DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY LIVES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE WORTHIES Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from Duke University Libraries https://archive.org/details/livesofnottingha01brow R. All in & Co., Nottingham. Front is# J Voodbn fj tyf'C* LIVES 1/ OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE WORTHIES AND OF Celeforateti anti EemarfcaMe a^cn of the County FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST TO A.D. 1882 BY CORNELIUS BROWN FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LITERATURE, AUTHOR OF ‘ THE ANNALS OF NEWARK,’ EDITOR OF ‘NOTES ABOUT NOTTS., HISTORICAL AND ANTIQUARIAN’ ILLUSTRATED WITH PERMANENT PHOTOGRAPHS LONDON H. SOTHERAN & CO., 36 PICCADILLY AND 136 STRAND NOTTINGHAM: C. WHEATLEY, 8 ST. PETER’S GATE MDCCCLXXXII Printed by R. & R. Clark, Edinburgh, 0. 043.5 X PREFACE. “ Biography is the most universally pleasant, universally profitable, of all things.” Such is the recorded utterance of a modern sage—of a man whose reading had been most extensive, ranging with equal carefulness, thoughtfulness, and thoroughness, over the best literature of England and the Continent. Nor does this earnest and hearty tribute to the attractiveness and usefulness of biographical lore represent an isolated opinion. It is an old saying, that “ the proper study of mankind is man while a modern writer emphatically assures us that “ man is perennially interesting to his fellow mortals,” and, he might have added with equal truth, perennially suggestive and instructive ; for in tracing the lives of others we may learn how best to guide and fashion our own, gaining wisdom from their experiences, prudence from their misfortunes, and strength and courage from their successes. “ There is no biography,” says Carlyle, “ but wraps in it a message out of heaven,” and, if this be so, it clearly behoves us not to lose the most precious of messages by neglecting or ignoring the means through which they are often so graphically and so impressively conveyed. With the strong claims to notice and support which such considerations as these must inevitably give it, a biographical book is one that may be launched at all times with an exceptional degree of trust and confidence. But the trust is greatly strengthened, and the confidence materially increased, when there is a substantial raison d'etre, a rich field to labour in, and a constituency to appeal to that is sure to be interested and sympa¬ thetic. Such at least were some of the thoughts which largely influenced me to write these Lives of Nottinghamshire Worthies, for I felt convinced VI PREFACE. that not only was there ample scope and abundant need for such a work, but that it would be most acceptable to those who are justly proud of their county, and feel that, whether Nottinghamshire be regarded commercially or historically, the association with it which the ties of birth give us is as “the citizenship of no mean city.” With so many noble names inscribed upon our roll of honour; with historical figures which rise up prominently before the eyes of every reader of British history ; with warriors like the Rempstons, Ireton, Hutchinson, the Marquis of Dor¬ chester, the Byrons, Howe, and Warren; with statesmen like Ralph Lord Cromwell, Henry de Newark, Ralph Fitz-Nicholas, Sir Geoffrey Fenton, Lord Lexington, Dr. Magnus, Danzel Holies, the Marquis of Halifax, Viscount Sherbrooke, Lord George Bentinck, and the Duke of Newcastle; with explorers like Sir Hugh Willoughby and Captain Robert Fenton ; with philosophers and authors like Gervase Markham, Francis Willoughby, Dr. Holder, Andrew Kippis, Erasmus Darwin, and Gilbert Wakefield ; with such poets of world-wide fame, as Byron, Kirke White, Philip James Bailey ; with artists like Richard Parkes Bonington, Hilton, Dawson, and Sandby ; with such divines as Oliver de Sutton, Cranmer, Chappell, Seeker, Babington, and Warburton ; with Judges like Robert de Lexington, Henry de Staunton, Sir Richard de Willoughby, and Sir John Markham ; and with a host of other celebrities in art, science, and literature, in the church, and in the army, Nottinghamshire assuredly deserves to possess a County Biography; and in my own poor way I have done my best to supply it with one that may serve to do duty for a while, until, in the inevitable march of improvement, a better shall take its place. The task, as the reader will perceive, has been one of some magnitude, involving great anxiety, not a little perseverance, and a large amount of earnest labour. The burden of work and responsibility, which there is no egotism I trust in thus referring to, would have pressed still heavier but for the cordial assistance of those friends to whom it becomes a pleasing- duty to offer my hearty acknowledgments. I have to thank Mr. W. H. Stevenson for his scholarly articles on the Peverels, Ralph Lord Cromwell, PREFACE. vii William de Nottingham, Sir Ralph Fitz-Nicholas, Sir Thomas Rempston, and Sir Gervase Clifton, articles which manifest extensive research and contain important historical information; to Dr. Spencer T. Hall I am indebted for a life of Millhouse (with whom he was well acquainted), some comments on Robin Hood, and a sketch of the Howitts ; while Mr. J. P. Briscoe has contributed an interesting life of Dawson ; Mr. J. E. Bailey, the able editor of the Palatine Note-Book, a life of William de Northwell; and Mr. John Henry Brown a brief but entertaining account of the gifted author of Festus. Major A. E. Lawson Lowe, F.S.A., who is second to none in his knowledge of our county families, has very kindly and willingly furnished me with many genealogical and historical facts, and useful refer¬ ences and additions; while Mr. R. F. Sketchley, B.A., of the South Ken¬ sington Museum, has, with his usual abundant kindness, placed his well- stored notebook of Nottinghamshire facts and incidents freely at my service. I have to thank Messrs. R. Allen and Son (Limited) for the beautiful portrait which forms the frontispiece, and to acknowledge the courtesy of those who have permitted me to take photographic copies of portraits in their possession, amongst whom I would mention with grati¬ tude Lord Middleton, Lord Edward Clinton, the Viscountess Ossington, Mr. Redgate (artist), the Committee of Bromley House Library, and the courteous Curator and Committee of the Castle Museum. I could have wished that some of the illustrations had been more distinct, but the difficulty of photographing old pictures will be so readily understood that no apology is needed. With a grateful word to the Librarians of the libraries which I have visited, to those who have lent me original manu¬ scripts and scarce books, and to the subscribers for their financial support, I think I shall have closed the grateful task of fitly acknowledging all kindnesses received. It only remains for me to add the expression of an earnest hope that the work may not be deemed unworthy of the extensive and important subject with which it deals. But whether the record be a worthy one or not, I have the satisfaction of feeling that there is much in the lives themselves to PREFACE. viii compensate for deficiencies in the narrative, since they cannot fail alike to stimulate and instruct, giving zest to the anxious toiler and imparting new hope to the youthful aspirant. A study of these lives, while it will make our Nottinghamshire youths feel more interested in their native county, more familiar with its historic scenes, more proud of its classic ground, will also show them that, though it may often be hard to climb “ The steep where Fame’s proud temple sits afar,” the summit is not inaccessible to those who, with a brave heart and clear conscience, press on manfully and nobly, ever remembering that whatever distinction may be gained “ ’tis only noble to be good;” that “ the purest treasure mortal times afford is spotless reputation that those gain the highest triumphs who can conquer themselves; and that, whether in the seclusion of a quiet life or amidst the glitter of pomp and the pride of victory, “ He most Lives Who thinks most, feels the noblest, acts the best.” CORNELIUS BROWN. Newark, November 1882. WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. THE PEVERELS.—When the Norman Conqueror with his victorious troops entered the county of Nottingham, and, after taking probably unopposed possession of it, proceeded to parcel out the land amongst those of his powerful followers who had rendered useful military services, he appears to have acted towards the ancient owners of Nottinghamshire property with much less than his accustomed severity. To some of his favourites he was lavish with his gifts, but “ the number of Kings Thegns keeping lands which they had held in the days of King Eadward was remarkably large .” 1 Of the manors which were confiscated, the king gave no less than one hundred and seventy to Roger de Builli, whose seat in this county was at Blyth, and William Peverel, a Norman adventurer whom, says Mr. Freeman, “an utterly uncertified and almost impossible scandal calls a natural son of the Conqueror,” was enriched by the grant of large possessions in this county and in Derbyshire. It may not be out of place if we here mention in reference to the work before us, that we have no desire to add to the magnitude of our task, sufficiently laborious already, by introducing notices of distinguished men • whose only connection with the county consisted in the ownership of landed property. Were we to do so the volume would become not a record merely of the doings of county notables, but a general biography of considerable magnitude. We propose to confine ourselves as closely as possible to those who, through birth, family, or long residence, may be fairly regarded as Nottinghamshire men, and if we do overstep this limit there will be a special and, we trust, sufficient reason for so doing. No difficulty will arise in the selection of names as we advance; but in dealing with the early 1 Freeman’s Norman Conquest , iv. 197. B 2 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. notables some latitude is obviously allowable, and will, we doubt not, be readily conceded. In the case of the Peverels, their names were associated for so long a period with the town of Nottingham, that it would be a manifest omission were we to refrain from any allusion to them. 1 When William the Conqueror was securing his occupation of mid- England, by the building of fortresses in likely situations, he founded a castle at Nottingham, which became one of the strongest and most import¬ ant fortresses of mediseval England. This castle William committed, in 1068, to the charge of William Peverel I., 2 of whom very little is known. He is said to have fought at Hastings, 3 but this statement, probable as it is, is not beyond doubt. It is certain that Peverel must have been a trusted and well-tried follower of the Conqueror, for he rewarded him, in addition to the important command of Nottingham, with a princely gift of 162 manors in several counties of England. In Nottinghamshire alone he was possessed of nine manors, in addition to considerable property in the town of Nottingham. 4 In Derbyshire, also, he was richly dowered with lands; and here, on the rugged heights of Castleton, he built himself a mighty castle, which became the seat of his barony, and which caused his descendants to be known as the “ Peverels of the Peak ”—a name which has become familiar in every quarter of the globe, through the magic touch of the “Wizard of the North.” Around the person of this Peverel, dimly seen in the twilight of our records, has gathered a romance which is only equalled by the tale of a still more shadowy “ William Peverel of the Peak,” to whom we are introduced in the mediaeval tale of “ Fulk Fitz-Warine,” 5 where he is represented as the presiding genius of a scene of tourneying and revelry, 6 similar in all respects to those which the poet-laureate has re-created for us out of the mouldering tales of “ King Arthur and his Table Round.” The name of Peverel would seem to be fated to become the property of the romancer, when we consider the stately edifice Sir Walter Scott reared upon the substructure of this mighty name ; the almost mythic tale of “ Fulk Fitz-Warine;” and the scarcely less mythic tale which centres in the subject of this sketch. William Peverel is represented to us as the natural son of William the Conqueror, and the tale goes that the 1 For this article on the Peverels we are indebted to our friend Mr. W. H. Stevenson, who has devoted much thought and attention to the subject. ' Ordericus Vitalis, ed. Duchesne, 511c; ed. Maseres, 216. 3 Roll of Battle Abbey , and the catalogues of Duchesne, De Magny, and De Lisle. The family is called “ Piperel ” or “ Peperell ” occasionally by the chroniclers. 4 Doomsday Book, passim. •’ Edited by Stevenson, 1874. G Legend of Fulk Fitz-Warine, p. 289, sqq. THE PEVERELS. 3 daughter of Ingelric, an English noble in Edward the Elder’s time, became the mistress of William the First whilst Duke of Normandy, and that she bore to him a namesake, who took up the surname of his mother’s subse¬ quent, or then, husband (it is not very clear which) — Ranulf Peverel, 1 himself a very large landowner in England after the Conquest. This statement does not appear until six centuries after Peverel’s time, and it is then made upon unsatisfactory authority—what a great student of this epoch describes “as the unsupported assertion of a herald.’’ 2 As this statement clashes with dates and probabilities, and is, withal, so utterly unsupported, we may safely discard it as fictitious. 3 The name of William Peverel crops up again in 1094, when he was in command of the fortress of La Houlme in Normandy, which he unsuccess¬ fully defended with 800 men, against Robert, Earl of Normandy, in the interest of the latter’s brother, King William Rufus. 4 Here, for the first time, we become acquainted with one of the main difficulties of dealing with the Peverels—that is, the confusion between father and son, or even grand¬ son, which is caused by the fact of several generations bearing the same Christian name. 5 Early in the reign of Henry I., William Peverel II. 6 founded the Priory of Lenton, near Nottingham. This Priory he affiliated to the great French Abbey of Clugny, and it became one of the most important and wealthy foundations in this district. William bestowed liberal gifts upon it, and his feodaries followed his example in large numbers. William founded this for the souls of Kings William I. and II., and of all their ancestors, and his own ancestors'' and for the health of himself, his wife Adelina or Adelaide, and his son William (IV.) 8 About the same time he founded the Priory of 1 Dugdale’s Baronage , i. 436 ; etc. 2 Freeman’s Norman Conquest , iii. 656. 3 This assertion was doubted as long ago as 1811 by Blore, History of Rutland , p. 143. See for confutation Eyton’s Shropshire , ix. 69 ; Freeman’s Norman Conqitest , iii. 656, iv. 198. 4 Florence of Worcester, ii. 35 ; Henry of Huntingdon, 217 ; Simeon of Durham (ed. Hynde). 6 We have endeavoured in this notice to distinguish the succession by numeration, much of which is conjectural. Where light is thrown upon these points by genealogists of repute, we shall give the reference in the footnotes. 6 Compare Blore’s History of South Winpeld , p. 9, and his Rutland, p. 143. 7 “Parentes” is the word used .—Monasticon,\. 113. It will be noticed that this reference to his own ancestors is incompatible with the tale of his relationship to William the Conqueror. 8 This son William appears to have been alive at this time. He must have been very young, as his brother of the same name had died in 1100. The fact of the founder of Lenton having a son so young as William (IV.) indisposes us to believe that the founder of Lenton was the Peverel of 1068. William (IV.) was a minor apparently some time after his father’s death, as his mother Adelina was charged with Danegeld, which would no doubt have been charged to the son had he been of mature age. See Thoroton’s Notts., p. 289a, from Pipe Roll now ascribed to 30 Henry I. 4 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. Saint John at Northampton. 1 He witnessed King Henry’s charter to Colne Priory, Essex, in 1111 ; 2 and is recorded to have died 5th Kal. of February 1113, 11 Henry I., that is Feb. 25, 1111 ; and his wife on the 14th Kal. of February 1119, 18 Henry I. (Feb. 16, 1118); and a son, William (HI.), had predeceased him on 16 Kal. May 1100, 12 William II. (May 17, 1099). 3 H e was succeeded by his son William (IV.), who restored to the Priory of Fenton a gift w T hich his father had made to that foundation, which he (the son) had previously deprived them of. 4 This William Peverel ren¬ dered account in 1130-1, of ^23 : 6 : 8, for proceeds of the Forest pleas of Nottinghamshire. 5 His son, 6 William Peverel (V.), procured, with his wife Oddona and his son Henry, a confirmation from King Stephen of grants to Fenton." It is presumable that this was during the lifetime of William Peverel (IV.), as the son is described as “junior.” About this time one of these two Williams made a grant to the monastery at Hatfield Peverel, Northamptonshire. 8 William Peverel (probably IV.) also about this time made a grant to Bolsover Church, Derbyshire, 9 w T hich was confirmed by his wife (and probably his widow), Avicia de Fancaster, 10 between 1149-1159. 11 William Peverel (no doubt IV.) witnessed a charter, as Baron, of King Stephen’s in 1135-6, 12 and he was also present at the council at which Stephen issued his second Charter of Liberties in 1136. 13 It was probably William (V.) who figured so prominently as a trusted adherent of King Stephen during the civil wars of his reign. In 1138, when the aged and patriotic Archbishop Thurstan exhorted the northern barons to rise and expel the Scots who had penetrated into Yorkshire, William Peverel hastened from Nottinghamshire to the army which assembled to repel the invaders. He was one of the brave band of nobles who, on the eve of the battle (which is now known as the “ Battle of the Standard”), solemnly engaged themselves to never desert each other, and 1 Monasticon, vi. 114. 2 Ibid. iv. ioo. 3 These dates were taken by Thoroton (p. 289a) from the Register of Northampton. This Register perished, together with the Lenton Register, in the fire at the Cottonian Library. It will be seen that there is a discrepancy between the regnal and ordinary years. 4 Thoroton, 488b. 5 Pipe Roll 30 Henry I., and Thoroton, ut supra. 6 Dugdale’s Monasticon Anglicanum, v. 113. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. iii. 294 ; Lib. de beneff. Mon. S. Albani, p. 443. This monastery is said to have been founded by Ingelrica, the supposed mother of Peverel I.; but the words of Peverel’s grant, as above, seem to show that he was the founder. 9 Monasticon, vi. 361. 10 Ibid. 11 i.e. during the episcopacy of Walter [Durdent] of Chester, 1149-1159 (Le Neve, i. 544). 12 Madox, History of Exchequer, i. 14. 13 Statutes of the Realm —Charters, 3 ; Stubbs, Select Charters, p. 121. THE PEVERELS. 5 to either die together or conquer together. 1 We all know how this great victory was obtained, and Peverel is certainly entitled to a large share of the glory of this achievement. Three years later, in 1141, William Peverel took part in the disastrous battle of Lincoln, at which King Stephen and several of his prominent adherents, amongst whom Peverel occurs, 2 were captured after a most heroic defence. The victorious Empress Matilda exacted the Castle of Nottingham (of which the Peverels appear to have been hereditary constables) from William, 3 probably as the price of his liberation, and she garrisoned it with a body of her own men under William Painel. 4 Peverel did not leave him long in peaceful possession of this great stronghold, for during the absence of Painel in 1142 William Peverel con¬ trived, by the connivance of two youths who had charge of the mills under the castle, to climb the castle rock during the shades of night, and he thus obtained the town and castle. 5 Peverel’s adherence to Stephen naturally brought him into disfavour with the opposite side, and we accordingly find Prince Henry (afterwards Henry II.) in 1152 granting the fee of William Peverel (excepting Higham) to Ranulf, Earl of Chester, unless Peverel should clear himself in Henry’s Court of his wickedness and treason. 6 The consequences of this gift to Ranulf were most disastrous, for he died in the following year (1153) of poison administered by William Peverel. 7 Punishment for this crime was not long delayed. Henry, immediately upon his accession, insisted upon the surrender of all the royal castles and demesnes which had been occupied by the barons during the civil war. Peverel and several other barons demurred to the royal demand, and as a consequence Henry set out with an army to compel their surrender. When Peverel heard of his approach, conscious of the death of Earl Ranulf, and fearing the retribution of the king, he left all his worldly goods, and, entering a monastery under his own power (no doubt Lenton), 8 was shaven and cowled a monk. 9 The king entered Nottinghamshire (where Peverel was lying hidden under a monk’s hood) in February 1155, and Peverel, in mortal dread, secretly escaped and fled away, leaving all his castles and stores to the mercy of the king. 10 The king seized Peverel’s lands, which he retained in his hands 11 until he I Richard of Hexham, ed. Raine, p. 88; John of Hexham, p. 119 ; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 264; Florence of Worcester, ii. p. in ; Langtoft, i. 476; etc. 2 John of Hexham, p. 134. 3 Ibid. p. 136. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. p. 141. 6 Rymer’s Fa’dera, i. 16. 7 Gervase of Canterbury, i. 155 ; Robert de Monte, apud Pertz, viii. 504 ; Diceto, i. 301. 8 Dugdale, Baronage , i. 436. 9 Gerv. of Canterbury, i. 161. ]0 Ibid. II Gervase, i. 161 ; Robert de Monte, viii. 504. Cf. Testa de Neville, p. 351b. 6 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. bestowed them upon his son Prince (afterwards King) John in 1174. 1 William Peverel is lost to history after his flight, but his great honour or barony preserved his name for many centuries ; and its court-leet, known as the Peverel Court, existed down to 1849, when it was abolished by Act of Parliament. 2 RALPH BASSETT, Lord of Colston, a Nottinghamshire village, which still retains the name of Colston Bassett, was Chief Justiciar of Eng¬ land in the reign of Henry I. He is stated by Ordericus Vitalis to have been raised from a humble position by King Henry, who granted to him large possessions in the Midland Counties. The fact of his name being attached as an affix to an English parish is some evidence of the importance of the position he attained. Persons often took their names from villages which did not belong to them, but no village took its second name from any family but that of its Lords. When the king put into force severe laws for the prevention of robbery, which was very prevalent, Bassett was entrusted with their execution. He acted with great sternness and determination, as the following extract from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (ii. 221) will show. “a.d. 1124. The same year after St. Andrew’s Day, and before Christmas, Ralph Bassett and the King’s Thanes held a Witenagemot at Huncothoe in Leicestershire, and they hanged more thieves than had ever before been executed in so short a time, being in all four-and-forty men; and they deprived six men of their eyes and certain other members.” In so doing they were acting up to the letter of their instructions, for Henry had, as Sir Richard Baker in his Chronicle records, “commanded the robbers upon the highways to be hanged without redemption.” The date of Bassett’s death is uncertain. Falling sick at Northampton, he called for a monk’s habit, and, after disposing of his estate, he died, and was buried in the chapter-house. 3 Burke doubts the statement of Ordericus Vitalis as to Bassett’s lowly origin, but says “ it is not of any consequence, for he required none of the artificial aids of ancestry to attain distinction. To his wisdom we are said to be indebted for many salutary laws, and among others for that of frank pledge.” 4 He left issue, five sons—Thurstine, who inherited the manor of Colston; Thomas, ancestor of the Bassetts of Haddington; Richard, who succeeded his father on the judicial bench ; Nicholas, who with Peverel and the Nottinghamshire forces fought in Stephen’s army against the Empress Matilda ; and Gilbert, who settled at Little Rissington, Gloucester. 5 1 Benedictus Abbas, i. 78 ; Roger de Hoveden, ii. 69. 2 12 and 13 Victoria, cap. 10. 3 Foss’s Judges, i. 100. 4 Burke’s Extinct Peerage, p. 26. 5 Ibid. RALPH BASSETT—GEOFFREY TROCOPE. 7 There was anothert Gilbert Bassett, who was a man of great influence and courage. 1 In 1237, when the Pope, at the private instigation of the king, sent over as his legate Otho, a cardinal, Gilbert was one of those who did not hesitate to express indignation at the course his Majesty had pursued. They said that he had perverted the laws, that he had married a foreigner without consulting his friends and subjects, and had now secretly summoned a legate to make alterations throughout the kingdom. Otho, hearing of these complaints, deemed it wise to assume a conciliatory attitude. He pacified Gilbert Bassett and others who had manifested their enmity. “ And this hatred,” says Matthew Paris, “had almost come to a lamentable termination at a tournament held at Blyth, 2 in the beginning of Lent in this same year (1237), at which the southern knights were opposed to those of the north, and the result was that the southerners overcame their opponents, and some men of rank on the other side were taken, on which there ensued a regular conflict instead of a jousting match.” 3 Gilbert died in the autumn of 1241 from the effects of an accident. As he was hunting in a wood his horse fell over the trunk of a tree, and he was thrown violently to the ground. Several bones were broken, and he died a few days afterwards. 4 GEOFFREY TROCOPE, Archdeacon of Nottingham, was one of the writers of the life of the celebrated Archbishop Thurstan, which is preserved in the Cottonian Library. The death of Archbishop Thurstan took place in 1140 under remarkable circumstances. He had parted from the ministers of his church at York, and assumed the garb of a monk at the monastery of St. John, Pontefract. On the 5th of February, having felt the hand of death upon him, he prepared himself for the last struggle. There were many persons present, and the scene was one they would never forget. “ The dying archbishop,” says Canon Raine, “ recited the service for the dead whom he was so speedily to join. He chanted with sobs and groans the awful verses of the Dies Irce , and then, while the rest were kneeling and praying around him, he passed away.” 5 A few days after he is said to 1 We have limited ourselves to the mention of only one circumstance in Gilbert’s career, and this is introduced because it contains a local incident, but much that is interesting might be written of him did he come within the range of our inquiries. Seethe Chronicles and Memorials of the Middle Ages for numerous details. Richard I. in 1194 licensed five places for public tournaments, one of which was Blyth (Notts), where many important meetings were held. There are records of even royal blood having been spilt at the Blyth tournaments.—Raine’s Hist, of Blyth, pp. 168-171. 3 Matt. Paris, iii. 404. 4 lb. iv. 172. 5 Fasti Eboracenses, p. 208. The statement is founded on the authority of John of Hexham (Col. 267) and others. 8 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. have appeared to Archdeacon Geoffrey. The archdeacon, who had been a witness to the awful death-scene, put the question to the apparition as it stood before him in full archiepiscopal attire, “Is there a hope of thy salvation, O my father ?” to which there came the comforting reply, “To me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” In conjunction with Hugh de Ponte¬ fract, Geoffrey drew up a Life of the Archbishop, partly in prose and partly in verse, entitled “ Vita S. Thurstani Archiepiscopi Ebor. partim oratione ligata, partim soluta, per Hugonem de Pontefracto, monachum, et Galfri- dum de Nottingham.” Canon Raine, who gives some extracts from it in his very able work, tells us that “ it is singularly meagre and uninteresting.” RALPH MURDAC, who was Sheriff of Derbyshire and Notts from 27 Henry II. to i Richard I., and Constable of Nottingham Castle, 1 served also as a justice itinerant. “The Pipe-roll of 1 Richard I. contains proof that he held a high place among the justices itinerant of that year in no less than ten counties.” 2 In the same reign he contributed a fine to the Royal coffers “pro habendo amore Regis Ricardi.” His name occurs, while sheriff, as witness to various grants of land in this county. Gilbert de Mering granted to him six acres of meadow in Mering, and he gave it away to the priory of Lenton “ for the health of his own soul and that of Alexander de Chemais.” 3 He witnessed the further endowment of the same priory when John Earl Morton, whilst at Nuthall, granted it “ the heath about the wood of Beskwood, and about his other woods in Notts and Derbyshire,” and he also witnessed the deed by which Geoffrey Torcard “gave to God and the church of the Holy Trinity at Lenton, and the monks there serving God, one cart, to be continually wandering about to gather up his dead wood of Hucknall.” 4 We may mention that Hugh Murdac was chaplain of Henry II. and a justice-itinerant in 1172, 5 and that Henry Murdac was Archbishop of York in King Stephen’s time. As archbishop, he gave his consent to a grant of land at Muskham which Hugh de Muskham made to Rufford Abbey. The archbishop, who held the See of York from 1147 to 1153, believed by Canon Raine to have been a Yorkshireman by birth. 6 He succeeded Archbishop Thurstan. ROBIN HOOD.—No one can visit the grand old forest of Sherwood, and ramble ’neath the shadows of its venerable oaks, without instinctively 1 Hoveden, 419. 2 Foss’s Judges , i. 404. 3 Thoroton, p. 18 8. All our references to Thoroton are to the original edition. 4 Ibid. 0 Gesta Henrici //., i. 239. 0 Fasti Eboracenses, p. 210. ROBIN HOOD. 9 calling to mind the days long ago when Robin Hood and his trusty band roamed, as tradition tells us, at their “ own sweet will ” through the forest glades. As we make our way in summer along the walks, or, leaving the open path, plod through the masses of bracken and broom, heather and gorse, which form the thick carpet that nature has spread at our feet, the thought arises that here , in these forest recesses, treading the same ground, and surrounded by the same sturdy old oaks, lived a popular hero whose name and fame have been handed down through seven long centuries. In imagination we hear the notes of the chieftain’s horn as he summons his men around him ; we see them emerge one by one in quick succession, until they form a picturesque group of which their much-loved master is the central figure. We hear him in friendly but authoritative tones utter words of explanation and command, and then the little army marches off to rifle “ wealthy abbot’s chest, or churl’s abundant store,” or to chase the king’s fat deer which scamper wildly through the woods. It may be from an historical point of view a very inaccurate picture which we thus mentally draw as we enjoy for a brief space the charming quietude of the forest, but it is inevitably prompted by the scene around us. The man would be strangely unimaginative and unromantic who, in the presence of rugged and venerable oaks which have weathered the storms of centuries, could forget ballad and song, and think only of the England of to-day. It may be, as some antiquaries tell us, that there are grave reasons for doubting whether the hero of Sherwood Forest is much more than a crea¬ ture of the imagination. But into these historic doubts we do not propose to enter at any length. It will suffice if we give a brief outline of what the old authorities have to tell us, and then indicate the nature of the numerous objections which have been raised. And first as to the birth of Robin Hood. A manuscript in the British Museum, 1 written towards the end of the sixteenth century, states that he was born at Locksley in Yorkshire. One of the Robin Hood ballads speaks of Locksley in Nottinghamshire, but there is no place of that name in the county. Dr. Fuller, in his Worthies, seems to have been in doubt on the subject, and thus, when speaking of remarkable Nottinghamshire persons, says “ Robert Hode (if not by birth ) by his chief abode this countryman.” And not only is the place but also the date of his birth uncertain. The Sloane manuscript states he “ was born in the days of Henry the 2nd about the yeare 1160,” and the date of his death has been given as 1247. 2 He is reputed to have come of i Bib. Sloane, 715. 2 Robin Hood Garlands and Ballads, p. 3. C io WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. noble family, and to have been heir to the earldom of Huntingdon. A curious pedigree was prepared by Dr. Stukeley, tracing his descent from Richard Fitzgilbert de Clare, Earl of Brian! 1 Some of the ballads, how¬ ever, represent him as a yeoman. One says— “ I shall you tell of a good yeoman, His name was Robeyn Hode ; ” and another affirms “The father of Robin a Forester was.” Adopting for some reason or other a life in the woods, he took up his abode in Sherwood Forest, where he was joined by Little John, Will Scarlet, and others whose names are familiar to all readers of Robin Hood ballads. In course of time his company consisted, as tradition testifies, of a hundred of the most expert archers, who were a match for more than four times their number. No one was admitted into the brotherhood until he had undergone a preliminary test. An old writer 2 thus describes Robin’s method of recruiting: “Whenever he heard of any that were of unusual strength and hardiness, he would desgyse himself, and rather than fayle, go lyke a beggar to become acquainted with them, and after he had tryed them with fyghting, never gave them over till he had used means to drawe them to lyve after his fashion.” Having thus tested the bravery and dexterity of his followers, and given them abundant evidence of his own prowess, Robin promoted amongst his band a feeling of unity and brotherhood. At the head of his little army he reigned like a king. The forest was his domain, and the outlaws his obedient subjects. He had his lover in Maid Marian, and his priest in Friar Tuck. The game with which the forest abounded afforded an ample supply of food fit for a royal table, and for other necessaries the rich were laid under contribution. Wealthy bishops were regarded as affording excellent prizes, and with the money wrung from their coffers Robin assisted the poor and needy. Stow says, “ He suffered no woman to be oppressed, violated, or otherwise molested ; poor men’s goods he spared abundantly, relieving them with that which by theft he got from abbeys and houses of rich carles.” 3 The ballads tell many amusing tales of the pranks he played at the expense of Rev. and Right Rev. gentlemen, and of his tricks with the Sheriff of Nottingham, who, as the representative of law and order, tried to put a stop to his proceedings. Alan Cuningham thus skilfully sum¬ marises his exploits : “ Against luxurious bishops and tyrannical sheriffs 1 Stukeley’s Palaographia Britannica , ii. 115. Quoted by Ritson in his Life of Robin Hood , p. 2. 3 Stow’s Annales , 1 592. ROBIN HOOD. 11 his bow was ever bent, and his arrow in the string. In his more humorous moods he contented himself with enticing them in the guise of a butcher, or a potter, with the hope of a good bargain, into the greenwood, where he first made merry, and then fleeced them, making them dance to such music as his forest afforded, or join Friar Tuck in hypocritical thanksgiving for the justice and mercy they had experienced. He was no lover of blood; nay, he delighted in sparing those who sought his life when they fell into his power; and he was beyond all example, even of knighthood, tender and thoughtful about women. Next to the ladies he loved the yeomanry of England; he molested no herd at the plough, no thresher in the barn, no shepherd with his flocks; he was the friend and protector of the husbandman and hind, and woe to the priest who fleeced, or the noble that oppressed them. The widow, too, and the fatherless, he looked upon as under his care, and wheresoever he went, some old woman was ready to do him a kindness for a saved son or a rescued husband.” One of the most interesting of the stories told is that which represents a visit to the chieftain of King Richard I. Though a breaker of law, Robin is always represented as a loyal subject, 1 and the ballad makes out that the king and the forest hero had a very merry meeting :— “ They showed much brave archery, By cleaving sticks and wands, That the king did say such men as they Lived not in many lands.” Sherwood Forest, be it remembered, was a favourite resort for monarchs who loved the chase, and it is worthy of remark that Richard was spending the day there on March 29, 1194, as the chroniclers show. 2 Such is a short outline of the characteristics of the popular hero, as they are preserved in ancient ballads and tales. Against the version with which these supply us there is doubtless much to be said. Thierry says Robin Hood simply represented a class, the remnant of the old Saxon race, which lived in perpetual defiance of the Norman oppressors from the days of Hereward. Other examples cited of similar combinations are the Cumber¬ land bandits, headed by Adam Bell, Clym of the Clough, and William of Cloudesley. Mr. Knight considers that there were several persons who bore the name of Robin Hood. It has also been pointed out that “ many games similar to those held in honour of Robin Hood were common in Pagan 1 Sir Walter Raleigh, on his trial, said, “ Is it not strange for me to make myself a Robin Hood ?” whereupon Coke, Attorney-General, observed, “ I never heard that Robin Hood was a traitor.”— State Trials , i. 218. 2 Roger de Hoveden, iii. 240. WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. I 2 times. Woden was the Norse sun-god, the victor of winter, swift and strong, and the sheath of arrows represented his fierce, far-darting beams. The man who mimicked him was called Robert in common parlance. The transformation of Woden into Wooden, and hence Wood or Hood was not difficult.” So says a recent writer, 1 and for these and other reasons many have come to look upon Robin Hood as a “mediaeval myth sprung from the mists of Teutonic paganism, and garnished by the prolific muses of the English minstrels.” 2 Whether this be so or not, the literature of Robin Hood will always possess a degree of interest, breathing, as some portions of it may be justly said to do, “of the inflexible heart and honest joyousness of old England.” In an article written, at our request, on this interesting subject, Dr. Spencer Hall, “the Sherwood Forester,” while discarding much that obtained credence in former days, expresses his belief that there was a man in chief, no matter how many others may have borne the mythical title, living at a later date than is generally assigned, who was worthy of all that a love of patriotism and chivalry could make him, and a man of whom there¬ fore we need not be entirely ashamed. “ It is something,” he says, “ to belong to a country that lovingly boasts of its Hereward, King Alfred, and Robin Hood. The bequest to us of such names, however they may have been clouded and weakened by fiction and frivolity, anachronisms and hyperbole, in ages past, have a ring of patriotism and freedom in them that will be borne into ages yet to come, and carry a noble tone into the great concert of future national sentiment and polity. I do not believe a tithe of the trash that is told in relation to Robin Hood, some of it too silly for the most childish mind; the name is almost certainly mythical, and at one period might just be as easily given to one wood-robber as another. In a ballad two hundred years old occurs the line— “ ‘ What life is there like to a Robin Hood ?' But pare away all we can, there is still enough of pith to prove that at a given time the title was paramountly borne by and recognised in one mag¬ nificent hero, as much the idol of the common people as he was the terror of tyrants and extortioners—much as Hereward was in the Eastern Marshes, or \\ illiam \\ allace in Scotland—and especially the friend of all who resented the Norman encroachment. “ Rambling with Ebenezer Elliott, the poet, about Locksley Chase, near 1 In the Illustrated Review , and quoted in Notes about Notts , p. 67. 2 Ibid. ROBIN HOOD. !3 Sheffield—in what was formerly called Hallamshire, the domain of Earl Waltheof, one of the latest resistants of the Norman conquest in England— Ebenezer would tell me that Robin Hood, as he was popularly called, what¬ ever his real name, was son of the chief forester there, and was outlawed for having resisted one of newer appointment; that he joined, the patriot army under Simon Montfort, where he met with John-le-Tall, who was of most extraordinary height, but whose name was ironically turned to Little John ; that they were together at the battle of Evesham in 1265, and being defeated, returned to their native wilds (John, by trade a nailer, being from the north side of Staffordshire), and finding shelter and abundance of deer in Sherwood Forest, made that their chief haunt, and there became leaders together of a great band of similar refugees ; and the caves of Wharncliffe, Markland Grips, Creswell Crags, the neighbourhood of Papplewick, and others, right up to Nottingham, show strong reasons for their having been the resort of such adventurers—especially the large one at Creswell Crags. “ I do not believe the very apocryphal story of Robin ever having been the Earl of Huntin gdon. The first time we find him so styled is by Martin Parker, a noted London ballad-maker of the reign of Henry VII., who, I imagine, made him Earl of Hunting^cw in preference to any other place, for the sake of a convenient rhyme to Little John, when the ballad had to be enacted in great houses as a sort of play. The earliest ballad in relation to him is the ‘ Lytell Geste,’ the burden of it believed to have been composed and sung or recited long before it was written. There seems to be more logical sense and order in it than in all the rest of the ballads together, and its local allusions connect it very distinctly with the Hallamshire neighbour¬ hood ; it calls him, not an Earl, but a ‘ good yeoman,’ and ascribes to him far more true gallantry and sympathy than would ordinarily be possessed by a mere freebooter, it is true, yet much of what a man who had losses and trials to mourn would feel. Take one passage for example, when, addressing one of his comrades, he says— “ ‘Take thy bowe in thy hand ’ (sayd Robyn), ‘ Let Much wende with thee, And so shall Willyam Scathelock, And no man abide with me. “ ‘ And walk up into the Sayles, And to Watlynge Streete, And wayte after some unketh geste, Up chaunce ye may them mete. 14 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. “ ‘ Whether he be a messengere, Or a man that myrthes can, Or if he be a poor man, Of my goods he shall have some.’ “ The foregoing hardly represents him as the whimsical hairbrained fellow some other ballads and traditions would have him ; but all agree as to the bonhommie that won all hearts and made him so great a favourite with the populace, who must often have fed and sheltered him and his outlawed followers ; and although the inscription on the celebrated stone in Kirklees Park can be by no means relied on, the following from an old ballad, remodelled or corrupted, throws some light on his attributes. The popular story runs that being taken with illness, probably of an inflammatory kind, he sought for surgical aid at Kirklees Nunnery, of which his cousin was said to be prioress ; and that she, to please a great man of the neighbour¬ hood, Sir Roger de Doncaster, who was in her especial favour, and might possibly be one of the crown officers who had formerly ransomed themselves from him in Barnsdale, had him bled until he was too far spent for recovery. The story, after describing the visit of Little John to his master and the request which he made for permission to revenge himself on the abbess by burning the nunnery, makes Robin thus reply— “ ‘Now nay, now nay,’ quoth Robin Hood, ‘ That boon I’ll not grant thee : I never hurt woman in all my life, Nor man in woman’s company. “ ‘ I never hurt fair maid in all my time, Nor at my end shall it be; But give me my bent bow in my hand, And a broad arrow I’ll let flee; And where this arrow is taken up, There shall my grave digg’d be. “ ‘ Lay me a green sod under my head, And another at my feet; And lay my bent bow by my side, Which was my music sweet; And make my grave of gravel and green, Which is most right and meet. “ ‘ Let me have length and breadth enough.’ ***** “ These words they readily promised him, Which did bold Robin please; And there they buried bold Robin Hood, Near to the fair Kirkleys. ROBIN HOOD. i5 “ Through Ritson, and in various other ways, the surviving ballads are well known. Most of them have evidently been composed for sheer fun— many, it is said, being written merely as satires on priests and men in power and authority, Robin Hood’s popular name being used just as a peg on which to hang sarcasm and irony. And some of them surely are droll and merry enough. There are, altogether, about fifty, most of which you can find collected and embalmed in Ritson, so that I need not to particularise them all here. They abound with burlesque—with many most improbable and some utterly impossible incidents, and, so far as historic authenticity is concerned, are much worthier of being called ‘ facts founded on fancies,’ than ‘fancies founded on facts.’ Had Robin Hood been a mountebank some of them might have been highly characteristic of him; but if, as several good writers have maintained, he was a dignified though outlawed patriot, they are eminently absurd. “ I know the whole country, down from Staffordshire, by Hathersage and Sheffield to Wakefield, and up thence by Doncaster and Worksop to Nottingham. Take the whole of that range, and some of the graver incidents he is accredited with in the circumstances would befit it well. The scope and amplitude of grazing ground, the park-like spaces for deer, the woods and rocks and caves for retreat and secrecy; the yet un- Normanised towns for occasional traffic ; the great roads for decoy or trap when travellers were wanted for black-mail — all these come within the range of possibility and even probability. But the run of ballads does nothing to clear up the doubt of either. If they prove anything at all they prove too much ; and it is only fair to confess that, with the amor patrice of which I am not deficient, my somewhat poetical temperament and appreciation of genuine romance, my reading the for and against of everything I could command on the question, and a most intense desire to clear the truth of its chaff, the only conclusion I can honestly avow is that possibly a score of men at least have borne a title mythical in its origin, but actually held at one period by one man in chief, who was worthy of all that a love of chivalry, patriotism, generosity, tact, and bravery, has accredited him with. That that man fought along with John-le-Tall (ironised, as I have said, into Little John), at the battle of Evesham, under Simon de Montfort ; that the two, after the great defeat there, and consequent outlawry, sought, with others like themselves, their native dells and forests; that they sub¬ sisted much on game; that they often robbed the rich of what they in turn shared with the poor; that much off the common track of life, and more 16 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. mysterious features and phenomena of nature, were attributed to them than they could themselves have anticipated or desired; and that, if the real truth were known of them, they were worthy of a far more noble reputation than that of being mere merry Andrews or thieves that the majority of ballads and some histories credit them with having been.” It is a fact that though none have denied Robin Hood to be a robber, and some have criticised him severely, a majority of the old writers, taking up the popular refrain, speak in high terms of many of his personal characteristics. Fulldf pertinently asks, “ Who made him a judge, or gave him a commission to take where it might best be spared, and give where it was most wanted ? One may wonder how he escaped the hand of justice, dying in his bed; but it was because he was rather a merry than a mis¬ chievous thief.” Mayor, avoiding the expression of censure, pronounces him the most humane of robbers ; and Camden calls him the “ gentlest of thieves.” Centuries ago not only were festivals held in his honour, but dramas were written and played founded on his supposed life and exploits. In the papers at Wells Cathedral, under date 13th Henry VII., Nicholas Trappe being master, there is a curious entry, relative apparently to a play of Robin Hood, exhibitions of dancing girls and church ales provided for at the public expense. 1 Robin Hood games were celebrated at Kingston-on-Thames as early as 22 Henry VII. Bishop Latimer, in his sixth sermon before Edward VI., piteously complains that the people preferred attending a Robin Hood festival to listening to a sermon ; and he marvels at their depravity. He had sent word to the town that he would preach in the morning, and expected finding the Church crowded, but when he got there the door was locked. The parish had “gone abroad to gather for Robyn Hode,” and the bishop was neglected. With mingled anger and sorrow he exclaims, “It is no laughing matter, my friends, it is a wepynge matter, a heavy matter, under pretence of gathering for Robyn Hode, to put out a preacher.” 2 Interesting descriptions of these festivals are given by Ritson, who tells us that they were common in Scotland as well as in England. Of relics of the outlaw there have too been no scarcity. What pur¬ ported to be his bow and one of his broad arrows were to be seen within this century in Fountains Abbey. Nottingham at one time claimed to have another bow and arrow, and, more than that, his chair and slipper! Browne in his Travels 3 says: “Having pleased ourselves 1 Reports of Royal Commission on Historical MSS., ist. Rep. App. p. 107. 2 Latimer’s Sermons, Sermon vi. 3 Travels over England (A.D. 1700), p. 85. ROBIN HOOD—PHILIP MARC. i7 with the antiquities of Nottingham, we took horse and went to visit the well 1 and chair of Robin Hood, which is not far from hence, within the forest of Sherwood. Being placed in the chair, we had a cap, which they say was his, very formally put upon our heads, and, having performed the usual ceremonies befitting so great a solemnity, we received the freedom of the chair, and were incorporated into the society of that renowned brotherhood.” Robert Dodsley speaks of having been shown near Nottingham the chair, a bow, and an arrow; and Mr. Hutton in 1735 had shown him, at St. Ann’s Well, Robin Hood’s slipper ! But relics innumerable, to please the curious and excite the wonder of the credulous, were common in England in olden days. That which created astonishment and interest then would in many cases excite only amusement now. The ballads of Robin Hood, however, apart altogether from imaginary relics, will give him a lasting celebrity, and it will take a good deal of argument to shatter the faith in so popular a character, however mythical the element may be by which he is surrounded. As we wrote a few years back when discussing this subject, “ The popular mind clings with acknowledged tenacity to traditions which many of our forefathers have accepted as facts,” and though it may be like admiring a shadow, or being pleased with a fanciful illusion, the current of feeling will, rightly or wrongly (and we are far from affirming the former), continue to run with pleasurable interest by the side of Robin Hood and the merry men of Sherwood Forest. PHILIP MARC.—The first volume of the Close Rolls abounds with references to Philip Marc. With King John he was in constant communi¬ cation. The king regarded him as a trusty counsellor and a firm friend. In proportion as royalty showered its favours upon him, the barons who were in rebellion withdrew their countenance. To the stern, unbending, devoted warriors, who wrung Magna Charta from John, Philip Marc was an object of intense dislike. In the Charter a clause was inserted binding the king to remove from his bailiwicks certain injudicious advisers of whom the barons did not approve. In this clause occur the names of “Philip Marc and his brothers, and his nephew Geoffrey, and their whole retinue.” At what date Marc first became connected with this county we cannot say. He held lands at Keyworth, Bunny, and Bulwell, those at the latter place 1 Robin Hood’s Well is named in the documents belonging to Nottingham Corporation as early as 1548. It was then called Robyn Wood’s Well, vide Royal Historical Cotnmission Reports , rep. i. p. 105. D 18 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. given by John—and his name occurs in Thoroton as witnessing various deeds of gift. The mandates to him begin in 1212, when John was at Nottingham, from which town, as also from Blidworth, Southwell, and other parts of the county many of the letters are dated. Marc served the office of Sheriff of Notts and Derbyshire, and held an influential position. We have not space to specify the contents of the numerous royal missives which he received. They were sent not only in the latter portion of John’s reign but also during the early period of the reign of Henry III., when Marc continued to hold the office of Sheriff. King John was fond of the sport which the deer in Sherwood Forest afforded, and his successor showed a great partiality for his “ girefalcons.” Some of the letters to Sheriff Marc relate to the king’s falcons, as, for instance, the following:—“We send to you Thomas de Weston, with our two girefalcons, namely, Blake- man and the foolish falcon, and with three greyhounds, and Haukinus de Hauvill with le Refuse our girefalcon and two greyhounds, commanding you to let our aforesaid girefalcons be mewed and well kept, and to find necessaries for the aforesaid Thomas, with one horse and his groom, and the aforesaid Haukinus, with one horse and his groom, during their stay with you; and it shall be accounted to you at the Exchequer” 1 (16th February, 4 Hen. 3). In another missive the Sheriff is directed to make Blakeman “ fly three or four times ” probably by way of exercise; and a further letter orders him to send Blakeman to the king in Gloucestershire and to pay to Gilbert de Hauvill “the expenses which he has incurred since his girefalcon began to fly after its moulting.” 2 Other orders relate to more serious subjects. In 1216 Marc had temporarily entrusted to him the control of Newark Castle, and he seems to have developed, like others in that day, a fancy for such strongholds. For Roger de Wendover 3 includes him amongst those who held castles in 1218, in defiance of the prohibition of the king, and against the will of the owners. He must have made his peace with the sovereign after this, for references to him, not unfriendly, occur in royal mandates until 1224. He was buried at Lenton, as appears from the following in Thoroton : “ Philip Marc and his wife Anne purchased land of several people here, which was of the fee of Hugh de Bellomonte, nine bovats, whereof the said Philip (who was Sheriff of Notts and Derby), the latter part of King John’s reign, and seven or eight years of the beginning of Henry the 1 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum, i. 412. 2 Ibid, i. 407. 3 Chronicle of Roger de Wendover, edited by Coxe. JOHN DE DAIVILL OR D’AYEVILL. 19 Third), gave with his body to Lenton, where it lay entombed, as his said wife’s confirmation imports.” 1 JOHN DE DAIVILL or D’AYEVILL, one of the justices-itinerant appointed in 1226, for the county of Westmoreland, was the son of Robert Daivill, “a baron of Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire.” In the reign of Henry I., Nigel de Albini being enfeoffed of the manor of Egmanton by the Crown, conferred it upon Robert Daivill, his special friend, 2 from whom it descended to another Robert who accompanied King John in his expedition into Poictou. The name of Daivill, spelt in a variety of ways, frequently occurs in Thoroton in connection with Nottinghamshire property, and in Laxton Church windows the arms of Everingfham and of Daivill were to be seen. John Daivill is said to have joined in the rebellion against King John, and to have had his lands confiscated. 3 They were again forfeited in 1245. 4 Three years later, having regained the favour of the monarch, his property was restored to him: he was appointed justice of the forests beyond Trent, and subsequently governor of the Castles of York and Scarborough. When the contest arose between the king and the barons, Daivill, like other Notts landowners, espoused the cause of the latter, and he was so actively engaged in the north that the Sheriff of Yorkshire could not exer¬ cise his office for the king’s service, from the 48th of the reign, when Henry was in the hands of the barons, until the battle of Evesham in the following year. Whilst the king was a prisoner, Daivill was summoned to Parliament, by his companions then ruling, as Baron Daivill. 5 Though the king gained the victory at Evesham, Daivill continued in opposition to the monarch, and being defeated at Chesterfield fled to the Isle of Axholme. His estates were forfeited, but he was restored to them for the third time, 51 Henry III. 0 He made his peace under the decree called the “ Dictum of Kenilworth,” and redeemed his lands by a pecuniary fine. His lordship married Maude, widow of Sir James de Aldithley, without license, for which transgression he had to pay a fine of ^200 to the king. 7 Another John Daivill, also of this county, served as a warrior with some distinction. In 1277 he was present at Worcester with the army raised to encounter the forces of Llewellyn, Prince of Wales, and his name is entered 1 Thoroton, p. 42. 2 The king hearing of the gift inquired if it was so ; who answered it was, and that now the king had two honest knights where before he had but one.—Thoroton, p. 379. 3 Foss’s Judges, ii. 307. 4 Dugdale’s Baronage, i. 593. J Burke’s Extinct Peerage , p. 169. 0 Foss’s Judges , ii. 308. 7 Extinct Peerage , p. 169. 20 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. as performing military services due from the Archbishop of York. 1 In 1279 he was ordered to appear with horses and arms at a military council to be held at Gloucester before Edmund Earl of Cornwall, 2 and in 1283 he was sum¬ moned to the Parliament at Shrewsbury. In 1297 he was returned from the counties of Nottingham and Derby as holding lands of £20 yearly value and upwards, and was in consequence summoned to perform military service in person with horses and arms in Scotland. 3 He also served against the Scots in 1301, when he was placed under the command of John de Segrave, the king’s lieutenant in Scotland. In 1312 he was directed to appear before the king relative to certain arduous affairs, and subsequently he was ordered to assist in defending the counties beyond the Trent against the Scots. At this period he was returned as lord of the townships of Marnham, Fled- borough, Skegby, and Egmanton. He served at Boroughbridge when the rebellion under the Earl of Lancaster was crushed, and his armorial bearings were entered upon the roll of the battle. The next r^erence we find to him is under date 1323, when he was a prisoner in the Tower. He was not, however, long detained, for in 1324 he was returned as a knight for Nottingham at the great council at Westminster. 4 The date of his death is uncertain. BYSET.—Another powerful family, intimately associated with this county at the commencement of the thirteenth century, was that of Byset. Their possessions were considerable and their influence extensive. They were a family of baronial rank ; they had the types and insignia of nobility ; they held high office about the person of the Plantagenets ; they witnessed the confirmation of Magna Charta, 5 endowed abbeys and priories, and left that indubitable mark of their importance by the additional name which some English parishes have derived from them. 6 The English Bysets, we are told on the same authority, were a united family, each member assisting the other ; thus we find Manassar Byset giving the manor of East Bridgford, Notts, to his brother William, and this William Byset obtaining the consent of his son William, his brother Manassar, and his nephew Ernulph, to a grant to the priory of Thurgarton of his mill on Dover Beck, called Clive Milne, a name by which it is known to this day, for the souls of his father and mother and wife, and of his brothers Henry and Ausold, and his nephew Henry. He also directed that if he died in England he was to be buried 1 Pari. Writs , i. 566. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. iv. 763. 5 Annals of Tewkesbury, i. 104. 0 Transaction of the Royal Historical Society , iv. 18. THE BYSET FAMILY. 2 I at Thurgarton. “It seems probable,” says Mr. Chisholm-Batten in an able article, 1 “that Henry Byset of 1198, the courtier of King William the Lion, was a member of the family of East Bridgford.” In August 1243 King Henry granted to Walter Byset, a member of the Scotch branch of the family well known to the king, 2 the manor of Lowdham, the object of the grant being to maintain Walter in the service of the king as long as his Majesty pleased. Walter and his brother John had been banished from Scotland, the charge against them being that of causing the death of several nobles, including the young Earl of Athol. This was in December 1242. The outrageous crime, in which Walter appears to have been the chief actor, is thus described by Matthew Paris. “ Tournaments were being held in the northern provinces; at one of which, on the borders of England and Scotland, Walter Byset, a brave though crafty knight, was worsted by his antagonist, one Patrick Fitz-Thomas of Galway ; whereupon he con¬ ceived an unheard-of crime, in order to take unjust vengeance on his con¬ queror. The said Patrick was staying, with some other nobles in his com¬ pany, at Edmonton, where he took up his quarters for the night in a kind of barn ; and whilst sleeping in a state of calm sleep, the said Walter Byset, after blocking up the door outside with some trunks of trees, inserted fire in several places in the walls by means of some lighted sticks, and burned nearly all who were inside. Thus, therefore, died the said Patrick, with some brave and illustrious companions.” 3 For his participation in this enormity Byset was compelled to leave Scotland and to come into this country, where he was welcomed as a useful soldier by King Henry, to whom he rendered signal service. He assisted the king in an expedition into Wales in 1245, where he greatly distinguished himself by his energy and bravery. On one occasion when the English army were distressed for want of provisions, a ship from Ireland approached. Through bad steering it ran aground, and the Welsh made an attack upon it. The English knights, led by Walter Byset, rushed to the rescue, boarded the vessel, and fought with great desperation until midnight. The sea rising, and the ship beginning to roll, the Welsh retreated, intending to renew the engagement when day¬ light came. But during the night Byset and his men quietly manned the boats and returned safely to the army. The scarcity of provisions in the 1 “ Historical Notices and Charters of the Priory of Beauly,” by Edmund Chisholm-Batten, Esq., in Historical Society's Transactions, vol. iv., where many particulars of the Bysets may be found. 2 The Close Rolls show that gifts were made from the Royal Treasury to Walter Byset. 3 Matthew Paris, iv. 200. 22 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. camp was so great that there was only one cask of wine left, a “ measure of corn, cost twenty shillings, a pasture ox three or four marks, and a hen was sold for eightpence. Men and horses pined away, and numbers perished for want.” 1 To be avenged for the hardships endured, the English army committed great ravages, and then as the winter drew near returned to their homes. In 1246, the year after he had rendered these services, Walter Byset obtained a grant from Henry III. of Lowdham to himself and his heirs, until Walter or his heirs should recover his lands in Scotland. 2 The adjoining manor of East Bridgford was then held by William de Grant, who had married Alfreda Byset, one of the heiresses of Henry Byset. 3 Subsequently Walter Byset returned to Scotland, where he took part again in various national proceedings until 1252, when he died. We must not, before we close this brief notice of the Bysets, omit to mention Margaret, the granddaughter of Henry Byset of East Bridgford, 4 who is said to have saved the king’s life. A man, pretending to be insane, visited the court at Woodstock in 1236, and rather unpolitely requested the king to resign in his favour. The indignant attendants desired to drive him away, but the king told them to “ let the insane man rave as becomes him,” and took no further notice. In the middle of the night, however, the same man entered the royal bedchamber, carrying an open knife. As it happened, the king was not there, but was in another apartment. Margaret Byset, who was one of the queen’s maids, watched the man’s movements, and noticed his confusion when he found the couch unoccupied. Margaret had “ been singing psalms by the light of a candle,” and had thus been kept awake longer than the rest of the household. When she saw the man searching about with open knife, she raised an alarm. The king’s attendants broke through the door, which the rascal had bolted, and in a short time he was secured. When questioned, he confessed he had been sent to kill the king. As a punishment he was torn limb from limb by horses at Coventry. 5 JOHN DE LEXINGTON was a member of an influential family taking their name from the village of Lexington, now called Laxton, where they held property. His father was Richard de Lexington, who, says Thoroton, “ brought up his sons so fortunately that Robert, who was a clergy - 1 Matthew Paris, vol. iv. 483. 2 Chart. 31 Henry III., m. 13. 3 Thoroton’s Antiquities of Notts, p. 150. 4 Ibid. 149. 5 Matthew Paris, iii. 497 ; John de Oxenedes, 149. JOHN DE LEXINGTON. 2 3 man, canon of Southwell, became a great judge and baron ; while John, the eldest brother, was Lord Keeper; and Henry the youngest became Bishop of Lincoln.” One of the earliest notices of John de Lexington is in 1235, when he took an active part in searching out the origin of a remarkable crime. A boy named Hugh had been crucified at Lincoln, and suspicion had fallen upon the Jews. 1 A similar atrocity had taken place years before at Norwich, when the Jews, about Easter time, bought a Christian child and, as the chronicler tells us, “ tortured him with all the same torture that our Lord was tortured.” The monks buried the body, and miracles were wrought by it. 2 The story of the Lincoln murder is of a similarly absurd character. The clergy buried the body of the boy Hugh next to the tomb of Bishop Grosseteste, and many astounding stories of miracles which the body performed were narrated to arouse the interest of the curious and excite the wonder of the populace. 3 The affair was brought under the notice of the king, and efforts were made to discover the boy’s murderers. One Jopin, a Jew, upon whom suspicion had fallen, was interrogated by Lexington, and induced, under promise of pardon, to make a full confession. Several Jews were thereupon apprehended ; and Jopin, notwithstanding the promise made to him, was put to death. Lexington appears to have been elevated to the judicial bench about 1248, for Foss tells us that “on that date, and afterwards till December 1256, a few weeks before his death there are numerous entries of payments made for assizes to be taken before him, precisely in the same manner as before the other judges.” He had previously held positions of honour and responsibility. In 1241 he was sent as a messenger from the King to the Emperor Frederick, and was with that monarch when an extraordinary event, graphically described by Matthew Paris, took place. Disputes having arisen between the Emperor and the Pope, a large number of prelates, assembled at Genoa, who were proceeding to a council at Rome, refused to travel through the emperor’s territory. They said they could place no reliance on the words of an excommunicated man, and, embarking on board ships manned by Genoese, they started on their eastward voyage, amidst the tumultuous shouts of the sailors and the clang of trumpets. The emperor, much chagrined, ordered the prelates to be captured; and his son Henry, with a powerful fleet, started in pursuit. A desperate fight ensued, in which the Genoese were conquered, and the prelates and legates, amongst whom was a brother of 1 Annals of Burton, i. 304. 2 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle , ii. 232. 3 Annals of Burton , i. 342. 24 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. De Lexington, were made prisoners. Most of the unfortunate ecclesiastics were sent to Naples, and endured much suffering on the way thither. They sat “ fastened and squeezed together in heaps,” and “ with the intoler¬ able heat falling upon them, and flies flitting around them and stinging them like scorpions, they dragged on a long martyrdom.” Of the abbots Matthew Paris adds : “ The abbot of Savigny with some difficulty escaped free and uninjured by the assistance of John de Lexington, his brother, a most courageous knight and messenger from the King of England.” 1 The same year Lexington accompanied the king on an expedition to Wales. Griffin, the son of Llewellyn, being detained in prison by his brother David, the Bishop of Bangor entreated the King of England to procure his release. Henry raised an army, summoning all who owed him military service to assemble at Gloucester with horses and arms. A council was held at Shrewsbury, and the English forces marched towards Chester. Fearing to hazard a battle, David set his brother at liberty; and Griffin, being handed over to England, was sent under the protection of John de Lexington to the Tower, where other Welsh nobles were detained. 2 In 1247 Lexington wms king’s seneschal. 3 As one of the clerks in chancery, or as an officer connected with that court, the great seal was placed in his hands on four occasions, viz. in 1238, 1242, 1249, and 1253. He heard pleas in the city of London in 1251, and pronounced a judgment, “ad Bancum Domini regis,” at the special request of the king and council in 1254. About the same time he became chief justice of the forests north of the Trent, and governor of Bamburgh, Scarborough, and Pickering Castles. He died in February 1257, leaving his property to his younger brother Henry, the Bishop of Lincoln. ROBERT DE LEXINGTON, Prior of Lenton, brother of John de Lexington, was not only a priest and a lawyer, but a soldier also. In the first named capacity he filled no greater office than that of canon; 4 his abilities as a lawyer led to his appointment as a judge; while for his military services he had entrusted to him the charge of several castles. As a soldier, he describes in a letter to Hubert de Burgh the progress of William Earl of Albemarle through Nottingham, and his preparations to oppose him, stating his intention to proceed himself into Northumberland. In 8th Hen. III. he was custos of the honour of the Peak and governor of its 1 Matthew Paris, iv. 125. 2 Ibid. iv. 150. 3 Royal Letters, Henry III., ii. 48. 4 He was once elected Bishop of Lichfield, but resigned .—Annals of Dunstable, iii. 149. ROBERT DE LEXINGTON—GODFREY DE LUDHAM. 2 5 castle, and that of Bolsover in Derbyshire, and he subsequently had charge of the castle of Oxford. He officiated as judge from the 4th to the 27th Hen. III., and is mentioned in 1234 as being at that time the oldest judge on the bench. In 1240, when the king sent justices-itinerant through all the counties, ostensibly to redress grievances, but in reality to extort money from the people for the king’s use, Robert de Lexington was at the head of those assigned for the northern counties. 1 In the discharge of his official duties at Lincoln he appears to have incurred the displeasure of the cele¬ brated Bishop Grosseteste. Lexington and his fellow-justices having heard capital causes on a Sunday, the Dean censured them, whereupon the justices summoned the Dean before them and punished him. The matter reached the ears of the Bishop, who addressed a letter of rebuke to Lexington, a copy of which is still preserved amongst his correspondence. 2 Lexington died on May 29, 1250, and his brother John came into possession of his property. Matthew Paris thus records his decease: “ On the 29th May in this year died Robert de Lexington, who had long continued in the office of Justiciary, and had acquired a distinguished name and ample possessions. A few years before his death, however, he was struck with palsy, and gave up the aforesaid office; so that, like the apostle St. Matthew, he was summoned from the receipt of custom to a better life, and, employing himself in bountiful almsgiving and devout prayers, he laudably terminated his enfeebled existence.” 3 GODFREY DE LUDHAM, Archbishop of York, was a native of this county, being born probably at Lowdham, or it may be at Kinoulton, seeing that he was sometimes styled “ de Kinton.” The Lowdhams were an ancient and an influential family, who became connected by marriage with many other families of importance in the county. When Ralph de Bellefago, in 1161, gave to God and the Church of Lenton some of his property at Gunthorpe, Gervase de Ludham was one of the witnesses to the deed. 4 Above fifty years later, namely in 1215, Eustachius de Ludham w r as sheriff of Notts and Derby, and several references to him and to Henry and John de Ludham, may be found in the Close Rolls , 5 though they are not of suffi¬ cient importance to be worth quoting. It was most likely to the same family that the archbishop belonged. The Christian names of his parents were Richard and Eva, and he had a brother, Thomas de Ludham, who was 1 Matthew Paris, iv. 34. 2 Roberti Grosseteste Epistolce, 266. 3 Matthew Paris, v. 138. 4 Thoroton’s Notts, p. 288. 5 Rot. Lit. Claus., i. pp. 149, 516b, 568b. E 26 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. a chaplain to the Pope and Prebendary at York and Southwell. 1 After enjoying for two years from Archbishop Gray a pension of ten marks per annum, Godfrey was collated to a moiety of the living of Peniston, in the West Riding of Yorkshire (1229). In 1250 he became precentor of York, and was made dean in 1256, on the elevation of Dean Bovill to the archiepiscopal chair. The appointment of Ludham to the deanery gave rise to considerable trouble. The pope had a nominee of his own, an Italian cardinal named Jordan, upon whom he had determined to bestow the vacant office. The way the representatives of his Holiness proceeded was somewhat peculiar. Three strangers entered the minster during the absence of the priests, and inquired of a solitary worshipper which was the dean’s stall ? When it was pointed out to them they walked quietly up to it; and one of them taking possession of the seat, his companions thus addressed him, “ Brother, we install thee by the authority of the Pope.” The news of this simple and abrupt ceremony caused a consternation. Canon Raine tells us that not only the archbishop and his chapter, but the whole of England, were amazed and indignant. The archbishop resented the intrusion with boldness and determination. Many of the clergy and people heartily supported him, for they must have been stirred with indignation, at the way in which their country was being “ stocked with Italian priests, who came over hungering after preferment.” Unable to withstand the authority of the archbishop, Jordan went home. The pope, surprised and annoyed at an exhibition of independence to which he was unaccustomed, retaliated for the rejection of his nominee by placing the minster under an interdict, suspending the archbishop from his office, and excommunicating both him and the dean. 2 These troubles and conflicts proved too much for Bovill, who sunk under them and died, after warning the pope not to tyrannise over the Church, and reminding him in forcible terms that “ the Lord said to Peter, feed my sheep, and not shear them, skin them, tear out their entrails, or eat them up.” Ludham, who bore the burden of excommuni¬ cation better than his chief, did not lose either his health or his popularity. When the chapter, under authority from the king, assembled to appoint a successor to Bovill, Ludham was unanimously chosen. This was in July 1258. The king gave his assent, and to pacify the pope, Ludham proceeded to Rome, where, “ after much trouble and expense,” he succeeded in obtaining consecration on the 22d September. On his return, secure alike in the favour of clergy, pope, and king, Ludham entered London, 1 Fasti Eboracenses , p. 300. 2 Annals of Burton, i. 408. WILLIAM DE LUDHAM—WALTER DE LUDHAM. 27 boldly bearing his cross erect. He was cordially welcomed by the king, received the temporalities of his see on the 1st of December, and was enthroned about Christmas with much rejoicing. Of his subsequent conduct but little is known. What we do read shows him to have possessed great firmness, fearlessness, and vigour. The citizens of York having offended him, he put the city under an interdict, and he manifested his displeasure in a prompt and decisive manner to the people of Beverley in 1261 for the offence of breaking into his parks. He drew up new statutes for the better management and discipline of the regular orders, those which he laid down for the management of Hexham monastery being still preserved. The archbishop died on the 12th January 1265, and was buried in the south transept of York Minster. His monument was removed to the presbytery in 1735, and sustained some injury by the fire of 1829. Thomas de Ludham, the archbishop’s brother, founded and endowed a chantry in York Minster, at which the souls of the deceased primate, the founder, and their parents, were to be especially remembered. 1 WILLIAM DE LUDHAM was the last of seven justices itinerant appointed in 15 Henry III. for the county of York. No further information appears to be obtainable. A Robert de Ludham was bailiff of Prince Edward in 1256, and complaints were made of his oppressive proceedings. 2 WALTER DE LUDHAM was, in 1297, summoned under a general writ to perform military service in person with horses and arms in Scotland, the muster being at Nottingham, on Sunday, next after the octave of St. John the Baptist. He is described as holding lands or rents in the counties of Nottingham and Derby of £20 yearly value. He was again summoned in 1300. 3 The muster at Nottingham in 1297 was a very extensive one. Amongst those who were summoned as holding lands in this county of sufficient value to render them liable for military service, we find the following (the names are given as they appear in the Writs) :—Johannes de Bella Aqua, Ricardus de Bingham, Johannes le Botyller, Ricardus le Bret, Hugo de Bussey, Thomas de Chaworth, Gervasius de Clyfton, Johannes de Cokefield, Willielmus de Colewick, Willielmus de Cressy, Radulphus de 1 Fasti Eboracenses , p. 301, to which we are largely indebted ; when Canon Raine has written a notice of an early worthy it may not only be fully relied upon, but we may be sure he has not left much original matter for others to discover. 2 Annals of Dunstable , iii. 201. 3 Pari. IVrits, i. p. 718. 28 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. Cromwelle, Ricardus Danyel, Edmundus de Eyncourt, Ricardus de Draycote, Adam de Everingham, Robertus de Everingham, Willielmus Fauvell, Johannes de Ferrers, Egidius de Ferrers, Thomas de Foljaumbe, Ricardus de Furneus, Thomas de Furnival, Simon de Goushill, Galfridus de Greseleye, Henricus de Grey, Johannes de Heriz, Walterus de Ludeham, Willielmus de Montgomery, Willielmus Sampson, Johannes de Segrave, Robertus Touk, Robertus de la Warde. Thus was gathered together the flower of the Nottinghamshire gentry. OLIVER DE SUTTON or DE LEXINGTON, 1 Bishop of Lin¬ coln, was a prelate of considerable repute in his day,—learned, courageous, and energetic. He was consecrated at Lambeth 2 in 1280, having pre¬ viously been dean for three years, and devoted himself assiduously to the discharge of his important duties. We read of his attainments, his good government, and his liberality. 3 The fines which he received from adul¬ terers and other offenders he divided among mendicant friars, poor nuns, and the poor of the parishes in which the crimes were committed. He often relieved the needy who resided on his estates with money, and never bur¬ dened the villains with any tallages or other exactions beyond the service lawfully due from them. 4 He increased the daily commons of the canons, and some important additions to the cathedral were made under his direction. The Bishop is mentioned as being present, in October 1280, at the translation of St. Hugh, whose fame would be still fresh in the minds of the people of the diocese, and of whose piety and zeal and supernatural powers many remarkable stories were current. His devotion in visiting the sick was much dwelt upon, and he seems to have paid especial attention to lepers, one of whom he kissed at Newark to heal him of his affliction ! 5 It was generally believed that miracles had been wrought through his agency, and evidence to this effect had been solemnly tendered by local ecclesiastics. In 1219, Roger de Rolleston, Dean of Lincoln, had testified before the Papal commissioners that a knight’s cancerous arm had been cured by a touch of St. Hugh’s body in Lincoln Cathedral; 6 and others had spoken of wounds being healed by applying mortar to them from the Saint’s tomb. 7 With these curious tales still current it was natural that the removal of the 1 Index to Monastic Annals. ! Annals of Dunstable, iii. 282. 3 Giraldus Cambrensis, vii. 208-9. 4 Ibid. Preface, xcviii. Ibid. p. 107-8. Giraldus, it should be noted, is alone in placing the occurrence at Newark. b Ibid. p. 182. 7 Ibid. p. 141. OLIVER DE SUTTON OR DE LEXINGTON. 29 ashes of St. Hugh—in which Bishop Sutton took a prominent part—should be regarded as an important occasion. The Rev. J. F. Dymock says it is certain as any historical fact can be that Edward I. was present; 1 and there was certainly a large gathering of eminent ecclesiastics. Dorland states that, before opening the tomb, all had “purged themselves with fastings, confessions,” etc., that so they might be fit for the contact of Hugh’s sacred body; and that, on the opening of the tomb, an “odor suave fragrans”(?) burst forth and pervaded the whole church. Bishop Sutton reverently took the Saint’s head—which had been separated from the body—into his hands, and it was separately enshrined. 2 * It was stolen about 1363 for the sake of the silver and gold and precious stones about it, and found in a field “with a raven miraculously guarding it!” The robbers were convicted and 3 The next notice we meet with of Bishop Sutton is under date 1282, when he preached and celebrated at Dunstable. In 1287 he became involved in a famous dispute with the University of Oxford, respecting the admission of a Chancellor. The University had elected William Kynge- ston, and sent to the Bishop for his confirmation. The Bishop said it was Kyngeston’s duty to come himself. The University pleaded custom and privilege, but the prelate was inflexible; whereupon many scholars, through vexation, “left her redyng and her teching,” and went away. 4 Eventually the dispute was settled by the influence of the king and others. 5 On December 17, 1290, Bishop Sutton officiated at the burial of the Queen Eleanor at Westminster. 5 In 1296, when the clergy strenuously objected to the subsidy demanded by Edward III., the bishop, with a courage and determination amounting almost to stubbornness, refused the exaction, and as a consequence, his property was confiscated. 7 Subsequently he, like the rest of the clergy, made his peace with the offended monarch. The death of Bishop Sutton took place on November 13, 1299. It was St. Brice’s day, and matins were being sung. The clergy had reached the last words of the verse : — Iste confessor Domini Sacratus, Festa plebs cujus celebrat per orbem, Hodie loetus meruit secreta, Scandare coeli, 1 Giraldus Cambrensis, p. 221, note. 2 Ibid. p. 221. Quoted from Surius Venice, ed. 1581. 4 Capgrave’s Chronicle, p. 168. 5 Annals of Osney, iv. 324 7 Annals of Dunstable , iii. 407. 3 Twysden, 2628. 6 Ibid. iv. 326. 3 ° WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. when quietly, as the sound of the voices died away, the spirit of the bishop returned to its Creator. 1 ROBERT FITZWILLIAM, described by Foss “as a Knight of Nottinghamshire,” and whose family long held large possessions in the county, was one of the justices-itinerant in Nottingham and Derby in 1225. He was apparently of a warlike disposition. In the 17th of King John he was taken in arms against the king in the castle of Beauveer (Belvoir), and was fined sixty marks. 2 Of his judicial conduct we have no record. JOHN DE EOVETOT, Judge, was one of the noble family who were in early times Fords of Worksop. William de Lovetot founded Worksop Priory, and on his death left his property to his two sons Richard and Nigel. Richard, Ford of Worksop, was visited at that town by King Stephen in 1151, on which occasion His Majesty confirmed a benefaction of Malgerus de Rol- leston to the monastery of Rufford. 3 His granddaughter Matilda married Gerard de Furnivall, who became Ford of Hallamshire and Worksop in right of his wife. He joined the crusades, and was present with Richard I. at the siege of Acre. He died at Jerusalem in 1219, and was buried at Ebrard, in Normandy. His son Thomas was likewise a crusader, and was slain in Palestine. His brother Gerard, who served with him, brought his remains to Worksop, and they were buried in Worksop Church. The family produced another warrior in Thomas Ford Furnival, who served with Edward III. at the ever-memorable battle of Cressy and died in 1366. The Worksop estates passed by marriage from the Furnivals, who became extinct in the male line, to the Neviles, and thence to the Talbots, Earls of Shrewsbury, several of whom, noted men in their day, were buried at Worksop. From the Talbots Worksop passed to the Howards, and thence by purchase to the Duke of Newcastle. 4 To return after this brief digression to the Fovetots. From Nigel, son of the founder of Worksop Priory, sprang Fovetots who were Fords of Car Colston and of Wysall; and one of whom, Richard, served like his relatives as a crusader, forming one of the great army commanded by Richard I. in 1191. Sir John de Fovetot the Judge, of Wysall, was son of Richard de Bromford, who had assumed his mother’s surname of De Lovetot. Thoroton 1 Giraldus Cambrensis, vii. App. E. 212. 2 Foss’s Judges of England, iii. 89. 3 White’s Worksop , p. 13. 4 White’s Worksop, and Major A. E. Lawson Lowe’s excellent pedigree therein of the early Lords of Worksop. JOHN DE LOVETOT. 3i says Sir John was sometimes called Clark, because of his learning in the law. 1 He was appointed Justice of the Common Pleas, 3 Edward I., 1275. He acted as assessor in the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk of the fifteenth, granted by the prelates and others, and in 1276 was present in full council on judgment being given for the King against Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, who claimed the Castle of Bristol. 2 He was present when Alexander King of Scots, performed homage to the King in the Parliament at Westminster, September 1278, and in the same year he was appointed by the king and council one of the Justices of the Bench at Westminster, at an annual salary of 50 marks. 3 He was several times summoned to meetings of parliament, while the entries of his judicial doings show that fines were levied before him until 1289. His reputation does not appear to have been an enviable one. Charges of extortion in the exercise of his functions, and other allegations equally serious, were made against him, which led to his imprisonment in the Tower, from which he was not released until he had paid a fine of 3000 marks. 4 He died Nov. 5, 1294. Another, Sir John de Lovetot, doubtless his son, came into notice a few years later. His name occurs as the promoter of an inquiry against Walter, Bishop of Lichfield, the king’s treasurer, which led to a correspondence between Edward I. and Pope Boniface, and caused the king, who complained of the “ persecution” to which his treasurer was subjected, to send his clerk, G. de Blaby, on an explanatory mission to his Holiness (a.d. 1303). It would appear that the treasurer had, in consequence of the complaints made, been suspended by the Pope from his administration of spirituals and temporals; and the king was offended thereat, abusing Lovetot soundly in his letters to Rome. Lovetot seems, however, to have made his peace with Royalty, for in a subsequent document he is included amongst those sent by the king to the Duke of Brabant to make peace between the duke and the Count of “ Gueldres.” 5 As we shall not have occasion to refer to the Lovetots again, we may here mention that the brother of the Judge, Roger de Lovetot, Lord of Wysall, was governor of Bolsover Castle and thrice sheriff of Notts. The Judge had three grandsons, only one of whom —Edward—had issue, viz. John, who died unmarried, and Margaret, who became the heir of her father, and was married to Sir John Cheyne. 1 Thoroton’s Notts, p. 33. 2 Pari. Writs, i. 717. 3 Ibid. 4 Foss’s Judges, iii. 123. Annals of Dunstable, iii. 356. 6 MSS. of J. Ormsby Gore, Esq., vide Reports Historical MSS. Commission, iv. pp. 380, 394 , 395 - 3 2 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. HENRY DE NEWARK.—The county contributed to the service of Church and State an able and distinguished ecclesiastic in the person of Henry de Newark, who, after filling responsible offices, was rewarded with an archbishopric. Of the family of this Newark worthy we know but little. A William de Newark, who is believed to have been a relative of the Arch¬ bishop, was a canon of Southwell and Archdeacon of Huntingdon. He died in 1286. 1 Henry de Newark’s earliest appointment was, we believe, the living of Barnby, which was given to him in 1270. The year following, having resigned the living, he was made Prebendary of Brownswood, in St. Paul’s Cathedral. On the accession of Edward I. Newark became one of his clerks and chaplains. By that monarch he was evidently held in high esteem. Desiring to apprise the Pope of the course he intended to pursue in regard to the proposed Crusade, which was at that time a subject of deep interest, he sent Newark to Rome on the 12th December 1276, where he remained as king’s Proctor at the Papal Court, taking an active part in arranging for the expedition. 2 The next service he rendered to the State was in 1281, when he was engaged settling the disturbances between the English and the Hollanders. War prevailing with the Welsh, who were struggling for their independence, Newark was appointed to collect the subsidy for an expedition in 1283, and he was directed to arrange the amount of service due to the king from the knights north of the Trent. He was also empowered to demand the subsidy from the clergy of the province of York assembled at York, and to appoint assessors for several counties of the thirtieth granted at the York Convention. In 1288 he was summoned to the Council before Edward, Earl of Cornwall, the king’s lieutenant. 3 Two years later he was employed in a still more notable capacity. After being an active instrument in preparing for wars, it must have been to him a pleasant relief to be despatched on a more peaceful mission. In the summer of 1290 he proceeded as Ambassador to Scotland to arrange a marriage between the king’s son and heir and Margaret, “ the Maid of Norway,” the Scotch queen, who, however, died the same year. In 1291 he was with the king at Norham, and took part in the political disputes which arose through the loss of Queen Margaret, whose demise confused the succession to the Scottish crown. Public affairs were, in fact, Newark’s chief study. Though a son of the Church, he gave to its service little of his time. Politics were all-absorbing, and he not only possessed the taste but the capacity for a statesman. In addition to the services we have mentioned 1 Fasti Eboracenses, p. 349. 2 Fasdera, i. 537, 542. 3 Pari. Writs, i. 759. HENRY DE NEWARK. 33 he was in 1296 one of the commissioners appointed to make a truce with France, and to prepare treaties with Guelders and Flanders. He was evidently, as Canon Raine well describes him, “ a thorough man of business,” skilful and active. Whilst Newark’s popularity with the king led to important civil appointments and to diplomatic service, his friendship with Archbishop Wickwaine, and his high position as a statesman, caused him to readily obtain ecclesiastical preferment. In 1286 he was made Archdeacon of Richmond, and in the same year is said to have “ farmed the prebend of Ulleskelf, and rebuilt the houses belonging to it near the minster.” 1 The reverend gentleman evidently had an eye to business, and looked well after his finances. Canon Raine mentions that he was associated with the king in more than one pecuniary transaction, and that he advanced money to Archbishop Romanus, who rewarded him with the stall of Great Musk- ham, at Southwell, on June 4th, 1287, and left him in 1288 vicar-general of the diocese, while he (Romanus) accompanied the king to Gascony. In this year Newark appears to have paid a visit to his native town and to the adjoining village of North Muskham. Rents and lands in Holme having been settled upon him by the executors of Richard de Sutton for the maintenance of a chantry priest, he, in case the rents should be ill paid by his successors, granted to the chapter of Southwell, by his writing bearing date at Muskham 1288, power to sequester the prebend in case of failure. 2 In the spring of 1290 he was made Dean of York, in which capacity he came into collision with Archbishop Romanus, who had been involved in disputes with the chapter as to his right to hold a visitation of the minster. The question was settled in November 1290, having been referred to arbitration. In 1291 the foundation-stone of the new nave of York Minster was laid, and Newark was one of those who took part in that interesting ceremony. On the death of Romanus in 1296, Newark reached the pinnacle of his greatness. The chapter elected him to the vacant office, and the king not only cheerfully confirmed the election, but wrote to the Pope in the new archbishop’s favour, mentioning as an illustration of his confidence in him that he had during his absence in Flanders made Newark guardian of the kingdom. It was two years, however, before the archbishop-elect was con¬ secrated, the ceremony taking place at York on the 15th June 1298. The permission of the Pope had been given to this innovation, the archbishop pleading his inability to visit Rome on account of the wars which were 1 Fasti Eboraccuses, p. 351, note. - Thoroton, p. 316. F 34 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. raging. In 1299 he was summoned to the Parliament at London, to be held before the king’s son, 1 and his name occurs in connection with the in¬ gathering of the taxes in his diocese. By his orders a piece of waste ground at Hull was built upon, and with the rents he founded a chantry, and endowed a chaplain for each of the manors belonging to the see. The death of the archbishop took place on the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary in 1299, and he was buried in York Minster. His goods were sequestered for something due to the Church. They were placed in the house of the Friars Minors at York, and the day following G. the chamberlain and H. de Newark, Friars Minors, brought nine large and four small chests to the chapter. On November 21, 1301, a commission was appointed to receive the accounts of Newark’s executors, who did not, however, obtain their release until 1311, when they were found to be losers, having received ^5592 and paid away ^6010. 2 WILLIAM DE MARCH AM.—This eminent ecclesiastic was the third son of Richard de Marcham of Markham, Notts, and Cecilia de Lexington. He took an active part in national affairs. In the year 1290 he was raised to the office of Lord Treasurer by Edward I., and continued in that position until 1295. Meanwhile, being an ecclesiastic, he was chosen Bishop of Wells, and consecrated on Whitsunday 1293. “ He was so highly esteemed by all ranks of people for his piety and power of working miracles that after his death he was selected by Pope Boniface VIII. as worthy to be enrolled in the Calendar of Saints.” This sanctified station, however, he was doomed never to attain. 3 For when the king’s treasury was empty, and money wa.s urgently needed for the wars, he advised his royal master “ to take all the treasure from monasteries and churches and pay the soldiers with it,” a proceeding which naturally gave great offence in ecclesiastical quarters. He died in the year 1302, and his tomb in the cathedral church of Wells bore the following inscription: — “Hie jacet, Gulielmus de Marcham, hujus quondam ecclesise episcopus, et Angliae sub Eduardo Primo Rege tresaurarius, qui obiit anno domini 1302, cum sedisset annos decern.” ROBERT BASTON, who was the author of several works mentioned by Bale, is said to have been born not far from Nottingham. In his youth 1 Pari. Writs , i. 55, 78. 2 Fasti Eboracenses, p. 352. 3 History of the Markham Family , p. 5. ROBERT BASTON—WILLIAM DE MANSFIELD —EDMUND D’EYNCOURT. 35 he became a Carmelite monk, and afterwards prior of the convent of that order at Scarborough. He is mentioned as poet-laureate and public orator at Oxford, 1 though we do not find him so described in Wood’s Athena Oxoniensis. King Edward I. in his expedition into Scotland in 1304 took Baston with him to celebrate his victories. The poet, however, being taken prisoner by the enemy, was obliged reluctantly to change his note, and sing the successes of Robert Bruce, who was then claiming the Scotch crown. The task was a very uncomfortable one, and hurtful to the poor poet’s feel¬ ings, as he plainly intimates in his opening lines— “ In dreary verse my rhymes I make, Bewailing whilst such themes I take.” 2 Amongst the works which Baston wrote were a book of poems, a volume of tragedies and comedies, and comments on “ The several wars in Scot¬ land,” on “ The luxury of priests,” on “ The rich man and Lazarus,” etc. 3 He died in 1310, and was buried at Nottingham. He was succeeded in his monastery by his brother Philip. WILLIAM DE MANSFIELD, born, according to Fuller, “at that noted market town” in this county, flourished about 1320, and was cele¬ brated for his skill in “logic, ethics, physics, and metaphysics, 4 and,” says the old writer, whose knowledge of the world was as profound as his knowledge of many of its inhabitants, “ because some prize a dram of forraign before a pound of home-bred praise, know that Leander Bononiensis (though mistaking his name Massettes) giveth him the appellation of inclytus Theologiae Professor”—renowned Professor of Theology. The teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, who was, like Mansfield, a Dominican, having been assailed by Henricus Gandavensis, though both of them were dead, St. Thomas dying in 1274, Mansfield took up the pen in favour of Aquinas, and gained great credit thereby. 5 Bale sneeringly says that he did strew branches of palms before Christ’s ass ; which, adds Fuller, “was, I assure you, no bad employment.” EDMUND D’EYNCOURT, a judge who in 1299 subscribed a letter 1 Biographia Britannica (1750), i. 202. 2 Winstanley’s Lives of the Poets , Lond. 1687, p. 15. In a volume of “Political Songs” (Camden Society), p. 206, is a poem on the Battle of Bannockburn, attributed to Baston, which is described by the editor as “ of quite a different character ” to that which the popular story would lead us to expect from him. 3 Bale de Script. Brit. Centur. iv. 92. 4 Fuller’s Worthies , ii. 208. 6 Ibid. 36 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. to the Pope as “ Dominus de Thurgarton,” was descended from W alter D’Eyncourt, one of the distinguished soldiers who accompanied the Con¬ queror, and who were largely rewarded for their services by grants of land. Walter D’Eyncourt obtained “ as his portion of the spoil ” no less than sixty- seven lordships in different counties, including several in Nottinghamshire. His son Ralph, for the safety of his own soul and the souls of his ancestors and family, founded “a house of religion” at Thurgarton in 1136, and endowed it with “ all Thurgarton and Fiskerton, and the park by Thurgarton and the churches of his whole land.” 1 Edmund D’Eyncourt, who succeeded to the Nottinghamshire estates on the death of his father John in 1257, served in the wars in Wales, Gascony, and Scotland, and was summoned to parliament as a baron, subscribing himself, as on subsequent occasions, “ Dominus de Thurgarton.” In 1305 he was one of the justices of Trailbaston for Lincoln and nine other counties, and he continued to act as a judge throughout the reign of Edward 11 . 2 He died in 1327. To the same family belonged several Barons Deincourt in succeeding years, one of whom, William, served in the reign of Edward III. with great distinction in the wars. Capgrave, de¬ scribing the invasion of the Scots in 1346 during the absence of the English king in France, and the memorable defeat they met with, says, “ There was tooke the Kyng of Scottis and William Duglas, and many other lordis slayn. Them that had this victorye were Ser William la Souch, Archbishop of York, with his clergie, Ser Gilbert Umfrevyle, Henry Percy, Raf Nevyle, William Dayncourt, and Henry Scroop.” 3 We may add that the fifth Baron Deincourt died in minority without issue in 1422. 4 HENRY or HERVEY DE STAUNTON, who, says Lord Campbell, “ filled a greater variety of judicial offices than any lawyer I read of in the annals of Westminster Hall,” was a member of the Staunton family, owners of the manor of Staunton, near Newark. His father was Sir William de Staunton, and his mother Athelina, daughter and co-heir of John de Musters, lord of Bassingham, Lincolnshire. Foss tells us that he was an ecclesiastic as well as a lawyer, and was prebendary of Hustwhait, in the cathedral of York. The record of his services, as evidenced by the missives addressed to him, fills nearly a page and a half of the fourth volume of the Parliamentary Writs. The first mention of him as a lawyer is in 1302, when he was justice-itinerant in Cornwall; and the year following he filled 1 Thoroton, p. 302. 2 Pari. Writs , ii. 759. 3 Capgrave’s Chronicle, p. 212. 4 Burke’s Extinct Peerage , p. 169. HENRY DE STAUNTON —ROBERT DE PIERREPOINT. 37 the same office in Durham. 1 He was with others appointed to receive and answer the petitions from Ireland and the Isle of Guernsey in the Parliament at Westminster, September 1305, 2 and on April 20th, 1306, he was made a Puisne Judge of the Common Pleas. In 1308 he was summoned to attend at the ceremony of the coronation of Edward II. ; and the next year he was one of the justices empowered to try certain persons at Lynn charged with having confederated against the authority of the bishop. In 1311, having departed from Parliament, he was peremptorily ordered to return, and not to absent himself again without the king’s license. 3 In 1314 he transferred his services to the Exchequer Bench, being made a baron; and in 1316 became Chancellor of the Exchequer. Whilst holding the latter office he was employed in a judicial character on various commissions, and was regularly summoned to Parliament with other judges. In 1315, having relaxed his efforts in the public service, he was enjoined to attend diligently to the despatch of business in his court. 4 He seems to have obeyed the injunction so satisfactorily that the king decided to extend his duties and increase his responsibilities. In 1323 he was made Chief-Justice of the King’s Bench, but com¬ manded at the same time not to relinquish the chancellorship ; when he had to attend the hearing of causes he was to entrust the duties to some other fit person. Staunton, however, did not long hold the two distinguished offices, the chief-justiceship being conferred upon Geoffrey le Scrope. In 1324 he was one of the justices appointed to try the adherents of the Earl of Lancaster in the county of Gloucester. He retained his position as chancellor until July 18, 1326, when he relinquished it to become Chief- Justice of the Common Pleas. He died about six months afterwards, and having no issue left his fortune to the University of Cambridge for the endowment of a college. A curious rhyming pedigree is preserved in Thoroton, from which it appears that he was the “founder of St. Michael’s House in Cambridge town,” which had been erected by him in 1324. It is now incorporated into Trinity College, where his name is introduced into the grace after dinner. 5 He was buried in St. Michael’s Church, Cambridge. ROBERT DE PIERREPOINT.—The Pierrepoints were from the time of the conquest persons of distinction. Coming over to England with 2 Rot. Pari., i. 59. 3 Pari. Writs , iv. 1458. 5 Foss’s Judges (ed. 1870), p. 631. Foss’s Judges , iii. 303. 4 Ibid. p. 1459. 38 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. the Conqueror, they took up their abode at Hurst Pierrepoint in Sussex, and thence removed into this county. Robert de Pierrepoint fought at Lewes on the side of King Henry III., and being taken prisoner had to give security for the great sum of seven hundred marks for his ransom. The subsequent victory of Henry at Evesham rendered it unnecessary for him to pay the amount; 1 the king, by special mandate, directing the return to Robert and his surety of the bond which had been given. Fuller remarks, “ Whoso considereth how much the mark and how little the silver of our land was in that age will conclude seven hundred marks a ransom more proportionate for a prince than a private person.” Robert’s son, Sir Henry, was likewise a person of great note. In 1280, having lost his seal, he came into the court of chancery, then at Lincoln, upon Monday, the morrow of the octave of St. Michael, and made publication thereof; protesting that if any one should find it and seal therewith after that day, the instrument sealed ought not to be of any validity. Commenting upon which circumstance Fuller says : “ He appeareth a person of prime quality ; that great prejudice might arise by the false use of his true seal if found by a dishonest person, so that so solemn a protest was conceived to be necessary for the prevention thereof.” 2 Sir Henry married Annora, sister and heir of Lionel de Manvers, acquiring thereby the lordship of Holme, thereafter called Holme Pierrepoint. Annora de Pierrepoint was returned in 1297 as holding lands in the counties of Nottingham and Derby, and was summoned under the general writ to perform (by deputy of course) military service in Scotland. 3 Simon de Pierrepoint, the eldest son, had summons amongst the barons of the realm to repair with all speed to the king, wheresoever he should then be in England to treat of weighty affairs, each borough and shire being also directed to send two representatives “ to advise and consent for themselves” and those whom they represented (a.d. 1304). He had previously (a.d. 1297) been summoned to perform military service in person in parts beyond the seas ; also to appear with horses and arms at the military council at Rochester before Edward the king’s son. 4 Robert de Pierrepoint, who rose to still greater eminence as a warrior, was brother of Simon, and succeeded to the estates on his death. One of his earliest appointments was in 1309, when he was made governor of Newark Castle. He was summoned to the muster at Newcastle to per¬ form military service against the Scots (8 Edward II. 1314). This was 1 Burke’s Extinct Peerage , p. 419. 3 Pari. Writs, i. 780. 2 Fuller’s Worthies, ii. 215. 4 Pari. Writs, i. 782. ROBERT DE PIERREPOINT. 39 when Bruce, with an army of 30,000 picked men, met and routed the chivalry of England on the field of Bannockburn. Pierrepoint was again called upon in 1316, and instructions were addressed to him by the king concerning the levies in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, which were to be no less than two thousand footmen. In 1316-17 he was one of the justices appointed to perambulate the forests in the county of Nottingham. In 1321 he was ordered to abstain from attending a meeting of the “ good peers,” illegally convened by the Earl of Lancaster, to be held at Doncaster on Sunday after the Ouinzaine of St. Martin. The year following he was directed to assemble as many men as he could over and above his usual train, and to be ready to proceed against the Scots in case of invasion, and also to repair such of his manors as were nearest to York. In 1323 he received orders to march to York at the head of his men at arms. In 1324 he was sum¬ moned to attend a great council at Westminster, held on the 30th of May, and in the same year he acted as one of the commissioners empowered to raise foot soldiers from Nottinghamshire, the towns of Nottingham and Newark alone excepted. 1 The oath of office as Commissioner of Array was administered to him by the Abbot of Welbeck, and the Archbishop of York was instructed to assist Pierrepoint in the execution of his onerous duties. In 1325 he was leader of the Nottinghamshire detachment, and acted as one of the conservators of peace for the county. 2 In 1326 he was associated with the justices of Oyer and Terminer assigned in the counties of Nottingham and Derby for the trial of offenders indicted before the conservators of the peace. He held at various times other appointments, which we need not recapitulate. He served with the king in 1333 at the great battle of Halidon, and in consideration of the special services which he had rendered in Scotland he obtained a general pardon for all tres¬ passes by him done in the forest of Sherwood, as well in vert as venison. Sir Robert married Sarah, daughter, and eventually heir, of Sir John Heriz, and was succeeded by his son Edmund. We may here mention that in 1470 Henry Pierrepoint rendered signal service against the Lancastrians, and William Pierrepoint was made a Knight Baronet in 1513 for his exemplary valour in the sieges of Therouenne and Tournay and “ the battle of the Spurs.” 3 Of other members of the family, notably Baron Pierrepoint, subsequently Earl of Kingston, and Henry, Marquis of Dorchester, we shall speak in due course. 1 Pari. Writs, iv. 1289. 2 John de Pierrepoint also assisted, receiving orders to inspect the Notts levies, so that they might be fit for service. 3 White’s Worksop , p. 1 56. 40 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. NOTTINGHAM.—A number of persons of more or less distinction during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries took their surnames from the county town. Thus we find Robert de Nottingham, a judge who had fines levied before him from Hilary to Midsummer, a.d. 1245. 1 “ It is probable,’’ says Foss, “that he then died, as no further mention occurs relative to him, and no records have been discovered by which his personal history can be traced.” 2 William de Nottingham served as justice-itinerant into the northern counties in 1262 and 1270, and was sheriff or under-sheriff of Lincolnshire in 1265. 3 Henry de Nottingham, Canon of Caithness in 1272, 4 was assessor in the counties of Warwick and Leicester of the fifteenth, granted by the prelates, barons, and others of the kingdom in 1275. In 1279 he was appointed to inquire into the conduct of the sheriffs of the above-named counties for distraining persons to take the degree of knight¬ hood pursuant to the writs of 26th June (6 Ed. I.) 5 He was returned a knight of the shire to Parliament for Leicester in 1313, and obtained his expenses for serving in that capacity. He was again elected in 1319, and in the same year served as one of the collectors of scutage for Leicester¬ shire. 6 Hugh de Nottingham was in 1302 empowered to use all friendly offices for the purpose of inducing the regular clergy of the counties of Nottingham and Derby to agree to the purveyance of grain. 7 A Robert de Nottingham was made Remembrancer of the Exchequer June 21, 1322, 8 and in that capacity held numerous inquisitions, including one at Nottingham (19 E. II.), where it was found that Thomas de Furnivall held the manors of Worksop and Grassthorpe as of the honour of Tickhill by the service of four fees, and the fourth part of a knight’s fee by right of inheritance. 9 In 1326 he was summoned amongst the justices and others to the council held at Westminster on the 7th of January. 10 On October 15, 1327 (1 Edward III.), he was raised to the office of Second Baron of that court, being succeeded, April 16, 1329, by Robert de Wodehouse. 11 “Whether this arose,’’ says Foss, “from the death or retirement of Robert de Nottingham does not appear.” We cannot definitely solve the problem, but the name of Robert de Nottingham occurs in the writs and warrants 3 Edward III. He is there described as Prebendary of Oxton and Cropwell, and as having view of frank pledge of all his tenants in Oxton, Blidworth, Calverton, 1 Dugdale’s Orig., 43. 2 Foss’s Judges , ii. 471. 3 Ibid. p. 488. 4 Liber Eccles de Scon. p. 85. 5 Pari. Writs , i. 764. 6 Ibid. iv. 1240. ' Pari. Writs, i. 764. s Ibid. i. 1240. 9 Thoroton, p. 456. 10 Pari. Writs, i. 1240. 11 Foss’s Judges, iii. 471. WILLIAM DE NOTTINGHAM. 4i Woodborough, Crop well, and Hickling. Hugh de Nottingham served as a knight of the shire for Rutland in 1320. Peter de Nottingham, having adhered to the Earl of Lancaster and the barons in rebellion, submitted to a fine of 100s., in consideration whereof his life was spared (a.d. 1325). In the same year he was summoned to perform military service “ in Guyenne,” he having obtained pardon upon condition of serving the king in the wars. The year previously he had been one of the manucaptors of Hugo de Eland on his discharge from imprisonment. 1 John de Nottingham, “ clericus,” was described as a necromancer, and as such was accused by Robert Mareschal of having conspired to effect the death of the king and others by enchant¬ ment. He died in prison before the trial (a.d. 1325). 2 WILLIAM DE NOTTINGHAM 3 was one of a class of men which the great religious movements of the early part of the thirteenth century brought to the front—men whose burning piety was only equalled by their self-abnegation and affectionate regard for their fellow-men. Of this class the most conspicuous example is Saint Lrancis of Assisi, the founder of the Order of Minor or Grey Eriars; and William de Nottingham was a worthy disciple of that great and good man. In after life William related, in one of the tales he was wont to regale his companions with, how he had exchanged his bread for the crusts of the beggar whilst he was yet a child nourished in his father’s house, 4 which was, in all probability, in Nottingham. With a mind so constituted it was natural that he should eventually drift into one of the religious orders, then the only outlet for piety of this kind. He accordingly, following the example of many other kindred spirits, joined the Order of Saint Francis, then newly planted in England, and which, full of youthful vigour, was effecting a social revolution of no small importance —bringing back to the fold of the Church the souls which had languished uncared for in the alleys and lanes of the great cities, and tending the lepers, the sick, and the lame, with an affectionate care that was altogether new to these unfortunates. From one of William’s anecdotes we learn that he had been in a convent at Rome, 5 but it was no doubt in the convent at Nottingham that William passed his novitiate. We find him in after years clinging persistently to a member of the Nottingham convent, by name Thomas Bachun, who became his secretary. 6 The Order was established 1 Pari. Writs , i. 1240. 2 Ibid. Ckron. Abstract , p. 403. 3 Communicated by Mr. W. H. Stevenson. 4 Eccleston, De Adv. Prat. Minor. Anglia , p. 72. 5 Eccleston, ut sup., p. 71. e Epistolae Adae de Marisco , No. CXCII. (p. 349). G 42 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. in Nottingham as early as 1230. 1 William’s promotion was rapid, he being elected the fourth Minister of the Order in England, in succession to Hamo de Faversham, who was promoted to be Minister-General in 1239. 2 William had served him as vicar before he succeeded him as head of the English province, and although William was wholly without experience in the inferior offices, he executed the duties of his post with such energy that his zeal and probity were widely known and recognised. 3 The respect in which he was generally held is evinced by the affectionate words of one of the greatest men of his day, Adam de Marisco, 4 and by the esteem in which he was held by the chief of the Order, John de Parma. 5 William was a strict disciplinarian, having, however, regard to the spirit rather than to the text of the Rule of Saint Francis, but not sanctioning any laxness, for, he remarked, “ as the hairs of the beard grow imperceptibly, so super¬ fluities grow in the Order.” 6 Though William had charge of the destinies of the Order in England when the Order was very poor, 7 he consistently declined the favours of great men. s His administration was marked by the increase of many of the establishments of the Order, 9 and it required all his strong will to force the houses to adhere to the regulation which prohibited costly buildings. On one occasion a friar, “ from excessive familiarity,” remonstrated with him upon this point, and threatened to appeal to the Minister-General unless William allowed some additions to the Lon¬ don house. Hereon William answered warmly, “ that he would reply to the Minister-General that he had not entered the Order to build walls.” 10 In spite of William’s stern repression of the mania for costly buildings the popularity of the Order continued to spread, and the learning of the Order progressed considerably under his regime. 11 William de Nottingham, we are told, was most zealous in his study of the sacred writings, and devotedly pondered over the Holy Gospels, upon one of which he compiled “ most useful canons.” He had an especial regard for the name of the Saviour. He was wont to sit long in meditation, more especially after matins, and was ever ready to advance students. He was careful of the repute of defamed persons, and severe to their detractors, and he displayed singular sagacity in comforting the desolate. 12 For some unknown reason he was deposed from the office of Minister 1 Rotul. Littcrarum Claus arum , 14 Hy. III., m. 14. 2 Regist. Fratrum Minorum Lo?idon., p. 537 ; Eccleston, p. 59. 3 Eccleston, p. 59. 4 Epist. Ad. de Marisco, pp. 303, 373, etpassim. 5 Ibid. p. 303. 6 Eccleston, p. 69. 7 See Eccleston, p. 9. 8 Ibid. p. 70. 9 Ibid. p. 35. 10 Ibid. p. 35. 11 Ibid. p. 38. 12 Ibid. pp. 69, 70. THOMAS DE RADECLIVE. 43 of England (which he had held for close upon nine years) by the Council of Metz. 1 That he was guiltless of any crime is evinced by the confidence and affection the English brethren exhibited to him upon his deprival, for in a full provincial chapter they re-elected him to be Minister. 2 Adam de Marisco wrote to congratulate him upon his re-election, and earnestly desired him to accept the post. 3 A higher testimonial of his personal worth could hardly be adduced than this letter of De Marisco’s. These signs of sympathy and support came, however, too late, for ere they reached him William de Nottingham had nobly sacrificed himself in the cause of humanity. He was sent by the Council of Metz to the Pope, but on his way a companion, Friar Richard, was stricken with plague at Genoa. Before this fell visitant the whole of the company fled for life excepting William de Nottingham, who remained by the sick-bed “for the solace of his companion; ” and in this self-denying task he caught the pestilence, accompanying Friar Richard even in death. 4 He was buried at Marseilles. 5 Amongst his brethren at home in England his memory was long cherished as “a man most holy in God,” 6 and he was made a confessor of the Order, 7 and for centuries after his death the brethren prayed for the repose of his soul. Augustine, brother of the above-mentioned William de Nottingham, became, like him, a Franciscan or Grey Friar, and entered the household of Pope Innocent IV. He afterwards accompanied the Pope’s nephew into Syria, and was subsequently made Bishop of Faodicea. s THOMAS DE RADECEIVE, a native of Radcliff-upon-Soar, was summoned among the judges to the great Council at Westminster 17 Edward II. Foss says—“ He was the last named of six justices itinerant into Bedfordshire in 4 Edward III., 1330, and was sub-sheriff of the county of Nottingham in the same year, as appears by a complaint made against him in Parliament, the Result of which is not recorded.” It seems, how¬ ever, that he was subsequently convicted of offences charged against him, for in the 13 Edward III., at which time he is described as late under¬ sheriff of Notts, he (according to Thoroton) gave account of ,£17:6:8 1 Eccleston, pp. 70, 71. 2 Ibid. 3 Epp. A. de Marisco, No. CCX. p. 373. 4 Eccleston, p. 70. 5 Monumenta Franciscana, Appendix, p. 559. 6 Reg. Frat. Min. London., p. 537 ; Eccleston, passim. 7 Reg. Frat. Min. London., p. 529. 8 Eccleston, De Advent. Frat . Minor., pp. 62, 63. 44 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. of the fines for divers transgressions he had committed, his pledges being Sir John de Mounteney and Sir Thomas Neumarch. GERVASE DE WILFORD was a member of the worthy family owning Clifton and Wilford, one branch whereof bore the surname of Clifton and the other of Wilford. He was Remembrancer of the Exchequer 14 Edward III. (1341), and the same year was made also a Baron of the Exchequer. Being an ecclesiastic as well as a judge, he was instituted to the living of Barnack in Northamptonshire, and we find him giving lands in Norfolk to the prior and convent of Shouldham in the latter county, in 1345. He was advanced to the dignity of Chief Baron, April 7, 1350, and in 1359 he obtained the Bishop of Lincoln’s license “ alere et fovere pueros sub virga magistri, in lectura, cantu, et grammatica facultate, ad augmentum cultus divini in sua parochia, et eosdem informare, clericis post pestem diminutis.” Wilford retired from office in 1361, being broken down by age, 1 and the posterity of this Sir Gervase kept the surname and manor of Clifton. 2 WILLIAM DE COSSALE of Cossal, in this county, was appointed Baron of the Exchequer 3d Edward III., but is not mentioned after 1344. He held the manor of Cossal, and was a benefactor of Newstead Abbey, giving to it his Cossal property and Bui well Wood, and divers lands and tenements in Nottingham and Egmanton. 3 SIR RALPH FITZ-NICHOLAS, 4 who played an important part in the reign of Henry III., was intimately connected with the county of Not¬ tingham. 5 He spent a long life in the king’s service, and enjoyed in that unsettled time the confidence of friend and foe alike. That he was a man of sterling integrity is evidenced by the important posts he filled, and the commendation he receives at the hands of his bold-spirited and patriotic contemporary, Matthew Paris, the well-known chronicler. 6 His good quali¬ ties shone as brightly on the battlefield as in the council-chamber, and he was emphatically what Dugdale calls him, “a very eminent man.” 7 1 Foss’s Judges , iii. 536. 2 Thoroton, p. 54. 3 Foss’s Judges , iii. 418; Thoroton, p. 262. 4 Communicated by Mr. W. H. Stevenson. The article did not reach us in time to be inserted in due chronological order, the preceding pages having been printed. 5 He was a large landowner in this county, having possessions at Cossal, Wollaton, Dunham, Drayton, Ragnall, Thoroton, etc. (see Testa de Neville, pp. 1, 5, 9 ; Rot. Lit. Clausarum, i, 236, etc. ; Thoroton, passivi). He was probably related to the Manvers family ; cf. Thoroton, p. 88a. 6 Cf. Chronica Majora, iii. 320, iv. 191 ; Historia Anglorum, ii. 389, etc. 7 Dugdale’s Ancient Warwickshire, 2d edit. i. p. 50. SIR RALPH FITZ-NICHOLAS. 45 We first meet him in the service of King John, by whom he was despatched, in 1210, into Poitou to buy a horse. 1 He rose high in the confidence of the king, and was elected by him to be one of the three ambassadors whom he sent, about 1213, to Mohammed el Nassir, Emperor of Morocco. This was a mission despatched by John with the greatest secrecy, as it bore an offer from the king to hold his kingdom in tribute of the emperor, and, if necessary, to embrace the Mohammedan faith. The Moor, however, received John’s overtures with the disgust they deserved, expressing his contempt for renegades. After a few enquiries he exclaimed, looking fiercely at Sir Ralph Fitz-Nicholas and his companion, “Do not return again to my presence, nor let your eyes again see my face. The fame, or rather infamy of your lord, now a foolish apostate, emits a noisome stench in my presence.” 2 The ambassadors returned without having gained their object, much to the annoyance of King John. It may be that the ill-success of this mission deprived Fitz-Nicholas of the king’s favour, for we do not meet with him again until 1219, when he was seneschal to William, Earl Ferrers. 3 A few years later we find him again in the royal service as Sheriff of Hertfordshire. In 1224 he became Sheriff of Nottingham and Derby, a post he held until 1236. 4 In 1223, when the great minister, Hubert de Burgh, was obtaining possession of the royal castles and replacing their foreign constables by Englishmen whom he could trust, he committed the castle of Hereford and two other castles to Sir Ralph Fitz-Nicholas. 5 In the following year he was vested with the charge of the important castle of Nottingham. 6 Further local preferment was heaped upon him, being made, on May 18, 1225, keeper of the great Honour of Peverel. 7 At this period he must have been a very imposing figure in the county, holding the offices of Sheriff, Constable of Nottingham Castle, and Keeper of the Honour of Peverel. This year he was sent into France to treat of peace with that kingdom. 8 This was the first of a series of similar negotiations with France in which 1 Rotulus Afisae, 10 John, p. 150. 2 Matt. Paris, Chronica Alajora, ii. 559-64. This account of Paris has been branded as false, but without sufficient reason. See Madden in Paris’s Historia Anglorum, iii. p. xi. ; Prof. Stubbs in Walter of Coventry’s Metnoriale, iii. p. xi. 3 Rot. Lit. Claus., i. 406a; Dugdale’s Ancient Warwick, i. p. 50. 4 31 Rept. Deputy-Keeper of the Records, p. 325. 5 Shirley’s Letters of Henry III., i. 508, 511. 6 He was allowed ^100 of the profits of the county in 1225 for the custody of this castle, in the ninth year of the reign (1224-5), Lot. Lit. Claus., ii. 36, 100b ; Thoroton, 88, 489. 7 Rot. Lit. Claus., ii. 40. 8 Ibid. ii. 83. 46 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. he was engaged. 1 His diplomatic capabilities must have been very great, for, in addition to his numerous missions to France, he treated, at different times, with Germany, 2 the Welsh, 3 and several Poitevins whom it was desirable to attach to the English interest. 4 He was appointed, about 1226, seneschal of the king’s household, then a post of very great import¬ ance. 5 He held this office for very many years. The Manor of Dunham, in this county, was bestowed upon him as a reward for his services in 1227. 6 He accompanied the king on his expedition into France in 1230, and there are letters of his in existence written during this campaign on the king’s behalf. 7 In 1232 he sat as one of the judges of the charges brought against Hubert de Burgh upon his fall. s Three years after this date the Bishop of Exeter and Sir Ralph, “two noble men commendable in all things,” 9 were deputed to accompany the king’s sister to Germany upon her marriage with the emperor. 10 After witnessing the magnificent reception of the bride, Sir Ralph and his fellow returned home, bearing with them three leopards as a present for the king from the emperor. 11 The year 1236 witnessed a change of government in England, fraught with direful results for the king and country. The weak king fell entirely under the control of his foreign advisers, who encouraged him in the foolish designs which ended in the rising of the baronage. The English councillors of the king were got rid of by various means. Amongst those who suffered unjust deprival the name of Sir Ralph Fitz-Nicholas—“a commendable man” 12 —occurs. Charges were invented against him as to the administration of his office, 13 and he was finally, to the surprise of many people, 14 deprived of his office of seneschal, and banished the court. 15 He also lost the shrievalty of Notts and Derby. 1 The dates of these missions are 1228, Rymer’s Fa'dera, i. 191-2 ; 1229, ibid. i. 194-5 ; 1230, ib. i. 198 ; 1233, Shirley’s Royal Letters, i. 417, Fcedera, i. 210 ; 1242, Foedera , i. 244, 245, 251. 2 In 1227, Foedera , i. 187. 3 In 1232, ibid. i. 202. 4 In 1243, ibid. i. 253. 5 He is called by this title in 1226, Shirley’s Letters of Hen. III., i. 302 ; Foedera , i. 183. For an account of this important office, see Madox, Hist, of Exchequer, i. 48. 6 On June 8, Rot. Lit. Claus., ii. 189; Rot. Chartarum, 2 Hen. III., pars 2, m. 6; Collectanea Topograpliica et Geneal., i. 174 ; Thoroton, pp. 88, 489. 7 Shirley’s Letters, i. 370, 382. 8 Fcedera, i. 208. 9 Matt. Paris, Chron. Maj., iii. 320. 10 Roger de Wendover, iv. 334; M. Paris, Chron. Maj., iii. 320; Historia Anglorum, ii. 379. 11 Roger de Wendover, iv. 337; Paris, Chron. Maj., iii. 324. About this time he had liberty granted to him to course for hares in the royal forests of Notts.— Calend. Rot. Chartaium, p. 53. 12 M. Paris, Hist. Atiglor., ii. 389. 13 Annates Tewkesb., i. 102. 14 M. Paris, Chron. Maj., iii. 363. 15 M. Paris, Chron. Maj., iii. 363-4; Hist. Anglor., ii. 389; Annal. Dunstapl., iii. 144; Pauli, Geschichte von England, iii. 624. SIR RALPH FITZ-NICHOLAS. 47 Sir Ralph appears to have lived in retirement after his unjust treatment until 1242, when the king set forth on his ill-starred expedition to Poitou. Shortly before the king took ship he restored several of his old councillors to his confidence, which they had never justly forfeited, according to Paris. Sir Ralph was one of the old and well-tried councillors who received this tardy reparation for the unjust treatment they had undergone through the intrigues of the king’s parasites. 1 Sir Ralph accompanied the monarch to Poitou, and assisted in saving him from capture by the French on July 22, 1242. On that day he was engaged in the heavy fight among the vine¬ yards of Saintes, and is named as one of the English leaders who, by their heroic courage, all but equalised the excess of numbers on the French side. This band fought so vigorously as to draw forth the admiration of their generous enemies, and to force even their rivals to admit that their bravery deserved eternal praise. 2 In 1244 Sir Ralph was one of the king’s friends whom he despatched to the magnates assembled at the great Council at Westminster to explain to them his wishes, and his need for money, and to beseech them to grant him the money he required. The Council, however, were not inclined to accede to the king’s demands, and Henry had to visit them in person. 3 The next mission Sir Ralph was engaged in was in 1245, when he went as a representative of the whole kingdom to attend the Council of Bishops at Lyons to protest against the almost incredible extortions of the Papal agents in England, and to demand a mitigation of these intolerable burdens. 4 The English emissaries were not successful in obtaining redress of the national grievances, and they left the Council with a threat which accurately reflected the indignant feelings of this country, ground down as it was with the boundless exactions of papal avarice. The selection of Sir Ralph as one of the emissaries is a proof of the respect the baronage and clergy had for his abilities and integrity. On March 6, 1250, the king, under pressure of debt and difficulty, an¬ nounced his intention of setting out on a crusade. Sir Ralph Fitz-Nicholas and many of the nobility followed the action of the monarch, and assumed the Cross. 5 They, however, never set out for the Holy Land, as the king, who had only assumed the Cross for the protection it yielded him, obtained a 1 M. Paris, Chron. Maj., iv. 191-2. He was restored to his old office of Seneschal shortly after his recall. 2 Ibid. iv. 213. 3 Ibid. iv. 365. 4 Ibid. iv. 419-20; Annal. Dunst., iii. 167 ; Cole’s Documents, p. 351-358. 6 M. Paris, Chron. Maj., v. 101. 4 8 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. prohibition of the expedition from the Pope, much to the annoyance of his followers, most of whom had involved their estates for their outfit. 1 The king committed to Sir Ralph his old charge, Nottingham Castle, together with the custody of the Hay of Bestwood (part of Sherwood Forest), in the fortieth year of his reign (1255-6). 2 Sir Ralph’s custody of Nottingham Castle was one of the last, as it had been one of the earliest, royal appoint¬ ments he held. He died in 1257, still holding the position of seneschal to the king, and being one of his trusted councillors. 3 His son, Robert Fitz- Ralph, upon the rupture between the king and the barons, joined the latter, and his lands were forfeited to the Crown ; but part of them were afterwards restored to him. 4 HENRY DE EDENESTOWE or EDWINSTOWE, as it is now spelt, was a clerk in the Chancery 18 Edward II., 1325, and in the 4th and 6th of Edward III. he acted as Clerk of the Parliament. The great seal was in the latter year, and on other occasions, placed during the absence of the Chancellor in the custody of the Master of the Rolls, under the seals of two of the clerks, of whom Henry de Edenestowe was one. In the 20th Edward III., 1346, he is named for a loan to the king of £ioo . 5 Henry de Edenestowe, Clerk, and Robert, his brother, gave their manor of North Muskham “and the rent of half a pound of pepper” to the priory of New- stead ; and Henry also gave (about 14 Edward III.) one messuage and one bovate of land with the appurtenances in Edwinstowe to two chaplains “ in the Church of the Blessed Mary ” of that village. 6 ROBERT DE RETFORD, son of Richard de Retford, “ so called,” says Foss, “ from a town in Notts.,” was summoned to Parliament among the judges in 1295 ( 2 3 Edward I.); also in 1300, 1301, and 1305. 7 He served as justice itinerant at Norwich and at Dunstable, and his attendance in Parliament is noted to the end of the reign. In February 1307 he was placed among the justices of Trailbaston for the home counties, 8 and he continued to exercise his functions until the 9th Edward II., if not longer. 1 M. Paris, Chron. A Taj. , v. 134. 2 Abbreviatio Rotulorum Originalium , i. 16. Three years prior to this Sir Ralph had license granted to him to hawk (fugare) throughout the whole forests in Notts., Northants.,and Bucking¬ hamshire— Calend. Rotulorum Patentium, p. 25. 3 M. Paris, Chron. Maj ., v. 616 ; Annales de Burton , i. 409. 4 Morant’s Essex, ii. 311. 6 Foss’s Judges, iii. 424. 6 Thoroton, pp. 348 and 436. 7 Pari. Writs , i. 801. 8 Rot. Pari., i. 218. ROBERT WARSOP—SIR RICHARD DE WILLOUGHBY. 49 William de Retford, believed to be his son, was appointed Keeper of the Great Wardrobe 23d Edward III., as appears from the Roll of Notts, the county to which his father belonged, and in which he is styled “ clericus.” 1 On November 27, 1354, he was made Baron of the Exchequer, and his name occurs in Sergeant Benloe’s Reports as a justice of assize, 32 Edward III. The date of his death is uncertain. ROBERT WORSOP or WARSOP, an Augustinian, born at Warsop, in this county, and long resident at the convent at Tickhill, wrote many books, including one called “ The Entrance of the Sentences.” He is said by Bale to have become a bishop ; but as there was no prelate of that name in England, it is supposed he was either a suffragan or a titular bishop in Greece. He was buried at Tickhill about 1360. 2 SIR RICHARD DE WILLOUGHBY, whom Thoroton describes as the “ very great advancer of his family,” was for many years judge, and for some time occupied the very dignified and onerous position of chief- justice. The originator of this distinguished family was Ralph Bugge, merchant of Nottingham, “ the original ancestor,” says Thoroton, “ of divers good families.” Bugge acquired much property at Willoughby on the Wolds, which he gave to one of his sons, Richard, who assumed thenceforth the surname of Willoughby. This Richard was a lawyer, and became very rich, as appeared from his will made 31 Edward I., wherein he appointed his body to be buried in Willoughby Church “ before the altar of St. Nicholas.” The judge was his grandson, and succeeded on the death of his father to a considerable estate, including the manors of Willoughby and Wollaton. 3 He took his father’s place as representative in Parliament of his native county (17 Edward II.), and was made Chief-Justice of the Common Pleas in Ireland. 4 When Edward III. succeeded to the throne he was superseded on the bench, and resumed his practice at the bar. In the second year of the king’s reign, however, he was reappointed a judge, being made a justice of the Common Pleas, and the year following (1329) second justice of the same court. He was removed into the Court of King’s Bench on December 15th, 1330, and continued to officiate there until July 24, 1340. He acted as chief justice on various occasions during the absence of Geoffrey le Scrope on the king’s business beyond the seas ; and when Scrope resigned 1 Foss’s Judges, iii. 292. 2 Fuller’s Worthies, ii. 209. 3 Thoroton, p. 222. 4 Pari. Writs, ii. 1616 ; Cal. Rot. Pat., pp. 78, 94, 97. H 5 ° WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. in 1338 Willoughby succeeded him. He was displaced July 24, 1340, and is stated to have been one of the judges arrested by the king for alleged misconduct. A new patent was, however, granted to him (17 Edward III.), and fines were levied before him until the 31st year of the reign, when he probably retired. Barnes mentions an adventure which befell the judge in 1331. About Christmas in that year, whilst on his way to Grantham, he was attacked by one Richard Fulville, and forcibly taken into a wood, where a gang of lawless men compelled him to pay a ransom for his life of ninety marks. 1 The country was then infested with robbers, and the attack on the judge led to the adoption of strong measures to repress their crimes. Sir Richard died in 1363, leaving extensive estates in Notts, Derby, and Lincoln, and a great house situate in “ le Baly” in London. 2 A painting of him is amongst the pictures in Wollaton Hall. “ This por¬ trait,” says the writer of Rambles round Nottingham , “ like some old historical ballads, has no maker’s name—no history. It represents the Lord Chief-Justice in plain black doublet and trunk hose, basket-hilted sword and sash.” WILLIAM DE NORTH WELL or NORWELL. 3 —The career of North well is an ample illustration of the picturesque life which an active clergyman in the days of the Plantagenets sometimes passed. His appella¬ tion bespeaks a Nottinghamshire derivation. He may possibly have been already beneficed in the year 1309, when one of his name, by Edward II.’s letters to the Bishop of London, was appointed Rector of St. Clement’s, Eastcheap. 4 In the household of the same king he became Clerk of the royal kitchen. This appears by two writs, dated 3 and 30 Oct., 1314, which ordered various kinds of victuals to be provided for the king’s house¬ hold from fourteen counties in the east, centre, and south of England ; which provisions were to be delivered to William de North well, clericus, pursuant to a writ tested at Ramsey. The language used shows that the office was not of a menial character. 5 The poet Chaucer was a valettus, a valet or yeoman of the chamber of Edward III. The duties of the Clerk of the Kitchen, and of the other court offices held by de Northwell, have been described in Edward II.’s Household and Wardrobe Ordinances . 6 1 Barnes’s Edward III., p. 62. 2 Foss’s Judges, iii. 539. 3 Communicated by Mr. J. E. Bailey, editor of the Palatine Note Book, whose courtesy we desire to acknowledge. 4 Newcourt, i. 326. Pari. Writs, II. ii. 82 and iii. 1232. 6 Chaucer Soc., 2d ser., No. xiv. WILLIAM DE NORTHWELL OR NORWELL. On 14 April, 3 Edward III. (1329), Willielmus de Norwell, clericus, occurs among the number of seventy-four persons who crossed the sea with the king, having royal letters of protection up to the feast of the nativity of John Baptist. 1 They set out on 16 May, their business concerning the Dukedom of Aquitaine. In 1 333 (13 Sept.) Wm. de Northwell was appointed to the Prebend of Norwell Overhall, in Southwell church, by King Edward III. It was the most valuable of all the stalls. He was still holding it in 1337 ; and on his resignation John de Northwell was appointed by the same king, 2 May 1340. To this John another William succeeded in 1353, who held the stall till about 1370. 2 Great architectural alterations were made at Southwell during this time; and in 1337 the king gave a license to the Chapter to obtain stone from his forest of Shirewood for building the church ; and in other ways the foundation received considerable aggrandisement. The heads of the king, the queen, and the Black Prince support the ribs or springs of several arches in the choir. 3 The de Northwell family also occur as benefactors of the church. William de Northwell, clerk, settled by fine, 12 Edw. III., on Henry, son of Richard Graving, of Northwell, and on Elizabeth his wife, and the heirs of the bodies of the said Henry and Elizabeth, seven messuages two bovates one hundred and thirty-seven acres of land, twenty-four of meadow, with the appurten¬ ances in North Clifton and South Clifton, Northwell Woodhouse, Ossington, Holme, North Muskham, Sutton and Kelham. 4 At Michaelmas, 1337, William de Northwell became Clerk or Keeper of the king’s wardrobe, 5 a position which had been held a few years earlier by William de la Zouch, afterwards Archbishop of York. The treasureship of the wardrobe was one of the offices which had been filled by Richard de Bury, the distinguished bibliophile and a contemporary. The following 0 is one of the earliest entries relating to de North well’s office :— 23 Nov. 1337. To William de Northwell, clerk of the great wardrobe of the Lord the King, by the hands of Nicholas de Wyght, tailor to the same Lord the King, in payment of ^29. 6s. 9d. due to him in the wardrobe aforesaid, as well for divers costs and expenses by him incurred for making the robes and divers other garments for the person of the said King, between the 1st of April in the ninth [1335], and 29th of September in the tenth year [1336], as for his wages, he being from the Court during the same time,—^17. 2s. 9d. On 15 May 1338 the Treasurers of the Exchequer gave him twenty 1 Rymer’s Fcedera , ii. 764. 2 Le Neve, iii. 437. 3 Dickinson’s Southwell , p. 59. 4 Thoroton’s Notts , iii. p. 161 ; fol. ed. p. 351. 6 Issue Roll, 2 Edw. III., quoted in Foss’s Judges , iii. 469* 6 Taken from the Pell Records , p. 147. 5 2 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. separate receipts for jewels, etc., which he delivered up when Robert de Wodehouse, Archdeacon of Richmond, entered upon the office of treasurer. 1 Rymer’s Feed era? 14 Nov., 12 Edw. III. (1338), names him in a bond as our well beloved clerk, keeper of our wardrobe ; again 12 Aug., 1339 ; 3 and again 2 March, 1339-40. 4 Further promotion was in store for him. In the year in which he resigned his prebend, the king created him a Baron of the Exchequer. His appointment is given by Dugdale from the Patent Rolls of Edward III., 5 viz., in the 14th of that king’s reign: “Will, de Northwell constitutus loco Will, de la Pole , 21 junii,” 1340. 6 Foss is of opinion that de Northwell did not remain long in the Exchequer, “as certain Bills dated in August, September, and November 1340, are men¬ tioned as being under his seal as treasurer of the king’s household ; 7 and there is no doubt that on receiving this last appointment he retired from his seat as baron ; his name not being among those constituting the court in the following January.” 8 A royal letter in Rymer, 9 dated 5 Dec. 16 Edw. III. (1342), is addressed to him as formerly keeper of our wardrobe; and it would appear as if the latter office continued to be discharged by him. It remains to be seen why it was that the Black Prince should patronise our cleric-courtier by bestowing the benefice of Stockport upon him. As the keeper of the king’s wardrobe, de Northwell followed his monarch and the prince to the ever-memorable campaign which was undertaken to gain the crown of France. The king and his army landed at La Hogue, 12 July 1346 ; and that being the first time the young prince, his son, had been under arms, he was immediately knighted. It was when of the tender age of three years that the prince was created Earl of Chester (1333); in 1337 he became Duke of Cornwall ; and he was made the first of the Princes of Wales in 1343. Thus, at the beginning of the French campaign, in which the new knight won “ his spurs,” he was about seventeen years of age. The battle of Cressy was fought 28 August 1346; and Calais surrendered 3 August 1347. Now it fell to de North well’s lot to keep the accounts of the expedition. In a volume which has just been issued by the Camden Society, called Three Fifteenth-Century Chronicles, edited by Mr. Gairdner, there are some interesting memoranda relating to the siege of Calais, con- 1 Palgrave’s Antient Kalendars of the Treasury , iii. 167-194. 2 ii. 1065. 3 Ibid. 1088. 4 Ibid. 1116. Cf. also Rotulorum origination in Cuiia Scac. Abbrev., vol. ii. 141b. 5 p. 2, m. 5. ° Page 45 of “ Chronica Series,” in Origines Juridiciales, ed. 1671 ; and cf. Calend. Rotidorum Paientium in Turri Londin., 1802, p. 137 b , and Foss’s Tabula: Curiales, p. 26. 7 Kal. Exch. i. 165-6. 8 Judges, iii. 469. 9 ii. 1216. WILLIAM DE NORTHWELL OR NORWELL. S3 sisting of lists of the retinues of the king and prince, and of the expenditure on account of the expedition. The following is the paragraph in question, page 85, in which we supply a few explanations and make a necessary correction :— The sume total of y e saide exspences, as wil for wage, prestis [ready money], as for y e exspencis of y e Kyngis house as for other giftes and rewardes, and for schipes, and for other thynges neserers in y e saide partis of Fraunce and Normandy, and before Calis durynge the sege there, as it apperith in the compe of Wil Norwell, Keper of y e Kyngis warddrope, from the xij day of Juylii [when the army left England : Holinshed, ed. 1807, ij. 634], the [xx] yere of y e reigne of y e saide Kynge Edward [1346], unto the xxvij daie of Maye in the yere of his reigne the xiiij ,h [xxij th i.e. 1348], that is to saie be a yere and iij quartres and xlj days, yat ys to saie iijc. & xxxvijM li. c.iiij//. m iiij d [^337,004. 9 s. 4d.\ We do not meet with de Northwell’s name in the pages of Froissart, whose picturesque description of the siege of Calais is well known. The king and prince returned to England, landing at Sandwich, 12 Oct. 1347. De North well would appear to have remained behind until the following year, assisting in the administration of the captured town, which was repeopled by English merchants and others. Upon his return, however, he was presented by the Black Prince, as Earl of Chester, to the benefice of Stockport, and was instituted 8 Dec. 1348. His name is met with in public documents before his death in 1363, although not with such frequency as heretofore. Some notices of him occur in connection with the Knights of the Round Table, in Beltz’s Memorials of the Order of the Garter , pp. 383-7, etc., as keeper of the wardrobe; and in 1355 as “ n’re chi clerc Sire Willm. de Northwell nadgairs [naguere] tresorier de n’re hostel.” This word “ lately ” seems to point to the fact that after a useful public career his last days, like those of many other statesmen of the time, were spent in the discharge of his sacred functions as the “ pore parsone of a toun.” Nottinghamshire has reason to be proud of a man thus associated with our first great victories on the Continent, under the first of the great English captains, who so well represented the valour and the chivalry of his country. ADAM DE EVERINGHAM.—Three persons of this name, mem¬ bers of an ancient and noble family, whose residence was at Laxton, took an active part in affairs of State. The first Adam de Everingham, son of Robert, who owned considerable property in the county, served in the time of Henry III. in the expedition into Wales. When the discontented barons 54 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. under Montfort took up arms against the king, he joined their ranks and was present at the battle of Evesham, which ended so fortunately for the royal cause. His grandson, Adam de Everingham, likewise followed the profession of arms and fought in the wars with Scotland, temp. Edward I. For his services he was created by that monarch a Knight of the Bath. When the second Edward succeeded to the throne Sir Adam was summoned to Parliament as a baron. In 1316 he was certified, pursuant to writs tested at Clipstone, 5th March, as lord or joint lord of various places in Notts and Yorks, including Laxton, Laneham, Shelford, Newton, Radcliffe, Lambecote (Lambley), Colwick, Carlton, Gedling, Stoke, and other villages. 1 He continued to render active military services, but faltered in his allegiance to the throne. Joining the Earl of Lancaster, he was captured at the battle of Boroughbridge, and only saved his life by paying a fine of four hundred marks. On his demise, in 1341, he was succeeded by his eldest son Adam, who, like his predecessors, held the manor of Laxton of the Archbishop of York by the service of performing the office of butler in the prelate’s house upon the day of his enthronisation. His lordship was sum¬ moned to Parliament as “ Adse de Everingham de Laxton,” on the 8th January 1371. Like his ancestors a valiant soldier, he served the king in the wars with France and “shared in the glory of Cressy.” 2 A curious account of a disease from which he suffered, and of its cure by John Arderne, a Newark surgeon of high repute, is preserved. 3 It is as follows:— “Johan Arderne fro the first pestelence that was in the yere of our Lord 1349, duelled in Newerke, in Notinghamschire, unto the yere of our Lord 1370, and ther I heled many men of fistula inano; of which the first was Sir Adam Everyngham of Laxton in the Clay byside Tukkesford, whiche Sir Adam forsothe was in Gascone with Sir Henry, that tyme named herle of Derby, and after was made Duke of Lancastre, a noble and worthy lord. The forsaid Sir Adam forsoth soufferend fistulam inano, made for to aske counsell at alle the lechez and corurgienz that he myght fynd in Gascone, at Burdeux, at Briggerac, Tolows, and Neyybon, and Peyters, and many other placez, and alle forsoke hym for uncurable ; whiche y-se and y-herde, the forsaid Adam hastied for to torne home to his contree, and when he come home he did of al his knyghtly clothings, and cladde mournyng clothes in purpose of abydyng, dissolvyng, or lesyng of his body beyng nyz to him. At the laste I forsaid Johan Arderne y-sozt, and covenant y-made, come to hyme and did my cure to hym, and, our Lorde beyng mene, I heled hym 1 Pari. Writs , iv. 824. 2 Burke’s Extinct Peerage, p. 191. 3 Sloane MSS. 563, f. 124. WILLIAM DE GUNTHORP—HENRY DE NOTTINGHAM. 55 perfitely within halfe a yere, and afterward hole and sound, he ledde a glad life 20 yere and more. For which cure I gate myche honour and lovyng thurz alle Ynglond; and the forsaid Duke of Lancastre and many other gentilez wondred thereof. Afte[r]warcl I cured Hugon Derlyng of Fowich of Balne by Snaythe. Afterward I cured Johan Schefeld of Rightwelle, aside Tekille.” His lordship died in 1371, and was succeeded by his grandson Robert, who died in minority, leaving his two sisters his heirs, and the Barony of Everingham fell into abeyance. WILLIAM DE GUNTHORP, a cleric, was in favour with Edward III. and held important offices. On March 20, 1368, he became treasurer of Calais, which appointment he held until October 26, 1373, when he was made a baron of the exchequer. The last mention of him in that capacity is in 1386. 1 In 1395 William de Gunthorp, prebendary of Southwell, and undoubtedly the same personage, prevailed with the chapter to give four marks towards the maintenance of a chaplain to celebrate the mass of our lady every day by note in the chapel of St. Mary, on the north side of the Church, to pray for the souls of King Edward and others. Towards the expense, and also to pay the chaplain of the chantry of St. John 13s. 4d. yearly, to pray daily for the soul of Sir Henry de Nottingham, he gave pro¬ perty at Carlton and Sutton on Trent.' 2 He is also recorded as granting lands to a chantry at the Church of St. Wolstan, Grantham. 3 HENRY DE NOTTINGHAM.—In the reign of Richard the Second there was an itinerant judge named Henry de Nottingham, who was like¬ wise, 5th and 6th Henry the Fourth, one of the council of the Duchy of Lancaster. Bloomfield took the following epitaph (circa) a.d. 1404, from Holm Church in Norfolk— “ Henry Nottingham and hys wyffe lyne here Yat maden this churche, stepull, and quere, Two vestmentz and bellez they made also, Crist hem save therefore fro wo ! And to bringe their sowles to bles of heven Saith pater and ave with mylde Steven Gough says, “ In Holm Church, near the sea, are nailed to a board and hung up against the wall, the brass figures of Henry de Nottingham and his wife. He is represented with the wrinkles of age, his hair thin and 1 Foss’s Judges , iii. 436; Rot. Part., iii. p. 204. 2 Thoroton, p. 316. 3 Cal. Inquis., p. m. iii. 162, 187. WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. 56 falling loose over the top of his ears, in a loose gown with a standing cape buttoned under his chin, and a collar below it; mittens on his hands ; a rich studded belt buckled round his waist, a large anelace at his right side. His wife had a singular head-dress in two rows, falling on her shoulders, and fastened under her chin by a wimple or cape, her hair just appearing on the forehead. Her gown buttoned in front on the waist, and buckled round by a broad studded belt; long sleeves, edged with fur, and mittens buttoned under them. 1 SIR THOMAS REMPSTON, K.G., 2 was descended from an ancient Nottinghamshire family, which had been seated for many generations in the village whose name it bore. 3 Sir Thomas improved the fortunes of his family to a very great extent; indeed, the possessions acquired by him were so large that he might almost be described as the founder of his family. He obtained possession of lands in Kinoulton, Cotgrave, Owthorp, and Newton, and of the manors of Clipston on the Hill and Bingham, 4 the latter of which he appears to have made his seat. Sir Thomas represented his native county in Parliament in the years 1381, 1382, 1393, 1395, 1397, and 1398. His connection with the political life of the country drew him into the dissensions of the latter days of Richard the Second’s reign. He warmly espoused the party of the exiled Henry, Earl of Hereford, and fled to him in France. Sir Thomas was one of the devoted band of chiefs who embarked in Brittany with Henry in 1399, and landed at Ravenspur with him. 5 This bold venture of Sir Thomas Rempston’s has embalmed his name in the splendid verse of our greatest poet, who puts the following lines into the mouth of Northumber¬ land :— “- 1 have from Port le Blanc, a bay In Brittany, receiv’d intelligence, That Henry Duke of Hereford, Rainold Lord Cobham, That late broke from the Duke of Exeter, His brother, Archbishop late of Canterbury, Sir Thomas Erpingham, Sir John Ramston, Sir John Norbury, Sir Robert Waterton, Francis Quoint, All these well furnished by the Duke of Bretagne, 1 Sepulchral Monuments, vol. i. p. 215. 2 Communicated by Mr. W. H. Stevenson. 3 A pedigree of the family may be seen in Thoroton’s Notts, p. 30. 4 Thoroton, p. 236, 83. 6 Monk of Evesham, ed. Hearne, p. 151 ; Holinshed, ii. 852 ; Rotuli Parliamentarian, iii. 553a ; Nichols’ History of the Orders of Knighthood, i. 48. SIR THOMAS REMPSTON, K.G. 57 With eight tall ships, three thousand men of war, Are making hither with all due expedience.” 1 Sir Thomas was present in London with Henry during the proceed¬ ings which ended in the deposition of King Richard and the accession of Henry to the throne. One of Henry’s first measures of precaution on his arrival in London was to displace one of Richard’s favourites, the Earl of Albemarle (Shakespeare’s Aumerle) from the custody of the Tower of London, and Richard was obliged to nominate Sir Thomas Rempston his successor in the post. 2 Sir Thomas retained the command of-the Tower until his death ; Henry, on his accession, confirming him in that office. 3 King Henry in 1400 appointed Sir Thomas Admiral of the fleet of the parts towards the East, 4 and in the same year he was made a Knight of the Garter upon the death of Lord Bourchier, K.G. 5 In the following year he received a further naval appointment, being constituted Admiral of the fleet towards the South and West. 6 Sir Thomas received a commission as con¬ servator of the truce with France, dated July 22, 1401, 7 which was renewed on November 1, 1401, 8 and again on July 1, 1402, 9 and on April 28, 1403, 10 and he concluded a peace with that power on July 27, 1403. 11 He was appointed in 1401 a commissioner to settle the ransom of King John of France, 12 which had remained unsettled since his capture at Poitiers. During one of his missions to France, Sir Thomas had concluded a treaty between King Henry and the Duke of Orleans, to which Henry refers in his phlegmatic answer to the challenge of that vapouring prince. 13 Sir Thomas Rempston was summoned from the county of Nottingham to the great council held by the king in 1401, 14 and w T as elected a member of the privy council in 1404-5. 15 In this year the Commons recommended to the king the services of Sir Thomas Rempston, his old comrade Sir Thomas Erpingham, and the other “ valiant knights and esquires who had put themselves in adventure with our said Lord the King at his coming into 1 King Richard II., Act II. Scene 1, 278, sqq. Shakespeare has altered Rempston’s Christian name to “John,” probably to suit his metre. Holinshed, Shakespeare’s authority, calls him “Sir Thomas Ramston,” vol. ii. 852. 2 Calendarium Rotuloruin Patentium, p. 238b ; Rymer’s Fader a, viii. 457 ; Cronicque de la Traison ct Mort de Richard Deux, Roy Dengleterre , p. 289. 3 Thoroton, p. 31a. 4 Calend. Rot. Pat., p. 244a. Thoroton, quoting same authority, says he was made Admiral towards the western parts, p. 31a. 5 Beltz, Memorials of the Order of the Garter, p. clvi. 6 Rot. Pari., iii. 512a. 7 Foedera, viii. 213. 8 Ibid. viii. 229. 9 Ibid. viii. 267. 10 Ibid. viii. 301-2. 11 Ibid. viii. 305, 315, 330. 12 Ibid. viii. 23c. 13 Wavrin, Cronicques, ed. Hardy, vol. ii. 70; Monstrelet, liv. 1 chap. 9. Cf. Rymer’s Foedera, viii. 310. 14 Ordinances of the Privy Council, i. 159. 15 Ibid. i. 238, 244. I 5 § WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. England.” 1 In this year he went on a mission to the Duke of Burgundy, to treat of peace. 2 London was visited in the seventh year of Henry’s reign (1405-6), by that dreadful adjunct of the “good old times”—the plague. The king fled before this fell visitant, and Sir Thomas Rempston accompanied him into Kent. The king determined to cross over into Essex, and accordingly took ship for Oueenborough. During this voyage he narrowly escaped being captured by French pirates, but Sir Thomas was not so lucky. In the quaint language in Halle “ the Frenchemen . . . entered amongest the kynges navie and toke foure vesselles nexte to the kynges shippe, and in one of them Sir Thomas Rampston, Knight, the king’s vice-chamberlain, with all his chamber stuffe and apparel, and folowed the kyng so nere that if his shippe had not bene swift he had landed sooner in France then in Essex.” 3 On Sunday, October 31, 1406, Sir Thomas Rempston, intending to pro¬ ceed by water to the Tower, entered, with his staff, a boat at Paul’s Wharf. The boatmen told Sir Thomas that the tide was running so strongly against them that they dared not row under London Bridge. The Constable would hear of no excuse, and commanded the boatmen to proceed on pain of losing their heads. Under the influence of this threat the boatmen attempted to shoot the bridge, but the current was so strong that the boat ran against one of the piles of the bridge. Sir Thomas in endeavouring to lay hold of the pile upset the boat, and he was thrown into the water and drowned. 4 An inquest was held upon his body by the city coroner, when a verdict was returned that the deceased had come to his death through his <3 own recklessness. 5 Sir Thomas’s body was brought down into Nottingham¬ shire and buried in the chancel of Bingham Church. His wife, who survived until 1454, 6 was buried in his tomb, in accordance with her will. 7 SIR JOHN MARKHAM, a member of the ancient Nottinghamshire family before alluded to, and hereafter to be frequently mentioned, became 1 Rot. Pari., iii. 553a. 2 Hingeston’s Letters of Henry IV, p. 215. 3 Halle’s Chro)iicle, p. 36; Holinshed, iii. 43. There is a bare possibility that this might have been the renowned son of the subject of this paper. A life of him will be found a few pages in advance. 4 English Chronicle, ed. Davies, p. 34 ; Fabyan’s Chronicle, p. 572 ; Rot. Pari., iv. 319b ; Leland’s Collectanea, ii. 485. 5 Canon Raine’s note at p. 224 of the second volume of his Testamenta Eboracensia. We are deeply indebted to this notice in the compilation of this sketch. 0 Inquisitionespost Mortem, 32 Henry VI., No. 7 (vol. iv. p. 257). 7 Testamenta Eboracensia, ii. 224. SIR JOHN MARKHAM. 59 Judge of the Common Pleas in 1396. His father and grandfather were both lawyers, and each in turn filled the office of King’s Serjeant. Sir John, whose mother, Isabel, was daughter and heiress of Sir John de Caunton, was an only son. 1 He received his early education at Gray’s Inn, and became a King’s Serjeant in 1390 (14 Richard II.) He was made Judge of the Common Pleas, July 7, 1396, and from that time fines were levied before him until February 1408 2 (9 Henry IV.) When Richard the Second was superseded Sir John drew up the instrument necessary for his deposi¬ tion, 3 and was one of the commission appointed to receive the crown which Richard had to resign in favour of his rival. 4 Chief-Justice Thirning made the unwelcome announcement to Richard in a short speech, to which Markham did not add any words of his own. Sir John is stated to have been not a Justice merely but Chief-Justice, and it has been claimed for him that he was the courageous judge who committed Prince Henry to prison. 5 Amongst the memoranda written by Francis Markham, an accomplished scholar, and a contemporary of Shakespeare, whose play he must have wit¬ nessed, is the following entry—“ In H. the IV.’s time Sir John Markham was Chief-Justice of Common Pleas, when a servant of y e Prince of Wales for coyning of money was in Newgate to be judged before him ; y e Prince sendeing to have him released, y e judge refused ; y e Prince with an unrulie route came and required it, ye judge refused; y e Prince struck y e judge on the face, the judge committed y e Prince to y e Fleet; y e King being told it thanked God he had so good a judge, and so obedient a sonne to yield y e law.” 6 The general opinion, however, is that the courageous judge was Gascoigne, to whom not only Shakespeare but Sir John Whidden, puisne judge in the time of Oueen Elizabeth, Sir Robert Catlyne his compeer, and most subsequent authorities, assign the honour. Lord Campbell, while admitting that Markham was Chief-Justice of the Common Pleas, points out that felonies were invariably tried before the King’s Bench, where Chief-Justice Gascoigne presided. 7 Foss, however, whose work is a monu¬ ment of painstaking research, says the claim in Markham’s favour “ is suffi¬ ciently refuted by the fact that he sat in the Common Pleas, and that he never was Chief-Justice of either Court.” 8 Sir John was twice married, his first wife being Elizabeth, sister and 1 Visitation of Notts (Harl. Society), 23. 2 Foss’s Judges, iv. 172 ; Dugdale’s Orig. , p. 46. 3 History of the Markham Family, p. 7. 4 Capgrave’s Chronicle of England, p. 277. 6 Tyler’s Henry V., i. 370. 6 Quoted in History of the Markham Family, p. 10. 7 Campbell’s Lives of the Chief-Justices. 8 Foss’s Judges, iv. 172. 6 o WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. co-heir of Sir Hugh Cressy ; and his second Milicent, daughter and co-heir of Sir John Bekering, and widow of Sir Nicholas Burdon. His death occurred in 1409, and he was buried in East Markham church. On his monument, on the north side of the chancel, the inscription was as follows : —Orate pro anima Johannis Markham, Justiciarii, qui obiit in festo Sti. Silvestri, anno. Dom. 1409. The Rev. D. F. Markham writes—“ I visited the church of East Markham in 1831, when I was told by the sexton that a very short time before the monument had been moved from the centre to the north side of the chancel where it then was. A stone coffin was found under it, on a level with the pavement, containing human bones, the last mortal remains of the judge. On the upper surface of the lid of the coffin, which I saw, was engraved a recumbent figure shrouded in grave-clothes ; at each upper corner of which was a lion’s head. The coffin was reburied in the churchyard on the south side of the church. The name of Judge Markham was still regarded with veneration by the inhabitants of the place.” THOMAS OF ELMHAM, Prior of Lenton, wrote a history of St. Augustine, and a prose history of Henry V., which T. Hearne published in 1727, and which has since been included in one of the volumes of the Chronicles and Memorials of England during the Middle Ages, issued by the authority of the Treasury. 1 Elmham was probably a native of the place so called, and therefore a Norfolk man. He resigned his post at Lenton in 1416, and was succeeded by John Elmham. The history of Henry V. is written in a verbose and inflated style, but Mr. Cole, who edited it with so much care, describes it as of “ considerable historical value.” 2 JOHN STANHOPE.—“ The family of Stanhope,” says Burke, “was of great antiquity in the county of Nottingham.” In the reign of Edward III. John Stanhope of Rampton served the office of escheator for Notts and Derby, a public situation little inferior in dignity or importance to that of sheriff. To the same family belonged another John Stanhope, who on the 14th May, 33 Henry 6th, paid relief for lands in Rampton, Tuxford, and Egmanton. This gentleman filled the office of sheriff at a time when great difficulty was experienced in obtaining persons to undertake the duties. The counties were in a disturbed state, and the expenses of the sheriff were heavy. In 1455 tumultuous assemblies existed in Derbyshire, 1 Memorials of Henry V, pp. 79-165. 2 Ibid. Preface, xlii. JOHN STANHOPE. 61 the leaders of which were Sir John Gresley, Nicholas Gresley, and Roger Vernon, all of whom were ordered to appear before the Court to answer for their conduct. About midsummer of the same year James II. of Scotland attacked Berwick. Forces were speedily hurried up from the Midlands, the counties of Nottingham and Lincoln contributing a powerful quota. Stanhope gathered together 300 men in accordance with the king’s mandate, and marched towards Berwick. On reaching Doncaster, however, he heard that the Scots, finding the garrison prepared, had abandoned the attempt. A petition which Stanhope presented some months after his return, viz. in December 1455, is worth quoting as illustrating the disturbed state of the counties at this period, the onerous duties and expenses of sheriffs, and the ill-requited public services which the petitioner rendered :— It is directed “to the Kyng, our soverayne lorde, and to his discrete Lordes of his Counsell,” and runs thus : “ Shewez unto youre highnesse, your humble servante, John Stanhope, squyer, late sheriff of the countes of Nottingham and Derby, howe that divers personez the whiche have been sheriffez before him have ben charget in youre exchequier with grete and notable somez of certayn revenewez and profitez commyng of and in the saide countez ; the whiche of mony yerez agoon were not levable ne paieable, the which was to the grete hurt and undoyng to such persones as have occupiet before youre saide servaunt, hade not youre gode grace ben showet to them by youre gracious letters of pardone, that is to wite, to Thomas Staunton iiij xx - li., Nicoff Fitzherberd iiij xx - ti., and Robert Strelley iiij xx - ti., and to suche personnes that have accomptet sithen, to eche persone iiij xx . ti. Please it youre highnesse by the avise of youre Counsaill to considre the premissez, and over that to considre that youre saide servaunt in the saide office has had grete charge and expenses as in gaderyng and taking with hym grete people opon his own costez to come to youre sessions of Oyer and Terminer holden at Chestrefelde and at Derby in supporting of youre justices and youre officers there, and divers tymez commying with muche people to holde youre shires to resist suche people as was not wele disposed, and in riding with much people on his owne costez in executing of his office because the people is wilde, also in assembling c.c.c. personez by virtue of letters of privee seal to him directe for the recoverez of your towne of Berwik, the wheche c.c.c. personez youre said servaunte broght to the towne of Doncastre to him right grete costez and chargez where youre said servant had word of withdraght of youre adversariez fro youre towne of Berwik, of youre ... by the advise of your Counsaill to pardone, relesse, 62 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. and quitclame unto ye said John Stanhope cti. of the sumez of money, fermez, issuez, or dettez whereof he is or shall be chargiet agayne you in his accompt at exchequier, and theropon to adresse you gracious letters of prive seal unto youre Tresorer and Barons of youre saide exchequier, commandyng thaym to discharge youre saide suppliaunt of the seide cti., and him and his heyrez and executours make quiete and discharget agenst you and your heyrez for evermore, most gracious soverayne lorde, for the love of God and by way charitie.” In response to this appeal the King“de avisamento Consilii sui mandavit custodi privati sigilli fieri facere litteras Thes. et Baronibus scaccarii sui de exonerando infra scriptum supplicantem sume iiij**- ti. in compoto suo coram vice comratione officii sui reddendo secundum tenorem infra specificatum.” 1 SIR WILLIAM BABINGTON, who presided for thirteen years as Chief-Justice of the Common Pleas (temp. Henry VI.), and whose body was interred at Lenton Priory, was a Nottinghamshire man by birth and association, though the family to which he belonged is said to have derived its name from a place called Babington in Northumberland, where they had resided from the time of the Conquest. Sir William Babington’s father was Sir John Babington of East Bridgford, and his mother was Bene- dicta, daughter and heiress of Simon Ward of Cambridgeshire. Thoro- ton says, 2 “ I find a John Babington resident at Briggeford in the time of Richard II. and Henry IV.,” 3 so that the village was evidently the residence of the Babingtons for a considerable period. Sir John, whose name frequently occurs in connection with Nottinghamshire property, appears to have had five sons; the oldest was the ancestor of Anthony Babington of Dethick (Derby), and Kingston (Notts), who was convicted for high treason in the time of Oueen Elizabeth, and of whom we shall have something to say in due course. William, the subject of the present notice, was the second son. 4 He married Margery, daughter and heir of Sir Peter Martel of Chilwell, acquiring thereby considerable property in Chilwell, Ruddington, and elsewhere. In an old house, in a chamber window, in Thoroton’s time, was to be seen a coat of arms—Babington, impales with arg., three hammers or pick-axes, gules, Martell. Devoting his time to the 1 Proceedings and Ordinances of the Pt ivy Council, vi. 272-3. 2 Thoroton, p. 151. 3 “ Upon an alabaster tomb in the north wall at East Bridgford church was Hie Jacet Johannes Babington . . . obiit 1409.”— Collectanea Topographica , viii. 317. 4 Called in some pedigrees the oldest son. E.T.RL HOWE. kind permission of Messrs, Georoe Bile & Sons, from the engraving in SIR WILLIAM BABINGTON—SIR THOMAS REMPSTON. 63 study of the law, Sir William raised himself to a high position. He was made King’s attorney, Jan. 16, 1414, and a year and a half later he was called upon to become a sergeant-at-law, a dignity at that time considered of a still higher nature. Sir William, and others who were summoned at the same time, neglected to assume the functions of sergeants, and there not being suffi¬ cient to carry on the business of the courts, a complaint was made to Par¬ liament (November 1417). An order was forthwith issued, subjecting them to severe penalties if they persisted in their neglect; but, upon their pro¬ mise of obedience, they had a respite till the following Trinity term. 1 On November 4, 1419, Sir William, who had been active in the discharge of the duties of his profession, was appointed Chief Baron of the Exchequer, and whilst holding this office was made, June 30, 1420, a Justice of the Common Pleas. He held both appointments until May 5, 1423, when Henry VI. made him Chief-Justice of the Common Pleas. In 1445 he and others obtained license from the king to found a chantry at the altar of St. Catherine in the church of St. Peter at Thurgarton, and there was a rich chantry called Babington’s chantry in the chapel of St. Andrew in Flawforth church, of which his son William was the founder soon after his father’s death. 2 Sir William retired from the bench in 1436, and for a time enjoyed the quietude he had so well earned. In 1455, however, he was summoned to attend a meeting of the Privy Council for May 21, and on May 14 his name is included with those of four other persons in a commis¬ sion for raising money in Notts for the siege of Calais. These were probably the last of his public services. In private life he was much esteemed, for he was a man of godly life and conversation. He died in 1455 at the ripe old age of ninety-nine years, and was buried at Lenton Priory. 3 SIR THOMAS REMPSTON 4 of Bingham, son of Sir Thomas Rempston, K.G., whom we have noticed a few pages back, became, like his father, a very eminent man. By his marriage with the heiress of the Bekerings of Tuxford he succeeded to the possessions of that ancient family. 5 Like his father, his first public service was that of representing his native county in Parliament, sitting as a knight of the shire for Notts, in the Parliament held at Westminster, May 14, 1413. In the year 1415 he was drawn into the vortex of the war in France, 1 Foss’s Judges , iv. 283 ; Rot. Pari ., iv. 107. 2 Thoroton, p. 66. 3 Foss’s Judges, iv. 283. 4 Communicated by Mr. W. H. Stevenson. 6 Thoroton, p. 31a. 64 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. which was destined to be the scene of his great achievements. He accom¬ panied King Henry V. on his famous expedition to France, with eight men-at-arms, and twenty-four foot soldiers, 1 which, representing his military service, were doubtlessly drafted from his Nottinghamshire estates. With his men, he assisted at the siege and reduction of Harfleur, to which Shake¬ speare has given an undying interest, and was present at the crowning glory of Agincourt. 2 He found time, in the following year to return home and again represent Notts in the Parliament held at Westminster on March 16, 1416. He did not, however, rest long at home, but rejoined his king in France, in time to take part in the ever-memorable siege of Rouen. 3 Com¬ missions were issued to array, or, as we should say nowadays, to inspect his men before that city, under various dates from August 9 to December 7, 1418. 4 Upon the fall of Rouen he was made captain of Bellencombre (Seine Inferieure), on February 12, 1419. 5 This town was subsequently bestowed upon him by royal gift. 6 In November 22 he was advanced to the command of the important post of Meulan. 7 In 1423, great consternation was created amongst the English and Bur¬ gundians on hearing of the siege of Crevant by the French, as great import¬ ance was attached to the possession of this post. The English Regent, the famous Duke of Bedford, hastily despatched a force under the command of the Earl of Salisbury, and Lord Willoughby, and other prominent English officers, including Sir Thomas Rempston, to raise the siege. The Bur¬ gundians followed the Regent’s example, and the two armies met at Aux- erre, where they held a council of war in the Cathedral, at which Sir Thomas would, no doubt, be present. When they approached the French, every man dismounted and proceeded on foot, with great caution. Most careful orders were issued for the guidance of the army before leaving Auxerre, and the foresight of the commanders was amply rewarded by the victory they obtained. 8 Sir Thomas Rempston held at this time the command of St. James de Beuvron, hereafter the scene of one of his great exploits. He was also third chamberlain to the Regent Bedford, 0 a post which naturally brought 1 Raine, Testamenta Eboracensia , ii. 225. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Norman Rolls, 6 Hen. V., m. i8d., nd., 8d., and 6d. 5 Ibid., 6 Hen. V., pars. II. m. 32 ; Gesta Henrici Quint i, ed. Williams, Append, p. 277. 6 Halle, p. 89 ; Stevenson’s Wars of the English in France , ii. 622. 7 Norman Rolls, 6 Hen. V. m. 6 ; Gesta Hen. Quinti, App., p. 277. 8 Wavrin, Recueil des Cronicques de la Grand Bretaigfie, ed. Hardy, iii. 62-70, 226 ; Stevenson’s Wars of the English in France , ii. 385 ; Halle, p. 117. 9 Wavrin, iii. 226, note; Stevenson’s Wars, ii. 434. SIR THOMAS REMPSTON. 65 him into close intercourse with that great Englishman, whose sagacity quickly discerned the value of Rempston as a commander. Hence he was despatched by the Regent, in 1424, to assist the great Burgundian general, John de Luxembourg, in reducing Oisy in Tierache, an operation which they speedily performed. 1 Rempston had shortly before this acted with a Burgundian force, on the occasion of the capture of the town of Compiegne. 2 The Regent Bedford appointed him, about June, to command the English troops acting with John de Luxembourg for the siege of Guise, and towns in the neighbourhood. 3 After the great victory of the Regent at Varneuil, the garrison of Guise capitulated to Luxembourg and Rempston, 4 where¬ upon Rempston departed to Paris to see the Regent, by whom he was very graciously received. 5 In 1428 the English declared war against the Duke of Brittany, and the Earl of Suffolk, Captain-General of Normandy, and his lieutenant, 0 Sir Thomas Rempston were deputed to invade Brittany. With a band of 1200 chosen men, they entered Brittany, and ravaged the country up to the walls of Rennes, where the Duke lay. They passed the night at Tinteniac, and returned into Normandy on the morrow, laden with spoil and prisoners. 7 Shortly afterwards, Sir Thomas repaired and occupied the town of St. James de Beuvron, which he availed himself of as a base of operation against Brittany, it being situated within half a league of that duchy. 8 From his fastness, Sir Thomas ravaged Brittany right and left, and proceeded with so much energy that the Duke of Brittany collected a great army against him, which he committed to the care of his brother, the Comte de Richmond, newly made Constable of France. Richmond led his army to St. James de Beuvron, which he vigorously besieged, and, after a ten days’ siege, attempted to take by storm. The assault endured for a long time, and was carried on with great resolution. Some of the Bretons made an attack on the wall from the moat, where they were suddenly set upon by the English, who raised the cries, “ Salisbury !” and “Suffolk,” whereupon the Bretons commenced to retreat. The English, sallying from a bastion, followed the fugitives and took fifty prisoners, eighteen standards, and one banner, the Bretons losing, in addition, 700 to 800 in slain and drowned. 9 Upon hearing the news of this repulse, the Constable ordered the retreat 1 Wavrin, iii. 92. 2 Halle, p. 121. 3 Stevenson’s Wars , ii. 29, 30; Wavrin, iii. 96 ; Monstrelet, liv. ii. c. 17. 4 Wavrin, iii. 123, et sgq.j Monstrelet, liv. ii. c. 22. 5 Monstrelet, liv. ii. c. 22. 6 Wavrin, iii. 228. 7 Ibid. iii. 227-8. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. iii. 230 ; Halle, p. 129. The latter author puts the loss of the besiegers at 4000. K 66 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. to be sounded, and retired with his discomfited forces to Fougieres, leav¬ ing behind him his artillery and vast stores. That night, Sir Thomas Rempston, “much rejoiced at his victory,” visited his wounded soldiers. Of the garrison of about 600 men, nearly every man was wounded, so severe was the attack. 1 On the second day after the repulse, Sir Thomas was joined by the Earl of Suffolk, who despatched him to reduce a fortified monastery, after which they proceeded to Dol. 2 On the conclusion of a truce, Sir Thomas returned to St. James de Beuvron. 3 Early in 1429 the Regent, upon receipt of the news of the death of the Earl of Salisbury before Orleans (so graphically described by Shakespeare 4 ), assembled 400 to 500 cart-loads of provisions and stores to despatch to the English at Orleans. Sir John Fastolf was appointed to the command of this convoy, and Sir Thomas Rempston accompanied him. 5 The convoy had reached Rouvray en Beuce, between Jenville and Orleans, when they were attacked by the French on February 12, wdth a large force, variously stated at being from four to one to twenty to one. The English, advised of their approach, made a stockade of their waggons, leaving two openings, which were defended by archers and horsemen. The English waited patiently for two hours the arrival of their enemies, who came on confident of victory, thinking it impossible for the 500 to 600 English to escape them. The famous English archers, covered by the waggons, drove back the cavalry with great loss, and the affair ended in the complete rout of the French, who lost about six hundred gentlemen, besides five hundred other troops, the greater number of whom were Scotchmen. The English loss was very slight, and the fight obtained the name of the “ Battle of Herrings,” because the greater part of the convoy consisted of that fish and other Lenten food. 6 The tide of fortune was now setting steadily against the English in France, owing mainly to the weakness and dissensions of the home govern¬ ment, who failed to keep the gallant generals supplied with men and money. Joan of Arc had appeared in the field, and had just succeeded in raising the siege of Orleans, when, at her instigation, the French laid siege to Beaugency in May 1429. In response to the appeal from the garrison for help, Bedford despatched 5000 men under the command of Fastolf to raise the siege. 7 Sir Thomas accompanied this force, 8 which proceeded to Jenville, and was there awaiting reinforcements when news was received of the 1 Wavrin, iii. 231. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. iii. 232. * Henry the Sixth, pt. 1, Act I. Sc. IV. 5 Halle, p. 146. e Wavrin, iii. 253-260. t Ibid. iii. 284. 8 Ibid. SIR THOMAS REMPSTON. 67 capture of the Earl of Suffolk at Jargean. 1 The English at Jenville were much depressed by the news, and were glad of the arrival there of the grim Lord Talbot, “the great Alcides of the field,” 2 and himself a large land- owner in this county. A council was held at which Fastolf advised them to retire to their fortresses, and await reinforcements. This advice was little relished by any of the assembled captains (amongst whom Rempston would undoubtedly hold a place), and least of all by Talbot, who declared for fighting the French. The army thereupon set out for Beaugency, and found Joan of Arc and 6000 French awaiting them on a hill, but they were allowed to pass unmolested. The English, then proceeded to Mehun, intent upon relieving Beaugency, which had, however, by this time surrend¬ ered to the French, who had informed the garrison that the relieving force had retreated. The English, hearing of the approach of the French army (which amounted to about 14,000 men), assumed a position near Patay, and awaited the arrival of the French, who attacked a small body of troops under Talbot. The vanguard, thinking that the mainguard was flying, took to flight, and threw the whole army into confusion, and the battle ended in the defeat of the English. Lord Talbot was wounded and captured, and Sir Thomas Rempston—who had command of the main body of the army in conjunction with Talbot and Fastolf—and other leaders, were also taken prisoners. 3 Sir Thomas Rempston, it appears, was captured by the notorious Tannegui du Chatel, who figures so prominently in French history of this time. Sir Thomas languished in the French prisons for some years. On May 25, J 433 ) th e Privy Council busied themselves on his behalf, and they obtained the consent of Lord Fanhope to the liberation of an important French hostage he had in his care, 4 who, as we learn from Rempston’s petition to Parliament in 1435, was to be released in lieu of half of Sir Thomas’s ransom. 3 The council took this step “ for theese [i.e. the ease] and deliverance of Sir Thomas Rempston, that longe both abiden, and yit abideth amonges the K[ing’s] enemys in harde prisone in France.” 6 We may assume that this arrangement fell through, for we find Lord Fanhope making the same promise on July 8, 1434. 7 However, the French hostage was not then liberated, probably through the failure of his brother, the 1 Wavrin, iii. 286-8. 2 Shakespeare, Henry VI, pt. 1, Act IV. Sc. vii. v. 60. 3 Wavrin, iii. 284-305 ; Monstrelet, liv. ii. c. lxi; Halle, p. 150. 4 Ordinances of the Privy Council, iv. 164-5. 5 Parliamentarian , iv. 488b, 489a. c Ordinances , iv. 164. 7 Ibid. iv. 278 ; Rymer’s Foedera, x. 595 68 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. Duke of Orleans, to fulfil the conditions of his liberation, and Sir Thomas Rempston in 1435 took the step of petitioning Parliament to assist in the completion of the arrangement. By his petition we learn that the French had fixed his ransom at the enormous sum of 18,000 ectis d’or —sufficient evidence of the importance his captors attached to this general. Sir Thomas had paid 6000 ectis , and engaged to pay a further 3000 ecus at the time of his deliverance, and the brother of the Duke of Orleans was to be received in discharge of the balance of his ransom. 1 This petition was assented to, and we may assume that Sir Thomas was liberated shortly after this date. On November 19, 1437, the Privy Council gave orders for the pawning of sundry royal jewels to raise 1000 marks, for the purpose of fitting out an expedition to France under Sir Thomas Rempston. He was ordered on Nov. 25 to bring in the names of his associates, and it was provided, that if he were “ lette [prevented] by wynde or by water, or in such wyse that it is not in his defaute,” that then he should have such a reward for his com¬ panions “as shal seme good to my lordes discrecion.” 2 Shortly after this, Sir Thomas Rempston was created a Seneschal of Guienne, 3 and in that capacity was doomed to witness the loss of that ancient appanage of the English crown. He was again captured by the French in 1442, after unsuccessfully defending the fortress of St. Sever, in Guienne, with a small garrison against overpowering numbers. 4 The French, how¬ ever, did not wrest the possession of this post from Rempston without suf¬ fering enormous loss, which is stated by the English chroniclers to have amounted to 4000 men. 5 The next few years witnessed the total loss of the English dominions in France, with the exception of Calais, and in the general wreck Sir Thomas was deprived of his towns of Bellencombre and Gassay. 6 His old fastness of St. James de Beuvron also fell into the hands of the French. 7 Sir Thomas did not live to take a part in the disastrous War of the Roses, being in this respect more fortunate than many of his old companions- in-arms, who returned from years of fighting abroad to be butchered by their own countrymen. Sir Thomas appears to have been on the Yorkist side, with whose chief he must have so often acted in France, as we find 1 Rot. Parliamentarian, iv. 488b. 2 Ordinances of the Privy Council , v. 79, 80. 3 Rymer’s Fcedera , x. 850, 851. 4 Bekynton’s Correspondence , ii. 189 ; Monstrelet, liv. ii. c. 266. Halle, p. 196. 6 Stevenson’s Wars, ii. 622-3. 7 Monstrelet, liv. iii. c. 14. SIR RICHARD ILLINGWORTH. 69 him commissioned, on July 24, 1454, together with his son-in-law and suc¬ cessor, Sir Bryan Stapleton, and John Melton, to have the custody of the Duke of Exeter, a very prominent Lancastrian, during his imprisonment at Pontefract Castle, where he was committed during the protectorate of the Duke of York. 1 Sir Thomas died on October 15, 1458, 2 surviving his aged mother by four years only, and his remains were interred in the chancel of Bingham Church, 3 where he had so often worshipped as boy and man. Over his grave was erected “a fair Alabaster Tomb, whereon lay the effigies of him¬ self and his wife,” 4 which Thoroton describes as being “ almost defaced,” in his time. During the two centuries which have elapsed since his work was published, this memorial has utterly disappeared. No one of right feeling can help but regret the vandalism which has deprived us of the “counterfeit presentment” of the greatest warrior Nottinghamshire pro¬ duced for many centuries. SIR RICHARD ILLINGWORTH of Kirkby Woodhouse, who had practised at the bar from 33 Hen. VI., was appointed Chief Baron of the Exchequer, and received the honour of knighthood, Sept. 10, 1462. “He continued chief baron till the restoration of Hen. VI. in 1470 ; but as soon as Edward IV. resumed the crown he was superseded.” 5 He received large grants of land from the last-named monarch. He died at his London house, which was situate in the parish of St. Giles, in 1476. SIR RICHARD BINGHAM, Judge, was a member of an ancient family holding property at Bingham, 6 where some of his ancestors resided as far back as the reign of Henry II. 7 His name appears in the Year Book as an advocate to Easter, 22 Henry VI. (1444). The year before he had been made sergeant-at-law, and he was soon after raised to the judicial bench, his name being included as one of the judges of the King’s Bench, who acted as triers of petitions in the Parliament which met on Feb. 10, 1447. 8 He retained his office without intermission until 1470-71, when he is described as a knight, but he was not included in the new patent made out on the return of Edward IV. Foss thinks he was omitted by his own desire, as he must have been considerably advanced in age. 9 His wife was Margaret, 1 Ordinances of the Privy Council, vi. 218. 2 Thoroton, p. 31a. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid., p. 144b. 8 Foss’s fudges, iv. 431 ; vide Thoroton, p. 265. 6 Foss’s Judges, iv. 419. 7 Thoroton, p. 221. 8 Pot. Pari., i. 129. 9 Foss’s Judges, iv. 419. 7 ° WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. daughter of Sir Baldwin Frevill of Middleton, Warwick, widow of Sir Hugh Willoughby of Wollaton, Notts. 1 He died May 22, 1476, and was buried at Middleton, where there is a monument representing him in his judicial robes. In the Plumpton Correspondence is a letter from the judge to Sir William Plumpton, in which “be the advise of my master, Sir John Markham, chief-justice,” he proposes that a variance between Sir William and Henry Pierpont should be submitted to their arbitration. 2 SIR JOHN MARKHAM of Sedgebrook, another member of the ancient family of Markham, and son of a preceding judge, became Chief- Justice of England, and distinguished himself, not only for his learning, but for his strict integrity of life and conduct. Thoroton and other authorities say that he was a son by the second wife, but Foss cites a case in the Year Book (12 Henry IV., folio 2), a writ of dower brought by the second wife the year after her husband’s death, distinctly stating the defendant John to be son and heir by Elizabeth, the former wife. Markham occupied a seat on the judicial bench at a period in our history when judges were often subjected to unworthy influences, and yet, in the midst doubtless of many temptations, and difficulties, and risks, there is no evidence of his having swerved from the path of strict professional rectitude and rigid impartiality. Choosing the profession of the law, which in his day offered unusual advan¬ tages, being regarded as “ the highway to riches and distinction,” young Markham made rapid progress in his studies. At the bar he became noted for his acumen and industry, and was not long in obtaining a large and profitable practice. His name first appears in the Year Book as an advo¬ cate in 1430 (9 Henry VI.) In Easter 1440 he was elected to the degree of the coif, and after being employed as one of the king’s sergeants, he was, on Feb. 6, 1444, made a puisne judge of the Court of King’s Bench. He held this judicial office for a period of seventeen years, during which time the bitter struggle between the rival houses of York and Lancaster was pro¬ ceeding. Markham, though not coming in any way to the forefront of the controversy, did not hesitate in conversation to argue that the true heir to the crown by hereditary right was Richard, Duke of York. As a conse¬ quence, when the house of York prevailed and rewarded those who had maintained their allegiance to it, Sir John was elevated to the office of Chief- Justice of the King’s Bench (May 13, 1461). His appointment gave great satisfaction to all parties, for though he was what Lord Campbell describes 1 Thoroton, p. 221. 2 Foss’s Judges , iv. 441 ; Plumpton Corr. 3, 259. SIR JOHN MARKHAM. 71 as a strong legitimist, he was recognised as a man actuated by the highest and noblest principles. For nearly eight years he discharged his onerous duties in an exemplary manner. But his rectitude, though it had gained him many admirers, was fatal in those troublous days to his further progress. Sir Thomas Cook (or Coke), a Lancastrian, was accused of high treason and committed to the Tower. Chief-Justice Markham presided at his trial, and the prosecution was conducted on behalf of the Government, who were eager for Cook’s condemnation. Dr. Thomas Fuller in his Worthies says—“The king by private instruction to the judge appeared so far, that Cook, though he was not, must be found guilty; and if the law was too short the judge must stretch it to his purpose.” The worst that could be proved against Cook was that he had offered to lend a thousand marks to the queen of the dethroned monarch (Henry VI.), but the security not being deemed suffi¬ cient the money was not advanced. The Chief-Justice ruled that, though this might be construed as misprision of treason, it did not amount to the more serious offence. In the face of this ruling the most that could be done to the prisoner was to subject him to fine and imprisonment. His enemies had hoped to obtain the sacrifice of his life and lands, and they were much chagrined at their discomfiture. The king is stated to have been in a fury, and to have said that Markham, notwithstanding his loyal professions, was little better than a traitor. Sir John stood for a time in perilous circumstances. He might have lost his head in his love for justice and truth, but Providence ordered otherwise. He was made to suffer in purse and not in person. He was removed from the judicial bench January 3, 1469, to make room for a time-server, who, with the prospect of promotion before him, had no difficulty in persuading his conscience (or rather that which served him for a conscience) that Cook had committed an act of treason. Markham showed in privacy no signs of repenting his conduct, and no disposition to seek a return to an office in which justice was made subservient to the royal will. Quaint old Thomas Fuller informs us that “being ousted of his Chief-Justiceship he lived privately but plenti¬ fully the remainder of his life, having fair lands by his marriage with an heiress, besides the estate he acquired by his practice and his paternal inheritance. He gloried in this, that though the king could make him no judge he could not make him no upright judge." Deprived of his official position, he, according to Camden, retired and built a burial-place at his seat at Sedgebrook ; over it he erected a chamber where he lodged, and spent 72 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. his latter days in great piety and devotion. He died in 1479, 1 was buried, as an old MS. puts it, “ in the quyer of Sedgebrooke, in a fayre tomb of gray marble.” His legal decisions have been referred to with respect in recent times. Thus we find Lord Macaulay in his Essays (vol. i. p. 150) stating “ that no man can be arrested by the king was an established maxim of our jurisprudence in the time of Edward IV. A subject, said Chief-Justice Markham to that prince, may arrest for treason ; the king cannot, for if the arrest be illegal the party has no remedy against the king.” Before we close this too brief notice of a man who did honour alike to his family, to the county wherein he was born, and to the judicial bench of which he was so long an occupant, we must quote such testimonies to his rectitude and probity as are still extant. Fuller relates the following anec¬ dote :—“ A lady would traverse a suit of law against the will of her husband, who was contented to buy his quiet by giving' her her will therein, though otherwise persuaded in his judgment the cause would go against her. This lady, dwelling in the shire town, invited the judge to dinner, and (though thrifty herself) treated him with sumptuous entertainment. Dinner being done, and the cause being called, the judge clearly gave it against her ; and when in passion she vowed never to invite a judge again, ‘ Nay, wife,’ said he, ‘vow never to invite a just judge anymore.’” Fuller adds his own testimony to the good qualities of Fortescue and Markham. He says— “These I may call two Chief-Justices of the chief-justices for their signal integrity ; for though the one of them favoured the House of Lancaster and the other of York in the titles to the Crown, both of them favoured the House of Justice in matters betwixt party and party.” Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, when tried before Lord Chief-Justice Bromley in the reign of Elizabeth, said, “ I would you my Lord Chief-Justice should incline your judgments rather after the example of your honourable predecessors Justice Markham and others, who did eschew corrupt judgments, judging directly and sincerely after the law.” 2 JOHN MORETON. Thoroton, speaking of the parish of Harworth, says, “ The town and hamlets have been of long time the inheritance of Moreton, an ancient and worshipful family.” He then tells us that the Moretons did found an hospital on the uttermost edge of the village of Moreton, Notts, near Bawtry in Yorkshire, to which, in his day, there was Cal. Inquis., p. m. iv. 395. 2 State Trials , i. 894. JOHN MORETON. 73 a chapel standing, wherein the members of the family had been buried. 1 These Moretons bore “ Quarterly gules and Ermine the first and last charged with each a goat’s head erased arg.” 2 From this ancient family came Richard Moreton of Milbourne St. Andrews, in Dorsetshire, whose son, John, rose to exceedingly great eminence in Church and State. Born in Dorsetshire, he may be said to belong more particularly to that county, but, as his ancestors were for centuries settled in Nottinghamshire, and he was thus a direct descendant from one of our county families, and bore their coat-of-arms, we may not inappropriately introduce a brief mention of him. 3 He received his early education at Cerne Abbey, from which place he pro¬ ceeded to Balliol College, Oxford. He divided his attention between theo¬ logy and law, but took his degree in laws, and practised as an advocate in the Court of Arches. The Archbishop of Canterbury, having his attention directed to him, and forming a favourable opinion of his merits, offered him promotion. In 1458 he became a Prebendary, and he passed through a long series of preferments. When Henry VI. was dethroned the rev. gentleman, now archdeacon, did not hesitate to join him in the field of Towton, on Palm Sunday 1461. He escaped from the battle and accompanied Queen Margaret to Flanders. 4 In July 1471, having obtained pardon from Edward,he returned to the country and the following year was made Master of the Rolls. On Edward renew¬ ing his claim to the crown of France, Moreton had gained such influence by his abilities that he was appointed one of the negotiators of the treaty with Louis XI. On the death of Bishop Grey in 1478, Moreton became Bishop of Ely, which office he held during the remainder of the king’s reign. When Edward died, Protector Richard manifested his hostility towards Moreton. A council had been summoned to deliberate on the coronation, and the Protector attending it had courteously requested the bishop to let him have some strawberries from his garden for dinner and had then retired. 5 Shortly after he returned, and in a hurried and violent manner had the bishop committed to the Tower. At the earnest entreaty of the university he was liberated, but only to be committed to the custody of the Duke of Bucking¬ ham in Brecon Castle. An opportunity arising to escape from prison, the bishop stole away, and proceeded to France to join the Earl of Richmond. 1 One of the family, Robert de Moreton of Bawtry, who died in 1396, directed his body to be buried in Worksop Church. Torre , 1269. 2 Thoroton, p. 478. 3 Foss says he was the son of Richard Morton of a very ancient Nottinghamshire family. 4 Foss’s Judges (octavo), 465. 5 Ibid. L 74 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. When the Earl succeeded in gaining the throne, Moreton, who had rendered him great service, and was one of the originators of the plan for uniting the two houses of York and Lancaster by the marriage of the Earl with Eliza¬ beth, daughter of the late King Edward, received the reward of his fealty, earnestness, and sagacity. In i486 he was made not only Archbishop of Canterbury but also Lord Chancellor, and in 1493 he was declared a Cardinal by Pope Alexander VI. under the title of St. Anastasius. The year after he was made Chancellor of the University of Oxford, to which he became a considerable benefactor. Wood, speaking of his coat-of-arms which was cut in the bottom of the pulpit in St. Mary’s Church, Oxford, says the arms were “given or else taken in allusion to the arms of the corporation of shoemakers, of which corporation the father of this archbishop was, ’tis said, a member.” 1 They were, however, of much older date, being identical with those of the Moretons of Morton and Harworth, and thus the ancient arms of the Nottinghamshire family. 2 The Cardinal died on September 1 500, being about ninety years of age, and having exercised a great influence for a long period over affairs of State. He was buried in the Cathedral Church of Canterbury. Wood tells us that “over his stone coffin, a sepul¬ chre which was but just deposited in the ground, was a marble stone laid even with the surface of the pavement, which stone being afterwards crack’d and broken, several parts of his body, wrap’d up in divers cear-cloths, were taken away by certain rude and barbarous people. At length the head being only in a manner remaining in the said stone coffin, t’was beg’d out of a pious mind (purposely to save it) of Dr. Sheldon, Archbishop of Canter¬ bury in 1670, by that truly noble and generous Ralph Sheldon of Beoly in Worcestershire, Esquire, who, esteeming it as a choice relique, provided a leaden box to preserve it with its cear-cloaths about it, and with great devotion kept it to his dying day on 1684. It afterwards came with older reliques to Frances Sheldon, maid of honour to Katherine, consort of Charles II.” The archbishop is described by his biographers as being of a haughty bearing, but wise and eloquent, whilst his successful efforts to terminate the sad Wars of the Roses, and to bring peace to the distracted kingdom, entitled him to the gratitude of all. His nephew Robert Moreton became 1 Athenae Oxoniensis, i. 643. 2 In the extensive catalogue issued by Mr. John Camden Hotten,we find the following publication:— “ Morton family of Morton in Nottingham, a very curious old pedigree of this ancient family, tracing the branches from Thomas Morton, secretary to Edward III., 1327, to John Morton who was living in Derby in 1749, ar >d Hester Morton who was residing in Peckham in 1759, with the arms of Cardinal John Morton and Bishop Robert Morton of Worcester.” RALPH, LORD CROMWELL. 75 Bishop of Worcester; and his brother was ancestor of a baronet, created in 1619, but whose male descendants failed in 1698. RALPH, LORD CROMWELL. 1 —The Nottinghamshire village of Cromwell is somewhat remarkable for having given its name to three great English statesmen who exercised great influence upon the destiny of this country. Two of this trio—Henry the Eighth’s great minister, Thomas Cromwell, and the world-renowned Oliver Cromwell—have im¬ pressed their names so deeply upon the course of events, that it is impos¬ sible to write the history of this country without mentioning their services. The third Cromwell, whose name heads this page, has not been so fortunate in receiving the attention of historians, but the labours of Professor Stubbs have reinstated him in his proper position in English history. Descended from an old Nottinghamshire family which early came into prominence as lords of the village whose name they bore, and which is further noteworthy from the circumstance that ten generations of the house bore the name Ralph, Lord Cromwell was an extensive landowner in this county. His wealth, however, was not confined to possessions in Notts, but extended into many other counties. He was also possessed of the barony of Tattershall, Lincolnshire, which came into his family by marriage. Ralph Cromwell, upon the death of his grandmother on April 10, 1420, found himself the possessor of a vast estate, to which he added the great wealth of the D’Eincourts through his marriage with the heiress of that barony. In fact, Lord Cromwell was one of the wealthiest nobles of his day, and he expended his wealth with a princely hand. We are told by a contemporary that his household at Tattershall Castle (upon the erection of which stately edifice he expended above 4000 marks) consisted of 100 persons, and his suite, when he journeyed to London, commonly numbered 120 horsemen. The same writer tells us that his annual expenditure amounted to about ^5000 a-year 2 —a vast amount at that time. Ralph Cromwell was born about the year 1394, he being twenty-six years of age at the time of the death of his grandmother in 1420. 3 Like most of the nobility of his day, he served in the French wars of Henry V. Here his shrewdness and business capacity were early recognised, he being 1 Communicated by Mr. W. H. Stevenson. 2 William of Worcester's Itinerarium , p. 162. 3 Inquisitiones post Mortem , 7 Hen. V., No. I72. Dugdale, Baronage , ii. 45b, quoting the same authority, erroneously states his age at sixteen. An inspection of the original record proves that Dugdale has made a mistake in copying the figures. Blore, Hist, of South Winfield ,, p. 36, also says he was twenty-six at this time. 76 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. made lieutenant to the Duke of Clarence, the king’s brother, in 1418, and was in garrison at Pontoise with his chief in that year. 1 So great was the sagacity of this young noble, that he acted as deputy for Clarence in a plea, the decision of which appertained to him as Constable of the Army ;' 2 and he was appointed, in March of the same year, a commissioner to treat for the surrender of the castles of Courtonne, Chambrois, and La Riviere de Thibouville. 3 About April 1420 he received an appointment from Henry V. which evinces the great reliance that keen judge of character placed upon the capacity of this young man of twenty-six years of age. The post was no less than that of Governor of the King and Queen of France, 4 and Cromwell held this office until the death of his charges in 1422. 5 Crom¬ well was appointed to the chief command at Harfleur on April 8, 1422, 6 and was further made Captain of Bec-Hellouin on April 14 of the same year. 7 King Henry was stricken down, in the zenith of his glory, on August 31, 1422, and Lord Cromwell acted as one of the chief mourners at that stately funeral which but poorly represented the grief of the nation at the loss of the king. 8 In this capacity Cromwell attended the dead king from Paris to London, and he was present in that city at the arrangements made for ruling the kingdom during the minority of Henry VI. At the Parlia¬ ment which met in November 1422 Cromwell was made a trier of petitions in Parliament 9 —a very high post, which he occupied in many of the sub¬ sequent Parliaments. At this Parliament the king’s uncle, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester—who was very undeservingly known to the people as the “ good Duke of Gloucester ”—claimed the regency in the absence of the Duke of Bedford, his elder brother. The Lords refused to grant him the unlimited power he was striving for, but they appointed him Protector of the Church and Realm of England, and also elected a permanent council to assist and control him. They elected Lord Cromwell, then only twenty- eight years of age, one ol the seventeen members of this Council. 10 This is another proof of the general confidence in the wisdom of this young statesman. 1 Gesta Henrici Quinti, ed. Williams, p. 278. He was still there in March 1420. Norman Rolls , 7 Hen. V. p. 2, m. i4d. 2 Rymer’s Fcedera, ix. 551. 2 i x . 549, 552, 554. 4 Hardyng’s Chronicle, p. 382. 5 Ibid. p. 392. 0 Norman Rolls, 9 Hen. V., m. 41. 7 Ibid. 8 Halle’s Chronicle, p. 114. 9 Rotidi Parliamentorum, iv. 170a. 10 Ordinances of the Privy Council, iii. 16 ; Rotuli Parliamentorum, iv. 175b, 201a ; Halle, p. 135. See also Stubbs, Constitutional History, iii. 97, 98. RALPH, LORD CROMWELL. 77 Gloucester soon became embroiled in disputes with the Council, and his quarrel with Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester (so magnificently described by Shakespeare), became so violent that Bedford, the Regent of France, had to cross over to England to attempt to assuage it. The result of his visit was that he and the Council despatched Archbishop Chichely, the Earl of Stafford, Lords Talbot and Cromwell, and Sir John Cornwall, to mediate between them. 1 Their efforts were not attended with much success, as might have been expected from their having to deal with such a purely selfish, weak, and vain man as the Duke of Gloucester. On July 6, 1423, Cromwell was commissioned to treat about the libera¬ tion of James, king of Scotland, 2 and concluded a treaty to that effect on December 4. 3 He was appointed a conservator of the truce with Scotland on July 14, 1425. 4 In this year, also, he was appointed with others, by the Council, to arbitrate between the Earl Marshall and the chivalrous Earl of Warwick. 5 The old quarrel between Gloucester and Beaufort assumed such proportions this year that the patient Duke of Bedford had to quit France at a critical period, and come to England to again attempt to heal the breach between these two magnates. Through Bedford’s influence Cromwell was appointed one of the arbitrators between them, and in that capacity assisted in drawing up the quaintly-worded award, which is still preserved. 0 On November 8, 1430, he was one of the com¬ missioners who concluded a treaty with the king of Castile. 7 It was decided in 1431 to crown the young Henry as king of France, to counterbalance the coronation of Charles at Rheims. Lord Cromwell acted as chamberlain at the gorgeous ceremony of Henry’s coronation, which took place in the church of Notre Dame, Paris, in November 1431. 8 Hardyng, in recording this, bears incidental testimony to the reputation Cromwell enjoyed for wisdom :— “ The Lord Cromwel was his chamberlayn, Who was so wise, he was of great record,” 9 —that is, he was held in high esteem on account of his wisdom. He went over to France long before the ceremony took place, accompanying Beaufort and the Bishop of Norwich, on May 2. 10 On March 16 he prayed 1 Ordinances, iii. 181-7 > Stubbs, Const. History , iii. 102. 2 Fccdera, x. 294-6a, 301-2 ; Rot. Parliament., iv. 211b; Rot. Scotiae, ii. 238b. 3 Rot. Scotiae , ii. 240a, 241b. 4 Ibid. ii. 253a; Fccdera, x. 347. 6 Rot. Parliament., iv. 262. , c Ordinances , iii. 189 ; Rot. Parliament ., iv. 297-8. 7 Fccdera, x. 473 ; Ordinances, iv. 69. s Hardyng, p. 395. 9 Ibid. cf. Stubbs, Const. Hist., iii. 114, n. 1. 10 Gregory’s Citron., p. 172. 78 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. the Council to respite all suits against him, as he was then ordered to go beyond sea for the king. 1 The restless, ambitious Duke of Gloucester obtained the influence over the king he had so long coveted in 1432. One of the first uses he made of his power was to dismiss, on March 1, Cromwell from the post of chamber- lain. 2 Cromwell was not the man to submit to an ignominious dismissal such as this; and, accordingly, when Parliament met, on June 16, he appeared before the Lords and laid his case before them. He stated that he had been lately removed from his post of king’s chamberlain without being called or heard, or in any wise warned of his approaching dismissal; but altogether unknown to him. This, he conceived, was entirely opposed to the effect of the articles concluded by the Lords of the Council for the good ruling of the country. He asserted that no crime or offence was alleged against him, but he was removed without any reasonable cause, in a manner theretofore unused and unheard of. He then referred to his services to the king, and quoted the testimonials of his conduct sent by the illustrious Bedford. In conclusion, he desired Gloucester to declare if he had been deprived of his office for any crime or fault. Gloucester could only answer that he was not removed for any crime or defect, but that it had pleased him and the Council to dismiss him. Hereupon Cromwell instantly demanded to have this answer enrolled in the records of Parliament; and this was accordingly done. 3 It must be borne in mind that Cromwell was himself a member of the Council. His dismissal was probably managed by Gloucester at a meeting at which Cromwell was not present. Cromwell’s abrupt dismissal at any rate created feelings of anger amongst some of the nobility, who probably regarded it as a proof of Gloucester’s desire to over¬ ride the Council. Gloucester anticipated that the opposition of the Lords might assume a dangerous form, and the Council accordingly issued a mandate on May 7, directing the Duke of Norfolk, the Earls of Suffolk, Huntingdon, Stafford, Northumberland, and Salisbury, and Lord Cromwell, to attend the ensuing Parliament with no more than their usual number of followers. 4 Gloucester, when he had obtained supreme power, began to intrigue against his noble brother John, Duke of Bedford, than whom there are few greater statesmen in our history. Bedford was again forced to leave France to attend to the affairs of this country. He returned home to 1 Ordinances , iv. p. So. 2 Fcedera , x. 502; Ordinances , iv. no; Stubbs, Const. Hist. iii. 114. 3 Rot. Parliament ., iv. 392. 4 Ordinances , iv. 112, and pref. p. xliii. RALPH, LORD CROMWELL. 79 defend himself against the false accusations made against him, and whilst here he used his great influence in attempting to put the administration on a better footing. The national finances were in a most alarming condition, and mismanagement of the accounts had rendered the “ confusion worse confounded.” Professor Stubbs says “the effect of Bedford’s visit on the administration was already apparent; Lord Cromwell, before the proroga¬ tion, was appointed treasurer of the kingdom,” 1 on August n, 1433. 2 Nothing could well show Bedford’s grasp of the fitness of men than his selection of Cromwell to take the national finances in hand. The new treasurer went to work with an energy and sagacity that was unknown in his department. In the interval between his appointment and the assembling of Parliament, he prepared an elaborate statement of the national accounts—a statement which might, with a great deal of justice, be termed the first English Budget. Certainly no statement preserved to us before this date can compare with the one which Cromwell laid before the Parliament on October 18, 1433, for grasp of the subject and comprehen¬ siveness of treatment. If his statement is the nearest approach to a modern budget, certainly he has as great claims to be called the first great English Financier, in order of time. Cromwell’s statement of the national finances exhibits to us very strongly the difficulties with which he would have to contend. The expenditure exceeded the receipts by ,£35,000 a-year—an enormous sum at that time,— and the amount of the Government debts could hardly be approximated. 3 Cromwell commenced with some very energetic steps. He summoned all the collectors of subsidies and customs at the various ports to appear personally before him, and commanded them to bring with them all the books, rolls, tallies, receipts, etc., which might be necessary in auditing their accounts, and he authorised them in the meantime to suspend all payments. 4 On December 16, the Council decided to pay him 200 marks per annum whilst he held the office of treasurer. 5 Cromwell’s great friend and patron, John, Duke of Bedford, and Regent of France, expired on September 14, 1435. He made Cromwell one of the executors of his will ; 6 this being the last evidence he gave of his esteem. He succeeded Bedford in the post of Master of the King’s Mews 1 Const. Hist. iii. 117. 2 Ordinances, iv. 175 ; Feeder a, x. 555. 3 Rot. Parliament., iv. 432-9; Stubbs, Const. Hist., iii. 117, 458. 4 Ordinances, iv. 175-6. 3 Ibid. iv. 187. 6 Stevenson, Wars of the English in France, i. 493 ; Fcedera, x. 704. 8o WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. and Falcons. 1 On November 6, 1436, he was appointed a commissioner to treat with the Hanse Towns and Prussia. 2 A singular commentary upon this treaty is to be found in the remarks Cromwell made on March 4, 1443, when he came before the Council and made a statement which is recorded as follows:—“My Lord Tres[orer] hath declared unto my lordes of the Ivynges counsail hou that the Spruciers \i.e. Prussians] & Hansze beth freer here in Inglande than the Kynges subgittes \i.e. subjects], to the losse of the Kyng yerly of c ml li.” 3 [z.e. ,£100,000]. Lord Cromwell resigned the post of Lord Treasurer in 1443. On July 6 of that year “my Lord Cromewell, Tres[orer] of Engl [and], for divers consideracions, and amongest other thinges for the grete disese of sikenesse that he hathe, and is lykly to have yif \i/~\ that he sholde longer occupie the said office,” prayed the king to relieve him of his appointment. He made three stipulations, which show he had still many enemies. The first was that the king should not give credence to false reports against him ; the second, that he might have respite until Christmas to make up his books ; the third, that all appointments and assignments made in his time should be content. 4 His resignation was accepted, and letters of exoneration were issued to him, which speak in high terms of his elegance of manner, sin¬ cerity, fidelity, industry, circumspection, and general merits. 5 In 1445 he was granted the office of Constable of Nottingham Castle— a command frequently held by the highest nobles in the middle ages. To this was added the post of Steward and Warden of the ancient Forest of Sherwood, and its appurtenant parks and woods, together with the herbage and agistment of the said wood. 5 The mills of Nottingham Castle, the waters of Trent and Leen, and the free fishery in the same, the meadows under Nottingham Castle, and other grants were also included in the patent. 6 Gloucester died in 1447, during the sitting of Parliament, at Bury St. Edmunds. The struggle for power for several years before this had been between the ambitious queen, Margaret of Anjou, her favourite the Earl of Suffolk, and Gloucester. Suffolk was very unpopular, and the death of Gloucester whilst a prisoner, and in a mysterious manner, was ascribed to him and the queen. Beaufort died in 1448, and after his death there was 1 Dugdale, Baronage, ii. 45b. 2 Fcedera, x. 657. 3 Ordinances, v. 233. 4 Ibid. v. 299, 300. 5 Fa'dera, xi. 35. The Council granted him, upon his retirement, 500 marks “for the good and aggreable service that he hath done unto the kyng.”— Ordinances, v. 298. 6 Calendarium Rotulorum Patentium, p. 287. RALPH, LORD CROMWELL. 81 no one to restrain the fierce queen and her minister in the insane courses which brought about the bloody Wars of the Roses. Cromwell, as we might expect from a statesman of his experience, was a consistent opponent of Suffolk’s and the queen’s high-handed proceedings. Naturally Suffolk resented opposition, and their enmity reached the climax in 1449. In that year, shortly before Christmas, about four in the afternoon, whilst the Duke of Suffolk (he had advanced himself to this dignity—rising as his country sunk), Lord Cromwell, and many other Lords were in the Star Chamber, within the Palace of Westminster, in council, William Tailbois, an adherent of Suffolk’s, with divers of his servants secretly armed, collected in great numbers about the door of Westminster Hall and the Star Chamber. Lord Cromwell, who had no doubt some grounds for the charge, asserted that they were waiting to assassinate him. 1 Tailbois denied this, and Suffolk accepted his excuses. Cromwell, nevertheless, got Tailbois committed to the Tower by the Council. 2 Our chronicler tells us that Lord Cromwell repaid Suffolk for the bad turn ; and of this there can be no doubt, as he recovered ^3000 from Tailbois in the next year by the verdict of a Middlesex jury, “by reason of the transgression and assault about the door of the Council against him.” 3 From these expressions it is probable that Tailbois made some attempt upon Cromwell. Not content with this, Cromwell had Tailbois con¬ demned in spite of Suffolk’s opposition, and he was committed to the custody of the City sheriffs. 4 Suffolk was by this time cordially detested by the people, and when Parliament met in January 1450, he complained of the charges that were made against him, and demanded proof of the accusations so freely brought. The Commons replied by asking the Lords to commit him to the Tower ; which the Lords answered they could not do unless some charge were made against him. The Commons hereupon appealed him of high treason, and the Lords committed him to the Tower. Worcester states that the action of the Commons was taken through the intrigues of Cromwell, but he admits that the whole kingdom was murmuring against Suffolk, the Court alone secretly favouring him. 5 We need hardly refer to Suffolk’s subsequent trial, his sentence of exile, his capture and execution in a very strange manner on the high seas, as these occurrences are so well known. Lord Cromwell was restored to the office of Chamberlain on July 3, 1 This was at any rate believed by the Commons. Rot. Parliament., v. 200 b. - William of Worcester, p. 766. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 6 William of Worcester, 766 ; Stubbs, Const. Hist., iii. 145. M 82 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. 1450, 1 so we may assume he had some influence in the Government. Crom¬ well’s opposition to Suffolk had ranged him on the side of the incipient party of the Yorkists ; certainly we could not expect to find him of the Lancastrian or queen’s party. Suffolk’s place in the queen’s confidence was soon filled by the Duke of Somerset, who ruled the country, “ although,” Worcester says, evincing his sense of Cromwell’s powers, “ Cromwell was yet King’s Chamberlain.” 2 Other officials had been removed, and Somerset’s creatures substituted, but Cromwell clung grimly to his post, although his influence was rendered powerless. In the month of August 1450, Thomas Neville, son of the Earl of Salis¬ bury, and brother of the afterwards celebrated Warwick, “ the king-maker,” married Cromwell’s niece. There was a meeting of Cromwell’s friends at Tattershall Castle to witness the ceremony, and it was during the return from this wedding that the great quarrel between Thomas Percy, Lord Egremont, and the Earl of Salisbury broke out, which Worcester thought was a great cause of the subsequent Civil War. 3 The Duke of York was recalled to the Council in 1453, in response to the feeling of uneasiness with which the country viewed the power of the queen and Somerset, the king at this time being in a state of semi-dotage. York’s recall was followed by the committal of Somerset to the Tower, and shortly after the assembly of Parliament, in 1454, he was chosen Protec¬ tor. In the earliest list of the Privy Council, after York’s assumption of the Protectorate, Lord Cromwell appears as a new member, 4 so that he was by this time a declared Yorkist. On the 9th March, Lord Cromwell demanded, in Parliament, security of the peace against Henry Holland, Earl of Exeter, 5 a Lancastrian of eminence, who was shortly afterwards arrested by the Protector’s orders and committed to Pontefract Castle. Exeter had, early in the year, met Egremont at Tuxford, and concerted measures for a rising against York. 6 On July 10, Cromwell petitioned the king that a priest, Robert Colynson, “ of his grete untrouth, cursed malice, and evill disposition,” had slandered him to the king, and Cromwell was acquitted of the charges before the council. 7 Colynson had clearly access to the king, and may have been a creature of the queen’s who was scheming against Cromwell. The poor king recovered his memory and a show of reason about the 1 Stubb’s, Const. Hist ., iii. 769. 2 William of Worcester, 770. 3 Ibid. 770. 4 Ordinances , vi. 174, pref. liii. 5 Rot. Parliament ., v. 264 ; Stubbs, Const. Hist., iii. 169. 6 Paston Letters, i. 264. 7 Ordinances , vi. 198-9. RALPH, LORD CROMWELL. 83 end of the year. The Court claimed the powers of royalty for him, and York could do nothing but give up the Protectorate. Somerset was immediately released, and restored to his former power near the queen. This step enraged a great part of the nation, and naturally made the Duke of York and his adherents look after their own safety. York, Norfolk, Cromwell, and other lords, dreading Somerset’s vengeance, took up arms, and these lords set out for the king’s council at Leicester, but they turned aside, and on May 22, 1455, came up with Somerset and the royal army at St. Albans. 1 The Duke of York sent a herald to the king in the town, and expressed his loyalty, but demanded that Somerset should be given up. To this an answer was sent in the king’s name that he would die in battle rather than abandon his friends. The Yorkists then attacked the royal army, which fled after a very short contest, in which Somerset was slain, and the king fell into the hands of the Yorkists. This skirmish is known in history as the first Battle of St. Albans, and was the first of the long series of battles which marked this unhappy dispute. Dissensions broke out amongst the Yorkists after their triumph; Cromwell being accused of treason, and quarrelling besides with the Earl of Warwick. Cromwell does not appear to have been happy in his mind as to his share in the affair at St. Albans, and he attempted to lay the guilt of the battle upon Warwick, who returned the charge. 2 Lord Cromwell only lived to see the first act in the grim tragedy of the Wars of the Roses. He died on January 4, 1456, surviving his wife by four months only. Their bodies were buried in the church of Tattershall, which stately edifice was erected by Lord Cromwell, who made it collegiate. Lord Cromwell’s effigy was engraven in brass and put over his tombstone. The figure is still in existence, but unfortunately headless. He is repre¬ sented in the complicated armour of the period, covered with a long cloak open down the front, his hands in the usual praying attitude. 3 His will makes bequests to the Nottinghamshire monasteries of Welbeck, Newstead, and Beauvale, and directs 3000 masses to be said for his soul in the counties of Lincoln, Nottingham, and Derby, and it further directs the residue of his personal property to be expended in the repairs of bridges in these three counties, and in the relief of his poor tenants. By a codicil, dated 1 Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles , ed. Gairdner, p. 151. It appears, however, that Cromwell and his troops did not arrive in time to take part in the engagement which ensued.— Paston Letters, >• 333 - 2 Ibid., i. 345 ; Cf. Ordinances, vi. 198 ; Stubbs, Const. Hist., iii. 172. 3 His brass is engraved in Gough, Sepulchral Monuments, ii. 172. 8 4 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. September 29, 1454, he directs the church and chancel of Lambley in this county to be rebuilt from his estate, and directs two images to be placed upon the tombs of his father and mother in that church. 1 Lord Cromwell was a great builder. He had almost as great a mania for building as the famous “ Bess of Hardwick.” He erected the stately church and castle of Tattershall, and commenced noble mansions at Coly- weston, Northants, and at Winfield, Derbyshire. Leland, writing in Henry VIII.’s time, says of Colyweston, “ Bagges of Purse[s yet] remaine there yn the [Chappellje and other Places.” 2 These “ Bagges of Purses” are his badges as Lord Treasurer, and they are to be found upon all his works. The magnificent chimney-pieces of Tattershall Castle, the details and the misereres of the church there, all bear, in great profusion, this badge, which is also to be seen carved, in a stone panel, on each side of the east window of Lambley Church, as indisputable evidence that we owe that edifice to the munificence of this great noble, statesman, and financier. SIR GERVASE CLIFTON 3 was clearly related to the ancient knightly family of Clifton of Clifton, Notts. He bore their favourite Chris¬ tian name Gervase, and their arms appear upon his seal, 4 so that the evidence of his connection with this grand old family is ample. His exact relation¬ ship has not been ascertained. Thoroton says he “ sometimes hath been thought to be son of this Sir John Clifton ; but whether he was brother or cousin, I cannot yet discover.” 5 By his marriage he became possessed of lands in Kent, and he accordingly settled in that county, of which he was several times sheriff.. He became the third husband to Maud, the niece and co-heiress of the celebrated Ralph, Lord Cromwell, whose biography pre¬ cedes this notice. Sir Gervase Clifton participated in the French wars of Henry VI.’s time. He rose to some eminence as a military commander, and was placed in command of the important post of Pontoise by the Duke of York in 1440. Here Sir Gervase and his garrison of 1000 men were attacked by an over¬ whelming army of French, who succeeded in taking the post by assault, after a severe struggle, in which they are said to have lost 3000 men. Sir Ger¬ vase was taken prisoner after his gallant defence. 6 Shortly after this Sir Gervase Clifton returned home, and became 1 Testamenta Eboracensia, ii. 196. 2 Leland Itinerary, i. 25. 3 Communicated by Mr. W. H. Stevenson. 4 Thoroton’s Notts, p. 54b. 5 Ibid. 6 Halle’s Chronicle, p. 192. SIR GERVASE CLIFTON. 85 treasurer to the Protector, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, and in 1445 he was appointed Lieutenant of Dover Castle, under that nobleman. 1 He attended his chief at the Parliament at Bury St. Albans in 1447. Here Gloucester mysteriously expired on February 23, as related in our account of Lord Cromwell, at page 80. His treasurer, Sir Gervase Clifton, followed him to his grave at St. Albans on March 4, accompanied by other lords and gentlemen. 2 After the death of Gloucester, Sir Gervase entered the royal service, and was employed in a naval capacity. The Treasurer and Cham¬ berlains of the Exchequer were commanded, on April 1, 1450, to pay him 400 marks, in consideration of “ the greet charges and manyfolde costes, also the good and notable service and effectual laboures and true diligence, that our welbeloved squyer Gervays Clyftone of long tyme hathe had and done, and day by day hathe and dothe, for and aboute the keping of the see and rebukyng of oure adversaries and enemies.” 3 Sir Gervase was nominated to the important post of Treasurer of Calais in 1450-51, upon the resignation of Sir Richard Vernon ; 4 and in 1458 he was commissioned, together with the Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Rivers, to raise the English coast from north to west to prepare for the expected descent of the French upon the coast. 5 In 1459 he was still engaged in naval affairs, orders being given, on November 10, to pay him £ 1 72 : 16 :4, “ for vitailles and rewardes of maryners,” and £40 for himself. 6 Sir Gervase Clifton was in London in 1460, when that city opened its gates to the Earls of March (afterwards Edward IV.), Warwick, and Salis¬ bury, and Clifton and the other Lancastrian chiefs in London took refuge in the Tower. Sir Gervase was then Treasurer of the king’s household, and he adhered faithfully to the king. The Lancastrians in the Tower suffered a siege by the Londoners, but after the defeat and capture of the king at Northampton they were compelled by hunger to yield, and one of them was murdered by the populace. 7 Sir Gervase Clifton was present at the bloody battle of Towton in 1461, and his name appeared in the first list of the slain, 8 but this was a mistake. The defeat at Towton wrecked the hopes of the Lancastrians for some years. Clifton’s affections were still centred in the cause of the dethroned Henry ; and when, in 1468, an emissary of the exiled Queen Margaret’s was captured at Oueenborough 1 Thoroton, p. 55b. 2 Davies’ English Chronicle, 1856, p. 118. Stevenson’s Wars of the English in France , i. 516, 517. 4 Thoroton, p. 54b. 5 Stevenson’s Wars, i. 367. c Ibid., ii. 512. 7 Davies’ English Chronicle , 96-98. 8 Gairdner’s Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles, p. 160. 86 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. and put to torture, he gave up the names of Sir Gervase Clifton and others who were in secret communication with Margaret. Clifton and the others were indicted of high-treason at the Guild Hall, London, before Chief- Justice Markham and others, but nothing is said about any sentence upon Clifton. 1 He made his peace with Edward IV. shortly after this, and received a pardon in the ninth year of the reign (1469-70), in which he is styled Gervase Clifton, knight, late of Brabourn, co. Kent, otherwise late of Clifton, co. Nottingham, otherwise of London, otherwise of Eresby, co. Lincoln. 2 Upon the expulsion of Edward IV., and re-instatement of Henry VI. as king by Warwick, Sir Gervase, with other Lancastrians, assembled round the standard of King Henry. He joined the army under the queen which assembled to resist Edward upon his return, and was with that ill-fated force at the battle of Tewkesbury, fought May 4, 1471. When the defeat of the Lancastrians became evident, the Duke of Somerset, Sir Gervase Clifton, and fourteen other Lancastrians, took refuge in the abbey church, and threw themselves in front of the altar, relying upon the sanctity of the place for their protection. Here they were discovered by King Edward, who rushed into the church sword in hand, and his followers would doubt¬ lessly have slain the refugees where they stood, had not a priest, bearing the Holy Sacrament, thrown himself in front of the advancing savages, and reminded them of the sanctity of the edifice. Hereupon, King Edward, possibly remembering how his wife and children owed their lives to the respect for sanctuaries, pardoned all the Lancastrians who had taken refuge in the church. This was on Saturday. On the Monday, however, Sir Gervase and the other refugees, who might have escaped in the interval if they had not placed so much reliance upon the royal pardon, were brought before the Duke of Gloucester (hereafter King Richard III.) and the Duke of Norfolk, who condemned them to death. This infamous sentence was carried into effect. A scaffold was erected in Tewkesbury market-place, and upon this Sir Gervase Clifton and his companions were beheaded. Their barbarous captors showed some little respect to the dead, as they allowed their bodies to be committed to the grave without dismembering them, or carrying out any of the other barbarous mutilations inflicted upon the bodies of those who died a traitor’s death. 3 Clifton was proclaimed a traitor after his death, 4 the object of this being to obtain forfeiture of his posses- 1 William of Worcester, 789, 790. 2 Thoroton, 54b. Stowe, History , p. 424 ; Halle, p. 301 ; History of the Recovery of England by Edward IV., p. 31. 4 Fcedera, xi. 710 ; Thoroton, p. 54b. THOMAS MAGNUS. 87 sions. Sir Gervase’s fate was a sad one; he entered the service of a king who was duly crowned, and who reigned unchallenged for very many years ; and when a claimant to the throne appeared, Clifton naturally enough adhered to the king de facto , and, as his reward, was executed as a traitor by the opposite side. THOMAS MAGNUS.—Of the birth and family associations of the great benefactor of Newark—a man of much learning and influence during the reign of Henry VIII.—there is little or nothing of a reliable nature to be ascertained. Fuller says that Magnus was “an exposed child, left by his mother (nobody knows who) in the parish church of Newark, and being found in the way by some Yorkshire clothiers in the dark of the morning, they had compassion upon the babe, and being unwilling to leave it yet exposed, agreed among themselves to pay for its nursing and education (which would come to a little among many), and first of all had him baptized at Newark by the name of Thomas, giving his surname Amang-us — i.e. to be maintained among its." Similar particulars are given by Anthony Wood in his A thence Oxonienses. The story is romantic, and would vest the biography of Magnus with a touch of even deeper interest, could it be substantiated by anything more reliable than common tradition. A reference to his will, however, weakens the foundation of the tale, seeing that Magnus therein refers to his father and mother, and directs an obit to be kept in the church for the repose of their souls. Wood says that Magnus desired “ if he dye at his house at Sybthorp or nigh those parts, to be buried in the Trinity Isle of the church of Newark-upon-Trent, afore the midst of the Altar there, for there he was baptized.” 1 Moreover, the same industrious writer says that he founded a free school “ in the place of his nativity.” The more probable accounts are those, therefore, given by other authori¬ ties, who state that Magnus was the son of a publican at Newark, in humble circumstances, at whose house certain Yorkshire clothiers who visited Lincolnshire for the purpose of purchasing wool were in the habit of calling. These tradesmen observed the unusual tact and sprightliness of the child, and resolved to carry him home with them to Yorkshire, where he could be educated at a cheap rate, and more thoroughly fitted for the after business of life than he could possibly be by remaining at home. The parents, realising the advantages which their son would possess, yielded to the 1 Athena: Oxonienses , i. f. 30. 88 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. su gg es ti° n of the clothiers, under whose kindly care young Magnus received a sound education, and gave evidence of the possession of those graces and talents which distinguished him so much in after life. When he returned to his native town he was a youth of great promise, intelligent, courteous, and of noble appearance. Fortunately for Magnus, his qualities of mind and body did not pass unnoticed by those in authority. A Mr. Robert Brown (Receiver to Cardinal Wolsey, and to Longland, Bishop of Lincoln), himself probably a native of Newark, seeing that he was buried within the church and was a benefactor of the borough, had his attention drawn to the youth, and took so genuine an interest in his welfare as to recommend him to the Cardinal, when the latter was on a visit to Southwell. The prelate, who, whatever his defects in the shape of cupidity and over-reaching ambition, was not deficient in shrewd¬ ness, speedily recognised in Magnus the existence of a superior intellect, and being favourably impressed, as well by his address as by his abilities, took him at once into his service and his confidence. For some time Magnus was permitted to pursue his studies, which he doubtless did with industry and success, and at the conclusion of his university career he was recommended to the king, from whom he obtained the office of chaplain. Whilst acting in this capacity he was employed in several important embassies. 1 On one occasion, at a period when Wolsey was striving to obtain the help of the Emperor Charles V. in his struggle for the Papacy, Magnus was selected by him to visit that monarch, and to solicit his powerful intervention in the Cardinal’s behalf. Whatever the result of the mission may have been, it is evident Wolsey was well satisfied with the promptitude and ability of Dr. Magnus (as he was now called, a degree having doubtless been conferred upon him whilst abroad), who continued to grow in the favour of his superiors and the respect of his equals. Evidence that the Cardinal approved of the efficiency and energy of Magnus is not far to seek. The death of James IV. of Scotland, who fell in the battle of Flodden Field, left the English king the sole monarch of influence and power in Great Britain, and the jealousies of the two great rival continental potentates, the Emperor and Francis I. of France, caused the approving smile of Henry to be courted by both. Henry was, in 1 Being brought up in literature in one of the Universities in England, he became so much noted to King Henry VIII. that he was by him not only promoted to several dignities, but sent ambassador into various countries, whereupon he was by the generality of people called Dr. Magnus, or by some Magnus Doctor .—Athena Oxonienses, i. f. 30. THOMAS MAGNUS. 89 fact, at that period, in the dignified position of “arbiter of peace throughout Europe.” In their anxiety to secure the favour and support of Henry the rival monarchs did their utmost to please him. He was invited by Francis to a meeting near Calais ; and visited in England by Charles, who had won the friendship of Cardinal Wolsey. The interview with the French king, which took place on the 30th May 1520, was one of remarkable splendour. Three weeks were spent in feasting and grand ceremonials. While Henry was wasting time over these seeming frivolities, his Council at home were direct¬ ing the affairs of the realm, and informing him by letter of the comfortable condition of his home and country. Magnus was a member of the Council, and we find his name attached, with those of distinguished nobles and ecclesiastics, to a letter to the king dated 13th June 1520. In this com¬ munication, after congratulating him on his meeting with the French monarch, “w l the goodliest and moost comendable ordre devised and observed therin at that tyme, the like whereof heretofore hath not been seen,” they proceed to inform him that “ we were on Saturday last passed at yo r manoir of Richemounte w* yo r derrest doughter the Princesse, who, lauded bee Almighty God is right mery, and in prospous helth and state, dailly ex’cising herself in vertuous pastymes and occupacions, whereof we sawe sum expience afore we depted from her.” As to the state of the realm they reported it to be “ in good pease, reste, and tranquillitie,” which they should do their best to maintain to the satisfaction of the king. 1 But this tranquillity was not of long duration, being as transient as Henry’s friendship with the French monarch. While in a situation, at once responsible and critical, the king took upon himself, with but little reason, to declare war against France (1522). It then became necessary to watch carefully the progress of Scotland, and to see what negotiations would take place between France and the Scottish Court. To exercise this watchful spirit, some person was needed as accredited agent at the Court of Scotland, who should officiate as ambassador extraordinary, carefully note the progress of affairs, and promptly transmit to his royal master intelligence of everything which threatened the pre¬ dominance of English influence. It will readily be conceived that to select a suitable person to fill so important a position was a matter of the gravest difficulty and concern. As a writer well puts it, when illustrating the importance of the task, “ an ambitious woman—for such the Scotch Oueen- 1 Proceedings and Ordmances of the Privy Council, vii. 337-8. N go WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. mother undoubtedly was,—an exasperated and degraded husband, and a profligate and aspiring paramour, were to be so influenced as to make their different propensities, even their very vices, co-operate in the same general purpose, the placing of all these various characters under the control of England.” 1 There was but one person who seemed to possess the requisite tact and talent for this difficult duty, and that was Dr. Magnus. 2 Before describing the progress of his important mission, it becomes necessary to note that on the death of James IV. his wife Margaret had, with the assistance of English influence, become Regent. About a year after she had assumed this dignified and responsible position, she married the Earl of Angus, a proceeding which gave rise to much dissatisfaction, and resulted in her banishment from the country. The Duke of Albany took upon himself the duties of the office from which Margaret had been expelled, but Henry VIII. was entirely averse to him, and he was compelled to retire. Margaret and her husband having returned, the Government was administered by a congress of deputies, with Angus at their head. After various changes, which we need not recapitulate, Albany, in October 1523, brought over 6000 French soldiers, and was joined by many of his adherents in Scotland. At the head of this force he proposed attacking the Earl of Surrey, who had the chief command of the English forces in the north. The Earl prepared to meet him. Lords Dorset, Latimer, Northumberland, Clifford, and Darcy, and the gentlemen of Yorkshire, hastened to the rescue. In Lancashire, Cheshire, Nottingham, and Derby, large bodies of troops were raised. A repetition of Flodden Field was expected, and the English looked for a battle so decisive that it should discourage the Scots for a long time to come : “ Of likelihood ” wrote Lord Surrey to Wolsey, “ no man living shall ever see the Scots attempt to invade this realm if they be well resisted now.” Hence money was freely expended to keep together the English forces and provide for their proper equipment. Magnus acted throughout as treasurer for the war, and large sums of money passed through his hands for the use of the army. There are numerous letters from him giving details of the expenditure, and there is a letter from Surrey to Wolsey stating that he and Magnus will be very careful of the money. 3 1 Bailey’s Annals of Notts, i. 390. 2 Magnus had been incorporated a doctor of Oxford in 1520, the year in which he sat as a member of the king’s council. “ This year,” says Wood (Athena Oxo 7 iienses , i. f. 30), “ the month I cannot tell, I find that there was a kind of a supplicate made for one Magnus, a doctor, beyond the sea, to be incorporated here, but in what faculty I cannot yet discover. This person was the same with Thomas Magnus, who was a foundling at Newark-upon-Trent.” 3 State Papers , iv., 1310 et seq. THOMAS MAGNUS. 9i The Scotch army came down the Tweed in strong force, and Albany fixed his camp opposite Werk Castle, which Surrey had lately repaired. He sent over some troops to attack the garrison, but they were vigorously repulsed. Albany’s heart thereupon failed him, and after a while he left Scotland, and a government was established in the name of James V. Meanwhile, Margaret had transferred her affections from her husband, and had commenced an intrigue with Lord Methuen. She threatened that if the Earl of Angus returned to her she would join the faction of France, and she kept her word, for when Angus made his appearance, she released the prelates who had been imprisoned for their French tendencies, and despatched David Beton to Paris as an accredited ambassador. It was in the midst of this unhappy condition of affairs that Magnus was sent to make his observations and reports, and to act as the exponent of the English king’s desires. One of his first efforts was to reconcile Margaret with her husband. With that object in view he visited Edin¬ burgh about the end of October 1524, and on the 1st of November was admitted to an interview. In the opening conversation she expressed herself in moderate terms, and Magnus had hopes of success. The day following, however, he recognised the hopelessness of his mission : writing to Cardinal Wolsey, he says, 1 she would listen to no advice except it was approved by Methuen. “ He keepeth,” wrote Magnus, “as is said, all the seals, and ordereth all causes in such a manner as is without any other counsel, either of wisdom, honour, or reputation.” Methuen was devoted to the Earl of Arran and Archbishop Beton, and Arran and the archbishop were devoted to France. Margaret was thus wholly committed to the faction averse to her brother and to England. Henry was extremely angry, and described her as “ rather like an unnatural and transformed person, than like a noble princess, or a woman of wisdom or honour.” On the 26th of November Angus and his followers scaled the walls of Edin¬ burgh ; and Magnus, fearing that Margaret would order the Castle guns to be fired on her husband’s followers, hastened to her to counsel calmness and moderation. When he reached Holyrood he found the palace in confusion ; he pushed his way into the queen’s presence, but she ordered him to retire, and not to meddle in matters of no concern to him. Directly after one of the guns was fired, and several persons were killed. At dark, Angus withdrew to Dalkeith, and civil war seemed imminent. To rid herself of Angus, her husband, Margaret sued for a divorce, putting forth 1 State Papers , iv. 215. 92 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. the extraordinary plea that on the date of her second marriage her first husband was alive, having escaped the dangers of Flodden Field. Writing to Wolsey, Magnus says, 1 “ The queen’s grace sueth for a divorce between her said grace and the Earl of Angus, surmitting her cause to be that she was married to the said Earl, the late King of Scots her husband being alive, and that the same king was living three years after the Field of Flodden.” Her statement was accepted as the ground of a suit, but before it was proceeded with a conference took place as to the mode of govern¬ ment, which resulted in the establishment of a council of eight, under the nominal presidency of the queen. A formal peace not having been concluded between England and Scotland since the rupture in 1523, negotiations were opened with the new council. Magnus brought forward the English proposals with what he terms his “four reasonings;” 2 he dwelt “upon the nigh marching together of the two realms within one isle, and of one speech and language,” upon “ the proximity of blood between the king’s Highness of England and the young king, his tender nephew;” upon “ the said young king’s possibility of inheritance to the two crowns,” and “upon the great likeli¬ hood he had to be preferred before all others to the marriage of the lady princess (Princess Mary), if favourably and in loving manner his grace could and would use him towards the king his uncle.” Having urged these points, Magnus desired the council to agree to a perpetual peace with England, in which France should not be comprehended. The council replied that they desired security before committing the country to such a treaty. There must be a formal betrothal between the young king and the Princess Mary, and then the whole realm of Scotland was minded and inclined utterly to abandon France, and wholly to be conjoined with England. As three years must elapse before James was of age to sign a legal contract, a treaty of peace until that time was concluded, James telling Magnus that he wished he was in England with the king his uncle. 3 So far, matters had progressed fairly, but directly the peace was agreed upon Magnus found himself an object of popular disfavour. It happened that the weather was wet and the harvest threatened. A rumour was forthwith diligently circulated that Magnus was an enchanter who, having in former years blighted the vines of France and Flanders, was now overlooking Scotland with an evil eye. As he walked through Edinburgh the women 1 State Papers , iv. 385. 2 Letter from Magnus to Wolsey, State Papers , iv. 335. 3 Vide Froude's History. THOMAS MAGNUS. 93 cursed him and his servants openly to their faces. Under these circum¬ stances, he desired to be permitted to return from “a cumbrous country, where ever was suspicion without trust, disdain, slander, malice, and cruelty without virtue, or dread of God or man.” Magnus appears to have left Edinburgh at the end of January, and to have removed to Berwick. Following the dates of his numerous letters which are preserved amongst the Cottonian MSS., 1 we find he left Berwick in March and went to York. From that city he writes to Wolsey, under date March 26 (1526) reporting the desire of James V. to quit the borders. Margaret, he says, leaves the Court, and Angus has all the influence. The year following he was still concerned with Scotch affairs, which were far from settled. On August 30 (1527) he wrote to Wolsey from Sheriff Hooton that the young James V. was unwilling to continue in the custody of Angus, and in September he describes the situation of Angus as being dangerous. The revolution, and overthrow of Angus, followed in 1528. Angus defended himself atTantallon; and Magnus, in a letter of November 14, relates to Wolsey the attempt made upon that place by Margaret’s friends, and the particulars of negotiations at Berwick. Henry VIII. appears to have mediated in favour of Angus, and Magnus writes to Queen Margaret from Berwick, November 18, desiring her to intercede. She replied to this letter, giving reasons why she could not do so, and eventually Angus retired into Gaul. On December 6 King James wrote to Dr. Magnus, thanking him for his zeal. In January 1529 Magnus had an audience of the Scotch king, and he reports particulars of the same to Wolsey from Berwick, under date February 13. He says:—“The 19th daye of January the said King of Scotts came to Edinburgh, and the nexte daye after I had presence, and was accompanyed unto his grace by the Busshop of Galawaye and the Abbot of Arbrooth, being Privea Seale. And after due salutation, and showing that, for somyche as I was at the Bordours, and not farre from Edinburgh, the pleasure of the Kingges Highnes my Soveraigne Lord was that, or and afore I shulde retourne southwards I shulde viset and see the prosperous estate of the said yong King, to thentent that thereupon at my repaire and commyng into Englande I mooght make due reaporte unto the Kingges Highnes his dereste uncle, not only touching the waxing and furnisshing of his noble personage, but also of other his qualities and vertuous procedingges ; and thereupon deliverede the Kingges said mooste honourable letters and 1 Caligula , B. I, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8. 94 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. youres, which the saide yong King recieved right joyously, and with good countenance, demanding and inquiering for the proosperous estate and welfare of his dereste uncle the Kingges Highnes, and of your Grace. After the said letters were redde, and somdeall conscidered by the said King and his counsaill, His Grace saying that I was right hartely welcom desired me to have pacience for a daye or twayne to thentent that he mought be the better advised of the effecte, purpoorte, and contynue of the said letters, and thenne his grace shewed he wolde be gladde to here my credence at large. Two days after, accompanyed as afore I was sent foore to come unto the Kingges presence, at whiche tyme his Grace said to all his Lordes that for somyche as I was his oolde acquayntaunce he woolde use me famylierly, and soe caused me to passe with His said Grace unto his privea chamber noone other being present but we twayne.” In 1531 rumours being in circulation that King James was about to contract a foreign marriage, he writes to Magnus from Peebles (January 29) to contradict the statement. In 1532 war broke out, and Magnus’s services were again called into requisition. On July 1 (1533) he and three other commissioners took steps to obtain a truce, and in May 1534 peace was signed. It is evident from this that he had not given up the discharge of important functions (as has been erroneously supposed) when he found time to devote attention to the foundation and endowment of the Newark Grammar and Song Schools. He had a residence at Sibthorpe, and it may have been whilst on a visit to that village, to seek a little rest and quiet, that he prepared those generous schemes which will make his name familiar as a household word in Newark for all time. A description of his Sibthorpe abode appears in a letter which Magnus wrote to Wolsey, with whom, as we have shown, he had much corre¬ spondence. Wolsey, proposing to pay a visit to this county, and his own house at Southwell being out of order, he wrote from Peterborough on the 12th April 1530, asking leave to occupy for a time the residence belonging to Magnus at Sibthorpe. Magnus, in his reply, 1 stated that he should have to give up for the season his house at St. James’s, in consequence of the expense he had sustained in the north, “ with such recompense as your Grace can consider,” and the king’s laws being so strait he must be in one of his benefices. But as Wolsey knew he had only two in his diocese— namely, Sibthorpe, and a poor benefice of twenty marks in the far parts of Yorkshire. He should be obliged to go to the former, which was 1 State Papers , iv. 2848. THOMAS MAGNUS. 95 “unmeet” for Wolsey, unless he (Magnus) were there to receive him for a short time in default of a better lodging. It had but three chambers suitable for lodgings, the rest being applied to corn and husbandry, by which his priests and servants were maintained. There was not sufficient accommodation even for his servants when he went thither himself, but if Wolsey pleased he should have “the hall, kitchen, buttery, and pantry, the cellar, a little dining chamber, two chambers one within another; and the table at the nether end of the hall to be reserved for myself at my coming.” The letter concluded by stating that there was no lodging to be had in the village, nor fuel within ten or twelve miles. Whether Wolsey availed him¬ self or not of the limited accommodation which Magnus was able to place at his disposal there are no further letters to show. After the generous deeds of gift, the establishment of the schools of grammar and of song, by which Magnus has placed the town of Newark under lasting obligations to him, he lived about nineteen years. In 1540, when the clergy of the provinces of Canterbury and York declared their opinion that the king’s marriage with Anne of Cleves was void, Magnus was one of those who signed the document. The signature is, “T. Magnus, Archedeaconis, Estriding.” In 1545 the king, “ desiring the guidance and good government of the people, and the speedy and indifferent administra¬ tion of justice,” continued the services of his honourable council, called the King’s Council in the northern parts. Magnus was a member of this council. It was ordered that they should appoint their own times of meet¬ ing, and that the president should have ^300 a year towards the furniture and the diets of himself and the rest of the councillors, with such number of servants as should be allowed. Dr. Magnus and every esquire were to have seats in the hall with the president, and to have three servants each in attendance. One month in the year they were to sit at York, another at Newcastle, a third at Hull, and a fourth at “ Durisme,” and to keep in every one of the said places a gaol-delivery, referring any abstruse questions of law that might arise to the judges at Westminster. On the 22d of Decem¬ ber 1546 they reported that they had held a gaol-delivery in York, when twelve persons were executed for felony. Magnus signed the report in common with the rest of the council, but we do not again meet with his signature to any record of the council’s proceedings. The various offices which Magnus held were as follows :—Archdeacon of the East Riding, to which he was collated in June 1504; sacristan of the chapel of Our Lady and the Holy Angels at York, to which he was collated in December of the 96 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. same year; rector of Bedall in Yorkshire; canon of Windsor, 1520-47; receiver of the court of wards, 1523 ; king’s chaplain, 1524 ; and master of St. Leonard’s Hospital at York, 1530. In addition to holding these offices he was, as we have shown, ambassador to Scotland, and a member of the northern council. He died in 1550 (27th August or thereabouts 1 ), and was buried at the parish church of Sessay, in the North Riding of the county of York. Upon a gravestone in the middle of the chancel was inscribed in brass the following : “ Here lyeth Mr. Thomas Magnus, archdeacon of the East Rydeing in the Metropolitan Church of York, and parson of this church, which died the 18th day of August, anno domini 1550, whose soule God pardon.” In Tonge’s Visitation of Yorkshire in 1530, as published by the Surtees Society in their vol. xli. p. 59, we read : “ These be the armes of the Right worshipful Mr. Magnus, arms Bendy of six, vert and gules, on a fess or a lion passant between two cinquefoils gules. Motto, ‘ As God wyll’” (written above the arms). In an editorial note, Mr. W. Hylton Dyer Longstaffe, F.S.A., says that the windows of the old church of Sessay contained his rebus, an Agnus Dei , with M thereupon. Above was the motto in the text, and the herbage was full of columbines. The same flower and the Agnus Dei alternately occur on the curves of his gravestone at the same church. THOMAS CRANMER.—Of the divines which the county of Notting¬ ham has produced, the most distinguished is the martyr Cranmer. His ancestors were Nottinghamshire people by birth and possession. The patrimonial estate was at Aslockton, a small parish near Bingham, now intersected by the branch line of the Great Northern Railway from Notting¬ ham to Grantham. The Cranmers became connected with Aslockton under these circumstances :—In 1357 John de Aslackton, clerk, was impleaded by Nicholas de Langford jun., and others, for violently ejecting them from the custody of the land and heir of a previous John de Aslackton, the said heir being then under age. The jury awarded £20 damages, and the rights of the juvenile owner were thus confirmed. His name was William de Aslack¬ ton, and it was his daughter and heir Isabel who married Edmund Cranmer, and thus carried to their family the Aslockton property. 2 There is a record of a claim to certain land in the parish made by Edmund Cranmer and his wife 1 Athena Oxonienses, i. f. 30. 2 Thoroton, 137-8. In the Visitation of Notts, p. 79, a pedigree is given, commencing with “ Hugh Cranmer of Sutterton, com. Notts.” ARCHBISHOP CRANMER. 97 against William de Sibthorpe (temp. Hen. VI.) Edmund was succeeded by his son John, and John by his son Thomas, who married Agnes, daughter of Lawrence Hatfield of Willoughby, Notts. The worthy couple had a somewhat numerous progeny. Two of their sons entered the Church, and rose to distinction ; Thomas became Archbishop of Canterbury and martyr, fit, says Thoroton, “ to weigh down the scales against Thomas Becket, his predecessor,” and Edmund became archdeacon in the same diocese. Thomas Cranmer was born on the 2d July 1489, and was placed under the tutorial care of a “ rude parish clerk.” 1 In the sports and pastimes of the period he indulged with boyish zest. He practised with the long-bow and cross-bow, used to hunt and hawk, and in horsemanship, of which he was especially fond, he became, for a boy, somewhat proficient. The know¬ ledge of horses which he gained at Aslockton was of service to him in after years, when he was accustomed to mount fearlessly the most spirited animals he had in his stables. Whilst under the pedagogic control of the parish clerk he lost his father, and his removal from Aslockton took place a short time after that lamentable event. His mother, wisely resolving to give him a good education, sent him, when he was but fourteen years of age, to Jesus College, Cambridge. Here he made good progress. It was his custom, like that of Lord Burghley, to read with a pen in his hand, and to jot down from time to time such facts as appeared to be worthy of special notice. In this way he accumulated a large mass of information, of great utility for the purposes of reference, and it is believed that his notes proved “ an armoury of strength ” to him in the warfare in which he subsequently became engaged. He took the degree of B.A. in 1511-12, and after carefully study¬ ing good Latin authors for several years more, commenced M.A. 1515. 2 His attainments made him respected. He became a fellow of his college, though he lost his fellowship through marrying the relation of an innkeeper’s wife in Cambridge. This lady, derisively termed black Joan of the Dolphin, though of humble was of reputable connection. Fox 3 describes her as the daughter of a gentleman. That Cranmer was deeply attached to her is evidenced by the loss which he cheerfully bore in her behalf. On the forfeiture of his fellowship he became a reader—probably in divinity— at Buckingham, now Magdalen, College, his wife residing at the Dolphin, which was kept by her kinswoman. In about a year Mrs. Cranmer died, and the disconsolate husband received a proof of the esteem in which he was 1 Strype’s Memorials of Cranmer , etc., p. 2. 2 Athena; Cantabrigiensis , i. 145. 3 Fox’s Acts and A 1 on., ii. i860. O 9 8 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. held by being forthwith re-elected to his fellowship. In 1526 he took the degree of Doctor in Divinity, became archdeacon of Taunton, and was made theological lecturer and examiner. Amongst those who received the benefit of his tuition were two young gentlemen of the name of Cressey, whose mother was, by marriage, distantly connected with Cranmer. 1 Their house was near Waltham Abbey, and when the plague visited Cambridge, Cranmer retired thither. He little thought what great results would arise from this visit. When Cranmer retreated to the seclusion of Waltham the nation was agitated by the king’s domestic difficulties. The fitful monarch, who, soon after ascending the throne, had espoused Catherine of Arragon, the widow of his brother Arthur, had taken a violent fancy to one of her maids of honour—Anne Boleyn. After twenty years of married life he had, as all readers of history will be aware, grown tired of Catherine, and to bring about a separation had pretended to have doubts as to the legality of the union. The ecclesiastical authorities were appealed to to say whether or not his Majesty had acted illegally ; and to satisfy or attempt to satisfy the “ conscience ” of the king, six learned men of each university had been selected to confer upon the subject. Cranmer was nominated one of the delegates, but being at Waltham his place was taken by another. The result of the deliberations did not please Henry, to whom, indeed, only one conclusion would have been acceptable, and he determined therefore to pro¬ secute the matter to the utmost. As may be expected, the subject was the common topic of conversation. In August 1529 a private conference was held at Mr. Cressey’s house to consider the question. The king was present, attended by his secretary, Dr. Gardener, and his almoner, Dr. Foxe, afterwards Bishop of Hereford. While at supper the two doctors entered into a warm debate on the all-absorbing topic, and invited Cranmer to join in the discussion, which, after some hesitation, he consented to do. 2 The king and queen had been cited to appear in Rome, by themselves or their proxies, but Cranmer expressed an opinion that the discussion could be carried on just as well at the English universities. 3 The views of the learned men could be ascertained, and their authority would compel any judge soon to come to a definitive sentence. What Cranmer had said was not heard by the king, but was subsequently repeated to him by Foxe, and 1 Mr. Cressey had married a Cobham, and Cranmer’s niece, Susan, had married into the same family, vide R. H. S. Proceedings , viii. 358. 2 “The Ministry of the Church of Waltham,” R. H. S. Proceedings , viii. 37. 3 Fox, p. i860. ARCHBISHOP CRANMER. 99 coincided so thoroughly with his view, 1 that he sent tor Cranmer forthwith. Cranmer begged Gardener and Foxe to save him from the necessity of appearing before the king on such a mission, but in vain ; and much to his chagrin and regret he had to take his departure for London. Arriving in the royal presence, he, at the instigation of the monarch, committed his thoughts to writing. He maintained that the marriage was condemned by the authority of the Scriptures, the councils, and the fathers, and that the Pope could not give validity to a union which the Word of God prohibited. In 1529 he proceeded to Rome to support this view at the Papal court, and in 1532 he was sent on the Continent to dispute with the Continental divines in favour of the king’s claim to a divorce. During his residence in Germany he made the acquaintance of Osiander, pastor of Nuremberg, and married the niece of this divine. 2 When the archi- episcopal see became vacant by the death of Dr. Warham, the king determined to raise him to the primacy. In March 1533 he was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury ; in May of the following year he pronounced the divorce between the king and queen, and soon after judicially confirmed the marriage of the fickle monarch with Anne Boleyn. When the Princess Elizabeth was christened in the church of the Friars Observant at Greenwich (10th September 1533), Cranmer was one of the godfathers. Soon after the birth of Elizabeth the king had commanded his eldest daughter Mary to lay aside the title of princess. She refused to do so, and the king threatened to send her to the Tower. Cranmer earnestly interceded in her behalf, and succeeded in saving her from her father’s wrath. 3 He shielded in her youth the lady who, in her womanhood as queen, handed him over to execution. The antagonism into which Cranmer had been brought with the Papal court on the subject of the royal marriage led to important results. The Pope declared the divorce of Queen Catherine null and void, and threatened the archbishop with excommunication. Cranmer appealed to a general council, and a series of measures followed, tending more or less to sever the connection with the Romish See. The king was prevailed upon to order a translation of the Bible into English ; and subsequently, at Cranmer’s request, permission was given for Tyndal’s translation to be sold and to be read by any person, without danger of any act, proclamation, or ordinance to the contrary. For our own part we cannot but regard this attempt to 1 Cranmer, his Majesty said, “ had the sow by the right ear.”—Burnet’s Hist. Reformation, i. 79. 2 Strype, p. 419. 3 Narratives of the Reformation (Camden Society), p. 259. IOO WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. promote the free unfettered circulation of the Bible, as about the most beneficial act of Cranmer’s eventful life. It brought the Word of God to the people ; it enabled them to ascertain its contents freely and accurately ; in short, it set at liberty the greatest power that could rectify priestly abuses —the overwhelming power of an open Bible. But to proceed. In 1536 the king required the services of the archbishop in another affaire de cceur. Allegations had been made against Anne Boleyn ; and Cranmer, however reluctantly—and he appears at the outset to have taken the queen’s part—pronounced the marriage void. Of his readiness to be made the tool of a degraded monarch it is impossible to speak but in terms of reproach. At the same time we must not forget that almost alone he had raised his voice in her behalf when the storm broke over her head, and that to have refused to have taken any part in the matter would have lost him not only his archbishopric but probably his life. From this time forward Cranmer was busily engaged in reforming abuses in the Church, nor does he appear to have been so subservient as heretofore. He incurred the king’s displeasure, along with other bishops, for refusing to consent to the application of the proceeds of the suppression of monasteries to the king’s sole use, believing that a substantial portion should be devoted to religious purposes and the relief of the poor. He also made a firm stand against the six articles which embodied the views of the king, and the first of which provided that all should, on pain of death, believe in transubstan- tiation. Against this measure—though ardently desired by Henry, and supported by a majority in Parliament—Cranmer felt so strongly that he spoke for three days against it, 1 and when it became law he sent his wife away into Germany to escape submission to its requirements. 2 “ The good arch¬ bishop,” says Mr. Gilpin in his life of Cranmer, “never appeared in a more truly Christian light than on this occasion. In the midst of so general a defection he alone made a stand. Henry ordered him to leave the House. The Primate refused ; it was God’s business (he said) and not man’s. And when he could do no more, he boldly entered his protest. Such an instance of fortitude is sufficient to wipe off many courtly stains which have fastened on his memory.” In 1540 Cranmer was one of the commissioners for inspecting into matters of religion; the result of the inquiries instituted by the commission being a book entitled A necessary Erudition of any Christian man. In 1541 he issued orders pursuant to the king’s directions for taking away 1 Fox, p. 1185. 2 Strype, p. 72. ARCHBISHOP CRANMER. IOI superstitious shrines, and the year following was successful in passing an Act which moderated the rigour of the six articles. As may be imagined, Cranmer in the exercise of his influence made enemies as well as friends. “ Censure is the tax a man pays to the public for being eminent.” He was complained of to the House of Commons for “ preaching heresy against the sacrament of the altar.” The Privy Council were asked to commit him to the Tower for “ infecting the realm with an unsavoury doctrine.” But the king interposed in his behalf, rebuked some of his accusers for their imper¬ tinence, and gave Cranmer his ring as a token that he took the affair into his own hands. 1 On the demise of Henry the archbishop was known to have been appointed one of the executors of his will, and one of the regents of the kingdom. 2 He officiated at the coronation of Edward VI., his godson, and during the too brief reign of the young monarch continued to take an active part in the affairs of Church and State. The great work of the Reformation, ever foremost in his mind, absorbed a large amount of his energy and time. Through his instrumentality the six articles were repealed and a new form of ordination in the Common Prayer Book was printed and settled by Act of Parliament. The Articles of Religion were compiled by Cranmer and others, and enjoined by the king’s authority. An order was issued by the Council for the removal of all images from the churches, and the same authority endeavoured to scatter the superstitions which had hitherto possessed so great a hold upon the minds of the people. Candles were no longer to be carried on Candlemas Day, ashes on Ash Wednesday, palms on Palm Sunday. 3 In short, “the principal tenets and practices of the (Roman) Catholic religion were now abolished, and the Reformation, such as it is enjoyed at present, almost entirely completed in England.” 4 To this great result Cranmer contributed earnestly, devotedly, and sincerely by all the means in his power. It was scarcely to be expected that the whole of the people, however submissive or well intentioned, should adopt suddenly without protest the changes in ritual and belief, and the Book of Common Prayer met with a good many critics and opponents. To subdue these objectors, many of them sincere and conscientious in their views, a commission was granted to Cranmer and others, power being given to them to search after all anabap¬ tists, heretics, and contemners of the aforesaid prayer book, 5 with orders to reclaim them if possible, and if they were obstinate to do that which it was 1 Strype, p. 109; Burnet, p. 327. 2 Rymer’s Fasdera, xv. no. 3 Burnet, ii. 59. 4 Hume, v. 131. 6 Rymer, xv. 181. 102 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. impossible to defend, viz. persecute and imprison. In the exercise of the enormous powers entrusted to them the commission did not hesitate to resort to unpardonable rigours. In the case of Joan of Kent (Joan Boucher) they acted with abominable severity. The doctrine propagated by the woman was “ that Christ was not truly incarnate of the Virgin, whose flesh being the outward man, was sinfully begotten and born in sin; and, consequently, he could take none of it; but the Word by the consent of the inward man of the Virgin was made flesh.” 1 This opinion the commissioners condemned as unorthodox, and as Joan declined to surrender it at their bidding she was without more ado sentenced to execution. The king, who though in tender years, had, says Hume, more sense in this matter than all his counsellors and preceptors, refused for a long time to sign the warrant. Cranmer was employed to persuade him to compliance. He told the king “ that he must distinguish between common opinions and such as were the essentials of faith. These latter he must on no account suffer to be opposed;” whereupon the king yielded and the death-warrant was issued. No excuse for these severities can be offered except that the old spirit of persecution long propagated by Rome had not yet been suppressed. On the death of Edward VI., Cranmer was induced to favour the claims of Lady Jane Grey. But the people declared for Mary, on whose accession to the throne Cranmer’s serious troubles began. Mary had throughout maintained her allegiance to the Roman Catholic faith, and she was not long before she commenced that career of persecution which has made her name notorious for all time. Cranmer, as we have seen, had rendered valuable services to Mary in her younger days; but he had, on the other hand, promoted her mother’s divorce, and been the great enemy to her faith. He was, therefore singled out as an object of dislike, though he might perhaps have postponed the evil day had he been less enthusiastic. Some persons having spread a report that the archbishop, to conciliate and humour the queen had offered to officiate in the Latin service, Cranmer issued a manifesto, in which, not content with denying the truth of the allegations, he went on boldly to declare that “ as the devil was a liar from the beginning, and the father of lies, he had at this time stirred up his servants to persecute Christ and his true religion, that this infernal spirit now endeavoured to restore the Latin satisfactory masses, a thing of his own invention and device;” and, moreover, that the mass was “replete with many horrid blasphemies.” 2 This courageous and outspoken but 1 Strype, p. 181. Fox, iii. 94. ARCHBISHOP CRANMER. 103 injudicious paper, stirred up the dormant feelings of hatred and malice, and without much delay Cranmer was thrown into prison. In November ( 1 553 ), when Parliament met, he was attainted, and at Guild Hall found guilty of high treason for opposing the queen’s accession. At his humble request he was exonerated from the crime of treason, but only to be proceeded against subsequently for heresy. In April 1554 Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer were removed to Oxford, and took part in a public disputation with the Papists. At the close of the debate, refusing to subscribe to Popish doctrines, they were condemned as heretics. In December, pursuant to letters from the Pope, Cranmer was degraded. “ They dressed him,” we are told, “ in all the garments and ornaments of an archbishop, only in mockery everything was of canvas and old clouts, and then he was piece by piece stripped of all again. When they came to take the crozier out of his hand he refused to part with it, and pulled out an appeal whereby he appealed to the next general council. After he was degraded they put on him a poor yeoman-beadle’s gown, threadbare, and a townsman’s cap, and remanded him to prison.” 1 By the united force of threats and flatteries the poor archbishop was eventually prevailed upon to sign a recantation ; but nobly he atoned for this outrage upon his conscience and his faith. For, on the day appointed for his execution (21st March 1554), when the crowd around him in St. Mary’s Church, after listening to a sermon from Cole, expected to hear from Cranmer’s lips a penitent confession of his “ errors,” the venerable divine vigorously denounced the Pope, “ reproving him as Christ’s enemy, and Antichrist with all his false doctrines.” Enraged beyond measure at this exhibition of courage and bold confession of faith, the crowd pulled him off the stage and hurried him to the stake. When the fire blazed and the great flames leaped with angry roar around him “ the unworthy hand ” which had signed the recantation was held forth by the martyr that it might be first consumed, d hen, with eyes gazing fixedly upon heaven, and lips repeating fervently “ Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,” the end came and the soul passed from the tortured body to the glories reserved for those who, though frail and sinful, serve their Master with sincerity and truth. 2 Strype, in his Memorials , has preserved some details of the imprisonment of the martyrs, which are not without interest. He says—“ Though these 1 Fox, 1882. 2 One Mason, writing news of the period, says, “ Cranmer burnt, standing obstinately to his opinions.”— State Papers, Domestic , A.D. 1556, p. 77. io4 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. three martyrs, Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer were parted asunder and placed in separate lodgings, that they might not confer together, yet they were suffered sometimes to eat together in prison. I have seen a book of their diet, every dinner and supper, and the charge thereof. . . . Their meals amounted to about three or four shillings, seldom exceeding four. Their bread and ale commonly came to twopence or threepence. They had constantly cheese and pears for their last dish both at dinner and supper, and always wine, the price whereof was ever threepence, and no more. The prices of their provisions (it being now an extraordinary dear time) were as follows : a goose, i^d. ; a pig, i2d. or 13d. ; a cony, 6d. ; a woodcock, 3d., and sometimes 5d. ; a couple ol chickens, 6d. ; three plovers, iod. ; half-a-dozen larks, 3d. ; a dozen of larks and two plovers, iod.; a breast of veal, nd. ; a shoulder of mutton, iod. The last disbursements (which have melancholy in the reading) were these—For three loads of wood-fagots to burn Ridley and Latimer, 12s. ; item, one load of furs- fagots, 3—4 ; for the carriage of these four loads, 2d. ; item, a post, 1—4 ; item, two chains, 3—4 ; item, two staples, 6d. ; item, four labourers, 2—8. Then follow the charges for burning Cranmer : for an 100 of wood-fagots, 6d. ; for an 100 and a hall of furs-fagots, 3—4 ; for the carriage of them, 8d.; for two labourers, 1—4.” There is a tradition that after the burning the heart of Cranmer was found in the ashes unconsumed, and Strype regrets that, if such was the case, no attempt was made to preserve it, so that it might, when better days came, have been buried in the church at Canterbury. But “ his martyrdom is his monument, and his name will outlast an epitaph or a shrine.” Of the character of Cranmer, much that is complimentary has been written, and deservedly so. There was, we know, a good deal in his career that is open to unfavourable animadversion. The part he took against Joan of Kent, Paris, and Lambert, is indefensible, and his recantation, though wrung from him, exhibited a weakness—a very natural weakness, we admit, but one for which he must ever after have deeply reproached him¬ self. But these blemishes are hidden by the splendour of the many estimable qualities he possessed, and the brilliancy of the many great deeds which he successfully accomplished. He was a man of “an open and generous mind, of great sincerity and candour, a lover of truth, and a declared enemy of falsehood and superstition.” He never forgot a kindness, and did not trouble himself to resent injury. Hence it is mentioned in Shakespeare’s Henry VIII.— ARCHBISHOP CRANMER. I0 5 “ Do my Lord of Canterbury But one shrewd turn, and he’s your friend for ever.” His charity, of which many instances are related, was extensive, and his hospitality, especially to the suffering professors of Protestantism, was unstinted. A great many learned foreigners were daily entertained at his house, and in his great hall a long table was plentifully covered every day for guests and strangers of a lower rank. A great scholar, and specially well read in theology to meet the requirements of his position, he at the same time admired the learning of others, and was ever ready not only to encourage young students but to render them practical aid. 1 His writings were numerous; some were published during his lifetime, and others, left in manuscript, were issued after his demise. When the Protestant Oueen succeeded to the throne, these writings were carefully treasured. Secretary Cecil, writing to Mr. Hurd in 1563, says he “understands he has preserved certain collections and commonplace notes made by the late Archbishop Cranmer. The queen thinks such a rare and precious treasure ought not to be had in secret, and desires him to send up without delay the precious documents for perusal.” 2 In order to attend to the multifarious duties of his exalted station, Cranmer was a great economist of his time. He rose gene¬ rally at five, and as he commenced early so he retired early, going to his bed¬ chamber about nine at night. In his busiest day he devoted several hours to his books, and Fox tells us that he accustomed himself to read and write in a standing posture, believing constant sitting to be very pernicious to a studious man. It is worthy of mention that he was a great advocate for the education of the poor, and used arguments which have not been surpassed in any of our modern educational controversies. Cranmer contended that to exclude poor men’s sons from the benefit of learning, as though they were unworthy to have the gifts of the Holy Ghost bestowed upon them, was as much as to say that the Almighty should not be at liberty to bestow his great gifts of grace upon any person, or anywhere else, but according to men’s fancy. God gave his gifts unto all kinds and states and people indif¬ ferently, wherefore, he added, “Yf the gentelman’s sonne be apte to lernyng lett hym be admitted; yf not apte, lett the poore mannys childe apte enter his rowme.” 3 The Archbishop’s brother Edmund became Archdeacon of Canterbury; and Edmund’s grandson, George, was noted for his extensive acquirements. He was a pupil of the celebrated Richard Hooker, whom he assisted in 1 Strype, 285. 2 State Papers , Domestic, A.D. 1563. 3 Narratives of the Reformation , p. 155. P 106 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. compiling his books on ecclesiastical polity. He served subsequently as secretary with Sir H. Killegrew, on an embassy to France, and accompanied Sir Edwin Sandys in his travels on the Continent for three years. On his return Lord Mountjoy took him as secretary into Ireland, and he was slain in a battle near Carlingford between the English and the rebels there, November 13, 1600. He was the author of a letter to Mr. Richard Hooker concerning the new Church Discipline, February, 1598, and other articles, which were “kept private to the great prejudice of the public.” 1 SIR EDMUND MOLYNEUX, Judge, was a son of Sir Thomas Molyneux of Hawton, near Newark, in the church of which parish several members of his family are buried. Sir Thomas was made a Baronet by Richard, Duke of Gloucester, at Berwick, in the year 1482, and he “built the church, and a fair house at Hawton.” 2 His first wife was Elizabeth, daughter of Robert Markham of Cotham, and his second, Katherine, the daughter of John Cotton of Ridgware, Stafford. By the former he had a son, Robert, who succeeded him, and by the latter, Edmund, who became a Judge. Edmund received his legal instruction at Gray’s Inn ; and in 1532, and again in 1536, was reader to that society. On November 20, 1542, he was invested with the coif, and while holding that degree was appointed one of the Council in the north. He became Judge of the Common Pleas, October 22, 1550, when he received the honour of knighthood. 3 Sir Edmund settled at Thorpe, by Newark, where he held the manor, having purchased the lands there which were the Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem, of a-Thorpe, who, with another gentleman named Lister, had received them from the Crown in the time of Henry VIII. 4 Sir Edmund died towards the end of 1562, and was succeeded in the Thorpe property by his son John. The character of Sir Edmund was most favour¬ ably depicted by Gregory King, Lancaster Herald. We need scarcely add that the Molyneux family to which the Judge belonged was one of great distinction. They can, says Foss, “trace their descent in uninterrupted knightly succession from a warrior who accompanied William of Normandy into England.” The present representative of the family is the Earl of Sefton. 1 Athence Oxottiensis, i. 306. 2 Thoroton, p. 181. 3 Foss’s Judges , v. 307. 4 Thoroton, p. 179. 11 'oodburytyf't. RICHARD WHALLEY. 107 RICHARD WHALLEY.—Soon after the ancient abbey of Welbeck had been dissolved by Henry VIII. it was purchased by Richard Whalley of Kirton, in this county. The same gentleman obtained of Robert Dighton, “ one of the jobbers in the estates of the dissolved religious houses,” 1 pro¬ perty in Osberton, Hardwick, and Worksop. Whalley was the son and heir of Thomas Whalley of Kirton, by his wife, Elizabeth, daughter of John Strelley, Esq., of Woodborough. He was entered at St. John’s College, Cambridge, but does not appear to have graduated. After leaving college, he attached himself to the Court of Henry VIII., and gained reputation by “ the grace and skill which he displayed in the martial exercises of that age.” 2 In 1535 he was employed with John Beaumont and others in surveying the religious houses in Leicestershire. After purchasing the extensive estates to which we have alluded, he was further enriched by a grant (37 Henry VIII.), not merely of the wardenship of Sibthorpe, but of the college of Sibthorpe and its possessions, subject to the life of Thomas Magnus their warden. In the reign of Edward VI. Whalley became a steward of the Lord Protector Somerset, to whom he is said to have been nearly related. 3 He certainly stood high in that great nobleman’s favour, and when Somerset was at the zenith of his power it was in contemplation to elevate Whalley to the peerage, by the title of Earl of Nottingham. On the fall of Somer¬ set from the exalted position he had occupied, those of his friends who had remained the most faithful to him were seized. Sir Michael Stanhope, a large owner of property in Notts, whom no blandishments or promises could induce to desert the cause of his fallen chief, was, with several others, condemned and executed. Whalley, though he was sent to the Tower, was more fortunate than Sir Michael, for he was released on the 25th Janu¬ ary 1549-50, on giving a recognisance to appear when called upon. His narrow escape did not deter him from clinging to the fortunes of Somerset, for he entered with spirit in February 1550-51, into an intrigue for restor¬ ing that nobleman to power. For this offence he was committed to the Fleet. After a second imprisonment his courage would appear to have deserted him. At all events, he consented to act as agent for the Earl of Warwick, afterwards Duke of Northumberland, and was called as a witness against his own patron. He was appointed Crown Receiver for Yorkshire, but was deprived of that office on a charge of malversation. He was sent 1 White’s Worksop , The Dukcries, and Sherwood Forest , p. 96. 2 A thence Cantabrigiensis, i. 544. 3 Ibid. io8 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. to the Tower on the 19th September 1552, and a heavy fine was imposed upon him. In 1554 he represented East Grinstead in the Parliament which met in April, and in subsequent Parliaments he was one of the knights of the shire for Nottinghamshire. 1 Plaving become involved in debts, amounting, through the fine imposed upon him, and from other causes, to above ,£48,000, he sold Welbeck, where he had resided, paid off the de¬ mands of his creditors, and took up his abode in Screveton. 2 The sale took place in 1558, the purchaser being Edward Osborne,citizen and clothworker of London. 3 On the 3d July 1561, Queen Elizabeth granted Whalley the manors and demesnes of Whatton, Hawksworth, and Toton, with theadvowson of the rectory of Hawksworth. He subsequently acquired other valuable estates, and when he died, November 23, 1583, after a long and chequered career, full of strange vicissitudes, he left a large fortune for his family to enjoy. He was thrice married and had many children—some authorities say twenty- five, and others nineteen. He had lived to see his children become con¬ nected by marriage with some of the leading families in this and the adjoin¬ ing counties. He was buried at Screveton, where his third wife erected on the south side of the chancel of the church a tomb of alabaster. According to the inscription he was eighty-four years of age when he died. We may add that Dr. Robert Keard dedicated to Whalley his Ground of Antes. SIR MICHAEL STANHOPE was the second son of Sir Edward Stanhope of Rampton, constable of Sandal Castle, temp. Henry VII. He was appointed governor of Hull by Henry VIII., and was enriched by that monarch, who, in the twenty-ninth year of his reign granted to him and his heirs the manor of Shelford, and very considerable property in the county which had belonged to the monastery there. Stanhope’s half sister, Anna, was married to Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset, who became Lord Protector, temp. Edward VI., so that Stanhope had a powerful friend at court. Having received the honour of knighthood, he was made chief gentleman of the Privy Chamber to Edward VI., and continued to be held in high esteem until Somerset’s troubles began. Into the details of these troubles we need not enter ; they are matters of general history. Suffice it to say, that when he was constrained to resign the Protectorate through the influential conspiracy which had been formed to effect his removal, Sir Michael did not desert his relative, but remained faithful to his cause. 1 Willis’s Not. Pari., iii. (2) ir, 38, 43. 2 Athcnce Cantabrigiensis , i. 544. 3 White’s Worksop , p. 138. SIR MICHAEL STANHOPE. 109 When the Duke of Northumberland found that “Somerset, though expelled from his dignity, and even lessened in the public opinion by his spiritless conduct, still enjoyed a considerable share of popularity, he determined to ruin the man whom he regarded as the chief obstacle to the attainment of his hopes.” 1 On the 16th October 1551, Somerset was arrested; and the next day, the Duchess and her favourites, including Sir Michael Stanhope and Sir Miles Partridge, were thrown into prison. Somerset was executed on January 22, 1552, to the great grief of the populace, many of whom rushed to the scaffold to dip their handkerchiefs in his blood. Sir Michael Stanhope, and several other of Somerset’s friends shared the same fate, great injustice having, according to Hume, been used in their prosecution. Sir Michael’s widow, Lady Anne Stanhope, survived him thirty-five years, and lived in great repute for her piety and virtue. She was buried in Shelforcl Church, over her tomb being an explanatory inscription stating that Sir Michael Stanhope whilst he lived was “ Governour of Hull under the late King of famous memory H. 8. and Chief Gentleman of the Privy Chamber to the late Noble and good King E. 6.” It then continues:—“By Sir Michaell she had these children, Sir Thomas Stanhope of Shelford in the County of Nott. Knight; Elenor married to Thomas Cooper of Thurgarton in Com. Nott. Esquire ; Edward Stanhope, Esquire, one of her Majesty’s Councell in the North parts of England ; Julian married to John Hothamof Scoreborough in Com. Eborum, Esquire ; John Stanhope, Esquire, one of the Gentleman of the Privy Chamber to our most deare Soveraigne Lady O. Elizabeth ; Jane married to Sir Roger Towneshend of Eyam in Com. Norf.; Edward Stanhope, Doctor of the Civile Law, one of her Majesties High Court of Chancery; Michaell Stanhope, Esquire, one of the Privy Chamber to Queen Elizabeth ; besides Margaret William and Edward, who died in their infancy. The said Lady Anne Stanhope, lived wydowe thirty-five years, in which time she brought up all her younger children in vertue and learning, whereby they were preferred to the marriages and callings before recited in her lifetime. She kept continually a worshipful House, relieved the poor daily, gave good countenance and comfort to the Preachers of God’s Word, spent the most of the time of her latter daies in Prayer, and using the Church where God’s Word was preached ; she being . . . old she died 20th day of February a 0 1587. the thirtieth year of the Reign aforsaid, in the Faith of Christ, with hope of a joyful Resurrection.” 1 Hume, v. 170. iio WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. SIR JOHN MARKHAM.—A competent soldier, who occupied posi¬ tions of much influence and responsibility for a considerable number of years was Sir John Markham, a member of the eminent Nottinghamshire family of that name. His father, likewise a Sir John, fought at the battle of Stoke as one of the staunch supporters of Henry VII. Being a valiant man he was “ much employed in public affairs,” but while his courage earned him confidence his turbulence led to lamentable results. Dugdale describes him as an “ unrulie spirited man,” and tells us this incident in confirmation of the remark, that, “ striving with the people of Long Bening- ton about the boundaries of their lordship, he killed some or other of them (some have it he hanged the priest), for which, retiring, he lay hid at a place called Cressy Hall, which he had through his great-grandmother, a daughter of Sir John Cressy of Hodsac. Here it was his good fortune to entertain the Lady Margaret, mother of King Henry VII., who not only procured his pardon, but married her kinswoman, Anne, the daughter and heir of Sir George Nevile, to his son, likewise called Sir John.” The “ unrulie spirited” soldier had the Friary at Newark, where he sometimes resided, and he also held lands at East Bridgeford. He was twice high sheriff, and lived to a great age, being succeeded by his son, who forms the subject of our present notice. Sir John followed the profession of arms, in which his father had gained distinction, and earned the good will of those high in authority. Thus we find Archbishop Cranmer writing to Cromwell in his favour in 1535, and commending him for his “good conversation and indifferency.” Sir John was concerned in a suit pending before the Lord Chancellor— what the nature of it was does not appear, but there was evidently a squabble in which others besides Sir John were concerned. We venture to quote the correspondence which, from the local references it contains, cannot fail to be of interest. Cranmer writes to Cromwell :— 1 Right Worshipful, in my most hearty wise I commend me unto you. And albeit, that many times heretofore I have been fully purposed and minded, most effectually and earnestly to write unto you in the favor of this my bearer, my friend Sir John Markham, touching his business and suits now depending before my Lord Chancellor; yet inasmuch as he hath always testified unto me that you were much better unto him than he could wish or desire, I have de¬ ferred the same hitherto, right heartily desiring and praying you as you have always been his special good master and friend so you will the rather at this request continue, and specially now touching this his suit before my Lord Chancellor, so that by your favourable word he may be the more indifferently heard, and have the sooner an end in the same, for I assure you he is the gentleman, whom, among all other, I never knew one that hath ordered himself so uprightly 1 The Remains of Archbishop Cranmer , collected by the Rev. H. Jenkyns, i. 153-5. SIR JOHN MARKHAM. 111 in quietness among his neighbours within his country as he hath ever done, or that is univer¬ sally better beloved, saving by them whom no man can favour or love. I therefore eft- soons, beseech you to help that he be discharged of this his unquiet vexation and trouble, none other ways but as it shall seem to you just so to do, wherein you shall not alonely show unto me no small pleasure, but also be sure to do for a right honest gentleman. Thus our Lord pre¬ serve you. At Forde the iii day of November. I have known the good conversation and indifferency of Sir John Markham in his country above 30 years, and that causeth me the bolder to write in his favour, for else I love not to intermeddle myself in other men’s causes. Also Sir William Merynge hath desired me to write unto you in his favour, whose letter I have sent unto you, commending his cause also unto you, for I know his impotency this five or six years. Meseemeth it is a strange thing that the King’s justices of peace should be handled as the adversaries of these men pretend unless some manifest and evident cause were against them. I am informed that the baily of Newark boasteth that Sir John Markham shall be committed unto ward before he make his answer.—Your assured ever, T. CANTUARIEN. To mine especial good friend Master Secretary this be delivered. Sir W. Merynge’s letter, enclosed by Cranmer, was as follows :— Most Reverend and Honourable Father in God, and my most singular good Lord, in my most humble and lowliest manner I recommend me unto your good lordship : most humbly beseeching your Grace to be good and gracious lord to me now; for so it is that my lord the Bishop of Lincoln [John Langland] and his ungracious servant Foster, his baily of Newarke, hath delivered me a subpoena, to appear in the Chancery quendena Michelis next coming upon pain of an cli., and God knoweth if I should lose all the land and goods that I have in the world, I may neither ride nor go but with two staves like two crutches, and farther do I not labour, but in my poor house to my chapel and to my garden ; and when I go in my waggon to Newarke to do my duty in serving the King’s most Noble Grace at his Sessions there; and God he knoweth what pain that is to me. I suppose of my conscience no poor wretch in this world doth labour with such pain as I do; and now to have a subpoena, to answer unto such matters as I have never offended in nor never gave cause unto the Bishop of Lincoln, nor unto Foster his baily, nor never did them any manner of displeasure, but that I did my duty in serv¬ ing the King’s most Noble Grace at his sessions without that ever I did or caused thing to be done there contrary to the King’s laws ; and if I should die this hour, I would take it death as I wd. answer before God. Thus my own most singular good lord, I beseech your lordship to be good and gracious lord to me, and to show my Lord Chancellor and Master Secretary what case I am in, and to require them to be good lord and master unto me and to the poor town of Newarke, which, without your and their good lordship and mastership the poor town of Newarke is and shall be utterly destroyed and undone for ever, for such bribery and such polling as is there is not within any town in England this day. And if they can prove that ever I did to Foster or caused to be done, contrary to the King’s laws, then let me be punished to the ex¬ ample of all others. Thus I can no more, but to my little power I am and ever shall be during my life natural your true beadman, as knoweth the holy Trinity, who ever preserve your good lordship. From Merynge the 6th day of October, by the hand of your old beadman, WILLIAM MERYNGE. What came of the dispute we are unable to ascertain, but we may be I I 2 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. sure Cranmer’s interposition would not, from his distinguished position and his friendship with Cromwell, be ineffective or inopportune. During the reign of Henry VIII. Sir John was twice high sheriff of Notts and Derby, and on the dissolution of the monasteries the house and site of the Abbey of Rufford, with large manorial possessions attached, were devised to him and his assigns for twenty-one years, at the yearly rent of £22 :8s. On the accession of Edward VI. he served as knight of the shire for his native county, and was made lieutenant of the Tower, a position in those days of much responsibility. Sir John was a firm friend of the Duke of Somerset, Lord Protector; and when his Grace was assailed by designing and envious enemies, and committed to the Tower, he, through his lenity towards the Duke, shared their hostility and lost his appointment. In King Edward’s journal of his own reign, there is this entry : “ A letter directed to Sir Arthur Darcy to take the charge of the Tower, and to discharge Sir John Markham ; upon this, that without making any of the Council privy, he suffered the Duke to walk abroad, and certain letters to be sent and answered between David Seyman and Mrs. Poynings, with divers other suspicions.” If any doubt, however, was felt as to Markham’s loyalty and sincerity, it was speedily banished from the king’s mind, for he was shortly afterwards appointed one of his Majesty’s visitors to the clergy and laity of the deanery of Doncaster. The injunctions which the visitors gave con¬ tained a prohibition of plough-Monday and other observances, some in¬ structions relative to the collecting of alms for the poor, and the following clause which is not very complimentary to the “ priestes —“ Item : foras¬ much as heretofore you have not by anie diligence or studie advanced yourselves unto knowledge in God’s will and his scriptures, condignly as appertaineth unto priestes and dispensators of God’s testament; to the intent hereafter you may be of better abilitie to discharge yourselves towards God and your offices to the world, you shall daily, for your own knowledge and study, read over diligently and weigh with judgment two chapters of the New Testament and one of the Old in Englysh, and the same shall put in use and practise, as well in living as in preaching at times convenient, when occasion is given.” Sir John was thrice married, his last wife being Anne, daughter and co-heir of Sir John Strelley, and relict of Sir Richard Stanhope. One of his daughters, Frances, was married to Henry Babington, and was mother of Anthony Babington, who was executed for conspiracy, and of whom more anon. Another daughter, Isabella, was maid of honour to Elizabeth, and one of the ladies who, in Mary’s reign, SIR HUGH WILLOUGHBY. '■3 was seized and sent to the Tower. She became the wife, subsequently, of Sir John Harrington; and Elizabeth, Queen of England, stood godmother to their son. SIR HUGH WILLOUGHBY.—Among the noble and the brave who have sacrificed their lives in the pursuit of knowledge, or the performance of duty, the name of this eminent man deserves an honoured place. Sir Hugh belonged to a distinguished family, a race “renowned in arts and arms.” He was the son of Sir Henry Willoughby of Wollaton, whose tomb may be seen in Wollaton Church. “ Sir Henry lies,” says the Rev. Canon Hole, “carved in stone in the centre, and at each corner are his four wives —so small,” the Canon wittily adds, “ that if the ladies were really of the size represented we cannot be surprised at his taking a quantity.” Sir Hugh appears to have devoted himself at an early period to naval pursuits, and to have become noted for his efficiency and his courage. About the year 1552 there was prevalent an eager desire to learn more of distant countries, and to promote trade. “ The impetus,” says a recent writer, “ which the discovery of America gave to maritime exploration had stimu¬ lated the greed of all English mariners and merchants to obtain a closer and easier connection with the fabulous treasures of the East. The first to attempt the task was ‘the Worshipful Master Thorne, in anno 1527,’ who, having conceived a vehement desire to attempt the navigation towards the north, ‘endeavoured to persuade Henry VIII. to take the discovery in hand,’ by drawing a brilliant picture of the rich countries to be found, and of the precious silks and jewels that would thus be brought into England. His ‘vehement desire’ was, however, not gratified.” 1 But some years afterwards a number of enterprising gentlemen, under the direction of Sebastian Cabot, resolved to form a company of merchant traders to fit out vessels for a voyage of discovery. The capital of the company was ^6000, in shares of ^25 each, and the main object which it had in view was to explore the northern seas, and to open a passage by the north-east to China, then generally known under the name of Cathay. 1 he majority of those who formed the company of “ merchant adventurers for the discoverie of lands, territories, and seignories unknown, doubtless looked upon it simply as a commercial enterprise; but there were others whose chief desire was, in the interests of science, to solve an interesting problem, among the latter being the Marquis of Winchester, the Earls of Arundel, 1 Edinburgh Review, October 1880, p. 380. Q WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. 114 Bedford, and Pembroke, and Lord Howard of Effingham. Three vessels were purchased—the Bona Esperanza of 120 tons burthen, the Edward Bonaventure of 160 tons, and a brig termed the Bona Confidentia. Two smaller craft were also obtained, and each vessel was equipped in the best way that could be devised for a long and arduous voyage. The ships furnished, we believe, the first recorded instance in English history of a precaution which had frequently been adopted by the Spaniards—that of being sheathed with lead for protection from the ravages of the marine worms of warm climates. Having obtained the requisite ships, the company needed a suitable commander for the expedition. A number of naval officers, with a courage that speaks well for the spirit animating the service, applied for the re¬ sponsible but honourable post. Amongst these was Sir Hugh Willoughby, who very earnestly requested to have the care and charge committed to him. A writer of the period describes him as a most valiant gentleman and well born, and goes on to say that he was chosen before all others, “ both by reason of his goodly personage (for he was of tall and manly stature), as also for his singular skill in the services of war.” Sir Hugh selected for his ship the Bona Esperanza , and his principal colleagues were Richard Chancelor, captain of the Bonaventure, and Cornelius Duckworth, who had control of the Bona Confidentia. In the pages of Hakluyt lists are preserved of the officers and men of the various ships, together with a copy of the “ juramentum or othe ” administered to the captain. There are also given the “ ordinances, in¬ structions, and advertisements of and for the direction of the intended voyage to Cathay,” which were compiled by Sebastian Cabot, and consist of thirty-three articles. In these instructions the duties of religion are strictly insisted upon. Morning and evening there are to be “prayers, with other common services appointed by the Kings Majesty and lawes of this realme, reade and saide in every ship daily,” and “the Bible paraphrases to be read devoutly and ; Christianly to God’s honour, and for his grace, to be obtained and had by humble and heartie prayer for the navigants accordingly.” There are regulations against “carding, dicing, and other such divelish games.” In the 25th article there is a piece of advice more ingenious than ingenuous. They are “ not to disclose to any nation the state of our religion, but to pass it over in silence, without any declaration of it, seeming to have with such laws and rules as the place hath where they shall arrive.” And in another article they are judiciously SIR HUGH WILLOUGHBY. ”5 warned that “ there are people that can swim in the sea, havens, and rivers, naked, having bows and shafts, coveting to draw nigh your ships, which, if they shall find be not well watched and warded, they will assault, desirous of the bodies of men, which they covet for meate; if you resist them they dive, and so will flee, and therefore diligent watch is to be kept in some islands both night and day.” The expedition, as may be gathered from the foregoing particulars, had the full concurrence and approval of King Edward VI., who issued a letter to the potentates in whose dominions Sir Hugh might chance to land, com¬ mending the explorer and his party to their consideration and goodwill. The letter is conceived in a liberal and enlightened spirit. It points out the amicable object of the enterprise—the promotion of commerce; for, says the missive, “ the God of heaven and earth, greatly providing for mankind, would not that all things should be found in one region, to the end that one should have need of another, that by this means friendship might be established among all men, and every one seek to gratify all.” It thus concludes :— “ Moved by the desire of establishing friendly relations with foreign peoples, certain of our subjects have proposed a journey to distant maritime regions, in order to open a trade with the nations inhabiting those districts, and have besought our permission to undertake the same. Consenting to their petition, we have given and granted to the brave and worthy knight Sir Hugh Willoughby and his companions, our faithful and well-beloved subjects, full power and authority to travel to these unexplored regions, there to seek such articles as we lack, and thither to bring from our shores such articles as these peoples may require. And so it will be for our mutual advantage and constant friendship, and an unbroken faith will link us together; while our traders are permitted to receive the superabundance of those lands, we on our part shall graciously send from our country what is lacking in theirs. Accordingly, we beseech you, kings, princes, and all in authority in these regions, to grant free passage through your dominions to these our subjects. They will touch none of your goods without your leave. What they may lack we beseech you for the sake of humanity to bestow on them, receiving in turn from them what will repay you. So bear yourselves towards them as ye would wish ourselves and our subjects to bear ourselves to your servants should they enter our dominions. And we solemnly pledge ourselves before God to receive your subjects at any time landing on our shores with equal kindness.” Armed with this admirable letter of introduction, Sir Hugh prepared for his departure. His ships carried with them provisions for eighteen months, and the hearts of his men beat high with expectation and hope. The start was effected on the ioth May 1553, amid a scene of much interest and excitement, which is thus quaintly described by an eyewitness :—“ The greater ships are towed with boats and oars, and the mariners being ap¬ parelled in watchet, or sky-coloured cloth, row amain, and made away with WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. 116 all diligence ; and being come near to Greenwich, where the Court then lay, presently on the news thereof the courtiers came running out, and the common people flocked together, standing very thick upon the shore; the Privy Council they looked out at the windows, and the rest ran up to the tops of the towers. The ships hereupon discharge their ordnance, and shoot off their pieces, after the manner of war, and of the sea, insomuch that the tops of the hills sounded therewith, the valleys and the waters gave an echo, and the mariners shouted in such sort that the sky rang again with the noise thereof. One stands in the poop of the ship, and by his gestures, bids farewell to his friends in the best manner he can ; another walks upon the hatches; another climbs the shrouds ; another stands upon the main-yard ; and another in the top of the ship ; to be short, it was a very triumph (in a sort), in all respects, to the beholder. But alas! the good King Edward (in respect of whom, principally, all this was prepared), he only, by reason of his sickness, was absent from this show; and not long after the departure of the ships the lamentable and most sorrowful accident of his death took place.” The vessels kept well together until they arrived, in August, off the coast of the island of Spitzbergen, when a violent storm arose which caused them to part company. Captain Chancelor was driven to the south-west, and after some time entered the Categat. Proceeding up the Baltic Sea, he landed in Russia, where he presented his credentials, and was received with much hospitality. Reciprocating the kindly spirit in which the letter was written, the Russian monarch sent a courteous and friendly reply, and his subjects subsequently founded a company called “ The Russia Company of Merchants,” which has been in existence ever since. Sir Hugh did not meet with the same good fortune as his colleague of the appropriately- named Bonaventure. He was driven in a northern direction, and took shelter with the other two ships in the bay of Arzina, Lapland. Unable to guard themselves against the severity of a northern winter, the whole party perished “in a river or haven called Arzina, in Lapland, near unto Kegor,” 1 where their remains were discovered in the following spring. The body of Sir Hugh, who had evidently been frozen to death, was seated in a chair, with his will and the ship’s log-book before him. The book had been carefully kept, and it appeared therefrom that most of the party weathered the storm until January, when they succumbed. In his poem of The Seasons, Thomson thus graphically describes their fate :— 1 State Papers (Colonial Series), 1513-1616, p. 5. SIR HUGH WILLOUGHBY. 117 “ Miserable they Who, here entangled in the gathering ice, Take their last look of the descending sun : Who full of death and fierce with tenfold frost, The long, long night, incumbent o’er their heads Falls horrible. Such was the Briton’s fate As with first prow (what have not Britons dared !) He for the passage sought, attempted since So much in vain, and seeming to be shut By jealous Nature with eternal bars. In these fell regions, in Arzina caught, And to the stony deep his idle ship Immediate seal’d, he with his hapless crew, Each full exerted at his several task, Froze into statues; to the cordage glued The sailor, and the pilot to the helm.” The diary which Sir Hugh kept records little else but disaster—speaking of terrible whirlwinds, thick mists, and generally inclement weather, which harassed and distressed them, and did damage to the vessels. The last entry is as follows:—“The next day, being the 18th of September, we entered into the haven, and there came to an anker at six fadoms. This haven runneth into the main about two leagues, and is in breadth half a league, wherein were very many seale fishes and other great fishes; and upon the main we saw beares, great deere, foxes, with divers strange beasts and gulloines (ellons), and such other, which were to us unknown and won¬ derful. Thus remaining in this haven by the space of a weeke, seeing the yeare farre spent, and also very evill wether, as frost, snow, and haile, as though it had been the deepe of winter, we thought best to winter there. Wherefore, we sent out three men south-east, three days’ journey, who re¬ turned without finding of people or any similitude of habitation.” The frozen bodies of the unfortunate mariners were discovered by Russian fisher¬ men, who took charge of the papers, while the vessels were transported by the Czar’s command, with all their goods intact, to Kholmagora ; and when Chancelor visited Russia again in 1555, they were delivered over to him. The expedition ending so disastrously deprived the country of some of its ablest mariners and noblest spirits; but it cannot be said to have been altogether abortive, for the visit of Chancelor to Russia paved the way for commercial relations with that extensive and important country. JOHN PLOUGH.—An earnest Protestant, who fled for safety on the accession of Queen Mary, was John Plough, the son of Christopher Plough, 118 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. of Nottingham, and nephew to John Plough, Rector of St. Peter’s. After spending several years at Oxford he succeeded his uncle in the rectorship of St. Peter’s in 1538, theadvowson having been bought for him “of Thomas Hobson the Prior, and Convent of Lenton.” 1 He became noted through¬ out the country for his zeal as a Protestant and for his fervour as a minister of God’s word during the reign of Edward VI. On the death of that monarch he fled to Basil, where he wrote An Apology for the Protestants in answer to a book against the English Protestants, written by one Miles Hogeard, of London, hosier, described as “ the first trader or mechanic that appeared in print for the Catholic cause.” 2 He next engaged in controversy with William Iveth and Robert Crowley, the former an exile at Frankford. His other writings were, A Treatise against the Mitred Man in the Popish Kingdom , and The Sound of the Doleful Trumpet. “He was living,” says Wood, “ at Basil, in great esteem among the exiled Protestants, in the latter end of Queen Mary, but whether he lived to return when Queen Elizabeth succeeded I cannot yet find.” 3 ANTHONY BABINGTON.—All lovers of history, and those espe¬ cially who have studied the melancholy details of the career of Mary Queen of Scots, will be familiar with what was termed the Babington conspiracy . —an unlucky, ill-advised plot, which had for its object the elevation of Mary Stuart to the English throne. The principal actor in the tragedy, Anthony Babington, was a gentleman of good family, intimately connected with this county, one of the family residences being at Kingston-on-Soar, in the church of which village memorials of the Babingtons may still be seen. Thoroton says, “ This lordship was the seat of the Babingtons, and a very fair house they had here.” Anthony Babington had considerable property in the county, including lands at Kingston, Gotham, Marnham, Normanton, Osberton, Mattersey, and elsewhere. It is not necessary that we should enter into many particulars of the events which brought Babing¬ ton to the scaffold ; but a brief narrative of them may not be altogether inappropriate or uninteresting. It appears that, when in Paris in 1581, Babington—who was a staunch Catholic, his tutor having been a priest named Pole—made the acquaintance of the Archbishop of Glasgow, and allowed himself to be gained over to the cause of the Queen of Scots. 4 There were at this time a good many English priests at the French capital, 1 Athena Oxoniensis , i. 126. 2 Ibid. 3 Athena: Oxoniensis, i. 126. 4 Hardwick’s State Papers , i. 1157. ANTHONY BABINGTON. ”9 who were bitterly hostile to Queen Elizabeth for her support of the Pro¬ testant faith, and with these Babington consulted as to the best method of ridding the Catholic cause of its powerful adversary. A person named Robinson, who had served in the Chancery, stated that the plot was approved at Rome, and that “ Babington and the rest were sent for to Italy, when the Pope and princes promised them aid in their enterprise.” The same person thus narrates a curious conversation he had with a Papist: —“ He asked how the queen, a heretic, and illegitimate and excommunicate, held her kingdom. I reminded him that the King of France was a heretic. He replied that the king had become from a devil to an angel, but the queen had changed to the contrary, for at first she allowed masses, as did her godly sister, till others took order that she might not live. I observed that the English got the victory in all wars, especially last year”—a retort which Robinson evidently thought unanswerable, implying, as it did, that Providence had rather smiled than frowned upon Elizabeth for the course she was pursuing. 1 Returning to London Babington acted as intermediary for the corres¬ pondence of the Scotch queen with the archbishop and others. On the re¬ moval of Mary from the custody of the Earl of Shrewsbury the correspond¬ ence was broken off, and Babington ceased to have any communication with the refugees in Paris. He was contemplating leaving England, and retiring to some Catholic country, when he met Ballard, a priest, who had been secretly engaged stirring up hatred of Queen Elizabeth. Ballard re¬ kindled his enthusiasm, and a plot was formed, in which eight or ten other gentlemen willingly entered, the object being to assassinate Elizabeth, and thus make way for the Scotch queen to rule the country. The intentions of the conspirators may be gleaned from a letter which Babington wrote to Mary. Having requested her to appoint persons to act as lieutenants, and raise the populace in Wales, and in the counties of Lancashire, Derby, and Stafford, he goes on to say, “ myself in person, with ten gentlemen and a hundred others of our company and suite, will undertake the deliverance of your royal person from the hands of your enemies. As regards getting rid of the usurper, from subjection to whom we are absolved by the act of excommunication issued against her, there are six gentlemen of quality, all of them my intimate friends, who, for the love they bear to the Catholic cause and to your Majesty’s service, will undertake the tragic execution.” 2 1 State Papers (Domestic), 1598-1601, p. 138. 2 History of Mary Queen of Scots (Mignet’s), ii. 279. 120 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. This letter was replied to by Mary at some length. The unfortunate queen, thrown completely off her guard, entered into details as to her rescue, advising what course should be pursued to liberate her from the grasp of her custodians. Meanwhile, Secretary Walsingham had been on the alert. The letters had been cunningly intercepted, and prompt action taken. Ballard was arrested, and Babington, in great consternation, paid a visit to a fellow-conspirator named Savage, and asked him what was to be done. “ Nothing,” answered Savage, “but to kill the queen immediately.” “Very well,” said Babington, “then go to Court to-morrow and strike the blow.” Savage objected that his Court dress was not ready, and Babing¬ ton gave him his ring and all the money he had with him, that he might obtain one the next day. 1 Fearing that Savage would not execute the commission, Babington determined to do it himself, but his courage failed him. He fled from London to Harrow, having first disguised himself as a labourer, cut off his hair, and stained his face with walnut juice. His pur¬ suers followed closely upon his heels, and, in their eagerness, searched “even into the bedchambers of wealthy and worshipful persons.” In his enforced wanderings Babington reached Derby, where Sir Thomas Fitz- herbert sheltered him ; 2 but his hiding-place was soon discovered, for it was natural that in the counties where he was best known he would have the least chance of escape. Returning hastily to London, he was there assisted by several of his friends and sympathisers, including, it is said, the French Ambassador ; 3 but eventually he was detected and apprehended. On the 19th September (1586) he wrote an earnest letter to the queen, imploring her forgiveness. 11 was as follows : — 4 Most Gracious Sovereign —If either bitter tears, a pensive, contrite harte, or my dolefull sighs of the wicked sinner, might work any pitye in your royal brest, then would I wring out of my drained eyne so much blood as, in bewraying my drery tragedy, should lamentably bewayle my fall, and so, no doubt, move you to compassion. But since there can be no proportion betwixt the quality of my crime and any human commiseration, shew, sweet Queen, some miracle upon a wretch lying prostrate in your prison, grievously bewayling his offences, and imploring such comfort at your anoynted hands as my poor wife’s affliction doth beg, my child’s innocency doth crave, my guiltless family doth wishe, and mine owne most heynous treachery doth least deserve : So shall your devyne mercy make your glory shine as far above all other princes as these my most horrible practises are most detestable amongst your best subjects, whom longe and happily to governe I beseech the mercyfull Master himself to graunt 1 History of Mary Queen of Scots, ii. p. 293. Sir Thomas was accused of the offence, and of allowing mass to be said at his house.— State Papers, 1581-90. _ 3 State Papers, 1580-1625, addenda. 4 Collectanea Topographica, viii. 355. WILLIAM LEE. t 2 r for his sweet Sonne’s sake, Christ Jesus.—Your most unfortunate, because most disloyal sub J ect > ANTHONY BABINGTON. The appeal was unavailing-. On the 20th September, after a trial which will be found fully reported in Howell’s State Trials , Babington and six of his accomplices were drawn and quartered. On the scaffold Babington acknowledged himself a most grievous trespasser against God and the queen, and his last words were, “ Parce mihi domine Jesu.” So ended a wicked conspiracy, which, by planning against one queen, hurried on the execution of another, and brought upon the conspirators themselves torture, disgrace, and death. WILLIAM LEE.—A few years ago, when hosiery was more generally made in the country villages around Nottingham than it is now, two places which contributed as large a quota as any in proportion to their popula¬ tions, were the parishes of Calverton and Woodborough. No one could pass through the main thoroughfares, or even along the short by-ways which those villages possess, without the peculiar rattle and din of the frames sounding incessantly in his ears. The well-filled shops, where the busy stocking-makers worked, presented an appearance of great activity ; while in the houses, and often clustered outside the doorways, the wives and daughters occupied themselves in “ seaming ” the stockings and socks as they came from the workshop. The introduction of steam machinery has vastly lessened the amount of work which finds its way into the country districts, but, though a great change is observable, the making of stockings forms the staple industry of Calverton and Woodborough, as it did years ago. And very appropriate it is that these two places should be engaged in the hosiery trade, seeing that to one of them belongs the honour of being the birthplace of the clerical inventor of the stocking-frame—the Rev. William Lee. The information obtainable regarding the earlier years of the man whose inventive genius did so much to benefit his native county and the world is unfortunately of a meagre description. Doubt is expressed as to his birth¬ place, and we have conflicting traditions as to the origin of his discovery. It may interest the reader if we inquire briefly into the merits of the state¬ ments which have been made, and present the evidence so far as it pos¬ sesses interest or importance. First, then, as to his birthplace. Thoroton, undoubtedly one of the best authorities, seeing that he lived in the neigh¬ bourhood, and published his book within sixty-seven years of Lee’s death, R 122 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. states that he was born in Calverton, and was heir “ to a pretty freehold there.” The Calverton parish register does not commence soon enough to contain any entry of his baptism, presuming he was baptized there. It be¬ gins October 6, 1568, and contains shortly after that date several notices of the family of Lee—viz., the baptism of four sons of William Lee—Edward in 1574, Robert 1577, John 1580, James 1582. There is also the entry of the burial of William Lee the elder in 1595. This, says Mr. Felkin, 1 who took some trouble to examine the registers, “ implies that there was a Wil¬ liam Lee the younger, and who, if Thoroton be correct as to the inventor being heir to the freehold estate, would be older than any of the four regis¬ tered brothers, and probably born before the registry begins.” There are numerous other entries of the Lee family, and the following important note by an old incumbent, “ Buried Joseph Lee, stockiner, the last of the family of stocking-frame inventor Lee, in this parish, 17th April 1755.” The incumbent who made this entry seems to have been an observant man, and was no doubt, fully convinced in his own mind of the accuracy of his state¬ ment. Amongst other notices of events which occur in his handwriting, is the following, under date 1765 :—“ The stocking manufacture very bad last year and this, scarce half work to be got or half bellies to be filled. The Lord have mercy on the poor! ” All this is strong evidence in favour of the claims of Calverton, and a reference to the registers of Woodborough, which begin twenty years earlier, does not reveal anything of a contradictory nature. There was a family of Lee at Woodborough contemporaneous with the Calverton one, and under date 1587 there was buried one William Lee. The Rev. S. L. Oldacres, late incumbent of Woodborough, in a letter addressed to Mr. Cooper of Cam¬ bridge, author of Athena Ccintabrigiensis, says, perhaps this William Lee may have been the father of the inventor of the frame. There was another Lee, “ the sonne of William,” buried in March 1579, who may have been “ a son of the inventor,” but there is no entry which can be supposed to relate to the baptism of the inventor himself. Mr. Oldacres says, “ The family of Lee or Lees, for it is spelled both ways, have continued in this parish till the present day. They have a tradition that an ancestor of theirs was the in¬ ventor of the stocking-frame, and that he lived in a part of an old house now standing.” It is possible that the two families may have been related, and that though the inventor belonged to Calverton, he introduced his machine at an early period amongst his friends in the neighbouring village. 1 Vide Felkin’s History of Machinery- Wrought Hosiery and Lace. WILLIAM LEE. 123 There is a tradition in Calverton that the first frame was constructed and worked in a building at Woodborough, and that Lee caused the hose made on it to be sold in Nottingham. But perhaps the most conclusive evidence is that afforded by the petition which the London framework knitters pre¬ sented to Cromwell in 1656, when they were seeking to obtain a charter of incorporation. In that petition, which was carefully prepared, and the state¬ ments in which would be verified as far as possible, they say, “ that the trade of framework knitting was never known or practised here in England, or any other place in the world, before it was (about fifty years past) invented and found out by one William Lee of Calverton, in the county of Notting¬ ham, gent., who by himself and such of his kindred and countrymen as he took unto him for servants, practised the same many years.” Of the place where Lee received his education there is no room for doubt. Thoroton describes him as Master of Arts of Cambridge, and the close inquiries which have been made in recent years show that he was a member of that famous university. Mr. Cooper says, “He matriculated as a sizar of Christ’s College in May 1579. He subsequently removed to St. John’s College, and as a member of that house proceeded B.A. 1582-3. We believe that he commenced M.A. 1586, but on this point there appears to be some ambiguity in the records of the university.” On the conclusion of his uni¬ versity career, Lee appears to have returned to his native place to officiate either as curate or incumbent—most probably in the latter capacity. The glebe house at Calverton was standing in the reign of Elizabeth, and the living was worth £\ yearly. It was whilst in holy orders that Lee designed his frame. There are two or three stories extant as to the origin of the invention, which we may revert to, though it is questionable whether they are worth repetition. One of the stories is romantic, and another is rigidly business-like and common¬ place. The pretty story, which is the best known in the neighbourhood, and which was repeated to us by an old resident on a recent visit to the locality, is to the effect that Lee was deeply in love with a young Wood- borough woman who was an adept at the art of knitting. His visits to her were constant, but to his great chagrin the wayward damsel persisted in appearing more attentive to her knitting than to the amorous observations of her lover. Vexed that needles and worsted should interpose between the conversation of himself and his sweetheart, Lee began to think how he could draw her attention from the obnoxious though useful art, and at last contrived to invent a knitting machine. This, as we have before said, is 124 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. the prettiest of the tales. The other makes necessity the mother of inven¬ tion. It places stern poverty and want as the motive power to move Lee’s brains, as it has ere now moved the brains and the hands of many an honest man. Having married contrary to the statutes, Lee was, it is said, ex¬ pelled from the university ; and was left with his young wife to seek a living elsewhere. In this predicament the wife set to work to knit stockings for sale, and whilst mournfully watching the motions of her fingers, Lee con¬ ceived the idea of imitating the movements by a machine. Whilst this account appears the most probable, it must be accepted cum grano salis. Lee cannot have been of a very poor family, seeing that they were free¬ holders of Calverton, and it is tolerably certain that he was never expelled from the university where he received his training. Dr. Ure, who, about the year 1833, investigated the history of the hosiery and lace trades with the assistance of Mr. Felkin and others, gives the following as a more likely version of the traditional stories : “ Lee in youth was enamoured of a mis¬ tress of the knitting craft, who had become rich by employing young women at this highly-prized and lucrative industry. By studying fondly the dex¬ terous movements of the lady’s hands, he became himself an adept, and had imagined a scheme of making artificial fingers for knitting many loops at once. Whether this feminine accomplishment excited jealousy or detracted from his manly attractions is not said ; but his suit was received with cold¬ ness, and then rejected with scorn. Revenge prompted him to realise the idea which love first inspired, and to give days and nights to the work. This, ere long, he brought to such perfection that it has since remained without essential improvement the most remarkable stride in modern invention.” As may be imagined great difficulties had to be surmounted by the inventor. Remarkable ingenuity had to be brought into play; and we can well understand that a machine like the stocking-frame would not be produced without an immense amount of trouble, skill, and perseverance. From the account which Henson has left, and which is corroborated by an anonymous writer also quoted by Mr. Felkin, we may form a tolerable idea of the course most likely pursued by Lee in constructing his frame. It is said that Lee’s first idea was to construct a machine to make a round web, having as many needles as loops in the circumference of the hose, but after watching his mistress knit the heel, using two needles only, he determined to make the web flat, or in a straight line of loops. In constructing a frame to do this his abilities were taxed to the uttermost. At every step he was met with some difficulty. After devising the long-bearded WILLIAM LEE. I2 5 hook or needle, he made his first attempt at looping. “He fixed a number of needles in a piece of wood upon a wooden framework (hence the name frame), and endeavoured to make a succession of loops upon them by hand ; which he finally accomplished, knitting on this row of hooks a pair of garters. He then turned his attention to constructing a substitute for the work of the hand, and ‘ presser,’ ‘jacks,’ and ‘sinkers,’ were brought successively into being. In Lee’s frame the jacks were of wood, one to each needle, and the whole row of jacks were kept in place by working in a comb. The sinkers were so skilfully devised that they have continued without material change, and the same may be said of many other parts ot the machine. When completed it ran on two trucks, but it was subsequently made to run on four, thus economising time and labour.” Having brought his frame into practical use hose were made at Calverton and Woodborough. An old house in the last-named village is still pointed out as the place where one of the first frames was set up, and both parishes have been occupied mainly by framework knitters ever since. Lee was assisted by his brother James and other relatives, and the employ¬ ment, Mr. Felkin tells us, was considered so honourable that they used to wear silver work needles suspended by silver chains at their breasts—a practice which continued as late as the reign of Queen Anne. After work¬ ing about two years in the comparative seclusion of his native village, Lee sought a wider field. He removed with his machine to London, and commenced the manufacture of hose on Bunhill Fields, St. Luke’s. The invention was brought under the notice of the queen by Lord Hunsden, and her Majesty paid a visit to Lee’s workshop to see the frame worked. At this time the needles were being used eight to the inch, and stockings were being made of worsted. The queen was disappointed at the coarse¬ ness of the work ; and when Lord Hunsden begged a patent of monopoly for the inventor, she expressed her surprise and mortification, at the same time intimating that she was not disposed to sanction a machine which might throw many of her industrious subjects out of employment. Flad Mr. Lee made silk stockings she might have felt justified in granting him a patent, as only a small number of people would have been affected thereby, but to enjoy the exclusive privilege of making stockings for the whole of her subjects was too important to be granted to any individual. 1 The 1 Silk stockings, being a foreign commodity, were prohibited, saving to those of a certain degree. In 1582 the worsted stockings in common use were us. a pair; in 1592 they were 8s. to 9s., as appears by a letter in the State Papers. From the same authority we learn that the number of 126 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. queen’s answer, though sufficiently annoying, did not damp Lee’s courage. He had faith in the ultimate success of his invention, and the only effect of disappointment was to stimulate him to further efforts. A frame was made having twenty needles to the inch; iron jacks were substituted for wooden ones, and other improvements made; and at length, in 1598, Lee produced a pair of silk hose, which he proudly presented to her Majesty. He had the satisfaction of hearing the hose highly praised, but beyond this he met with no encouragement. Elizabeth’s successor was equally indifferent to the merits of the invention, and Lee had no alternative but to seek in a foreign land the support and recognition which he failed to obtain in his own. 1 At the invitation of the French envoy, Lee with his brother and nine workmen took up their abode in Rouen. The French monarch received him very graciously when he visited Paris, and his prospects became bright and cheering. But an unexpected event doomed him to further disappoint¬ ment. His royal patron was assassinated, and the regent would not con¬ tinue to him the necessary protection. He was left to wander about Paris without a friend. Suspected on account of his religion, deserted by those who should have befriended him, with ruined hopes and empty pockets, the position of the man who laid the foundation of a great trade, out of which large fortunes have since been made, was pitiable in the extreme. In great distress he sent to Rouen for his brother James, who hastened to Paris to comfort and assist him. But before he could reach the French capital the troubled spirit had been hushed by death, and the body had been consigned to the grave. No tombstone marks the spot where the remains of this Nottinghamshire worthy lie, but if we wish to see a monu¬ ment of him we have only to look around at the colossal buildings which have arisen as a result of his inventive skill. To those who desire to follow the progress of the framework knitting trade after the return of the workmen from Rouen to London, and to trace the various alterations made in the machine by a miller of Thoroton near Bingham, named Aston, and other persons, will do well to consult Mr. Felkin’s interesting volume. It only remains for us to add that there is no authentic likeness of Lee in existence, and that we have met with no docu- woollen stockings transported out of the realm between 1 594 - 95 , both by English and strangers, was 35,048 pairs. 1 The same objection—that it would injuriously affect the interests of knitters—was raised by King James. Writing, July 4, 1611, to Sir Dudley Carleton, George Carleton “begs his favour for Mr. Joiner, who is going to Venice to practise the silk loom stocking-weaving, which is not permitted in England for fear of ruining ihe knitters.'”—State Papers , Domestic , 1611 -18, p. 54. JOHN DARREL. 127 ments relating to him or his invention after a careful search in the Calendars of State Papers and elsewhere. There was at one time a painting of Lee by Balderston in the possession of the Framework Knitters’ Company, but its whereabouts is not now known. JOHN DARREL.—For centuries witchcraft was universally believed in. The prevalence of an opinion that certain persons were possessed of supernatural powers, and were assisted by invisible spirits through a com¬ pact with the devil, can be traced back to a very early period. In the sixteenth century the absurd idea met with general acceptance. It was held that those who had given themselves up body and soul to the Evil One had the power to transform themselves into various shapes, and to inflict diseases on whomsoever they thought proper. The credence which this delusion gained led to much imposture and cruelty. Numbers of persons, particularly aged and ill-favoured women, were condemned as witches and burnt to death. On the strength of what a writer calls “ the accusations of children, old women, and fools,” 1 thousands of unhappy creatures lost their lives. On the Continent, in the fifteenth century, com¬ missioners were appointed for the discovery and conviction of witches. In 1494 Sprenger and Institor, two persons employed in this commission, published a collection of trials, most of which had come before themselves, under the title of Malleus Maleficarum. In this country the belief was so common that only one writer, Reginald Scott, was courageous enough to oppose it, and James the First, who had written on demonology, ordered the book to be burnt by the common executioner. Towards the close of the sixteenth century, when the superstition had firm hold of society, a sensation was caused throughout England by the proceedings of the Rev. John Darrel, who professed to have the power of driving out evil spirits. Darrel was born at or near Mansfield, and matriculated as a sizar of Queen’s College, Cambridge, in June 1575. He proceeded B.A. in 1578-9, and continued in Cambridge until 1582, when, as he purposed following the legal profession, he went to London to study. He was, however, as he himself states, of “a strange” and “sluggish” disposition, and wild and fanatical in his notions. He remained in London about a year, and then, pretending to be called to the office of a preacher, he settled at Mansfield, and took upon himself the discharge of ministerial functions. Turning his attention to the subject of witchcraft, 1 Encyclopaedia Britannica , art. “Witchcraft,” ed. 179 7. 128 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. he made it the constant theme of his conversation, and gave out that he was an exorcist, "whilst credulity spread his fame far and wide.” 1 In 1586 there was brought to him at Mansfield by Mr. Beckingham, rector of Bilsthorpe, Catharine Wright, a Derbyshire girl, who was supposed to be afflicted with evil spirits. Darrel undertook to relieve her of the unwelcome visitors, and after he had fasted and prayed for three days she was said to be cured. At Darrel’s instigation one Margaret Roper was apprehended for having bewitched the girl and sent “ a legion of fiends into her.” Fortunately the case came on for hearing before a wise tribunal. Mr. Godfrey Foljambe, the justice of the peace before whom Roper was brought, was cute enough to detect the roguery. He discharged the woman and threatened to send Darrel to prison. 2 It is not surprising to find that, while Mr. Foljambe exercised magisterial functions, Darrel kept his pretensions in the background. He removed his abode to Bulwell; but in 1592 went still farther away from Mansfield, having taken a small farm at Ashby-de-la-Zouch. The sale of some leaseholds, which had been left him by his father, enabled him to stock his land, and for two or three years he lived in comparative quietude. In 1595 Mr. Foljambe died; and Darrel, who represented his demise as a judgment on his credulity, felt himself free to resume his attempts at imposture. In Whitsuntide 1596 he exorcised Thomas Darling of Burton-on-Trent, a boy; and Alice Goodrich, who was supposed to have bewitched the lad, was tried at Derby and convicted; but the officials were spared the trouble of her execution, for the wretched woman died in prison. Darling’s case u r as largely commented upon, and a history of the “ depossessing of the boy of Burton,” was written by Jesse Bee of that town, sadler, whom Dr. Heylyn quaintly calls “a religious sad lyar.” 3 The book revived and extended Darrel’s fame; and, as there w r ere plenty of persons who were bewitched, he soon had a good deal of work to do. In March 1596-7, he w r as at Clayworth, in Lancashire, where he exorcised seven persons who had been bewitched (as alleged) by a conjuror—an offence for which the unfortunate man lost his life. All the persons save one were said to have recovered, and this gave occasion for another book, written by Mr. Decon, preacher at Leigh, and corroborated as to the statements it contained by George More, pastor of a village in Derbyshire. 4 1 Blackner’s History of Nottingham, p. 75. 2 Athena: Cantabrigiensis , ii. 380. 3 Heylyn’s Hist. Presbyt ., 2d edit., 345. 4 Athena Cantabrigiensis , ii. 381. JOHN DARREL. 129 Darrel had now reached the pinnacle of his fame. In November 1597, Mr. Aldridge, vicar of St. Mary’s, invited him to Nottingham. A boy named Somers, apprenticed in the town, had caused much alarm to his friends by his manoeuvres. He possessed, we are told, the art of distending his limbs very much during the paroxysms of his affected malady, and producing strange contortions of his face and body he excited great attention and sympathy among the credulous people around him, all of whom declared him to be bewitched. Darrel had known the boy at Ashby, and was so well acquainted with his case that he readily undertook to effect a cure. Having declared that Somers was “suffering for the sins of the whole people of Nottingham,” a day was appointed for the relief of the lad from the torments which such a weight of iniquity produced. A great crowd assembled, before whom Mr. Aldridge preached a sermon, and then the sufferer was brought in. Darrel mentioned fourteen signs by which the presence of the evil spirits could be detected, and the boy manifested them all. Then Darrel proceeded with his performance, and ere long Somers was pronounced safe and sound. The fame of Darrel forthwith spread with lightning rapidity, and he was asked to become assistant minister at St. Mary’s Church. But an end speedily came to all this imposture, for Somers, being taken into the workhouse, confessed that he had been tutored by Darrel, who had taught him how to play the fantastic tricks which had produced so much astonishment. The Archbishop of York was thereupon induced to appoint a commission of inquiry. The commissioners sat at Nottingham, 20th March 1597-8, and, as a result of their investigations, the archbishop prohibited Darrel from preaching. Nor did the matter end here. A letter was written to the archbishop by Archdeacon Whitgift of Derby, and a representation made by Chief-Justice Anderson, who, happening to be on the Midland circuit, had ordered Somers to be brought before him. The case was submitted to the high commissioners for ecclesiastical causes. Bishop Bancroft of London, assisted by his chaplain, Samuel Harnett, conducted the inquiry with great care, and the imposture was clearly detected. Somers, Catherine Wright, and Mary Cooper, confessed that they had been tutored by Darrel, who was thereupon apprehended, tried before a full bench, degraded from the ministry, and committed to gaol. What subsequently became of him is unknown. We may add that no less than ten publications were issued relative to Darrel’s proceedings, some of them widely circulated; and that amongst his dupes were several eminent divines, including no less s 130 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. notable a personage than Joseph Hall, successively Bishop of Norwich and Exeter. As a result of the interest which the matter had aroused in the Church and through the country, ministers were prohibited, without episcopal license, from attempting to cast out devils. The belief in witchery, how¬ ever, was not shaken by the scandal. During the civil wars upwards of eighty were hanged in Suffolk, upon the accusations of Hopkins, the witch- finder. 1 The belief had been supported previously by James the First, and countenanced by Bacon. But towards the middle of the seventeenth century it began to lose ground. The superstition was assailed and exposed by clever writers, and was eventually swept away by the irresistible wave of enlightenment and civilisation. JOHN LOUTHE.—When Fox, the martyrologist, was collecting materials for his remarkable book, one of his correspondents was John Louthe, Archdeacon of Nottingham, who sent him a long article, the manuscript of which is still preserved, 2 and has been published under the able editorship of Mr. John Gough Nichols. 3 Louthe was a member of a Suffolk family, and was born in the summer of 1519. He was for some time in the service of Sir Richard Southwell, but on the accession of Oueen Elizabeth, received ecclesiastical preferment in Nottinghamshire, where he resided for a quarter of a century. He became Archdeacon of Nottingham in 1565, Rector of Gotham in 1567, and Vicar of St. Mary’s, Nottingham, in 1569. He resigned the last-named living in 1572, and in 1574 received the rectory of Hawton, near Newark, which he held for fifteen years. In 1572, he contributed lines in praise of the medical waters of Bath and Buxton, to a book published by Dr. Jones, and entitled “ The Bathes of Bathes Ayde: compendiously compiled by John Jones, Phisition, anno Salutis 1572, at Asple Hall, besyde Nottingham.” The reminiscences which Louthe forwarded to Fox are of a most interesting character. Louthe was an ardent Protestant; and he cordially thanked Fox for the pains he was taking to set forth “ the worthy actes of those late martyres of Chryste in Englande.” The narratives which he contributed include the examination of a blind boy at Gloucester, the tragical life and end of a Catholic priest at London, the shameful murdering of Mr. Edmund Louthe of Sawtrey (his father) by monks and priests, and the religious persecution 1 Encyclopedia Britamuca, art. “Witchcraft” (ed. 1797). 2 MS. Harl., 425, f. 134. 3 Narratives of the Reformation (Camden Society). JOHN LOUTHE. 131 of Anne Askew, sister of Sir Francis Askew, and of Mrs. Disney of Norton Disney, a village near Newark. Askew was condemned and executed, and amongst her fellow-sufferers was Mr. Lascelles of Gateford, near Worksop, described by Fox as a “gentleman of the court and household of King Henry.” Fox prints a letter of Lascelles “ written out of prison,” being an exposition of his faith; it is signed “John Lascelless, servaunt late to the king, and now I trust to serve the Everlasting King with the testimony of my blood in Smithfield.” The able editor of Narratives of the Reforma¬ tion, says the martyr was not improbably the same John Lascelles who appears in the proceedings against Queen Katherine Howard, and whose sister Mary was one of the principal witnesses against that queen. This was Bishop Burnet’s opinion, who says, “ it is likely he was the same person that had discovered Queen Katherine Howard’s incontinency, for which all the Popish party, to be sure, bore him no good will.” To illustrate, as he says, “how dangerous a thing it is to communicate with Papists in their service,” Louthe tells some curious stories, one of which we quote, as it contains local references, and may be regarded as a fair specimen of his style of writing:—“Mr. Forde, in Quene Marie’s dismole days, was in Mr. Rychard Whaller’s house at Welbecke ; he was commanded to go with his master to Sir George Perpountes, Knyght, dwelling at Wod- house, a myle of. There he herde chawntynge, syngyng, and torche- berynge in day-light at masse. Upon this he fell in a myslyking of hym- self. The dyvyll tempted hym continually, specyally in the nyght, as many knew. At laste G. Petite, the sonne of Mr. John Petite, told these news to John Loude, how his old frynd and scholar was tempted of Sathan to kylle hymselfe upon a smale occasyon, as some thoght. Then John Loude from Adenborow (Attenborough), in Nottinghamshire, wrote a comfortable letter by G. Petite to Mr. Forde, at reading of whych letter he greatly rejoced, and toke spirituale comforte; ofte tymes kyssing the letter et gratias agens deo et ejus servo, J. L.” Another man, one Richard Weaver of Bristol, did not however escape so easily for falling into a like temptation for hearing mass, “and receavying a great space muche consolatyone by the great and tedious travayle of one precher now neadles to be named, yet at laste, when he should go whom (home), he ranne to the infamous Mylles of Brystolle, and cowght a chylde of vij years age in his armes, and so lepped in to the water, and wer bothe drowned.” Louthe died in 1590. By his will he left his house at Keyworth, where he resided, to his son John Louthe. “As for my bodye,” he says, “ I com- 1 3 2 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. mande my executrix and all my supervysors 1 to see yt buryed in the north side in the quyer in St. Marie’s in Nottingham, without anie pompe or solemnitie, savinge only a sermon to be made to teche the people to dye well; and a small monument of brasse to be made with my name, to be nayled upon a stonne in the wall.” Captain ROBERT FENTON.—In the list of gallant seamen whom Queen Elizabeth had the good fortune to possess—men of indomitable energy, great enterprise, and unsurpassed bravery—there stands conspicuous the name of Captain Robert Fenton, one of an ancient Nottinghamshire family who possessed property in Fenton and Sturton-in-the-Clay from very early times. Thoroton tells us that “an ancient gentleman called Fenton had his house and lands here (at Fenton), of which name I have seen one pedigree beginning with Sir Richard Fenton, lord of this place, and ending with Catherine, wife of Sir Richard Boyle, Earl of Corke in Ireland.” 2 The Catherine to whom Thoroton alludes was Captain Fenton’s niece, the only daughter of his brother, Sir Geoffrey Fenton, an eminent statesman, whose notable services to his country we shall describe hereafter. The small estate which the brothers possessed in this county they did not retain. “ They were more inclined,” says an old writer, 3 “ to trust to their own abilities than the slender patrimony descending to them from their ancestors ; and they were among the very small number of those who take such daring resolutions in their youth without living to repent of them in their own old age.” Captain Fenton possessed “ quick and lively parts,” which were improved by a good education. Being a young man of an active tempera¬ ment, brave, robust, and energetic, naval pursuits possessed for him irre¬ sistible attractions. Through the all-powerful influence of Warwick and Feicester, whose favour he had secured, an appointment in the navy was obtained for him, and he served with some distinction, making the acquaint¬ ance and earning the esteem of Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Martin Frobisher, and other able commanders. With the last-named hero his name is closely associated. He acted as his “lieutenant-general ” in the last of the remark¬ able expeditions which he undertook in search of golden ore, and served with him in resisting and shattering the famous Spanish Armada. We had hoped to have been able to include Frobisher, as Mr. Bailey 1 They were “Henry Perpoynte, Lancelot Rolleston, Richard Symney, John Parker, Francis Babington, and Humphrey Louthe of Sutton in Ashfield.” s Thoroton, p. 415. 3 Biog. Britannia , ed. I 75 °> i**- l 9 1 5 - CAPTAIN ROBERT FENTON. i 33 has done in his Annals , amongst our county notables. There can, however, be no doubt, from the information we have gathered, that he was a York¬ shire man, as most biographers testify. In the earliest mention of him which we can find in the State Papers, he is described as of “ Normanton, county York.” His connection with Nottinghamshire did not begin until the 18th November, 34th Queen Elizabeth, when her Majesty granted to him and his heirs, for a money payment, Finningley Grange, in the northern division of the county. Thoroton says, “ The manor was divided between Sherburne and Frobisher; and, besides, Frobisher had the grange which be¬ longed to the Priory of Mattersey.” On the death of Sir Martin the property passed to his cousin and heir, Peter Frobisher, and in 1612 the owners of Finningley-cum-Auckley were Francis Frobisher, gent.; Richard Sherburne, gent. ; William Frobisher, gent. ; and others. Sir Martin Frobisher’s parents are said to have been in humble circumstances. He was, no doubt, what is termed in these days a self-made man, and he owed the position he attained to his remarkable courage, energy, and skill. Like his lieutenant-general, Fenton, he was brought up to a maritime life, and he served at a time when naval pursuits were attracting universal notice. Though the intimate association of Fenton and Frobisher did not commence until the second expedition to the north-west which Frobisher undertook, it may not be out of place, and it will certainly add to the com¬ pleteness and interest of the narrative, if we briefly describe the circum¬ stances under which Frobisher’s celebrated voyages were undertaken. Sailors, traders, and scientific men had for some time been considering the probability of a north-west passage. “It was believed that the continent tapered to the north, and that a north-west passage existed, leading directly from the Atlantic to the Pacific round Labrador.” 1 As such a passage, if practicable, would shorten the sea route to China, its importance was obvious. Frobisher was amongst those who took a lively interest in the question. He did not lack either bravery or skill in seamanship, and the undertaking, involving peril and hardships, but promising reputation and reward, aroused his adventurous and ambitious spirit. To obtain the support requisite for an expedition was no easy matter. Frobisher had much opposition to encounter, and was subjected to many animadversions from sceptical critics. The merchants were incredulous and difficult to satisfy. They did not feel inclined to advance money on an uncertainty, being more anxious for “sure, certain, and present gains.” From the 1 Voyages of the Elizabethan Seamen , edited by E. J. Payne, p. 61. 134 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. traders Frobisher turned to the Court, and expounded his schemes before the rich and great who repaired thither. Here he met with better success. A subscription was started which realised ^875, amongst the names of the different “ adventurers in Martin Frobisher’s first voyage for discovery of the north-west passage” being Sir Thomas Gresham, who subscribed ^100; the Earls of Sussex, Warwick, and Leicester, who subscribed each ^50; and Secretary Walsingham and Philip Sydney, who each subscribed £2 5. With these and other sums at his disposal, Frobisher fitted out a little fleet, consisting of two barques of twenty-five tons each—the Gabriel and the Michael, —and a pinnace of ten tons. Frobisher was “ captain and pilot,” Christopher Hall next in command, and the crew consisted of thirty-four persons. The fleet set sail in June 1576, and in passing the royal palace of Greenwich “ we,” writes Hall in his narrative, “ shot off an ordnance, and made the best show we could. Her Majesty beholding the same, commended it, and bade us farewell with shaking her hand at us out of the window.” Shortly after quitting the Channel the expedition encountered a severe storm, in which they lost sight of their pinnace with three men, and did not hear of it again. On the nth of July Frobisher sighted a “ high and rugged land,” which he judged to be “ Friesland,” and here the two ships parted company. Captain Best represents that they of the Michael conveyed themselves “privily away;” but from the State Papers recently issued 1 it would appear that the Michael, which was commanded by a Welshman, Owen Gryffyn, steered her course for Labrador, “ but found it so compassed with monstrous high islands of ice that they durst not approach.” They therefore turned back, arriving in the Thames early in September. Frobisher, in no way discouraged by the troubles which had befallen him, sailed on northwards, and reached Labrador on July 29th, “ the head¬ land whereof” he named “ Elizabeth Foreland.” Passing through the straits to which he gave his own name—a name they have borne ever since —he cast anchor near one of the islands, and landed with six of his men. Here he saw the remains of a fire and other signs of human habitation. He also saw “ mighty deer that seemed to be mankind, which ran at him,” and he had a narrow escape of his life. 2 On seeing the natives Frobisher attempted to have dealings with them, but perceiving that they were given to “ fierceness and rapine,” and being anxious to avoid strife, he steered to 1 Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series (Sainsbury), 1513-1616. 2 Best’s narrative in Hakluyt. CAPTAIN ROBERT FENTON. *35 another island off the mainland, on the north side. Here he met with some undesirable adventures with the natives. Best states—■ “ In this place he saw and perceived sundry tokens of the people’s resorting thither; and being ashore upon the top of a hill, he perceived a number of small things floating in the sea afar off, which he supposed to be porpoises, or seals, or some kind of strange fish, but coming nearer he discovered them to be men in small boats made of leather; and before he could descend down from the hill, certain of those people had almost cut off his boat from him, having stolen secretly behind the rocks for that purpose; where he speedily hasted to his boat, and bent himself to his halberd, and narrowly escaped the danger, and saved his boat. After¬ wards he had sundry conferences with them, and they came aboard his ship, and brought him salmon and raw flesh and fish, and greedily devoured the same before our men’s faces; and to show their agility, they tried many masteries upon the ropes of the ship after our mariners’ fashion, and appeared to be very strong of their arms and nimble of their bodies. They exchanged coats of seals and bears’ skins, and such like, with our men, and received bells, looking-glasses, and other toys, in recompense thereof again. After great courtesy, and many meetings, our mariners, contrary to their captain’s direction, began more easily to trust them ; and five of our men going ashore, were by them intercepted with their boat, and were never since heard of to this day again ; so that the captain, being destitute of boat, barque, and all company, had scarcely sufficient number to conduct back his barque again. He could now neither convey himself ashore to rescue his men (if he had been able) for want of a boat; and again the subtle traitors were so wary, as they would after that never come within our men’s danger. The captain, notwithstanding, desirous of bringing some token from thence of his being there, was greatly discontented that he had not before apprehended some of them; and therefore, to deceive the deceivers he wrought a pretty policy; for knowing well how they greatly delighted in our toys, and specially in bells, he rang a pretty low bell, making signs that he would give him the same who would come and fetch it; and because they would not come within his danger for fear, he flung one bell unto them, which of purpose he threw short, that it might fall into the sea and be lost; and to make them more greedy of the matter he rang a louder bell, so that in the end one of them came near the ship’s side to receive the bell, which, when he thought to take at the captain’s hand he was thereby taken himself; for the captain, being readily provided, let the bell fall and caught the man fast, and plucked him with main force boat and all into his barque out of the sea. Whereupon, when he found him¬ self in captivity, for very choler and disdain he bit his tongue in twain within his mouth; not¬ withstanding, he died not thereof, but lived until he came in England, and then he died of cold which he had taken at sea.” This account is substantiated in its most important details by the letters in the Calendars of State Papers , wherein the Esquimaux are described as “very beastly in their manners of life and food,” treacherous, and hostile. When Frobisher had succeeded in capturing one of the natives, by lifting him over the gunwale, the man was told, by signs, that if h egave informa¬ tion as to the whereabouts of the five Englishmen he would be set at liberty. This he professed not to understand, and he was therefore kept in custody, his fellows departing in their canoes in great haste, “ howling like wolves or other beasts.” For two days after this the Gabriel waited to hear 136 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. if any tidings of the missing seamen could be ascertained, and she then started on her homeward voyage, with the native on board. In the State Papers is a description of this, “ the first Arctic inhabitant who had ever sailed under the English flag.” The account states that he was “very broad in the face, and very fat and full in the body; legs short and small, and out of proportion; long, hanging, coal-black hair, tied above his fore¬ head ; little eyes and a little black beard; skin of a dark, sallow, much like the tawny Moors, or rather to the Tartar nation ; countenance sullen or churlish, but sharp.” 1 After encountering a rough storm on the way home, the Gabriel , with her strange inhabitant, reached Harwich on October 2d, and arrived in London on the 9th of the same month, 1576. Here she was “joyfully received with the great admiration of the people, bringing with her her strange man and his boat, which was such a wonder unto the whole city and to the rest of the realm that heard of it, as seemed never to have happened the like great matter to any man’s knowledge.” The interest was still further increased by the report that Frobisher had visited a land of gold. It happened that the gallant sailor had given to a friend and sup¬ porter of his, Michael Lok, a piece of stone, as “the first thing he found in the new land.” This stone, from its appearance, had been handed to assayists, who stated that it contained gold, “ and that very richly for the quantity ” of the stone. Lok conveyed the information to the queen, and the matter was laid before the Council. As may be anticipated, the news created considerable excitement. It was resolved that a second voyage should be forthwith attempted, to bring home the precious treasure, and Frobisher became the hero of the hour. The new expedition was to be of somewhat larger dimensions than the old, and better equipped. The subscription list amounted to ^4500, the queen contributing ^1000. It was determined to send out The Ayde, a vessel of 200 tons, and two small barques, the Michael and the Gabriel , of 30 tons each. To the command of the last named vessel Fenton was appointed. The ships were well provisioned, and in addition to the crew they carried ten convicts, who had been released, to work in collecting the ore. Frobisher’s instructions were “to defend the mines and possess the country.” The expedition left Blackwall on the 26th of May 1577, an d stayed at Harwich to take in certain “victuals.” Whilst there letters were received from the Lords of the Council, in obedience to which Frobisher reduced the number of his men to 120 and dismissed the convicts, most of 1 Vide also “Early English Adventure,” in Edinburgh Review , Oct. 1880, p. 384. CAPTAIN ROBERT FENTON. i37 the sailors who were discharged departing with “ unwilling minds.” After calling at the Orkney Islands the vessels were turned towards Frobisher’s Straits. They landed in July, and visited various islands, upon one of which they found a great quantity of the ore, which they gathered. To guard against possible attacks from the natives, a company of sailors was drilled and armed, and Fenton was one of three officers entrusted with their control. Fenton is several times mentioned in Captain Best’s interesting narrative. We find the following record of his doings :—“ On Sunday, August 12th, Captain Fenton trained the company, and made the soldiers maintain skirmish among themselves, as well for exercise as for the country people to behold in what readiness our men were always to be found ; for it was to be thought that they lay hid in the hills thereabout and observed all the manner of our proceedings.” An effort was made to glean information of the five sailors who had been lost in the previous expedition. A native was captured, and being questioned on the subject, declared that the men had not been destroyed. This encouraged Frobisher to proceed with his search, and after a good deal of trouble, and a fierce battle with some of the natives, negotiations were opened up for an interchange of captives. The natives made signs, promising to convey any message and to bring an answer in three days. They returned in accordance with their promise, but none of the sailors were brought. Hiding themselves in great numbers behind the rocks, they endeavoured to entice Frobisher’s men on shore, but the plot was detected, and the firing of a few cannon frightened and dispersed the natives to their homes. It being necessary to land to obtain ore, strict watch was kept, and it was well that the sailors were diligent to guard against surprise ; for the natives were lurking about, and kept trying their old tactics to allure the adventurers into their midst. Best tells us they carried a man who pretended to be lame to the water-side, and left him there, “ an easy prey to be taken.” The gentlemen and soldiers wished to leave the ships, to which they had retired, and fight, but Frobisher would not consent. However, “to prove this cripple’s footmanship, he gave liberty for one to shoot, whereupon the cripple, having a parting blow, lightly recovered a rock, and went away a true and no fained cripple.” By this time the work of the expedition was coming to an end. A large quantity of ore had been gathered, and as this was the main object of the voyage, “the interests of geography being lost in the race for wealth,” Frobisher resolved to move homewards. His men were well wearied, T 138 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. their shoes and clothes worn, the bottoms of their baskets torn out, their tools broken, and the ships well filled. On the 2 2d of August the expedi¬ tion started on the return voyage, and reached Milford Haven at the end of December. As the cargo was supposed to be of inestimable value, it was, at the suggestion of the Privy Council, landed at Bristol and locked up within the walls of the castle, the keys being entrusted to the Mayor of Bristol, Sir Richard Berkeley, Frobisher, and his friend and patron Michael Lok. Frobisher hastened to London to see the queen, and was cordially greeted; receiving from her Majesty “ great thanks and most gracious countenance according to his deserts.” No time was lost in sending skilled men to examine the ore and ascertain its value. On this point differences of opinion arose. We cannot do better than quote from an article based upon the Calendars of State Papers , an able summary of what followed. A writer in the Edinburgh Review thus describes it:—“ Lok, who was heavily interested in the venture—‘ having been,’as he admits, ‘at very great charges for two years since Forbisher has been in London, who ate the most of his meat at my table freely and gladly’—informs Walsingham that the ore is not yet brought to perfection, but that it is very rich, and will yield forty pounds a ton clear of charges : ‘ this is assuredly true, which may suffice to embrace the enterprise.’ The officials at the Mint were, however, not so sanguine. One Jonas Schutz, a German, ‘ engaged that two tons should yield, in fine gold, twenty ounces a Dr. Burcott certifies that ‘he has proved it to the uttermost, and finds not such great riches as is here spoken and reported of;’ whilst a third, Geoffrey le Brumen, has the frankness to write to Walsingham that ‘ he has tried all the minerals given to him, and finds the greater part to be only marquisette, and no gold or silver, or next to none.’ The Privy Council, however, incited by the credulity of the shareholders, declined to pay heed to any adverse opinions. The voyage, it was given out, had been propitious ; tons of ore had been brought home, and alchemy had discovered that the precious metal was within ; all doubt had been removed as to the existence of mines rich with gold in those northern regions. So eager was the nation to jump to conclusions and build up a faith upon the slenderest of foundations, that, before the truth could be fully ascertained as to the value or worthlessness of the ore, a third expedition was hastily fitted out, and the subscription list at once covered. By command of Queen Elizabeth, Walsingham wrote to the Lord Treasurer and Lord Chamberlain that her Majesty, ‘ understanding that the richness of that earth is like to fall out to a good reckoning, is well CAPTAIN ROBERT FENTON. i39 pleased that a third voyage be taken in hand,’ and that ‘ our loving friend Martin Frobisher’ be appointed captain-general of the expedition. Instruc¬ tions drawn up by Lord Burghley were placed in the hands of the popular navigator. Frobisher was ordered to make ‘for the land now called by her Majesty Meta Incognita, to the north-west parts, and Cathay he was not to receive ‘ under his charge any disorderly or mutinous person he was not to lose any of the ship’s company, any such offender to be punished ‘ sharply, to the example of othershe was to instruct ‘ all your people rather too much than anything too little, that they may procure the friendship of the people of those parts by courtesies than move them to any offence or mis- liking,’ and he was at once to repair to the mines in which he wrought last year, and there place his men to work and collect the ore. It was expected that 5000 tons weight of ore would be brought back, and that many members of the expedition would be absent some eighteen months. The popularity which Frobisher now enjoyed was attendant with the consequences which a sudden success so often inspires ; for we are told that he ‘ grew into such a monstrous mind, that a whole kingdom could not contain it, but already, by discovery of a new world, he was become another Columbus.’ ” The third expedition was on an extensive scale. It consisted of fifteen ships, had a large complement of soldiers and sailors, and carried, moreover, a motley group of adventurous gentlemen—gold refiners, bakers, carpenters, and others. In the “ Instructions to be observed by Martin Frobisher in his intended voyage of discovery to Meta Incognita',' he is directed, after he has obtained a supply of the inestimable ore, to search for a place where “ he may plant and fortify” one hundred men whom he is to leave to inhabit the golden shore. These one hundred men, consisting of forty mariners, shipwrights, and carpenters, thirty soldiers, and thirty pioneers, were to remain under the o-overnment of Fenton, the Lieutenant-General, with whom also was to be left the Gabriel, Michael, and Jtidith, sufficient victuals for eighteen months, and munition and armour for their defence. All the people were to be instructed, in case of any conference with the natives, to behave so as to secure their friendship. Captain Best says—“To this great adventure and noble exploit many well minded and forward young gentlemen of our country willingly have offered themselves; and first, Captain Fenton, Lieutenant-General for Captain Frobisher, and in charge of the company with him there, Captain Best and Captain Filpot, unto whose good discretions the government of that service was chiefly commended, who, as men not regarding peril in respect of the 140 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. profit and commonwealth of their country, were willing to abide the first brunt and adventure of those dangers.” When the fleet which set sail on the 31st of May 1578 entered the ice-bound regions of the north, Captain Fenton’s ships The Judith and The Michael became separated from the rest of the fleet, and were supposed to be lost, but, to the great joy of Frobisher and his men, The Michael , with Fenton on board, was met with in the Countess of Warwick’s Sound. As may be expected, there were many mutual expressions of delight and thankfulness. “ Here every man,” says Best, “ welcomed one another, after the sea manner, with their great ordnance,” and then united in thanking God for their safety. The adventures and hairbreadth escapes which Fenton had to undergo are thus narrated :— “ From the night of the first storm, which was about the 1st of July, until seven days before the General’s arrival, which was the 26th of the same, they never saw one day or hour wherein they were not troubled with continual danger and fear of death, and were twenty days almost together fast amongst the ice. They had their ship stricken through and through on both sides, their false stem borne quite away, and could go from their ship in some places upon the ice very many miles, and might easily have passed from one island of ice to another, even to the shore; and if God had not wonderfully provided for them and their necessity, and time had not made them more cunning and wise to seek strange remedies for strange kinds of dangers, it had been impossible for them ever to have escaped; for among other devices, wheresoever they found any island of ice of greater bigness than the rest (as there be some of more than half a mile compass about, and almost forty fathom high) they commonly coveted to recover the same, and thereof to make a bulwark for their defence, whereon having moored anchor, they rode under the lee thereof for a time, being thereby guarded from the danger of the lesser driving ice. But when they must needs forego this new found fort by means of other ice, which at length would undermine and compass them round about, and when that by heaving of the billow they were therewith liked to be bruised in pieces, they used to make fast the ship unto the most firm and broad piece of ice they could find, and binding her nose fast thereunto, would fill all their sails, whereon the wind having great power, would force forward the ship, and so the ship bearing before her the ice, and so one ice driving forward another, should at length get scope and sea-room; and having by this means at length put their enemies to flight, they occupied the clear place for a pretty season among sundry mountains and alps of ice. One there was found by measure to be sixty-five fathom above water, which, for a kind of similitude, was called Solomon’s Porch. Some think those islands eight times so much under water as they are above, because of their monstrous weight. But now I remember I saw very strange wonders : men walking, running, leaping and shooting upon the main seas, forty miles from any land, without any ship or other vessel under them. Also I saw fresh rivers running amidst the salt sea a hundred miles from land; which if any man will not believe, let him know that many of our company leaped out of their ships upon islands of ice, and running there up and down, did shoot at butts upon the ice, and with their calivers did kill great seals, which use to lie and sleep upon the ice; and this ice melting above at the top by reflection of the sun, came down in sundry streams, which, uniting together, made a pretty brook able to drive a mill. The said Captain Fenton recovered his port ten days before any man, and spent good time in searching for mines, and he found good store thereof.” CAPTAIN ROBERT FENTON. 141 On the 1 st of August the order was given by Frobisher to disembark from the vessels all the men and stores, and land them on the Countess of Warwick’s Island, and to prepare at once for mining. “ Then,” says Hakluyt, “ whilst the Mariners plyed their worke, the Captaines sought out new mynes, the goldfiners made tryall of the ore, etc.” On the 9th a consultation on the house was held. It was discovered that only the east side and the south side of the building had come safely to hand, the other parts having been either lost or used in repairing the ships, which had been much beaten by storms in the passage. It was then thought, seeing there was not timber enough for a house to accommodate a hundred people, that a house for sixty should be set up. The carpenters being consulted, declared “ that they should want five or six weeks to do the work, whereas there remained but twenty- three days before the ships must leave the country ; consequently it was determined not to put up the house that year.” On the 30th of August, however, “the masons finished a house, which Captaine Fenton caused to be made of lyme and stone, upon the Countess of Warwick’s Island, to the end we might prove against the next yeere whether the snow could over- whelme it, the frost break it up, or the people dismember the same.” Again, “ We buried the timber of our pretended (intended) fort.” By dint of great industry a sufficient quantity of ore was collected, and the fleet returned. They encountered further storms on their return voyage, some landing in one place, and some in another. Frobisher arrived in Cornwall, September 25, 1578, and proceeded to the Court at Richmond, and from thence to London. “ Whereupon,” according to the State Papers , “ was no small joy conceived in all partis for the safety of the men, though many died of sickness ; but especially for the treasure he brought, the ships being laden with rich gold ore, worth, he said, sixty pounds and eighty pounds a ton.” The cargo was landed at Dartford, and an analysis of it was made. Then came the disenchantment. The consternation must have been great and disappointment cruel when it was found that two hundredweight of the ore contained nothing worth having beyond two particles of silver, not so big as a pin’s head. “ As an evidence of the worthlessness of the ore, they remain to this day fastened by sealing-wax to the report.” 1 The conse¬ quences were disastrous to those who had advanced money to fit out the expedition. Unlucky shareholders, who had been awaiting the arrival of the gold to enable them to pay their debts, were hopelessly involved. Michael Lok was committed as a debtor to the cells of the Fleet. He had put down 1 Edinbtirgh Review , October 1880, p. 387. 142 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. his name for ^5000 as his share of the costs, and had been ruined. As may be expected, he wrote and spoke of Frobisher in no measured terms. He stated that Frobisher was indebted to him for much assistance, which he had ill requited. “ I daily instructed him,” he writes, “ making my home his home, my purse his purse at his need, and my credit his credit to my power, when he was utterly destitute both of money, credit, and friends.” Frobisher retaliated by calling Lok “a false accountant,” and there was a good deal of mutual recrimination and abuse. No punishment, however, could be meted out to Frobisher, who had incurred no responsibilities, and who had won a deserved reputation for indomitable courage. The ill success of the expedition, sufficiently disappointing to those who had formed such glowing anticipations, did not altogether divert attention from the still more important subject of the north-west passage to China. Fenton was one of those who ardently believed in the existence of such a passage, and felt how valuable in the interests of commerce its discovery would be. He therefore spared no pains to induce the influential men of the country to support him in an effort to organise a new expedition which should have for its object the transaction of business in the East Indies, and the discovery of unknown regions. In this he was so far successful, that towards the close of 1581 a sum of ^7016 :13 :4 had been subscribed to furnish him with ships and men, and to provide articles of commerce to sell and exchange. The Earl of Leicester was at the head of the list with ^2200, Sir Francis Drake gave £666 : 13 :4, and Carlisle, Frobisher, and Fenton ^300 each. 1 The expedition consisted of the Ughtrede of 400 tons, the Edward Bonaventure of 250 tons, the Francis of 40 tons, two pinnaces, two Spanish shallops, and a barque of Sir Francis Drake’s. With this little fleet under his control, Fenton was despatched on his double mission of discovery and of trade. The instructions given to him were to go by the Cape of Good Hope to the East Indies, and whilst disposing of the goods entrusted to his care, which was the principal object, he was to attempt the discovery of the north-west passage, which he so ardently desired to find, and, if possible, to pass through it on his return home. The expedition sailed on the 1st of May, but before leaving England the whole company mustered in the house of Sheriff Ughtrede, and a frank promise of willing endeavour was obtained from every man. Ughtrede delivered a short and pithy exhortation to Captain Fenton, and after these formalities, “ Ughtrede, the Mayor of Hampton, and the whole fleet, were invited to 1 State Papers (Colonial), 1513-1616, p. 73. CAPTAIN ROBERT FENTON. i 43 dinner on board the Leicester; a sermon was preached by Madox ; the anchors were weighed after dinner, and the next day the ships were riding to Cawshot.” 1 These were days when, as all readers of history will be aware, the enmity was great between England and Spain. Ughtrede, when he saw the expedition leave, wrote to Leicester, saying, “he wished all the King of Spain his gold in their bellies, to temper the pride of such a tyrant.” Fenton knew how careful a watch it would be necessary to keep to avoid the Spaniards, and as he was on a peaceful mission his orders were to act on the defensive rather than the offensive. The first troubles that arose, however, were not of foreign creation. There had been some signs of discontent among the sailors prior to their departure, notwithstanding the promises they had made; and when fairly at sea, out of sight of the coast, Fenton had plenty to do to keep them under control. They were vexed because the “general” would not allow a carvil of sugar and canary wines to be seized, on pretence of being bound to despoil all Papists, and Madox and Walker the ministers had to preach against this pretence.” 2 On the 26th June the ships sighted the “ Island of Cape de Verde,” and from thence they proceeded to the coast of Guinea. The masters and pilots being at variance, there was a good deal of “ tacking about,” and affairs assumed so desperate a plight that some “ waxed sick and some died.” The difficulties encountered, however, promoted more unity of action, small differences vanishing in the face of greater troubles. Thus, on June 15th, one John Banester wrote from his cabin to Leicester that they had “ a wise general, careful pilots, zealous and painful preachers,” and that they “ lived together in Christian love and brotherhood.” In December Fenton captured a Spanish barque with twenty-one persons on board, from whom he learned that a fleet had been sent by the King of Spain to intercept the English ships in the River Plate. This news naturally led to serious consultations, some advising the return home with as little loss as might be, seeing that they were “cut off from that hope which in the beginning and purpose of the voyage they all conceived.” Eventually, Fenton determined to proceed to St. Vincent, where he arrived on the 20th January with the Edward Bonaventure , the barque Francis having left him on the 21st December. On applying for permission to land at St. Vincent he was informed that the English were forbidden to enter in consequence of the spoils and robberies committed by Sir Francis Drake in the South Seas ; but, by dint of much coaxing and bribing, Fenton obtained a supply of 1 State Papers (Colonial), 1513-1616, p. 79. 2 Madox’ Journal ( State Papers ), p. 83. 144 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. victuals, and did a trade in sugar. He was engaged in this friendly intercourse, when three Spanish ships, carrying 700 soldiers and marines suddenly put in an appearance, and attempted to seize the English vessels. A desperate fight ensued, lasting from nine o’clock at night until the next afternoon. The Vice-Admiral , a Spanish ship equal to Fenton’s, was sunk, three boats full of dead Spaniards were landed at St. Vincent, while Fenton had five men killed and twenty injured. The extraordinary bravery and skill shown by the English enabled them to escape with a loss which was trifling, considering the furious nature of the conflict. On leaving the scene of the encounter the ships seem to have parted company. Fenton, on board the Leicester , arrived in the Downs on June 29th, and at once wrote to Lord-Treasurer Burleigh to acquaint him with the ill success of the voyage. He states that “ their honest proceedings were overthrown by the King of Spain’s forces, or he dare well assure him they had brought home in honest trade above ,£40,000 or £"50,000.” He bemoans the loss to which the subscribers to the expedition had been put, and asks that some relief may be afforded them. Of his own sufferings and of the sufferings of the crews he says little ; but a graphic account is given by John Banester, from which it appears that forty-five men were lost on this “watery pilgrimage,” and that Fenton almost had his “ languishing body brought to the grave.” We next hear of Fenton in 1588, when the calls of patriotism had drawn together a brave and devoted band of English sailors. The Spanish Armada was approaching, and the little fleet of England, manned by stout¬ hearted heroes, was awaiting its arrival. In this fleet the brave Fenton served, ready, like Frobisher, to sacrifice his life for queen and country. In some accounts he is said to have commanded the Antelope. Sir William Morison makes him captain of the Mary Rose , 1 but in whichever ship he was, it is unanimously agreed that “ he behaved like a man of honour, and had a very distinguished share in those actions, the fame of which will last as long as history remains.” 2 After the defeat of the Armada, Fenton was, at the urgent request of Sir John Hawkins, appointed his deputy for one year, to enable him to finish his accounts, which had grown great and intricate by reason of the late extraordinary sea services; and the year following (1589), he acted as Sir John’s substitute in the office of Treasurer of the Navy. 3 On retiring 1 Morison’s Naval Tracts , p. 171. 2 Ency. Biog., p. 1918. 3 State Papers (Domestic), 1589, p. 13. SIR GEOFFREY FENTON. x 45 from active duty, he spent his time at or near Deptford; where he died in the spring of 1603. He was buried in Deptford church, where a monument was erected by Richard, Earl of Cork, who had married his niece. The inscription was as follows:—“To the never-fading memory of Edward Fenton, heretofore Esquire of the Body to Queen Elizabeth, a gallant Commander during the troubles of Ireland, first against Shane O-Neale, and then against the Earl of Desmond, who after having explored the hidden passages of the Northern Seas, and in other hazardous expeditions visited remote and scarce known places, merited the command of a royal ship in that glorious sea fight against the Spaniards in the year 1588. He died in the year of our Lord 1603.” SIR GEOFFREY FENTON was distinguished in the political world. Whilst his brother was rendering valuable services to his country on the seas, Sir Geoffrey was busy in the nation’s behalf at home. As a young man he was remarkable for his learning. He readily mastered foreign languages, and made good use of the knowledge he acquired by issuing some useful translations and compilations. Amongst these may be mentioned a work entitled Golden Epistles, containing a variety of selections from Latin, French, and Italian writings. It appeared in one volume 4to., in 1577, and was dedicated to Lady Anne, Countess of Oxen- ford, who was a daughter of Lord Burleigh. The dedicatory epistle is dated from the author’s chambers, Black Friars, London, and contains, as do all such documents, some laudatory remarks and similitudes. Thus, towards the conclusion, he makes the following comments : “And as stones of rare and precious price express their lustre better in gold than in any other metal; so good and well-qualified discourses are holden so much the more noble and dear, by how much are worthy and excellent the persons to whom they are presented ; the dignity of the one supporting and amplifying the nobility of the other. And as trees transplanted and removed out of their natural stock into a better, become both fair and goodly to behold, and yield a fruit more pleasing the taste ; in like sort, a work of learning, drawn out of his proper author and recommended to some noble and virtuous personages, becomes so much the better received, and with a fruit more liked by how much it is incorporate in the virtues and name of an excellent patron.” As may be expected, the literary efforts of the author, in days when literary labour being less abundant, was more highly esteemed than now, attracted much attention, and earned the applause and good will of u 146 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. many influential personages. It was probably their influence at Court which led to his receiving an appointment in Ireland, where he was sworn of the Privy Council in 1581. Whatever influence his writings may have given him was increased by his marriage with Alice, daughter of Dr. Robert Weston, who was for some time Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and the friend of the most influential statesmen of the day. As a result of his reputation and of his friendship with the great, but still more as a conse¬ quence of his administrative abilities, energy, and sound judgment, Fenton remained counsellor to the queen in Ireland under several Lord Lieutenants, and his advice was always received with great attention. The course which he recommended the queen to adopt towards her Irish subjects was this— To grant them strict justice, but not to try to win loyalty by needless indulgence. The queen, that she might be better able to arrive at wise conclusions, sent for Fenton to visit her, and to give to herself and the Council full and true accounts of Irish affairs. Several important steps were taken as a result of his advice, and when the rebellion broke out under Hugh O’Neale, Fenton was entrusted with a share in the negotiations which led to the submission of O’Neale, and the dispersion of the rebel forces. But the treaty which was made did not prove effectual. Its provisions were set aside after a brief period of quietude, and a further outbreak ensued. In this dilemma Fenton exerted himself to procure troops, and did much towards strengthening the Protestant interest and promoting the success of the Royal forces. In 1599, according to the title-page, but in 1579, as the dedication would lead us to conclude, Sir Geoffrey gave to the world the translation for which he was best known, that of The History of the Wars of Italy, by Francis Guicciardini, in twenty books. The work is dedicated to Queen Elizabeth, and the dedication is dated from the author’s chamber “near the Tower of London,” January 7, 1579. Sir Geoffrey had the pleasure in 1603 of seeing his daughter united to Mr. Boyle, who afterwards became the celebrated and powerful Earl of Cork. In his True Remem¬ brances, the Earl says: “The 25th of July, 1603, I was married to my second wife, Katherine Fenton, the only daughter of Sir Geoffrey Fenton, Principal Secretary of State and Privy Councillor in Ireland, with whom I never demanded any marriage portion, neither promise of any, it not being in my consideration ; yet her father, after my marriage, gave me one thousand pounds in gold with her. But that gift of his daughter unto me I must ever acknowledge thankfully as the crown of all my blessings.” The death of Sir Geoffrey took place in Dublin, October 19, 1608, and he was buried with much solemnity in the cathedral church of St. Patrick. WILLIAM BRIGHTMAN. i47 WILLIAM BRIGHTMAN.—In Fuller’s Worthies mention is made of William Brightman, a native of Nottingham, whose prophetical writings attracted considerable notice. “Sure I am,” says Fuller, in his quaint, witty style, “that Time and Mr. Brightman will expound the hardest passage in the Revelations; but what credit is to be given to the latter alone, I will not engage. Such, however, who dislike Mr. B.’s writings, could not but commend his evangelical living who had so much of heaven in his heart.” There can be no doubt, from the testimony of various writers, that Mr. Brightman was a man of great piety and of considerable ability. The position his friends occupied in Nottingham cannot be ascertained, but Bailey mentions Thomas Brightman, an apothecary, who took up his freedom as a burgess in 1686, and who, he believed, was a brother’s son. 1 Brightman was educated at Queen’s College, Cambridge. He was admitted a pensioner of the College 21st February 1576-7, and matricu¬ lated in March 1577-8. He became B.A. 1580-1 ; was elected a fellow 30th May 1584; commenced M.A. the same year, and proceeded B.D. 1591. 2 In the following year he became Rector of Hawnes, in Bedfordshire, where he wrote most of his books. His commentaries, in Latin, on the Canticles , and the Apocalypse , were largely read, especially the latter, which caused a stir in the religious world. An abridgment of it was published under the title of A Revelation of the Revelations , and had an extensive sale. In this book Mr. Brightman describes the power of the prelacy as Antichrist. The Church of Laodicea was the Church of England; “the angel that God loved,” was the antiepiscopal churches of Scotland and Geneva ; the angel having power over fire was Archbishop Cranmer, and the angel of the waters, Lord Treasurer Cecil. Such was the pith of Mr. Brightman’s interpretations, and at a time when the bishops had many enemies, his comments were hailed with much enthusiasm. Izaak Walton wrote, “The bishops had been voted out of the House of Parliament, and some, upon that occasion, sent to the Tower, which made many Covenanters rejoice, and believe Mr. Brightman (who probably was a good and well-meaning man), to have been inspired. And, although he was grossly mistaken in other things, yet, because he made the churches of Geneva and Scotland, which had no bishops, to be Philadelphia in the Apocalypse, ‘ the angel that God loved’ (Rev. iii. 7-13), and the power of the Prelacy to be Anti¬ christ, the evil angel, which the House of Commons had now so spewed up, as never to recover their dignity, therefore did those Covenanters approve 1 Bailey’s Annals of Notts , ii. 566. - Athena Cantabrigiensis, ii. 458. 148 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. and applaud Mr. Brightman for discovering and foretelling the bishops’ downfall.” The reverend gentleman’s popularity as a divine brought with it increased opportunities of preferment, but he was not of a covetous disposition. Fuller says that, “walking through the vineyard of this world, he plucked and eat a few grapes, but put up none in his vessel, using wealth as if he used it not.” Mr. Brightman had often been heard to express a wish that he might die suddenly, and his hopes were realised. Whilst riding in a coach with Sir John Osborne, and reading a book, he was taken ill, and died almost instantaneously (a.d. 1607). As Fuller puts it, “ his clay cottage did crack and fall down in the same minute; but he who died daily could on no day be said to die suddenly, being always prepared for his dissolution.” Mr. Brightman’s piety has never been called in question. His books suited, to a certain extent, the spirit of the age in which they were penned, but their popularity was transient. The author was a learned man, but he had an overwhelming antipathy to the established government of the Church, which no doubt had the effect of distorting his views on some subjects with which he dealt. Though of a controversial spirit he is said to have been remarkable for the serenity of his temper. He was very studious, and was always reading the New Testament in the original: hence his extensive acquaintance with it. He read the Greek Testament through every fortnight. 1 He was unmarried, and of diminutive stature. He was buried on the day of his death (according to the parish register) at Hawnes, in the chancel of which church there is an inscription to his memory. His funeral sermon was preached by Dr. Edward Bulkley, rector of Odell, in Bedfordshire. In 1644 a quarto edition of Brightman’s works was published, containing—(a) Revelation of the Apocalypse, (b) Exposition on Daniel, (c) Commentary on the Canticles. An edition was also issued in the same year at Amsterdam. An engraved portrait of Mr. Brightman is prefixed to his Apocalypsis Apocalypseos, subscribed as follows ;— “ Loe here A Brightman, or a man of bright, Who that from darkness brought this heauenley light, Thus shaddowed here, turn o’er and you shall see He was a man was bright in prophecy.” GERVASE WYLDE —We have seen Gervase Wylde described as a patriot, and assuredly he deserves that character. When the country was Athena Cantabrigiefisis, ii. 458. GERVASE WYLDE—HENRY CONSTABLE. 149 threatened by the Spanish Armada, Mr. Wylde, from his home at Nettle- worth, where he lived as a country gentleman, hastened to place him¬ self at the service of the nation. In earlier life he had been a mer¬ chant, and had resided in Andalusia. He had learnt a great deal of the Spanish character, and had made a fortune by his commercial pursuits. On the proceeds of his business enterprise he had retired to Nettleworth, when the war drew him promptly from his seclusion. At his own cost he fitted out a ship, and joined the brave little fleet which shattered the giant arma¬ ments of Spain. Bailey tells us that amongst other missiles provided by him on the occasion were short, strong arrows, designed to be discharged from certain great guns of the ship. The Rev. Charles Wylde, rector of St. Nicholas, Nottingham, and who was a descendant of the old sea captain, had during his lifetime some of these arrows remaining in his possession, as well as a portrait of his gallant ancestor. 1 The captain lived to the age of ninety-three years. In the State Papers , under date July 1618, there is a petition from Captain Wylde to the Council for continuance in his place as Muster Master of Derbyshire, in which he refers, though very briefly, to his previous services. He says he was a sea captain in 1588, “ and conducted a barbarian ambassador home at his own charge ; since then was Muster Master for counties Notts and Derby, and supplied arms at his own cost and damage.” The Derbyshire appointment had been given to Francis Markham, on the ground that it was unfitting for one man to hold both ; and Alex. Tye was labouring to obtain the other place. The Lord-Lieutenant and Commissioners reported in favour of Captain Wylde, stating that he had well “ discharged his place ” hitherto, and the Captain had the satisfaction of continuing his services in that capacity. 2 HENRY CONSTABLE.— Of the sonneteers who flourished in the reigns of Oueen Elizabeth and King James I., one of the most popular was Henry Constable. The estimation in which his poems were held by his contemporaries is evidenced by the numerous editions of them which were called for during his lifetime ; and the fact that they have been reprinted several times in the present century, shows that they have not yet been wholly forgotten by his fellow-countrymen. Mr. Thompson Cooper, F.S.A., in an able article on Constable and his career, 3 says there is no room for doubting that he was Henry Constable of Newark, in 1 Bailey’s Annals of Notts, i. 5 14. 2 State Papers (Domestic), 1580-1625, p. 599. 3 Register and Magazine of Biography, January 1869. * 5 ° WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. Nottinghamshire, even had we not the direct testimony of his contempo¬ rary, Roger Dodsworth, the Yorkshire antiquary, who, in enumerating the principal branches of the Constable family, names “ Sir Robert Constable, Lieutenant of the Ordnance to Queen Elizabeth, sometime of the Spittle in Newark, father of H. Constable that was banished for religion.” That Sir Robert had a son Henry is shown by the pedigree in the Visitation of Notts (Harl. Soc.), and it is generally conceded that the writer of the sonnets, and the Henry Constable who was banished for religion were the same. 1 Sir Robert Constable served in the wars in Scotland, under the Earl of Surrey, by whom he was knighted in 1570. Numerous references to him occur in the State Papers (vol. iv.) of the period, from one of which it appears he was thanked by the king for his services. “ He was,” continues Mr. Cooper, “like Puttenham, one of the gentlemen pensioners, and like him also, a man of ruined fortunes. Like him also, he was nearly allied to several noble houses, a circumstance which was not forgotten by his son Henry, when he obtained from Sir William Segar a certificate of his descent, as was the custom in those times of persons going abroad. This certificate sets forth that the mother of Sir Robert and grandmother of Henry was Catherine, daughter of Sir George Manners (Lord Roos) sister of Thomas, Earl of Rutland, and niece of King Edward IV., by his sister Anne, Duchess of Exeter. 2 Sir Robert Constable, thus nobly descended, married Christiana, daughter of John Dabridgecourt of Astley or Longdon Hall, in the county of Warwick. This lady was descended from Lanches Dabridgecourt, who had given protection to Queen Isabella, and who was admitted into the Order of the Garter on its first institution. She was the widow of Anthony Foster. As he is described of Newark, it may be assumed that Sir Robert Constable acquired his estate there in consequence of this marriage, and it seems not unlikely that Foster was the person of that name who was unfortunately concerned in the death of Lady Robert Dudley (Amy Robsart). Sir Robert was a writer as well as a soldier, there being among the MSS. in the British Museum a treatise by him on the ordering of a camp, written in 1576.” Of the birth and early education of Henry Constable comparatively little is known. He is believed to have been born in 1562. On the nth of June 1578 he matriculated as a fellow-commoner of St. John’s College, Cambridge, and proceeded to the degree of B.A., in pursuance of a special grace, 1 Campbell’s Essays on English Poetry , p. 180. 2 It is worthy of remark that his pedigree in the Visitation of Notts tallies with this certificate. HENRY CONSTABLE. iSi January 15, 1579-80. Becoming a convert to the Church of Rome he went on the Continent; and in the course of his travels visited Italy, Poland, and the Netherlands. In 1591 Sir Robert, his father, died in debt to the Crown, and Henry sold the Newark property to William Cecil, grandson of Lord Burghley, and afterwards Earl of Exeter. In 1592 he issued a small quarto volume entitled “ Diana; the praises of his mistress in certaine sweete sonnets, by H. C.” The lady for whom Constable expresses in his verse an ardent though a hopeless passion, is believed to have been Lady Penelope Devereux, afterwards Lady Rich, and eventually the Countess of Devonshire. The work, with additions and alterations, was republished in 1594, 1597, and 1604. A complete edition of Constable’s poems was prepared in 1859, and published under the efficient supervision of Mr. William Carew Hazlitt. The Rev. Alexander Dyce, in his Specimens of English Sonnets, 1833, quotes the following by Henry Constable, which may be taken as fair specimens of his style :— “ Much sorrow in itself my love doth move, More my despair, to love a hopeless bliss; My folly most, to love whom sure to miss : Oh, help me but this last grief to remove ! All pain, if you command, it joy shall prove, And wisdom to seek joy : then say but this ; Because my pleasure in thy torment is, I do command thee without hope to love. So, when this thought my sorrow shall augment, That my own folly did procure my pain, Then shall I say, to give myself content, Obedience only made me love in vain : It was your will, and not my want of wit; I have the pain, bear you the blame of it. “To live in hell, and heaven to behold; To welcome life, and die a living death; To sweat with heat, and yet be freezing cold; To grasp at stars, and lie the earth beneath; To tread a maze, that never shall have end; To burn in sighs, and starve in daily tears; To climb a hill, and never to descend; Giants to kill, and quake at childish fears; To pine for food, and watch th’ Hesperian tree; To thirst for drink, and nectar still to draw; To live accurst, whom men hold blest to be; And weep those wrongs which never creature saw; If this be love, if love in these be founded, My heart is love, for these in it are grounded.” ! 5 2 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. In 1595 Constable was at Paris, and whilst there he arranged with the Papal Legate to proceed to the Scottish capital, in company with the Laird of Bonington, to persuade King James to grant a toleration of the Catholic faith throughout his dominion. “ It was thought” (says Mr. Cooper), “that a man of versatile talents like Constable, might be able to practise on the king’s mind, and induce him to forsake the Protestant religion for the ancient church to which his ill-fated mother (Mary, Queen of Scots) had been so devotedly attached.” The errand, however, was a fruitless one, and Constable retired into Arragon. In 1604 he was confined a prisoner in the Tower, but released towards the end of the year; and constrained to seek refuge abroad. In three years’ time he returned to his native land, when he was again arrested and imprisoned. On regaining his freedom he took up his abode in Paris. In 1613 he was sent to Liege by Cardinal du Perron, to confer with Dr. Benjamin Carier, a new convert to the Romish creed. Whilst at Liege he was seized with illness, and died October 9, 1613. So ended the chequered career of a remarkable Newark man ; a man of natural genius and of considerable attainments. In the quaint words of Anthony Wood, “ he was a great master of the English tongue,” and “ there was no gentleman of our nation had a more pure, quick, and higher delivery of conceit than he; witness among all others that sonnet of his before the poetical translation called The Ficries, made by King James the First of England, while he was King of the Scots. He hath also several sonnets extant, written to Sir Phil. Sydney, some of which are set before the Apology of Poetry written by the said knight.” 1 SIR GRIFFIN MARKHAM.—“Amidst the great tranquillity, both foreign and domestic, with which the nation was blest ” 2 when James I. succeeded to the throne, conspiracies were organised, much to the surprise and indignation of loyal subjects, having for their object the subversion of the Government and the elevation to the throne of Arabella Stuart. The details of these ill-advised plots are matters of history. They originated with men whom Hume describes as “furious and ambitious spirits,” who believed all the world discontented like themselves. In what was known as the main plot, or Spanish treason, the famous Sir Walter Raleigh, Lord Cobham, and others, were deeply concerned. In the Bye Plot, or Priests’ Treason, the moving spirits were two priests, Watson and Clarke; Sir Griffin Markham, whom they had induced to join in the conspiracy ; Mr. 1 Athe 7 i <2 Oxoniensis, i. 14. 2 Hume, vi. 469. VISCOUN T S H E RB ROD RE . From a />hol,^rnf:li by tin London Stereoscopic -Company, i io, Regent Strut SIR GRIFFIN MARKHAM. i53 Brooke, Lord Cobham’s brother, and Lord Grey de Wilton. The two plots are often confounded, but they were really distinct. The main plot was said to be assisted from Spain. The intention was to compass the death of the king and place the crown on the head of Arabella Stuart. The conspirators of the Bye Plot intended merely to seize the king’s person, carry him off to the Tower or to Dover Castle, and there extort from him various concessions, including full toleration for the Roman Catholics, 1 There was no mention of Arabella Stuart in their designs. The method they proposed to adopt was audacious and daring, even to recklessness. “ They intended,” said Sir Edward Coke, “ to make the king subject to their power, proposing to open the door with muskets and calivers, and to take also the prince and council, then under the king’s authority, and to carry the king to the Tower. When they had him there they intended to extort three things from him : First, a pardon of their treason ; secondly, a toleration for the Romish superstition ; thirdly, to remove councillors: that Brooke was to be Lord Treasurer; and the great Secretary must be Markham, oculus patricz; and Grey the Earl Marshal.” An old MS. in the Bodleian Library supplies a few further details. It says—“ For the taking of the Tower they should place their ambuscade round about the Tower by ten in a company ; and the night wherein this purpose should be attempted, Sir Griffin Markham should have bidden himself to supper to the Lieutenant of the Tower, and he would have taken occasion to stay ; at whose coming forth the ambushes should rush in, and by this means they proposed to have entered the Tower of London, and so by arms to have beaten down the warders if they resisted.” The king’s unexpected removal to Greenwich disconcerted the con¬ spirators, and the plot was on the point of falling to pieces, when Cecil detected both conspiracies, and ordered the plotters to be apprehended. The royal proclamation that was issued directing the capture of the offenders gives us an idea of Sir Griffin Markham’s personal appearance. It describes him as having “ a large broad face, a bleake (pale ?) complexion, and a bigge nose; one of his hands maimed by a hurt received by the shot of a bullet.” The apprehension of the conspirators took place in July 1603. In November following they were removed to Winchester for trial, the 1 It was Sir Griffin Markham who won over Lord Grey de Wilton ; but as soon as his Lordship found out that the conspirators desired to re-establish Popery he fell back.— Vide Butler’s Memoirs of the English Catholics. X 1 54 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. Court being held there, instead of in London, in consequence of the plague. The commissioners before whom they were brought consisted of two earls, three barons, two chief justices, and three justices, including Justice Warbur- ton, whose sister had married Sir Robert Markham of Cotham. After the indictment had been read, Sir Griffin Markham “ answered exceedingly well and truly to all things ; denying nothing for his fault of treason ; but that he deserved death upon the persuasion of Watson, by whom he was misled, and assured that the king, before his coronation, was not an actual but a political king; only he desired to avoid the imputation of effusion of blood in that enterprise, and (if it were possible) the brand of a traitor for his house and posterity." 1 He desired to die under the axe, and not by the halter. The prisoners, with the exception of one Parham, were found guilty and sentenced to death. The two priests were executed on the 29th November, and Brooke on the Monday following. Markham was told he should likewise die ; but, “by secret message from some friends at Court, had still such hope given him, that he would not believe the worst news until the last day; and though he could be content to talk with the preacher who was assigned him, it was rather to pass time than for any good purpose; for he was Catholicly disposed ; to think of death no way disposed.” 2 On the 1 st of December the king signed the warrants for the execution of Cobham, Grey, and Markham, and they were sent to Sir Benjamin Tichborne, Sheriff of Hampshire. Two days after their receipt, all arrangements had been made, and at ten o’clock on the morning of the 3d, the conspirators were given to understand that their last hour had come. Sir Dudley Carleton, who was an eye-witness, states that Markham was brought first to the scaffold. He was much dismayed, and complained of his hard fate, to be deluded with hopes and brought to that place un¬ prepared. “One might see,” says Sir Dudley, “in his face the very picture of sorrow, but he seemed not to want resolution ; for a napkin being offered by a friend that stood by, to cover his face, he threw it away, saying he could look upon death without blushing. He took leave of some friends that stood near, and betook himself to his devotions, after his manner; and those ended, prepared himself to the block.” The sheriff, meanwhile, had been secretly withdrawn by one John Gib, a Scotch groom of the bed¬ chamber, and a letter from the king delivered into his hands, together with 1 Howell’s State Trials , ii. 65. 2 Letter of Sir Dudley Carleton, vide Hardwicke’s ATiscel/aneous State Papers , i. 377, et seq. SIR GRIFFIN MARKHAM. r 55 some verbal instructions. The execution was therefore delayed, Markham being left to “entertain his own thoughts, which, no doubt, were as melancholy as his countenance sad and heavy.” The sheriff, on his return, told him he might have two hours’ respite to prepare himself further, and had him locked in the great hall of the castle. It was Lord Grey’s turn next, and he came up like a bridegroom, with gaiety on his countenance. Falling upon his knees on the scaffold, he prayed for above half-an-hour, and so out-prayed the company that helped to pray with him, that a bystander said, “He had a good mouth for a cry, but was nothing single.” When he concluded the sheriff told him that he was commanded to change the order of the execution, and had him conveyed to the hall to wait until Lord Cobham should be despatched. The last-named being brought on the scaffold, prayed fervently, and bade farewell to his friends. A remarkable scene followed : “ Grey and Markham being brought back to the scaffold, looked strange one upon another, like men beheaded and met again in the other world.” The sheriff made a short speech on the heinousness of their offences, the justice of their trials, and their lawful condemnation, and having done this, he cried—“ See the mercy of your Prince who, of himself, has sent hither a countermand and given you your lives whereupon Lord Cobham, holding up his hands to heaven, applauded the mercy of the King; Lord Grey began to sob and weep; while Sir Griffin Markham, “ standing like a man astonished, did nothing but admire and pray.” Sir Griffin Markham, who thus so narrowly escaped execution, was the eldest son of Thomas Markham of Ollerton. He married Anna, the daughter and heiress of Peter Roos of Laxton, Notts, by whom he had two daughters. He was of a daring and reckless disposition. In early life he joined the expedition sent by Queen Elizabeth, under the Earl of Essex, to assist the King of France. At the siege of Rouen he distinguished himself for his gallantry, and was knighted by the earl after the engagement. At a later period he served in Ireland, and was made colonel and commander of horse in Connaught. He was not only of repute for his courage, but for the technical information he possessed on military subjects. He appears to have studied warlike tactics very closely, and to have written some books which were looked upon as authorities. Thus we find Sir John Harrington writing to a friend—“ And as to war joining the practise to the theory, and reading the books you so praised, and other books of Sir Griffin Markham’s, with his conference and instructions, I hope at my 156 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. coming home to talk of counterscarpes and cazamats with any of our cap¬ tains.” It is not improbable Markham might have raised himself into a distinguished position had it not been for his unreasonable ambition and disloyalty. His tampering with treasonable matters proved his ruin. Though he escaped with his life his estate was confiscated, and his younger brother George succeeded to it. Sir Griffin managed to obtain a livelihood at foreign courts, and letters are in existence which he wrote showing his connection with them. He is said in his indigent exile to have become a spy of Sir Thomas Edmond’s, English resident in Flanders. 1 “ He is supposed to have paid frequent visits to England in disguise, and many romantic stories have been related of him, among others that he assisted in the attempted escape of Arabella Stuart.” 2 Let us see how far we can trace him. On January 9, 1604, a warrant was issued to Sir Roger Askew, late Sheriff of Notts, to deliver to Lady Markham all the goods remaining in his hands of Sir Griffin Markham attainted. 3 On June 28, in the same year, Sir Griffin’s property at Gamston and Clay worth, Notts, and other lands escheated by attainder, were granted to Sir John Harrington, who had married Isabella Markham. It is, perhaps, not surprising that when the Gunpowder Plot was discovered Sir Griffin Markham and others abroad should be suspected. It appears that some queries were directed to Lady Markham, for there is a letter from her to Lord Salisbury (November 18, 1605), stating that Henry Huddleston can tell him best about Gerard, and Sir Everard Digby about Whalley (alias Garnet, of whom more hereafter), two of the accused persons. Her ladyship remarks “the plot hath taken deep and dangerous root,” and that many will not believe “ that holy good man,” Gerard, was an actor in it. 4 Further correspondence ensued on the same subject. Her ladyship writes on the 3d January 1606, stating that she hopes soon to see Gerard the priest, and will keep him in view, when she can let Salisbury know where he is. Had the watch at Harrowden been kept up two days longer he would have been starved out. She adds that she is obliged to act very cautiously, lest her party should suspect her of betraying them. The motive which induced her to communicate with Salisbury, and act the spy, was the belief that by so doing she would secure the full pardon of her husband. No doubt Salisbury had held out to her strong hopes, for in a letter of January 15, he says, her fidelity may 1 Memoirs of James the First, Aiken, p. 175. 2 History of the Markham Family, p. 104. 3 State Papers (Domestic), 1603-10, p. 65. 4 State Papers, 1603-10, p. 259. SIR GRIFFIN MARKHAM. *57 advantage her husband. He accepts her offer to apprehend Gerard, and sends her a blank warrant for his capture, though loath, he says, to prosecute the Jesuits for their share in the conspiracy. The vigilance of Lady Markham did not meet with more than a verbal recognition, but it, at all events, prevented any further suspicion attaching to Sir Griffin. On November 2 all debts owing to Sir Griffin were granted to Edward Withrington. On June 17, 1608, Sir Griffin writes from Brussels to Salisbury congratulating him on his appointment to the Treasurership, and the next we hear of him is in the following February, when, according to Sir Dudley Carleton, he fought in a duel in the Low Countries with Sir Edmund Baynham, on “ discourse about the powder plot,” which, probably, Baynham had laid to his charge. 1 Carleton had heard that Sir Griffin was slain in the encounter ; but the rumour was incorrect; for on September 8, 1609, Lady Markham petitioned the king that her banished husband might come over to England to enable her to pass a fine on her jointure lands for discharge of his debts. The king, in reply, ordered that “ if there be no other device” in the petition it should be granted, subject to certain precau¬ tions. Whether Sir Griffin was allowed to come over or not we cannot ascertain ; most probably not; and his wife giving him up as lost to her, married one of her servants, for which offence, her husband being alive, she did penance. In the Gazette, sent by George, Lord Carew, to Sir Thomas Roe, is the following entry, under date November 1618 :—“ Lady Markham, wife of Sir Griffin, did penance in a white sheet at Paul’s Cross, for marry¬ ing one of her servants, her husband being alive; she will have to do the same elsewhere, and was fined ^1000 ; the wonder is that either of them escaped death, to which they were liable by a recent statute. 2 In 1622, two of George Markham’s sons—William and George—attempted to pass the seas to their uncle without license, for which offence their father George had to petition the Council to grant a pardon. At this period the references to Sir Griffin in the State Papers end, and the only inference we can draw is that he died abroad after a long exile—his life embittered by many acts of hostility, and made very sorrowful at last by the news of his wife’s unfaithfulness ; news which must have been very startling, as well as sadden¬ ing, seeing that for many years, and under the most trying circumstances, she had shown signal fidelity and love, and had done all that a good wife could do to protect and relieve him. State Papers, 1603-10, p. 493. 2 State Papers (Domestic), 1611-8, p. 516. WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. 158 HENRY GARNET.—Nottinghamshire is said to have contributed another bitter enemy to James the First, in the person of Henry Garnet alias Darcy, Farmer, Meaze, and Whalley, a Jesuit, one of the infamous concocters of the Gunpowder Plot. Mr. Bailey 1 states that Garnet was a native of the county, but believes that the name by which he was usually known was a fictitious one. There is abundant evidence that he went under a variety of names. Sir John Cooke said that he was “a man of many names, but of no good name ; adorned by God and nature with many gifts and graces if the grace of God had been joined with them.” Mr. Bailey believes, therefore, that he was a son of Richard Whalley of Screveton, and that he assumed the name of Garnet to hide his connection with a family, the majority of whom had become Protestants. 2 Who he really was, it is indeed difficult to decide. He carefully avoided disclosing his family connections, and beyond the identity of the name Whalley and the general belief that he came from Nottinghamshire, which most writers have enter¬ tained, there is little evidence of his connection with our county. Having been educated at Rome he became a Jesuit, and through his learning was appointed the principal of that body in England. When Catesby, and other conspirators, originated the Gunpowder Plot, they were somewhat troubled in their consciences; Catesby, therefore, put the follow¬ ing question to Garnet, “ Whether, for the promotion of the Catholic cause against heretics, the necessity of the time and occasion so requiring, it were lawful or not amongst many guilty to destroy also some innocent ?” The Jesuit answered without hesitation in the affirmative, and thus the weakest brother was relieved of every scruple. On the discovery of the plot and apprehension of Guy Fawkes, Garnet and others sought refuge at Henlip Hall, Worcestershire, which had been erected by a Catholic, and was known by them to contain many places of concealment. “There is scarcely an apartment,” w T e are told, “ that has not secret ways of going in or going out; some have back staircases concealed in the walls ; others have places of retreat in their chimneys ; some have trap doors, and all present a picture of gloom, insecurity, and suspicion.” 3 Here several of the conspirators were concealed, in the hope that they might be able to escape when the storm had blown over. Intelligence, however, had been conveyed to the Govern¬ ment, and a party, headed by the sheriff, Sir Henry Bromley, made a careful, 1 Annals of Nottingham , p. 558-9. 2 The Jesuits were in the habit of assuming several pseudonymes. See State Papers , James I., p. 240 (1605), for six instances. 3 Beauties of England, vol. xv. part i. p. 184. HENRY GARNET. 1 59 persevering, and effectual search. In the State Papers are directions written by Levinus Munck to Sir Henry Bromley for searching Henlip House, directing him to pull down the wainscot, bore the ground, drill the boards and chimney corners, examine the attics and roof, and search in concealed hiding places. 1 From a manuscript in the British Museum, 2 it appears that in three days eleven secret hiding-places were found, but they were not occupied. On the fourth day, in the morning, came from behind the wainscot in the galleries two men, of their own voluntary accord, as being no longer able there to conceal themselves ; for they confessed they had but one apple between them, which was all the sustenance they had received during the time they were thus hidden. These men were Owen, Garnet’s servant, and the servant of Oldcorne, another Jesuit. On the eighth day a place in the chimney was found, whereupon, “ forth of this secret and most cunning conveyance came Henry Garnet, the Jesuit sought for, and another with him named Hall; marmalade and other sweetmeats were found there lying by them, but their better maintenance had been by a quill or reed through a little hole in the chimney, that backed another chimney, into a gentlewoman’s chamber ; and by that passage broths and warm drinks had been conveyed to them.” For seven days and seven nights had the two Jesuits been con¬ fined in a place where they were forced to remain continually sitting with their legs bent painfully beneath them. “ When we came forth,” wrote Garnet, “ we appeared like two ghosts. The fellow that found us ran away for fear, thinking we should have shot a pistol at him.” 3 Sir Henry Bromley wrote forthwith to Salisbury (January 30, 1606), to inform him of the apprehension of the prisoner, and that he had taken him to his house to restore his strength. Garnet, alias Whalley, appears to have been in a very weak condition, for in a subsequent letter, announcing that the prisoners were being conveyed to London, Sir Henry states that “ Garnet’s weakness compels them to travel slowly.” 4 On February 13, interrogatories were put to Garnet. He stated that he had been twenty years superior of the Jesuits in England ; that he was appealed to, on November 6, for help by the conspirators ; but refused it because they acted foolishly and wickedly. In a letter, which he wrote a few days after to a friend, requesting that “ a pair of spectacles might be repaired,” he further alleges that he refused help to the conspirators, and 1 State Papers (Domestic), 1603-10, p. 281. 2 Quoted in the Beauties of England. 3 Steinmetz, History of the Jesuits , iii. 147. 4 State Papers, 1603-10, p. 286. WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. 160 urged them to desist, but mentions certain meetings to which he must confess, and asks after a Mrs. Vaux. In a footnote to the State Papers wherein the letter is mentioned, 1 it is stated that in this letter and five others, the important portion was written with orange juice, so as to be invisible to a casual observer, and thus the letters passed through the hands of the Lieutenant of the Tower. They excited suspicion from the size of the paper employed, and the insignificance of their palpable contents. They were therefore examined, and the secret writing being discovered, were used as evidence against Garnet. On March 13, 1606, the prisoner, who had been subjected to much cross-examination, made a voluntary statement. He said that about a year before Queen Elizabeth’s death, he received two briefs from Rome, one addressed to the lay Catholics, and one to the priests, bidding them not to consent to any successor to the Crown who would not submit to Rome. He kept them secret during Elizabeth’s reign, and burnt them on her death ; but had shown them to Catesby, who considered that they authorised his proceedings. There was a league between the Pope and the Kings of France and Spain to establish a Catholic successor to Queen Elizabeth by means of an armed force, but her death put an end to the project. Garnet declared that he had tried to persuade the conspirators not to plot against the Government, but could not prevail upon them to believe that it was unlawful to take up arms. During his confinement Garnet kept up a correspondence with some of his friends, his old admirer, Mrs. Vaux, amongst the number. In a letter, when returning him the much-needed spectacles, she declares that life without him is “not life, but deathe;” and while under examination she did her best to shield him, by affirming that the counsel invariably tendered by Garnet was to be “patient and quiet.” Garnet writes to her that Mr. Hall, one of his confreres , had dreamt there were two tabernacles prepared for them ; and Mrs. Vaux replies that she wished Mr. Hall had dreamt that there was a third seat for her. 2 The Government not being satisfied with the statements Garnet had made, subjected him to further pressure, and eventually his resolution so far gave way that to “ avoid torture or trial by witness,” he acknowledged that the plot was told to him in confession. He “sought to hinder it more than men could imagine, as the Pope could tell,” but did not reveal it, hoping to spare his friends. In a letter to Mrs. Vaux, the last we meet with, he details his multiplied misfortunes, and underneath these is drawn a cross, the letters I.H.S., and a pierced heart, inscribed “ Deus cordis mei, et pars mea Deus in aeternum.” 1 State Papers , 1603-10, p. 291. 2 State Papers , 1603-10, pp. 308-9, et seq. HENRY GARNET—GERVASE BABINGTON. 161 When Garnet was brought to trial much interest was felt in his case. The Government considered it of great importance to convict him, partly on account of the odium which would redound to the whole order of Jesuits in England, from the condemnation of their principal, and partly because he was an old offender in the treasons of Elizabeth’s time, for which he had obtained pardon on the accession of James. 1 Garnet conducted his defence with great dexterity. He pleaded that the knowledge of the treason came to him solely through the medium of confession ; and that, therefore, he could not reveal it. To disprove this statement evidence was tendered to show that he had encouraged and assisted the conspirators in a variety of ways, and had gone so far as to send a gentleman to apprise the Pope of the plot, believing it a thing of which His Holiness would approve. The jury, without hesitation, found him guilty, and he was sentenced to be hung, drawn, and quartered. The execution took place on the 3d of May 1606, at the west end of St. Paul’s Church, having been postponed from May-day for fear of disturbances. A crowd of Catholics, of both sexes, rushed to the foot of the scaffold and caught his last words and looks with veneration. The perfect impression of his face, crowned with the halo of saintship, was affirmed to be visible on the straws used to dry up his blood on the scaffold, and they were long preserved as holy relics. In the Gunpowder Plot Book (No. 218 B.), there is a portrait by John Wirix, of Garnet’s head in the midst of an ear of wheat, as it was said to have appeared to a Romanist when looking at a straw taken as a relic from the scaffold. It is circum¬ scribed “ Miraculosa effigies R. P. Henrici Garneti So t!s- Jesus, Martyris Angliae,3 Maii 1606.” 2 The so-called “prodigy” is frequently alluded to with reverence by the Catholic, and with scorn by Protestant champions of the age. 3 In a letter of Sir Dudley Carleton mention is made of a sermon preached at Brussels on Garnet’s miraculous straw. For a long time a strong feeling prevailed amongst the Catholics. A conspiracy was organised abroad to revenge the death of Garnet on the King and Prince by sending five disguised Jesuits to England to kill them. 4 It was made known by a priest to Lord Danvers, and came to an abrupt termination. GERVASE BABINGTON.—This learned and pious man was one of the Babington family of Kingston-upon-Soar. He received his educa- 1 Memoits of James /., i. 267. 2 State Papers (Domestic), 1603-10, p. 315. 3 Memoirs of James /., p. 269. See also Butler’s Memoirs of the English Catholics. 4 State Papers, 1603-10, p. 411. 162 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. tion at Trinity College, Cambridge, of which college he became a fellow. In 1578 he was incorporated Master of Arts of Oxford, but resided chiefly at Cambridge, where he became noted as a preacher, and received the degree of Doctor in Divinity. For some time he acted as domestic chaplain to the Earl of Pembroke, and an early edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica says he is supposed to have assisted the Countess of Pembroke in her translation of the Psalms. In 1588 he became Prebend of Hereford, and three years later was consecrated Bishop of Llandaff. Three years appear to have been about the time which he was permitted to stay in one place, for in 1594 he was translated to the See of Exeter; and three years later (1597) to the See of Worcester, where he died in May 1610. He contributed liberally to the library of Worcester Cathedral, and gained a reputation for piety and scholarship, if not for liberality. Fuller says of him that “ he was not tainted with pride, idleness, or covetousness; ” but other biographers have hinted that he had a weakness for money. The Rev. Canon Hole says : 1 “ He lived in times when even a Reformation could not quite expel from the chief shepherds’ hearts the love of silver in their scrips, as he testified on entering the See of Llandaff, by styling himself the ‘ Bishop of Aff' only, the land having been alienated to a great extent by his predecessor. This reminds one of the Irishman who, speaking of his friend Patrick, mournfully observed—‘But we must call him Pat now, for they’ve burnt his rick! And, again, of the nobleman who signed himself Wallis, his corn having been extracted by his chiropodist.” The writings of Bishop Babington, like those of many of his contemporaries, contain some puns and quaint expressions ; but they also contain many pious reflections, and embody the fruits of much biblical reading and study. They were published in folio and quarto in 1615, and again in folio in 1637, under this title, “ The works of the Right Reverend Father in God, Gervase Babington, late Bishop of Worcester, containing comfortable notes on the five books of Moses, viz. Genesis, etc.; as also an exposition upon the Creed, the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, with a conference betwixt man’s frailtie and faith; and three sermons, etc.” BARON STANHOPE.—Sir John Stanhope, who was subsequently elevated to the rank of a baron, and who was a familiar figure to those who frequented the Court of Queen Elizabeth, was the third son of Sir Michael Stanhope of Shelford, who suffered death for his allegiance to the Protector 1 Allen’s Handbook to Nottingham , p. 30. BARON STANHOPE. 163 Somerset. A writer of the period, whose letter is quoted in the State Papers , thus alludes to the high opinion which was entertained of him :— “ His credit with the queen, and inwardness with the secretary (Cecil), all men know.” In 1596 Sir John acted as one of the commissioners for the council established in the north parts; and in 1597 he was Treasurer of the Chamber. In 1599 he was appointed Treasurer at War; and in 1600 had granted to him the stewardship of Dawntree, Passenham, and Long Buckly Manors, county Northampton. In the first-named year his presence at Court doubtless rendered valuable service to two of his relatives who had occasion to need his good offices. It was no unusual thing during the days of “ good Queen Bess,” for duels to take place between influential personages, and stubborn battles between their numerous adherents. We meet with references to many such in the State Papers , and in one of the most notable Sir John’s nephew, John Stanhope, the heir of Sir Thomas Stanhope, and, therefore, of the Shelford estates, played a prominent part. John Chamberlain, writing to Sir Dudley Carleton a gos¬ siping letter, June 28, 1599, says that in Nottinghamshire John Stanhope had assaulted Sir Charles Cavendish of Welbeck. He encloses the account of it as received from Lord Shrewsbury. The enclosure is as follows :— “ Intelligence of an encounter between Sir Charles Cavendish 1 and John Stanhope. About 9 a.m. Sir Charles Cavendish, passing from the new building near his house (in Sherwood Forest), where he and his lady sleep, to a brick kiln a quarter of a mile off, with only Henry Ogle, Lancelot Ogle his page, and one horsekeeper, saw about twenty horse on a hillside, and took them for Sir John Byron and his company hunting; but as they galloped towards him he perceived himself betrayed, and put spurs to his horse, which fell with him, and, before he could gain his feet or draw his sword, two pistols were discharged upon him, and he received a bullet and several small shot in his thigh ; yet, after this, he and his two men and boy unhorsed six, and killed two on the spot, a third fell down in the forest, and 1 Sir Charles appears to have had a good many troubles to contend with. On one occasion he solicited the Queen of Scots to write in his behalf; but while ‘‘full of compassion,” she declined, on the ground that it would be “ hazardous ” to do so. Then came family disputes between the Earl of Shrewsbury on the one part, and the Countess his wife, and Henry, William, and Sir Charles Cavendish, her sons by her former husband, the papers respecting which would fill a volume, and maybe found summarised in the State Papers , 1581-90. In these disputes the queen interposed with beneficial effect. Some years later Sir Charles was involved in a further dispute, this time with one Otho Nicholson, and an order was issued to sequestrate certain of his lands in Sherwood Forest, for neglecting to answer the bill of complaint preferred against him. None of his difficulties, how ¬ ever, were of a very grave nature, and did not affect his reputation for loyalty and honour. 164 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. is thought dead, and a fourth is unlikely to live. Some workmen without weapons came up, and John Stanhope fled with his party. Sir Charles has also small hurts in the head and hand, but there is no great danger. He and his three had rapiers and daggers only. Six good horses were left behind, some worth £20 each ; two or three cloaks, two rapiers, two pistols, one sword and dagger, and some hats, which are kept by Sir Charles. This company was all the morning before in the forest, as if they had been hunting. One of the killed was a keeper whom Stanhope took that morning, without boots or weapon, but a pike-staff; he confessed before he died that he did not know what he went for till he came to the hillside.” 1 This account is corroborated by a letter from one George Fenner, who, describing the desperate fight between the heir of the Stanhopes and Sir Charles, says that divers men were slain on the side of the former, though he had tw r enty to three. He also mentions that there had lately been many quarrels between persons of good account. The occurrence being reported to the queen, the council, by her Majesty’s directions, ordered both parties to give sureties to the sheriff for their good behaviour, and warned them that if such proceedings occurred again they would answer for them at their peril. The offence was so far condoned, probably through the influence of the offender’s uncle, that, in December, Stanhope had a grant of the keepership of the game in Thorneywood, Sherwood Forest, in consideration of ^200 paid, and of the surrender of a former patent granted to Michael Stanhope for life; with covenant that he kept always at least one hundred deer there for her Majesty’s use. He subsequently married Cordelia, daughter of Richard Arlington, and became the father of Philip Stanhope, w T ho was created Earl of Chesterfield in 1628. In the same year that Sir John’s nephew was in trouble—needing his good offices at Court—his brother, Edward, appealed to him for his powerful support under peculiar circumstances. Dr. Edward Stanhope was Chancellor both to the Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop of London, and, according to Thoroton, one of her Majesty’s High Court of Chancery. During a portion, at least, of the time that he held the first- named offices, the queen’s favourite, Essex, was in disgrace, and some of the clergy, under the bishop’s jurisdiction, happening to pray for him, the queen was not well pleased. Dr. Stanhope, in a long letter to his brother in December 1599, asked him to use his powerful influence with her Majesty to calm the storm. He said he “had heard that her Majesty had 1 State Papers, 1598-1601, pp. 222, et seq. BARON STANHOPE. i6 5 taken offence at my Lord of London, and was not well pleased with his Grace for the indiscretion of some ministers in and about London.” Some, he says, had uttered matters impertinent to her Government in their sermons at St. Paul’s Cross ; others had prayed for the Earl of Essex by name, and had had prayers purposely made for him ; while others had caused their bell to be tolled as a passing bell for him. Such, at least, were the statements which had reached the queen’s ears. Dr. Stanhope enters into an elaborate explanation, stating that Dr. Richardson, one of the offenders, had been put under restraint. Those who prayed for the earl were Cambridge men, and simply prayed for him as the Chancellor of their University, according to ancient custom; and as to the tolling of the bell, which took place at St. Clement’s Church only, it was done by the sexton with¬ out the minister’s knowledge, at the persuasion of Captain Parry, “ who, with tears, came hastily to him, signifying that the poor earl lay dying.” 1 Not only was Sir John the medium of intercession and intercommunica¬ tion between relatives and her Majesty, but he was also the bearer of some of the flattering and fawning letters written to the queen by her discarded favourite. In one of the letters which Essex sent through Sir John, early in 1600, he says :—“If I may be but a mute in your presence, they that have most favours of fortune shall never be envied by me.” In September of the same year Essex sent many more of his supplicating letters to the queen, signing himself “ your Majesty’s humblest vassal, who acknowledges your goodness with humble thankfulness, and will attend your pleasure with constant patience.” In response to one letter Sir John Stanhope writes to the earl:—“ I presented your letter to her Majesty, who, after perusing it once or twice, directed me to answer that thankfulness was ever welcome, and seldom came out of season; and that you did well so dutifully to acknowledge that what was done was so well meant. More in commission I had not, but might note by her speech to me, after reading again the last part of your letter, that if you continued your demonstrative profession, to take little comfort in liberty, in resort of friends, or any other delight, until you had assurance of the end of her displeasure, it would hasten the grant of what is so much desired by you.. If I have exceeded my directions by delivering my own observations with purpose to further that which I wish at heart, it is no more than you may ever promise yourself from me.” 2 Essex, thus encouraged, sent other epistles, but not finding the response he had anticipated, he strove to raise the Londoners to revolt. The attempt 2 Ibid. p. 474. 1 State Papers, 1598-1601, p. 366. i66 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. was futile ; Essex and his friends were apprehended, one of them, the Earl of Sussex, being sent prisoner to Sir John Stanhope’s. The execution of Essex followed shortly afterwards. In concluding our notice of Stanhope’s doings at the Court of Queen Elizabeth, we may introduce the following anecdote in which his name is mentioned. A lady writing news of the period says :—“ Her Majesty, being in very good health, one day Sir John Stanhope, being the vice¬ chamberlain, and Secretary Cecil’s dependant and familiar, came and presented her Majesty with a piece of gold of the bigness of an angel, full of characters, which, he said, an old woman in Wales bequeathed her on her deathbed ; and thereupon he discoursed how the said old woman, by virtue of the same, had lived to the age of one hundred and twenty years ; and, in that age, having all her- body withered and consumed, and wanting nature to nourish, she died, commanding the said piece of gold to be carefully sent to her Majesty ; alleging, further, that as long as the said old woman wore it upon her body she could not die. The queen, upon the confidence she had hereof, took the said gold, and wore it about her neck. Now she fell not suddenly sick, yet daily decreased of her rest and feeding; and, within fifteen days, fell downright sick; and the cause being wondered at by my Lady Scrope, with whom she was very private and confident, being her near kinswoman, her Majesty told her (commanding her to conceal the same) that she saw, one night, in her bed, her body exceeding lean and fearful, in a light of fire. Afterwards, in the melancholy of her sickness, she desired to see a true looking-glass, which in twenty years before she had not seen, but only such a one which of purpose was made to deceive her sight; which glass being brought her, she fell, exclaiming at all those who had so much commended her, and took it so offensively, that all those who had before flattered her durst not come in her sight.” 1 When James the First succeeded to the throne, Stanhope was equally successful in securing the good graces of the monarch. Soon after his accession, James appointed him vice-chamberlain; granted to him the Keepership of Colchester Castle and appurtenances ; and in 1605 elevated him to the peerage as Baron Stanhope of Harrington, county Northampton. 2 He had also granted to him the office of Master of the Posts, which he held until his death in 1620. He was succeeded by his son, Charles, who 1 Steinmetz, History of the Jesuits , iii. 126, note. 2 Another member of the family, Sir Philip, was, according to letters in the State Papers, made a baron in 1616, by the title of Baron Shelford, paying for the honour ,£10,000, which his Majesty gave to Winwood.— Vide State Papers (Domestic), 1616, p. 404. GERVASE MARKHAM. 167 lived abroad during the civil wars of the time of Charles I. ; and dying without issue, the barony of Stanhope of Harrington became extinct. GERVASE MARKHAM. — Gervase Markham, the third son of Robert Markham of Cotham, was born in 1568. By profession he was a soldier, and served, in conjunction with his brothers, Francis and Godfrey, in the Low Countries and in Ireland. He was best known, however, for his writings, which are very voluminous, and range over an amazing variety of subjects. He had received an excellent education, and was a man of unusual talent. As a classical scholar he was much esteemed, and his pen was always that of “ a ready writer.” No subject came amiss to him ; whether discoursing on the diseases of cattle, or on military tactics, or writing poetry, he was equally fluent. In 1593 he published two books on horsemanship, one being dedicated to his father, and he subsequently wrote four others on kindred subjects, the last, his Cavalarie, being dedicated to Charles, Prince of Wales. In 1595 he published The most honourable Tragedie of Sir Richard Grenville, Knight , a heroic poem dedicated to Lord Mountjoy ; and in the same year he issued The Poem of Poems; or, Sion’s Muse; containing the Divine Song of King Solomon, in eight eclogues. In 1597 he issued a translation from the French of Madame Petau Maulette, entitled Devereux. Next he turned his attention to religious subjects. He published, in 1600, The Tears of the Beloved; or Lamentation of St. John, concerning the Death and Passion of Christ Jesus, our Saviour; and in the following year he published Marie Magdalene's Lamentations for the Loss of her Master, Jesus. In 1608 he wrote The Dumbe Knight, a comedy ; and in 1622 was printed a play under the title of Herod and Antipater, which had been played for some years before. His dramatic writing had attracted notice as early as 1598, for in an anonymous satire of that year he is thus mentioned :— “ Markham is censured for his want of plot, Yet others think that no deep-staining blot, For, though his plot be poor, his subject’s rich, And his muse soars a falcon’s gallant pitch.” But his most elaborate works are on husbandry. It was a favourite topic; and his writings, consisting of eight volumes, the titles of which we need not enumerate, were very popular. As an illustration of this we may mention that his Cheap and Good Husbandry went through i68 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. thirteen editions; and The Way to Get Wealth through fourteen. Field sports likewise engaged a good deal of his attention. He wrote The Pleasures of Princes; containing a Discourse on the Arte of Fishing with the Angle, and of Breeding the Fighting Cocke, and five other works on fowling, archery, and horsemanship. His versatility was indeed remarkable ; for, in addition to the works already mentioned, he published three, at least, dealing with military topics; and, as a poet, he was so prolific and so well thought of, that in England's Parnassus, issued in 1660, he is quoted no less than thirty-four times ! “ forming the greatest number of extracts taken from minor bards in the book.” 1 His knowledge of farriery was so great that, in 1617, the booksellers obtained his signature to a memorandum, promising not to write any more books on the cure of cattle diseases. To turn from his literary efforts to his private troubles. In 1635 we find Gervase Markham writing to Sir John Byron, sheriff of the county, complaining bitterly of the oppression to which he was subject in reference to the levying of ship money. He says that Sir John had made him a separatist from all the rest of his rank in the county, and “ if he had been commanded to present him his head he would as willingly have done it.” While Lord Chaworth is marked at ^35, and Sir Gervase Clifton, whose estate was worth ^3000 per annum, at a like amount, he is “extolled to ^50,” which “ no man else in the county carries, unless it be earls or lords.” Neither is the “vulture humour” stayed here; for the sheriff of Yorkshire, out of a lease that did not exceed £20 per annum, had taken forcibly ^10 by distress. This fortune, he contends, has ever followed him, for in the memorable time of the assessment for knights he neither held land of the King in capite, nor in knight’s service, yet they exacted of him per force £yo. He dares venture his poor estate the sheriff cannot find a parallel case, and leave it to him for consideration, as he is too weak in his limbs to be able to visit him for the purpose of personal explanation and complaint. 2 The letter, though forcibly written and containing apparently fair and reasonable arguments, was not heeded, and Gervase was left to brood over his troubles without any hope of redress. No wonder the sheriff, when he sent to collect the money, found him “refractory,” and “reproached the sheriff with ill language.” The sheriff complained to the Council of Mark¬ ham’s conduct, told them he was assessed at £50 because he was a single man with ^800 per annum, and “ much money at use,” and that he was the only person in the county who gave him much trouble. The Council came 1 History of the Markham Family. 2 State Papers (Domestic), 1635-6, p. ir. GERVASE MARKHAM. 169 promptly to the assistance of the sheriff, for money was urgently wanted, and meaning to have it somehow, they were in no mood to admit of delays and prevarications. Markham was peremptorily ordered to render satis¬ faction to the sheriff, and to be conformable or to expect to be called to a strict account. 1 But Markham was not to be overawed, and declined to submit either to sheriff or Council, or both combined. As may be expected he paid the penalty of his temerity. A warrant for his arrest was issued, and on March 4 ( x 635-36), the constable of Dunham, where he resided, reported that it had been executed as far as circumstances would permit; the old gentleman not being in a fit condition to be removed. The constable related that Markham was so infirm and useless in all the parts and members of his body that he was not “portable” to London ; he had not been able to stir out of his chamber for five years, nor had he been able to come out of his bed for two years ; he could not turn him in his bed without his servant’s help, “and for that time also his grievances are so much that he is then ready to perish and sonde ” 2 (that is swoon). In this deplorable and pitiable condition, full, not of years only, but of infirmities, Markham was not in a position to resist the vigorous action of the Council. When he found himself under arrest his determination gave way, and he pleaded with great humility for pardon. In a letter of March 12, from his “poor house at Dunham,” he “in the humblest manner that heart can devise, or a delinquent poor prisoner ” express, acknowledges “ all loyalty, duty, and obedience,” and since he is “ not able in respect of his age and infinite infirmities to appear before the Board, he begs his Majesty’s pardon with all humbleness, and implores the Lords to intercede for him.” On the 20th an order for his liberation was issued. 3 He died in 1637, and was buried at St. Giles’, Cripplegate, on February 3, aged about seventy. 4 1 State Papers (Domestic), 1635-6, p. 216. 2 Ibid. p. 272. 3 Ibid. pp. 309, 396. 4 Since this article was written, and part of it printed, we have seen reason to doubt whether the Gervase Markham who gave the Sheriff so much trouble was the celebrated author of that name. A good deal of confusion has been caused by the fact that two Gervase Markhams, and each of them influential men, were living at the same time (see p. 176). As we have found, after a patient search, Gervase, the son of Ellis of Laneham, mentioned as “ of Dunham,” and as Gervase the author describes himself in a document we have seen quoted as of “ London, Gent.,” it is prob¬ able that the correspondence in the State Papers relates to the former. Both the Gervases died about the same time. Z r7o WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. WILLIAM BREWSTER.—To those who take a pleasure in search¬ ing out and visiting historic places, the county of Nottingham possesses considerable attractions. There is the village of Stoke, the scene of a memorable battle, described as the last of the sad Wars of the Roses; Southwell, famous not only for its minster, but as the place where the unhappy King Charles surrendered to the Scots ; Newark, with its vener¬ able castle, the place where King John died, and around which was fought many a sturdy engagement during the Civil Wars ; Nottingham, where the ill-fated king raised his standard ere the great struggle came ; Newstead, the home of Byron ; and Sherwood Forest, the haunt of Robin Hood and his merry men. These are some of the spots familiar by name to most readers, and to which the student of history will be glad to resort as oppor¬ tunity may permit. But there is another place, a quiet little village almost on the borders of the county, which, though we hear and read less of it, must ever be an object of the deepest interest not alone to Englishmen but to “ our cousins over the water.” The name of the place is Scrooby, and the man who emanated from it, and has given it a never-dying fame, was William Brewster, one of the noblest and most devoted of that band of noble men, familiarly known as the “ Pilgrim Fathers ”— the founders of New England. It would occupy our pages at too great a length to enter fully into the details of the origin and the history of a movement which laid the founda¬ tions of a great commonwealth that will ever be bound to us by no ordi¬ nary ties. We may mention, however, that there had been for some time prior to the accession of James I. bitter controversies between the Puritans and the Episcopalians, and various unwise efforts to compel the former to adopt the practices and share the beliefs of the Church party. When James, who professed to be a theologian, and who had been educated as a Presbyterian, came to the throne, there were hopes that the rigours of the law would be relaxed, and the Puritans would be permitted to worship in their own way without being subjected to annoyance or per¬ secution. But the anticipations indulged in were soon perceived to be ill- founded. James believed in uniformity of public worship, and held fast to the doctrine that if there were no bishop there would soon be no king. At a conference held at Hampton Court Palace, James plainly intimated to the Puritan leaders that he would “ make them conform or harry them out of the land.” These rash and ill-advised declarations had the very opposite effect to that which they were intended to produce. They drove the Puritans WILLIAM BREWSTER. 171 further from Episcopacy instead of drawing them closer to it, and by degrees, as clergy and laity left the pale of the Church, they formed them¬ selves into little bodies called Separatists, selected their own pastor, and, spite of kings and laws, worshipped secretly in their own appointed manner. One of these bqdies of Separatists was founded at Scrooby, for there can be no doubt, from the investigations of that able antiquary, the Rev. Joseph Hunter, that this was the village in which Brewster, the leading spirit of the party, resided. 1 How it came about that an out-of-the-way place like Scrooby—a village in which there was an archbishop’s residence, and which had been associated in various ways with Episcopacy for cen¬ turies—should be the chosen meeting-place for a body of Separatists is thus explained by Mr. Hunter. Worksop, a market-town close by, had been visited in the early days of the Reformation by a Dutchman named Van Bailer, who preached to the people the doctrines of Luther. In sub¬ sequent years eloquent clergymen, favourable to the Puritan cause, laboured zealously throughout the division of Bassetlaw, and the people became animated by strong religious principles and convictions. Scrooby was at one time surrounded by Roman Catholic houses. “ There were the Cis¬ tercians at Rufford, the Gilbertines at Mattersey, the Carthusians in the Isle of Axholme, the Benedictines at Blyth, the Benedictine ladies at Wallingwells, the Augustinians at Worksop, and the Premonstratensians at Welbeck.” It was in the midst of this cordon, this circle of ancient, though unused religious houses, that the Puritan community sprang up, flourishing greatly in spite of the fact that, retaining the creed of their ancestors, some of the most influential inhabitants of the district were Roman Catholics. Mr. Hunter remarks that “the presence of so much Catholic zeal would be likely to sharpen the opposition,” and so it may have done. But whatever the cause, these Scrooby Separatists were amongst the most earnest and honest in the country, and patiently endured much trouble and hardship for conscience sake. William Brewster, the leader of the party, singularly enough occupied the archbishop’s palace. He was an educated man, and had served under Mr. Davidson, Secretary of State, who himself had a strong leaning to Puritanism. 2 On the disgrace of that Minister he returned to Scrooby, which was probably his native place, the name of Brewster of 1 Collections co 7 iccrtiing the Church or Congregation of Protestant Separatists, formed at Scrooby, in North Nottinghamshire , in the time of King fames /., the founders of New Plymouth, the parent colony of New England, by the Rev. Joseph Hunter. (London : J. R. Smith.) 2 Raine’s History of Blyth, p. 130. 172 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. Scrooby being met with at an earlier date. The village was in these days a “post town,” on the great north road communicating with Tuxford on the south and Doncaster on the north, and Brewster obtained the office of postmaster, which he held until 1607. The office was a very important one, and the holder of it very frequently a man of good position. There are entries of various payments to Brewster while Sir John Stanhope, himself a Nottinghamshire man, was Postmaster-General, the rate of pay being advanced from 2od. to 2s. per day. The meetings at Brewster’s house, which was large and commodious, took place every Sunday. They were in direct contravention of the law, which bade people attend the parish churches, and ere long steps were taken to disperse them. Proceedings were instituted before the Commis¬ sioners for Ecclesiastical Causes. These commissioners were Dr. Robert Abbott, Dr. Robert Snowden, a Notts man, afterwards Bishop of Carlisle, and the Rev. Matthew Dodsworth, father of Dodsworth the antiquary. Brewster and two of his friends, Richard Jackson and Robert Rochester, described as Brownists or Separatists, were summoned to appear at the Collegiate Church of Southwell, April 22d, 1608, and, not answering to the summons, were each fined £20. Nor was this the only instance of perse¬ cution. According to Bradford, a noted member of the Scrooby Church, and a native of Austerfield, a neighbouring village, the unfortunate people were much harassed, and the ministers who stirred them up were silenced. To escape from these punishments and annoyances, the Separatists decided upon emigration. Holland being conspicuous for the toleration which pre¬ vailed within it towards all descriptions of Protestants, a resolution was arrived at to proceed thither. Willingly did these earnest courageous men agree to break up their homes, to tear themselves from their kindred and friends, and to bid farewell to their native land, in order that they might enjoy the inestimable blessings of freedom. As may be imagined, the movements of the Scrooby Separatists, when it became known that they had resolved on emigration, were watched with great interest. In a country place no man can gather together his goods and depart for a foreign shore without being the subject of a vast amount of gossip. What then must have been the excitement in the Ret¬ ford district when it was stated that several hundred people were about to leave, and to leave for conscience sake ? We can well imagine how anxiously their movements would be watched, and to what criticism they would be subjected. The leaders of the party were Brewster, John Robert- WILLIAM BREWSTER. i 73 son, a clergyman who had held a benefice in Norfolk, Richard Clifton, rector of Babworth, and William Bradford of Austerfield. Under the direction of these energetic leaders two parties were formed, and it was agreed that as secretly as possible the removal should be effected. One party was to sail from Boston, and the other by the Humber. Brewster and Bradford led the Boston party, and entered into a contract with the captain of a Dutch vessel to carry them over. The other party made a similar bargain with another Dutchman, but, unfortunately for the emigrants, both these men proved treacherous and unworthy. The one who bargained with Brewster gave information privately to the magistrates, and the result was the apprehension and imprisonment of the whole party. After a while some were sent back to their homes, but Brewster and several of his friends were kept in gaol for several months. The other party, who had intended sailing from Hull, suffered even greater troubles. When a number of them had been taken on board the captain suddenly sailed away, “ leaving the rest, who were chiefly women and children, on the shore, in the deepest affliction.” 1 Many other sorrows and hardships did the party endure, until at last they arrived in Holland, settling first at Amsterdam and then at Leyden, where they remained until 1620. In Holland none of the party were idle. Brewster established himself as a printer and tutor, and soon had a large connection. His friends joined him, and “by reason of many books, which would not be allowed to be printed in England, they might have had more than they could do.” But after eleven years’ residence in a foreign country they began to look about for a new abode. Brewster had by his talent and industry earned money, but the success of one man could not keep the whole party from suffering many privations. “ They found,” writes Bradford, who kept a record of the Church, “ and saw by experience the hardness of the place to be such as few in comparison would come to them, and fewer still would bide it out and continue with them ; and this because they could not endure the great labour and hard fare, with other inconveniences, which they underwent and were contented with.” It became painfully evident that in a few years the little band “ would scatter by the pressure of necessity or sink under their burdens, or both.” It was resolved, therefore, to seek other quarters, and to endeavour to establish in a new country a community of their own. Virginia seemed to offer the greatest inducements, and it so happened that the governor of the Virginia Company was Sir Edwin Sandys, the owner of Scrooby, who was personally 1 Hunter’s Founders of New Plymouth , p. 134. i74 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. known to Brewster and others. With him a correspondence was entered into, and the result was an arrangement whereby permission was accorded them to plant themselves on the shores of North America. Leaving Hol¬ land, where they had resided so long, the pilgrims came over to England in a ship called the Speed Well. Another vessel, The Mayflower , whose name and services will never be forgotten, had been chartered on the same errand, and it was intended that the two vessels should cross the Atlantic together. The captain of the Speed Well, however, declared his vessel to be unseaworthy, and The Mayflower was entrusted with the duty of carrying the pilgrims over. On the 5th of August 1620 she left South¬ ampton with as many on board as could reasonably be accommodated, the passengers including Brewster and Bradford. After a distressing voyage, lasting sixty-four days, they sighted the American coast, and taking up their abode upon it laid the foundation of the New England States. Of the hardships they had to endure and the perils they had to encounter ere they became a comfortable, a settled, and a flourishing community at Plymouth, we have not space to speak. The record of their doings has been given in more than one volume of deep interest and value, 1 and has formed a favourite subject alike for public writers and public speakers, conspicuous in the last-named category being the Rev. Morley Punshon, the Wesleyan, whose eloquent oration on “The Men of The Mayflower" those who have heard it will not readily forget. Of Brewster, the subject of our memoir, it only remains for us to say that as he was the oldest of the pilgrims when he emigrated to America, so he guided and directed them like a father. Notwithstanding the anxieties he had undergone and the hardships to which he was subjected for many years, he lived to the age of eighty, and then peacefully passed away. His friend and companion, Bradford, thus describes his end :—“ He died in his bed in peace, in the midst of his friends, who mourned and wept over him, and ministered what help and comfort they could unto him, and he again recomforted them whilst he could. His sickness was not long. Until the last day thereof he did not wholly keep his bed. His speech continued until somewhat more than half a day before his death, and then failed him ; and about nine or ten o’clock of the evening he died without any pang at all.” A chair which the vener¬ able elder used to occupy is still preserved in “ Pilgrim Hall,” Plymouth, amongst those relics of the pilgrims which are held in such deserved veneration. Governor William Bradford, “ the yeoman of Austerfield,” as 1 Vide The Pilgrim Fathers , by W. H. Bartlett. JOHN HOLLES. 1 75 he was described ere he left his native country, also lived to a good age. He was twice married, his second wife being a widow—Mrs. Alice South- worth. The maiden name of this lady is said to have been Rayner, and the family to which she belonged was one of good standing in this county, their residence being at East Drayton, not far from Scrooby. Bradford served the office of governor for many years, and was regarded by all with love and veneration. He left behind him invaluable records of the origin and progress of the Pilgrim Fathers, and a biographical account of his friend Brewster, from which we have already quoted. JOHN HOLLES, Earl of Clare. —Sir John Holies succeeded his grandfather Sir William, in the possession of the Nottinghamshire property, and took up his abode at Haughton, the ancient family residence, which had been made famous in Sir William’s time by his unbounded hospitality. It may be interesting, before we proceed to speak of Sir John, if we advert briefly to his celebrated grandfather, and to the proceedings which made him noted in the county. Sir William, who refused to marry his daughter to the Earl of Cumberland because he did not choose to stand “ cap in hand ” to his son-in-law, lived in magnificent style. “He began his Christmas at Allhallowtide, and continued it until Candlemas, during which any man was permitted to stay three days without being asked whence he came or what he was.” For each of the twelve days of Christ¬ mas he allowed a fat ox and other provisions in proportion. At the corona¬ tion of Edward VI., he appeared with fifty followers with blue coats and badges, then the ordinary costume of retainers and serving-men, and he never went to the Sessions at Retford, four miles from his own mansion, without thirty “proper fellows ” at his heels. What was then rare amongst the greatest subj'ects, he kept a company of actors of his own to perform plays and masques at festival times ; in summer they travelled about the country. 1 The worthy knight died at a great age in the year 1590. Sir John Holies was the son of Denzil Holies, by Eleanor, daughter of Lord Suffield. He was educated under a private tutor until thirteen years of age, when he was sent to Trinity College, Cambridge, where he attracted attention by his perseverance, assiduity, and ability. On leaving college, he became a member of Gray’s Inn, with a view to entering the legal profession, but his design was not carried into effect, for after an introduction at Court, he accepted an appointment as a gentleman- 1 Memoirs of the Court of Queen Elisabeth (Aiken), ii. 319. 176 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. pensioner. He served with distinction in the wars against the Turks and the Flemish, and took an active part in the preparations made to resist the Spanish Armada. Subsequently he was employed in Ireland, and rendered good service in the suppression of several rebellious outbreaks. His grand¬ father had engaged to marry him to a kinswoman of the Earl of Shrewsbury, but on the death of the old knight Sir John refused to complete the contract, preferring to unite himself to a daughter of Sir Thomas Stanhope. This proceeding gave great offence to the Earl, especially as he and Sir Thomas Stanhope were bitter enemies, and unfortunate disputes resulted which attracted a good deal of notice, and are worth dwelling upon for the light which they throw upon the state of society at this period. The men having espoused the cause of their masters, Roger Orme, servant to Sir John Holies, fought a duel with Pudsey, gentleman of the horse to the Earl of Shrewsbury, and Pudsey was slain. The Earl prosecuted Orme, whereupon Sir John Holies had him conveyed to Ireland, and interceded with the queen, who pardoned him. This proceeding led to an affray with Gervase Markham, 1 of Dunham, Notts, one of the celebrated Markham family. Markham was a great confidant of the Countess of Shrewsbury, and was, pursuant to the custom of the times, termed her champion. He is described as “a proper handsome gentleman, of great courage.” After Pudsey was slain, he used some strong words against Holies, alleging that he was the cause of the quarrel, and therefore guilty of Pudsey’s death. Holies hearing of this sent the following letter :— “ For Gervase Markham. “ Whereas you have said that I was guilty of that villainy of Orme in the death of Pudsey, I affirm that you lie, and lie like a villain, which I shall be ready to make good upon yourself, or upon any gentleman my equal. JOHN HOLLES.” What followed is thus graphically narrated. “ Markham returned for answer that he accepted the challenge, and would accordingly give a meeting at such an hour alone, or with either of them a boy of fourteen or under, the place Worksop Park, and the weapons rapier and dagger. Sir John Holies, allowing of the other circumstances, excepted against the place, being the park where his mortal enemy the Earl of Shrewsbury then lived, which he thought neither reasonable for himself to admit, nor honourable 1 The Gervase concerned in this business is supposed by some to have been the voluminous writer of that name, but a manuscript note to a History of the Markham Fatnily contradicts this, stating that it was Gervase Markham, who is buried in the same tomb with his father Ellis in Lane- ham Church. He was a captain of horse, and, as his epitaph says, “ Long served her Majesty in her warres with extraordinarie proofe in Ireland and ye Lowe Countries.” He died January 17, 1636-7. kind f>rmission v/'I.oxd EnwAitn Ci iNTiiN./rowi the Vtihmbh Painting in the Nice castle Collection 'I ilE EARL OF CLARK. ( a . d . 1564—1637.) JOHN HOLLES. 177 for his enemy to propose, and therefore urged that a more equal place be assigned. Markham, taking advantage of this, as if he declined the en¬ counter, published it accordingly to his disgrace. Finding this unworthy dealing, Sir John Holies resolved to take that opportunity which fortune should next offer him, and such an one shortly after offered him on the following occasion. To the christening of his second son, Denzil Holies, the Lady Stanhope, his mother-in-law, was invited as godmother, after which performed she returned from Haughton to Shelford, and Sir John Holies, accompanying her part of the way over the forest of Sher¬ wood, it fortuned that Gervase Markham and others in his company met them and passed by. So soon as he saw that Markham was passed, he took leave of the Lady Stanhope, galloped after and overtook him, when, observing how unworthily he had dealt with him, they both alighted and drew their rapiers. I have heard him say that upon the first encounter he used these words, ‘ Markham, guard yourself better, or I shall spoil you presently ’ (for he said he laid as open to him as a child), and the next pass he run him through the middle, up to the hilt, and out behind towards the small of the back. With this wound Markham fell, and was carried off the ground by those in his company, while Sir John Holies, with his servant Ash¬ ton and a groom, who only were with him, returned to Haughton. The news coming to the Earl of Shrewsbury, he immediately raised his servants and tenants to the number of a hundred and twenty, with a resolution to appre¬ hend Sir John Holies as soon as he should know that Markham’s wound was fatal; which Edmund, Lord Sheffield understanding, he speedily re¬ paired to Haughton, with threescore in his retinue out of Lincolnshire, to assist his cousin-german in case the Earl should attempt anything. An old servant of Sir John Holies told me he was present when the Lord Sheffield came, and that his master, going forth to meet him, he asked him how it was with Markham. He replied that he thought the greatest danger was he had spoiled his gallantry. ‘ I hear cousin,’ says the Lord Sheffield, ‘ that my lord of Shrewsbury is prepared to trouble you ; take my word before he carry you it shall cost many a broken pate,’ and he went in and remained at Haughton until they had certain account that Markham was past danger ; who indeed recovered, and lived after to be an old man, but never after ate supper or received sacrament, which two things he rashly vowed not to do until he were revenged.” 1 During the lifetime of Henry, Prince of Wales, Holies was a great 1 Biographia Britannica, art. “ Holies ” (Note C). 178 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. favourite with the Prince, who made him Comptroller of his Household, and visited him at Haughton, where he was splendidly entertained. On the Prince’s death in 1612 the influence which Holies possessed at Court greatly declined. In November 1615 one Richard Weston was arraigned for poisoning Sir Thomas Overbury, and, being found guilty, was sentenced to death. Sir John Holies was present on the scaffold at Tyburn when Weston was executed, and put questions to the prisoner as to his guilt, at the same time “intimating his doubts thereof.” His conduct was brought under the notice of the Star Chamber, the charge being propounded in a speech by Sir Francis Bacon, and Sir John Holies, with several other knights, had to pay a fine (£500).* In July 1616 Sir John obtained a peerage. Sherburn writing to Carleton gives this item of news : “ Sir John Holies made Lord Houghton for ,£10,000 to defray Lord Hay’s expenses to France.” That Sir John was made a baron for money is con¬ firmed in a letter from another writer (William Beecher), who adds, “It is said others will be made on the same terms, like cardinals at Rome.” 2 In 1617 his'lordship was an applicant for the post of Secretary, and offered another ,£10,000 for this preferment, knowing how overwhelming an influ¬ ence money possessed over the counsels of James. Edward Sherburn, writing under date November 7, says there were many candidates for the Secretaryship, for which Lord Houghton had offered £10,000, and adds, “ neither honour nor place is to be achieved but by means of Lady Pecunia. Secretary Lake holds the staff at both ends, having the double allowances, and will keep it as long as he can.” 3 His lordship did not succeed, there¬ fore, in obtaining “ the staff.” The next we read of him shows him in an unpleasant predicament, for he and his counsel were committed to the Fleet (January 12, 1619) because he would not obey the orders of a Committee of the Council to hush up a quarrel with Sir Edward Coke. In 1624 his lord- ship, “for the additional sum of £"5000,” was made Earl of Clare, and appeared as such on November 2 at the prorogation of Parliament, though his patent was only sealed that morning. In politics the Earl, though deeply attached to monarchical principles, was equally earnest in support of the liberty of the subject. When Charles I. began, as he thought, to carry his powers beyond their just limit, the Earl opposed him in the Lords, and his second son, Denzil, took a still 1 State Papers (Domestic), 1615, pp. 326, 344. 2 State Papers, 1611-18,380-1. 3 Ibid. 494. THE EARL OF KINGSTON. 179 more prominent part in the Commons in opposition to the king’s pro¬ ceedings. The Earl of Clare died at Nottingham, Oct. 4, 1637, and was interred three days later in the southern part of the cross aisle of St. Mary’s Church, at a spot which he had himself selected for his sepulture. “ He seemed,” we read, “ to have some presage of his death, for on Sunday before going from prayers at St. Mary’s Church he suddenly put his staff upon a par¬ ticular spot and said, ‘ Here will I be buried.’ ” 1 His eldest son, who succeeded to the title, was less decided in his opinions, for, says Mrs. Hutchinson, “ he was very often of both parties, and I think never advantaged either.” A monument in black and white marble covered the remains of the two Earls, but was removed in 1802, when improvements were effected in that part of the Church. A less pretentious monument, with the original inscriptions, was substituted for the old one; and this, in its turn, has dis¬ appeared, and nothing but the marble slab with the inscription and armorial bearings now remains. Denzil Holies was one of the members of the Commons accused of high treason on the memorable occasion when the king sent the sergeant-at-arms to effect their arrest, and the sergeant being unsuccessful, the king went himself on the following day, accompanied by a body-guard. The monarch was received with shouts of “ privilege ” from the indignant Commons, and the scene altogether was one of the most noteworthy in English history. We shall have more to say about it when we come to speak of Denzil Holies. THE EARL OF KINGSTON.—Robert Pierrepoint w r as raised to the peerage by Charles I. as Baron Pierrepoint of Holme Pierrepoint and Viscount Newark in 1627, and in the year following made Earl of Kingston-upon-Hull. When the civil war broke out, his lordship fora few months “stood neuter,” and on being urged to declare himself is said to have replied that when he took up arms on either side he hoped a “ cannon bullet ” would divide him between them.2 Eventually he expressed himself as on the king’s side; and, being a most influential man, took with him a large body of troops to render assistance. So high an opinion was entertained of him by the Royalists that he was made Lieutenant-General of the forces in the counties of Lincoln, Rutland, Huntingdon, Cambridge, and Norfolk, and “was amongst the most popular of the Cavalier commanders.” 3 His death 1 Granger’s Biographical History, ii. 35. " Mrs. Hutchinson’s Memoirs, p. 150. 3 Burke’s Extinct Peerage, p. 419. 180 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. occurred in a singular manner. As he was going to Gainsborough he was surprised by Lord Willoughby of Parham, and, though he fought bravely, was taken prisoner, and despatched in an open boat towards Hull. Sir Charles Cavendish with his army, marching along the shore, overtook the boat, and demanded the earl’s release, which, being refused, they fired upon the vessel, and the earl was killed. Mrs. Hutchinson regards the occurrence as a remarkable realisation of his lordship’s wish. . She says, “ being in danger, the earl went up on the deck to show himself, and to prevail with them to forbear shooting, but as soon as he appeared a cannon bullet flew from the king’s army and divided him in the middle, and thus, being then in the Parliament’s pinnace, he perished according to his own unhappy imprecation.” This was on the 30th July 1643. Burke says his lordship bore so high a character for benevolence, hospitality, and liberality that he was usually styled by the common people “the good Earl of Kingston.” 1 His lordship’s son Henry, the second Earl, remained like his father a staunch Royalist, and was a member of the Privy Council. On March 25th, 1644, he was created Marquis of Dorchester, but, dying without issue, the Marquisate became extinct, the other honours devolving upon his grand nephew. BISHOP CHAP ELL.—William Chapell, for some time Bishop of Cork and Rosse, was born at Laxton 2 in 1582. He was educated at the Mansfield Grammar School and at Christ’s College, Cambridge, where, says Fuller, “he was remarkable for the strictness of his conversation.” As a tutor he gained considerable reputation, and was noted as an ingenious disputant. Fuller, in his own quaint way, describes him as “equally excellent with the sword and the shield to reply.” As an illustration of the impression which his debating powers invariably created the following story may be repeated :* “ At the public commencement at Cambridge, solemnised in the presence of King James I., Dr. Roberts, of Trinity College, Cam¬ bridge, being respondent in St. Mary’s, Chapell opposed the learned doctor so closely and subtilly, that he, not being able to solve or answer his arguments, by the agitation of his spirit, fell into a fit, and was obliged to be carried out of the theatre. The king, to hold up the disputation, undertook to maintain the thesis which had been defended by Roberts, but Chapell pressed home his arguments with such force and skill, that the casuistical monarch was obliged to relinquish his position, ‘ thanking God 1 Burke’s Extinct Peerage, p. 419. 2 Thoroton, p. 273. THOMAS HORNE—MAJOR-GENERAL IRETON. 181 that the opponent was his subject, and not another’s, lest he should lose his throne as well as his chair.’ ” Chapell was elected Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, and subse¬ quently Dean of Cashel, and eventually became Bishop of Cork and Rosse. He was the author of Methodis Concionandi, or the Method of PreacJiing, and the authorship of The Whole Duty of Man has been ascribed to him. He wrote his own biography in Latin, and two editions of it were printed. Terrified with the horrors of the rebellion in Ireland in 1641, he came over to England, where in retirement in his native county he devoted himself to study, spending his time with the rector of the parish of Bilsthorpe, the Rev. Gilbert Benet. He died in 1649, and was buried in Bilsthorpe Church. He left his estate to be divided equally between his own kindred and distressed ministers, “his charity,” says Fuller, “not impairing his duty, and his duty not prejudicing his charity.” THOMAS HORNE, son of William Horne of Cossal, 1 was educated at Oxford, where he took the degree of Master of Arts in 1633. After keeping a private school in London, he became master of the Free School at Leicester. He remained there two years, and was then appointed master of a school at Tunbridge, in Kent. Subsequently he became head master at Eton, near Windsor, where he died, and was buried on August 22, 1654. He wrote Janua Linguarum, or a collection of Latin Sentences, with the English of them, in 1634 ; Mamiductio in cedem Palladis, qua utilissima methodus authores bonos legendi, indigitatur, sivi de usu authores, London, 1641; and Rhethoricce compendium Latino-Anglice, London, 1651. MAJOR-GENERAL IRETON.—When the country was plunged into the horrors of a civil war, and Royalist and Puritan fought with deadly hate, one of the boldest and most active of the many brave and sturdy men who were drawn into the midst of the terrible conflict was Henry I reton, Cromwell’s son-in-law. Born at Attenborough, near Nottingham, he was the eldest son of German I reton, 2 a country gentleman, and a resi- 1 The existing registers of Cossal do not date back beyond the year 1654, and contain no reference whatever to the family of Horne. There was a family of that name seated at Butterley Hall, in Derbyshire, about the period in question. 2 The Iretons (writes Major A. E. Lawson Lowe) were a Derbyshire family, taking their name from Little Ireton, in that county. That estate was sold, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, by William I reton, the then representative of the family, who is said by Sir Thomas Shirley to have been “given over to an irregular life,” and to have been “an alien to the virtues of his glorious ancestors, and as careless of the good of his temporal estate as of his spiritual soul.” The above-named German 182 WORTHIES AND CELEBRITIES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. dent in the village. The date of his birth is commonly stated to have been 1610, but as he was not baptized until November 1611, it is tolerably evident that he was not born until the latter year. The entry of his baptism in the parish register of Attenborough is as follows :—“ Henricus I reton, infant Germa’ni I reton, baptizat fuit 3 0 die mensis Novembris A° 1611.” In 1626 Ireton was sent to Trinity College, Oxford, where he graduated Bachelor of Arts in 1629. On leaving the university he entered the Middle Temple, and devoted himself to legal studies, but was never called to the Bar. On the commencement of the difficulties between Charles and his Par¬ liament, Ireton warmly espoused the Puritan cause, and was returned to the House as Member for Appleby. In his native county he was very active in promoting the interests of the Parliament, and when a committee was appointed for Nottingham, with power to levy forces and raise contributions, Ireton was nominated a member of it. Mrs. Hutchinson, under date 1641, says that Ireton, whom she describes as