spencers, and they petitioned for compensation for the losses they had sustained, which is set out in the following statement of claim:- 247 º That the estate of Hugh, the elder, consisted of sixty-three manors, and his personal of two crops of corn, one in barn, and the other upon the ground; in cash, jewels, silver and golden utensils, etc., ten thousand pounds; armour for two hundred men, warlike engines, and the destruction of his houses, thirty thousand pounds; the furniture of his chapel and wardrobe, five thousand pounds; eight-and-twenty thousand sheep, one thousand oxen and heifers; twelve hundred cows, with their calves for two years: forty mares with their foals for two years; five hundred and sixty cart-horses; two thousand hogs; four hundred kids; four hundred bacons; eighty carcases of beef; six hundred muttons; in larder, forty tuns of wine; ten tuns of cyder, and six-and-thirty sacks of wool, with a library of books, The King and the Spencers attacked the Barons at Burrow Bridge, 1322. The King was victorious, and never, since the Nºrman conquest, had the scaffolds been drenched with so much blood as on this occasion; an irre- trievable error and crime, which changed the victory into a catastrophe for the victors. They made the King’s govern- ment a reign of terror, and were soon to reap the harvest. The Queen’s resentment became all-powerful; her army came to besiege Bristol, 1326. This City, after a faint resistance, surrendered, when Hugh Spencer, the elder, was her prisoner, and the grand old man, at ninety years of age, without any formality, was immediately hung up in his “harness” (armour). From Bristol to Gloucester, and from Gloucester to Hereford she followed the son, captured him and hung him up on a gibbet, fifty feet high; Simon de Reading, had, at the same time, the distinguished privilege of being suspended ten feet lower. The King was taken prisoner and deposed. Edward the Third was proclaimed, and the Archbishop honoured the occasion by preaching a sermon on the text: “The voice of the people, the voice of God.” Kennilworth Castle was the late King’s prison, from which he was sent to Berkeley Castle, there to be secretly Hugh Spencer's Goods and Chattels. The Battle of Burrow Bridge. Defeat of King Edward II. and death of the Spencers. 248 The Beaumonts, Lords of Blemundsbury. and brutally murdered. The lands of the Spencers passed to the Crown, and St Giles’ was once again a royal manor. The infamy attached to the name of the Spencers was concealed by the family under that of Beaumont. The young King, Edward III., or rather his advisers, gave the estates to Henry, Lord Beaumont, in 1327, as a reward for services rendered in the late war. When the late King (almost deserted) attempted to fly beyond sea, he was by him taken and brought back, and delivered prisoner to the , Queen, for which service he obtained the lordships of Loughborough, Leicestershire, Blemundsbury, etc., lately belonging to Hugh Spencer (the younger son to Hugh, Earl of Winchester), then attainted. Henry, Lord Beaumont, died in 1841, and was suc- ceeded by John, Lord Beaumont, who attended John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, into Spain in 1387. He was made Governor of Cherburgh Castle, Constable of Dover Castle, Warden of the Cinque Ports, and K.G. He enter- tained Richard II. and his Queen at Beaumanor, in 1389, on their journey to York, and again in 1890, on their road from Leicester to Nottingham. He died, 1397, leaving issue—three sons, Henry, Thomas, and Richard. His eldest son, Henry, inherited the estates. He died, 1413. John, his son and heir, succeeded to the Barony, and in 1439 was created Earl of Bulloign, by Henry VI., and Viscount Beaumont (the first in England honoured with that title). He was a great favourite with the King, who honoured him with the Garter. In 1449 he was made Lord Chamberlain. BURTON says:— tº That King Henry the Sixth was so affectionate with him that he granted unto him and William, Lord Bardolph, his son and heir apparent (1449) that within their own territories, lordships, and jurisdictions, they should make return of all writs, and should have and receive all forfeitures and amercements, and - their tenants to be free from all suits of Court, * 249 Wrecks of the sea, free warren and ‘Courts Leet' (an old privilege still exercised by the present Duke of Bedford), also power and authority to choose Coroners and Clerks of the Market within their own dominion and liberties. A noble so powerful could not stand passive in the conflict that was raging between the houses of York and Lancaster. He espoused the cause of Henry VI. and was slain in the battle of Northampton, 19th of July, 1460, and the following year, his son William, Wiscount Beau- monte, Lord Bardolf, was taken prisoner at the small vil- lage of Towton, in Yorkshire, on Palm Sunday, at the close of one of the bloodiest battles on record. It is said that thirty-six thousand, seven hundred, and seventy-six of the combatants were left dead upon the field. The estates of the Beaumontes were once more in the hands of the Crown, and Edward IV. immediately exercised his authority over them by annexing the Hospital of the Holy Innocents to Burton St. Lazar, on condition of “cer- tain menials of the King’s servants, if afflicted with leprosy, being provided for in St. Giles’ Hospital.” After holding the Beaumonte estates for a short time, the King granted them, in 1482, to Lord William Hastings (reputed to have kept Jane Shore), and who said to the Protector (afterwards Richard III.) in reply to his statement, “If they had committed such a crime they deserved to be punished.” “What,” says the Protector, “dost thou answer me with ifs and ands, as if I myself had forged this accusation?” and striking the table twice with his hand as a signal, the room was filled with armed soldiers. “I arrest thee for High Treason,” says the Protector. “Who, me, my Lord?” answered Hastings. “Yes, thee, traitor,” replied the Protector, and Hastings, without any delay, was hurried off to a log, lying before the Tower Chapel, and there decapitated, and thus, by virtue of a doubtful “If,” Blemundsbury came into the hands of Richard III., I483. Death of John, Viscount Beaumont. Edward IV. and Burton St. Lazar. Death of Hastings, Lord of Blemundsbury. -- K 2 250 Lord Lovell marries Joan, Viscountess Beaumont. Viscount Beaumont, Lord of Blemundsbury, Sir Brian Stapleton, Heir of the Beaumont Estates, John, Earl of Oxford, Lord of Blemundsbury. John, Lord Lovell, married Joan, sister and heiress of William, Wiscount Beaumont, attainted, and Lord Lovell, being one of the three favourites of Richard, obtained the forfeited inheritance of the Beaumonts, by right of his wife, and assumed the title of Wiscount Lovell. Fleeing from Bosworth Field, he promoted rebellions against Henry VII., and was defeated at Stoke in 1487. RAPIN says:–“As for the Lord Lovell, some say he was drowned in attempting to swim over the Trent; others affirm that he was slain in the battle; but another report goes, that he spent the residue of his life in a cave. Be this as it will, he ap- peared no more after that.” Blemundsbury, by Lovell’s attainder, fell into the hands of Henry VII., and he immediately removed the attainder of William, Lord Bardolf, Viscount Beaumonte, and re- granted it to him. He died on the 20th December, 1508, leaving no issue, and Blemundsbury again reverted to King Henry VII., who, dying soon after, April 22nd, 1509, the estate passed into the hands of Henry VIII., and on the 5th of July following a Commission was appointed, “to take inquisition as to the possessions of William, Wiscount Beamonte, deceased.” And by a further “Inquisition post mortem, taken by Sir John Monson, Escheator, at Lincoln, 11th August, 1 Henry VIII., relative to the lands and heir of William, Wiscount Beamonte, Lord Bardolf—Sir Brian Stapleton and John Norres are the nearest heirs.” One result of these inquiries was published, December 6th, 1509, as follows:—“For John, Earl of Oxford, and Elizabeth, his wife, widow of William, Wiscount Beamonte, and Lord Bardolf. Grant of several manors and lands in the towns and fields of Westminster and St. Giles’ “Beamonte’s lands,’ late of the Viscount, to hold to the said John and Elizabeth in full satisfaction of her dowry.” GREENwich, November 30th, 1 Henry VIII. 251 The Earl of Oxford died about 1514, and Henry VIII. The end of again entered into possession of the Beaumont estates, and Blemundsbury. the great manor of Blemundsbury came finally to an end by the various interests he created therein. The distinction between the estates of the church, the hospital, and the manor was unrecognised by the King. The old Manor-house, probably by agreement with the late Blemundsbury Manor-House. Earl, seems to have been occupied by Lady Elizabeth Lucy. RICHARD Cocks writes “To Lady Lucy, at St. Giles’-in- the-Fields.” She had been closely connected with the Crown, and claimed to be the wife of Edward IV. (but without the rites of the church). She alleged that she had been seduced under a promise of marriage by the King, but, being closely questioned, she admitted that the King had not made her a positive promise, but she would not have yielded to his desires had she not been persuaded that he intended to marry her. The result of the intercourse The two was the birth of two children, Arthur and Elizabeth, Plantagenets. surnamed Plantagenet. The Manor-house was bounded on the west side by a muddy lane, often impassable, and was “ye waye to Cheyrynge;” at the back or south side by a morass; on the north by the King’s highway Strata Sci Egidij; and on the east by a narrow crooked lane, which parted the grounds from those of its near and unpleasant neighbour, the Leper Hospital. This gloomy habitation was of considerable dimen- sions; it had its outhouses, stabling, and domestic offices. By arrangement, the chief officials from Burton Lazars may have occupied it by lease or otherwise, but it formed no part of the church or hospital lands. Little is known of the early life of these young Plantagenets. They seem to have been brought up in St. Giles’, and occasionally attended the Court. Among their 252 Edmund Dudley and Elizabeth Grey. Sir Chas. Brandon, Viscount Lisle. Arthur Plantagenet created Viscount Lisle. numerous circle of friends was included the widow of Edmund Dudley, who was decapitated by order of Henry VIII. on Tower Hill, on the 18th of August, 1510. The unpopularity of the name of Dudley was hidden under that of Elizabeth Grey, a co-heir to the estate of the Greys. She was the mother of John Dudley, who played so promi- ment a part in English History in the sixteenth century. She became the wife of Sir Arthur Plantagenet, and the match was approved by the King, as shown by the following grants:— To Sir Arthur Plantagenet and Elizabeth, his wife, kins- woman and heir of Elizabeth, late Countess of Devon and Viscountess Lisle, alias daughter of Edward Grey, late Viscount Lisle, father of John Grey, late Viscount Lisle:–Pardon of all alienations, also grant of the issues of the said possessions.— February, 1522. Grant in tail male of Elizabeth, his wife, sister and heir of John Grey, Viscount Lisle, of the title of Viscount Lisle, with 20 marks a year for its support, out of the issues of cos. Warwick and Leicester, on surrender of patent, 15th May, 5 Henry VIII., by Charles Brandon, K.G., now Duke of Suffolk, WESTMINSTER, 25th April, 15 Henry VIII. The “surrender of patent” requires some explanation. Sir Charles Brandon, prior to his being Duke of Suffolk, married Elizabeth Grey, the daughter of John Dudley and Elizabeth Grey (just referred to). By virtue of the marriage he was created by royal favour “Viscount Lisle, in tail male of the said Charles and his wife Elizabeth Grey, Wiscountess Lisle; with 20 marks a year out of the revenues of co. Warwick”—15th May, 1513. The union was quickly ended by her death in 1514. Arthur Plantagenet and his wife left England for Calais. In 1527 he was made Vice-Admiral and appointed one of a commission to punish outrages at sea, viz:—to attack French ships under the guise of suppressing piracy. 253 He was invited back to England to assist at the coronation of Anne Bulleyn, 8th June, 1533. His friend, Brandon, late Lord Lisle, was there as High Steward, and the Plantagenet had the humbler office of “Panter.” The old house must have looked more disconsolate than ever. Sir Arthur Plantagenet had recently lost his wife Elizabeth, and married the widow of Sir John Basset, who was now Lady Lisle. The death of the Viscountess Lisle caused those interested in the Beaumont estates to try and regain their lost inheritance. John Husee, who was acting as Caretaker, Secretary, and Agent in St. Giles’ (probably appointed by his father, Sir John Husee, who held “the stewardship of certain lands belonging to the late Lord Beaumont”), writes to Lord Lisle at Calais :—“Hastings has sold to my Lord Chancellor all he once sold you.” LoNDON, 6th February, 1534. This startling announcement and the approaching mar- riage of Thomas, son and heir apparent of Francis Lovell, and Fraunces, daughter of Lord Lisle, brought them back to London. The date is fixed by two letters which are of first importance, because they afford positive evidence that Lord Lisle occupied the Manor-house, and also prove its situation. One is from Lord Lisle, containing correspond- ence in reference to Wyngfield Marsh, written from Hog Lane, St. Giles’, August 19th, 1534, the other from Katherine, Duchess of Suffolk, thanking Lady Lisle:— For the good wine and the dog she has sent her. Her husband desires to be recommended to her and her husband, and thanks them both for their kindness. Desires herself to be recommemoed to her correspondent's husband, as one who would be glad to be acquainted with him. At my Lord of Shrewsbury's house in Yorkshire, Saturday, August 22nd, I534. To LADY LISLE, At 1 Iog Lane, St Giles'. The Lord Chan- cellor and the Manor-House. Lord Lisle at the Manor-House, Hog Lane, St. Giles'. 254 The Wedding at Lisle House. Badge of Richard III.— A White Boar. It can be reasonably assumed that the marriage alluded to was kept at Lisle House, Hog Lane, which was the town residence of the bride's father, especially as the annexed document proves that he had to supply the festal banquet and provide the young couple with their weddding garments. - Draft of Articles for the marriage of Thomas, Son and Heir Appa- went of Sir Francis Lovell and Fraunces, daughter of Lord Lisle. Sir Francis requires that Lord Lisle shall apparel both parties On the day of marriage and bear all charges of the dinner. He requires Lord Lisle to pay 7oo marks on the marriage and the rest by Ioo marks a year. If one of Lovell's daughters is married the whole remainder to be paid at once. He desires merchants or gentlemen to be bound for the money. For communication of Mr. Francis Lovell's son and Mrs. Fraunces, my Lord's daughter, September I4th, I534. The bells must have sounded merrily on that bright autumnal morning, as the bridal procession passed through the grounds of the old mansion-house and then across the little green lane, through the gate that opened into the garden of the deserted hospital, and along the path that was the nearest way to the village church. It was the reproduction of a scene that took place some fifty years before, when the bridegroom’s ancestor, John, Lord Lovell, married Joan Beaumont, the Lady of Blemundsbury. The two letters just mentioned prove the existence of Hog Lane, St. Giles’, and its association with the Lovells furnishes a clue to a name anterior to that, and also the reason why that thoroughfare afterwards bore the undignified appellation of “Hog Lane.” It is well known that the Badge or Cognizance of Richard III. was a White Boar. Noble, in his History of the College of Arms, says: “That at Richard’s coronation, 255 eight thousand cognizances of this kind were wrought upon fustian, he supposed in silver thread, which cost £20 per thousand.” Collars of Richard’s livery, of a higher order, consisted of roses in the sunbeams, with a Boar pen- dant. The King's followers displayed their loyalty by wearing this cognizance:—“A Whyte Bore with his tuskis and his clies, and his membres of gold.” On the other hand his enemies, during his short reign, marked their contempt by calling him a hog, and Sir William Colling- burn, of Lydiard, in Wiltshire, was hanged, drawn, and quartered for writing a satirical distych upon the King and his favourites, Viscount Lovell, Sir Richard Ratcliffe, and Sir William Catesby: The Rat, the Cat, and Lovell our Dog, Rule all England under a Hog, alluding to Lovell’s Arms, and those of the King. The badge of Henry VII. was a “Blewe Bore,” and when he became King, the White Boar was a sign of dis- affection, and they all loyally turned blue. Richard III. passed the last night of his life at the White Boar Inn, Leicester, and Blue Boar Lane still marks the place where the White Boar Inn stood. Lovell, Lord of Blemundsbury, the faithful friend and favourite of Richard, named the thoroughfare that bordered his estate, White Boar Lane, but to be shortly changed by fatal Bosworth into Hog Lane, as a standing memorial of hatred and scorn of the last of the Richards. The following letter is inserted, because it indirectly bears upon subsequent correspondence, and the three names mentioned therein, Mr. Densell, who was Lord Lisle’s Legal Adviser, Mr. Wyndesor, his Receiver, and Mr. Hussey, his Agent, act an important part in the last days of Old Blemundsbury. Badge of Henry VII.- A Blue Boar. White Boar Lane, afterwards Hog Lane. 256 John Husee and Lord Lisle's Correspondence. Leonard Smyth to Lady Lisle— t Has sent by Hugh Colton, the letuse bonnet for my Lord's daughter. It would have been sent before Christmas if the Skinner had been as honest as he esteems himself; when he expected to have had the bonnet ready. The Skinner refused to make it without earnest. Was with my Lord of Essex this Christ- mas, who thanks Lord and Lady Lisle for their good wine. The doe was not delivered for Mr. Densell, at the White Hart, in Graycious Street, London. Wrote to Mr. Wyndesore, her Receiver, before Christmas for the money, as Hussey (Husee) can tell, January I2th, I534. The position of affairs at the Manor House in Hog Lane is now causing great anxiety and annoyance at Calais. Litigation is pending, communications are passing between Clients, Solicitors, and Counsel. The King is complicating matters by mixing up the church lands with the Beaumont estate, with the view of eventually seizing the whole. John Graynfield (Greenfield), acting for the Lord Chancellor Audley, who has bought Hastings’ disputed title, writes to Lord Lisle informing him that:— My Lord hath bought the house that your Lordship dwelleth in. If you wish to buy it back again and will send me your mind, I think I can do you a pleasure, February 5th, 1535. John Husee to Lord Lisle— You know what Hastings has done with my Lord Chancellor. February 17th, 1535. Thomas Speke to Lord Lisle— . As to your house “that you live in,” Hastings has sold his right to my Lord Chancellor Audley, but I believe another gentle- man has more right to it than he. I think my Lord is near at a point with him for it, and John Graynfyld believes you may have it when things are at a clear end between them. Master Scryven, on Sunday last, told me he had been in hand with my Lord for your said house, and means to be at home in eight or ten days. March 18th, 1535, 257 The transaction with Hastings, as to selling his rights to the Lord Chancellor, was carried out under the direction of the King, in order to get Lisle out of possession. It is not clear what Hastings did sell, but it seems that the Lord Chancellor from this time had the right of pre- sentation to St. Giles’ Church, which right has remained in the hands of that official until very recently. On the part of Lord Lisle there was an attempt at a compromise, whereby, if he surrendered the Manor-house, he should be compensated by the King with the grant of Staple Inn, Holborn. Both had belonged to the Beau- montes, were inherited from the Blemunds, and formed a portion of their great estate. Two years previously William London wrote to Lord Lisle soliciting his influence to obtain for him Staple Inn, a request not likely to be granted. There was of course a civil letter in acknowledgment, followed by one from William London to Lord Lisle, “Thanking him and Lady Lisle for the kindness shown to him in his suit touching the Staple Inn.” June 30th, 1533. The ensuing correspondence indicates that Lord Lisle instructed his servant to use his best endeavours with Cromwell to obtain for him the grant of Staple Inn: John Husee to Lord Lisle— Will ask the Secretary to get you the Staple Inn, as your house is sold to my Lord Chancellor. You had better pay for the reparation of it than change so many landlords—Mar, 4th, 1535. John Husee to Lady Lisle— I have moved the Secretary for the Staple Inn, but can get no answer—March 12th. I535. John Husee to Lord Lisle— , Hopes to bring with him the King's pleasure about the Staple Inn in Lisle's favour—March 21st, 1535. Husee, who was occupying the Manor-house, seems, unknown to Lord Lisle, to have made an agreement with Mr. Tate, who was acting for the Lord Chancellor, that brought about an unexpected crisis. The Staple Inn, Holborn, L 2 258 John Husee's Candlesticks. Rent for the Manor-house was demanded of Husee, as occupier of the premises and also as agent for Lord Lisle. To pay the demand would be to acknowledge the Chancellor as his landlord, and Husee, fearing that a distraint would be made upon his goods, takes the precaution of removing them, but leaving behind two silver candlesticks as an evidence that he had not given up possession. The Lord Chancellor, through Mr. Tate, knowing that the premises were virtually unoccupied, dispensed with dis- training, and entered into possession. Mr. Tate informs Lord Lisle of what has taken place. Lord Lisle writes to Husee, censuring him, and Husee in reply writes:— Has received his letter by Mr. Specket. Perceives how ill Mr. Tate has reported of him “which I must with patience bear.” Is sorry that he has run so far into danger. If he had distrained as he intended, thinks he would have found it strainable, “for I would gladly give the candlesticks that I left there for the rent I owe him. And when it hath been reported that I should leave the key under the door, and come no more there, he or they, whatsoever they be, in their so saying shall conceive Small honesty and much less worship.” Your Lordship knows I remain here on your business, and if you wish me to set it aside, I shall come in haste to Calais. The Staple Inn cannot be had till Mr. Secretary is again at Court— March 25th, 1535. John Husee to Lord Lisle— Mr. Secretary is still sick of his fever, and till he mends nothing can be done about your desire in the Staple Inn. Doubts not that his Lordship will have it—April 1st, 1535. The date is significant. Mr. Secretary says in reply: So Husee informs Lord Lisle you shall have Staple Inn and he will cause the King to write in (about) it. April 8th, 1535. The pretended purchase by the Lord Chancellor of Lisle’s House created further difficulties and complications, and although there was a continued correspondence, not one of the claimants for the property could show any title 259 thereto, it being in the “King’s hands.” According to a “State Paper” Lord Lisle had not given up possession. Message brought by Walter Skynner from the Lord Chancellor to Lord Lisle, 7th February, 27 Henry VIII. Lord Lisle, in answer to a demand for rent now due for two years, said that his house and rent were under arrest for payment of the debts of Lord Berners. On this my Lord Chancellor sent Spylman to Hastings, who said the houses were clear of all such tanglements, and my Lord Chancellor says he has nothing to do with the debts of Lord Berners, having bought the same from Sir Gilbert Talbot. (Signed) WALTER SKYNNER. Thomas Warley, in reference to this message, writes to Lord Lisle thus:— On Wednesday last I delivered to my Lord Chancellor such writings as concerned Donyngton, Mellody, and Jenens. My Lord Chancellor put them in his bosom, saying he would look at them, and asked how you and my lady did. I mentioned that I heard you say that if the house were your own and everything in it, you would rather it were on fire than do anything to cause dis- pleasure between you. He said that the house was sold to Lord Berners by Sir Gilbert Talbot (sic), and days of payment taken, with power to Sir Gilbert to re-enter if the payments were in arrear; and as the conditions have not been performed, my Lord Chancellor bought Sir Gilbert's right, so that neither Lord Berners, if he had lived, nor Hastings, can claim any right therein. Therefore the arrests made for Lord Berners or Hastings are void, I showed him how Hastings denied he had sold it, and what I heard Mr. Palmer, Knightporter, and others say about it. My Lord Chancellor said that Hastings was a naughty and a crafty fellow and he would be sorry that your Lordship thought unkind- ness in him. He had no leisure then to say more, but commended John Greynfield and Walter . Portland to make search for Hastings, and bring him to him. He has not yet been found— February 21st, 1536. º The next letter seems to have been written by the suggestion of the King. Its contents show that Lord Lisle was no favourite at court, for he had applied for permission gº 260 to come over to England and met with a refusal. It also shows that there was no intention of giving to Lord Lisle either Staple Inn, Holborn, or Blemundsbury Manor-house. Thomas Wolsey to Lady Lisle— Would be glad to see Lady Lisle for a season, because he thinks it would be profitable; as Lord Lisle can obtain no licence to come over, If she were here she might move the King and Queen for one of the Abbeys, towards the maintenance of their charges. Knows she would be very welcome to the King and Queen, which is as gentle as can be, and now is the time or never. The presence of a noble man or woman may do more than twenty fearful solicitors—July 1st. 1536. Why Lady Lisle was invited instead of her husband is not known, neither is it known for what reason Lady Lisle did not accept this tempting invitation. His Lordship, by silence, resented this insult, and the correspondence is continued by her Ladyship, through Husee, who writes informing her that Hide (Hyde) had made an offer to the King to purchase the Manor-house, and Lady Lisle, in reply, instructs Husee to outbid Hide and borrow the purchase money. This was impossible, for Lisle’s reputa- tion amongst his creditors was detrimental to further loans; besides, as Vice-Admiral at Calais he had granted to him “Protection,” and under these circumstances “the borrower would not be servant to the lender.” Even the Skinner would not make the “letuse bonnet without earnest.” Husee writes “The world is such that money cannot be borrowed without great losses and good assurances * * * * I cannot see that Hide will pass the six years purchase he has offered.” The money was not borrowed, and the correspondence that ensued greatly displeased her Ladyship, who gave vent to her feelings by an offensive letter to Husee, which was acknowledged by an unpleasant answer. 261 John Husee to Lady Lisle— This day I received yours of the 9th, and am sorry you are So much displeased with me for my last writing. I thought I could do no less than inform you as I was credibly informed; “for I am not of a nature to keep long venom in my stomach, notwithstanding it grieved me not a little.” I think I have not so deserved. Sendy writes that your Ladyship is displeased with him also, for which I am very sorry. He never advertised me of anything touching my Lord and your Ladyship. Mr. Skryven can inform you about my Lord's causes. Mr. George Goodall went eight days ago for him and is not yet come back. Mr. Holt calls incessantly for money, and says you wrote that he should have been paid ere this. And when your Ladyship writeth that you write not all you think you may like a noblewoman write, and think at your pleasure, as reason is; and such poor men as I am must do as well as God will give us grace—Oct. 20th, 1536. The correspondence in reference to Hyde is continued, and in order to understand the annexed letter, the reader must remember that the Leper Hospital was now a Carthusian Priory. John Husee to Lady Lisle— * * * * Unless Mr. Arundel come or Wyndsor be at a point with Hide, I cannot tell how to make this money. As for your Priory—my Lord and your Ladyship should say at once what parcels you will have. What George Carew has, is given by the King, and if you will take that, you will have only the rent, but if you take others, you will enter with the profits out of hand. Holt is dissatisfied that he has not his money, and that Wat-a-Pertland says he never owed my Lord a penny. Mr. Basset will tarry at Lincoln's Inn till seven days before Christmas, which is against my mind, for they are dying daily in the City, but Mr. Sulyard must be obeyed. I have bespoken the torches and “quarryers,” and have persuaded the chandler to wait for his money. Ling is very dear, and can only be got for ready money. I am glad your Ladyship is So well sped. Jesu send you a son— November 27th, I 536. This letter is rather obscure. The words, “your priory,” may refer to some portion of the great estate of Sir 262 John Bassett, the late husband of Lady Lisle, but the mention of “George Carew,” who was Rector of St. Giles’ Church at this time, renders the meaning still more obscure, and the problem must remain for the local historians of St. Giles’ to solve in the future. The information of Lady Lisle's interesting condition was obtained by Husee through a special order for an apron, as under :— William Lok, Mercer, to Lord Lisle— He sends by the bearer, Mr. Corbett, a stomacher of cloth of gold for my Lady. I pray Jesu, if it be his pleasure, it may cover a young Lord Plantagenet, as I do understand by divers is well forward. Of the whole I am very glad—Dec 14th, 1536. Mr. Corbett also brings with him a present and a letter from Richard Lee to Lord Lisle. [Commencement mutilated] That it hath pleased God to visit her with a child, and he most heartily thanks her good Ladyship for her ‘marmelado.’ He thanks you both for your many kind remembrances. The bearer brings her Ladyship half-a-yard of Cloth of Gold, which I had of Mr. Lok. Thanks them for their kindness. Desires to be recommended to Mistress Fraunces, their daughter, and all the other gentlewomen. I pray God make your Lordship a glad father, and my Lady a glad mother—Dec. I4th, 1536. • Further congratulations are sent from John Husee to Lady Lisle— It is no little comfort to all your friends to hear that your Ladyship has sped so well. Jesu Send you a good hour—CALAIs, December 15th, 1636. The foregoing and following letters, written in the pri- vacy of domestic life, some three hundred and fifty years ago, by those connected with this history, if not strictly within the province of the “Lords of Blemundsbury,” may be deemed of sufficient interest to allow of their insertion, as the Lisle letters have never been collated. - 263 Anne Roudol to Lady Lisle— Your daughters (Anne and Mary Basset) desire to be recom- mended to you. La mienne sends you a couple of purses and asks you to send her some little pearls to place on her rings (? ancilettes) like her sister. I love her as much as if she were my own. I wish we could be often with you—PONT DE REMY, September 2nd, 1535. Madame de Bion to Lady Lisle— I am better than I have been, which has prevented me writing more frequently. If health continue, I hope after Christmas to go to my daughter, De Langey, eighty leagues hence, to be at her confinement, and I wish to know if you would like your daughter (Anne Basset) to accompany me. You would do well to send her the cloth for a gown, for that which she has of demye Ostade is too cold for this season. She ought to have a jeiseran to put on a touret. Will you send her one or shall I procure it?— PONT DE REMY, October 31st, 1535. Lady Lisle to Madame de Bours— My said daughter hath written to one of her sisters to be mean for her to me for money to play. I am content that she play when ye shall command her, but I fear she shall give her mind to much play. It will come soon enough to her. I would she would ply her work, the lute and the virginals, and I refer in all to your goodness. Thanking her for the (altour). My servant showeth me that ye have made my daughter a robe, furred with white. I pray you send me word what it cost and I shall send you—November 4th, 1535. Antony Waite to Lady Lisle— It is preached here that priests must have wives and that the sacrament of the alter must be received in both kinds. Some preach that purgatory is tribulation of this world, others punish- ment in another world, and some say there is none. Yesterday there was a great and solemn procession at Powle's, at which there were five wearing mitres—bishops and abbots. The sacrament was borne under a canopy—November 4th, 1535. Antony Barker to Lady Lisle— Commendations to Lord Lisle. I send a girdle of the best fashion and best “aymell” enamel of any I can find. If you do 264. not like it, return it, and it shall be changed, I could find none that would less hurt your sleeves, and the wreaths upon the enamel will keep it long. My Lord of Winchester pays for the overplus, which came to 20s st, Your son, Mr. James, is merry. I have bought him a gown and made less his velvet bonnet. I will see that he lacks nothing till Mons. President comes—PARIs, Nov. 20th, 1535. John Husee to Lady Lisle— I sent you by James Hawksworth all things according to your last. The grocer and chandler call incessantly for money, and would not have dealt with me if I had not promised to see them- paid out of hand, as your Ladyship wrote that the money should be sent without fail ere this, Further, I see no help for it, but after all the charges I have been at I must lose my wages. I will try these holidays what my friends can do for me, and if I cannot speed I will lose no more labor while I live. I have been five times within these six days for the kirtle the Queen gave you, but am always put off. To morrow I am promised a determinate answer—LONDON, December 2 Ist, 1535. John Husee to Lady Lisle— I have sent Mrs. Skerne the sleeves, for which she thanks you. I have received of Edward Lovell a “bolt” of cambric, which I shall present as instructed, hoping to bring your kirtle with me. I have much ado with my check, but hope shortly to be rid of it, being right sorry for the news you wrote me about John Harper. God pardon his soul—December 29th, 1535 Lady Lisle to John Husee— I have received by Sheryfft your letter of 29th December. I am sorry ye wrote to my lord as ye did. My lord thought ye should never have lost a penny by us. He was at first discon- tented with you. I will tell you of other business to be done at your coming. Remember my kirtle. If you may obtain your check, follow it, rather than that it should be lost—CALAIs, Dec. 29th, 1535. +. Mary Basset to Lady Lisle— Sends a little “poupine.” I send you the bill of Madame's (Ronand) expenses for me, and requests her to send her some money for her little pleasures.-December 23rd, 1536. 265 35ubley joust and its 3580tiations. The death of Arthur Plantagenet, Viscount Lisle, opens up a fresh chapter in St. Giles’ history. At the time of his decease, the manor of Blemundsbury ceased to exist, and out of the forfeited estates of the Beaumonts were created two manors, viz.: Bloomsbury and St. Giles’ in the Fields. John Dudley was the step-son of Arthur Plantagenet, and by right of his mother succeeded to the title of Wiscount Lisle, and also, by grant from the King, became the pos- sessor of the old Manor-house in Hog Lane, which his step-father persistently sought for himself but failed to obtain. (The grant is set out on page 65.) Dudley was a favourite at court, probably owing to the wrong the King had done him in his infancy by sanctioning the execution of his father on Tower Hill, whereby the children were attainted and their inheritance confiscated. The attainder was soon removed, but the King kept the best part of the estate, and the grant of a portion of Blemundsbury Manor to Dudley was but a partial restitution with which he had to be satisfied. John Dudley, Lord Lisle, afterwards Duke of North- umberland, does not seem to have parted with the estate. There is no record of his having occupied the house; it was very old, and the exalted position to which its owner arose rendered it unsuitable for the requirements of his dignity. Like the surrounding property it was left to fall into decay during his lifetime. His “vaulting ambition ” led him to the scaffold. The Dudley lands, by the attainder of the family, passed into the hands of Queen Mary. His surviving son, Robert Dudley, was incarcerated in the Tower at the same time as Elizabeth, England’s future queen. They suffered together in adversity and they rejoiced together in prosperity. His handsome person won her heart, and she distinguished the commencement of her reign by lavishly Sir Robert Dudley and Queen Elizabeth. M 2 266 Dudley House built in Hog Lane. 'obert Dudley created larl of Leicester. showering upon him both honours and riches. The old estate in St. Giles’ and a portion of the Beaumont lands in Warwickshire and Leicestershire were granted to him by the Queen. He appears to have rebuilt the house in Hog Lane, St. Giles’, but it is uncertain whether he permanently occupied it. Unscrupulous in the extreme, he may have made it a place for assignation and intrigue. In 1560, his wife died under circumstances of grave suspicion, and left him free to carry out his illicit amours. The following year it is recorded: “Elizabeth returned from Helmingham Hall through Hertfordshire, and came from Enfield to London, September 22nd, 1561. She was so numerously attended on her homeward route, that from Islington to London all the hedges and ditches were levelled to clear the way for her, and such were the gladness and affection manifested by the loyal concourse of people who came to meet her, that (says the contemporary chronicler) it was night ere she came to St. Giles’ in the Fields.” The delay was caused not so much by loyalty as the bad condition of the Queen’s highway. Sir J. Melville says “QUEEN ELIZABETH would not permit him to return home until he had seen Dudley created Earl of Leicester and Baron Denbigh, Sept. 28th, 1564. This was done with great state at Westminster, the Queen herself helping to put on his robes, he sitting on his knees before her and keeping a great gravity and discreet behaviour; but as for the Queen, she could not refrain from putting her hand in his neck to tickle him, asking me how I liked him?” I said “as he was a worthy subject, so he was happy in a great prince, who could discern and reward good services.” “If Elizabeth at this period,” 1564, says Miss AGNES STRICKLAND, “were not in love with Leicester, the proverb which affirms that ‘Of the fulness of the heart the mouth speaketh’ must go for nought.” Some years later Gilbert 267 Talbot writes to the Earl of Shrewsbury, 1573, “My Lord of Leicester is very much with Her Majesty, and she shows him the same great good affection she was wont; of late, he has endeavoured to please her more than heretofore. There are two sisters now in the Court that are very far in love with him, as they long have been—my Lady Sheffield and Frances Howard, they (striving who shall love him best) are at great wars with each other, and the Queen thinketh not well of them, and not the better of him: for this reason there are spies over them.” These flirtations resulted in Lady Sheffield giving birth to a son at Sheen, shortly after Talbot’s letter (1573), which was kept as far as possible a profound secret, and probably, to save the lady's honour, rumours were set afloat that Lady Sheffield, alias Douglas Howard, was secretly married to the Earl of Leicester. The lawfulness of the marriage was never recog- nized, and the mystery and secrecy which enshrouded the transaction justified the scandal of the time. One reason for not making the marriage public was that it would have provoked the displeasure of the Queen, who looked with disfavour on matrimonial alliances, but with complacency on concubinage. It is idle to assert, as some historians have done, that the Queen was kept in ignorance of Leicester’s entanglements; he had too many enemies at court for that to be the case. Lady Sheffield was related to the Queen, her father, Lord Howard of Effingham, being the Queen’s uncle. If it were a legal marriage kept secret, it is incredible that Leicester should marry Lettice Knollys, the widow of the Earl of Essex, and that the courtiers should call the two ladies “Leicester’s old and new testa- ment,” and Lady Sheffield, if his wife, should allow her honour, affection, and fortune to be sacrificed without a protest or taking any step to wipe away the stigma of being a discarded mistress and the mother of an illegitimate son. In justice to Lady Sheffield, the ceremony of a mock Earl of Leicester and Lady Sheffield. 268 Sir Robert I)udley v Countess of Leicester marriage seems to have taken place, for Leicester, who was highly trained in the arts of duplicity and seduction, doubt- less accomplished his purpose thereby, and quieted for a time his victim, who had to hide her disgrace under cover of the fraud that had ruined her. It was not until thirty years afterwards, when Leicester was dead and James I. was King, that steps were taken by the son of Lady Sheffield, other- wise Sir Robert Dudley, who was then the owner and occupier of Dudley House, St. Giles’, to prove the before- mentioned marriage lawful. He at this time was married to Alice Leigh, and Leicester’s widow, whose honour and fortune were involved, “procured,” says DU GDALE : Sir Edward Coke, the King's Attorney General, to exhibit a Bill in the Star Chamber against the same Sir Robert and Dame Alice, his lady; as also against the said Lady Douglasse Sheffield, then wife of Sir Edward Strafford, Knight, Sir Thomas Leigh, Dr. L. Babington, and divers others, charging them with conspiracy to defame the said Lady Lettice, and thereby unjustly to entitle himself to those honours, etc. And upon the petition of the Lord Sidney, procured a command from the Lords of the Council, not only to stop the proceedings at Lichfield, but to bring all the depositions there taken, to remain within the court of Star Cham- ber in the Council Chest. Nevertheless did they vouchsafe liberty to the said Sir Robert to examine witnesses. Whereupon by full testimony upon oath by divers persons present at the marriage with the Earl, it appeared that Lady Sheffield, having been first contracted in Cannon Row, Westminster, about two years before, was solemnly wedded to him in her chamber at Asher, in Surrey, by a lawful minister, according to the form of matrimony by law established in the Church of England, in the presence of Sir Ed. Horsey, Knight, that gave her in marriage; as also of Robert Sheffield, Esq., and his wife; Dr. Julia, Henry Frodsham, Gent, with five other persons, whose names are there specified; and that the ring wherewith they were so married was set with five pointed diamonds and a table diamond, which had been given to the said Earl by the Earl of Pembroke's grandfather, upon condition that he should not bestow it upon any but whom he did make his wife. And moreover that the D of —was the principal mover of the 269 said marriage; but that the said Earl, pretending a fear of the Queen's indignation, in case it should come to her knowledge, made her vow not to reveal it till he gave her leave; whereupon all her servants were commanded secrecy therein. And further was it likewise deposed, within two days after the birth of the said Sir Robert Dudley (who afterwards was born at Shene, in Surrey), and then christened by a minister, sent from Sir Henry Lea, and the said Lady Douglas received a letter from the Earl wherein he thanks God for the birth of his said son, who might be their comfort and staff of their old age, and subscribed your loving husband, and further that he endeavoured to persuade the Lady Douglas to disclaim the marriage, offering her no less than 24,700 per annum in the Close Arbour of the Queen's garden at Greenwich, in the presence of Sir John Hubaud and George Digby, in case she would so do, and upon her refusal, terrifying her with protestations that he would never come at her, and that she should never have penny of him. In the face of this evidence, he had to admit that she contracted marriage with Sir Edward Stafford in the Earl’s lifetime, whereof afterwards most sadly repenting, she said: “That she had thereby done the greatest wrong that could be- to herself and son.” By a special order of the Lords, the depositions were to be sealed up and no copies taken without the King’s special license, and this decree put an end to the litigation, which was virtually a nonsuit of the plaintiff, Robert Dudley. His father, by will, dated 1st August, 1587, left to “his base son, Robert Dudley,” the reversion of Kenilworth and other estates, including Dudley House, St. Giles’, after the death of his uncle, Ambrose Dudley, Earl of Warwick. His father died, 1588, and Ambrose Dudley, the following year. There was no successor to the title of Earl of Leicester and it remained in abeyance. Robert (Sheffield) Dudley was a minor, and, although Lord of Kenilworth, had no legitimate right to the title of Earl of Warwick, neither was he Lord of Blemundsbury by virtue of his ownership of Dudley House, for that lordship had passed into other hands. 270 Sir Robert Dudley marries his Page. His early ripening years were spent in the company of Cavendish, the great explorer, whose sister he married, but the union was soon ended by her death. To dissipate the gloom of his disconsolate home, he sought the hand of Alice, the third daughter of Sir Thomas Leigh, of Stoneley, War- wickshire, married her, and brought her to St. Giles’. The marriage was not a happy one, for the litigation previously referred to had involved him in monetary difficulties. Like his father, he was amorous, cruel, and heartless; he aban- doned his wife and four daughters (having obtained a license to travel for three years) and sailed for Italy, taking with him a beautiful lady, disguised as a page, the daughter of Sir Robert Southwell, of Wood Rising, Norfolk, and on his arrival in Italy, perfectly regardless of his wife and family in England, married his pretty page, Miss Elizabeth Southwell. It is said he justified his conduct by affirming that by the canon law, his marriage with Alice Leigh was illegal, because he seduced her in the lifetime of his first wife. Such a plea stamped him as a villain; first betraying the woman by seduction, then deceiving her by a mock ceremonial of marriage, then deserting her and his four young daughters, emphasizing her sorrow and her shame, publishing it to the world by his marriage with Elizabeth Southwell, thus casting his wife Alice off for ever and making his children illegitimate. John Chamberlain, Esq. to Sir Dudley Carleton— We hear out of Italy that the Pope hath expressly com- manded Sir Robert Dudley to forsake his mistress, who they say hath been with child and miscarried four times within the year.— February 11th, 1607-8. After the Queen’s death, as with other men of his spirit, his occupation seemed gone, and in the year 1605 he became involved in lawsuits and other discreditable proceedings, which occasioned his flight from England to Italy. Sentence of outlawry was recorded against him and the forfeiture of his estates. 271 The express command of the Pope was of no avail, as shown in a subsequent letter from Sir Thomas Challoner to Sir Robert Dudley, in which he states that “He has done his best for him since he resolved to submit to the King, and trust to the mediation of the Prince. Begs him to give token of his loyalty, to settle a competent maintenance on his lady and children, and before his return to England to provide for those with him who have suffered for his sake; if he will do so, the King and Prince will gladly receive him.” Inclosed in the letter were the conditions on which his pardon may be granted.—Dated 30th July, 1612. In the Calendar of State Papers (Redington) there is a Relation of ocurrences in the conveyance of Kenilworth to the Prince by Sir Robert Dudley—That the estate is worth £25,000 or 24, 26,ooo, but he offered to give it to the Prince on condition of his procuring him pardon for contempt of orders. That offer being refused, he agreed to sell it for 24, 15,000, in hope of the pardon. This the Prince failed to obtain, but Sir Robert still offered to pass the land to him, in hope of securing it at some future time, but as the money is not fully paid, the Prince’s claim to the estate is not held good in Chancery— July, 1612. On the 31st of May, 1610, a certificate was granted by royal authority, whereby certain sums of money, due to Robert Dudley, were to be paid to Lady Dudley, and the remainder appropriated to his creditors, which meant that the prospect of his receiving the purchase-money for Kenil- worth was very remote. DUGDALE says: Howbeit, Prince Henry departing this life, there was not above 243,000 paid and that to a merchant who became bankrupt, so that Robert Dudley received no portion of the purchase-money. Nevertheless, Prince Charles, as heir to his brother, held possession thereof, and in 1624 a special Act of Parliament was passed to enable the Lady Alice Dudley, who had jointure therein, to alien all her rights as a “femme sole,” in consideration of 44,000 assigned to her out of the Exchequer. 272 Lady Dudley, thus irrevocably prevented her husband’s return, and she, by so doing, admitted she was no longer Duchess Dudley's the wife of Dudley. By virtue of this Act of Parliament, wº. Lady Dudley alienated certain premises in St. Giles’ which adjoined or were contiguous to Dudley House, known as the White House, probably from its being faced with the old stone, which was once part of the Manor-House. It was built on the old foundations at the same time as Dudley House, by Robert Dudley, before he was Earl of Leicester, probably as an adjunct to accommodate his retainers. It was occupied for many years by Abraham Speckhart, and at his death, while the premises were vacant, the alienation took place. The transaction is described in the Church Register as “A pardon of alienation under the great seal of England to Lady Dudley of a house commonly called the White House.”—1st June, 1646. It was granted to the Rector of St. Giles’ in the Fields for the time being, as expressed in her will “That the said house should be and remain as a dwelling-house for the Parson of the said Church of St. Giles’ and his successors for ever, as a free gift from her.” In the time of Cromwell her title of Duchess was confirmed as under : Certificate of WILLIAM RYLEY NORREy, King at Arms; EDWARD BYSSHE, Garter, Principal King at Arms of Englishmen, having by patent, 16th August, 1650, assigned to Lady Alicia Dudley, daughter of Sir Thomas Leigh, of Stoneley, co. Warwick, Bart, the crest thereon mentioned and depicted, viz: on a wreath Argent and Gules, two hands clasped at the wrist, proper, support- ing a Ducal Coronet; and finding also by Act of Parliament, 21 James I., that Lady Dudley is declared to be a femme sole, he, at her request, ratified the said Arms. She was a “femme sole’” now, for Robert Dudley died the previous year. Duchess Dudley died at Dudley House, January 22, 1669, aged 90. She lived to see the title of Earl of Leicester given to Robert Sidney and the erection 273 of his mansion on a part of the Beaumont estate near her residence in Leicester Fields, on the fringe of what is now known as the Seven Dials. Leicester Square, Bear Street, and Lisle Street remain to mark the connection with the noble and ancient family of Leicester. The crest of the Warwick family, derived from the Nevilles, was a Bear and Ragged Staff. Shakespeare thus refers to it: WAR.—Now by my father's badge, Old Nevil's crest; The rampant bear chain'd to the ragged staff, This day I’ll wear aloft my burgonet.—HENRY VI., Pt. 2. Stow says: — Richard Nevill, Earl of Warwick, with six hundred men, all in red jackets, embroidered with ragged staves before and behind, and were lodged in Warwick Lane; in whose house there were oftentimes six oxen eaten at a breakfast, and every tavern was full of his meat; for he that had any acquaint- ance in that house might have there so much of sodden and roast meat as he could prick and carry upon a long dagger. Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, in 1587, disusing his own coat of the “Green Lion” with two tails, adopted the crest of the Bear and Ragged Staff. For so doing he was ridiculed in a couplet, which ran thus: The bear he never can prevail To lion it for lack of tail. In old towns the Pig and Whistle is still found on old sign boards. It has been explained as a facetious ren- dering of the Bear and Ragged Staff. The house at Cumnor, in which Amy Robsart died, now an Inn, has for its sign the Bear and Ragged Staff, and the boundary stones of St. Giles’ in the Fields, display two ragged staves placed saltier wise, with the initials S.F.G., 1691. The date is not in all cases the same. Another memorial of the Leicesters was the “Crooked Billet Inn,” which formerly stood at the north corner of Hog Lane. In the History of Sign Boards it is remarked The Bear and Ragged Staff. The Crooked Billet Inn, N 2 274, Thomas, Marquis of Wharton's House. that “this is a sign for which we have not been able to disco- ver any likely origin; it may have been originally a ragged staff.” There is a vestry minute referring to it, “1662– Paid for the ditch at the Town’s End by the Crooked Billet.” This indicates that in the lifetime of Duchess Dudley some portion of her private grounds were being plotted out for building purposes. By maps of a later period it will be seen that this Inn had attached to it extensive premises and yard, used for coach-houses and stabling, afterwards known as “Rose and Crown Yard,” which extended from the corner of Hog Lane nearly to the present Dudley Court, and is said to be “the earliest-men- tioned place in that district.” The death of the Duchess furnished an opportunity for further encroachments on the garden, and a great portion of the area, eastward to Den- mark Street, was rapidly covered with houses. The White House was pulled down, and Dudley Court being built upon its site, the rents of the houses therein were paid to the Rector of St. Giles’ and still continue to be so. In 1684, Denmark St. is described as abutting on “Lord Wharton’s garden.” Dudley House became the residence of Thomas, Marquis of Wharton, who occupied it for a considerable time. By permission of the vestry, in 1697, “Col. Wharton is to have leave, at his own proper costs and charges, to make two half-windows to the west windows of the church steeple, to shut when the bells ring.” The reason for granting Wharton’s request to be allowed to deaden the sound of the church bells seems to be that it was on account of Lady Wharton’s approaching confinement, for his son Philip was born shortly after and educated at home. If the church bells of St. Giles’ had tolled for his death, instead of ringing joyously for his birth, his parents would not have had their lives embittered and clouded with sorrow by their only son, Philip, who was, says Pop E, 275 A fool, with more of wit than half mankind, Too rash for thought, for action too refined: A tyrant to the wife his heart approves; A rebel to the very King he loves; He dies, sad outcast of each church and state, And, harder still! flagitious yet not great. There is a story that Philip Wharton used often to walk with Addison from Holland House to the White House, Kensington, to enjoy his favourite dish of a fillet of veal and a bottle of wine. On one of these occasions Wharton plied Addison at the table so briskly with wine, in order to make him talk, that he could not retain it on his stomach, which made his grace observe “that he could get wine but not wit out of him.” His father removed from St. Giles’ to Dover Street, where he died, April 12th, 1715. His mother was an only daughter, a rich heiress, who brought to her husband the estate of George Brydges, sixth Lord Chandos, which Philip Wharton inherited and speedily sold to William Conolly, Speaker of the House of Commons in Ireland, for sixty- two thousand pounds, and this he soon squandered away. He died without issue at Tarragona, May 31st, 1731. His titles became extinct. His widow died in February, 1777, and was buried in St. Pancras church-yard. The house fell into ruin by neglect and was pulled down about 1753. In order to make clear the nature of the building arrangements and the peculiar formation of the court named after Dr. Lloyd, who was chaplain to the Marquis, it will be necessary to go back to the early days of that ancient foot-path. It marked the west boundary of the leper hospital and ran in a straight line on to the marsh land, as shown by AGGAs. Arrangement was made by the Crown with the church whereby the site of the old church-yard and church of St. Giles’ were to be given up, and a new church built on the site of the leper hospital in Exchange of Church and Hospital Lands, 276 * Enlargement of the Church-yard of St. Giles'. Middlc Row, St. Gilcs'. No. 1. lieu thereof, with a piece of ground attached for a burial- place; in short, the area of the church land, which was comprised between what is now Great St. Andrew’s Street and the Angel, was exchanged for the land between the Angel and the foot-path on the west. The arrangement was carried out, but it was soon found desirable to enlarge the church-yard, which was effected with the consent of Lady Dudley and Abraham Speckart. Their garden fences or rather hedges were on the opposite side of the foot-path, which path began to be known as “The way by the Church,” and also as “The way by Dudley House,” the carriage entrance to which was in Hog Lane. Mr. Speckhart permitted “the way” to be diverted across his grounds, the church-yard being thereby enlarged. It is shown in STRYPE’s STow’s map (1720), curved and slightly diagonal, falling into Hog Lane. The sharp bend in this passage caused it to be known as Elbow Lane, out of which Lloyd’s Court runs and connects it with Phoenix Street. By a vestry minute, dated 1630, it was ordered: That the workmen should view the ruins of the church-yard wall, lately fallen down, and consider whether the rest of the wall was not likely to fall, and the cost of new building a brick wall round about the church-yard; with the building in and enclosure of the piece of ground intended to be given by Mr. Speckhart. When the wall was erected, the narrow thoroughfare known as Elbow Lane had also the name of Middle Row. It is strange that PARTON, having free access to all the parish documents, could not discover where Middle Row was situated. He guesses that “between 1600 and 1623 Middle Row, one of the new built places, was in particular well inhabited: it stood near the church and probably from its name, in the middle of the High Street.” He did not know Middle Row bounded Dudley House on the east side, but states “Lady Dudley lived in Middle Row, and here 277 also resided Zachary Bethell, the appointed surveyor of the church during its erection; Sir Edward Fisher, and Abraham Speckhart,” at whose house the consecration feast was held. For the accommodation of these four residents, whose back entrance doors opened into Middle Row, four corresponding doors were fixed in the newly-built wall. A discussion arose in vestry as to the prescriptive right to use these doors, which might be hereafter claimed by future owners, and it was “Resolved. That the four private doors opening into the church-yard, one of which was that wherein Lady Alice Dudley cometh into church, and another Mr. Speck- hart’s, should, on the death or removal of either of the parties, be stopped up.” Middle Row underwent but little change during the lifetime of Duchess Dudley, but shortly afterwards a reso- lution of vestry in 1670 “ordered that the doorway or passage, late Mr. Speckhart’s, be stopped up.” In the same year the vestry objected to the conduct of the Sexton in striking out lights into the church-yard, but they were permitted to remain “on condition that, by way of acknow- ledgment, he gives yearly to the Rector at Easter-tide two good fat capons ready dressed.” Robert Boreman was the Rector and the author of a pamphlet A Miracle of Charity. In 1686 the White IIouse was pulled down and the estate plotted out for building purposes, and in consequence thereof the Vestry embraced the opportunity of widening the approach to the church, and this year “it was ordered that a view be taken of the way by the church, in order to the more convenient standing of the coaches of gentlemen coming to church.” In Little Denmark Street the wide space demonstrates the improvement which the wisdom of the Vestry caused to be carried out. The worthy Dr. John Sharpe was Rector at this time, and the “Resurrection Gate” may be considered as a memo- rial of him, for while these contemplated improvements The closing of Mr. Speckhart's door into the Church-yard, 278 Removal of the Resurrection Gate, were being discussed, it was at the same time “ordered that a substantial gate, out of the wall of the church-yard, near the Round House, should be made, and also a door answer- able to it, out of the church, at the foot of the stairs lead- ing up to the north gallery.” This was completed, and owing to the number of figures, carved in wood thereon, copied from MICHAEL ANGELo’s Last Judgment; it is known as the “Resurrection Gate.” It was originally erected on or near its present site, but about 1810 was taken down and a new entrance gateway, designed by William Leverton, Esq., was built at the north-west corner of the church-yard, on the spot where the “Great Gate” of the leper hospital formerly stood. The carving was preserved and formed part of the design. It remained here until the time of Dr. Thorold, now Bishop of Rochester. He says, in his Annual Address, dated 24th January, 1865:— Last year I noticed the contemplated improvement outside the Parish Church, in the shape of a wider footway and new rail- ings. These arrangements, admirably completed by the District Board of Works, appear to give the satisfaction they deserve. The so-called “Resurrection Gate,” which had fallen out of repair and become unsafe, is being carefully re-erected opposite the western entrance. Here it will command a prominent position towards the new street, presently to be opened from Tottenham Court Road to St. Martin's Lane. Inquiries have been made in some of the public journals with reference to the ancient carving let into the former gate, and which antiquaries cherish as one of the curiosities of London. You do not need to be assured that we have in safe custody a relic of olden times, which parishioners are quite as likely to value as persons at a distance. I may, however, take this opportunity of mentioning that it will be reinstated in its place of honour when the new gateway is ready to receive it; and that it has not been lying idle in the interval, as a cast has been taken of it for the South Kensington Museum. The removal of the gate has proved a mistake. “The new street presently to be opened from the Tottenham Court Road” was not carried out, but over twenty years 279 afterwards a new street was commenced which destroyed all chance of the “prominent position” the gate was in- tended to occupy. The Metropolitan Board of Works, in their Annual Report for 1886, published in 1887, says:— The contract for forming this new line of communication was undertaken by Messrs. John Mowlem and Co., on the 23rd July last, for the sum of 24, 29,750. The works comprise the construc- tion of a subway (for the reception of the gas and water mains, telegraph wires, &c.), with a sewer under it, and cross-passages at intervals along the length of the subway for the purpose of con- veying service-pipes from the mains in the latter to the houses on either side of the street; also the paving of the carriageway with wood blocks and the footways with 3-inch York stone. The length of the new street will be about 2,900 feet, and its width, generally, 6o feet—of which 36 feet will be devoted to the carriageway, and 24 feet to the two footways—widening, however, at St. Martin’s- place to about 130 feet, but becoming constricted at its point of junction with Trafalgar-square to 45 feet. The subway (12 feet in width and 6 feet 9 inches in height) and sewer (4 feet by 2 feet 8 inches in size) are complete, and considerable progress has been made with the paving and other works, so that it is anticipated the street will be complete and ready for opening to the public in the course of a few weeks. This new street, in the month of October, 1886, pre- sented a scene of peculiar interest to those who had studied the past history of St. Giles’ in the Fields. The steam derrick was at work, lifting from a trench the black conglo- merated sediment which formed the bed of the “Town’s End Ditch,” and thus revealed to the onlooker the position of the ancient water-course that flowed beside the boundary wall which once inclosed the grounds of the old Manor House in Hog Lane. The houses on the east side of Crown Street had been removed, and the massive foundations of older buildings were opened up to the light of day, and at the corner of Denmark Street, a short distance back from the obliterated footway of Crown Street, could be seen in The end of Crown Street. 280 Cambridge Circus and Charing Cross Road. section the thickly and strongly built walls that once were part and parcel of Dudley House, showing that they had been utilised by the builder of the houses that had just been swept away. The base of these walls rested on an original undisturbed stratum of loamy sand and gravel. The materials which composed the upper portions were the fine red bricks, which, by their size and character, indicated their association with the Tudor period. Connected with these remains of ancient brickwork was a series of vaults or cellars for storage purposes of the same time, covered with four centred depressed pointed arches, but there were also other arches, turned upon the soil, a custom attributable to much earlier mediaeval work. Crown Street passed away on the 26th of February, 1887, and then Cambridge Circus and Charing Cross Road came into existence. The opening ceremony took place on that day, and was carried out under the direction of the Metropolitan Board of Works, as follows:— FIELD MARSHAL HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE, K.G., will, on Saturday, the 26th instant, open the new line of thoroughfare formed by the Metropolitan Board of . Works between Charing Cross and Tottenham Court Road. His Royal Highness will be met at One o'clock p.m. by the Members of the Board at a point immediately opposite to the Church of St. Martin in the Fields, and will then proceed along the whole length of the new thoroughfare, and thence through High Street, Bloomsbury, and Shaftesbury Avenue to the Circus where the two new thoroughfares meet. His Royal Highness will there declare the new street open, and dedicate it to the public for ever by the name of “Charing Cross Road,” and, after a few words of thanks from the Chairman of the Board, will leave by way of Shaftesbury Avenue, the Mem- bers of the Board accompanying His Royal Highness as far as Piccadilly Circus. On the Saturday mentioned, a day gloriously bright, that made even the dingy soot-begrimed Seven Dials wear a smile, 281 His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge declared open the new thoroughfare between Tottenham Court Road and Charing Cross, which has just been completed by the Metropolitan Board of Works, forming part of their western improvements. In addition to the particulars already given in The Daily Telegraph, it may be stated that the length of the new street is 966 yards and its width generally 60 feet; but it is 130 feet broad at St. Martin’s Place, whilst it is only 45 feet wide at its entrance into Trafalgar Square between St. Martin's Church and the National Gallery. Originally it was proposed to remove the steps of the church, but the project had to be abandoned. Under the centre of the carriage-way, a well-ventilated Subway, 12 feet wide and 7 feet 9 inches high, has been constructed to receive the gas and water mains, telegraph wires, etc., and the sewer is placed under the middle of the subway. The total width of the street is divided into a 36 feet carriage-road, paved with wood blocks, and two 12 feet wide footways, covered with York stone. The street was designed by Sir Joseph Bazalgette, the Board's engineer, and the works were executed under his direction. The opening ceremony was almost informal. At about one o'clock, the Duke of Cam- bridge was met opposite St. Martin’s Church, where a considerable crowd assembled, by the members of the Metropolitan Board of Works and of the St. Martin's Vestry, and his Royal Highness was preceded by them along the whole length of the new thoroughfare, the carriages passing thence through High Street, Bloomsbury, and Shaftesbury Avenue to the Circus, where the two new arteries cross each other. At this point an endeavour was made to limit the admission within the barriers by ticket, but the police appeared to be imperfectly informed as to the arrangements, and were unable to prevent a rush towards the Royal Carriage when it unexpectedly came to a standstill. The Duke of Cam- bridge alighted, and addressing those who pressed about him, said: “I declare this new street—Charing Cross Road—to be opened for public use.”—Mr. Edwards, the Deputy-Chairman of the Board, expressed his regret that Sir James M'Garel Hogg was prevented from attending, and concluded by thanking His Royal Highness, who, in reply, said: “I was very much gratified at being asked to attend on this occasion, and I entirely concur in your expressions of regret that Sir James M'Garel Hogg is not o 2 282 able to be present. In his absence I have the opportunity of assuring the Deputy-Chairman of the Board that I think all these improvements are of the greatest possible value. There is no question that in the growth of this vast metropolis the high roads and ways through the town have been encumbered in a manner seriously detrimental to the interests of the public and the health of the inhabitants, and therefore anything that the Metropolitan Board of Works or any other public body can do to facilitate the locomotion of this great city must be to the advantage, not only of London, but, as you have said, to the country at large.”—These words were heartily cheered, and His Royal Highness re-entered his carriage and drove to Piccadilly Circus, the Members of the Board accompanying him thus far. The event was celebrated in St. Giles’ by a dinner at the Holborn Restaurant, when toasts were given and responded to. The time-honoured parochial silver snuff-boxes were handed round, and the choice wines of the sunny south, well matured, combined with the personal supervision of the ever genial Mr. Thomas Hamp, added to the enjoyment of the hour. After these pleasant reminiscences the writer finds it impossible to carry further the story of “Dudley House and its Associations.” The scene changes like a dream into a vision of the past. It is the same neighbourhood, but it is not St. Giles’. The hum of the great city is still; the houses have sunk into the ground; grass is growing, dank and luxuriantly, where they once stood; the place is a quagmire and deso- late; the fox steals out of the adjoining covert and roams undisturbed through its tangled brakes; and the wild fowl from the river fly over it. What place is this? Reader, it is not Dreamland, it is ME REs LAND. 283 33 lent authº limit 1). MERESLADE. THE FIELDS OF ST. GILES IN WESTMINSTER. Marshland, Mereslade, or Meresland was the ancient name of a tract of ground lying in the fields of Westmin- ster, and when a church was built thereon, dedicated to St. Giles, it took its name from the church, and was described in deeds and charters as St. Giles’ Fields in Westminster. The name of Meresland or Marshland is expressive of the character of the district; it stretched away over marshy lands and water meadows to Thorny Island. It was a plea- sant walk from St. Giles’, when the days were warm and the season dry, to the Abbey Church of Westminster; it was also the nearest way in summer time. The children delighted to leap on the stepping-stones, and young men and maidens shared in the fun and excitement which they afforded. The breeze from the river caught their light garments and made the excursion more difficult and more enjoyable. The baldwins, the Mellents, alias Mountforts; the Bel- lonontes and Fontibuses were Lords of the Fee of Mereslade. These various names represented the branches of the great family of the Earl of Leicester. In the glimmering twilight of old deeds, in which are recitals of much earlier deeds, there is strong evidence that Mereslade was but a small part of a very extensive estate owned, if not by the King, by at least the most powerful baron or thane of the realm. It seems to have been bounded on the south by the river Thanes, and by a gradual ascent stretched away northwards as far as the base of the hills of Ilampstead and Highgate; the river l'leet, at the foot of the “Old Bourne l l ill,” The Boundaries of 131emundsbury, 28-|, marked its south-eastern extremity, and the Tybourne formed a part of its western boundary. Its owner, at the time this history commences—1088—was, excepting the King, the foremost man in England. He held the “Honour of Leicester,” the highest position that could be held by a noble, not being King. No subject ranked higher than the Earl of Leicester; he held the High Stewardship of England by hereditary right; he had special privileges that no other baron enjoyed; he held his own courts and could put to death offenders within his “Honour” without the sanction of the King; he could claim to be always present at the royal table by virtue of his hereditary office of the King’s Dispencer; he held vast estates in England, Ireland, Wales, and Normandy, and to his many titles that are so confusing to the historian he added that of Lord of Blemundsbury. The Mansion-house or Bury of Blemund was built in nearly the centre of the estate, on a piece of ground lying between what is now the Church of St. Giles’ in the Fields on the east and Charing Cross Road on the west. It seems probable that the Manor-house was erected on the site of a more ancient structure, whose owner ruled the domain in the rude and unsettled times before the Conquest. The main western highway ran by it on the north side, and a few strag- gling huts or cottages on the roadside opposite nestled under the shadow of the building. How far the history of this little community dates backward cannot be known, but the name of Alde Wyche brings before the reader a Saxon vil- lage that was there long before the village of “Sci Egidij” (St. Giles), for there is no mention of the village of St. Giles in the Domesday Book. The Manor-house was not bounded then on the west by a public way as it was in after times, and its extensive gardens and orchards reached some distance westward. A reference to AGGAs [Agas] clearly shows that IIog Lane was not an ancient thorough- 285 fare, but was probably made a “way” about the time of Richard III. An ancient road existed on the east side, called Elde Strate or Alde Strate, and with certain altera- tions is still a way and now bears the name of Shaftesbury Avenue. Like most villages whose inhabitants depended upon agriculture, time worked but little change in it, until Lord Blemund, who seems to have been a leper, moved the King and Queen to assist him in providing an asylum for those suffering from the terrible disease of leprosy. To this end he allowed a leper hospital to be built on a small portion of his estate, between his mansion and the church, which stood at the corner of Elde Strate. Near the church a building had been erected in Elde Strate, known as “Le Cloche Hose.” Although it is referred to in deeds connected with St. Giles’ in the Fields, Stow has omitted all mention of it. When speaking of similar buildings he says:— Antiently a Curfew Bell was rung here (St Martin's Le Grand) as was at Bow, St. Giles’, Cripplegate, and Barkin. It was some great bell to be heard at a distance, to give the citizens warning of the time of night and to keep within doors. King Edward I. in his reign, in orders sent to the City for keeping the peace against many mischiefs and murders, robberies and beating down of people by certain Hectors, walking armed in the streets at nights, commanded that henceforth none should be so hardy to be found wandering in the streets after Cover FUE BELL sounded at St. Martin's Le Grand. And writing of these buildings further says: Near unto (St. Paul's School), on the north side thereof, was (of old time) a Clochier or Bell House, four square, builded of stone; and in the same, a most strong frame of timber, with four bells, the greatest that I have heard. These were called Jesus Bells and belonged to Jesus Chappel, but I know not by whose gift. The same had a great spire of timber, covered with lead, with the image of St. Paul on the top; but was pulled down by Sir Miles Partridge, Knt., in the reign of Henry the Eighth. The common speech then was that he did set A, Ioo upon a cast at The Clochier or Bell House of St. Giles'. 286 dice againstit and so won the said Clochier and Bells of the King. And then causing the bells to be broken as they hung, the rest was pulled down and broken also. This man was afterwards exe- cuted on Tower-hill for matters concerning the Duke of Somerset, in the year 1551, the 5th of Edward the Sixth. The place of this Clochier, of old time, the common bell of the city, was used to be rung for the assembly of the citizens to their Folk-motes, as I have before shewed. The allusion refers to the time of Edward II., 1816, who sanctioned the inclosing of the east part of St. Paul’s church-yard, to which the citizens objected, “because it was the place of assembly of their Folk-motes, and that the great steeple there situated, was to that use, their common bell, of which being there rung, all the inhabitants of the city might hear and come together.” The foregoing quotations are sufficient proof of the high antiquity of the Clochier or Bell House of St. Giles’ in the Fields, whose bells rung across Mereslade, Aldewyche, and Ficquet’s Fields. It is described in a deed of Edward I. as “a messuage and appurtenances in the parish of the Queen’s Hospital, called Le Cloche Hose,” and there was allowed in Westminster “An Indulgence of six years and two hun- dred and twenty days to all such who, striking the Curfue Bell, shall with bended knees and sincere penitence, upon confession, devoutly say an Ave Mary." The Le Cloche Hose in St. Giles’ belonged to Baron de Redvers, but when it was pulled down does not appear. PART.on gives a different version of the Cloche Hose, as follows:— It was one of the earliest Inns in the parish and bore this sign, and is mentioned in the hospital grants. The spot where this Inn stood is not particularized in the grant, but from information elsewhere obtained it appears to have been situated near the north-east corner of the Marshland, or opposite the present entrance to Monmouth Street. This house belonged, at the time specified, 1272, to Herbert de Redemere, the hospital cook, who 287 gave it to that establishment. The time of its continuing an Inn is nowhere hinted at in the parish records, but it had been proba- bly destroyed or ceased to be known as such before the reign of Henry VIII., as no mention of it is made in the exchange with Radcliff, although the Vine, Rose, and other inns in the parish are specially named; and in the old plans of Elizabeth's time no dwelling whatever is to be seen on that site. Herbert de Redmere or Redvers was a Knight Templar and a Crusader, and this seems to have caused in later times (when the History of the Cloche Hose had been destroyed or forgotten) the corruption of the name to the “Crossed Hose” or crossed stockings on the crossed legs of Crusaders, and was still further corrupted by the crossed “ragged staves” of the Dudleys, which, being placed saltier-wise, represented a St. Andrew’s Cross, and not only gave the name to St. Andrew’s Streets, Great and Little, but stamped its impress on the boundary stones of the parish of St. Giles’ in the Fields. The following deed brings before the reader the great family of De Fontibus, and shows their early connection with Mereslade. An acre of land adjoining the land of Henry de Belgrave, situate in the fields of Westminster, near the hospital of St. Giles, abutting south on the land of Peter Hutte, held of the fee of Septimus Fontibus, and which the said Peter (de Mellent) leased to the brothers of St. Giles, extending to Oldstrate on the east and to the corner of the hospital garden on the west. The above-mentioned William Septimus de Fontibus is also described as William de Albini, William de Pincerna, and William de Spencer. In another deed, Richard, son of Edward Faber, de- mised to Henry de Belgrave All that acre of land, situate in the fields of Westminster, extending east to the old way at the corner of the garden of St. Giles' Hospital, belonging to William, son of Ralph de Septimus 288 The Family of De Fontibus. Fontibus. Also one of the two acres of land lying against the garden of the said hospital, with all the land and garden situate lengthways between the land of Humphrey on the west and the common way behind the hospital garden on the east, etc. The Humphrey referred to was the first husband of Isabella de Fontibus, who refused the Crown of Jerusalem on the death of Baldwin V., 1185. An adjoining acre to the above is demised by William de Fontibus to Richard, son of Edward Faber. Isabella de Fontibus was the sister of Baldwin V. and succeeded to her brother’s immense estate in 1185, John de Fontibus, the heir and only son of Baldwin V., having previously died at ten years of age. Lady Isabella de Fon- tibus built Powderham Castle. She was possessed of the Isle of Wight and in consequence was Lady de Isle [Lisle]. She married William de Fontibus, by whom she had five children, John, Thomas, William, Avice, and Aveline.— (See Lords of Blemundsbury, page 246.) She outlived all her children. KING EDw ARD I. visited her when she was dying, 1293, and prevailed upon her to sign away her rights to the Isle of Wight to him. Aveline de Fontibus outlived her brothers and sisters and was heir to the estates of Baldwin and Fontibus. She married Edmund, surnamed Crouchback, a son of Henry III., and younger brother of Edward I. The King had previously, in 1276, entered into a treaty with Edmund, Earl of Lancaster and Aveline de Fontibus, his wife, for the sale of the Isle of Wight to him, and matters became exceedingly complicated by the death of Aveline before the deed was signed. Edmund Crouchback, at nineteen years of age, was upon the attainder of Simon de Montfort (1264) created Earl of Leicester and High Steward of England. This made him the Lord of Mereslade. Two years afterwards he was further honoured with the earldom of Lancaster and endowed with the estate of Ferrars, Earl of Derby. 289 Hugh de Baldwin, alias Hugh de Courtney, Earl of Devonsh re, heir to the estates of Isabella de Fontibus, brought an action against KING EDwARD I. for the recovery of the Isle of Wight, in which he failed. The names of the families before mentioned and the details associated therewith are so connected and interwoven with Blemundsbury, and it is of the first importance that throughout this history they should be kept in view. Mereslade was bounded in part on the north by the village green, across which ran the highway, Strata Sci Egidij, along by the church and church-yard, the leper hospital, and the garden and grounds of Blemundsbury Manor-house. It was “ye waye to Uxbridge,” from which branched off to the south-west “ye waye to Redinge,” but when Hog Lane was constructed it ceased to be “ye waye to Redinge,” and changed to Hedge Lane. At the corner of the village green was another very old way, so old that it was called Alde Strate or Elde Strate; it branched off from the Strata Sci Egidij (Street of St. Giles') at the church-yard gate. In the church-yard, near the church door, stood in the accustomed place the Leicester stocks or pillory, and opposite the gate; outside in the roadway was the pound. The cage or prison was probably a room in the Le Cloche Hose, for that structure served other purposes than those connected with the Curfew and the Church. It stood at the beginning of Elde Strate, and Elde Strate led to the Elms (the gallows), where the Lord of Blemunds- bury put to death his malefactors. This is curiously illus- trated by PARTON’s explanation of an old deed and his comments thereon, as under:- Two houses granted by William de Halliwell on lease to William de Cancia, by the description of “all that land, houses, and appurtenances, which said land, houses, and appurtenances extend lengthways, from the king's highway, south, to the land Hedge Lane and Elde Strate. P 2 390 which was William Blemonte's, on the north; and breadthways, between the land of Roger de Leycester, west, and the land of Alicia Hevillede, on the east. t The houses above mentioned were afterwards granted to Hamond le Leycester, surnamed Sutor, by the description of “one piece of our land, with the houses thereon erected, and appurte- nances, sometime Will de Halliwell's, lying between the land of Robert (de Leycester), alias de Sci Egidij, the hangman (Carnifex), east, and land of Roger de Leycester, west. PART.ox’s “hangman” was the Earl of Leicester, also of St. Giles’, and Lord of Blemundsbury. He bases this fact on his having the title of “Carnifex.” KENNETT, in his Antiquities of Rome, says:–“We must not forget the “Carnifex' or common hangman, whose business lay only in Crucifixion.” CIce Ro states:—“That by reason of the odiousness of his office he was particularly forbid by the laws to have his dwelling within the city,” and yet the Earl of Leicester was, according to this old deed, the ‘Carnifex.’ Truly so, for SPE LMAN, in his Glossary, says:—“Under our Danish kings (Saxon and Norman also) the ‘Carnifex’ was an officer of great dignity, being ranked with the Archbishop of York, Earl Goodwin, and the Lord Steward.” The Earl of Leicester was the Lord Steward, and these corroborations tend to show the ancient character of Blemundsbury. To many baronies, both spiritual and temporal, as well as to some corporations, was formerly annexed the right of hanging male and drowning female delinquents. The extensive privileges claimed and exercised by the great feudatories, within their respec- tive jurisdictions, justify Spelman's description, that every superior lord was a petty king over his dependents. The Regia Majestas of Scotland mentions certain criminal pleas belonging to some baronies, and particularly to such as had and held their own court with Soc and sac, gallows and pit, toill and theme, infangtheife and outfangtheife; all of which, except the power over life and death, were enjoyed by the same class of persons, the thanes and bishops, in the time of Edward the Confessor. 291 The power held by the Earl of Leicester, as “Carnifex,” appears to have given rise to that institution afterwards known as “St. Giles' Bowl.” It owes its origin to the anniversary obits, which were so profitable to the church. There are a few local instances connected with Westminster and the hospital of St. Giles, in which anniversary obits provided for the endowment of a Cup of Charity. There are three, one connected with Leicestershire and its Earl, when Hugh, Bishop of Lincoln, assigned lands at Ockham for “two Pitances—a Cup of Charity, and 8s. 4d. to be distributed to the poor.” II. Non February. William, Bishop of London, assigned “eight marks for 8s. 4d. to be distributed to 100 poor, and for two Pitances and a Cup of Charity.” WI. Kal. April. Maud, the Queen of Henry I., who founded St. Giles' Hospital, assigned “27s. for one Pitance and a Cup of Charity.” VI. Non May. The connection between this “Pitance,” the “Cup of Charity,” and St. Giles’ Hospital is made clear by the fact that opposite the Hospital gate was the “Pitance Croft.”- The grant was given to Westminster, and the Hospital of St. Giles was built in the fields of Westminster. The trus- tee of these bequests was the Abbot of Westminster, and he had ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the whole of the district. The Cup of Charity was probably dispensed to the poor around the Church of St. Giles on the anniversary of the death of Matilda, 1118, for the first time. Tradition says that the bowl was given at the great gate of the leper hospital to criminals on their way to execution; but tradition has forgotten that Tyburn was not a common place of execution until centuries afterwards. Tradition is more likely to be correct if it declared that the Cup of Charity (the bowl) was first administered at the church-yard gate, at the corner of Elde Strate, and here stood a white-robed priest, full of sympathy for the Robert, Earl of Leicester.— Carnifex. The Pitance Croft and the Cup of Charity. 292 approaching criminal, who administered the Cup to the man in his last moments with a reverence and a devotion that made the ceremony almost a sacrament. The deep Sono- rous bell of Le Cloche Hose invested the scene with awful solemnity, and the gazing villagers, bare headed, stood awe- struck by its impressiveness. A painful stillness breaks the charm; and the rude conveyance moves along Elde Strate and branches off down “Le Lane,” for that is the road to “The Elms,” where stood the “Two Elm Trees” support- ing a cross beam, under which the cart is drawn, and in a few moments of agonizing suspense the rope is tied around the neck of the criminal, the cart is drawn away, the tight- ening cord pulls its victim from it, and he falls and dies in its strangulating grasp. The spot where these sad spec- tacles took place was called Elm Close, in St. Gyles’ Fields, and it was here that the alleged meeting of the Lollards took place. Many writers on the subject have stated that this ga- thering, in connection with Sir John Oldcastle, was held in Ficquet Field. This error has arisen from the writers not keeping clearly in view the distinction between Ficquet Fields and St. Gyles’ Fields; they did not adjoin, but were separate and distinct. Ficquet Field is Lincoln’s Inn Fields, and St. Gyles’ Fields are now the lands around the church, known as Seven Dials and Long Acre. The Rev. J. Endell Tyler, Canon of St. Paul’s and Rector of St. Giles’, affords an example in his Memoirs of Henry V. (1838). Speaking of the Lollards he says: Like the primitive Christians, they met in smaller com- panies and more privately and more often in the dead of night. St. Giles' Fields, then a thicket, was a place of frequent resort on these occasions; and here a number of them assembled on the evening of January the 6th, 1414, with the intention, as was usual, of continuing together to a very late hour. * \a % = * z º %/. % Fº)2.É. /º § fe. * \ } #º º & 2- * */ * Yºº 2 * ſº, smº 1// |]] ]] ºu! = \ j| | //wz. T }) \ & ^* ~\s- = \ \ *S- %. º 293 A meeting on “Twelfth Night,” in the depth of winter, in Ficquet Field (1414), which was in the immediate neigh- bourhood of the residences of the Bishops of Lincoln and Chichester, and close by their schools or colleges filled with students (unless they had left for the holidays), was not the place that a wise man would choose for an important “monster private meeting,” attended by 20,000 followers. It is said that the King, at Eltham, received intelli- gence that 20,000 men were gathered in St. Giles' Fields, and that he collected a small force together and travelled along the highway on a January night (over roads in many places almost impassable and dangerous), and arrived in time to interfere with the meeting. The record out of the King’s Bench is: That the said Sir John Oldcastle and others, to the number of 20 men, called Lollards, at St. Giles's Fields, did conspire to subvert the state of the Clergy, to kill the King, his brother, and other nobles. The history of the proceedings is fairly told by that trustworthy writer, WALSINGHAM, as under: When the Parliament was informed of Sir John Oldcastle's being taken in Wales by the Lord Powis, they ordered him to be sent for up. He was brought to London in a horse litter, having been much wounded in the conflict, and placed before the Duke Regent and the other estates of the realm (18th Dec., 1418); and the indictment drawn up against him at the King's Bench, some years before, for levying war against the King, was read in the house. Being demanded what he could allege in arrest of judg- ment, he ran out into a discourse, very foreign to the purpose, about God’s mercies, and that all mortal men, who would be followers of God, ought to prefer mercy above judgment; that vengeance pertaineth only to the Lord, and that his servants ought not to intrench upon the prerogative of the Almighty. Then he went on talking widely from the business till, at last the 294, Execution of Sir John Oldcastle. Chief Justice desired the Regent to order the prisoner not to make them lose any more time, but to answer directly to the point. After some pause he told them it was a small thing to be judged by them, or of man's judgment, and then began again to ramble from the question, when the Chief Justice once more interrupted him, and bid him answer peremptorily if he had any- thing to object against the legality of the process. To this he replied, with a surprising boldness, “that he had no judge amongst them, nor could acknowledge them as judges, as long as his Sovereign Lord, King Richard, was living in Scotland.” Upon this answer a warrant was instantly signed for his execution, and he was ordered to be hanged and burnt. The first part of the sentence was for treason and the other for heresy. Accordingly he was executed on a gallows, built of purpose in St. Giles's Fields, being hung by the neck, in a chain of iron, and his body, with the gallows, consumed to ashes. Though this unhappy nobleman's paternal name was Oldcastle, yet, by mar- rying the Lady Joan, grand-daughter to John, Lord Cobham, and his heir, he took the title of Lord Cobham. He was the first peer in England that suffered for his religion. Lord Powis received the thanks of the house for appre- hending Sir John Oldcastle, Knight, the heretick, and also the reward offered in the “Proclamation.” Some writers have endeavoured to stain the character of Henry V. by making him the promoter of this barbarous sentence, which was a national act, instigated and carried out by the church, through its representative, the Arch- bishop of Canterbury. FULLER says: For mine own part, I must confess myself so lost in the intricacies of these relations that I know not what to assent to. On the one side I am loathe to load the Lord Cobham's memory with causeless crimes, knowing the perfect hatred the clergy in that age bare unto him, and all that looked towards the reform- ation in religion. Besides, that twenty thousand men should be brought into the field, and no place assigned whence they were to be raised, or where mustered, is clogged with much improba- bility; the rather because only three persons are mentioned by 295 name of so vast a number, for it is laid to his charge that he encouraged an army of rebels, no fewer than twenty thousand, who met in the dark thickets (expounded in our age into plain pasture) of St. Giles's Fields, nigh London. Sir John Oldcastle appears to have suffered at the common place of execution, previously referred to as “The Elms,” not at Smithfield, but where the meeting of a few Lollards took place. That being so, it would be under the superintendence of the Earl of Leicester, the “Carnifex,” High Steward of the Kingdom. To reach the place he must be dragged along the badly paved highway of Hol- born to Elde Strate. No priest stood at the church-yard gate; no cup of charity for him; no look of pity; no hope of mercy for the traitor and the heretic. The bells of the Clochier may not have been allowed to toll upon that occasion; the ban of excommunication rested upon him; the church of had consigned him to perdition. Hap- pily for Oldcastle, the cruelty of creed cannot tamper with the mercy of God. A very curious fact points to the place of execution; it is not simply a coincidence that one of the parties concerned in this tragedy was named Longacre. In the Patent Rolls there is a proclamation, dated Dec., 1414, declaring that: Whereas John Longacre, of Wykeham, formerly of London, Mercer, was indicted before William Roos, of Hamelak, and others our justices, assigned to try treason felonies, &c., in our County of Middlesex, for plotting to put us and our brother to death, and to make Sir John Oldcastle Regent of this kingdom, and had resolved, with twenty thousand men, to execute their wicked purpose; and on the Wednesday after the Epiphany, in the first year of our reign, Sir John Oldcastle and others, traitor- ously persevering in such purpose, met together in St. Giles' Great Field and compassed our death; and the said Longacre pleaded “not guilty,” and put himself on his country, and he was by the inquest found guilty and condemned to be drawn from the Tower of London to St. Giles' Field, and there to be hanged; we, of our Special grace, have pardoned the said John Longacre. John Longacre and Long Acre. 296 The Elms in Smithfield. The pardon of Longacre proves that he had not deeply involved himself in the charges of heresy and trea- son, preferred against the Lollards, and that his was a minor offence, viz., that being lessee of St. Giles' Great Field he permitted a meeting to be held therein, and was thereby innocently or otherwise an accessory to the fact. If this be so, the place would naturally carry with it in after years the name of Longacre Field; and when built upon, with a public highway across it, the name of Long Acre was given to it, and thus his memory and the event are perpetuated to the present time. The first mention of the “Elmes” is in 1196, when William Fitz-Osbert, a seditious traitor, took the steeple of Le Bow, and fortified it with ammunition and victuals; but it was assaulted, and William, with his accomplices, were taken (though not without bloodshed), for he was forced with fire and Smoak to forsake the church; and then being by the Judges condemned, he was by the heels drawn to the Elmes in Smithfield, and there hanged with nine of his fellows, where, because his favourers came not to deliver him, he forsook Mary's Son (as he termed Christ our Saviour), and called upon the devil to help and deliver him. The death of Sir John Oldcastle marks the time when the “Elmes” in Smithfield ceased to be the place for capital punishment, and “The Elmes” in St. Giles’ Fields then became the common place of execution. The place was known as “The Elms” long before the days of John Longacre. The Master of St. Giles’ Hospital, in the reign of Edward I. (1272–1307), leases “a messuage and appur- tenances situate breadthways next land of their hospital, abutting east on the land late of Roysia le Bolde (Baldwin), and a messuage of Gresie de Hundeshall, and extending from the hospital land on the north towards the Elms southward.” There was no Long Acre in those days, and it is reasonable to assume that rather more than one hundred years after this time Sir John Oldcastle suffered at the Elms, in the field of John Longacre, which was also known (being in view of the church) as St. Giles’ Great Field. If this 297 be so, it carries the “Cup of Charity” in St. Giles’ to a higher antiquity; even back to the bequest of Hugh, Bishop of Lincoln. How long Elm Close continued to be the place of execution is unknown, but the gallows was removed from there not many years after Oldcastle’s execu- tion, which may have been the last on that spot. Tradition rather than history says the “gallows was removed from Smithfield to the corner of the hospital wall, which was situate at the north-east end of Hog Lane.” This could not be, for there was no thoroughfare there at that time; that road (Hog Lane) was not formed until the days of Richard III., 1483–1485. A reference to the earliest known maps will show that Hedge Lane was the ancient way (north to south-west) running out of the Uxbridge Road towards Reading. Elde Strate, which ran behind the hos- pital and Blemundsbury Manor-house, formed a junction with it, as shown in the accompanying map. The corner of the hospital wall was situated a few feet from the present north-west corner of the railings of St. Giles’ Church. A little eastward was the great gate of the Leper Hospital, and when executions were transferred from Elm Close to the highway by the west corner of the hospital wall (now High Street and Denmark Street), the Cup of Charity was administered at the hospital gate. A most extraordinary statement, in connection with this subject, appeared in the Weekly Dispatch of August 13th, 1837. DISCOVERY OF THE REMAINS OF A SUBTERRANEAN FOREST- A few days since the labourers who are excavating the cloaca magnæ, or common sewer, in High Street, St. Giles, discovered just opposite the Church two Elm trees, in a high state of preser- vation, at a depth of about fifteen feet under the surface of the ground, lying completely across the part undergoing excavation, and being parallel to each other, though at a distance of several yards. They were obliged to be sawn through, and the pieces, which were removed to the surface, were each about nine feet Hedge Lane—the Ancient Way to Reading. Q 2 298 Elm Close—part of the IBailiwick of the Royal Manor of St. James. g, and five in circumference. These trees are supposed to have belonged to a forest which once covered this and the surrounding district, and by reference to the parish registers and other books, it has been found that they must have lain in their recent situation upwards of 6oo years. On examination the exhumed timber was found to be as sound as if it had been felled only a few months. The superincumbent strata were composed of common rubble, clay, and sand, the whole of which were remarkably dry to the depth before stated. long The explanation of this unsolicited statement about the trees seems to be that these two Elms served the purpose of a gallows until the formation of Hog Lane; that they stood on the main road, and the builders on the north side of High Street, being allowed to encroach on the public highway, these trees became an obstruction and were cut down and buried. A new site for the gallows was chosen a little further westward, in the centre of the cross roads. For this statement there is a corroboration in The Mirror: Within the last three months, the ground having been opened for the common sewer opposite Meux's brewhouse, by the end of Oxford Street, eight, or ten, or more skeletons were discovered. They were supposed to be the remains of suicides, who had been buried there, in the cross roads, under the old law against felo de Se. One or two of them had perhaps committed self-destruction; but so many could hardly have been collected by the same act in one spot. It is much more probable that the bones there found were those of malefactors, who after execution had been interred under the gallows on which they suffered. Elm Close and Long Acre are connected together in a roll in the Augmentation Office, referring to “A survey, taken by virtue of a commission, grounded upon an Act of the Commons of England, of certain tenements, &c., on a piece of ground called Elm Close, alias Long-acre, part of the bailiwick of St. James, in the parish of St. Martin’s in the Fields, parcel of the possessions of Charles Stuart, late King of England.” The boundaries of St. Giles’ 299 parish were not then fixed, and the exact limits of the fields of St. Giles and the fields of Westminster were ill defined; and it was not until the time of the spoliation of the church, when Henry VIII. wrote to the Rev. William Skinner, Vicar of St. Martin’s in the Fields, and the churchwardens, “desiring them to notify the inhabitants of the precincts from the new gate of Westminster Hall, who were formerly parishioners of St. Margaret’s, that they are now in the parish of St. Martin’s, according to the King’s communication to the Abbot of Westminster.” Dated November 12th, 26 Henry VIII. The newly created parish of St. Martin’s in the Fields comprised within its boundaries Long Acre, which had hitherto been considered as pertaining to St. Giles’ in the Fields. These fields of St. Giles had in the reign of Henry VII. by attainder reverted to the Crown. It is said the Duke of Bedford (1485), marching against the rebels, headed by the Lord Lovel, commanded the heralds to make proclamation, “That, if they would lay down their arms, they should have pardon.” The Duke of Bedford, having defeated Lovel, received a part of his estates as a reward. The name of Russell had for ages past been connected with the undivided manor of Ble- mundsbury, but what relationship it bore to the Lords of Blemund does not appear. This forfeiture and sepa- ration was final. The fields of St. Giles’, which had for their last owners the Beaumonts and the Lovels, passed (except what was sold to the Lords Salisbury or retained by the Crown) into the hands of the Russell family. From that time to the reign of Elizabeth the lands were neglected. The Earl of Bedford had died, leaving his son, Edward, a minor, and the adjoining inhabitants, without molestation, exercised the right of common thereon. They were not Lammas lands; but, as cattle at certain times of the year Creation of the parish of St. Martin's in the Fields. The lands of the Lovels transferred to the Russells. 300 Dispute as to the inclosure of the Fields of St. Giles. had been pastured thereon without interference, an attempt was made to resist their being inclosed. The Earl had come of age, and the estate was growing in value rapidly. In a State Paper there is a declaration of the annual value of the land and possessions of Edward, Earl of Bedford, and payments of the same during his minority, the lands called Covent Garden, and a close called Long Aker, and tenements called Fryer’s Pyes Rents, being of the value of fºg 4s. 6d. per annum. December 5th, 1586. A petition was presented to Lord Burghley, High Steward of Westminster, in 1592, praying him to assist the petitioners in their efforts to keep the fields open. But they without waiting for a favourable reply, “went on the 1st of August, being Lammas Day, with pickaxes and such like instruments, and pulled down the fences and brake the gates, having with them the bailiffs and constables to keep the peace.” This brought into disgrace Mr. Tench, the Under Steward, who seemed to favour the claimants. An inquest was held to discover the trespassers, and PETER DOD, Citizen and Grocer, of London, aged 65 years, or thereabouts, Saith : That upon Lammas Day last, August 1, he being near unto the London conduit heads, in Middlesex, about half a mile westward from St. Giles' in the Fields, attending upon certain of the City's works, touching conveying of water from thence to London, saw, betwixt 5 and 6 of the clock in the afternoon the same day, the number of 40 persons at the least (how many more he knoweth not) in a close there, through which the City pipes are laid to convey water to London; and they divided themselves, and some of them, with pickaxes and shovels, brake down the fence of the same close; and other some of them passed to the next close westward and brake open the fence of that close ; and that he, with some of the citizens' workmen, went unto them, seeing some of them to be men that carryed a show of some countenance, and talked with them, demanding of them whence they were, and one of them answered that they were of St. Martin's parish and St. Margaret's, at Westminster. And he, 30I the said Dod said unto them : Why do ye this? It was answered: It was Lammas-tide, and we throw it down for common; and if we take here any cattel of any other men's than theirs of the parishes of St. Martin's or St. Margaret's after this day, we will carry them to the pound. I never saw the like of this, said Dod. If you may do this by authority, it is well; otherwise, it is not well. It was answered: We have the bailiff of Westminster and the officers of St. Martin's, and we have our authority from the Queen's Majesty and the Council, granted by King Henry, con- firmed by Her Majesty, and named the Lord Treasurer to be one from whom they had their authority. And it was also added, that the next day there would be two hundred there, and that they would break open up to Knight's Bridge and Chelsey. Another testified, one R. Wood, of St. Giles’ in the Fields, yeoman and constable: That the 2nd of August, he going to look in his fields, and save his gates from breaking, found a number of them near unto a place called Aubery Farm, towards Chelsey, to the number of Io5, as he told them, where they were breaking open fences. And so they crossed from thence unto a field called Crow Field, at the upper end of Hyde Park, where they found the gate opened before they came; and yet they would not be satisfied, but brake up the fence beside the gate. . . . . . And many of them said they had the Council's letter. There were present Mr. Cole, Westminster, High Constable the last year, and divers others named. And said further that Cole led them the way from field to field, with a written roll in his hand. The litigation that ensued ended in the right to inclose being established, and was shortly followed by active building operations. Clouds gathered over the Bedford family. He and the Earl of Southampton had involved themselves in the Essex plot. A fine of £10,000 was imposed upon the Earl of Bedford, which brought him into financial difficulties of a serious nature. The forfeiture of his estates was to follow if the money were not paid by a specified time. £7,000 was guaranteed by bond, and £3,000 remained out- standing overdue. Fortunately for him, Queen Elizabeth 302 died on the 24th of March, 1603, and the Crown passed to James I. (from the Tudor to the Stuart dynasty). Eliza- beth had executed the mother of the new King, who looked upon the Earl of Bedford as his friend; and on the 21st of June, 1603, a pardon was granted to Edward, Earl of Bedford, of £3,000 remaining unpaid of his fine of £10,000 for joining with the Earl of Essex, and of all forfeitures for non-payment of £2,000 at the time appointed. The money which had been paid (£7,000) was received from the following persons, mentioned in a “Note of Sta- tutes, by which Edward, Earl of Bedford stands bound in heavy sums to Lord Russell, the Countess of Warwick, Thomas, Lord Grey, and Lord St. John, not to sell his entailed estates.” 21st Feby, 1607. The Earl of Salisbury was very desirous of buying them and the Earl of Bedford was anxious to sell, but the family objected. Some portion of the estate was sold, for Edward, Earl of Bedford writes to the Earl of Salisbury to say: “Cannot sell him his inhe- ritance of Covent Garden, having bound himself under a heavy penalty not farther to impoverish himself by sale of his property.” Bedford House, 27th April, 1610. Shortly after this time Sir William Slingsby seems to have taken a building lease of Long Acre Field and plotted out the thoroughfare, now Long Acre, in such a way as to bring about the interference of the King, compelling him, in 1616, to present a petition to the Council, in which he states “that he understands His Majesty is displeased about the direction of a way which has been altered by him in Long Acre; and proffers entire submission, and will cause the way to be altered as His Majesty may direct.” Dated July 18th, 1616. Order endorsed thereon that “the King wishes the way at Long Acre, and over against it, to be made fit for his passage as speedily as possible.” The highway was much improved on account of this order. 303 The open disregard of Elizabeth’s proclamation caused the King this year (1616) to issue another proclamation, against building on new foundations, of a more stringent character. And among the many petitions to the Council for relief was one from Ellen, wife of John Hupper, in which she stated that their shed in Long Acre, built by her husband, now sick, may not be pulled down, as they then must lie on the parish. 21st June, 1618. KING JAMEs I. marked the close of his reign by writing to the Council for the enforcement of heavier penalties in respect to the buildings in Long Acre. Many persons have lately violated the proclamation in and about London by rebuilding with timber on new foundations. An exact certificate is to be taken of all offenders, and the Sheriffs ordered to demolish such buildings as may give the greatest example to terrify others; the rest to be proceeded against in the Star Chamber. The buildings in Long Acre especially are to be pulled down, and information to be brought of any future offenders. 5th July, 1624. Francis, Earl of Bedford, succeeded in inducing KING CHARLEs I. to release his estate from the bond of £7,000; the Earl in consideration thereof covenanting to erect a church in Covent Garden for the inhabitants of the houses he was to be permitted to build. This was mutually agreed to, and the King ordered Attorney General Heath “to prepare a License to Francis, Earl of Bedford, to build upon the premises called Covent Garden and Long Acre, with a pardon, release, etc.” 10th January, 1631. The houses were built and occupied, and their inhabit- ants found fault with the church and the burden it imposed upon them. Their complaint was set forth as follows:– Petition of parishioners of St. Martin's in the Fields, inhabit- ing that part of Covent Garden assigned to the new chapel, to the King. Upon the overture of the Earl of Bedford to His Majesty touching building Covent Garden, one argument used by him for Sheriffs ordered to pull down Buildings in Long Acre. The Earl of Bedford and Covent Garden Church. 304 Dispute of the Parishioners of Covent Garden with the Earl of Bedford. license to build was that he would erect a church for the inhabit- ants there, and for the ease of the mother church of St. Martin. The Earl also promised the first undertakers of Covent Garden that he would build a church and settle 24, Ioo per annum for a lecturer there, and that he would erect a beautiful structure in the middle of the piazza, whereupon His Majesty's statue should be placed in brass, and the said building to be compassed with a fair iron grate; and he also promised to pave the piazza and enlarge the ways in and out of Covent Garden, whereupon the buildings were cheerfully undertaken and finished. A chapel (for wanting a steeple and bells it cannot properly be called a church) being built, the Earl now recedes from his first proposition to the inhabitants in these particulars:– I. The chapel is defectively built and cannot be timbered and leaded as it ought for less than £1,500, and the Earl expects petitioners should take it so defective in the present and repair it for the future. 2. The Earl having built an altar, font, pews, pulpit and other necessa- ries in the chapel, demands near £1,200 of petitioners for his reim- bursement. 3. The inhabitants will necessarily be compelled to build a steeple, and to furnish it with a clock and bells, which will cost about 2,000 marks, which petitioners conceive the Earl ought to have done, all which disbursements will amount to above £4,000. Forasmuch as His Majesty's intentions, when he granted licence to build, are only known to himself; and therefore he is the fittest to judge of these differences, and besides these demands of the Earl, petitioners will be subject to charges in respect both of the mother church and the chapel, petitioners pray that the inhabitants may not pay for the things already given, and that the Earl may be enjoined to perform all the particulars before mentioned to have been promised by him, he being so vast a gainer by the multitude of houses there built. Eighty-two signatures underwritten. Reference to Archbishop Laud and Lord Treasurer Juxon to settle some good course herein, or to certify His Majesty what they hold fit to be done. Whitehall, 30th November, 1638. Appointment of the referees to hear this business on this day sen-night, 5th December, 1638. Order of the Lords' referees requiring the Vestry of the chapel in Covent Garden to meet, and the Vicar to be with them 305 if he please, and to consider the subscriptions to the preceding petition, and to examine how many of the best of the inhabitants who are householders, and how many of them contracted under the Earl of Bedford, have subscribed the same, and to certify the Same to the Lords, with the names of such as have not subscribed, December 12th, 1638. The Vestry of the chapelry of Covent Garden to the Council. Certificate that 87 of the inhabitants within the said chapelry have Subscribed the petition before mentioned, of which number some few are gentlemen, and the rest tradesmen, and only George Hulbert, a contractor with the Earl of Bedford. There are 270 inhabitants of the said chapelry who have not subscribed the said petition, whose names are mentioned in a schedule annexed. Signed by Sir Edmund Verney, Sir John Brooke, Charles Herbert, Adrian Scrope, Sir William Russell, and Io others. Dec., 1638. Order of Council. We having this day heard the Earl of Bedford, and the said inhabitants and their counsel, do find the petition to be very scandalous, and untrue in:—For whereas it is alleged that there is demanded of the parishioners by the Earl 24, 1,200 for these pews, it appears that his lordship demanded but 24,623; and upon a full hearing it appeared to us that the inha- bitants were to satisfy the Earl for the pews which the chancellor of the diocese and others witnessed before us to have been agreed upon before the consecration. In consideration whereof we have thought good to declare that the petitioners have done shameful injury to the Earl by thus causelessly petitioning His Majesty against him, and therefore order that they forthwith perform the agreement and order formerly settled by the chancellor, the same amounting to 24, 1,066, which agreement was now read to us, and this to be without troubling or charging the mother church of St. Martin's. And whereas, by direction of the chancellor, Mr. Bray, the Vicar of St. Martin's has provided ornaments for the chapel and altar or communion table there; and whereas there is a commission under the chancellor’s seal for rating and collecting the charge of the said ornaments, part whereof has been collected, but the greater part is yet unsatisfied; we therefore further order that the inhabitants pay for the same by the last day of next term, and that the collector fail not to return to us the names of all Such of the inhabitants as shall refuse or defer payment thereof. R 2 306 The Brass Horse in Covent Garden Church-yard. In the preamble of an Act of Parliament, 1660, it is stated “that Francis, Earl of Bedford, deceased, erected the fabrick of a church, for the use of the inhabitants of the precinct of Covent Garden; and that it was necessary to make the same parochial.” His Majesty’s statue, referred to in this petition, was erected at the expense of the Earl of Bedford in the centre of what is now Covent Garden Market. It was an eques- trian one, but remained on its pedestal for a very short time, and seems to have disappeared about 1642. The cause of its disappearance is obvious to all acquainted with the years of the dawning revolution. It was carefully hidden away until a reward for its discovery revealed its hiding place, as appears below:— Humphrey Bury and Lynam Roberts sent in an account to the Committee for advance of public money for 4.9 6s., and the Committee decided that they were to be allowed 24.5 5s. for information of the brass horse, and 45s, for charges in full of this bill of 24.9 6s., and as Justin Anthony Withers, of Queen Street, Covent Garden, laid claim to the horse, he was to pay these men for the costs they had incurred in digging it out of the church-yard of St. Paul’s, Covent Garden. January 20th, 1645. This he did not do, and the horse remained in the church-yard. Withers was a loyalist and had to pay the penalty in consequence, and on the 13th of the following October, Lieut. Col. Popham took possession of his house in (Great) Queen Street, and “his goods and other estates therein were ordered to be sequestered.” The horse re- mained among the tombs for six years, and then it was ordered that:— The County Commissioners for Middlesex should enquire whether the brass horse in Covent Garden Church-yard belongs to Anthony Withers, and if so, to seize and secure it, giving Withers six weeks to get his case reported to Parliament. Feby. I 2, 1651. 307 On the 15th of the following April his enemies pre- sented their “Report” to Parliament, which stated:— That in 1645 he was charged with concealing and protect- ing the goods of Sir Robert Holborn (the brass horse had been dug up just before in January), who was in Oxford, 1643, and of his lady, and holding intelligence with them, for which he was sequestrated, January 2nd, 1646, but the sequestration was sus- pended and the case referred to Parliament. The brass horse, if it belonged to anybody, was the property of the Earl of Bedford’s executors, and when its interment took place, the funeral ceremony was arranged by the Rector of the parish, Justin Anthony Withers, and Sir Robert Holborn. Whether Lady Dudley took any active part is not known; it is most likely she did, for the Lady Holborn was her daughter; a zealous loyalist and looked upon as a spy in the time of the Forts and commanded by the Committee for advance of money “that Lady Holborn depart the Parliament quarters in five days or she will be treated as a spy.” This Committee was a Finance, Works, Assessment, and Appeal Committee, with undefined powers, which they used in a most arbitrary manner. Catharine Russell, the Countess Dowager of Bedford, appealed against her assessment, and in answer thereto they said:—“Whereas she was assessed at £1,200, and is said to have contributed £100 on the proportions and deposited £200 in part of her assessment: Order—That she have fourteen days respite to prove payment of the £100 and to show what is the fourth of her estate.” January 23, 1644. The field at the back of St. Giles’ Church retained its old name of Mereslade and also that of Cock Field, so called from a grant of singular interest, set forth in a deed which states “that Peter de Hereford (alias Peter de Mont- fort) and Adam de Basing gave to the Hospital of St. Giles twelve marks in gross and two shillings and sixpence annual 308 Noselyngs. quit rent, with a cock and two chickens, and all third-day works in Autumn, arising from land situate in the field called Le Mereslade, in Villa de Westmonastre.” In this Cock Field stood a very old Inn, “The Cock.” In the time of the Commonwealth it is described as “all that tenement called by the name of the ‘Cocke,’ being the north-west range of buildings in the occupation of Peter How, worth per annum, £6 0s. 0d.” Adjoining the Cock Field was another field on the north-east, called “Noselyngs,” so named from Noseley, in Leicestershire, an ancient seat of the Beaumonts. The manor of Noseley came into the family of Hesilrige by Isabel Heron, who married Thomas Hesilrige, co. North- umberland. He was the third son and greatly advanced his estate, for by his wife he acquired the manor of Noseley. He died in 1424. The figure of a cock is carved upon the stalls of Noseley church, which seems to have been the family crest of the Lords of Noseley from the early days of Anketin de Martivale (1250) to the Hesilriges of the present time. Their Inn or Mansion-house seems to have stood on the site of the present work-house, and the last portion left of it is incidentally mentioned in a conveyance of 1654 as a “Gate-house Chamber,” in which deed are also enumerated “eighteen messuages and two acres of garden abutting west on a piece of ground called ‘Noselyngs.” On a map of 1753 (Strype's Stow) Cock Alley is shown on the west side of Drury Lane, running out of Broad Street, where the entrance to Combe’s brewery now is, with a narrow communication into Crown Alley and Crown Court. This gives a faint indication of attainder, by which the estate reverted to the Crown. Crown courts and Crown taverns abound in the district. A little southwards, on the estate once called Noselyngs, is Belton Street, and it is remarkable that the Blounts, who were for a time Lords of 309 the Manor of St. Giles, were also Lords of Belton, and in the reign of Henry VIII. the manor of Belton passed from the Blounts to the Hazelwoods. These broken threads of an obliterated history are all that is left to weave again the story of the past; but the evidence is strong enough to assume that on the southern border of the village green of St. Giles stood, in the Norman times, the Mansion-house belonging to a branch of the great families of Blemund and De Fontibus. Adjoining the Cock Fields were the meadows and pas- ture lands of Sir Robert Pye, and for a short time, in their transition state, when the fields became brick-fields, the district was known as Cock-and-Pye Fields. It appears by Stow, that Sir Robert Pye, being a Loyalist, had got him- self into trouble with the Puritanical government of the day, which happily was drawing near to its richly-merited extinction. He was committed to the Tower on the 25th of January 1659, on the same day as Major Pincher, and PEPYs, in his Diary, says:— I went to my office, where I wrote to my Lord, after I had been at the Upper Bench, where Sir Robert Pye this morning came to desire his discharge from the Tower; but it could not be granted. February 9th, 1659-60. Sir Robert Pye and the Cock- and-Pye Fields. On the 21st of this month (February) Pye and Pincher were released, and on the “15th of March following,” Stow says:–“Bishop Wren was released after eighteen years imprisonment.” The next mention of Sir Robert Pye by PEPYs is at the coronation of Charles II., when he observed: The King's footmen had got hold of the canopy, and would keep it from the Barons of the Cinque Ports, which they endea- voured to force from them again, but could not do it till my Lord Duke of Albemarle caused it to be put into Sir R. Pye's hand till to-morrow to be decided, and in a foot-note it is stated that Sir Robert Pye, Bart., of Farringdon House, Berks., married Ann, daughter of the celebrated John Hampden. They lived together 60 years and died in 1701, within a few weeks of each other. 310 The Demolition of Moor Street. New and Old Pye Streets, Westminster, keep his memory green. The builders in Cock-and-Pye Fields encountered simi- lar difficulties and penalties as their fellow tradesmen in Long Acre. Moor, alias Little Moor, who has his memory tablet in “Moor Street,” one of the clerks of the Signet, was fined for his buildings near St. Martin’s Church in the Fields, £1,000, and ordered:— To pull them all down, being forty-two dwelling houses, stables, and coach houses, by Easter, or else to pay 24, 1,000 more. They have sate diligently this month, yet have not done with St. Giles' parish. The rate they go is three years' fine, according as the rents of the houses are presented by the Church-wardens and chief of every parish, with some little rent to the King, to keep them from fining hereafter. How far this will spread I know not; but it is confidently spoken that there are above 24, Ioo, ooo rents upon this string about London. I speak much within compass for Tuttle, Covent Garden, St. Giles's, Lincolns Inn Fields, Holborn, and beyond the Tower, from Wapping to Blackwall, all come in, and are liable to fining for annoyances, or being built contrary to proclamation, though they have had licenses granted to do so. My Lord of Bedford’s license in this case it is said will not avail him. Little Moor could not get out of his difficulty with his new buildings, as appears by the following extract:—“The Sheriffs of London are now busy in demolishing all Moor’s houses, and twelve or fourteen dwelling houses are pulled down to the ground.” June 3rd, 1634. Petitions flowed into the Council praying that petiti- oners’ buildings might not be destroyed and that they may be pardoned. Thomas Finch and Stephen Partridge jointly petition the Council, wherein they state “they are willing to give £100 towards the repairing of St. Martin’s Church and paving of St. Martin’s Lane.” August, 1637. Stephen Partridge did not confine his building opera- tions to the Seven Dials, but also built Partridge Alley, in High Holborn, now Queen’s Court. •º. 3.11 Long Acre was worse than Cock-and-Pie Fields, it would not make itself respectable. Sheds and Shanties were less costly than permanent structures, but Zachary Bethell and Lawrence Whitaker, parishioners of St. Giles’ (one lived in Drury Lane and the other by the Church, in Middle Row), were the appointed Commissioners for build- ings; they were the District Surveyors of that day and ordered the houses to be pulled down. One gentleman, who ought to have known better, William Portington, Lieutenant of the Horse for Middlesex, petitioned the Commissioners. Upon an order for demolishing the sheds in Long Acre, a tenement of petitioners, fronting the street, was presented as a shed, and petitioner was warned to render reasons why it should not be demolished. A shed is a leaning to something to bear up the roof, whereas this roof bears itself, and at its first erecting as a tenement, it was built for one and has long continued without enlargement, and is inhabited by persons of good consideration, as appears by certifi- cate annexed. Prays that it may still stand so that petitioner may be permitted instead thereof to build a fair house, adding three feet of ground to the front. Certificate of inhabitants in and near Long Acre as to the nature of the premises above mentioned, which had been a house for sixteen years past. December, 1637. Petition of William Joyce to be allowed to retain his build- ings in Long Acre. I637. Petition of Thomas Cook to the Council. Petitioner sup- posing there had been leave given for building Long Acre, which is almost wholly built, took a lease of a little piece of ground there, and built a tenement for his new dwelling. Prays remittal of his offence upon reasonable fine. Referred to the Earl Marshal and the Earl of Dorset to give such order as they shall think fit, or to certify the Board. December 6th, 1637. INIgo Jones reports to the Council “concerning the building of John Ward, between Long Acre and Covent Garden,” as follows:— I have again viewed the place and compared it with a plot made by Ward of the houses he intends to build. For the entrance into the ground from Long Acre he intends to make an The Buildings in Long Acre. 312 alley, 9 feet wide, and to build it overhead, 44 feet in length, and to construct 17 small houses. One of the ways which he speaks of to be made, to go out of the alley into Covent Garden, is through the garden of Lady Stanhope, and the other through the gardens of several persons. Whether the pestering of such places with alleys of mean houses, having but one way to them, and no other way to go out, be against the instruction of the proclamation for building, I leave you to consider. October 26th, 1638. In answer to a “petition of Anthony Hooper, of Lewknor's Lane,” the Council says:— On the Certificate of INIGo Jon Es, His Majesty's Surveyor, an Order of Council, of 12th October last, was made concerning the buildings began between Long Acre and Covent Garden, by John Ward, his tenants, or assigns, where he intends to make alleys according to a plot by him drawn. The Lords altogether disliking the design set forth by the said plot, and being informed that Ward or some under him, contrary to former directions, were now setting up two houses, do hereby command that the same shall be discontinued, as they shall answer it at their peril; and hereof His Majesty's Surveyor and the Justices of Peace near adjoining are prayed to take notice and see that these our direc- tions be punctually observed. January 31st, 1639. The building of the houses led to further petitioning and litigation in respect to the drainage. The brooks that ran across the fields to the Thames, which had long since lost their character for purity, had become open sewers, and in 1608, by order of Council, “A Warrant was to issue for £100 towards making a vault or sewer for draining from St. Martin's Lane to St. Giles', so that the King's passage through those fields shall be both sweeter and more com- modious.” This sewer is referred to in the following:— Petition of Thomas Gibbon, Thomas Powell, William Lai- cock, and others, inhabitants adjoining the new way leading out of High Street into Covent Garden, to the Council, stating that part of the common sewer, leading out of High Street into Covent Garden, being lately stopped up, a pit was left which received the common channel water from Covent Garden, which BLOTT'S CHRONICLE OF BLEMUNDSBURY. A Table * e * & * l/ - - - | • * * * * * * * •, 2,1722, ºf º * , ", , " " . * , , 2 a,”, * * . * * * * - y * * * & 4 **, *z, *, *, - - - º - & º e * g 23 ‘. . . . . * **, 2** 2,...", ; , e, , , , , , , , , * * > •e . * * Z. . . . . e. * * & A.”, ““... * *, *, * • ºf . . . * ... * * *, *, * *, , "... • *, *, - * * * * * * * * *z, *z, * : * Z, , , %, , , , ºf e.” e," ", , g *, , e. Z */,”,? 2,”,” e, - g ºf a “. . * * * * * * * , ; Zºº, , , , ; ** 21.2%. , º, ſº "", *, *, *.*.*, *, *, , f : . . . 2, 2’-az,2,4% Z.Z. , , 722. - . . . .. & Ze rz2 Aſ. $º 2: . . . . . .”.””. ‘. . . . 22. 2%%22%2%.º.º.º.2%%.3% £4%.2% * **YAZ * '...' ' Čren Ces 5 * Jºat/e (Jrrrtz Żreef * w *z ,'e','ºZ44 º,222. * - * * * •. e ... • : - - * / • * s . & * * . . * *. % 2.2%:22, # a & & º g : . . . . . . * **, . . .”. ź %ZZººZº.2%22.22,222.2%, ’’; , , ...'... 22%2^ſ. > . . . . ......, *, *, * 2,2''' £2222.2% 3.2% º ż.’.… 22*, *, *. º - •. *-*. . . . ." . . » ==%: % & %22& to this M. app. |}|z Z24.7% J%reee • Sº - - **mºmº" : * * **** * * & * .* ...}... º. Sº %3% 53 Zie,4re 4 are . §§§ A MAPP of the PARISH ofíž e &24, and/ºi//ſ/ara’ : 52%, ’’,” \ S'GILES: s the Aº gº - 2% : % 2 J ..Bansſºrs ~f/3r. 54 g * %. $ Jº LPL 12/ds % % % 2. Bayle and Chiſa M.A. ||34. 4%alazz 4.222 -Zzz § taken from the 7a3 t- 3| % 3. Roſéant&vºngarº ;4 Zºe Zerve&arch ºceezye - s * * 2|{i Zºº; º; . Af Serva, nylth Corrections #|# % 4.4nzel Inn £7.4%at? Arezáoz/? * * º: 2%.2%. •. -- and -4dditions # || % 5. Sharps Alley 49 24.24%az4ame oare - :: 26* 2%: ..."; —-" 2. iš. 6. Tºyºr, 3afa | | %%;" 7, -ſtºrtin r >2/ky º - º, iſ “ . ... '", "...” sº -se iº - - | u. º:%; ...' 8. Wººzzłarre&are |; |ſº ſillºſ I; ºlº f - º l | º 9. Salutation yard 29.4%ar Loºſe -Atla” | |ºf | - . . .” :::::::::::::::3% § * 10. Lambs vºlly 39. *3% %22.2%%:. 11 . Crown Ally 31. H%itromb JAllºy 12. Crown Court 32.1/ukes head court 13. Cock Alley 33.2alph, dourt à % Ž * º zº % % º £%22zzº, *º 14.Pazzed/ſºft Court- ||34. Star Court- º:::::2-ke .# ś%; *…*º - , as * * * gº £ºzzº 15. Pavior. Alley 35 Kings head Inn. gº - c - º 16, Caſtle 2/ard 36. New Turnſtile. Ally º, º sº. 17. Plouyé Court— 37.Lig/ Turyſile.dlly 18. Nay, had yard 38. &rgoriz, Atly 19. Plough yard 39. Partriº, Allºy zo. Bºyle Bull Inn. 40. Philips yard. 21. Hole in the wallyart 41.Vine dourt 22. Hides Allºy 42.6 eorge Inn. 23.1%rs Ally 43. Parziters Court- 24. Fountaine Couze- 44.Turnſºle Allºr * or §§ … + 㺠& .* º ſº . . . . . º” ...” &" Ž ɺ % * - tº: Fººzºº zºº tº tº % % º Ø: %º ºeg s tº & % % à º à - - 3% º % É33 Ž $ºžº ##### § Žite . ('cſſºns Court- º #: g à tº: º 25. White Hart Inn 45 Ceſ #º 㺠º 26. Harrow-.4/3, 46. Heffºrd Court- ſº à : º ſº £%; º 27. Lyons Court 47. Cockpiròourt- 28. Coatzá and he'ſ yard |48.éella, tall court 49. Iſºld paſsage 50. Princes court- § # | t : & § - 23.2% gº º * &% à %3 sº º: ºº £º % T º F:FE: 22. i º- 9. 9 $ 2-Q º :* sy.' ***** zº, -: | | •. ##### º - ... .º.º.º.º. º. sº -. *::::::::::: Koryp 2% : * sº ºrrºr Zº 2. º º, ; º ::* º. Q3. s * | Jºgg 39 o Joo £99. A go 6og | (ºy f -4 scale ºf 6oo Feet— & ºz. . . . . . Jº" C. z z M × w T J P A R I s ºr ~~~~gſ zºr-axxzz-rºzz-z-z-z-z-zzzzzz-rºzz-zz:- & Wºº & 4 313 stands in most noisome fashion, until it rises to a gutter lately made to draw up, upon the top of the ground, into the High Street, by which the water running by petitioners' houses is of so infectious a stench as to annoy both inhabitants and passengers. Pray order for stopping up this offensive pit and drain. 1634. Order of Council to view and report:- * Great annoyance being caused and likely to increase to the inhabitants of Covent Garden by digging pits for draining soil and filth issuing from the new buildings, which, becoming stagnant pools, cannot but be an occasion of corrupting the air and beget- ting infectious diseases, it was ordered that Sir Henry Spiller, Inigo Jones, and Lawrence Whitaker, Commissioners for Build- ings, should survey the said pits, induire by whom they were made, and report to the board. December 3rd, 1634. Sir Henry Spiller, Inigo Jones, and Lawrence Whitaker thus report to the Council:—According to their Order of the 3rd inst., the writers have met in Covent Garden, and there find only one pit made between the old gate, leading to St. Martin's Lane, and the new street, leading to the Strand, towards Durham House. This pit is dug upon the south side of the way and contains 14 or 16 feet square in breadth, and in depth 20 feet, and is intended to be vaulted with brick to receive the issue from the great sewer, of all the new erected buildings, lying on the west side of the church there towards St. Martin's Lane, by a drain of brick, which is already brought to the pit from which they likewise find that drain continued to the old gate. Into the pit there has not yet been any passage of water from the sewer or drain. Lastly they are informed that the pit is made by directions from the Earl of Bedford, and is intended as a temporary receptacle of what should issue from the sewer. December 9th, 1634. A further Order of Council commanded— That the pit before mentioned be instantly filled up, and that the referees are to consider of the depth and breadth of the sewer, whether it be sufficient to carry away the water and soil from so many houses, and that before the sewer be further proceeded with, the Earls of Bedford and Salisbury, who have already many houses there, and are like to have more, and also the Earls of º s 2 314, St. Giles' Sewer and the River Thames, Suffolk and Leicester, and other persons interested in the passage of water intended to be carried through a great sewer by Hartshorn Lane (if they resolve to carry it that way) are to treat with the inha- bitants dwelling near where the sewer is to pass, and if they cannot make a reasonable accord with them, they are to attend referees who are to mediate a final agreement. And the parties interested are to give security that the sewer and the places under which it is to pass shall be made so firm that it shall not break out to the annoyance of the inhabitants, and that it be accommodated with grates and such other means as that only the water may issue into the Thames, and no gravel or other filth, whereby the channel may be in danger to be clogged. 1634. This settled the matter for a time, but a few years later the old grievance revived, resulting in a Petition of several Inhabitants of St. Martin's in the Fields to the Protector. There has been for fifty years a highway called Hartshorn Lane from the Strand to the Thames, which has been cleansed by the sworn scavengers; and the water from St. Giles, Martin's Lane, and Covent Garden, formerly running above ground, carried all the filth to Whitehall to our great annoyance. To prevent this, twenty years ago, the late King and Council and the Sewers Commissioners ordered the said water to be conveyed underground, in a sewer to the Thames; but nine or ten years ago, Col. Apsley, the owner, stopped the sewer, which caused the water to break out in our houses, and two children were lost; but the Commissioners of Sewers ordered its reopening. Col. Fenwick, the present owner of the soil, threatened again to stop it: We beg a full hearing of the Commissioners of Sewers and all parties concerned therein. November 21st, 1655. This petition had 66 signatures, one only being a mark. The state of the roads in St. Giles’ was a great annoy- ance to KING CHARLEs I., who brought their neglected condition before the Council, and in consequence thereof, a Petition of Thomas Hobbs, Surveyor General of His Majesty’s ways, was presented to the Council, stating:— That Richard Powell, being scavenger for High Holborn, petitioner the day before the King and Queen went last to 315 Theobalds, gave Powell warning to cleanse the passage between the two gates in Holborn, where many loads of noisome soil lay, stopping up the way. Prays that Powell and other scaven- gers may be enjoined to better performance of His Majesty's Service. March, 1632. The prayer of the Petitioner was granted, and the Council enjoined “Richard Powell to better performance of His Majesty’s service” in a way that greatly frightened the Road Contractor, and put him to the expense of petitioning the Council in the matter of Hobbs v Powell. The petition, given hereafter, appears to imply that Powell, at the time of its presentation, was in custody for contempt of Court. Petition of Richard Powell, Scavenger of the parish of St. Giles' in the Fields to the Council. Edmund Barker, a messenger, served petitioner, about ten days ago, with notice to appear before the Board, for that some part of the parish was not at that instant made clean, but on sight of the warrant, petitioner caused the same to be cleansed. Barker having warned petitioner to appear, he prays that being a poor man with a charge of children he may be discharged. March, 1632. One of the two gates mentioned in the Surveyor Gene- ral’s petition was that known as “King’s Gate,” which gave the name tø Kings-gate Street, which was the nearest way to Theobald’s from Whitehall, leading to a private road, constructed for the Court, to avoid their travelling along High Holborn to Gray’s Inn Road, there being no carriage way northward between that thoroughfare and Tottenham Court Road. The exact site of the other gate cannot be fixed with any certainty. In old maps there is a gate into Holborn by Great St. Andrew’s Street, and which seems to have been used by royalty before and possibly after the formation of Little Queen Street. The distance between Little Queen Street and Kings-gate Street being too short to have occasioned the proceedings against Rich- ard Powell for breach of contract. The Two Gates in High Holborn. The King's Gate in High Holborn. 316 The Seven Dials. The neighbourhood of the Seven Dials at the time of its formation is described in Strype's Stow thus:– King Street, which since the new buildings is a very large and handsome place, with good houses, fronting Castle Street on the south, and St. Giles', against the Alms-houses on the north. In this street on the east side, besides its passage into Short's Gardens, there is a small court, called Taylor's Court, which leadeth into Bowl Yard, and on the west side there was a place, with building, called Cock-and-Pye Fields, which was made use of for a Lay Stall for the soil of the streets, but of late built into several handsome streets, and so neatly contrived that every street in a streight line fronts the Dyall placed in the midst, which is raised on a high pedestal and pillar; these streets are thus named: Earls Street, Queen Street, White Lyon Street, and St. Andrew's Street; and besides these principal Streets there is Tower Street, which falleth into Castle Street; and this is crossed by another, called Lombard Street; then on the part next to King Street, and between Queen Street and St. Andrew Street, are some courts or alleys designed to be built. Monmouth Street falleth into Hog Lane, and since the new buildings on the south side is much improved. Beyond Monmouth Street and passing through Hog Lane, very ordinary are these places on the east side, the west side being in St. Ann's parish; Stedwel Street, very ordinary both for buildings and inhabitants: this place crosseth Stacies Street, thence falleth into Kendrick Yard, and so into St. Giles's by the church. Out of Stedwel Street is Vinegar Yard, which leadeth into Phenix Street, butting on Hog Lane, against the French Church, and runs down to the back side of St. Giles's Church- yard, where there is a little passage into Loyde's Court; and out of this place there is a passage, without a name, into Monmouth Street, about the middle of which is a passage into Stedwel Street. All these streets and places are very meanly built, and as ordinarily inhabited, the greatest part by French, and of the poorer sort. Denmark Street fronts St. Giles's Church and falls into Hog Lane; a fair broad street with good houses, well inha- bited by gentry; on the back side of this street is Dudley Court, which falls into Hog Lane, and hath a passage into the said street by the Lord Wharton's house and garden, which fronts St. Giles's Church on the west side. Hog Lane, of which the west side is 317 in this parish, the other side being in St. Giles's, a place not over well built or inhabited. Here the French have a church, which formerly was the Greek Church, and by many still so called; adjoining to which are eighteen Alms-houses for so many poor people, belonging to St. Martin's, of which, nine have the allow- ance, 8s. a month, and the other nine have 7s, a month. From thence this street runneth to the upper end of St. Martin's Lane, passing by Monmouth Street and other places, but hath nothing worthy of note. EveLYN, in his diary, 5th October, 1694, fixes the erection of the Doric column, with its six dials, which gave to the circus where it stood the name of Seven Dials, because seven streets ran out of it. It is scarcely accurate to say:— “This lonely column stood sublime, Flinging its shadows from on high, Like Dials which the Wizard Time Had reared to count his ages by.” It was neither lonely nor sublime, and the “Wizard Time,’ getting tired of this sexagonal arrangement, removed it in 1773, and the inhabitants of Weybridge, desirous to perpe- tuate the memory of the Duchess of York (and having a “frugal mind”), they utilized a portion of the materials of this discarded pillar for the purpose, inscribing thereon the fact that it was erected in one day (6th August, 1822), being the second anniversary of her death. The poetry recording her virtues is a fine specimen of the bardic lore of Seven Dials, that emanated from the purlieus of the ever-famous Monmouth Court. The poet of Slumland has not per- petuated his own name, but has immortalised CATNACH, his publisher. If the column had been allowed to remain in Seven Dials and utilized for the purpose of a drinking fountain, it would have been a singularly appropriate memo- rial of the Lord of Blemundsbury, Septimus de Fontibus. The column in the Seven Dials was erected in honour of the Duke of York, to whom a fourth of the tolls of the Seven Dials market was reserved, and when erected on Weybridge Green, the same intention was carried out; a ducal coronet, that of York, surmounting it, and the praises of the Duchess of York inscribed upon it. The Duke of York's Column. 3.18 One cannot, while musing over the shady recollections of “The Dials,” forget its poet, whose works still live, and the “Epic” inserted here was gathered from the literary treasures in the British Museum. It relates to a local event and records the sufferings of Mrs. Mary Whistle: THE WORKHOUSE CRUELTY. One Mrs. Mary Whistle as we hear, Who was a housekeeper for many a year; In St. Giles’es in the Fields many does know. But by Misfortunes was Reduced so low The Works of That to the Parish for Relief she went, Catnach. And to the Parish Workhouse she was sent; Th’o she to Work before had nee'r been taught, Yet there to Card or Spin she must be brought: There for Eleven Weeks poor Soul she lay Half Starv'd, Eat up with Vermin (as they say) Holes in her Legs, her Arms, her hips and Thighs The Vermin eat, and in her Head likewise! Her Hair was Matted with the Vermin so The like before no one did ever know. A filthy sight—alas for to be seen What Misery must this Poor Soul die in, With Prayers and Tears let us the Lord implore Who always did, and will Protect the Poor, Tho' by the Rich they often are Despis'd Yet Lazarus may laugh when Dives cries. LONDON : PRINTED FOR CHRISTIAN Love-Poor, Near St. Giles's Church. This poem is illustrated with six wood cuts which have no reference to the woes of poor Mary. ON THE A WFUL FIRE AT BEN, CAUNT’S, IN ST. MARTIN'S LANE. I will unfold a tale of sorrow, List, you tender parents dear, It will thrill each breast with horror, When the dreadful tale you hear. 3k % 3% 3% ºk 3% No more their smiles they'll be beholding, No more their pretty faces see, No more to their bosoms will they fold them ; Oh! what must their feelings be? 319 THE GLORIOUS FIGHT FOR THE CHAMPIONSHIP OF ENGLAND. On the ninth day of September, Eighteen hundred and forty five, From London down to Nottingham The roads were all alive; Oh! such a sight was never seen, Believe me it is so, Tens of thousands went to see the fight, With Caunt and Bendigo. And near to Newport Pagnell, Those men did strip so fine, Ben Caunt stood six feet two and a half, And Bendigo five foot nine; Ben Caunt, a giant did appear, And made the claret flow, And he seemed fully determined Soon to conquer Bendigo. * g CHORUS. With their hit away and slash away, So manfully you see, Ben Caunt had lost and Bendigo Has gained the victory. MARY MAY. The solemn bell for me doth toll, And I am doomed to die (For murdering my brother dear), Upon a tree so high. For gain I did premeditate, My brother for to slay,+ Oh, think upon the dreadful fate Of wretched Mary May. In Essex boundary I did dwell, My brother lived with me, In a little village called Wix, Not far from Manningtree. In a burial club I entered him, On purpose him to slay; And to obtain the burial fees I took his life away. 320 On earth I can no longer dwell, There's nothing can me save; Hark! I hear the mournful knell Which calls me to the grave. Death appears in ghostly forms, To summon me below; See, the fatal bolt is drawn, And Mary May must go. CHORUS, Behold the fate of Mary May, Who did for gain her brother slay. TUNE—The Old Hundredth. Founded on Facts. The Whitby Tragedy; or, the Gambler's Fate. Containing the lives of Joseph Carr, aged 21, and his sweetheart, Maria Leslie, aged 19, who were found Dead, lying by each other, on the morning of the 23rd of May. Maria was on her road to Town to buy some Ribbon, &c., for her Wedding Day, when her lover, in a state of intoxication, fired at her, and then run to rob his prey, but finding it to be his Sweetheart, reloaded his gun, placed the Muzzle to his Mouth, and blew out his Brains, all through cursed Cards, Drink, &c. Also, an effec- tionate Copy of Verses. - ST. GILES’S BOWL. Should it ever be my lot to ride backward, some day At the Crown, in St. Giles's, I’ll most certainly stay; I’ll summon the landlord, I’ll call for the bowl, And drink a deep draught to the health of my soul. Whatever may hap, I’ll taste of the tap, To keep up my spirits when brought to the crap; For nothing the transit to Tyburn beguiles, So well as a draught from the bowl of St. Giles. ST. GILES’S ROUNDHOUSE. With pipe and punch upon the board, And Smiling nymphs around us; No tavern could more mirth afford, Than old St. Giles's roundhouse, The roundhouse, the roundhouse, The jolly, jolly roundhouse. 321 T 2 SEVEN DIALS BY NIGHT. Along the quickly darkening street, A little girl there ran, With matted hair and shoeless feet— She sought the “Tater Man.” She found the old and well-known spot, And of the man she ask’d— To butter her a tater hot; Says he—“That is the last.” It warms her hands; then down a court— She sought her own roof-tree; So did the man, but something short At the “Black Jack” took he. There is shouting and wild singing, For the Pubs are closing fast, And St. Giles' church bell is ringing Out twelve o'clock is past. The barrow of the Oyster Man Is filled with empty shells; He has to shoot them where he can, But where he never tells. The flick’ring of an oily light. Gives forth a sickly smell; The Bobby is well out of sight, Trying some area bell. The Hot Eel Can no longer steams, For that is empty now; But sounds of shrieks, and oaths, and screams Mark the night's closing row. It breaks the silence, for it thrills Throughout Seven Dials; Wild men, fierce women, having mills— Pugilistic trials. And bright black eyes do blacker grow From the repeated thud; The Amazonian lies low In foul and reeking mud. Another cry, another moan; The oath of a vile brute Responds unto the woman's groan— With his hob-nailed boot. Let's draw the veil o'er such a scene, For these ill days are past; We see—while knowing what has been— The betterment at last, W. B. 322 The evil of over building and over crowding in Seven Dials was augmented by a privilege which greatly contri- The Market buted to the permanent degradation of the district, namely, in St. Giles'. the establishment of a market, which, in plain English, was a license to allow the streets to be blocked up with the stalls of the hawker, who vended his trash to the cheap economist. The information is supplied by the records of the City, as follows, by an Order of Council, 17th May, 1637, reciting “that a petition had been presented to the Board from Henry Darrell and the inhabitants of St. Giles’ in the Fields and adjacent parts, stating that King James had granted to Trinity College, Oxford, six markets and twelve fairs to- wards the building of their hall, which grant had, in July, 1632, been confirmed by the present King. Two of these markets and their fairs had been purchased of the College by the petitioners.” In August, 1634, a petition for settling the said markets and fairs on a piece of ground in the parish of St. Giles, belonging to the King, had been referred to Sir Henry Spiller, Sir Kenelm Digby, and George Gage, Esq., who certified to the convenience and necessity thereof, where- upon they were granted by the King on the 15th December, 1634, one fourth of the toll being reserved to the Duke of York. The petitioners had therefore sued out a writ of ad quod demurrer, which, by a jury of sufficient freeholders, had been found very convenient and to the damage of none, and a book had accordingly been drawn up by the Attorney General for the King’s signature. On a complaint from the city of London to the Council, the King had directed pro- ceedings to be stayed, but in January, 1636, the Attorney General had been ordered to persevere; the petitioners therefore prayed that they might be no longer hindered. The Council had directed a copy of the petition to be sent to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, and that they should 323 answer by Counsel or otherwise. The petitioners and the city had been that day heard, and the charter of the 6th March, 1 Edward III., made in Parliament, granting that no markets should be allowed within seven miles of the city, which charter was, in the 7th Richard II. confirmed by Parliament, had been pleaded. It had been further alleged that the grants prayed for would be inconvenient and prejudicial to the city; would draw a great number of inhabitants into those parts, and cause more erections of buildings and divided houses. The city had, by charter of KING JoHN, the Sheriff- wicke of London and Middlesex, for which they paid to the King £300 per annum. The principal means of raising this sum was by the toll of cattle coming to the markets, and the proposed markets and fairs, if allowed, would dis- able the city from raising their rent. * The Council were of opinion it would be very incon- venient and unfit that there should be any market or fair in St. Giles’ in the Fields, contrary to the grants in Parlia- ment, and therefore ordered the decision to be entered in the Register of Council Causes at the Inner Star Chamber. May 17th, 1637. Petition of the Mayor, Commonalty, and Citizens of the City of London to the King, stating that, by the charter of the late King, in the sixteenth year of his reign, and by former charters, granted to the Petitioners by his projenitors and confirmed by His Majesty, no market should be erected or permitted within seven miles of the City, and though attempts had been made in times past to erect markets in direct violation of their ancient privileges, upon their application, the same had been made void. Attempts were now being made to erect markets in the suburbs and parts . adjacent, one in East Smithfield by one Barnehurst; another in Stepney by the Earl of Cleveland, and others in other places, which would cause exceeding damage to the City. The Petitioners prayed the King to maintain the City's ancient privileges and to prevent the erection of the said new markets. Circa, 1664. 32 [. Petition of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen to the King stating that they had been informed that one Barnehurst had obtained His Majesty's warrant to erect three weekly markets in East Smithfield, contrary to their several charters before referred to, and requesting him to withhold his said warrant until the Petitioners had been heard by the Council upon the subject. 1664. The controversy ended by the establishing of a market, or rather market streets in Seven Dials, which tended to the permanent degradation of the distirct; the garbage and offal encumbered the kennels and the costermonger's bar- rows obstructed the highway; the place became a lounge for the dissolute and the idle; the rooms grew more foul and filthy by the storage of unsold fish and fruit during the night under the bed. Such places were not homes, the palace of King Gin was the sorry substitute; it stood at the corner of two intersecting streets, in all the glory of stucco pilasters—in genuine cockney splendour. At night, splendid lights irradiated the surrounding gloom, and an illuminated clock served to remind the reeling sot of the time he throws away in throwing away his reason. There are no seats, nor any accommodation for the customers. They step in to drink and pay for one swift gulph, step out, return, and pay again for another “three ha-porth,” which disappears like a lightning flash. “It passed so swift one scarce could say that such a thing had been.” The sot takes a little but often. And yet in those days of dirt and disease there was a monopoly of dust. Messrs. Combe and Delafield, the modern lords of Noselyngs, were, according to The News, March 21, 1821, summoned to appear at Bow Street, at the instance of the Dust Contractor, charged “with removing a vast quantity of ashes and cinders from their works in the parish of St. Giles’ to their other works in the parish of St. Martin’s in the Fields, where they were burnt over again.” This the 325 contractor urged was contrary to the statute, and that the penalty of £10 for the offence should be enforced. Harvey Combe, Esq., attended, and after an adjournment the magistrate, G. R. Minshull, Esq., convicted the defendants in the penalty of £10 under Taylor's Act. An appeal was heard against this conviction at the Westminster Sessions, October, 1821, when Mr. Coust, the Chairman, quashed the conviction. The court was crowded with the leading vestry- men of the metropolis, who approved of the decision with prolonged cheers. Another instance of the “Dust Monopoly,” but of a different character, appeared in The News, March 28, 1824. Anthony Kelly was charged with having extorted fourteen shillings from Thomas Davenport and Peter Maynard. Messrs. Davenport and Maynard are running dustmen, that is to say, contraband dealers in dust and ashes, who go about collecting those precious articles by stealth, contrary to the statute and the interest of the contractors. Mr. Anthony Kelly is a scout to the contractors for the parish of St. Giles; it is his business to detect and bring to justice all running dustmen whenever he can catch them exercising their nefarious calling; and having detected Messrs. Davenport and Maynard in the fact of smuggling a bag of dust out of a cellar in Monmouth Street, he terrified them out of the fourteen shillings aforesaid, under the threat of taking them before a magistrate. In his defence he declared that he took the fourteen shillings for his trouble and not for the dust. This dis- tinction availed him nothing, however, for the magistrate com- mitted him for having obtained it under false pretences. The inhabitants who were fortunate made money. The Mirror, 1851, gives an instance of this. Mr. R. Smith, who was by trade a Smith, died at his late residence, No. 12, Great St. Andrew's Street, Seven Dials, in the possession of funded, freehold, and leasehold property, it is stated, to the amount of nearly 24,400,ooo. He was of the most singular habits from early life, and was left a considerable sum of money by his father, with which he speculated in the funds and in the building of houses, his speculations almost always turning out 326 to advantage. In the neighbourhood of Mornington Crescent he built between 150 and 200 houses, besides having many other houses in different parts of the town. His property in the funds is believed to exceed 24, Ioo, ooo. He was born in the house in which he died, and resided in it throughout his life, being seventy years of age. Though possessed of immense wealth, his habits were most penurious, and his mode of living was scarcely sufficient to support nature. He had no servant, but a woman used to come occasionally to char. His neighbours knew little of him, as he had no associates. His house exhibited the appearance of having a tenant not provided with the means of keeping it in decent repair, and the windows were cleaned about twice a year. He has left a brother and a sister. The former will inherit the property, as he has left no will. - It was in this street Rimbault made his “Twelve-tuned Dutchmen” Clocks, with mechanical figures. The marking of the barrels was performed by Bellodi, an Italian, who lived in Short's Gardens, and Zoffany, the artist, embel- lished the faces of the musical clocks. Monmouth Street, for a time, made itself a history by its being the birthplace of the noted imposter, Charles Price, who was descended from a clothes-salesman in Mon- mouth Street, and for a time he was a barker there, that is, a noisy touting fellow, who sought to get the passers by into his master’s old-clothes shop. But this occupation did not suit his exalted notions. He studied the art of disguising his person, and attained in this art great profici- ency, insomuch that Mr. Price, when occasion served, was Mr. Patch, and Mr. Patch, through his close connection with Price, was able for a time successfully to commit for- gery without being discovered. Patch, who wore a black patch over one of his eyes, continually eluded the vigilance of Price, who was employed to arrest him. It is said that Patch, disguised as Price, actually received money from the bank Directors to arrest himself. Having, under the name of Wilmot, paid Mr. Spilsbury for some medicines with a 327 forged note, that gentleman one day related the circum- stance at the Percy Coffee House in the presence of the culprit, who kept frequently crying out “Lack a day! Good God! who could conceive such knavery exists? What, did the bank refuse payment Sir?” “O yes,” said Mr. Spils- bury, “and yet the bills were so inimitably done that the nicest judges could not distinguish them!” “Good God! lack a-day,” said Price, “he must have been an ingenious villain!” What a complete old scoundrell He remained undetected until the age of 55, when his frauds amounted to one hundred thousand pounds. He wrote to a gentleman whom he had defrauded of more than two thousand pounds, re- commending his wife and eight children to his protection, and then hung himself in Tothill Fields prison. -- In Monmouth Court occurred the following case of cruelty.—The News, August 8th, 1824. Marlborough-street office, was on Friday crowded to excess, in consequence of the apprehension of a woman and her daughter, charged with atrocious cruelty to a number of infant children under their care. The prisoners, whose names are Catherine Irvin, the mother, rather a respectable looking woman, 45 years of age, and Mary Irvin, 18, the daughter. Mr. Biggs, assistant overseer of St. Giles's parish, stated to Mr. ConANT, the magistrate, that he proceeded with one of the beadles to a house in Monmouth Court, and there, in a back attic, he found the five young children now in the office, between the ages of nine weeks and four years, Crawling about the apartment, more like so many vermin than human beings. There were two bedsteads in the room, but neither beds, mattresses, nor clothes of any description were to be seen; neither was there a morcel of food in the whole place, except a small bit of musty cheese. He questioned the prisoners as to whom the children belonged, but they refused to give any account of them. Dr. Burgess, the parish surgeon, who saw the children, said that they were almost at the point of death. Their little limbs and bodies were completely skeletonized by disease and starvation, and they appeared, besides, 328 to have been beaten in a most cruel manner, that from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot, they were a mass of bruises and stripes; and one little boy had a joint of one of his toes torn off. The infant of nine weeks old appeared to be in a dying state. Mr. CONANT had it sent away immediately to the workhouse and medical aid and every other necessary provided for it, but it was so far gone, that no hopes are entertained of its surviving. The other children, who were supposed not to have tasted food for a long time, were provided at the office with a supply of bread and milk by Mr. Wingfield, Solicitor, in Great Marlborough Street. The foundations of the houses in Seven Dials began to subside, especially the corner ones, which had to trust to their own strength, and numerous instances of their insta- bility occurred owing to the shrinkage of the ground they stood upon by the drainage producing a drier soil. In The Annual Register is recorded an instance of this, which was attended with fatal results: This morning, about half-past two o'clock, May 22, 1811, as the watchmen, belonging to the parish of St. Giles's in the Fields, were going their rounds in the vicinity of the Seven Dials, they were alarmed by a tremendous noise, and in a few minutes disco- vered that the house belonging to Mr. Hastings, the sign of King Henry the Eighth, corner of White Lion and Gt. St. Andrew's Streets, Seven Dials, was falling down. The watchmen alarmed the neighbourhood, and in a short time about five hundred persons surrounded the spot, many of whom set about digging the unfor- tunate persons from their perilous situation. An old man, with an infant in his arms, dead, was the first shocking spectacle that presented itself. A young man unfortunately was struck by a spade on the skull, and it is feared he will not survive; he, along with four others in a dreadfully mangled State, were taken to the hospital, some of them with their arms and legs broken. An old woman, named Toogood, who lodged on the Second floor, being apprised of her danger, threw herself out of the window, by which she was so much hurt as to be taken to the hospital without hopes of recovery. Mr. and Mrs. Hastings escaped with some slight bruises, as the front of the house fell first, and their bed room being backwards, they had just time enough to get away. 329 FALL OF Two Houses IN SEVEN DIALS.—On Sunday night, or rather Monday morning, between two and three o'clock, a frightful fall of two houses occurred in Seven Dials, St. Giles's, when many persons were seriously injured, two or three fatally, it is feared. The houses abutted against each other at the back, and adjoined one of the corner houses, a large gin-palace, called the Crown Tavern, facing the opening at Seven Dials. The ruined houses faced Queen-street and Great St Andrew's-street respectively. One of them was a cheap lodging-house for poor people, which accounts for the numbers injured. The other was an oil and colour shop. The official surveyors are blamed; but there are various questions involved, and into these we cannot, at present, enter. The recklessness with which individuals will risk their own lives, even while danger is obvious, was curiously evidenced a few nights ago in the still unsettled and dangerous ruins themselves, where we observed a hair-cutter, professional or otherwise, coolly cutting away at the hair of a customer, who, as unconcernedly, submitted to the operation, while a bystander held the candle whose glare disclosed the curious Scene to all who stood in the street!—Builder, Oct. 2nd, 1852. Although Seven Dials was well known for its poverty and wretchedness, it had one redeeming feature, it was well supplied with chapels and mission stations. West Street Chapel was visited by John Robins, of 27, Compton Street, and his companions, in 1848, who stole the communion plate, belonging to John Dean Paul and others. The constables kept watch about Robins's haunts, and in an hour they met him and three others coming down High-street. They seized Robins and Davis, and after a desperate fight, suc- ceeded in apprehending the four men. In Robins's pockets two silver communion cups were found. In Davis's possession the rest of the plate was found. The constables afterwards proceeded to the lodgings of Robins and there found two women in his room, who were much surprised by the unexpected visit, as they had been apparently employed in cutting up the surplice taken from the chapel. They were taken into custody, and after exa- mination discharged. The plate, very much battered, was produ- ced and identified. The prisoners declined to make any defence and were fully committed. The burglary at West Street Chapel. V 2 33() Wilson's History of Dissenting Churches. In Grafton Street, the “Particular Baptist” Chapel was erected about 1730 for Mr. William Anderson, who, being a man of annple means, contributed largely to the funds for its erection and maintenance. The congregation had previously met in Glass-house Street, Piccadilly, and they were no sooner located in Grafton Street than serious discord broke out amongst the members, which led to the retirement of their pastor, Mr. Anderson, which retirement it is said contributed in a great measure to hasten his death. The work was continued here under much difficulty until the call was given to Mr. Martin, and he, after some years, gathered around him a more peaceable and more respectable flock. They removed in 1795 from the foul surroundings of Seven Dials to the aristocratic thoroughfare of Keppe Street, Bloomsbury. When Grafton Street Chapel became vacant, it was taken upon lease by another society of “Particular Baptists,” with Mr. Richard Burnham for their Minister. This divine, after various engagements at different meeting-houses, in 1782 took Gate Street Chapel, near Lincoln’s Inn Fields, and from thence after a short interval, in consequence of a scandal, he removed to Salem Chapel, Edward Street, Soho; then to Grafton Street, and there continued until his death in 1810. Of late years it has been used as a mission-chapel, and has been recently removed to clear the way for the new thoroughfares. Whitefield’s Chapel was situated in Dudley Court, Hog Lane, near Denmark Street. It belonged originally to the French Protestant Refugees,who were very numerous in the neighbourhood. From them it passed to the Methodists in Mr. Whitefield’s connection, and was occupied by Mr. John Green, who kept a school here. A little before his death, when Mr. Anderson was compelled to leave Grafton Street, he retired to this place with such of his people as adhered to him, but he dying in a short time from grief, they joined themselves to Dr. Gill, who preached Mr. Anderson’s funeral sermon. The chapel was afterwards successively engaged by Messrs. Underwood, Bishop, and 331 Read, neither of whom remained for any length of time. A branch of the Berean sect took this place for some time, under the auspices of the founder, Mr. John Barclay. On ... the east side of Great Castle Street stood a French Protest- ant Chapel, built at the expense of the Government in the reign of Charles II. for the Refugees who fled to this country for protection from the persecution of Louis XIV. Their number being diminished by death, the remnant removed in 1764 to Moor Street. The chapel was taken in the time of Dr. Brock, of Bloomsbury, for mission work, and has been pulled down to make way for Charing Cross Road. Amongst other places of worship were those in Chapel Street, Soho Square; Crown Court, Covent Garden; Han- over Street, Long Acre; King Street, Soho; Milton Alley, Dean Street, Soho; The Helvetic Chapel, Moor Street, Soho; The French Church, Crown Street, Soho, besides the Established Churches and the Roman Catholic Chapels in the neighbourhood. Seven Dials is changing for the better. The cellars of Monmouth Street exist no longer, for the broad avenue has swept them all away. On their site trees are planted which make a desperate struggle for existence, but with them as with other things there is a “survival of the fittest.” Officials in blue livery have a right of entry into all the homes of slumland; sanitary notices, disinfectants, and police-court summonses have everywhere lifted the beggar from “the dunghill.” The gutters are free from the waifs of society and children’s voices are heard in unison ringing out from England’s greatest institution of child-life—the Board School. The new thoroughfare is honoured with the name of Shaftesbury whose philanthropy has done much to bring about a new order of things. For centuries the good and the evil have struggled here for supremacy in a fierce wrest- ling match, but St. Giles’ has won at last, and this is the antitype of the Wrestling Match which took place in the fields of St. Giles’, in 1222, between London and Wesmin- ster, and which account concludes this section of its history. The Chapels in St. Giles'. The Reformation of the Seven Dials. 332 The Wrestling Match in St. Giles'. Degradation of the Lord Mayor. Appointment of a Custodian of the City. A trivial occurrence in the year 1222 furnished the Court with a plausible pretence to exercise their resentment against the Londoners. There had been a great match of wrestling between the citizens of London and the inhabitants of the neighbouring villages; in which the Londoners claimed the honour of victory. The steward of the Abbot of Westminster, interesting himself in this defeat, and meditating revenge, appointed another match, offering a ram as a prize to be wrestled for. He is said to have prepared a number of armed men, instead of the expected com- petitors, who, when the London wrestlers appeared, basely beat and wounded many of them and put the rest to flight. The London populace, on this ill usage, rose and pulled down some houses belonging to the Abbot of Westminster, a disorder that might probably in that rude and tumultuous age have passed over without much notice, had not some indication of the attachment of the citizens to the French interest been thought to merit serious regard. The mob in the course of the riot had animated each other with the cry then made use of by the French soldiers: “Mountjoy, Mountjoy, God help us and our lord Lewis!” Hubert de Burg, the chief justiciary, came to the Tower of London with an armed force and summoned the mayor and principal citizens before him to inquire after the ringleaders of the riot. One Con- stantine Fitz-Arnulph, a citizen of some consequence, was found to have headed the mob, who insolently justified his conduct in the justiciary’s presence. He proceeded against him by martial law, ordered him to be hanged without any legal process, and cut off the feet of many of his accomplices. Not contented with this cruel and summary proceeding, he still further punished the City by degrading the mayor and other magistrates, appointing a custos over the City, and requiring security from thirty persons of his own choosing for the good behaviour of the rest of their fellow citizens. The Londoners made complaint of this treatment, as an infringement of the Great Charter, and, in a Parliament summoned at Oxford, solicited a confirmation of the charter of their liberties; which the same justiciary granted in the King's name. It should seem, as Mr. Hume remarks, that a law in those days lost its validity if not renewed from time to time.—Noorthouck. 333 33lemumbaburn). Qºlye jielog of 3 liberungche, H]tury iſ atte, & 65teat 01teen £treet. The words wyk, wic, wich, have several meanings. In Bosworth’s Dictionary they are defined as a dwelling place, habitation, mansion, village street, bay, creek, or village on the side of a river—they are Anglo-Saxon words. Aldwick Tything, in Packham parish, Sussex, was in former days of sufficient importance to give its name to the whole Hundred. Via de Aldewyche (Drury Lane) was bounded by Nose- lyngs, sometimes called West Aldewyche, and on its eastern side were the fields of Aldewyche, extending to Ficquet Fields. At the north-east corner of the Via de Aldewyche stood the Mansion-house of the Christmasse family, with its pasture land and orchard bordering the King’s Highway, Oldborne, the domain reaching to Ficquet Fields. Fronting Christmasse House or Inne, was the common spring or village fountain, surmounted by a cross. The first name connected with Aldewyche occurs in the Foundation Charter of 1101. It is mentioned in the past tense—“John of Good Memory,” the chaplain of the village church. He had passed away, leaving behind him the records of a well-spent life. There are inferential proofs that John of Good Memory was John Christmasse. He lived by the cross and opposite to the cross, and was accordingly surnamed “John de Cruce.” He also seems to have been called “John de Fonte.” There is no mention of John de St. Giles, and this fact, taken in connection with others, renders it very probable that at this early date there 334. was no village of St. Giles or church of that name in the old manor of Blemundsbury; even after the Hospital for Lepers was founded, the district is spoken of as “The parish of the Queen’s Hospital.” John Christmasse, alias John de Cruce and John de Fonte, seems to have been spoken of after his decease as “John of Good Memory,” because the cross and fountain, which stood opposite his house on the village green, were reared by his instrumentality. It was a high position to be the priest of Blemundsbury. From the grounds of his residence he could see the great Manor-house of the Blemunds, for the Leper Hospital was not then founded, neither was the family life of the priest superseded by asceticism at that time. He had only just passed away when the foundation-stone of the Hospital for Lepers was laid close to his humble church. He had successfully used his influence to induce the Lord of Blemundsbury to consent to the leper institution being built between the Manor-house and the Church. He had sat at the Council Board, which met at the Old Temple in Oldborne, with Anselm of Canterbury, Baldwin de Redvers, Blemund, and other great nobles of the time, who had in their own families the curse of leprosy. A church appears to have existed before the hospital, “in the fields,” and the erection of the hospital created the village of St. Giles, the houses of which nestled under the shadow of the walls of the Manor-house. Tradition points to a village of an earlier date, namely, that of Aldewyche, which was probably destroyed before the Norman Conquest and so completely that nothing remained of its history but a few old Saxon names. Facing Christmasse House, on the north-west corner of the Via de Aldewyche, was the village Smithy, and, as appears by an old deed, John de Cruce, the younger (who seems to have been the successor of John of Good Memory):— 335 Demises to Hugh Faber le Smythe, all that land situate at the angle or corner formed by the meeting of the two streets, whereof one comes from St. Giles, and is called the Street of St. . Giles, and one goes toward the Thames, by the forge of the said Hugh, and is bounded on the east by Aldewyche, and stretches towards St. Giles' Hospital on the west; on the north by Oldborne, and on the south by the land of Roger Christmasse, son of Alan. The widow of Hugh Faber, on his decease, demises:–All that land and appurtenances, situate at the corner formed by the meeting of the two streets, whereof the one comes from St. Giles's, and is called the Street of St. Giles, and the other goes towards the Thames and is called Aldewyche, lying between the land of John de Cruce and the Garden of Roger, son of Alan Christmasse. Alan Christmasse charged his estate with the sum of twelve pence annually to go towards maintaining a light in the Church of St. Giles, in the parish of the Queen’s Hos- pital, to be paid to Walter Christmasse, Procurator, as an anniversary obit for the repose of his soul. William Christmasse, son of Alan, left a further sum of seven pence and also a quit-rent of seven pence, charged upon premises in Aldewyche. John de Christmasse, Wardrobe Keeper, left five cottages and land in Aldewyche, in the parish of the Queen’s Hospital, on condition of there being offered annually, by way of acknowledgment, one rose upon the altar in the Church of St. Giles, as an anniversary obit. Aldewyche is mentioned in a deed, in which “Johanna, daughter of Stephen de Pistrino, conveys to the Hospital of the Lepers, and quits claim to a messuage, late of Loriel, her grandfather, situate in the way called Aldewyche, in the parish of the Queen’s Hospital.” In the time of Richard II., the Mansion-house of the Christmasse family gave place to the White Hart Inn. The sign fixes the date of its erection, 1377–1399, and was expressive of loyalty to the King. 336 Richard II. assumed the badge of the White Hart, and it was worn by his courtiers and adherents, both male and female, either embroidered on their dresses, or suspended by chains or collars round their necks, This device seems to have been derived from his mother, whose conizance was a White Hind. RYMER mentions, that in the ninth year of his reign, Richard pawned certain jewels, “a la guyse de cerfs blancs; ” and in the wardrobe accounts of his twenty- second year, is an entry of a belt and sheath of a sword, of red velvet, embroidered with White Harts, crowned, and with rosemary branches. An ancient author, quoted by Hollings HED (sub anno 1399), says, “that amongst the few friends that attended this unfortunate prince after his capture by the Earl of Northumberland, was Jenico D’Artois, a Gascoine, that still wore the conizance or device of his master, KING RICHARD, that is to saye, a white hart, and would not put it from him neither for persuasion nor threats; by reason whereof, when the Duke of Hereford understood it, he caused him to be committed to prison within the Castle of Chester. “This man was the last (as saith mine author) which bare that device, and showed well thereby his constant heart towards his master.” It is generally represented crowned, collared, and chained, and couchant under a tree. FROIss ART says: In the 14th of Richard II., Royal Justs and Tournaments were proclaimed to be done in Smithfield; to begin on Sunday next after the Feast of St. Michael. At the day appointed there issued forth of the Tower, about the third hour of the day, sixty Coursers, apparelled for the Justs, and upon every one an Esquire of Honour, riding a soft pace. Then came forth sixty Ladies of Honour, mounted upon palfreys, riding on the one side, richly apparelled, and every Lady led a Knight with a chain of gold. Those Knights being on the King's party, had their armour and apparel garnished with White Harts, and Crowns of Gold about the Hart's neck; and so they came riding through the streets of London. 337 The White Hart Inn is described in the time of Henry VIII. as “Ye White Hart, and eighteen acres of pasture to the same messuage belonging.” According to parish -records of 1623, mine host of the White Hart is stated to be “Hugh Jones, Barber, and Hugh Jones, Victualler, at Holborn end, next Drury Lane.” This union of business was not uncommon in later times in this locality, especially on Sundays, when the barber could always oblige his thirsty customers with the “Cream of the Valley” or the “Extract of Molasses.’ It seems to have been a combination of this kind that made the five women barbers in Drury Lane notorious for their depravity. Did you ever hear the like, Or ever, hear the fame, Of five women barbers, That lived in Drury Lane. It is said that the wife of General Monk (Nan Clarges) had a blacksmith for her father, and that her mother was a woman of ill-fame and one of the “Five Women Barbers.” The White Hart, as a Coaching Inn and Hotel, main- tained its respectability until the time of Charles II., when the changed condition of the neighbourhood made it a place to be avoided by travellers, and caused it to shrink into an ordinary gin-shop, when the large yards attached to it, and the steeping-rooms, coach-houses, and stables were adapted or reconstructed as dwellings for the frail sisterhood of the “Hundred of Drury,” who, in the newly-devised courts and alleys, lived in security and plied without inter- ference their demoralizing mode of life. So it remained projecting into Holborn, and greatly narrowing that thoroughfare, until about 1807, when an Act of Parliament was passed authorizing the sweeping away of White Hart Yard with “certain courts, alleys, and places.” It being Crown property, the improvement was economically carried out. An arrangement was entered into with Messrs. E. and W. 2 The White Hart Inn, Holborn. 338 The White Hart Inn, Strand. Clare Hall. W. Cleaver for a building lease, one of the conditions of which was “that High Holborn should be widened fifteen feet, by setting back the new buildings at a point two houses west of Smart’s Buildings, to be continued to seven feet of the old frontage of Drury Lane, so that Drury Lane may be at that end widened to that extent (7-ft.)” There was a White Hart Inn at the Strand end of Drury Lane, and this seems to make the suggestion probable that the Via de Aldewyche, in the reign of Richard II., was called White Hart Lane until the deposition of that King. At the lower or Strand end of Aldewyche, the gleanings of history indicate that there stood the Mansion-house of the Clares in early times, probably built by Richard, son of Earl Gislebert, progenitor of the ancient Earls of Clare, from whose son Robert descended the noble family of Fitzwalter. The connection of this family with the Lords of Blemunds- bury is shown by a branch of it bearing the name of Montfitchet, and in this way Richard de Clare seems to have become the owner of Aldewyche. According to Thom's Stow, KING HENRY, in 1111, gave Baynard’s Castle to Richard de Clare, son of Gilbert (Gislebert) de Clare, forfeited by William Baynard. In a deed, mentioned by PARTON, there is a “Grant from Roger de Clare, Master of St. Giles’s Hospital, to Walter Christ- masse, of a plot of land situate on ‘The Hyde,” in Alde- wych, in St. Giles, subject to an annual payment at their court of six pence.” Another deed, dated 42 Ed. III., 1369, appears to relate to the “plot of land situate on the Hyde,” and is described as “Land and appurtenances, late of Wal- ter, the son of Cicely, lying in Aldewyche, extending upon land of Isabel Spretton, next Ficette-feld on the east, upon the King’s highway on the west; the land of the Queen’s Hospital on the north, and land of Hugh of St. Clement’s on the south; together with 22d. annual rent, arising from Z" 33%) the messuage of Martin Ixleb rot, subject to the yearly acknowledgment of a clove for all services.” On this deed there is an endorsement of a much later period (undated), as follows:—“This is now called Forfue Gardeyn, qd nota bene pro Henrico Holford et Henrico Drury, Milite. Rent- service of 30s. payable to the hosp. issuing out of a mes- suage, three gardins, and eight acres of land in the p’ishe of St. Clement Danes, qd nota bene for Sir Henry Drurye.” Forfue Gardeyn furnishes a clue to the site of “The Hyde.” It is sometimes spelled “Fort fene Gardin” and “Fortifene Garden,” by the side of which was Fortifene Lane, which connected the Via de Aldewyche with Ficquet Fields, a very old way that in later times had the Cock-pit at its western corner and a Mass-house at its eastern. In planning out Lincoln’s Inn Fields they respected the ancient road, by building the archway as it now exists, and named the lane “Duke Street” at one end and “Princes Street” at the other—the latter name has given place to Kemble Street. The grant of Roger de Clare to Walter Christ- masse, previously referred to, fell to the Crown when Henry VIII. put an end to the Leper IIospital of St. Giles and bestowed this estate, which seems to have included Clare House with its eight acres, upon Sir William Drury, and in accordance with a prevailing custom when property was unjustly acquired and had a doubtful title, the name by which it was known was extinguished and thus Clare House became Drury House, and the Via de Aidewyche was perma- mently changed to Drury Lane. The Clare estate became Crown property by the attainder of Lovel and failure in the line of 13eaumont. The gift of this estate to Sir William Drury was in consequence of the King having deprived him of his interest in the manor of Wrenthorp, and he had to be satisfied with this exchange by way of compensation. During the life of the King no steps were taken to regain Clare FIouse named Drury I louse. 340 Sir William Drury. Wrenthorp, but on the accession of Edward VI. a petition was presented to the Crown from Sir William Drury, Sir John Constable, and others “for restoration to them of the fee in tail of the manor of Wrenthorp, co. York, devolved to the Crown under the Act concerning colleges and chauntries.” Sir William Drury is described as of Hawsted, in the county of Suffolk, Kt. He was a Privy Councillor to Queen Mary. His first wife died shortly after her marriage, and Elizabeth de Boyville became his second wife, who brought to him the manor of Stock- erston, in Leicestershire. He died, January 14, 1557, and was buried in Hawsted Church, in which is an alabaster monument of Sussex Marble. The portrait of Sir William Drury is given in brass. He is in armour between his two wives, about two feet high, his hair is clipped short, his whiskers and parted beard are long; his armour is flourished with some different metal, with large protuber- ances at the shoulders, at his neck and wrists are similar narrow ruffs; his toes are very broad. The ladies are dressed both alike, though this should not have been, for one died at least 40 years before the other, the first dying in 1517, the other surviving her husband, as is represented by her eyes being open, while those of the other are closed. His epitaph is thus given by Sir John Cullum: i Here lieth clothed now in earth Syr Wyll'm Drury, knyght, Such one as whylest he lyved here was loved of every wyght; Such temperance he did retayne, such prudent curtesy, Such noble mynde, with justice joined, such lyberality; As fame ytsself shall sound for me the glory of his name Much better than this metall mute can ay pronounce the same. The seventh of frosty Janyver, the yere of Christ I fynd, A thousand, five hundred, fyfty-seven, his vytal thryd untwin'd. Who yet doth lyve, and shall do styll, in hearts of them yt knew him, God graunt thes slyppes of such a stok in virtues to ensue hym. As no notice is taken of Stockerston in the will of Sir William Drury, it was probably his lady's jointure; and her eldest son dying before his father, it became the property of the Sir William Drury who was slain in France by Sir John Borough, in 1589; and whose grand-daughter, Elizabeth, was the celebrated beauty and rich heiress, traditionally said to have been thought of as the intended bride of Henry, Prince of Wales, eldest son of James I. DR. Don NE says:—- her pure and eloquent blood Spoke in her cheeks, and so distinctly wrought, That one might almost say her body thought. 341 In 1564, John Burton, eldest son of William Burton, Esq., of Braunston, purchased the lordship from the Drurys. He was succeeded by his son, Thomas Burton, who had been made a knight banneret in 1603, at the coronation of King James I., and was made a baronet in 1622. He distinguished himself on behalf of King Charles I. and suffered sequestration and imprisonment for the royal cause, and died in 1655. He was twice married, first to Philippa, daughter of Sir Henry Cobham, alias Brooke, Knt., by whom he had three daughters, but no son; secondly to Anne Havers, widow, by whom he had one son. His son, Sir Thomas Burton, who married in 1655, Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John Pretyman, of Loddington, Baronet, of Nova Scotia, came into the possession of Stockerston. He died 1659, leaving two sons. Sir Thomas Burton, the younger Son, and successor to his father’s estate, died at Newark in 1695, having sold all his interest therein in 1690. His widow became the wife of William Holford, Esq. (afterwards Sir William), of Welham, who resided here. It is strange that the brief tenure of Sir William Drury in Aldewyche should have perpetuated his name so perma- nently in Drury Lane. The Burtons appear to have been the owners of Drury House at the time of the Essex Plot, and were slightly involved in that alleged conspiracy. In a Declaration by Sir Ferdinand Gorges he states: That the Earl of Essex was to meet the Earl of Southampton, Sir Charles Danvers, and other friends at Drury House. Went and found the aforesaid, also Mr. Littleton and others, about six more, Earls, Barons, Knights, and Gentlemen. Feby. 18th, 1601. Drury House passed into the possession of Earl Craven, but the exact time or by what means is not definitely known. He was located there in 1643, but he found a permanent residence in Drury Lane, after the breaking out of the civil war, exceedingly dangerous and fled from it. The Committee for advance of money then assessed John, Lord Craven, of Drury Lane, co. Middlesex and co. Salop, in the sum of $3,000, chargeable on his estate for the purpose of maintain- ing what he considered an army of Rebels. The demand was The Burtons. Craven House. 342 dated November 25th, 1643. It is almost needless to say Lord Craven left the account unsettled during his absence. The demand for payment was again renewed on the 25th of March, 1644, but Lord Craven had not returned, and on the 26th of January, 1646, information was filed against him that he was a delinquent, and that William Whitmore of Clement’s Inn, owed him £100. Craven House was then Craven House & tº seized by the seized by the “Protector,” and transformed into a govern- “Protector.” ment office, and by State documents it appears that: A Council of State is convened to sit to-morrow at Drury House (not Craven House). Colonels Thompson and Harvey, the Treasurers, and Mr. Oxenbridge are ordered to attend. 24th September, 1652. sº The business transacted was of a varied character. The Naval Finance Committee seems to have deliberated here, as appears by the following: Order to the Navy Treasurer to pay 4, 5,000 and 24, 18,000 out of the Treasury at Drury House, as ordered by the Navy Committee. December 24th, 1652. The next document relates to military finance— Order to Lieut. Colonel Worsley and the soldiers at Drury House to allow the East India Company to carry away 24, 4,000, part of 24, Io, ooo paid them for 3oo tons of Saltpetre. May, 1653. Irish and Scotch affairs were not neglected at Drury House, for there is an order— That the Irish and Scotch Committees examine the receipts of the fee farm rents, or the sale of them, at Drury House, to see if some of the money may not be applied to the use of the Council's contingencies, and to report thereon. May 3rd, 1653. Thomas Lamb, a Merchant, presents the following petition to the Protector in reference to his difficulties connected with the Craven estate:— Captn. Clarke, lately dead, left two young orphan sons, to whom I, with others, am executor, but the estate is clogged with a bargain for 24, 150 a year of Lord Craven's estate, of which half .* 2. A A 343 is paid and the other half we know not how to pay, and therefore dare not prove the will, that the estate may not be sequestered for payment of the other half, but the money received as we can raise it yearly out of the profits of the estate. December 25, 1655. Order on Report on the petition of Thomas Lamb:- That the interest for the second half of the purchase money of part of Lord Craven's estate be remitted, and that time be given for paying in the moiety of 24, 1,511 3s. 4d. till Christmas, I656, and Christmas, 1657; meanwhile the estate is not to be Sequestrated for non-payment, and a new conveyance is to be made of the premises, the former not being enrolled. Jany. 4th, 1656. A few years pass and General Monk is the hero of the hour; bells are ringing and bonfires are burning; Lord Craven is back at Drury House, and under his special care is the Queen of Bohemia (not the only Bohemian Queen who has resided in Drury Lane.) She removed from thence to Leicester House on the 8th of January, 1662, to die, her death taking place a few days afterwards, on the 13th, in the 66th year of her age. She bequeathed her pictures, books, and papers to Lord Craven. “This night was buried,” says EvelyN, “in Westminster Abbey the Queen of Bohe- mia, after all her afflictions being come to die in the arms of her nephew the King.” January 17th, 1662. The royalists are restorating, reinstating, and compen- sating their faithful adherents; the Lady of Boscobel comes to live in Drury Lane and be buried in St. Giles’ Church; the five Pendrells, Richard, William, Humphrey, George, and John are not far away; they have lived to reap the fruits of their loyalty, for the King has not forgotten the journey to Moseley. One little waif stands near the char- coal depot, which has given its name to the coal-yard; she listens to the merry bells of St. Giles’ Church, but little thinks the new King will transfer her from a Drury Lane Court to the Royal Court of Whitehall. Poor Nelly! her history is well told as follows, in Macmillan’s Magazine. Nell Gwynn. 344 Parl Craven and the Plague. It is an olden ditty, full of tenderness and pity, Full of leaven, hearts uneven, full of life's mosaic play, When vice held wide dominion, and each courtier was a minion, To a king with cap and bells, in the ages passed away! A dream of time steals o'er us, little Nelly is before us, & Sweet and simple, cheeks of dimple, witching eyes, and black-brown hair, In the play-house pit she stands, with a basket in her hands, And the gallants cluster near to see a serving-maid so fair! But Nelly knows them well, and she makes her good looks tell, “Buy a dozen,” “Ah, the cozen l but no orange is so sweet “As the smiles that we would buy, and the glances of an eye.” —And, blushing, Nell would gather all the guineas at her feet ! Alas! for that same blush, that a wanton look could crush, Virtue sever, and for ever, like a lov'd thing won and lost: On the stage, as Florimel, flaunts the pretty Mistress Nell, And dreams of fame and conquest, nor reckons once the cost! King and nobles gather round, and the Thespian wreath is bound Upon a brow, unblushing now, for maiden shame is past ! That star-bewildering Lilly has made her weak head silly, And among the noble libertines her horoscope is cast! " There is Rochester, sad rake, clever, selfish, who could break A trusting heart, nor feel the smart, for pleasure's wanton sake, And Villiers, gartered knave, fantastic, wild, and brave, * Man of folly—mind unholy, living solely to depravel Dorset, Sedley, Killigrew,-a strange and motley crew, Whose jests, and feats, and mad conceits, have been surpassed by few ; And Buckhurst, nobly gifted, above the loose herd lifted, Yet borne along, by passions strong, with Nell licentious drifted Drop the curtain on this scene ! Rank weeds of life, I ween, Fared better then than honest men, as often may have been Then truth itself was treason, and virtue out of season, And would be still, if ev'ry will defied the code of reason Time its varied shades is casting—to the Palace death is hasting, “Sceptre and crown must tumble down,” life ebbs, its sands are wasting: Charles long unwisely merry, is bound for Charon's ferry, —He is dying, friends are flying, sadd'ning thoughts like these to bury | “Draw the shrouding blind away, that I see once more the day,” And mournfully, with closing eye, he sees the sunbeams play; They crown his drooping head, as the parting spirit fled, —He sighed “”Tis well, Forget not Nell 1" and England's king lay dead WILLIAM JONES. A great national event, ‘The Plague,’ carries the reader back to Craven House. While others fled in fear from London, Lord Craven (who ought to have a monument erected to his memory in Drury Lane) remained, and was the guide, counsellor, and friend throughout that calamity. The Council Board looked to him as Chief Director to carry out their orders, which were given as follows:— 345 The Council Board to the Earl of Craven and other justices of Middlesex and Westminster:-He is to consult with the Bishop of London for continuing the present or using other places for burying the infected; none are to be buried in church-yards, all the infected are to be removed to pest-houses, etc., shut up and guarded as formerly; at the opening of an infected house a white Cross is to be affixed on the door, a declaration when the last person died, and the house to be aired and fumed, no person lodging in it for forty days. The church-yards are to be covered Over fourteen inches thick with unslacked lime and gravel, streets’ and alleys daily cleansed and sewers left open; none suffered to beg in the streets, the justices to give their opinions about the state of the pest-houses and the erection of new ones; care to be taken of houses shut up, none are to be permitted to inhabit cellars or hulks. The Lord Chief Justice is ordered to arrest, if needful, all beggars, etc. February 14th, 1666. Earl Craven's Report to the Council:—As the Bishop of London has refused to consecrate any places that could not be had in perpetuity, those who die of the sickness have to be buried in the late usual places. The infected are removed to the pest- house, if possible; if not, the doors are marked with a red cross 4o days, and then with a white cross 4o days, and warders set to guard those within and hinder the approach of those from without; lime has been too dear to cover the church-yards generally, but the bodies have been buried deep and special care taken not to open the same graves again. The raker brings his cart every morning, and by Sound of his bell, gives notice to the inhabitants to bring out their filth, and the streets are daily cleansed. The removal of the lay-stalls was difficult, on account of the titles in law which the proprietors had therein, but by the justices' diligence most are removed and the rest will be soon. Beggars are removed and punished, and provision made for the poor. The pest-house should be enlarged; that in Westminster can only contain 60 persons; that in the Soho, which serves four parishes, 90 persons, and that in St. Giles', where there is a multitude of poor, 60. Assistance is needed to build more, the ordinary taxes being so numerous; the middling sort of people so impoverished by the plague; and few or none of the nobility and gentry likely to continue in the City if it break Earl Craven, The Bishop of London and the Grave Yards. x 2 346 Pepys and the Plague. Lord Arlington and the Plague. out again. Something is done towards clearing out the cellars, but it is difficult, because of leases and contracts, and because most of the inmates are poor and would be very chargeable to their parishes. February, 1666. PEPYs, in his Diary, thus refers to the red crosses:— " The hottest day that ever I felt. This day, much against my will, I did in Drury Lane see two or three houses marked with a red cross upon the doors and “Lord have mercy upon us” writ there, which was a sad sight to me, being the first of the kind, that, to my remembrance I ever saw. It put me into an ill-concep- tion of myself and my smell, so that I was forced to buy some tobacco to smell to and chew, which took away the apprehension. June 7th, 1665. Joseph Williamson writes to Roger L’Estrange, in- forming him that Lord Arlington wishes the inclosed nar- rative to be inserted in the next four News Books for the public benefit. Statement by Lord Arlington:-That the Council in their care to prevent the spreading infection have ordered the Justices of Middlesex to treat with James Augier for remedies to stop the plague and disinfect houses; the experiment being made in the house of Jonas Charles, of Newton Street, St. Giles' in the Fields, and other infected houses, and no persons have died of the plague in those houses since. Therefore the said Augier's certifi- cate having been further examined, the justices wish to advertise the public where the remedies may be obtained, and give six addresses where they are sold, promising a further narration of the experiments made with them. June 26th, 1665. A memorial of the Earl of Craven and the Plague is still preserved by “The Pest House Field Charity,” now existing as the “Craven Charity,” the object of which is to provide an hospital for the relief of the poor suffering from infectious diseases, belonging to the parishes of St. Clement Danes, St. Martin’s in the Fields, St. George, Hanover Square, St. James’, Westminster, and St. Paul, Covent Garden. The funds are derived from ground-rents of houses at Craven Hill, Bayswater, which produce an 34.7 income of upwards of £400 per annum, and will, on the ex- piration of the building leases, be increased to over £4,000 per annum. By a settled scheme the whole of the income is conditionally granted to the Governors of King’s College Hospital. It is remarkable that the inhabitants of the northern portion of Drury Lane in St. Giles’, where the plague raged fiercely, have no part in the Craven bequest. According to Strype's Stow, Earl Craven’s father left to the poor of St. Giles’ in the Fields £10 to be dis- tributed on the day of his funeral, and in his Will he desires “that my body be decently buried in the parish church of St. Andrew, Undershaft; so near the place where my well- beloved friend, Mr. William Parker lyeth buried, as conve- niently may be.” He also appoints “his good friend, John Parker, to be one of the Overseers of his Will.” The subur- ban residence of the Parkers was near Craven House. In the State Papers there is mention of a “Grant to Hen. Parker of the King’s interest in the lease of a tenement and lands given by Francis, late Earl of Bedford, to Hugh Berry and Anne Pollard, which Parker bought of Berry, who was afterwards attainted.” January 20th, 1608. Parker House stood on the north side of Aldewyche Close, and was bounded by a ditch or open sewer. In later times a narrow thoroughfare, named Parker’s Lane, was formed, leading from Drury Lane into Little Queen Street, now existing as Parker Street. Sir William Craven, by his aforesaid Will, leaves “to his sister-in-law, Mrs. Frances Weild, and Job Weild, her husband, a black gown and £10.” The relationship between the Welds and the Cravens, and the contiguity of Weld ‘House and Craven House suggests that both houses were built on the estate of the Drurys, which came into the hands of Earl Craven, who disposed of certain portions of it to Strickland and Digby. The Parkers of Drury Lane. 348 The Cock-pit in Fortifene Lane. Craven House passed into the hands of Mr. Philip Astley, who built on its site Astley’s Olympic Pavilion or Amphitheatre, which was opened for equestrian perform- ances, 18th September, 1806, and has since passed through all the vicissitudes of fortune incidental to the stage. Near Craven House, by Fortifene Lane, now Kemble Street, stood the well-known Cock-pit. It was built in the days of Elizabeth and flourished when unrefined and brutal exhibitions enjoyed the patronage of the wealthy. Malcolm, who was an eye-witness of this “ sport,” thus describes it: A cockpit is the very model of an amphitheatre of the Ancients. The cocks fight in the area as the beasts did formerly among the Romans; and round the circle sit the spectators in their several rows. It is wonderful to see the courage of these little creatures, who always hold fighting on till one of them drops and dies on the spot. I was at several of these matches, and never saw a cock run away; however, I must own it to be a remnant of the barbarous customs of this island, and too cruel for my entertainment. Tradition says the Cock-pit was burnt down, rebuilt, and opened with the joint name of “The Cock-pit and Phoenix,” being a cock-pit and theatre combined. It was better known as “The Cock-pit Play-house,” the actors being termed “The Queen’s Players.” From some unexplained reason they brought down upon themselves a storm of unpopularity which led to a tumult and the sacking of the place. The first mention of the Cock-pit Play-house occurs in con- nection with this riot, and the story is told in a letter written by John Chamberlain to Dudley Carleton:— On the 4th of this month, being our Shrove Tuesday, the prentices, or rather the unruly people of the suburbs played their parts in divers places; at Finsbury Fields, about Wapping, by St. Catherine's, and in Lincoln's Inn Fields, in which places, being assembled in great numbers, they fell to great disorders, in pulling down of houses and beating of guards that were set to keep rule, 349 specially at a new play-house, some time a cock-pit, in Drury Lane, where the Queen's Players used to play. Though the fellows defended themselves as well as they could, and slew three of them with shot and hurt divers, yet they entered the house and defaced it, cutting the players' apparel into pieces, and all their furniture, and burnt their play-books, and did what other mischief they could. There be divers of them taken since and clapped up, and I make no question but we shall see some of them hanged next week as it is more than time they were. March, 1616-17. The rioters were severely dealt with, for a State Paper announces that “the King has commanded such as were taken to be executed.” March 8th, 1617. Frequent mention of the Cock-pit occurs in the parish books of St. Giles’, in 1623, especially in a “Vellum Book,” prepared to perpetuate the names of the contributors to the rebuilding of the church. There was also a special “Assess- ment Book,” which records that the actors at the Cock-pit Play-house gave various sums towards the erection of the sacred edifice. They gave freely from motives of prudence and policy. Lawrence Whitaker, their near neighbour, was at the head of the Church Building Committee; a most influential parishioner, whose good will was worth securing, and the “poor players” were aware that to refuse his request or to object to an assessment, illegal and invalid, might be followed by an indictment of the Cock-pit as a nuisance. On the 14th April, 1630, cock-pits were suppressed by an Order of Council, and a further Confirmatory Order was published “suppressing all assemblies at prizes, by fences, cock-fights, bull-baitings, and in close bowling alleys, not mentioned but intended by the Order of the 14th instant.” April 25th, 1630. The Cock-pit in Drury Lane was included in this Order, and for a time the building was closed, when there seems to have been introduced certain private performances, possi- bly of a questionable character, under the guise that the The Cock-pit Riot. 350 place was an academy for qualifying pupils for the stage. Christopher Benson or Bitson was proceeded against for a breach of the Council Order, and this simple-minded man presents the following petition to the Council:— Petitioner being commanded to erect and prepare a company of young actors for their Majesty's service, and being desirous to know how they profited by his instructions, invited some noblemen and gentlemen to see them act at the Cock-pit, for which, since he perceived it is imputed a fault, he is very sorry and craves pardon. I636. Protracted proceedings ensued, and the Council ordered their messenger, Jasper Hedley, by warrant:- To fetch before the Lords, Christopher Biston, William Biston, Theophilus Bird, Ezekiel Fenn, and Michael Moone, with a clause to command the keepers of the play-house, called the Cock-pit, in Drury Lane, that either live in it or have relation to it, not to permit plays to be acted there till further orders. May I2th, 1637. The nature of the entertainments at the Cock-pit, after these proceedings, is not clear. The place was reopened and patronized by the gentry, which is evidenced by a State Paper, touching the examination of Sir Wm. Douglas, Kt., Sheriff of Teviotdale, taken this day by Secretary Winde- banke. To the first interrogatory he deposes “that he never had any conference at all with any of the Lower House of Parliament, saving that he met in the Cock-pit, at the Play- house in Drury Lane, with Sir William Withrington and Sir William Conolly, but had no speech with them concerning any business of Parliament.” May 9th, 1640. The disturbed state of the kingdom and the preaching of the Puritans against the immorality of the stage brought about, in 1648, an ordinance of Parliament, commanding the theatres, licensed by government, to be suppressed. During the winter of this year an attempt was made to evade the order and keep the Cock-pit in Drury Lane open 351 for the performance of stage plays, but the success of the piece was destroyed by the unexpected introduction of a scene, in which the actors were greatly astonished at having to take a part they were totally unprepared for. A file of soldiers made their appearance upon the stage and placed them under arrest, and the piece abruptly ended with a solemn procession of “poor players” marching to prison, guarded by military escort, on which the curtain fell. The order for suppressing “play-houses” remained in force until the year of Cromwell’s death, when Sir William D’Avenant opened the Cock-pit with a musical entertainment called The Spaniards in Peru and the following year, Rhodes, a bookseller at Charing Cross, took the Cock-pit, supported by Betterton and Kynaston. Two companies were estab- lished in the neighbourhood, one styled the “King’s,” which removed from the Red Bull and opened a theatre, known as the “Tennis Court,” near Clare Market; and the other distinguished as the “Duke of York’s” or the “Duke's,” who gave up the Cock-pit for a new house in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, which was opened with Davenant’s opera of The Siege of Rhodes. The theatrical rivalry of the age was such that the Siege of Rhodes in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, and Rhodes’ Cock-pit in Drury Lane was a questionable coincidence. The brilliant Betterton had left Rhodes and joined Davenant, and the part he played in the new theatre laid the foundation of his pedestal in the Temple of Fame. The Cock-pit was subject to a series of claims from the Vestry of St. Giles’, as shown in the parish records. The last is thus recorded:—“Received from Mr. Roades, off the Cock-pit playe-house, for playing att the rate of 2d. a day for every day the play’d, till the 28th of July, 1660, £4 6s. 0d. From this time these payments ceased, as the proprietors resented this system of black-mailing, and it is very signifi- cant that a short time afterwards the King writes to Sir William Wylde, Recorder of London, Sir Richard Browne, Alderman, and other Justices of the Peace, stating that: The Tennis Court. 352. He is informed that companies assemble at the Red Bull play-house, St. John's Street, at the Cock-pit, Drury Lane, and at another in Salisbury Court, and perform profane and obscene plays, &c. Orders their rigorous suppression under heavy penalties. August 20th, 1660. The following entries, extracted from Pepy’s Diary, authenticates the history of these theatres at that time:— Mr. Shepley and I to the new play-house near Lincoln's Inn Fields (which was formerly Gibbon's Tennis Court), where the play of Beggar's Bush was newly begun; and so we went in and saw it well acted; and here I saw the first time one Moone, who is said to be the best actor in the world, lately come over with the King, and indeed it is the finest play-house, I believe, that ever was in England. November 2nd, 1660. To the theatre, where was acted Beggar’s Bush, it being very well done; and here the first time that ever I saw women come upon the stage. January 3rd, 1661. ** By coach to the theatre, and there saw The Scornful Lady, now done by a woman, which makes the play appear much better than ever it did to me. February 12th, 1661. Went to Sir William Davenant's Opera (the Duke's Theatre in Lincoln's Inn Fields); this being the fourth day that it hath begun, and the first that I have seen it. To-day was acted the second part of The Siege of Rhodes. We staid a very great while for the King and Queen of Bohemia. And by the breaking of a board over our heads we had a great deal of dust fell into the ladies' necks and the men's haire, which made good sport. The King being come, the scene opened; which indeed is very fine and magnificent, and well acted, all but the Eunuche, who was so much out that he was hissed off the stage. July 2nd, 1661. EvKLYN notes in his Diary:- I saw acted the 3rd part of The Siege of Rhodes. In this acted the faire and famous comedian called Roxalana from the part she performed; and I think it was the last, she being taken to be the Earle of Oxford's Misse (as at this time they began to call lewd women). It was a recitative Music. January 9th, 1662. **, ºg |× } ſ', ſººſJº 8;%§)\ſ\ſ*$% ' .x ： ! º | º º ºſ §: ） ſ º BLOTT'S CHRONICLE OF BLEMUNDSBURY. ſ ſi { � 3.777,777; CoMPANY OF COMEDIANS, REMAINs of GIBBON's TENNIs Cou RT As IT APPEARED AFTER THE FIRE OF I.809, USED IN 1660 As THE FIRST THEATRE OF THE KING's 353 Mrs. Mary Saunderson performed Ianthe in Davenant's play of The Siege of Rhodes. She married Betterton the following year and lived till 1712, having filled almost all the female characters in Shakespeare with great success. April, 1662. From PEPy’s Diary:- To the Cockpitt, where we saw Claracilla, a poor play, done by the King's house; but neither the King nor Queene were there, but only the Duke and Duchesse. January 5th, 1663. To Lincoln's Inn Fields; and it being too soon to go to dinner, I walked up and down, and looked upon the outside of the new theatre building in Covent Garden, which will be very fine. February 6th, 1663. The Tennis-Court Theatre Company, under the ma- nagement of Killigrew, removed to the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, on the 8th of April, 1663, and on this occasion the first play-bill was printed, which runs thus:—“By his Majestie, his company of Comedians, at the New Theatre in Drury Lane, will be acted a comedy called The Humourous Lieutenant.” After detailing the characters the public are informed “The Play will begin at three o'clock exactly.” This Theatre was burnt down in January, 1672, and sixty houses were destroyed with it. It was rebuilt from designs by Sir Christopher Wren and opened March 26th, 1674. The interior was reconstructed by Adams, 1775, and the whole rebuilt on a large scale in 1793. On the 24th February, 1809, it was again destroyed by fire. The Annual Register records its destruction thus:– The fire began in what was called the Chinese Lobby, that is, the lobby underneath the Grand Lobby which faces Brydges- street. This Chinese Lobby was the second entrance going into the theatre from Brydges-street: it was usually but ill lighted, and from it ascended two stair-cases to the main passages and lobbies level with the back of the front boxes. According to the original plan of the theatre, this Chinese Lobby was intended to be sur- rounded with shops for the sale of various articles, such as gloves, fruits, etc., during the performance. The shops had actually been Destruction of Drury Lane Theatre. Y 2 354, made since the opening of the theatre, but they remained shut up with shutters, never having been finished or opened for actual use. This lobby, from the beginning, was a favourite toy of Mr. Sheridan, who, at the commencement of the theatre, and often since, has been heard to boast what a pretty thing it would be when finished and opened in complete style.—To accomplish it had only been determined this season, during the whole of which the entrance to the theatre from Brydges-street has been shut up, that the lobby and the shops in it might be finished and opened. It was nearly ready; the varnishers were at work rather late on Friday night, and from negligence the fire happened. How it happened is not exactly known, but it is known that the varnish caught fire, and almost instantly the whole of the theatre was in a blaze. .. When the fire was first discovered in the interior of the thea- tre, several attempts were made to extinguish it; but it had com- pletely identified itself with the wood, and in less than five minutes after the entrance of Mr. Johnson, the mechanist, the boxes, pit, and stage were covered with fire and smoké. It is due to the exertions of the firemen belonging to the different offices, to observe, that they worked the engines with incessant labour and great judgment. All their efforts, were, how- ever, in vain; and it was found totally impossible to preserve a single vestige of the interior of the house. The multitude assembled on the occasion amounted to at least a hundred thousand Souls. The flames were visible to a considerable extent, from the com- manding situation of the theatre, and of course attracted crowds in every direction. Russell-street, Drury-lane, Catharine-street, Brydges-street, Charles-street, Bow-street, Tavistock-street, Long- acre, and Covent-garden were absolutely filled with spectators. Such was the force of the conflagration that its heat was strongly felt at the church in Covent-garden. When the leaden cistern fell in it produced a shock like an earthquake, and the burning matter forced up into the air resem- bled a shower of rockets and other artificial fireworks. The present building was built under Wyatt and opened on the 10th of October, 1812. The Cock-pit was pulled down and on its site was erected a cluster of insignificant houses in a cul-de-sac or court, which still bears the name of 355 Pitt Place, with a tavern at the corner, afterwards known as the “Mitre.”—Here, in later times, one McCarthy, a baker, stabbed Talbot, a Sheriff’s Officer, who had arrested him; for which he was executed near the spot, on Saturday morning, October 25th, 1760. A little distance from the Cock-pit, nearly facing Craven House, was an old tavern with the sign of the “Magpie.” It is said to have been formerly called the “Music-house,” but it has left no history behind it. Tradition says the Music-house was merged in the Magpie, and as that bird roosted in the neighbourhood of Cock-and-Pye Fields, the owner of the “Magpie” changed it to the “Cock-and-Pye.” The curious, if they can, may find a better reason for the name. It never, under this sign, was an inn of any importance, it was a place of ill- repute. The frequenters of the Cock-pit may have found there congenial companionship; as it was built at a time when Drury Lane was fast gathering to itself the abandoned scum of a great city, and it is well known that the “Cock- and-Pye.” Ale-house was the haunt of the harlot and the foot-pad. The News, Novr. 23rd, 1822, gives the following account of the class of customers at the “Cock-and-Pye:” MoRE LIFE –Messrs. Whitby, Gee, Davis, and Russell were brought before the Magistrates on Wednesday morning by Avis and Baker, of the patrol, who took them into custody in the middle of the preceding night—at a moment when the young gentlemen were out on their rambles and sprees, as laid down in the new system of Corinthianism. The officers stated that these young gentlemen, the eldest of whom is not more than seventeen, belong to “The Tom, Jerry, and Bob Club of young Corinthians,” held at the Cock and Magpie flash gin shop in Drury-lane; and that every night, after the breaking up of the club, they, and ten or twelve others of the same sort, amuse themselves by breaking the peace—strutting about in gangs with straw segars in their mouths and their hats Cocked aside, sweeping the pavement, starring the glaze, and shifting fogles, as time and chance may serve. Russell’s mother was in attendance, and informed his The Cock and Pye. 356 Worship that her son was as good a lad as ever lived till Tom, Jerry, and Bobbing came up, and since then he has neglected his lemons, stayed out whole nights, robbed her, and pawned her clothes for money to spend in coffee-shops and at the club, and whenever she remonstrated with him, told her that Life was all the go now-a-days, and he should do as others did. They said nothing for themselves, and the Magistrate ordered them a month's amuse- ment at the Corinthian Finish—alias the treading-mill in the house of correction, with a hint that if this was not sufficient, he would accommodate them with three months on the next occasion. The infamous character of the place caused the forfeiture of the license, and the building, while retaining some appear- ance of a tavern, is now a miscellaneous emporium of odds and ends which are supposed to find purchasers in the ‘Lane.’ The degradation of Drury Lane was accelerated by the number of its licensed houses, in which the ill-gotten gains of the dangerous classes were dissipated in debauchery. The Rose Tavern was a den of infamy, and was made worse by the competition of other houses that gave shelter and protection to criminals guilty of the grossest crimes. The government was appealed to as early as 1634 to prevent the opening of any more taverns, as follows:– Petition of Thomas Harrison and George Gardiner, Vintners, to the Council.—The Lords have formerly made orders for sup- pression of taverns in the suburbs of London, yet in Drury Lane, where petitioners live and keep their taverns, within two years four taverns have been erected, which make the number twelve, and one more now erecting by Reginald Binion, a bricklayer, and another intended to be erected at the end of Russell Street, corner of Covent Garden. Pray that the erectors of the two last men- tioned taverns may be enjoyned not to proceed and that the others may be reviewed and certified.—1634. There had been a previous petition against Paul and Batley, Vintners, and an injunction obtained against them, in which, by Order of Council, they were requested not to presume to set up a tavern in Drury Lane. February 13th, 1634. BLOTT'S CHRONICLE OF BLEMUNDSBURY. + ! |-| ## } • . */p+ ！ ¡ ¿ {{ſ}} | | | | | \\{\\ \\.' \\\\ ¿??¿ xy ∞∞∞∞∞ √∞∞∞∞EGT ĒĖĖ. $（ſetínv.-- ſ. Läſiiſ， įjįț¢ „ , ſae. }}ķiſ };} \\!！!！！!!！''. W 18 ae ſae Waeſ }} &A YSow w/ 4/º3 = < .277 fº zºzzzz Zºº ..or £46 & 227 %c * CIENT ARCHITECTURE, & SIPIE. CIMIEN of AN 4% %22 % 6% 357 In the following year further complaints were made and a Report by Order of Council was presented as under:— Sir Henry Spiller and Lawrence Whitaker to the Council.— According to Order of 1st May, had viewed the many taverns in Drury Lane, and had forbidden John Clopton, who formerly kept a disordered house in Fleet Street, to proceed any further with a tavern in Drury Lane; but Clopton has, notwithstanding, laid in his wine, set open his doors, and hanged up his bush. July 9th, 1635. “Good wine needs no bush” was a proverb that Ralph Eglesfield did not believe in. He hung out his bush in open defiance of Spiller and Whitaker, which was met by an Order of Council, as follows:— Whereas the Lords, by an Order of 29th May last, allowed Ralph Eglesfield, Vintner, of Westminster, time till St. Bartholo- mew's Day to sell the wines in his cellars and provide for himself elsewhere, and required him then to shut up his tavern and sell no more wine there or elsewhere in Westminster or its Liberties; yet as appears by a petition to the Board to-day from the Vintners of Westminster and its Liberties, he not only sells wine there since the time limited, but in a contemptuous manner has, since the 29th of May, hung up a sign and bush. The Lords did this day order the Justices of the Peace of Middlesex to cause the said sign to be immediately taken down, and Eglesfield's doors shut up, and him- self absolutely suppressed. September 9th, 1640. Adjoining the grounds of the White Hart Inn (pre- viously mentioned), at the Holborn end of Drury Lane, stood the residence of Sir William Cornwallis, known as Cornwallis House. It is a long task to trace how the Christ- masse estate passed into the Cornwallis family, who appears to have been the immediate successors to the great inheritance in Drury Lane, but the following extracts from the State Papers indicate that he held “disputed possession,” which resulted in a trespass, then termed “burglary.” Grant to Sir Hugh Losse of pardon for a burglary in the house of Sir William Cornwallis. March 14th, 1604. Cornwallis House, Drury Lane. 358 Short's Garden, Drury Lane. Grant to John Bowyer, gent., of London, and Richard Taverner, gent., of Gray's Inn, of pardon for the same offence. March 14th, 1604. Release to Sir Hugh Losse of a proviso for finding sureties, Contained in the former pardon granted to him for burglary in Sir William Cornwallis's house; also re-grant of pardon for the same offence. There is another extract of a more pleasing character: Warrant to pay to Geo. Herriot A 6o for a jewel of gold set with diamonds, given to Jane Mewtas, one of Her Majesty's Bed- chamber women, on her marriage with Sir William Cornwallis. April 20th, 16 Io. The union was soon ended. John Chamberlain, Esq., writes to Sir Dudley Carleton informing him that “Sir William Cornwallis died the last week and hath left a fresh widow, who, by means of good friends hath gotten the wardship of her son, and so hath the whole of the estate in her hands.” Novr. 20th, 1611. Lady Cornwallis seems to have parted with her interest in the estate in Aldewyche to the Burtons of Leicestershire, who, by marriage, purchase, and building leases became the possessors of a great part of the Via de Aldewyche, both in St. Giles’ and St. Clement Danes, and also in St. Martin’s, as the following deeds, copied from the original leases, prove. This Indenture, made the 23rd day of February, 1619, between Thomas Burton, of the parish of St. Giles' in the Fields, of the one part, and Edmund Edlyn, citizen and salter of London of the other part:—Witnesseth that Walter Burton, of Drury Lane, by his indenture of Lease bearing date the 2nd day of May, 1616, demised unto Thomas Burton—All that ground lately inclosed, being lately parcel of the great Garden, called or known by the name of Short's Garden, in the occupation of the said Thomas Burton, with all ways, &c., which said parcel of ground abutteth east upon the grounds of Sir Charles Cornwallis, Knt., west upon the lane called Drury Lane, which leadeth up to the parish of St. Giles' in the Fields, north upon a way or passage of twenty feet 359 broad, lately marked out by the said Walter Burton, leading from Drury Lane to and through the ground of the said Sir Charles Cornwallis, Knight, towards Holborn, and south upon the street called Queen Street, and next adjoining unto the street called Queen Street, and containing in length from east to west 520 foot of assize, and in breadth from north to south fifty foot of assize, which said piece of ground the said Walter Burton hath by inden- ture of Lease, bearing date the 28th day of July last past, granted by William Short of Gray's Inn for the term of 57 years, for the yearly rent of Thirty Pounds. Now the said Thomas Burton, in consideration of the sum of One Hundred and Ten Pounds received from Edmund Edlyn, hath granted all the estate, leases, etc., in the before-mentioned ground. And the said Edmund Edlyn is to allow one Rent of Forty Shillings unto one Robert Playstead and Margaret his wife, late the wife of Walter Burton, deceased, during the term of Fifty Years. And the said Thomas Burton grants to Edmund Edlyn all the interest, right, claim, or demand which he hath or ought to have in and to that piece of ground, holden by Philip Parker.—(Signed) EDMUND EDLYN. This Indenture, dated the 20th June, 162o, between the Compy. of Tylers and Bricklayers of the City, and Robert Playsted of Saint Giles’ in the Fields and Margaret his wife, late wife of Walter Burton on the one part, and Richard Burton of London, her natural son of the other part. Whereas by the marriage hereunder mentioned it was agreed to set over and assign in trust to the said Compy, on the 14th of October, 1619, to the use of the said Richard Burton, after the decease of the said Margaret, his mother, shall be assigned to Richard Burton all that messuage or tenement, lying and being in Drury Lane, also Fortifeue Lane, in the Parish of St. Giles' in the Fields, which Lady Somerville, late wife of Sir Thomas Somerville, co. Warwick, Knight, lately dwelled, and wherein Sir Thomas Vavasour doth now inhabit. And also all gardens, orchards, yards, grounds, stables, &c., newly erected by Walter Burton in his life upon part of the inheritance of William Short of Gray's Inn, together with other grounds thereunto adjoining, part also of William Short's inheritance.— (Signed) RICHARD BURTON. This Trust was terminated by a Deed, in which all parties concerned concurred, on the 22nd May, 1623. Building Leases— Burton to Edlyn. 360 Humphrey Newton and Francis Cornwallis. Indenture made the 22nd May, 1623, between the Compy, of Tylers, &c., Trustees of Walter Burton of the one part, and William Atkinson, Yeoman, of the other part. Witnesseth that the said Compy, for the sum of £3 6s. Iod. received from William Atkinson, discharge the said William Atkinson, and by these presents release, &c., all that one plot or parcel of ground lying and being on the north side of the late Mansion House of one Thomas Colston, late of Queen Street, St. Giles', Perfumer, abutting or near adjoining upon the way or passage of 20ft. leading from Drury Lane through the grounds of Sir Charles Cornwallis, Kt., towards Holborn, and upon a plot of ground or garden, sometime in the occupation of one Richard Durham, adjoining on the east side thereof, and abutting upon the garden of Thomas Burton, deceased, adjoining on the north-west. The Said plot is 12 ft. broad and 5oft. long and was late part of the great garden of, called by the name of Short's Garden, late in the occupation of Thomas Burton, deceased, Together with free passage of the said 20ft. broad leading from Drury Lane through the grounds of the said Walter Burton and Cornwallis. To have and to hold for a term of 93 years (expiring 1650), paying yearly to the said company a rent of eight shillings. U'sual Covenants. (Signed) WILLIAM ATR INSON. This Indenture made the 19th day of May, 1655, between Humphrey Newton of Lincoln's Inn of the one part and Francis Cornwallis of St. Paul's, Covent Garden, of the other part. Whereas the said Humphrey Newton by lease bearing date the 18th day of May, 1655, in consideration of Five Shillings. Did grant unto Francis Cornwallis a piece of land, being part of a field called Pursefield, abutting on the east part upon the common highway, leading from a street called Queen Street in to Holborn, on the west by the common sewer, on the north by a house and garden in the tenure of Samuel Fry, glover, on the south by Parker's Lane, and sometime inclosed with a brick wall, now in the tenure of Francis Cornwallis, and all messuages, &c. To have and to hold the same for one whole month next ensuing as by indenture of lease, which lease was only made for the intent that the said Francis Cornwallis should be possessed of the premises. And in consideration of 4.5o received from the said Francis Cornwallis, Hath demised the said premises. (Signed) FRANCIS CORNWALEYS. 361 The Francis Cornwallis in the before-mentioned deed has been referred to as the son of Sir William Cornwallis, who married in 1610 and died in 1611. This infant grew to manhood, and resided “in a large and beautiful house, with gardens of pleasure, bowling-alleys, and such like, built by Jasper Fisher, in Bishopsgate, free of the Goldsmiths, late one of the six clerks of the chauncerie. This house, being so large and sumptuously built by a man of no greater calling (for he was indebted to many), was mockingly called ‘Fisher's Follie,” and a rhythm was made of it and other the like in this manner:— Kirkebye's Castell, and Fisher's Follie Spinila’s pleasure, and Megsie's glorie.” In this house Lord Cornwallis died, and PEPYs, in his Diary, records his funeral:—“Towards Cheapside; and in Paul's Church-yard saw the funeral of my Lord Cornwallis, late Steward of the King’s household, go by”—January 16, 1662. The procession was passing through the City west- ward towards the family vault under the church of St. Giles’ in the Fields. The beautiful house, “with gardens of pleasure, bowling-alleys, and such like,” indicates the con- nection between Fisher and Cornwallis. The description by Stow E and his comments in respect to “Fisher's Follie.” are apt to mislead the reader. The house does not appear to have been built to display the vanity of Fisher, or as his private residence. It was Fisher’s Folly because it was an unfortunate speculation in Bowling-alleys and Tennis-courts. On August 18th, 1604, there was granted a “License to Thomas Cornwallis to nominate fit persons to keep Bowling-alleys, Tennis-courts, or other places of diversion in London and Westminster.”—State Papers. A license was obtained by Fisher from Cornwallis, at what price is not known; all that is known is that the estate of the enter- prising Fisher fell into the hands of the Cornwallis family. Fisher's Folly, Z 2 362 Sir Lewis Lewkenor. When Cornwallis House, Drury Lane, was vacated, it was occupied by another court favourite of KING JAMES I., Sir Lewis Lewkenor, who, on the 7th of November, 1605, received a grant from the King of the office of Master of the Ceremonies for life. He had to provide for the accommodation and entertainment of Ambassadors and Princes when in this country, and Lewkenor House, Drury Lane, was a place of considerable importance, which the aristocracy of all nations resorted to when in England. The Spanish Ambassador presented Sir Lewis with a chain on the 27th March, 1606, as an acknowledgment of his services in bringing him the good news of the King’s deliverance from the “powder treason.” The following extract from the State Papers illustrates the judicial manners and customs of the age:– Grant to Sir Lewis Lewkenor of leases, goods, etc., forfeit to His Majesty by Ralph Buckhurst, indicted for murder of John Savage, who, refusing to take his trial for the same offence, according to the lawe, stood mute, and thereupon was pressed to death. August 13th, 1609. The King had little money and contrived when he could to pay with the property of his subjects. The Buck- hurst estate was not sufficient to meet the expenses of Lewkenor’s office, and the delay he experienced in receiv- ing his salary compelled him to write to the Earl of Pem- broke “begging his influence that he may have £200 of his arrears to enable him to satisfy the demands of poor coachmen and others who claimed against him. The richer claimants may wait a better opportunity.” Nov. 22, 1620. On the 9th August, 1623, Lewkenor received a letter from Thomas Capin, of New Sarum, stating “that John Blafford, citizen, said on seeing the Spanish Ambassador drawn by asses, that one ass was good enough for a fool, and that we shall shortly become mongrels, half one and half the other.” 363 About this time Lewkenor House was given up; its occupier fell into disgrace and was committed to the Tower (May 17th, 1624) for writing to Sir Richard Bingley for a ship to send over the Spanish Ambassador. Lady Lewkenor continued to reside in the parish after the death of her husband, as shewn by her assessment, made the 22nd Sept., 1643, by the Committee for advance of money, which assessment (£100) was discharged on her affidavit that she had no estate considerable enough for assessment. After the disgrace of Lewkenor the duty of providing for Ambassadors seems to have devolved upon the Lord Mayor of London, Sir Richard Dean, who fixed upon Weld House, and he wrote to Lady Weld, intimating:— That he had been required by the Lord Chamberlain to provide a house-in London for the Spanish Ambassador, shortly expected, and her house, in which Sheriff Backhouse had lived last year, had been fixed upon. She need not trouble herself to have any stuff, as the King's Officers would wholly furnish it; a competent rent would be paid, and the house would be left in due repair. He therefore required her forthwith without delay or excuse, to deliver it up to the persons appointed by the Lord Chamberlain to furnish it. October 8th, 1628. Lady Weld objected and refused to comply with the wishes of the Lord Chamberlain or the Lord Mayor, and this led to a further correspondence, as follows:— Letter from the Lord Keeper and the Lord Privy Seal to the Lord Mayor:-Stating that the Lady Weld's house, which had been assigned for the lodging of the Spanish Ambassador, was found to be somewhat incommodious, they were therefore com- manded by the King to request him to use his best endeavours for the speedy providing of some other fit house more conveniently situated. He must understand they had not relinquished Lady Weld's house, nor acquitted her of her contempt in not conforming to the King's desire, but had enjoined her obedience and had only suspended her actual performance thereof, until trial had been made whether a more commodious house could be provided.— WHITEHALL, November 17th, I629. Lady Weld and the Lord Mayor. 361. By information gleaned from the City Minutes the next tenant of Lewkenor House seems to have been Sir Richard Weston. He occupied a position that gave him great influence at Court as well as in the City. The numer- ous buildings near his residence had seriously affected the local water supply, both in quality and quantity, and as the main pipe of the water works that supplied the City ran near his house, he made an application to the Court of Aldermen for the special privilege of having a supply from their pipe. The application was favourably received, and the following is a “Copy of an Order at the Court of Alder- men granting, during pleasure, to Sir Richard Weston, Knt., Chancellor of the Exchequer, a quill of water from the City’s main pipe to serve his house in Drury Lane.” 1627. The gardens and grounds attached to the house occu- pied a part of “Old Witch Close,” not yet built upon, and appears to have been named “Weston’s Park” during his tenancy. One William Whetstone, shortly after the Resto- ration, built a few wretched tenements at the back of the houses in Holborn (on one side only), between where now stands the recently-erected warehouses of Messrs. Carter & Co., Seed Merchants, and Great Turnstile. These build- ings overlooked the stables at the rear of the houses in Lincoln’s Inn Fields. Whetstone, being connected with the vestry, obtained permission to name this narrow and disreputable defile “Whetstone Park,” having in his mind the Weston’s Park which no longer existed. The other half of this “park,” ending in Gate Street, had the humbler title of “Phillips's Rents.” The distinction has long since been abolished and the whole is now “Whetstone Park.” The leafy avenue of Lewkenor's Lane and Weston’s Park soon became places to be avoided on account of the offensiveness of the open sewer in the immediate neighbour- hood; so foul and intolerable a nuisance was it, that there 365 was issued a “Warrant to the Petty Constables of the Parishes of St. Giles’ in the Fields and St. Clement Danes, to give notice to the persons, whose names are underwritten, to appear by eight o’clock to-morrow morning at the Mews, near Charing Cross, before Sir John Hippesley and Sir Henry Spiller, to show cause why they neglect and refuse to cleanse and repair their parts of a common sewer, near Lewkenor’s Lane, St. Giles’ in the Fields, which has become a public nuisance.” July 8th, 1640. Drury Lane was noted for being the residence of ladies, one of which was Lady Cope, the widow of Walter Cope, Lord of St. Giles’ Manor. John Chamberlain, in a letter to Dudley Carleton, informs him “of the sudden death of Sir Walter Cope, heart-broken at the death of his brother, Sir Edward, and the threatened loss of his place.” Aug., 1614. Sir Walter Cope and Lord Salisbury were adjoining land-owners. Salisbury held a portion of Mereslade and Cope held lands in Aldewyche. They were friends, and Salisbury is reported to have said to Cope in his last illness (1612)—“Ease and pleasure quake to hear of death, but my life, full of cares and miseries, desireth to be dissolved.” The two widows, Lady (Walter) Dorothy Cope and Lady (Edward) Katharine Cope, both came to reside in St. Giles'; Lady Katharine in Middle Row by the Church, and Lady Dorothy in Drury Lane. John Chamberlain makes frequent mention of Lady Dorothy in his letters to Carleton. He writes: “Lady Cope has sold her house in the Strand and is removing to a smaller one of £30 a year in Drury Lane, the result of making too great a show before.” April 6th, 1615. .* “The Lady Cope lives close at her house in Drury Lane, and yet she is found out and much visited by cozeners and projectors that would fain be fingering her money upon large offers. I found there this other day, that I went to The Common Sewer in Drury Lane. The two widows— Dorothy and Katharine Cope. 366 Isabella Cope marries Lord Rich. The Manor of St. Giles and the Earl of Southampton. her about your money, Sir Richard Gargrave and Sir Harry Windham, at another time Tavener and one or two such cheaters, that will quickly strip her of her money if she will not take the better heed; and that is all she hath to trust to, having let go her jointure. She promises to do what lies in her for your £20, but Sir Henry Rich comes little at her, and useth her as a stranger.” July 20th, 1615. The allusion to Sir Henry Rich opens up a sad story. Lady Dorothy Cope had an only daughter Isabella, her father’s idol and his heir. KING JAMEs I. was desirous that his favourite, Henry Rich, Earl of Holland, should marry the rich heiress, Isabella Cope, and exerted all his influence to bring it about. Holland House, built by her father in 1607, which was then known as Kensington Manor- house, with the manor, was part of her marriage portion, and also the manor of St. Giles’ in the Fields. Her mother, at the death of her father, was scantily provided for. The marriage was an unhappy one; the husband had her wealth, but another suitor had her affections. An illicit amour with Blount ended in her being disgraced and divorced, and the rich heiress became poor indeed when she was the Lady Rich. By a deed, dated 1616, the manor of St. Giles was conveyed by dame Isabella Rich and dame Dorothy Cope to the trustees of the Earl of Southampton. PENNANT says: In the dining room of Wrest Park, Bedfordshire, there is a full length of Lady Rich, in black. When Blount, after some years absence in the Irish wars, returned laden with glory, and by the death of his elder brother honoured with the title of Mountjoy, he commenced a criminal connection with his former mistress, Lady Rich. She was fully and legally divorced from Lord Rich. Blount, now Earl of Devonshire, determined to make her repara- tion, and persuaded Mr. Laud, then his chaplain, to marry them. In those days this was looked on as so high a crime, that King James was for several years extremely averse to the bestowing any preferment on him, and Laud himself had such a sense of his 367 fault as to keep an annual fast on the unlucky day ever since, The picture was painted by Van Dyck and was one of the Wharton Collection, afterwards purchased by Sir Robert Walpole and sold by his executors, Lady Katharine Cope, the aunt of Isabella, continued to reside in Middle Row. She was, by the Committee for advance of money, “assessed at £50, her assessment to be discharged on payment of £15, besides the £21 6s. 8d. lent, and £3 13s. 4d. deposited.” September 29th, 1643. Henry Rich, Earl of Holland, was true to his King and paid the penalty of his loyalty. When broken down with infirmity and enfeebled with age, he staggered on to the scaffold, erected in front of Westminster Hall, where the headsman was waiting to execute him as a traitor to his country. He suffered on the 9th of March, 1649. The fields of Aldewyche, lying around Drury House, at this time were nearly covered with houses, as the following deeds show:— By an Indenture of Lease, dated 30th April, 1607, made between Walter Burton of St. Clement Danes of the one part, and Walter Lee also of St. Clement Danes of the other part. Witnesseth that Henry Holford of Long Stanton, co Cambridge, Esqr., and Jane his wife, granted to Walter Burton all that piece or parcel of ground lately taken out of the north side of the close of the said Henry Holford, called Oldwitch Close, in the Parish of St. Giles' in the Fields, as the same is severed and divided from the residue of the said Close with a wall lately erected. And all that messuage or tenement lately erected upon the said piece of ground by one Henry Seagood and now in his occupation. And also the other messuages and tenements, with the gardens, backsides, and garden plots to the same adjoining or belonging, in the tenure of Humphrey Gray, situate in the west part of Oldwitch Close, and lately enclosed out of Oldwitch Close next adjoining unto Drury Lane, with egress, ingress, and regress, etc., and three acres of pasture with the appurtenants in St. Giles’ in the Fields, to hold the same for the term of 57 years at a rental of 4.39 Ios, od. Execution of the Earl of Holland. Lease—Holford to Burton. 368 Walter Burton demises to Walter Lee, Lease— Walter Burton to Thomas Mefflyn. payable on the usual quarter days. This Indenture further witnesseth that the said Walter Burton hath demised unto the said Walter Lee—All that piece or parcel of ground, being a parcel of the premises before mentioned to be lying in the west side of Old- Wyche Close as the same is now allotted and plotted out, to be enclosed between the ground of Richard Ortould on the south and the land of John Best on the north, and west upon Drury Lane, and abutteth upon Oldwyche Close on the north and east. And the same containeth in breadth abutting on Drury Lane 48ft. or thereabouts, and in length next to the grounds of the said Richard Ortould I 5 oft., and at the other side next to the grounds of John Best 12 oſt. To have and to hold for 50% years and 80 days as the said Walter Burton holds the same with free ingress, egress, etc., paying yearly to the said Walter Burton 50 shillings per annum, and will pay to the King, his heirs, and successors one quit-rent of 6s. 6d. for the said Oldwyche Close. And the said Walter Lee shall fence in the said piece of ground and likewise pave and maintain so much of the Lane called Drurie Lane in respect of these premises. And it shall be lawful for the said Walter Lee to dig up earth, clay, loam, or gravel, and defray his charge of the making and repairing from the gate by Drurie Lane Coming into Oldwyche Close, but shall make no Laystall and shall drain all the houses into Drury Lane. This Indenture made the 29th day of October, 1609, between Walter Burton of the Parish of St. Clement Danes, without the Bars of the New Temple, London, of the one part, and Thomas Mefflyn, Citizen and Girdler, of the other part. Witnesseth that whereas Henry Holford of Longstanton in the County of Cam- bridge, Esqr., and Jane, his wife, have by him in dower form of law levied fine, etc., and by an Indenture expressing the uses of the said fine, bearing date the 28th day of April, 1607, granted unto the said Walter Burton. All that piece or parcel of ground lately taken out of the north side of the close of the said Henry Holford, called Aldewych Close, situate in the Parish of St. Giles' in the Fields, as the same is severed and divided from the residue of the said Close with a pale lately erected. And all that messuage or tenement lately erected upon a part of the said piece or parcel of ground by one Henry Seagood, and then in the Occupation of Henry Seagood. And also two other messuages or tenements 369 with the gardens, backsides, and garden plot to the same, then or late in the occupation of Humphrey Gray, situate on the west part of Aldewych Close, and lately enclosed out of the said close. And also all that other piece of ground which has been agreed to be staked out and enclosed, of and from the west side of Aldewych Close, next adjoining unto Drury Lane, together with three acres of pasture with the appurtenances, etc., situate in the Parish of St. Giles' in the Fields, with free ingress, egress, and regress, into, Out, and from the same, by all usual ways, as well on horseback as on foot, with cart, drift, and carriages. To have and to hold the same for 57 years from the birth of our Lord God last past, etc. Now this Indenture further witnesseth that the said Walter Burton, in consideration of a surrender to him made by one John Best, Citizen and Grocer of London, of Two several Leases, the one made by Edward Ford unto the said John Best, and the other by the same Edward unto Ambrose Bowdell, deceased, which was afterwards assigned unto the said John Best. As for other good causes, etc., Hath demised to Thomas Mefflyn–All that piece or parcel of ground, being a part of the premises above-mentioned, containing in breadth at the end abutting on Drury Lane, twenty foot of assize, and at the other end abutting on Aldewych Close twenty foot six inches, and in length at the side thereof next the ground of Walter Burton Io.4 foot of assize, and in length on the other side next the land of John Best IO4 foot of assize. To have and to hold the said piece for a term of 48 years. Yielding and paying to the said Walter Burton the sum of twenty-two shillings and four pence at the four usual feasts of the year by even portions. The said Thomas Mefflyn to pay also one quit-rent of five shillings and eight pence to the King, . . . and likewise pave and maintain the lane called Drury Lane (in part thereof) according to the Statute lately made. And it is further agreed between Thomas Mefflyn and Walter Burton that they shall yearly, as need shall require, defray the charge of the making and repairing of the way from the gate by Drury Lane coming into Aldewych Close, and shall make no Laystall to annoy the King's subjects upon the premises, and shall convey away all water-courses from all houses which shall be erected or built upon the premises by gutters into Drury Lane, whereby Aldewych Close may not be injured, and that so as persons passing over the footway may not be annoyed. A 3 370 The naming of Queen Street. Queen Street Gate-House. And the said Walter Burton, having the like parcel of ground on either side of the demised premises, shall be permitted to lay and set two pipes of lead in and through the demised premises into the well there being, and to draw water out of the same. Provided that if the water be insufficient for the said three parcels of land, the said Walter Burton shall at his own charge dig and make the said well sufficient in depth to bring and maintain water to form a sufficient supply for all parties. (Signed) JOHN BEST. The increase of houses is marked by the following:— Petition of the Inhabitants at the New Gate near Drury Lane to the Lord High Treasurer Salisbury, in which they state they have petitioned the Queen to give a name to the place of their abode and have been referred to him. Request him to give it a name on her behalf. I612. In answer thereto he christened it “Queen Street.” The gate referred to, or rather gate-house, was erected at the west end of Queen Street for the purpose of preserving the privacy of the residents. It made the approach from Drury Lane most inconvenient; the entry being long, nar- row, and dark. It grew to be an unmitigated nuisance and was fitly called Hell Gate alias The Devil's Gap. The upper portion of this building seems to have been removed at an early date, but the “Gap” remained until 1765, when an im- provement was effected by widening that end of the street. Queen Street, says Stow, is almost opposite to Long Acre, which after a narrow entrance openeth itself into a broad street and falleth into Lincoln's Inn Fields. It is a street graced with a goodly row of large uniform houses on the south side, inhabited by the Nobility and Gentry, but the north side is but indifferent, nor by consequence So well inhabited; and on this side are three small courts and alleys, viz: Sugar-Loaf Alley, Bull's-Head Court, and Whitcomb's Alley. Stow speaks of the courts in his time running out of Drury Lane between this “New Gate” and Princes Street, viz.:-Colson’s Court, Holford Alley, Cock-pit Alley, Gol- den-Ball Court, Weld Court, and Princes Street, all small 37I with narrow passages, and not over well inhabited; except some of them, noted for the reception of the kinder sort of females. The following extract is copied from the Annual Report of St. Giles' District Board, 1890: – At the request of Messrs. Lambert and Butler, and with the approval of the adjoining owners, the Board consented to an application being made, to the Justices of the Peace for closing Princes Court, Drury Lane, but upon the application coming before the Justices, they refused to grant it. This court is the last One remaining between Kemble Street and Long Acre, and it might well have been demolished by the Metropolitan Board of Works when the scheme for dealing with the Great Wild Street Area was under consideration, for it is the earnest desire of all parties in the neighbourhood that it should be stopped up, and the evidence of the police was strongly in favour of such a course being adopted. Drury Lane, a very long street, coming out of St. Giles's, and running down into the Strand, and is a place of great resort, replenished with good houses that are well inhabited by tradesmen, as being so great a through-fare both for man and horse. This street, as before noted, is part in the parish of St. Clement's, part in that of the Savoy, and part in that of St. Giles's in the Fields, and the part that belongs to the parish of St. Martin's in the Fields is only the west side, from the corner of Brownlow Street in the north, where the parish stone-mark is set upon the house wall, unto the corner of White-Hart Yard.—Strype's Stow. Cross Lane cometh out of Parker's Lane and falleth into Newton Street; a very ordinary place, on the east side of which are two small courts, viz.:-Star Court and Wray's Court. Newton Street comes into Holborn against the Watch House. It is a handsome broad street, but not over well inhabited. On the east side is Dover Court, of no great account. Lutner's Lane, at the lower end of Newton Street, falls into Drury Lane; a very ordi- nary place. St. Thomas' Lane fronts Cross Lane, and also runneth into Drury Lane. This place, with Lutner's Lane and Cross Lane, with the several courts, are but of Small account either for build- ings or inhabitants. At the upper end of Drury Lane, on the east side, is the Coal Yard, which hath a turning passage into 372 Holborn, and a place of a very ordinary account: Then on the west side of Drury Lane, beginning at the corner of St. Giles's Street is Ragged-Staff Court; indifferent large. A little further is a small place called Pavier's Alley. Then next it is Short's Gardens, which falls into Kings Street, being fronted by Belton Street, and hath a small passage into Bowl Yard; this street is indifferent good, but of no great resort or thoroughfare. Brownlow Street, well inhabited and built, fronting Belton Street, which hath indifferent good houses—Strype's Stow. PART.on says:—“Paviour’s Alley is at present (1822) a merely insignificant passage, called Ragged-Staff Court.” This is not so, the preceding statement of STow is correct. Ragged-Staff Court still exists under the name of Gibson’s Court; the Coal Yard, for some reason, has been changed to Goldsmith Street, and Pavior’s Alley, nearly opposite, where it is said the great plague first made its appearance, was afterwards named Ashlin’s Place, and settled down into a most disreputable slum, the surroundings becoming more insanitary, in consequence of some of the wooden tene- ments being converted into cow sheds. Happily the place has been recently extinguished. The Annual Report of the District Board of St Giles for 1886 says:—“An improve- ment is to be effected by arrangement with Messrs. Combe and Company by demolishing the house, No. 15, Drury Lane, widening the entrance to Short's Gardens, and open- ing the same to the sky.” In consideration of this improve- ment the Board consented (subject to an order of the Justices being obtained) to Messrs. Combe and Company stopping up Ashlin’s Place, a yard in the rear of houses in Drury Lane and Short's Gardens. The low long entry, with its wooden brestsummer spanning the way of Short's Gardens, and the pallid poverty-stricken tenants in the rooms above have gone for ever. Charles Street is now Macklin Street, King Street is Shelton Street, Princes Street is Kemble Street, and Brownlow Street is Betterton Street. 373 jigtotical amb ſtigtellaneous 3tlemoramba in Glommection mith 33rurp ſant. Paper from the Recusants of England to the (Archbishop of Canterbury?) Remonstrance on the new laws now before Parlia- ment. March, 1606. Found in Drury Lane. Warrant to pay to Sir Thomas Vavasour, Knight Marshal, for the charges and diet of Sir Ant. Standen, Florence McCarty, and Roger Gwyn, a seminary priest—prisoners. May 24, 1604. In a letter from John Chamberlain to Dudley Carleton, he says:—“The match is concluded twixt Sir Henry Rich and Betty Cope (daughter of Sir Walter Cope, of Kensington), and toward Whitsuntide, I think, they will come to consummation.” I612. Petition of Edward Ford, the King's Servant, to direct the Sheriff to forbear the further pulling down of two fair houses, built by him in Drury Lane, began during Mr. Ittery's patent for building Drury Lane. Has paved the street before his doors according to command for three years past. July, 1618. The Justices of Middlesex to the Council:—The new building erected by Mr. Smith in Drury Lane, is contrary to the proclama- tion as going beyond the old foundations, and converting a stable into a dwelling house. July 18th, 1618. Petition of Edward Smith to the Council:—For stay of their Order to pull down certain buildings in Drury Lane, till the old foundations can be measured, when it will be found he has not infringed the proclamation relative to buildings. July 18, 1618. Order of Council to the Sheriff of Middlesex:—The Earl of Dorset has acquainted them that one Smith has lately erected a house near Drury Lane suddenly, and for the most part by stealth in the night, not only contrary to proclamation, but to the com- mands of the said Earl. Requires the Sheriff to commit the said Smith to prison, and also to demolish the Said house and to detain Smith in prison until the house be demolished. June 20th, 16 36. The Justices of Middlesex to the Council.—Have examined the state of the large house lately erected in Drury Lane, assigned by William Short, Esq., of Gray's Inn, to Edward Smith, and find it is erected on the foundation. July 7th, 1618. 374, A note of such persons as were found in the house of Mr. Bradshaw in Drury Lane: Amongst them is Lady Gerard, wife of Sir Thomas Gerard, and it appears from the indictment that besides the persons enumerated there were two priests. Dec., 1625. Report of Thomas Cross, one of the Overseers of St. Giles' in the Fields:—Reports his entry into a house in Drury Lane, and search there for a dangerous Jesuit, one Bastell, who went by divers other names. They found an assembly of a dozen persons, and ultimately they discovered the prisoner whom they sought “within two or three houses of the said place,” and carried him before Sir William Slingsby, who committed to prison. 1628. George, Earl of Kildare, writes to Secretary Dorchester from Drury Lane, soliciting on behalf of Captain Smith, who, through unfortunate disasters in His Majesty's service, is now a subject of his pity:-The reversion of a company in Ireland. The Earl has made choice of Captain Smith to live with him. April 30th, 1630. Edmund Rossingham, in a letter to Viscount Conway, of Drury Lane, describes a scene between Dr. Heywood and two Earls that took place in St. Giles’ Church at this time. There is another article to be inquired into as to who keep on their hats during divine service and in sermon time, for the keeping off of hats has been much urged in many churches in and about the city. On Sunday, last week, the parson of St. Giles-in-the-Fields took So great scandal at two Earls that were in the church, for putting on their hats in sermon time, that he went out of the church in great discontent. One of these Earls taking notice afterwards to his Grace, by way of offence at the parson; his Grace replied in the Doctor's behalf that he had been very diligent for a long time to bring his parishioners to a decency of behaviour in the church. His Grace declared one day in the Synod that his Majesty took special notice of the increase of Popery in the Kingdom, and two reasons were alleged at the same time for this increase; one was the Want of due reverence in churches, and the other was that many ignorant preachers in their sermons charged the papists with tenets they never held. It is believed there will be more care hereafter not to give induction to ignorant Divines, and to enjoin constant catechizing on Sundays in the afternoon by way of questions and answers out of the Book of 375 Common Prayer, according to the first institution at the time of the Reformation, which has been disused of late years, which is also one main cause of the great ignorance of the poorer sort of the people, and of some of the better sort, who were not for these things, so easily seduced to Popery. Also it shall not be permitted that the people having a preaching minister in their own parish, run into other parish churches, to hear Sermons, to the great disheartening of their own Pastor, which is observed to be too common in these days, as here in the City.—June 8th, 1640. Petition of Katherine, Duchess of Lennox; Mary, Countess of Levingston; Matthew Ireton, and others, inhabitants adjoining the house of the Countess of Castlehaven, in Drury Lane, to the Council:—The Countess of Castlehaven is grown not well in her senses, living alone, insomuch lately she had liked to have fired her own house. Her brother, Lord Noel, having been desired to take some course whereby petitioners might live in safety, he answered that the Countess was another man's wife, and that he could not do anything without a special order from their Lordships. Pray that he may have such order. November 5th, 1628. SANDERso N says: “Lord Audley, Earl of Castlehaven, married to a second wife, the daughter of the old Countess of Derby and widow of the Lord Chandos, by whom she had a daughter, married to the Lord Audley, the Earl’s eldest son. This Earl, upon petition of his own son and heir, the Lord Audley, was committed in December last and indicted at Salisbury, the 25th March, 1631, accused for causing one Skipworth, of mean extraction and his servant, advanced by him to great preferment, to assist him to lie with his Countess, and to dishonour his son Audley, the Earl assisting to hold his wife whilst Broadway did ravish her, assisted by Fitzpatrick, his servants. The trial took place on the 13th April. Castlehaven was condemned and beheaded at Tower Hill, 14th May. Broadway and Fitzpatrick were hanged at Tyburn, 6th July, 1631.” Katherine, Duchess of Lennox, writes to Secretary Dorchester from Drury Lane:— 376 On his suggestion, and by the good liking of the Earl of Kildare, the King's ward, and Lady Jane Boyle, one of the daughters of the Earl of Cork, that Earl and the Duchesse have entered into an agreement for their marriage. That this agreement may take the better effect, solicits His Majesty's letters to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland in a form enclosed. August 14th, 1629. The Earl of March was created Duke of Lennox. He died at Kirby, of the spotted ague, leaving six sons and four daughters. He was buried at Westminster. 1624. Thomas Case, of Arrow, co. Warwick, to Edward, Viscount Conway and Killulagh, at his house in Drury Lane:—Incloses a repentant letter from a son, but a scholar in Oxford. The writer begs that he may have all his former privileges, which he had under the late Lord Conway, and that being visited with sickness he may enjoy those privileges for his son. Thomas Case to his Father:—“Has got a Schoolmaster's place at Spratton through the means of Mr. Langham. Begs that his father will send him somewhat, and his mother a shirt, he cares not how coarse or bad.” May 24th, I630. Whether this repentant young man obtained a shirt from his mother is not known, but he, some years after this letter was written, by the favour of Cromwell, was given the Lectureship of the parish of St. Giles’ in the Fields. The painter, Gerbier, in a letter to KING CHARLEs, speaks of his rival, Geldorp, as a “Cacquetter.” He resided in a “Garden House” in Drury Lane, belonging to the Crown. Here Vandyck worked on his first arrival in England with his fellow-countryman, Geldorp. On the 10th of May, 1632, a warrant was issued by the King for an allowance to Norgate of 15s. a day “for the diet and lodging of Signor Antonio Vandyck and his servants, to begin from the first day of April last past, and to continue during the said Vandyck’s residence there.” Norgate’s establishment was at Blackfriars, and at that place there may have been a studio in common, but as privacy and quietude are indis- pensable for an artist, each painter had probably a studio of his own elsewhere, and Vandyck’s was in Drury Lane. 377 Sir Thomas Powell, co. Chester, writes in reference to the collection of Ship-money to Lawrence Whitaker, Esq., at his house, over against the Red Bull, in Drury Lane:— Worthy Brother: It vexes me not a little that I should on the one side be thought negligent or remiss in case I levy not the Ship-money with that speed which is expected, and on the other side be accounted too officious and a pick-thank if I inform against those of my neighbours and countrymen here, who are much to blame for their backwardness in paying and for dissuading others by word or example, yet the duty of my place has swayed with me to present you herein the names of some refractories and delinquents, to be made known to the Lords, not only for pro- ceedings to be had against them, but for manifestation of the rocks and sands upon which I am cast so often in sailing through the raging seas of this marine affair. April 4th, 1640. The Ship-money rate was made in 1635, and the Select Vestry of St. Giles’ in the Fields, with Dr. Heywood at their head, by their Assessors and Collectors, proceeded to enforce the claim, to the great dissatisfaction of the inhabitants who withheld payment. The Collectors, autho- rized by the Vestry, appealed for further powers to the Council to enforce the rate made in 1635, as upwards of twelve months had elapsed. This had the desired effect, for the Council wrote as under, to the Collectors in St. Giles’ in the Fields:— His Majesty is informed by petition of the said Collectors, that the whole sum is fully paid to the Sheriff, and that there remains in the hands of Henry Seagood, about 20 marks, and in other Collectors' hands some proportion of the like kind, being an over- plus. The said overplus is to be distributed towards the relief of the poor of the said parish that are infected. Sept. 18th, 1636. The financial operations of the Vestry meeting with such signal success in obtaining more money than was required, made another rate for the same purpose, which was followed by another “Petition of the Assessors and Collectors of Ship-money, in St. Giles-in-the-Fields,” to the Council (December, 1637), stating that they— St. Giles' in the Fields and the Ship-money Rate. B 3 378 The petitioners made a rate in 1636 for levying Ship-money, and have paid to the Sheriff 24.200. The persons named in the Schedule annexed refused payment and have no distress, living out of the County of Middlesex. Pray that they may be called before the Council. In the list of defaulters are the names of:— Thomas Bendish - º GE es 26o 13 5 Lady Carew * mº sys tºº 4 Io O Sir Edmund Lenthal - gº tºs 2 O O John Child, Collector, who will not account. These non-residents took advantage of a royal pro- clamation not contemplated by his Majesty’s advisers, for in the beginning of the year 1635, the Attorney General presented an information in the Star Chamber against several hundreds of persons, Lords, Knights, Gentlemen, Ladies, and others for disobeying his Majesty’s proclamation, by which they were commanded not to stay or reside in London. Their obedience, after the presenta- tion of this information, entirely outwitted the Collectors. The eagerness of the Westry to gather this unconstitu- tional impost may be accounted for by the influence exercised over them by the nobility, who resided in the parish, and were benefited by Ship-money, The Earl of Lindsey, in 1635, commanded the fleet, “Fourty Gallant Ships,” and he, when in London, resided in his new and stately mansion in Lincoln’s Inn Fields. Letter from Robert Read to his cousin, Thomas Windebank, at Paris, from Drury Lane:–I have received your letters of the 6th and 13th of January (new style), giving hopes of your return home. I find that sending letters by express breeds irregularity, so I shall not be induced to commit again such an error during your residence in those parts. Mistress Harrison continues yet a virgin; some say that the match is broken off; but I believe it was too far advanced to be altered. My wishes for such success in your business as may bring you the honour desired. P.S. by Anne Windebank:—My dearest Brother, in these few words receive the hearty affection of your most entirely loving sister, Jan. I640, 379 Letter from Robert Read to Thomas Windebank—from Drury Lane:—Thanks for his letters, but had hoped this week to have welcomed him back here. I find the Spaniards have gotten the name of the most dilatory people, yet other nations practice delay as much. I wish with you that you may at length receive Satisfaction, which will recompense all inconveniences. We have now in hand some alteration of Officers at Court. The Lord Keeper (Coventry) having languished near a month in great torment, on Tuesday morning last fell into his last sleep, and amongst many competitors for the place, I understand this after- noon that the Lord Chief Justice Finch shall certainly have it, for which he may thank his good mistress, the Queen, who is to be honoured infinitely for her goodness to her servants. Secretary Coke, I believe, is very near retiring home, and Mr. Treasurer (Sir Henry Vane) is cried up to succeed him, which will certainly be, and it was expected that he should have been sworn the last Council day. How we shall be dealt with or in what condition we stand, I cannot yet learn, but I doubt not it will shortly be declared. Methinks we should not fail of the diet and seniority in secretaryship, though the other will have precedency as being Treasurer. Our minds are so much upon these changes that we hear nothing of Mrs. Harrison and her “Brawmer” as you call him. January 16th, 1640. Secretary Windebank sends Warrant from Drury Lane to the Keeper of the Gate-house Prison, Westminster, to secure and keep in safe custody Arnold Gerard, a Romish priest. May 7th, 1640. Letter from Robert Read, of Drury Lane, to his cousin, Thomas Windebank:-The man, Sir John Finch, named in my last for Lord Keeper, is now actually so, and rode this day to Westminster in great state. The Solicitor General (Sir Edward Littleton) has succeeded to his place of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and the Queen's Attorney, Herbert, into the place of Solicitor General. These are all the rumours worthy your knowledge. My Lord of Brougham (Broghill) is grown so settled in his love now that he will suffer nobody to be in company of his mistress but himself, which Mr. Thomas Howard found the other day, and was glad to give him an accompt in the field why he left not walking with Mrs. Harrison as soon as his lordship entered the room; but I think there was no harm done. Jany. 23rd, 1640. 380 I)eath of Colonel Windebank. Secretary Windebank writes from Drury Lane to Edward, Viscount Conway:—The Queen was never better nor so well of any of her children as of this, and the baby is to be christened to-day privately at Oatlands. July 2 Ist, 1640. Windebank to Conway—from Drury Lane:–I now send you herewith His Majesty's Commission for executing martial law. whereof I wish you may have no use, though if your forces in those parts be in no better order than those in other places that cannot be expected. July 25th, 1640. P.S.–My son, the captain, has found a means to charm his unruly companions with the singing of psalms and smoking stinking tobacco. The sending of this commission soon became known, and caused Windebank to seek safety by flight from London to Paris. The next letter refers to this event. Windebank to Conway—from Drury Lane:–We are busy here providing for the journey, though we find a strange malignity everywhere. August 22nd, 1640. The triumph of the “Ironsides” prevented his return to England, and he died an exile in Paris. “My son, the captain,” a few years later came to a sad end, for his “unruly companions” made bad soldiers. Lieut. General Cromwell, with a brigade of eleven hundred horse, had fallen upon the King’s Horse, under the command of the Earl of Northampton, and part of the Queen’s regiment, at Islip Bridge, near Oxford, and had taken four hundred horse, two hundred prisoners, the Queen’s colours, and those that escaped fled to Blackington House, where Colonel Windebank kept a garrison for the King; but Cromwell persued them thither, and by treaty had the house and garrison rendered up to him upon Articles, with all the powder, ammunition, and arms, and seventy-two horse. This so sudden success startled those at Oxford, and the Colonel (Windebank) was called to a Council of War, condemned to be shot to death, which he took with patience and courage, clearly excusing himself, not to be able to hold out against so great a power, and being beside over-swayed by the pewling tears of some ladies, got thither in a visit of his fair bedfellow bride. 381 Robert Read to his cousin Windebanke:—The Post has held us long in expectation of letters this week, but is at last arrived with yours of February 18th. The Posts are of late in very much disorder. I hope Mr. Treasurer (Vane) will see them better settled. I can give no other direction for finding Mr. Wallinger's paper than that I left it amongst others on my table in my study at Drury Lane. The Six Clerks Charter is somewhere in my lower chamber at Whitehall. I believe you will find it in the trunk where the tally was; but you must take heed not to deliver it to any of them or any other without the King's special order. February 26th, 1641. The Coal-yard, Drury Lane, was so named in conse- quence of the place being used for the storage of fuel. The Marquis of Newcastle, who had got possession of the coal trade in the river Tyne, prohibited the exportation of coals to London. To remove the inconvenience arising thereby, the Par- liament issued an ordinance for supplying the City with turf and peat, with power to the Lord Mayor to appoint persons to enter into and dig any quantity of turf and peat, in and upon any grounds, except Orchards, gardens, and walks. I644.—LAMBERT. On information of goods and estate concealed in the houses of Mr. Giffard and Mr. Mitchell, chandlers, in Lutener's Lane, belonging to John Mircham Arrell (or O'Beal) and Mary Roem Arrell, Irish rebels. Order that the goods be seized and secured, and an account returned to the Committee. July 29th, 1645. Aubrey writes of “Captain Carlo Fantam,” a fire eater, who at midnight, coming out of the Horseshoe Tavern, in Drury Lane, with Colonel Rositor's lieutenant, who had great jingling spurs on, said to him “The noise of your spurs doe offend me; you must come over the Kennel and give me satisfaction.” A duel was the result and “the lieutenant was runne through and ’twas not known who killed him.” The occurrence took place about 1668. From EvelyN’s Diary:— To London, in order to my niece's marriage, Mary, daughter to my late brother Richard, of Woodcote, with the eldest son of Mr. Attorney Mountague, which was celebrated at Southampton House Chapell, after which a magnificent entertainment, feast and dauncing, dinner and supper, in the great roome there. But the bride was bedded at my sister's lodging in Drury Lane. June, 1670. 382 George Townsend, Esq., of Lincoln’s Inn, by his last Will, dated December 14th, 1682, did:— Give nine tenements in Cradle Alley, Drury Lane, within the parish of St. Martin's in the Fields, to Feoffees in trust to pay one moiety of the rents and profits towards the maintenance of a Minister, to be resident in or near the town of Uxbridge, and to officiate in the chapel there. December 14th, 1682. The inhabitants of Drury Lane viewed with indignation the encroachments of the builders on the adjoining fields; the green pastures were being enclosed, and the distant view of the northern hills was to be theirs no more. They held meetings, at which condemnatory resolutions were passed, and memorialized the Crown as follows:— Petition of the inhabitants of Drury Lane, Queen Street, Princes Street, and others, neighbours there adjoining, to the King:—Setting forth that John Parker and Richard Brett have divers times attempted to build on a little close called “Old Witch,” which has always lain open, free to all persons to walk therein, and sweet and wholesome for the King and his servants to pass towards Theobalds. Parker and Brett have formerly been imprisoned for these attempts, but now they have pulled down the bridges and stiles, and carried great store of bricks thither, and give forth threatening speeches that they will go forward. Petiti- oners would take a lease of the close and set the same with trees, wherefore they pray that the indicted buildings may be stopped. Sept. 1st, 1629. Referred to the Commissioners for Buildings. The petition was sent on to Inigo Jones and others, for them to view and report, who sent in the following:— Certificate of Inigo Jones, Lawrence Whitaker, and four others, Commissioners for Buildings, to whom the petition of Drury Lane and other places adjoining was referred to the King.—They have viewed the place called Old Witch Close, on the back side of Drury Lane, whereupon Sir Kenelm Digby desires to erect new buildings. The inhabitants still purpose to plant it with trees for wholesome and pleasant walks. The erection of buildings there would tend to defeat the King's intention declared in his procla- mation. September Ioth, 1629. 383 This was not the kind of certificate the Court desired. The matter was allowed to rest over the winter, and was then revived by the undermentioned:— Petition of Sir Kenelm Digby and Sir Edward Stradling, to the King:—For a license for each of them to build a house with stables and coach-houses in Old Witch Close, bought of Richard Holford, and lying on the east side of Drury Lane, towards Lincoln's Inn. Whitehall, March 27th, 1630. Referred to the Attorney General to draw the solicited license. The royal license having been obtained, no time was lost in erecting the mansions of Stradling and Digby in Drury Lane. Sir Edward Stradling’s building operations caused him to confer with George Gage, of Lincoln’s Inn, and in 1632 financial arrangements were entered into be- tween Sir Edward Stradling, Duchess Dudley, and George Gage. Duchess Dudley took a mortgage on the house and Dr. Giffard a lease. Gage dying in 1638, Duchess Dudley was anxious to dispose of her interest in Stradling House, and found a purchaser in Dame Frances Weld, who acted on behalf of her son, Humphrey Weld. Frances Weld, widow, was the sister of Sir George Whitmore, Lord Mayor in 1637. Her husband was Sir John Weld, the eldest surviving son of Sir Humphrey Weld, Citizen and Grocer; elected Sheriff of London, 1599, and Lord Mayor, 1608. Aldgate was completed during his term of office, which caused his name to be inscribed thereon, and thereby long remembered; but another event of great importance to Frances Whitmore was her marriage with his son John, which took place during the mayoralty of his father, the great Sir Humphrey Weld, who died in 1610, aged 64. His grandson, Humphrey, is described in the State Papers as Humphrey Weld, Esq., Covent Garden, St. Giles' parish. The Parliamentary Assessment Committee made a claim upon him for 244,000. This he did not pay, whereupon was made an “Order 384 that Gosse sell to Sir John Wray such goods as were seized in Mr. Weld's house, and are distrained and at Guildhall.” 1643. Lady Frances Weld is described as of Edmonton, but the amount of assessment made upon her is not stated. 1643. William Gage, of Lincoln's Inn, is assessed at 24, Iooo. 1643. Stradling House was built fronting the new road (Weld straße * Street), and is described, in what seems to be a mortgage Weld House, deed, as “a fair large Mansion-house, with stables and out- houses.” Adjoining it, on the south side, were the grounds and premises of Weld House, Drury Lane, occupied by Lady Frances Weld, widow. In 1657, Weld House and Stradling House underwent a complete transformation; the two houses were united together and became one building, having, besides extensive additions made to it, a chapel built in the garden; the front arranged to face Aldewyche Close instead of Drury Lane, and an approach made to it called Weld Street. This extraordinary enlargement was not to make the building a residence suitable to the dignity of the Welds, but rather for State purposes, such as the accommodation of Princes and Ambassadors in London. In 1665, Weld House is described as situated in Weld Street, and “all that capital mansion called Weld House, and also all that other messuage, with its stables and coach- houses, and buildings, then in the possession of the Ambas- sador of Portugal, and of Augustin Carosel, merchant; and all that other messuage adjoining, next Queen Street, in the tenure of Edward Pickering, gentleman.” In 1669, Humphrey Wild mortgaged the estate for 323,000, and in 1673 a further charge of £700 encumbered the estate by a marriage settlement between Clara Weld and Nicholas, Earl of Carlingford, and in 1680, Sir Edward Atkins, Baron of the Exchequer, bought the mansion called Weld House and other property in Dorsetshire for £6,000. Evº LYN records his visit to “Wild House,” as follows:– 385 I din’d at Don Pietro Ronquillo's, the Spanish Ambassador, at Wild House (Drury Lane), who us'd me with extraordinary civility. The dinner was plentiful, halfe after the Spanish, halfe after the English way. After dinner he led me into his bed- chamber, where we fell into a long discourse concerning religion. Tho' he was a learned man in politics, and an advocate, he was very ignorant in religion, and unable to defend any point in con- troversy; he was however far from being fierce. At parting he earnestly wish'd me to apply humbly to the Blessed Virgin to direct me, assuring me that he had known divers who had ben averse to the Roman Catholic Religion, wonderfully enlighten’d and convinc'd by her intercession. He importun'd me to come and visite him often. April 26th, 1681. The abdication of James II. brought about the destruc- tion of Wild House. MALcol M writes:— London, December 12.—No Sooner was the King's withdrawing known, but the mobile consulted to wreak their vengeance on papists and popery; and last night began with pulling down and burning the new-built Mass-house near the arch, in Lincoln's Inn Fields; thence they went to Wild-house, the residence of the Spanish Ambassador, where they ransact, destroy'd and burnt all the ornamental and inside part of the chappel, some cart-loads of choice books, manuscripts, etc. And not content here, some villanous theives and common rogues, no doubt, that took this opportunity to mix with the youth, and they plunder'd the Ambas- sador's house of plate, jewels, money, rich goods, etc.; and also many other who had sent in there for shelter their money, plate, etc.; among which, one gentlewoman lost a trunk, in which was 24,8oo in money, and a great quantity of plate. Tuesday night last, and all Wednesday, the apprentices were busie in pulling down the chappels, and spoiling the houses of papists; they crying out that the fire should not go out till the Prince of Orange came to town. There were thousands of them on Wednesday at the Spanish Ambassador's, they not leaving any wainscoat withinside the house or chappel, taking away great quantities of plate, with much money, household goods and writings, verifying the old proverb, ‘All fish that came to the net.’ The spoil of the house was very great, divers papists having sent their goods in thither, as judging that the securest place. ..f The Destruction of Wild House. C 3 386 Then they went to the Lord Powis's great house in Lincoln's Inn Fields, wherein was a guard, and a bill upon the door: ‘This house is appointed for the Lord Delameer's quarters’; and some of the company crying, ‘Let it alone, the Lord Powis was against the Bishops going to the Tower.’ They offered no violence to it. Ronquillo made himself unpopular by contracting debts and taking advantage of the privileges accorded to an Ambassador. The noble library he possessed was consigned to the flames; the plate he valued was stolen; but the pre- servation of the Host in his chapel gave him some consola- tion. Destitute and homeless he found shelter and safety in the deserted palace of Whitehall. The chapel of Weld House was restored, and by the express permission of Bishop Compton it was changed into a protestant place of worship; the congregation eventually removing to West Street. The ruins of Weld House were cleared away in 1695, and the land let on building lease to Ralph Lister, plasterer, who was enabled, by the financial assistance of Isaac Foxcroft, a Jew, to transform the man- sion and grounds of Weld House into a congested area of filthy hovels, into which drifted the derelict and foul debris of the social wrecks which can always be found in the surging scum of a great city, and few districts in the eight- eenth century provided so large a reservoir to receive the contagious stream of human impurity that flowed into it, as the parish of St. Giles in the Fields. Aldewyche Close had passed away, and across the meadow was constructed a wide thoroughfare, bordered on the east side with a row of noble buildings, inhabited by the nobility and gentry. It was royal property, and hence its name—Queen Street. It is frequently mentioned in the State Papers, and numerous letters, written by the residents, are preserved therein; one of which is a letter from Miles Woodham to Lord Conway. * 887 - As for your goods the Colonel spoke to Mr. Shalmur for a place to put them in, but he wanted 44, a year for it, so I have got leave to let them stand in Queen Street until I know your pleasure. I am about taking a room in Drury Lane for myself, which I can have with an empty room for your goods for £6 a year; but if you please I will remove your goods to Sion, and take a place only for myself. 1st October, 1650. Frances, Lady Conway, writes to her son from Queen Street, as under:- - His wife has had a fit of the headache, but is pretty well again. His brother Rawdon desires to hear from him concerning a minister—Private Affairs. Thanks him for speaking to her brother concerning Lady Seymour, and is glad he does not marry her, but is afraid he will do as bad. The cook is glad he likes the seasoning of pie, and is making another, 19th October, 1667. The Loyalists who fled from Queen Street and left their goods and houses to the tender mercies of the Rebels, had, when the above letter was written, entered again into the occupation of their pillaged and deserted residences. Before the Puritans destroyed the Monarchy and established the Commonwealth, Queen Street was adorned with a statue at each end, which remained undisturbed until 1657, when, by Order of Parliament:— Col. Barkstead was commanded to take care for the pulling down of the image of the late Queen and also of the King, the one in Queen Street, and the other at the upper end of the same street towards Holborn, and the said images are to be broken in pieces. January 27th, 1657. Col. John Barkstead was the trusted and honoured servant of Cromwell, and was one of the judges that condemned the King to death. When General Monck put an end to the Commonwealth, Col. Barkstead was not to be found. James Reade, servant to the Duke of Gloucester, petitions the King:— - For a lease of the house and demesnes at Acton, formerly held by Mr. Barkstead, late Lieut. of the Tower, worth 460 a The Royal Stºtte in Queen Stree *- So 388 year; and of the keeping of the Lodge and Gate of Hyde Park, now held by Deane, who was the cause of his sufferings. Has been often imprisoned, was fed 16 weeks on bread and water, and was two years and three-quarters in the Tower, in heavy irons and without light, July, 1660. There is another Petition of John, son of the late murdered Dr. John Hewitt, to the King:— For money to set up his trade and earn a livelihood, being unable longer to subsist. Annexing—Petition of John, son of the late murdered Dr. Hewitt, to the King, for subsistence out of the estates of John Lisle and John Barkstead,” the greatest instrument in the death of his father, murdered by the late tyrant. Has petitioned for several employments, but failed, having neither money nor friends. With reference therein, December 19th, 1660, to the Lord Treasurer; and his report, January 15th, 1661, in favour of the petitioner. Grant to John, son of the late Dr. Hewitt, of a pension of 24, Ioo. February, 1661. PEPYs records his visit to Queen Street as follows:— I to dinner, at Mr. Chichly's in Queen Street, in Covent Garden. A very fine house and a man that lives in mighty great fashion, with all things in a most extraordinary manner noble and rich about him, and eats in the French fashion all; and mighty nobly served with his servants, and very civilly; that I was mighty pleased with it: and good discourse. He is a great defender of the Church of England, and against the Act for Comprehension; which is the work of this day, about which the House is like to sit till night. March 11th, 1667-8. • In Queen Street there resided Lord Chancellor Finch, created Earl of Nottingham, May 12th, 1681. He died at his house in Great Queen Street, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, December 18th, 1682, and was buried at Raunston, near Olney, in Buckinghamshire. His son, Daniel, became Earl of Winchelsea, into which the title of Nottingham merged. From the Lord Chancellor’s house the mace and the purses were stolen. In the Harleian Miscellany is:— - The fate of Barkstead will be found on page 150. 389 A perfect narrative of the apprehension of the Five several persons that were confederates in stealing the Mace and two privy purses from the Lord High Chancellor of England, as it was attested at the Sessions, held at Justice Hall in the Old Bailey, the seventh and eighth days of March, Ann. I676-7. I shall give you an account of the oudacious burglary that was committed on my Lord Chancellor the sixth of February, being Tuesday night, 1676, and the parties that were apprehended on the Saturday night following. The manner of their apprehension was this:—Some of the head of the gang had taken a lodging in Knight Rider Street, near Doctor's Commons, and there in a closet they had lodged the mace and purses. The woman's daughter of the house, going up in their absence to make the bed, saw some silver spangles, and some odd ends of silver scattered about the chamber, which she with no small diligence picked up, not knowing from whence such riches could proceed. In this admiration she paused a while, and it was not long before her fancy led her (like the rest of her sex) to pry into and search the furthermost point of this new and strange apparition; and directing her course to the closet door, she, through the keyhole, could see something that was not com- monly represented to her view, which was the upper end of the mace, but knew not what it was. However, she thought it could not be amiss to acquaint her beloved mother with what she had beheld, and with this resolve, she hastens down-stairs, and with a voice betwixt fear and joy, she cries out: ‘Oh, Mother! Mother yonder is the King's crown in our closet! Pray, Mother, come along with me and see it.’ The admiring mother, surprised at her daughter's relation (as also having no good opinion of her new lodgers) makes haste, good woman, and goes to the closet door, and opening the lock with a knife, she entered into the closet, when she soon discerned that it was not a crown, but a mace; and having heard that such a thing was lost, sends immediately away to acquaint my Lord Chancellor, that the mace was in her house; upon which information a warrant was soon granted and officers sent to Mr. Thomas Northey, constable of Queen Hithe Ward, who, with a sufficient assistance, went into Knight Rider Street, to their lodging, and very luckily found them, being five in number and of both sexes (viz: three men and two women), whom The Lord Chancellor's Mace stolen. 390 The Abduction of Mary Wharton. they carried before the Right Worshipful Sir William Turner, when after examination, according to justice committed them to the common jail of Newgate. At the Sessions held in the Old Bailey, beginning the seventh day of March, the five prisoners aforesaid were first called to the bar, when (according to the custom of England) they were bid to hold up their hands, and asked whether “Guilty or not guilty?” They all replied ‘Not guilty.” Thomas Sadler, the head of the gang, was convicted by his confederates, who gave evidence against him, and sentenced to imprisonment. He soon obtained his liberty, and being shortly afterwards found guilty of robbery, was executed at Tyburn. Another event occurred in Great Queen Street that caused great excitement in fashionable society, namely, the abduction of Miss Mary Wharton, daughter of Philip Wharton, Esq., an heiress. Her father died when she was thirteen, and she thereby inherited £1,500 per annum and personal property besides of £1,000. At this time, the 10th of November, 1690, she resided with her mother in Great Queen Street, and was under the care of her guardian, Mr. Bierley, when she was decoyed out of the house and seized by Sir John Johnson, Captain Campbell, and Mr. Mont- gomery, in Çueen Street, and forced into a coach with six horses (appointed to wait there by Captain Campbell), against the consent of herself or knowledge of her guardian, and carried to the coachman’s house, and there married to Captain Campbell. A reward of £100 was offered for the apprehension of Captain Campbell, and £50 apiece for the arrest of Montgomery and Johnson. Sir John Johnson was taken, indicted, and tried for his complicity in the offence; was found guilty and sentenced to death, which was carried out at Tyburn on the 23rd of December, 1690. The real culprit, Campbell, and his confederate, Montgomery, escaped. Parliament declared the forced marriage illegal and dissolved it. Miss Wharton, alias Campbell, married Col. Bierly, and her would-be-husband, Campbell, found another wife in Margaret Leslie, daughter of David, Lord Newark. 391 The Wesleyan Chapel in Great Queen Street owes its existence to Mr. Baguley, who claimed to be a legally quali- fied minister of the Church of England. The fashionable residents of this district could not all find accommodation in the parish church. Another place of worship was needed, but the Rector of St. Giles’ was loth to part with such a wealthy and influential flock. Representations were made to the church-wardens as to the desirability of a church in the neighbourhood; who brought the matter before the Vestry, and they shelved the question by the following resolution;–“That the gentry in Lincoln's Inn Fields be inquired of which of them will take pews in case a new chapel should be erected in the neighbourhood of Lincoln's Inn Fields, and report to be made to the next Vestry.”— 1782. As several of the gentry in Lincoln's Inn Fields were members of the St. Giles' Vestry, they supported the Rector, and the question remained in abeyance until 1704. Dr. John Scott, Rector of the parish, died in 1694, and the Rev. William Haley, Dean of Chichester, filled the vacant place. Like his predecessor, he saw no necessity for another church in the parish. In 1704, Mr. Baguley obtained pos- session of an agreement for a lease of premises in Great Queen Street, which he economically adapted for church services. There is no question that he was in every sense an unqualified minister, but his action was sufficient to cause the Vestry to reopen the question of further church accommodation and pass a resolution “That subscriptions be solicited for a new chapel.” Subscriptions were not forthcoming, and the proposed new chapel did not get so far as a Building Committee, but Mr. Baguley, in 1706, in entire disregard of church authority, built his chapel, opened it and officiated therein as an ordained minister of the Church of England as by law established. The sequel is furnished by Mr. Baguley, who, from his point of view, gives The True State of the Case:— The Church in Great Queen Street and St. Giles' Vestry. 392 Mr. Baguley's Case. In relation to the Chappel I built in Great Queen Street near Lincoln's Inn Fields, 1706. I agreed and Articled with Richard Chiswell for a house in Great Queen Street, for 41 years, where I built a Chappel, and acquainted the Bishop with it, who seem'd to be pleased at it, and desired me to advise with a Doctor of the Civil Law to know if it was lawful to build a Chappel in any other Man's parish without leave of the Incumbent. Dr. Clement gave me under his hand that it was lawful to build a Chappel, and if he endowed it with 24, Io per annum, the Bishop is obliged to conse- crate the same, confirming his Opinions with several Canons out of the four first Councils. I shewed the Bishop the Doctor's Opinion, upon which he promised me to Consecrate the Chappel. But Dr. Haley complains it is against his interest; and of Ill example. For if this be suffered there may be several more built in these large Parishes about London, and then, us he fears, their unjust Perquisites will come to little. For tho’ Linwood and Sir Henry Spelman declare that everybody has an undisputed right for his Family to be Baptized at his Parish Church for nothing; to Bury in the Church-yard for nothing, and to be seated for their Family to come to Divine Service, paying 6d. a year to the Clerk, and the Great Tythe or Easter Offering, so that the Vicar of St. Giles's, having his just dues, Why should he or any man be an Evil Instrument to obstruct the Worship of God and the Salvation of Men? For by the modest computation that I ever heard there are 20,000 Souls in St. Giles's Parish, and the Church and Chappel will seat but 5,000 at once: So that 15,000, if they be inclined to Worship God and hear His Word, have no opportunity of a place of Worship to resort to. But the Chappel being finished (by God's Providence), I did oblige the Pew-Keepers in their Articles to take no more than 4s. a year for any Person sitting in the Pews, though I could have had 4, 20 or 24.30 a Pew for several Pews. But I thank God I had no sinister end in what I did. For I could as easily have cleared 24, 3,000 as to be 4,50 in Debt as I now am. And I think people ought not to be frighted from God's Service by extorting money for the Pews. After this, Mr. Holmes, a Sope-Boyler in Holborn, comes to me and desired that he might have every day a several Preacher, for it would please the People and increase the Congregation. I told him I was willing if he would pay Six-score Pounds a year, which was the Annual charge 393 of the House and Chappel. To this he agreed and pays 30 Guineas in part, and put in two Preachers and intended as he affirmed to put in four more as he got Subscriptions. This he continued for above a quarter of a year and he affirmed to several that the Pulpit was his and that he would put in the best Preachers in England. But his Subscriptions failing, he Arrested me for the 3o Guineas tho’ I do protest I never borrowed so much as a Farthing of him in my Life. The 3o Guineas was paid in part of the Six-score Pounds he had actually agreed to give for the use of the Pulpit. But this and some other Malicious reports being man- aged to the best advantage, Dr. Haley and some others go to the Bishop and represent me very Scandalous for Drunkenness, for Forgery, for Cheating, and all other Crimes that Malicious Men or Devils could invent. But I thank God I can and do forgive them, and I hope they will see another day that I am not the Ill man they represent me to be: But Innocency has no protection in this World (from Scurrilous Tongues) but the satisfaction of a good conscience and hopes of a day of Judgment. The Bishop sent for me several times, and I waited on him: But the two last times I could not see him, for his Chaplain told a Friend of mine that if I came a thousand times I should never see him, and the Chappel should be supprest, for it was against the Dr. of the Parish's Interest. I went to the Bishop of Peterborough and told him that I had some Estate in Alderland, near Peterborough, and hoped it was a sufficient Title for Priest's Orders: and after he had examined me, told me he would Ordain me Priest the Sunday following. But Dr. Haley hearing of it, sends his Brother and several others to prevent my being Ordained, by laying great and heinous Crime against me. The Bishop told a Friend of mine that Dr. Haley was resolved to have my Chappel for his Brother. And for this intent he persuades one Pridie, a Shoemaker, to arrest me for 24, 1,000—a Man that I never had any dealings with, neither did I ever see him to my knowledge; but this was the contrivance of Dr. Haley that he might act his Malice in disguise. But when all these Projects of Satan and the Dean of Chichester to ruin me and the Chappel proved Fruitless, Dr. Haley sends for Mr. Chiswell who had Articled with me for 41 years, and after that had sold me the House and Land joining to it for £9 Io, of which I had paid 24, Io and was to pay £900 more six days after I was satisfied by counsel the title was good; and then Dr. Haley offers Old Chiswell Mr. Baguley's Defence. D 3 394. a greater price for the house if he could anyways get me out. Dr. Haley would not lay out his own money to buy it for himself, for the World would then judge of him as he deserved, but he sends one Burges, a Coach-maker, as I am informed, to buy the House and give Chiswell a Bond of 24, 1,000 to indemnify him from me: Which he did accordingly, and comes with one Dunking and Kinnersy, and several others, who came in a Riotous manner and broke open the Doors and brought Fire-Arms and Swords and sware they would Kill my Wife and Maid. And though she swore the Peace against him, and had a Warrant, yet Justice Dyot refused to bind him over, which so encouraged him and his Com- panions that they had money enough to Fee all the Justices or their Clerks, so that they need not fear but keep their unjust Possession, and upon this confidence turns my Wife and her young Child and Nurse by Force out of the House into the Street, the Maid being gone to carry the three other children their Dinners to School. In this deplorable condition my Wife and Family are turned out of Doors, and she went to Justice Ellis and he told her he would lay her by the Heels if she Bullied him at that rate, she saying ‘it’s very hard we can’t have no Justice done us.” But Justice Hungerford and Justice Ireton went upon the view and found it a Forcible Entry, and Ordered a Mittimus to send Burges to Newgate. But one Simkins, formerly a Haberdasher, who pretended to Break, and paid his Creditors a Half-a-Crown in the Pound, and now boasts of his estate reserved to himself which his Creditors knew nothing of, he being an intimate acquaintance of Haley's, and Burges is their Solicitor in this unjust cause; and as Burges's wife declared that if Simkins had not Fee'd high when the Justices were on the View her husband had gone to Newgate. And one Salter told that they had got the Affidavit but it was a dear piece of paper for it cost 18 or 20 Guineas, and nobody but Justice Ireton's Clerk could help them to it; and it has cost 150 Guineas in Fees since they turned my Wife out of Doors, as Burges's wife affirms. Though their Bribery saved him from Newgate, yet I do believe Justice Hungerford scorns and abhors such Practice, for I believe him to be a man of honour and of a better reputation. Thus the Case stands now, but I hope God will raise us some good Men that will scorn Bribery and Restore us to our just Rights, which is all that is desired by W. BAGULEY, Proprietor of Queen Street Chappel. 395 The Vestry of St. Giles, when Mr. Baguley had been removed in 1706, ordered the Church-wardens “to advise about the new chapel in Queen Street, and treat about the purchase of the same.” The purchase did not take place, but an agreement was entered into whereby divine worship, according to the ritual of the Church of England, was celebrated therein. It had no independent action as a “Church,” but was simply an appurtenant to the church of St. Giles’. The Rector, jealous of his privileges, and keenly alive to his temporal interest, took good care that his monopoly of the spiritual affairs of his parishioners should not be interfered with, and, as a natural consequence, the expenses of church-work in Great Queen Street were a burden to the mother church, and the Rector, Dr. Galley, at last was glad to get rid of it at any price. The Rev. Thomas Francklin, who was Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty, purchased the chapel and carried on church-work there after his own fashion. His father was what would now be termed a Radical, being the printer of an anti- ministerial paper, called The Craftsman, the editorial arti- cles causing him to be prosecuted and incarcerated several times in the King’s Bench Prison. Mr. Pulteney promised to procure a fat living for his son if young Thomas would study for the church, which the father believed, and sent his son to Westminster School in 1735, and to Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1739. The promise was forgotten, and young Francklin left college to be an usher in West- minster School. In 1750 he was chosen Professor of Greek at Cambridge, in opposition to Mr. Barford, of King’s College. He published The World and The Centinel, which had but a brief existence. At this time, 1757, he was Lecturer at St. Paul’s, Covent Garden, and Minister of Great Queen Street Chapel, where, in 1758, he preached “A Fast Sermon” and published it. He also held by the Great Queen Street Church. 396 gift of Trinity College the livings of Ware and Thundrich, in Hertfordshire. With all these duties he found time to produce literary works for the stage and the pulpit. Charity Sermons, preached in Great Queen Street, and The Earl of Warwick, a tragedy, which he produced at Drury Lane Theatre, appeared together. He was enrolled one of His Majesty’s Chaplains in November 1767; took the degree of D.D. in July 1770, and was presented to the living of Brasted in Surrey, in 1776. His works had no permanence, and did not live beyond the death of their author, which took place at his house in Great Queen Street, March 15, 1784. After his decease, three volumes of his Sermons were published for the benefit of his widow and family. Mrs. Francklin died in May 1796. She was the daughter of Mr. Venables, a Wine Merchant. The Executors or Trustees of Dr. Francklin appear to have continued the work of the chapel until the death of his widow, and about this time the lease of the chapel in West Street, Seven Dials, so intimately connected with the founder of Method- ism, was fast running out, and came to an end in 1798. The proprietor required a high price for a renewal of the lease, and it was the opinion of the late Joseph Butter- worth, Esq., who had recently joined the West Street Society, and of other influential members, that they ought to provide a place for themselves. Just at the time they were informed by one of the Society, residing on the estate, that the executors of the late Rev. Dr. Francklin, proprietor and minister of the Episcopal Chapel in Great Queen Street, were willing to sell their property. Dr. Adam Clarke and Mr. Butterworth were deputed to apply to them, and ultimately purchased the chapel and premises, which were vested in Trustees for the use of the Wesleyan Connection. The premises cost £5,500, and the deed is dated July 19th, 1798. On September 30th following the 397 chapel was opened as a Wesleyan Chapel. It stood on about one-half of the ground on which the present chapel stands. The chapel in Great Queen Street, into which the Society removed, was a very old and homely structure; it was dark, and laying below the level of the street, could not easily be kept clean, and the entrance to it was by a passage through a dwelling house. The surrounding houses overlooking it were at times a means of annoyance during the public service. The proprietor of the property on the western side of the old chapel, laying between it and Middle Yard, was willing to dispose of it to the Trustees, who purchased it for £1,350. It contained about 100 feet in depth from north to south, and about 40 feet from east to west. The present chapel includes the whole of this site, and nearly all on which the old chapel stood. The plans for a new chapel were prepared by Mr. W. Jenkins, and Messrs. Scarlett and Reddall, of Bunhill Row, entered into a con- tract for the building of it for the sum of £8,100; an additional sum of £1,594 3s. 10d. being paid for extras. It was opened on September 25th, 1817, by the Rev. Joseph Benson, the Rev. Robert Newton, and the Rev. Richard Watson. The Rev. Jabez Bunting and the Rev. Joseph Entwistle preached on the following Sabbath, when the collections amounted to £831 16s 7d. This chapel was greatly improved in 1840. Negotiations were entered into with Messrs. Sherwin & Willson, the adjoining tenants, by virtue of which the Trustees were enabled to erect the portico and frontage as they now appear. The Rev. Robert Newton conducted the reopening service on Sept. 24, 1840. The basement of the chapel was made to serve the purpose of a burial ground, being termed “The Cemetery,” and described as one of the most complete burial-places in London. It could only be entered through the chapel- keepers apartments. The coffins were lowered into it from The Wesleyan Chapel in Great Queen Street. 398 The Closing of the Burial Grounds. the chapel during the burial service by machinery, and this plague pit, the fumes from which found ready access into the chapel, was allowed to remain and be used as a store- house for the dead bodies of those active members who formerly worshipped on the floor above. The grave-yards and burial-places in large cities became a disgrace to all concerned. The burial fees belonged to those who held the living, and although the grave-yards were full to overflowing, there was always room for new tenants. An Act of Parliament was necessary to bring this state of things to an end. The stringent clauses of the Act compelled the joint Vestry of St. Giles’ in the Fields and St. George, Bloomsbury, to pass a resolution on October 4th, 1858, for the closing of all burial-grounds in their united parishes, when £1,000 was voted to be paid out of the poor- rate. The work of sealing up these last resting places in vaults was carried out by the District Board, and in Dec., 1858, the account as under was passed by the Vestry. £ S. d. The Vaults of St. Giles' Church ... tº g ſº tº ºn tº 3OI I2 2 */ £/ St. George, Bloomsbury & e º ºy fy Holy Trinity tº º & } 4.93 9 6 ** fy St. Giles' Cemetery * * * */ z/ The Wesleyan Chapel tº º ſº & ſº tº 8O O 7 Gratuity to Mr. Finnis, Surveyor to the Board tº & © I5 O O Ž890 2 3 A distinguished resident of Queen Street was Sir Edward Herbert, advanced to the dignity of a baron of the Kingdom of Ireland by the title of Lord Herbert of Castle- Island; and in 1631 to that of Lord Herbert of Cherbury, in Shropshire. After the breaking out of the civil wars, he adhered to the parliament, and the King’s forces having demolished his castle of Montgomery, he received satisfac- tion from the Commons for the loss he had sustained. The tyranny and cruelty of the Parliamentary party caused him to relent and turn from them with aversion and disgust, and 399 they, as far as they possibly could, made him a mark for their revenge. “He died at his house in Queen Street, London, August 20, 1648; and was buried in the chancel of St. Giles's in the Fields, with this inscription upon a flat marble stone over his grave: Heic inhumatur corpus Edvardi Herbert equitis Balnei, baronis de Cherbury et Castle-Island, auctoris libri, cui titulus est, De Veritate. Reddor ut herbaº; vicesimo die Augustí anno Domini 1648.” He has been termed a Deist, a Theist, and an Infidel, but his prayer to the Creator is an evidence of his belief in God. Although the theologians of that and succeeding ages have sought to cast upon him the slur of infidelity, accentuated by sarcasm and ridicule. He says:— Being thus doubtful in my chamber one fair day in the sum- mer, my casement being open towards the South, the sun shining clear, and no wind stirring, I took my book De Veritate in my hands, and kneeling on my knees, devoutly said these words: “O - thou eternal God, author of this light which now shines upon me, à. rbert of g and and giver of all inward illuminations, I do beseech thee, of thine his Vision. infinite goodness, to pardon a greater request than a sinner ought to make. I am not satisfied enough whether I shall publish this book: if it be for thy glory I beseech thee give me some sign from heaven; if not, I shall suppress it.’ I had no sooner spoken these words, but a loud, though yet gentle noise, came forth from the heavens, for it was like nothing on earth, which did so chear and comfort me, that I took my petition as granted, and that I had the sign I demanded; whereupon also I resolved to print my book. This, how strange Soever it may seem, I protest before the eternal God, is true; neither am I any way superstitiously deceived herein, since I did not only clearly hear the noise, but in the serenest sky that ever I Saw, being without all cloud, did, to my thinking, see the place from whence it came. And now I sent my book to be printed in Paris, at my own cost and charges. Lord Orford observes that “the Life of Lord Herbert, written by himself, is perhaps the most extraordinary account that ever was seriously given by a wise man of himself.” 400 In an advertisement of 1707 it is stated that “In New Weld Court, near Lincoln’s-Inn-Fields, are Houses to be Let of 2 and 3 rooms of a Floor, having the Prospect of Great Queen Street Gardens. Inquire at the White Pails in the said Court.” Another advertisement refers to a book: — “Lately published, beautifully printed in one volume in Twelves, illustrated with 133 curious Cuts, taken originally from the Life: Placed at the Head of each Chapter. THE ART of ANGLING, Rock AND SEA FISHING, with the Natural History of River, Pond, AND SEA FISH. Printed by and for J. Watts, at the Printing Office in Wild Court, near Lincoln’s Inn Fields.”—1740. It was at Mr. Watts’ Printing Office that Benjamin Franklin worked for a short time. The printing press that he used has, by the efforts of MEssRs. WYMAN, been carefully preserved, and “is now a Venerated Relic in the Public Museum of Philadelphia.” Benjamin Franklin, L.L.D. & F.R.S., died at Philadelphia on the 17th of April, 1790, aged 84 years and 3 months. Some years before his death he wrote his epitaph, as under, and desired that it might be inscribed on his tombstone. THE BODY OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, PRINTER, (LIKE THE COVER OF AN ODD Book, ITs contents ToRN OUT, AND STRIPT OF ITS LETTERING AND GILDING) LIES HERE FOOD FOR WORMS; YET THE WORK ITSELF SHALL NOT BE LOST, BUT will (AS HE BELIEVED) APPEAR ONCE MORE IN A NEW AND MORE BEAUTIFUL EDITION, CORRECTED AND AMENDED BY THE AUTHOR, GENERAL INDEX, Abbess Christina, 22, 29. Abbot of Lagny, 87. of Tower Hill, 42. Actuaries’ Institute, I 92. Adams, 353. Adam and Eve, the, 67. Adeliza, 35, 36. Addison, 2.75. Alans, Fitz, 36. Albemarle, Duke of, 213. , Earl of 76. Albini, William de, 35, 72, 287. Albini, Vere de, 79. Alde Bourne, 238 Alde Strate, 285, 289. Aldewych, 238. Alde Wych Manor-house, 14. Aldewyche, I4, 15, 333, 358, 365. Church, 14. CrOSS, I5. Close, I5, 364, 369. Green, 15. Alde Wyche, 284. Alderby, John de, 86. Aldingbourne House, 95. Aldwick Tything, 333. Ale Shots, 67. Allan, Count, 23. Allington, Lord, 230. Alms-house Charity, 152. Alms Houses, St. Giles', 316. Ambassador of Portugal, the, 384. of Spain, the, 363. Amicia, 235, 239. Anderson, Mr. William, 330. Angel Inn, the, 276. Anketin de Martivale, 308. Anselm, Archbishop, II, 24, 32, 334. Antelope Inn, the, 96. Anjou, Earl of, 36. Apsley, Colonel, 3I4. Arlington, Lord, 346. Armyne, Sir William, 212. Arrell, J. M., 381 , M. R., 381. Arreton Manor, 4o Artois, Robert of, 49. Arundel Castle, 72. , Countess of, 36. ——, Earl of 36, 63, 97, 99, 215. —, Mr., 261. , Thomas de, 182. Ashburnham, William, 62. Asher, co. Surrey, 268. Askew, Anne, 138. Ashley, Lord, I51. , Sir Anthony, I 99. Ashlin's Place, 372. Astley, Philip, 348. Astley's Theatre, 348. Athelgal, Monk, 8. Atheling, Edgar, 5, 22. Atkins, Sir Edward, 384. Atkinson, William, 360. Atwater, William, 125. Aubert, Maurice, 224. E 3 402 GENERAL INDEX. Aubery Farm, 3or. Audeley, Thomas, I 31, 187. Audley, Lord, I 36, 256, 259, 375. Augier, James, 346. Augmentation Court, the, 195. Aula Halls, 56. Regis, 56, IoI. Ayrmin, William de, I 14. Babington, Anthony, 138. , Dr. L., 268. Bacon, Chancellor, I44. Backhouse, Sheriff, 363. Bagford, John, 202. Baguley, Mr., 39 I. Bailey, Mr. Charles, 147. Bain, co. Lincolnshire, 53. Bainbridge, Cardinal, I 25. Ballard, John, I 38. Ballard's Lane, Ioo. Baldwin, Earl, 39. Baldwin’s Fort, 4o. Baldwin, Hugh, 289. —, King, 4o, 288. , Roysia, 296. Balsham, Hugh, I2. Banbury Castle, I31. Bangor House, I 3. Banstead Manor, 79. Barbers, Five Women, 337. Barclay, Mr. John, 331. Barden, Edward, 224. Bardolph, Lord, 248. Barker, Anthony, 263. , Edmund, 315. Barkham, Sir Edward, 58. Barkhamstead Castle, 79. Barkstead, Colonel, 150, 387. , Redvers de, 40, 44, 334. Barnard's Inn, 139, 187. Barnchurst, 323. Barnewell, Robert, I39. Basing, Adam de, 47, 307. Basset, Anne, 263. , Fraunces, 262. , James, 261, 264. , John, 262. , Mary, 263. , Mr., 26I. Bastell, 374. Bawbye, William, 97. Baxter, William, 55. Bayley, Anthony, 229. , William, 230. Bainard's Castle, 3, 81, 83, 338. Bainard, William, 3, 338. Bazalgette, Sir Joseph, 281. Beake (Le Bec), Thomas, I 18. Beard, Benjamin, I4I. Bear and Ragged Staff, 273. Street, 273. Bene, Francis, 131. Beaufort, Henry, 122. Beaumanor, 246, 348. Beaumont, 237, 245, 257, 308. Estates, 249, 266, 273. ——, Henry, 248. gºmºsºms 5 Joan, 25O, 254. ——, John, 248. ——, Richard, 248. , Roger, 9. ——, Thomas, 248. ——, Wiscount, I89, 248. , Lord William, 180. Bech, Nicholas de la, 178. Becher, Sir William, 99. Beck, Gabriel, 226. Bedford, Countess of, 307. , Duke of, 146, 249, 299. GENERAL INDEX. 403 Bedford, Earl of 232, 302, 313, 347. Family, 301. House, I46, 232, 302. Bedwell, Mr., 55, 229. Beggar's Bush, the, 352. Belgrave, Henry de, 287. Bellodi, 326. Bellomont, I5, 41, 43, 233, 283. , Amicia, 235. —, Hugh de, 52. tº-mº , Robert de, 48, 73, 234, 237. —, Roger de, 233. —, Spencer de, 238. —, William de, 55, 234. Belton, co. Leicestershire, 246. , Lords of, 309. Manor, 309. Street, 246, 308, 372. Bellus Mont, 233. Belvoir Castle, 35. Bendish, Thomas, 378. Benson, Christopher, 35o. Bennet, Charles, 230. Bereans, the, 331. Beresford, John, 66. Mary, 65. Berkeley Castle, 247. Berkyng, Ralph de, 168. —, Richard de, 168. Berners, Lord, 259. Berry, Hugh, 347. Best, John, 368. • Betterton Street, 372. , Thomas, 351, 353. Bethell, Zachary, 31 I. Bierley, Mr., 390. Biggs, Mr., 327. Bigot, Hugh, I 2. Biham Castle, 75. Bingley, Sir Richard, 363. Binion, Reginald, 356. Bion, Madame de, 263. Bird, Theophilus, 35o. Biston, Christopher, 35o. , William, 35o. Black Friars, 49, 81, 376. Monastery, 3, 76, I34. Blackington House, 38o. t Black Swan Inn, the, 17o. Blafford, John, 362. Blakamore, co. Essex, 135. Blanchmaines, Robert, 236. Blancke, Sir Thomas, 59. Bland, John le, 83. Blemonte, 233. William, 290. Blemund, 9, 53, 233, 257, 285. Blemundsbury, 9, 14, 41, 53, Ioo, I34. Boundaries, 283. Cage, 289. — Ditch, 238. ——, Lords of 233, 299. Manor, 15, 54, I52, 236, 249, 251, 256, 258. Manor-house, 26o, 265, 272, 279, 284, 289, 334. Blewbery, Ioo. Bloet, Bishop, Io, 72, Ioé, Io8. Blois, Alexander de, 72, 74, Io9. , Bishop of Lincoln, 72, Io8. Pond, 72. Bloomsbury, Ioo, I52, 233, 265. Blount, Sir Christopher, 141. , Earl of Devonshire, 366. º- , Edward, 189. Blounts, the, 309, 366. Blue Boar Inn, the, Holborn, 2 Io, 212. Yard, the, 2II. Blundeville, Ranulph, 24o. Blundi, Walter, 237. 404 GENERAL INDEX. Blunt, Elizabeth, 134. , Sir John, 134, 169. , Katherine, 135. Blunts, the, 134. Bohemia, Queen of, 343. Book of Grants, 42. Boleyn, Anne, 97. Bolongari, Edwin, 237. Bolton, Clara, 61. , Theophilus, 61. Bonner, Bishop, 65. Boreman, Dr. Robert, 277. Borough, Sir John, 34o. Boscobel, Lady of, 343. Bosworth's Dictionary, 333. Bosworth Field, 58, 250. Bours, Madame de, 263. Bowdell, Ambrose, 369. Bowling Alleys, 349, 361. Bowl Yard, 316, 372. Bow Street, 324. Bowyer, John, 358. Bayle, Lady Jane, 376. Bayville, Elizabeth de, 34o. Brabazon, Ioo. , Roger de, 83, 169. Bradshaw, Mr., 148, 374. Bragge, Martin, 64. Brandon, Charles, 53, 91, I:24, 252. , Henry, 134. Braose, Lord, 236. Brass Horse, the, 306. Bray, Mr., 305. Braybroke, Robert, 185. Brecknockshire, 31. Bretford, Robert, 47. Brett, Richard, 382. Bridewell Place, I24. Bringhurst, Mr., 66. Bristol, 247. Bristol, Anne, Countess of, 212. Briteuil—Normandy, 235. British Museum, 154. Brite, William de, 35. Britolio, William de, 235. Briton, Sir John, 169. Broad Street, 15, 308. Broadway, 375. Brock, Dr., 331. Brooke, Sir John, 305. —, Lawrence de, 84. Brooks, Thomas, 199. Brougham, Lord, 379. Browne, Sir Richard, 351. Brownlow Street, 371. Brydges, George, 275. Buckenham, co. Norfolk, 35. —— Abbey, 36. Buckingham, John, 121. Burgh, Hubert de, 77, IIo. Buckhurst, Ralph, 362. Burgheiers, Sir Robert, 179. Burgheish, Henry, 174. , Lord, I 18. Burghley, Lord, 3oo. Burgundus, Sir Hugh, Io9. Black Bull, the, 199. Bull's Head Court, 370. Bull Inn, the, 199. Bull & Gate Inn, 199, 206. Bullock, Martin, 206. Burial Grounds closed, 398. Burnell, Robert, 169. Burnham, Mr. Richard, 33o. Burrow Bridge, Battle of 247. Burstall, William, 113. Burton, John, 341. Lazars, 42. Leper Hospital, 249. 2 Margaret, 359, GENERAL INDEX. 405 Burton, Richard, 359. —, Thomas, 34I, 358, 360. , Walter, 358, 367. , William, 341. Burwell Castle, 73. Bury, Humphrey, 306. Butler, A Priest, 141. , John, Ioo. Bynteworth, Richard, 114. Bysshe, Edward, 272. Cable's Livery Stables, 200. Cambridge Circus, 28o. —, Duke of, 281. Campbell, Captain, 390. Cancia, William de, 289. Cannon Row, 56, 268. Canterbury, Archbishop of, 373. Cantilupe, William de, 240. Capin, Thomas, 362. Carew, George, 261. , Sir Harry, 215. —, Mr. John, I48. , Lady, 378. Carey, Sir Edward, 60. , Sir Henry, 60. , John, 60, 67. , Philip, 60. Carisbrooke Priory. 40. Carleton, Sir Dudley, 99, I42, 270, 348, 358, 365, 373. , George, I42. Carlingford, Earl, 384. Carlisle City, 82. , Earl of, 202. Carnifex, the, 290, 295. Carosel, Augustin, 384. Carr, Joseph, 320. Carter & Co., 364. ~ Carthusian Priory, 261. Case, Thomas, 376. Castlehaven, Countess of 375. , Earl of 375. Castle Hevingham, 181. Lane, 84, 170, 183. Street, Great, 331. , Holborn, 17o. , Seven Dials, 316. Yard, 17o. Castro, 42. Catesby, Sir William, 255. Catnach, 317. Caunt, Benjamin, 318. Cavendish, 270. Chalgrave Chantry, 131. Challoner, Sir Thomas, 271. Chamberlain, John, 270, 358, 365, 373. Chancellor's Court, 158. Chancellor, the, 158. Chancery Lane, 79, 95, 168. Chandos, Lord, 275. Chapel Street, 331. Chapuys, I 3o. Charing Cross, Ioo, 137, 149. Charing-Cross Road, 280, 284, 331. Charles, Jonas, 346. Street, 372. Charnock, John, 139. Charter-House Yard, 212. Chartwright, Mr., 202. Chelsey, 3ol. Chertsey, 97. Chester Arms, the, 97. , Earl of 97. Inn, the, 97. Chichester, Bishop of 93, 97, 168. , Earl of 36, 154. Inn, the, 77, 91. Palace, 77, 91, 104. iºn 406 GENERAL INDEX. Chichly's House, 388. Chief Butler, 38. Justiciary, 77, I58. Chigwell, Richard de, 168. Child, John, 378. Chillingham, George, 211. Chisney, Robert de, 74. Chiswell, Richard, 392. Christie, Mr., 147. Christemasse, Alan, 335. Family, 357. —— House, 333. , John, 333,335. , Roger, 335. , Walter, 335, 339. , William, 47. Churchill, Mr., Io2. Chute Manor, 213. Forest, 213. Ciceley, 338. City Pipes, 3oo. City's Works, 3oo. Claracilla, 353. Clare, Bryan de, 9. , Earls of, 338. ºmmººsººms: —, Gilbert de, 48, 53, 246, 338. — House, 339. — Market, 16o, 228, 246, 351. —, Maud de, 75. —, Richard de, 338. —, Robert de, 388. , Roger de, 338. Claypole, Eliza, I5o. Clarges, Nan, 337. Clarke, Captain, 342. Cleaver, E. L. W., 338. Clement's Inn, 342. Fields, 228. Clement, Mr. Gregory, 148. Cleveland, Duchess of, 62. Cleveland, Earl of 323. Cliderowe, Sir John, 49. Clifford's Inn, 187. Clifford, Richard de, 42. Clitheroe, 49. Cloche Hose Inn, 15. , Le, 285, 289, 292. Clochier, the, 15, 285. Clopton, John, 357. Close Harbour, 269. Clyff, Henry de, I 14. Coal Yard, I53, 371, 381. Cobham, Lord, 294. —, Philippa, 341. Cock Alley, 308. Field, 307. Inn, 308. — Pit Alley, 370. — — & Phoenix, 348. — — Play-house, 35o. — & Pye Fields, 309, 3II, 316, 355. , the, 355. Cockermouth Manor, 76. Cocks, Richard, 251. Coke, Chief Justice, 148. , Sir Edward, 268. , Secretary, 379. Cole, Mr., 144, 3ol. , N., I4o. Coles, Schoolmaster, 141. Collingburn, Sir William, 255. Collwich, Mr. Anthony, IoI. Colne Priory, 162. Colney Hatch, 58. Colson's Court, 370. Colston, Thomas, 360. Colton, Hugh, 256. Combe's Brewery, 308, 372. Combe & Delafield, 324. , Harvey, 325. GENERAL INDEX. 407 Common Council, Court of, 97. Common Hunt, Master of, 59. Compton Street, 329. Conant, Mr., 327. Conduit, City, 58. Day, 59. Heads, 59, 3oo. Coney-garth, 89, 91, 96. Conolly, William, 275, 35o. Const, Mr., 325. Constable, Sir John, 34o. Constantis, Walter de, Io9. Conway, Lady Frances, 387. —, Secretary, 58. Converts, House of, 94. Cook, Thomas, 31 I. Cope, Lady Dorothy, 365. , Sir Edward, 365. , Isabella, 366. —, Lady Katharine, 365, 367. —, Lady, 373. , Sir Walter, 365, 373. Corbet, Colonel, 150. Corbett, Mr., 262. Cork, Earl of 376. Cornwallis, Sir Charles, 358. , Francis, 360. House, 357, 362. ——, Lady, 358. —, Mr., I4 I. ——, Thomas, 36 I. , Sir William, 357, 361. Corporation, London, 59. Cottonian Manuscripts, 52. Courtney, Hugh, 289. Courts Leet, 249, Covent Garden, 3oo, 306, 312. Church, 3o4, 354. Theatre, 353. , Viscount, 374, 376, 38o, 386. Coventry, William, 62. Coverful Bell, the, 285. Cow Lane, 2 II. Cradle Alley, 382. Cranmer, Arhcbishop, I 32. Cratt, Mr., 58. Craven Charity, 346. , Earl, 347. —— Hill, 346. House, 342, 348. , Earl John, 230, 341. Crokehorne Alley, 97. Crooked Billet, the, 273. Cromwell, 148, 209, 272, 370. , Eliza, 15o. , Thomas, 97, Ioo, I29. Cross Lane, 37 I. , Thomas, 374. Crown Alley, 308. Court, 308, 331. Tavern, 328. Crispin, John, 42, 88. Cup of Charity, 291. Field, 227. of Gold, 38, 97. Cuffe, Henry, 141. Cumnor, co. Leicestershire, 273. Curfew Bell, the, 285. Dacre, Lord, 93. Danley, Robert de, 42. Danvers, Sir Charles, 141, 143, 341. Darrell, Henry, 322. Davenant, Sir William, 351. Davenport & Maynard, 325. Davie's Inn, 98. Davis, Lockyer, 146. , Temperance, 141. Daunce, Sir John, 211. Deans of St. Paul's, 54. 408 GENERAL INDEX. Dean Street, 149. , Sir Richard, 363. Delabere, Anthony, 126. Denbigh, Baron, 266. Denham, John, 62. Denlie, Mr., 65. Denmark Street, 274, 279, 297, 316. , Little, 277. Densell, Mr., 255. Derby, Earl, 288. Despenser, 88, 173, 234, 284. , Adam de, 246. , Alivia le, 246. , Alianore, 246 , Anne le, 246. — of Belton, 246. —, Eudo, 52. —, Hugh le, 246. —, The King's, 234. De Spencers, the, 91, I43, 193, 196, 2OI, 222. De Spencer, Eudo, 52. De Tateshall, Eudo, 52. Devil’s Conduit, the, 60. Gap, the, 370. Devonshire, Earl of, I43, 289. Digby, 347. * , George, 269. Lord John, 212. , Sir Kenelm, 32.2, 382. Dingley, George, I4o. Dod, Peter, 3oo. Dokwra, Thomas, 123. Domesday Book, the, 28, 53, 234, 284. Domesday Survey, the, 52, 257. Domus Conversorum, III. Donyngton, 259. Dorchester, Secretary, IoS, 375. Dorchester, Viscount, 202. Dorset, Earl of 202, 222, 373. 2 Douglas, Sir William, 350. Dover Court, 371. , Nicholas de, 42. Street, 2.75. Drury, Henry, 142, 339, 341–343. House, 367. — Lane, 6, 333, 339, 346, 356, 365, 367, 373–6. — Lane Theatre, 353. , Sir William, 339. Dudley, Ambrose, 269. Court, 274, 3oo. , Earl of Leicester, 266. ——, Guildford, 166. House, 265—276, 28o. , Lady Jane, 166. , John, 188, 252, 265. —, Lady, 268—277, 383. Lands, the, 265. , Sir Robert, 63, 265, 268—272. Duke Street, 339. Duke's Theatre, the, 351. Duke of York, the, 351. Dulwich College, 202. Dunn, Henry, 138. Dunwallo, Molmutius, 70. Durham House, 313. , Richard, 360. Dust Contracting, 324. Dyott, Anthony, 189. , Sir, 126. Eadmerus, 23. Eagle Street, 21 I. Earl's Colne, co. Essex, 161. Earl Street, 3.16. East India Company, 342. Easton Manor, 70. Eaton, William, 201. Ebury, 71. GENERAL INDEX. 409 Eden Street, 67. Edlyn, Edmund, 358. Edmondes, Sir Thomas, 215. Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, 245. Edward the Confessor, 52. I., 289. II., 286. Af III., 56, 246—248, 323. — IV., 249, 251. VI., 286, 34o. Edwin, Earl of Chester, 5. Effingham, Lord Howard of, 267. Eia Manor, 71. Elbow Lane, 276. Elde Strate, 285, 289, 291, 295. Ellis's Letters, IoI. Elm Close, 292, 295, 298. Elms, the, 138, 149. 175, 289, 292, 295. —, the Two, 297. Ely, Bishop of, I 3o. —, Convent of, 4. — House, Ioff, 137, 180, 185. , Monks of, 4, 163. Emanuel College, 196. Chambers, 20I. Emery, William, 131. Empson, Sir Richard, 124. Endell Street, 153. Englefield, Mr., 124. Essex, Earl of 56, 72, 75, 141, 267, 3O2. , Henry de, 74. House, 3, 72–75. , my Lord of, 256. Plot, the, 341. Etat Halls, 56. Eugenius III., 34, 49. Eunuch, the, 352. Evesham Abbey, 244. Evesham, Battle of, 244. Evelyn, 352, 381. , Mary, 381. gºss , Richard, 381. Exeter, Bishop of 171. College, 172. House, 172. Faber, Edward & Richard, 287. , Hugh le Smythe, 335. Fair Rosamond, 85. Fane, Sir Thomas, 196. Fanton, Captain Carlo, 381. Farringdon House, 309. Feltham Manor, 39. Felton, 14o. Fenn, Ezekiel, 35o. Fenwick Buildings, 96. , Colonel, 314. Court, 46. Fermor, Lady, 57. Ferrars, Earl, 288. Ficette-feld, 338. Ficquet's Croft, 45. Ficquet Fields, 45, 69, 89, 96, IoI, 160, I83, 222, 286, 292, 339. Fiennes, Sir Henry, 58. Fikates Fields, 69. Fikattesfeld, 47, 69, 195. Finch, L. C. J., 222, 388. , Lord Keeper, 379. , Thomas, 3 Io. Fisher's Folly, 141, 361. Fisher, Jasper, 361. Fitz-Eustace, Richard, 74. Fitz-Albert, 296. Fitz-Osborn, 39, 236. Fitz-Parnell, 235, 239. Fitz-Parnell, Loretta, 236, 239. F 3 410 GENERAL INDEX. Fitz-Patrick, 375. Fitz-Peter, Geoffrey, 74. Fitz-Roy, Ann, 62. , Charles, 62. — —, Charlotte, 62. — —, George, 62. , Henry, 62, 134. Fitz-Walter, 338. Fitz-Water, Robert, 161. Fitz-William, Dr., 154. Flavell, Holy, 201. Fleet Bridge, 83. Street, 187. Fleming, Richard, 122. Fontibus, Aveline, 288. , Avice, 288. ——, De, 287. , Humphrey, 288. *g , Isabella, 289. ——, John, 288. ——, Ralph, 287. , Septimus, 287, 317. , Thomas, 288. , William, 76, 287. Ford, Edward, 224, 369, 373. , Sir William, 224. Fordham, John, 185. Foreman, Dr., 126. , Richard, 2 II. Forfue Garden, 339. Forsett, Edward, 6o. Forster, Richard, 145. Fortfeue Garden, 339. Fortefeue Lane, 339, 348. Fortescue Lane, 212. Foxelyere, John de, 88. Francklin, Thomas, 395. Franklin, Benjamin, 4oo. Fraser Family, the, 2.05. Fraximente, Gilbert de, 79. Free Trade Concert, 205. Freer, Mr., 126. French Chapel, Protestant, 331. Church, –, 316. Horn Inn, the, 204. ——— Refugees, the, 330. Frodsham, Henry, 268. Fry, Samuel, 360. Fryer's Pye's Rents, 3oo. Fucherer's Lane, 168. Furnival's Inn, 139, 187. Furnival Street, 17o. Fyckebeth Field, Ioo. * Gage, George, 322, 383. , R., 139, 141. , William, 384. Gate Street, 5o, 212, 222, 330, 364. Chambers, 308. Chapel, 204. Gate House Prison, 379. Garden Place, 82. Gardiner, Dr., 206. —, Geoffrey le, 43. —, George, 356. Garenne, Guilliame de, 48. Gargrave, Sir Richard, 366. Garrett, Mr., 126. Garrett's Rents, 14o. Garway, William, 60. Gaunt, John of, I '79. Gaveston, 55. Geoffrey, Earl of Brabant, 35. George Inn, the, 211. , Brighthelmstone, 218. George Yard, 2 II. Gerard, Arnold, 379. , George, 144. ——, Lady, 374. ºsmºsºmºsºs amº GENERAL INDEX. 4ll Gerard, Sir Thomas, 374. Gerbier, 376. Germin, Richard, 42. , Robert, 42. Gibbon, Thomas, 312. Gibbon's Tennis Court, 352. Gibson’s Court, 372. Giffard, Dr., 383. .* , Mr., 216, 381. Gill, Dr., 330. Glass-house Street, 330. Gloucester, Earl of, 75, 246. Glover, Alexander, 65. Godchere, Adam, 47. Godfrey, Albini, 36. Gold Lane, 181. Golden-ball Court, 370. Goldsmith Street, 372. Goodall, Mr. George, 261. Gorges, Sir Arthur, 57. , Sir Ferdinand, 341. Gospatric, 54. Grafton Street Chapel, 330. Gravesend, Richard de, III. Gracious Street, 256. Gray, Humphrey, 367. , Walter, 8o, I Io. ......, William, 122. Gray's Court, 189. Inn, 8, 188. Lane, 190. Road, 41, 168, 315. Graynfield, John, 257, 259. tº-sº Great St. Andrew's Street, 276, 287. Greek Church, the, 317. Green, John, 330. Green Lion, the, 273. Grenefield, William de, 169. Grentemaisnil, Honor of 238. , Hugh, 234. Grentemaisnil, Ivo, 234. Grey, Baron, 166. , Edward, 252. —, Elizabeth, 252. —, Henry, 13, I66. , John, 13, 165, I88, 252. , Walter, 164, 167. Greye's Inn, 164, 167. Lane, 165. Greville, Sir Fulk, 215. Gridiron Court, 96. Gros, William le, 76. Grosthead, Bishop, 1 Io. Guildhall, London, 17o Gundulph, Bishop of Rochester, 2. Gwyn, Roger, 373. Gwynn, Nell, 344. Gynewell, John, II 9. Hadenham, 6. Hales, Christopher, Ioo. —, Sir Robert, 182. Haley, Rev. William, 391. Hall, Arthur, 206. Halliday, Robert, 42. Halliwell, William de, 289. Hamp, Thomas, 28o. Hampden, 309. Hampton Court, Ioo. Hanbury, Mr., I54. Hanover Street, 33 I. Hardicanute, 46. Harefoot, Harold, 45. Harrington, I4I. Haringwold, Thomas, 42. Harper, John, 264. Harrison, Major General, I48. , Mistress, 378. , Thomas, 356. 412 GENERAL INDEX. Hart Hall, 172. Hartshorn Lane, 342. Harvey, Colonel, 342. Hastings, Lord, 249. , Richard de, Io9. Haverhill Village, 79. Haverhyll, John, 79. - , Thomas de, 79. , William de, 78, 289. Hawise, 76. Hawksworth, James, 264. Hawsted, co. Suffolk, 34o. Hays, John, 201. Hayward, C. F., 214. Heartwell, Richard, 214. Heath, Attorney General, 303. Hectors, 285. Hedge Lane, 289, 297. Hell Gate, 370. Helmingham Hall, 266. Helvetic Chapel, the, 331. Henry I., 22, 26. II., 236. — III., 24.I. — V., 292. — VI., 248. — VII., 25o. VIII., 27, 250, 299, 328. Herbert, Charles, 305. of Cherbury, 398. ——, Solicitor General, 379. , Sir William, 62. Herefleete Inn, 44. Hereward, 5, 5o. , John, 47. , Juliana, 47. , Stephen, 47. Hereward's Castle, 48. Heriot, George, 358. , Mr., 253, 256, 259, 328. Herlaston, William de, 114. Heron, Isabel, 308. Hervey, Bishop, Io, Ioff. Hesilrigges, the, 308. Hevinede, Alicia, 290. Hewitt, Dr. John, 388. Heybourne, Lady, 58. Heywood, Dr., 374, 377. Hide Park, 59. Higden, John, Ioo. High Holborn, 203, 2I4, 314. High Street, 4, 28o, 297, 312. Hippesley, Sir John, 365. Hobbal Grange, 217. Hobbs, Thomas, 314. Hog Lane, 253, 256, 265, 273, 276, 284, 289, 297, 316, 33o. Hogg, Sir James McGarell, 281. Holbech, Bishop, 133. Holborn, 95, 203, 214, 3 Io. Bars, 44, 59, 74, 143. I88. Bridge, 83, 137. Galleries, 2 oo. —— Gates, 315. — Hill, I. 69, Io5, Io", I57. Holborn, Lady, 307. Holborn Manor, 13. paved, I2O. ——, Sir Robert, 307. Row, 198, 228. Vineyard, the, 12. Hodlestone, Father, 216. Holford Alley, 37 o. —, Henry, 339, 367. ——, Richard, 383. —, William, 341. Holland, Earl of 366. — House, 275, 366. Hollidge, Henry & William, 56. Holt, Mr., 261. GENERAL INDEX. - 4] 3 Honey Lane, 126. Honorius, Pope, 49. Hooker, James, 226. Horne, Thomas, 224. Horseshoe Tavern, the, 381. Horsey, Sir Edward, 268. Horwood's Maps, 200, 2 II, 214. Hospital for Lepers, 42. Hotham, William de, 81. Howard, Douglas, 267. , Frances, 267. ——-, Lord, 267. , Thomas, 36. , Thomas M., 379. Hozyer, Stephen, IoI. Huband, Sir John, 269. Hubert de Burgh, 77, 166. Hudson, Nicholas, 99. Hugh, Bishop of Lincoln, 291, 297. Hugh of St. Clement's, 338. Hultoft, John, 97. Humourous Lieutenant, the, 353. Hundeshall, Gresie de, 296. Hupper, Ellen, 303. —, John, 3O3. Husee, John, 253, 258, 26o, 264. Hussye, Thomas, 64. Hutton, George, 202. Hyde, John, Ioo. , Mr., 26o. Park, 3o I, —, the, 338. Ianthe, 353. Inns of Court Hotel, the, 212. Innocent, Pope, I Io, 239. Isle, Lady de, 288. of Wight, 288. Ireton, Matthew, I48, 375. Islington, 266. Islip Bridge, 370. Ittery, Mr., 273. Ivo de Tailboise, 5. Ixlebrat, Martin, 339. Jeggon, Mr., 228. Jerusalem, John of 76. —, King of, 49. , Patriarch of, 49. Jessel, Sir George, 116. Jesus' Bells, 285. Jesus' Chapel, 285. Jewell House, Master of, 6o. Jewkes, Simon, 64. Jews banished, I 14. Jews' House, the, I I I, 117. Joyce, William, 3II, 313. Judith, 54. Julia, Dr., 268. Justiciary, Alexander de Blois, 72. , Hubert de Burgh, 77. , Chief, 164. , John de Grey, 165. , Walter de Grey, 164. , the Jews', I 16. , the King's, Io, 158, 171. , Geoffrey de Mandeville, 72. , Bishop Maurice, 16o. tº e º is a tº e º te tº º ſº , Aubrey de Vere, 161. Justiciary’s House, the, I 12. Juxon, Lord Treasurer, 3o4. Kelly, Anthony, 325. Kemble Street, 348, 371. Kendrick Yard, 316. Kenilworth, 244, 247, 269, 271. Keninghall, 39. 414 GENERAL INDEX. Kensington Manor-house, 366. Kenyon, Chief Justice, 153. Keppel Street, 330. Kildare, Earl of, 374. Kilkenny, William de, 12, 113. Killigrew, 353. Kilwarby, Robert, Archbishop of Can- terbury, 3, 81. King's Arms Window, 197. Company, the, 351. — Gate, the, 212, 315. Street,315. King Charles I., 27 I. King's Head Inn, 146. Tavern, 208. Yard, 208. King's Cup Bearer, 35. Kingsmile, Richard, 94. Kukeby, John de, 13, II 3. —, William de, 55. Knight Rider Street, 389. Knight's Bridge, 301. Knights Hospitalers of St. John, 87. - Templars, 4 I, 49, 73. Knollys, Lettice, 267. Kynaston, 35I. Lacy, Alice de, 86, 17 I. —— Arms, the, 97. —, Awbrey de, 74. —, Edmund de, 89, 173. —, Henry de, 7, 81, 85, 9o, 17 I. , John de, 49, 74, 77, 82. —, Richard de, 74. —, Peter de, 74. —, Roger de, 74. –, Walter de, 7. Lady Suffolk's Daughter, 57. Lagny, Abbot of 87. Laicock, William, 312. Lake, Sir Thomas, 143. Lamb, Thomas, 342. , William, 59. Lambert & Butler, 371. Lambourne, John, 47. Lamb's Conduit, 59. Lancaster, 245. , Blanch, 179. —, Earl of 85, 87, 288. ——, Edmund, 86, 288, —— House, I 74. ——, Maud, 179. , Thomas de, I 74. Lane, Le, 292. Langey, De, 263. Langham, Mr., 376. Langton, John de, I69. Larkin, Rev. Thomas, 2 I5. Laud, Archbishop, 95, Io.4, 304, 366. Layton, Richard, 42. Lee, Walter, 368. Leeds, Thomas, I4I. Leget, Roger, I83. Leicester, 273, 290, 314. -*e , Carnifex, 2.90. — City, 234. ——, Countess of 237. , Earl of 233, 237, 242, 245, 266, 269. —— Fields, 273. ——, Hamond de, 290. , Honor of, 87, 284, 343. Gallows, 290. ——, Robert de, 290. , Roger de, 290. — Stocks, 289. — Square, 273. Lee, Edward, Archbishop, 132. Leigh, Alice, 268, 27 I. GENERAL INDEX. - 415 Leigh, Francis, 154. , Sir Thomas, 268, 272. Leighton, Robert de, 42. Lennox, Duchess Katharine, 375. Lenthal, Sir Edmund, 378. Leslie, Margaret, 390. Lepers of St. Giles, the, 74. Leventon, William, 278. Levingstein, Countess Mary, 375. Lewknor House, 362, 364. , Lady, 363. , Sir Lewis, 362. Lewknor's Lane, 312, 364, 371. Lexington, Henry, III. Lexinton, John de, II3. Lindsey, Earl, 55, 378. Lincoln, Bishop of, 57, 239. Bishoprick, IoS. —, Earl of 74, 91, 97. Lincoln's Garden, Earl, 84. Inn, 7.2, 89, 93, 97, IoI, 22 I. Chapel, I 96. Fields, 6, 16o, 227, 230, 3 IO; 339, 35 I, 353. Garden, 146, 227. Grange, 14 I. —— — Hall, IoI. — —-, Society of, 226. Wall, 227. Lincoln Place, 72, 74, IoS, IoS, I29, 187, 196. Lok, William, 262. Lollards, the, 292. Lollard's Tower, the, 63. London, Bishop of 345. County Council, 203. , Mayor of, 38. , William, 237. Lonecote, Robert, 43, 46, 48. Long Acre, I37, I75, 184, 296, 298, 3O2, 3IO, 3I 2, 37 O. -*- - tºmºmºm- -*- Long Acre Field, 296, 302. , John, 295. Longland, Bishop, 125, 132. Longspee, William, 85. Long Stanton, co. Cambridge, 367. Long Walk, the, 98. Lomesbury, Ioo. Losse, Sir Hugh, 357. Loughborough, 245. Lovell’s Arms, 255. Lovells, the, 208. Lovell, Edward, 264. *- , Frances, 253. , Francis, 253. , Lord John, 62, 25o, 254, 299, 339. , Sir Thomas, 91, 95, 124, 253. , Viscount, 250, 255. Lloyd’s Court, 276, 316. Lloyd, Dr., 275. Lucy, Lady Elizabeth, 251. , Thomas, 94. Lunardi, 67. Lutener's Lane, 381. Lyngedrap, Gevase de, 47, 53. Lynton, Walterus de, 42. McCarthy, 355, 373. Macklin Street, 372. Macclesfield, John, 42. Maggy, Henry, 43, 47. — Richard, 47. Maggy's Land, I62. Magnaville, 41, 69. , Adeliza, 164. , Alice de, 74. Castle, 70, 73. , Geoffrey de, 44, 50, 53, 7o, 73, 162, 164. 416 GENERAL INDEX. Magnaville, Henry de, 44, 48. , Richard, 48. Magnus, Thomas, 42. Mainwaring, Dr., Io.4. Magpie Tavern, the, 355. Malcolm, King, 22. Mallett, Baldwin, Ioo. Mandeville, 48, 7.1, 74. , Geoffrey de, 75. ——, John de, 78. ——, Margaret, 78. , William de, 75, 78. Manning, Henry, 209. March, Earl of, 174, 376. Marebone Park, 59, 66. Martin, Mr., 330. Marybone Gardens, 58. Park, 58, 60, 62. Mary's Bourne, 58, 176. Mary-le-Bon, Saint, 58. Mary, Queen, 59, 63. Massey, 98. , Rachael de, 154, Mathcote, Roger de, 88. Matilda, Queen—Henry I., 21, 24, 34, 74, 29 I. , Queen—Stephen, 36, 72. May, Mary, 319. Mefflyn, Thomas, 368. Mellents, the, 283. Mellent, Earl, 31, 34, 48, 233. , Isabel de, 75. , Peter de, 237, 287. , William de, 75. Melville, Sir James, 266. Mereslade, 238, 283, 286, 288, 307. Merrick, Sir G., 141. Metam, Mr., 188. Metropolitan Board of Works, 279. Meux's Brewery, 298. * tºº Mews, the King's, Ioo. Mewtas, Jane, 358. Middle Row, 153, 276, 3 II, 365, 367. Middlesex, 53, 71. Forest, the, 58. , Sir Hugh, 60. Middleton, Sir Thomas, 212. Mildmay, Sir Walter, 195. Miles, John, 97. Milton Alley, 331. Minshul, G. R., 125, 325. Mitchell, Hugh, 42. , Mr., 381. Mitre Tavern, the, 355. Molens, Sir John, 178. Mollens, Mr., 190. Momperson, Mr., 141. Montague, Bishop, 95, IoA, 166. House, I53. Montfitchett, 7, 338. , Baron, 16o. Castle, 69, 81. ——, Richard, I 60. , William, 161. Montficquet Fields, 69. Montfort, 288. , Hugh de, 9. Monmouth Court, 317, 327. Street, 286, 316, 325, 331. Montgomery, 40. , Mr., 390. Montgomery, Roger de, 4o. Monte Viginite, Alexander, 6. Monk, General, 337, 343. Monson, Sir John, 2.5o. Moor, 3 Io. , Little, 3 Io. Street, 3 Io, 331. Moore, Horatio, 226. , Michael, 350, 352. *ºsºsºsºsºmºrs GENERAL INDEX, 417 Morgan, Nicholas, 224. Mornington Crescent, 326. Mortibus, William de, Io9. Mortimer, King, I 74. Mountafue, Mr. Attorney, 381, Mountforts, the, 283. Mountsorrell Castle, 236. Mountjoy, 366. , Baron, 136, 143. Mowlem & Co., 279. Music House, the, 355. Musely, Nicholas de, 84. National Hall, the, 204-6. Neville, Alexander, 181. —, Sir Henry, 141. , Hugh, 167. , John, 168, 175. , Ralph, 77, 168. , Richard, 13, 273. , Sir Thomas, 167. Neville's Bridge, 273. Inn, 168. Newark Castle, 72. Newcastle, Marquis of, 381. New Gate, Drury Lane, 37 o. Newman, Arthur, 226. Newman's Row, 198, 222. Newmarch, Bernard, 31. New River, the, 213. New Street, 77, 79, 169. New Temple, the, 77. New Turnstile, 214. Newton, Humphrey, 360. – Street, 46, 346, 371. William, 222. — — Nicholas, Earl Carlingford, 384. Nicholas, Prior, 81. Noel, Lord, 375. Nonsuch, Baroness, 62. Norfolk, Duke of, 36. Norgate, 376. Norres, John, 25o. Northampton, Battle of, 249. Norton, Marmaduke, 64. , Thomas, 42. , William, 64. Norry, William Ryley, 272. Northumberland, Duke of, 265. Norwald, Hugh, 12. Noseley, 308. — Church, 308. Noselyngs, 238, 308, 333. Novo, Walter de, 42. Nugax, Bishop, 32. Nuneaton, 234. Ockham Lands, 291. Odo, Bayeux, I I. Okey, Colonel, 150. Old Bourne, the, 49. Bridge, 82. Oldcastle, Sir John, 292, 295. Oldernshaw, Phillis, 66. , William, 66. Old Witch Close, 367, 369, 382. Orivall, Hugh de, 26. Ortould, Richard, 368. Osbert, Robert, 47. Osgod, 5o. , Robert, 47. Otley, Elizabeth, 199. Oxenbridge, Mr., 342. Oxford, Earls of, 79, 161. Street, 298. , Ye Waye to, 289. Paage, Robert, 47. Page, Daman, 230. - G 3 4.18 GENERAL INDEX. Paganis, Hugo de, 8. Paganus le Graye, 8. , Wriginal de, 43, 46, 48, 5o. Palmer, Mr., 259. Panter, 253. Parker, Henry, 347. House, 347. , John, 347, 382. —, Mr., 55. ——, Philip, 359. Street, 46, 347. , William, 64, 347. Parker's Lane, 360, 371. Parry, Thomas, 63. Parton, 31, 42, 50, 54, 123, 233, 276, 286, 289. Partridge Alley, 197, 199, 20I, 3Io. , Sir Miles, 285. , Stephen, 3 Io. Passelow, Robert, 167. Patch, Mr., 326. Paul, Sir John Dean, 329. , Vintner, 356. Paulett, Sir William, Ioo. Pavier's Alley, 372. Payn, Margaret, 57. Pelham, John de, 13. Pembroke, Earl of, 87, 268. , Eleanor, 241. House, 3. Penderell, George, 218, 343. House, 2 I 5. —, Humphrey, 215, 218, 343. , John, 218, 343. , Richard, 214, 218, 343. —, Thomas, 218. , William, 218, 343. Pepys, Samuel, 309, 346, 352, 361. Percy Coffee House, 327. ºmme Perior's Manor, 2 I 3. . Pest House Field, the, 346. Peter the Cruel, 185. de Hereford, 148. Peters, Hugh, 148. Petronella, 235, 238. Phillips’ Rents, 198, 364. Phoenix Street, 276, 316. Piccadilly Circus, 282. Pickering, Edward, 384. , Lord Keeper, 14o. , Sir Thomas, 215. Pightells, the, 221, 224. Pig and Whistle, the, 273. Piers, William, I 14. Pierpoint, Elizabeth, 189. , Sir William, 189. Pincerna Regis, 35, 37, 52. —, William de, 287. Pincher, 309. Pinso, 52. Pistrino, Stephen de, 46. Pittances, Two, 291. Pitt Place, 355. Plague, the, 344, 346. Plantagenet, Arthur, 188, 251, 253, w 265. , Elizabeth, 251. ——, Geoffrey, Io8. , Thomas, 86, 9o, 171. PlayStead, Margaret, 359. , Robert, 359. Playze, Hugo de, 160. Pneumatic Despatch Company, 200. Pole, John de la, 92. , Michael de la, 181, 186. Pollard, Anne, 347. Pontefract, 52. Castle, 86, 90. Poole, William, 178. Popham, L. C. J., 57. GENERAL INDEX. 419 Popham, Lieut. Col., 306. Portland, Walter, 259, 261. Portlington, William, 31 I. Portpole, 96, 165, 169, 181. Poulteney, John, 178. Powderham Castle, 288. Powell, Richard, 314. , Thomas, 312, 377. Powis House, 386. , Lord, 293. Preaching Friars, the, 76, 79. Prestall, John, 64. Pretyman, Elizabeth, 341. , Sir John, 341. Price, Mr., 326. , William, 97. Prince Charles, 271. Prince Henry, 27 1. Princes Court, 371. – Street, 339, 370, 372, 382. Prudential Assurance Company, 192. Prynn, Mr. William, Io 3. Purse Fields, 2 12, 221, 224. Pye Fields, 3 Io. , Sir Robert, 309. — Street, New, 3 Io. , Old, 3 Io. Pynham Priory, 37. Quarr Manor, 4o. Quincy Arms, the, 97. , Baron, 235. , Margaret, 49, 76, 235, 238. —, Saher de, 238. Queenhithe, 27, 74, 76. Queen of Bohemia, 343, 352. Elizabeth, 265, 267, 301. —— Henrietta, 222. Street, 76, 306, 329, 382. Queen Street Chapel, 392, 397. , Great, 43, 5o, 306, 333, 359, 370, 386. , Little, 2 I 2, 315. , Seven Dials, 3.16. Queen's Court, 201. Players, 349. Wharf, 27. Radcliffe, Brothers, 42. Ragged-Staff Court, 372. Raison, Atheline, 84. , Richard, 84. Ramsden, Roger, 64. Rane, Robert, 129. Ratcliffe, Sir Richard, 255, 287. Ravensworth, Lord Henry, 62. Read, Mr. 33 I. , Robert, I 91, 378, 381. Red Bull, the, 351, 377. Play-house, the, 352. — House Inn, the, 44, Ioč. — Lion Fields, I 99. Inn, the, 149, 206. — — Square, 149. Yard, 208, 2 Io. Red Tower, Denbigh, 86. Redemere, Herbert de, 286. Regent's Park, 58. Redinge, Ye Waye to, 289. Redvers, Baron de, 286. Repington, Philip, I 22. Reresby, Roger de, 42. Resurrection Gate, the, 277. Rever, Robert de, 17 o. Rich, Sir Henry, 366, 373. , Isabella, 366. —, Lady, 366. —, Lord, 136, 366, 420 GENERAL INDEX. Rich, Sir Richard, 195. , Sir Robert, 99. Richard I., 37. — II., 338.. III., 37, 249, 254. Richardson, John, 2 II. Ridgley, Nicholas, F40. Rie, Hubert de, 52. Rimbault, 326. Roades, Mr., 351. Robert of Canterbury, 88. Robert, Earl of Mellent, 31. Robert, son of Ralph, 31. Roberts, Lynam, 306. Robertus de Winchelsey, 88. Robins, John, 329. Robinson, Mr., 55. Robin Hood's Penny Houses, 135. Robsart, Amy, 273. Roche, Peter de la, 79. Rochester, Bishop of, 278. , William, IoE. Roebuck Inn, the, 2 Io. Roffensis, Bishop, 235. Roger, Bishop, 235. Rogers, Sir Edward, 63. , John, 65. Rohesia, 162. Rohesia's Cross, I62. Town, 162. ' Rokesby, Gregory, 81. Rolls, the, 94, II2, II 7, 143. Yard, II 7. Ronand, Madam, 264. Roeguillo's House, 385. Pose, the, 287. Rose & Crown Yard, 274. Rose Tavern, the, 356. Rossingham, Edmund, 374. mºmmºn Round House, the, 153, 278. Roxalana, 352. Royal Music Hall, the, zoo Rufus, William, Ioë, 299. Russell, .299. , John, I22, 133. , Lady Rachael, I54. —, Lord, 232, 302. , Sir William, 305. Sadler, John, 229. Saffron, 162. Hill, 163. Walden, I43. St. Alban's, 73. St. Andrew’s, Holborn, 96, 137. St. Andrew, Undershaft, 347. St. Bartholomew's Hospital, 93, 133. St. Clement Danes, 237, 239. St. David's, 33. St. Ebrulph, Monks oſ, 236. St. Etheldreda, 5, II. St. George's, Bloomsbury, 233. St. Giles' Boundaries, 299. Boundary Stones, 273, 287. Bowl, 291, 320. Cage, I52. . Carthusian Priory, 261. — — Church, 24o, 257, 272, 374. — — Church Bells, 274. Day, 236. Fields, 233, 240, 265, 273, 283, 286, 292, 299. Great Field, 296. * Hospital, 18, 24, 234, 249, 287, 291, 307. Manoi, 26, 253, 365. — — Markets, 322. Rectors, 272, 274. — — Round House, 320. sºme smºmys GENERAL INDEX. 42] St. Giles' Sewer, 312. St. John Street, 352. St. Leonard's, Leicester, 236. St. Margaret's, 299. St. Martin's in the Fields, 298, 310. St. Martin's Lane, 278, 312. — le Grand, 285. Place, 279, 281. — Vicar, 305. St. Mary de Prates, 235. St. Pancras Church, 165. St. Pancras' Church-yard, 275. St. Paul’s Canons, 55. St. Paul’s, Covent Garden, 306. St. Remigius, IoS. St. Thomas' Lane, 371. Salcoke, William, 2 II. *. Salisbury Court Play House, 352. º : ; Salmon, John, II.3. Sampson, Richard, 94. Sandewye, Ralph de, 83. Sandys, Sir Edward, I44. Savage, John, I38, 362. Saville, Lord Thomas, 225. Savoy Place, I80. Saunderson, Mary, 353. Sci Egidij, 284, 289. Scot, Mr. Thomas, I22, 148. Scott, Dr. John, 391. Scroop, Adrian, I49, 305. , Dorothy, 181. , Elizabeth, I 81. ——, Sir Jeffrey le, 177. ——, Lord, 181. ——, Mr., 212. , Sir Richard le, 180, 185. Scroop's Inn, 180, 185. Seryven, Master, 256. Seagood, Henry, 367, 377. —, Lord, 6o, 3O2; 3 I3; 365, 37O. Segar, Sir William, 197, 207. Segrave, Stephen de, 240. Seldon, I44. Serjeant's Inn, 130, 18o. Seven Dials, 273, 316, 32 I, 329. Sexton, John, 131. Shaa, Edmund, 38. Shaftsbury Avenue, 28o. Shareshall, Sir William, 178. Sharpe, Dr. John, 277. Sheffield, Lady, 267, 269. , Lord, 267, 269. Shelton Street, 372. Sherbourne, Robert, 93, I32. Shipley, Mr., 352. Ship Money, 377. Ship Tavern, the, 204. Shoe Lane, 190. Short, William, 359, 373. Short's Gardens, 316, 326, 358, 372. Shrewsbury, Earl, 253, 267. Shrigley, Sir Geoffrey, 42. Sidnacester, IoS. Sidney, Lord, 268, 272. , Robert, 268, 272. Simon, Earl, 234. , Hosteler, the, 182. le Boylde, 235. Montfort, 235, 239, 242. Siward, 46, 48, 5o, 53. Six Cans Tavern, the, 204. Six Clerk's Charter, 381. Office, 45, Ioo. Skelton, John, IoI. Skerne, Mrs., 264. Skinner, the, 256, 26o. , Rev. William, 299. Skipworth, 375. Skryven, Walter, 259. Skynner, Walter, 259. 422 GENERAL INDEX. Slingsby, Sir William, 302, 374. Smalley, Samuel, 189. Smart's Buildings, 338. Smythe Field, 296, 336. , East, 323. Smythe, Hugh de, 238. —, Leonard, 256. Somerset, Protector, 136, 138. Southampton Buildings, 150. Chapel, I47, I54, 381. ——, Countess, 62, 154. ——, Earl, 136, 140, 144, 151, 3ol, 341, 366. — Fields, 147. Garden, I45. —— House, 136, 141, 150, 230. Square, I51. Southwell, Miss Elizabeth, 27 o. , Sir Robert, 270. Speckett, Mr., 258. Speckhart, Abraham, 272, 276. Speke, Thomas, 256. Spelman, 2.90. Spencer, Captain, 212. — House, I 93, I 96. —, Robert de, 53. —, William de, 47, 53, 287. Spencer's Dig, 50, 193, 238. Spiller, Sir Henry, 99, I46, 313, 32.2, 357, 365. } Spilsbury, Mr., 327. Spretton, Isabel, 338. Spylman, Mr., 259. Stacey, Mrs., 66. Stacey, William, 60, 66. Stacie's Street, 3.16. Standen, Sir Anthony, 373. Stanhope, Lady, 312. Stansted Manor, 16o. Stansted Montfitchet, 163. Staple Inn, the 2, 66, 130, 136, 155, I7 I, I 77, 185. * Staple Inn Arms, the, 192. Staple of Wool, 155, 177. Stapleton, 188. , Brian, 190, 25o. —— Hall, 189. Inn, 174, 176. , Jane, 189. ——, Lady, 190. ——, Sir Miles, 189. , Richard, 189. ——, Sir Thomas, 189. , Walter de, 171, 174. Star Chamber, the, 268, 323. Star Court, 371. Stedwell Street, 3.16. Steward, the King's, 38, 239, 241, 245, 253, 29O. Stockerston, 34o. Stoke, Battle of, 25o. Stokesley, Bishop, 132. Stone Cutter's Alley, 50. Stonely, 270, 272. Storey, Dr. John, 6.2, 65. Stradling, Sir Edward, 383. Stradling House, 384. Strafford, Sir Edward, 268. —, Lady, 268. —, Lord, Io.3. Strangways, Joseph, 229. Stratford, Robert de, 178. Strickland House, 347, 383. Strode, Sir George, 61. Sudbury, Simon, 181. Suffolk, Earl of, 3I4. —, Katherine, Duchess of, 253. Sugar-Loaf Alley, 370. Sulien, Bishop, 33. Suliard, Edward, 94. * wº- GENERAL INDEX. 423 Suliard, Eustace, 94. , Mr., 94. —, William, 93, 266, Sutton, George, 42. , Oliver, 118. ——, Thomas, 189. * ºt , William, 42. Swillington Tower, 90. Tabula Eliensis, the, 6. Tailebois, Ivo de, 54. , Lady, 135. Talbot, 355. , Sir Gilbert, 259, 267. Talboys, Lord Gilbert, 134. Tamepark, 57. Tasburgh, Lady, 57. Tate, Mr., 257. Tateshall, 51, 56. Tattershall, 53, 57. Castle, 58. — Court, 60, 62. Tavener, 366. —, Richard, 358. ſºmº Templars, the, 8, 12, 41, 75, 86, Io". Templars' Mills, the, 82. Temple Gardens, the, 41. , Lady, 225. , New, the, 73, 83. , Old, the, 41, 73, 86. Tench, Mr., 3oo. Tennis Courts, 361. Tennis-Court Alley, 188. Theatre, 351, 353. Terrace Walk, the, IoI. Tettersell, Nicholas, 218. Theobald, 34. Theobald's, 143, 315, 382. — House, 212. * y Theobald's Park, 213. Thicketfield, Ioo, 238. Thompson, Colonel, 342. Thorny Island, 283. Thornton's Alley, 199. Thorold, Bishop, 278. Thorpe, John, 178. Throgmorton, Sir Nicholas, 59. Thurleston, Abbot, 5. Tilney, Charles, 139. Titchbourne, Chidiock, 139. Tabie, Matthew, 142. Todeni, Robert de, 35. Tom & Jerry Club, 355. Totehale, Walter de, 53. Toteham, 53, 55. Tottenhall Court, 65, IoI. Estate, 58. Prebend, 63. ——, William de, 54. Wood, 58. Tottenham, 55. Court Nursery, 67. Road, 278, 315. Tower, the, 2, 72, 75, 265. Hill, 265, 268. Street, 3.16. Town's End Ditch, 274, 279. Townsend, George, 382. Towton, Battle of, 249. Trailebaston, Justices of, 17o. Trappes, Thomas, 98. Traverse, John, 139. Tregion's Wife, 141. Tresilian, Judge, 181. Treswell, Robert, 60. Tufton, Sir Humphrey, 224. Turnmill Brook, 82. Turner, Sir William, 390. Turnstile Alley, 202, 227. 424 GENERAL INDEX, Turnstile, Great, 82, 193, 223, 228, 364, Lane, 214. —, Little, IQ3. —, New, 212. —, Old, 227. —, Upper, 227. Tavern, 229, Turpin, Jeremy, 202, Turpinton, Hugh, 175, Turtle, Roger, 14o. Twyford's Buildings, 50. Tyburn, 65, I42, 149, 291. Manor, 60. Tye Bourne, 71, 175. Tye Bourne Bridge, 60. Tyler, J. Endell, 292. Tyler, Wat., 181, 184. *-m Tylers' and Bricklayer's Company, 359. Tylor's Court, 3.16. Tyllesley, Christopher, 2 II. Tynt, William de, 42. e Underwood, Mr., 330. Uxbridge, I50, 382. Van Dyck, 367, 376. Vane, Sir Henry, 379,381. Vaux, Elizabeth, 57. , Lord, 57. Vavasour, Sir Thomas, 373. Vere, Alice de, 49, 74. , Aubrey de, 161, 164. , Betteys de, 162. , John de, 181. , Justiciary, 161. —, Robert de, 181. —, Rohesia de, I62. Street, 161. Verney, Sir Edmund, 305. Vernon, William de, 40. Villiers, Barbara, 62. Vinegar Yard, 3.16. Vine Inn, the, 287. Vineyard in Holborn, Ioé. Waad, Sir William, 6o. Waferer's House, 140, Wainwright, 209. Waite, Antony, 263. Walerico, Bernard de, 31, 33. Wallinger, Mr., 381, Walter, Canon of St. Paul's, 62. Walter de Gloucester, 88. Waltheof, Earl, 53, 55. Wallys, Hugh, 109. Wandesford, John, 61. Ward, John, 3 II. Warley, Thomas, 259. Waverley, 37. Warwick, Countess, 302. , Earl, 273. Court, 41, 82. Crest, 273. Family, 273. Lane, 273. Weatherhead, George, 99. Weld, Clara, 384. —, Mrs. Frances, 347, 383. —, Humphrey, 383. , Job, 347. —, Lady, 363. Court, 370, 400. — House, 347, 363, 384. Weldon, Thomas, 63. Well with Two Buckets, the, 206. Welsh Churches, 33. - Wenman, Lady, 57. * GENERAL INDEX. 425 West Ham Monastery, 161. Westminster Abbey, 283. , Abbots of 291, 299. —— Bailiff, 3ol. Hall, 159, 367. High Constable, 3o I. High Steward, 3oo. Weston, Edward, 206. —, Henry, 204. ——, Sir Richard, 144, 364. —, Sir William, Ioo. Weston’s Music Hall, 206. — Park, 364. Weybridge Green, 3.17. Wharton Collection, 367. —, Colonel, 274. —— House, 274, 316. , Miss Mary, 390. ——-, Mr., 228. ——, Philip, 274, 39 O. , Thomas, Marquis of, 274. Wheatsheaves, Three, the, 97. Whetstone Park, 194, 198, 200, 222 228, 230. Whetstone, William, 201, 364. Whistle, Mrs. Mary, 318. Whitaker, Laurence, 99, 311, 313, 349, 357, 377, 382. Whitcomb's Alley, 370. White, Andrew, 209. White Boar, the, 254. White Boar Inn, the, 255. White Boar Lane, 255. White Hall, 315. White Hart, the, 336. , Graycious Street, 256. —, Holborn, 335, 337, 357. Lane, 338. —, Strand, 338. Yard, 337, 371. 5 = White House, Kensington, 2.75. , St. Giles', 272, 274, 277. White Ladys, 216. White Lion Street, 316, 328. Whitmore, Sir George, 383. , Frances, 383. , William, 342. Wiatt, Sir Henry, 2 II. Wild House, 385. Chapel, 386. Wild Street, Great, 371. , Little, 37 I, 384. Wilfrid, Bishop, 33. William, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, 75. Williamson, John, 201. , Joseph, 346. Willoughby, Sir Richard, 178. , Lord Robert, 178. Wilmot, Lord, 217. Winchester, 54. Winchester, Earl, 238. Windebank, Anne, 378. , Colonel, 38o. ——, Secretary, 95, IO4, 350, 379. , Thomas, 350, 379, 381. Windham, Sir Harry, 366. Wingfield, Mr., 328. —— Marsh, 253. Wisemans, Thomas, 14o. Witham, 53. Withers, Anthony Justin, 306. Witherington, Sir William, 35o. Woburn Abbey, 133. Wolsey, Thomas, 223, 26o. Wolsey's College, Ioo. Women on the Stage, 352. Wood, Sir Henry, 62. , Mary, 62. —, R., 3ol. -*-*- *-es- 426 GENERAL INDEX. Wood Rising, 270. Wool, 178. Wool Sack, the, 159, 192. Woolfe, Mr., 216. Worsley, Lieut. Col., 342. Wray, Sir John, 384. Wray's Court, 37 I. Wren, Bishop, 309. Wren, Sir Christopher, 353. Wrenthorpe Manor, 339. Wrest Park, 366. Wrestling Match, the, 331. Wright, William, 52, 57. Wriothesley, Elizabeth, 62. , Lord Henry, I43. Wriothesley, Sir Richard, 62. —, Thomas, 137, 187. Wynne, Sir Richard, 224. Yarmouth, 63. Yates, 2 16. York, Archbishop of 76. , Duchess of, 317. , Duke of 230, 317, 322. York Place, 8o, 166. Zoffany, 326. Printed by John Woolnough, High Street, South Norwood. | A ...], 867 | 39 s - - - - -）， s ºs • • • • • ::： * · · · -,- - ~~~~~ （ºr » -.•• • • • ~*： ..…..…. …… - ...»… . … --№l…-… • ** **|- *~ º：* . . -- · · · · • • • • • • • • • ••••••••••• . &. º.