Skip to main content

Full text of "The Ancestor; a quarterly review of county and family history, heraldry and antiquities"

See other formats

fo Qoe 


A Quarterly Review of County and 

Family History, Heraldry 

and Antiquities 

JULY 1902 








(Illustrated} \ 

By MRS. G. E. NATHAN (Illustrated} 14 

By J. CHARLES Cox, LL.D., F.S.A. 17 






By W. H. ST. JOHN HOPE, M.A. (Illustrated} 63 






OF LANGLEY (Illustrated} 107 





Described by GUY FRANCIS LAKING, M.V.O., F.S.A. (Illustrated} 124 

By H. FARNHAM BURKE, F.S.A. (Somerset Herald) 129 

Archaeology for the Schools 156 

Huchown of the Awle Ryale 159 

Burley-on-the-Hill 160 

Three Lowthers of Ireland 163 






A KENTISH CHANCERY SUIT. BY E. A. FRY . fadngpage 204 




NOTES 236 

The Copy light of all the Articles and Illustrations 
. 4fl j ln fa* Review is strictly reserved 

THE pages of THE ANCESTOR will be open 
to correspondence dealing with matters 
within the scope of the review. 

Questions will be answered, and advice 
will be given, as far as may be possible, 
upon all points relating to the subjects 
with which THE ANCESTOR is concerned. 

While the greatest care will be taken 
of any MSS. which may be submitted for 
publication, the Editor cannot make him- 
self responsible for their accidental loss. 

All literary communications should be 
addressed to 






TW TORTHAMPTONSHIRE was once a nest of ancient 
^\j families, but time and change have done their work 
and not a score of those now established in the county can 
show an unbroken possession of seat and land from a date 
which shall be the further side of the long reign of George 
III. No line remains to represent the great feudal houses of 
the middle ages, although a cadet branch of the ancient house 
of Wake is still found amongst Northamptonshire landowners. 
The Palmers of Carlton and Ishams of Lamport show authentic 
pedigrees from medieval gentry, and the Spencers of Althorp 
and Thorntons of Brockhall are of families which rose in the 
Tudor upheaval. 

Knightley of Fawsley is still at home in the ancient hall of 
Fawsley, where this house of squires and knights has been 
seated since the estate was acquired in the reign of Henry V., 
the year before Agincourt fight. Again and again the direct 
line has failed, but a cousin of a younger line has never been 
wanting to carry on the succession at Fawsley, a house which 
such changes have swept clean of all heirlooms beyond certain 
family portraits. A baronetcy came in 1798 and a peerage in 
1892, which however endured but three years, whilst the 
baronetcy survives. 

A flawless pedigree of such length would set its owners 
amongst the oldest landed houses in England, but the claims 
of the family of Knightley to long descent are not limited by 
the purchase of Fawsley. Richard Knightley of Gnosall in 
Staffordshire, the purchaser of Fawsley, was no new man, being 
of the blood of the Knightleys of Knightley, a Staffordshire 
family of high antiquity, and when the many misunderstand- 
ings with which the Elizabethan heralds cumbered the family 
pedigree have been pruned away, Richard's connection with 
the main line of Knightley may be set down with some mea- 
sure of certainty. 

Knightley is Cbenistelei in Domesday Book, and was then a 
manor of Earl Roger de Montgomery, and under him it was 
held by Rainald de Bailleul, the Norman baron of Bailleul en 


Gouffern. According to an honoured custom amongst the 
heralds and genealogists of earlier years the Domesday tenant 
Rainald was greeted as without doubt the ancestor of the 
Knightleys who were to succeed him. In an illuminated space 
he sat as c Sir Rainald Knightley of Knightley ' contentedly at 
the head of the many shielded pedigree which is the pride of 
the house, and in time gave his name in 1819 to Sir Rainald 
Knightley, the first and last peer of the name. But in our 
own day the stemfather, as the Germans have it, of a long 
genealogy holds place compared with which the presidency of 
a Central American republic is stability itself. Eyton's re- 
searches forced Rainald to take Bailleul for his surname in 
place of Knightley, and Mr. Round, with the French cartula- 
ries in hand, closes to Rainald the career of an ancestor by 
killing him off without issue and providing him a nephew 
Hamelin for next heir. 

The next name upon the family pedigree is that of William 
de Knightley, husband of Adelise. For him authority exists. 
Mr. Solicitor-General Coke in the reign of King James I., 
anxious that his pedigree should be enriched by other descents 
than that of the paternal line with the somewhat roturier sur- 
name, had discovered for himself a descent from the Knightleys, 
and the line is accordingly marshalled amongst his ascendants. 
For this purpose many ancient deeds of the family were col- 
lected by him, the muniment chests of the Knightleys and of 
the Cotes family of Woodcote being also drawn upon. The 
notes taken from these deeds, themselves long since scattered, 
happily survive, and although they are roughly set down with 
great carelessness of date and detail their good faith seems 
unquestioned, the only doubtful deed amongst them being 
seemingly a note taken honestly enough from a deed which 
from internal evidence leads one to suspect one of the later 
Knightleys of Knightley of that offence of forgery which Sir 
Walter Scott's first readers deemed such an improbable and un- 
picturesque offence in the Lord Marmion. 

These notes of deeds then give us William of Knightley 
who by a deed undated, which may be dated by the occurrence 
of an episcopal witness as between 1125 and 1150, releases his 
right in the More in Knightley to the canons of Stodleigh for 
the souls health of himself and of Adelise his wife. We have 
here a William of Knightley, but knowing as we do that he 
appears in the pedigree by reason of this deed alone, we are 



still without an ancestor for Knightley of Knightley to whom 
we have no means of tacking the pious William. 

In Nicholas, the first undoubted ancestor of the Knightleys, 
General Wrottesley, whose vast collections relating to the 
county of Staffordshire are famous amongst antiquaries, de- 
tects one Nicholas who bearing the sinister surname of Mau- 
covenant held Knightley by the service of a castle guard at the 
castle of Oswestry in Shropshire. His son Robert Knightley 
of Knightley, knight, by a deed between 1184 and 1189 con- 
firms a grant which his father Nicholas of Knightley had made 
of a meadow in Knightley. 

Here sure ground is touched, and although spoiled readers 
of the novels of Ouida, the c Dictionary of the Landed Gentry,' 
and other works of the English romancers will be unmoved by 
the fact, we have here the source of a family flourishing in 
the twentieth century, and the genealogist at least will be im- 

Robert of Knightley is dead before King John's reign, and 
after him Knightley goes from father to son through six 
knights of the name. Jordan of Knightley follows Robert, 
and another Robert follows Jordan. 

Robert III. grandson of Jordan, brings into the pedigree 
what we have been taught to call 'local colour,' and we may say 
that in Robert's days and long after him the Staffordshire 
knights and gentry as revealed in the plea rolls are careful that 
the local colour should be warm and ruddy enough to satisfy the 
most exacting of our Weyman and Doyles. Robert III. had 
a mailed finger in the turbulent politics of his day. He was 
of the faction of Ralph Basset of Drayton, who died at Eve- 
sham beside Simon de Montfort. If Robert himself were at 
Evesham he came safely away, for the rest of his story is 
pieced together with suits which men of the Royal party, then 
uppermost, bring against him, relating deeds of wasting woods 
and sacking houses, spoiling of fishponds and slaying of bucks 
and does, of which Robert and his fellows had been guilty 
when Basset's banner was still in the wind. He is in gaol, he 
is fined, but in the end it is well with him, and he dies the 
richest man his family had yet bred, marrying Aline, daughter 
of Ives de Paunton of Rodlowe, an heiress out of Shropshire. 

His son Robert IV. of Knightley, who was summoned in 
1301 to follow his king against the Scots with horse and arms, 
follows his father's steps and matches to good purpose with 


Alice Doyley, daughter of Sir John Doyley of Ranton and 
heir of her brother Henry Doyley of Cowley. She brought 
her husband the manor of Little Wyrley and overlived him 
two and twenty years, dying in the plague year of 1349. 
Their son Robert V. is a knight with broad lands in Stafford- 
shire, Derbyshire, Shropshire and Berkshire, and dying about 
1365 leaves a son and heir, Sir John Knightley, who is dead 
in 1393, the last male of the direct line of Knightleys of 
Knightley. A daughter and heir, Joan of Knightley, takes 
Knightley with her to her husband Roger Peshall, and their 
daughter, another Joan, takes the land from Peshall to Lee, 
marrying William Lee, a busy lawyer from Shropshire. They 
had no child, and the last lady of Knightley conveys away 
Knightley to her cousin Richard Peshall, to whom she had 
already passed away her shield of the arms of Knightley, ex- 
cluding herself and all others of her name from any right in it. 

For an ancestor of Knightley of Fawsley we return to 
Robert III. the emptier of fishstews and lifter of bucks and 
does. Associated with him in his raids is a brother William. 
When the law comes at last to reckon for these merry doings 
William has discreetly withdrawn himself into Ireland with 
James of Audlegh, but in quieter times he comes back to share 
his brother's rising fortunes. He and his wife have grants of 
land in Knightley from brother Robert, and William should 
have settled down upon it to plough and sow, to reap and to 
mow. But he is a younger son. Robert has the family 
estate and is anchored to respectability. Queen's Crawley 
might have made a grave justice of the peace out of Rawdon 
Crawley. But we cannot away with the suspicion that the 
hearty Staffordshire habits of his youth clung about William 
Knightley, and that he was the William Knightley for killing 
whom in self-defence Richard son of William of Ingwardyn 
had a pardon in the year 1300. 

William leaves two sons and a daughter to mourn the loss 
of their high-spirited parent. Alice the daughter is matched 
with Robert Cotes of Cotes, and by him is ancestress of a 
family still landed at Cotes in Shropshire, to which for some 
reason difficult to understand, for she was no heiress, she car- 
ried the arms of Knightley afterwards borne by his descendants 
as their own shield. The son and heir Roger Knightley is of 
Gnosall and is buried there with Sibil his wife. They leave 
five sons, of whom Peter, a younger son, goes soldiering far 


away from Staffordshire. He is called in the pedigrees a 
knight of Rhodes, for which there is no evidence, but a 
tantalizing fragment is noted down from his will now lost, but 
existing in Coke's time, wherein he leaves to the monks of 
Ranton his arms and the sword with which he had smitten the 
Turks with many blows. The line of Roger and Sibil goes 
on through Robert Knightley of Gnosall, who would seem to 
be their second son. He and his wife Juliane were a mighty 
puzzle for the genealogists who were determined to wedge 
him into the main line of Knightley of Knightley. 

John son of Robert and Juliane draws upward the fortunes 
of this younger house of Knightley which were in a fair way 
to degenerate to rustic obscurity. He marries an heiress, 
Elizabeth, daughter of Adam of Burgh and granddaughter and 
heir of William pf Burgh by his wife the heir of Cowley of 
Cowley, and by this match came Burgh Hall and Cowley to 
the family of Knightley. 

His second son John Knightley seems to have been the 
only man of the line hitherto or any real distinction. A 
lawyer of some eminence he is made justiciary of Chester after 
the death of Hotspur at Shrewsbury fight in 1403, and al- 
though by reason of his humble rank he is soon to cede this 
high office to the Lord Talbot, he goes on with the exercise of 
jurisdiction as deputy to that lord. He married a knight's 
daughter, Joan Thornbury, widow of William Peyto of Ches- 
terton in Warwick, of whose lands he enjoyed the custody, 
and after the justiciary's death she marries for a third husband 
Sir Robert Corbet of Hadley. But his only son by this lady 
dies young, and for the line of Knightley we turn to his elder 
brother Richard of Gnosall, who prospers as we may imagine 
beside his brother's prosperity and leaves by his wife Joan 
GifFard a son Richard Knightley of Gnosall, who adds Fawsley 
to his Staffordshire manors of Burgh Hall and Cowley and 
dies in 1443, first founder of the long line of Knightley of 
Fawsley. O. B. 


The year 1416 was a marked epoch in the history of the 
Knightley family, since it was at that date that they acquired 
the manor of Fawsley, which from that day to this has been 
their home. In the picturesque little church, which lies at a 
short distance east of the manor house, generation after 


generation have found their resting-place, and a careful study 
of the monuments it contains reveals much family history. 
But, as is the case in most families, one or two only in each 
century are sufficiently remarkable to deserve a record in the 
pages of the county history. 

The purchaser of Fawsley was Richard Knightley of Burgh 
Hall, in the county of Stafford, and the first of the family to 
represent the county of Northampton in Parliament. He died 
in 1443, leaving his wife Elizabeth Purefoy in possession of 
the property, so that their son, also Richard Knightley, only 
succeeded to the estate on her death in 1474. He married 
Eleanor daughter of John Throgmorton of Coughton, having 
been knighted in 1494, when Henry VII. 's second son, after- 
wards Henry VIIL, was made Duke of York. He was three 
times sheriff. They had nine children, of whom the eldest, 
Richard Knightley, married Joan Skenard or Skimerton, daughter 
and heir of Henry Skenard of Alderton. She brought in a 
great number of the quarterings which are still included in the 
Knightley shield. The fine altar tomb in Fawsley Church is 
erected to the memory of this lady and her husband. He 
died in 1534, but apparently the monument was erected in her 
lifetime, as no one has ever taken the trouble to fill in the date 
of her death. Her only daughter Susan married Sir William 
Spencer of Althorp, who seems to have been a very can- 
tankerous gentleman, as may be discovered by the following 
story which Mr. Oswald Barren has found amongst the records 
of the Court of Star Chamber : 


In his moost humble wise shewith unto yo r highnes your daylye orator 
Edmund Knyghtley that where the right reverent father in God the bus- 
shopp of Lincoln that now ys being informed of certen crimynall offences 
committed and done in the countie of Norhampton within his dioces by 
one Sir William Spenser knight contrary to the lawes of almighty God toke 
upon him the reformacion of the same according to his ordinary jurisdiction. 
Wherew* the said Sir William was discontent w* Sir Richard Knyghtley knight 
his father in lawe and also w* your said oratour his brother in lawe, supposing 
that the said order and direccion taken by the said busshope of Lincoln shulde 
be by the procurement of the said Sir Richard and Edmund. Whereupon the 
said Sir William Spenser, bering continuall inwarde grudge unto your said 
orator, the ix th daye of this present moneth of November, as your said orator 
in Codes peace and yours was going out of a tavern in Chepe called the 
Horsehed having Sir Antony Wingfeld knight by the arme, the said Sir 
William Spenser being there said unto your said suppliant that he had sum- 
what to talke w* him at lesure howbeit he wolde not now trobull the cumpany. 


To whome your said besecher untrustinge no hurte auneswered that he wolde 
gladdely commyn w* him at any convenient tyme that he wolde apoynte and 
so the said Sir Antony and your orator parted your said suppliant and his 
elder brother taking the waye toward this Austen Freers. And when they 
cam to a place called the Stokkes beneth Chepe the said Sir William Spenser 
in riotous maner w* six or seven persones w* him having their swerdes and 
bucklers in their handes redi to fight overtoke your said besecher and his said 
brother, the said Sir William Spenser laying his hande upon his dagger and 
saying thies wordes Edmund Knyghtley what communicacion hast thou had 
w* the Busshopp of Lincoln concerning my vicious living. To the which 
your said oratour auneswered, my lorde of Lincoln can reporte the trouth 
let him be juge. And therew* the said Sir William said to your said sup- 
pliant thies wordes thou art a knave a precious knave and a wretche. And 
your said oratour auneswered and said I am a gentelman and no knave. And 
therew* the said Sir William said doest thou thou me nay then thou shalt have 
a bloo and therew* cast of his gown and his servantes were drawing their swerdes 
and one of the said servantes called Cartewright being behind your said oratour 
violently and furiously w* his swerde drawen strake at your said oratour and if 
he had not bene shoved bakke by the servant of your said oratours brother in 
streking the said stroke he had utterly slayn your said besecher in somuche that 
not w'standing the brekyng of the said stroke his swerd did light upon your 
said oratours bakke and cut his gown in divers places. And then the said Sir 
William seing the peopull resorte to parte them, in suche riotous maner de- 
parted saying he wolde mete better w 1 your saide besecher a nother tyme. 
And thus of malice prepenced put your said suppliant in great feer and 
daunger of his life. 

The bill goes on to relate how Sir William and his servants 
killed a buck with his greyhounds in the park at Fawsley on 
Whitsun even last past, in despite of the keeper, whose bow- 
string a servant of Sir William cut with his over ready' swerde/ 

And then incontinent the said Sir William Spenser light down of his horse and 
drew out his swerd and wolde have striken the keper if he had not bene let 
by his own servantes, reviling the said keper calling hym knave and saying that 
w4n one month aftur he sholde have xx li more [bucks] killed and his erys put 
in his purse. 

On the south side of the altar tomb are the figures of the 
eight sons, the eldest, who was also a Richard, wearing, like his 
father, the collar of SS. He took to wife Jane daughter of 
John Spencer of Althorp, and died at Upton three years after 
his father. He and his wife (who also wears the collar of SS) 
are buried at Upton near Northampton under an altar tomb 
apparently very similar to the one at Fawsley. For a long 
time it was broken up, and the fragments embedded in the 
wall, but it has now been restored. This Richard Knightley's 
will, dated March 30, 1537, is still in existence at Somerset 
House, and is a very curious one. After desiring to be buried 


at Upton ' without pompe ' and bequeathing ' to every order of 
Friars at Northampton ten shillings, to sing a trentale for my 
soule, my father's soule, etc.,' he goes on to give elaborate 
directions as to the marriage of one of his daughters Suzian 
or Anne (which of the two young ladies appears to be a matter 
of indifference), with the son and heir of Master FitzWilliam : 
a marriage which he seems to have had much at heart, but 
which did not take place. Towards the dowry of this and his 
other daughters he leaves 900 sheep and all his other cattle, 
' except six oxen lately bought by my wyfe.' Lady Knightley 
and his brother Sir Edmund are to continue to occupy certain 
pastures, and the profits arising therefrom are to be put in < an 
indifferent place in some cheste or coffer, locked with 2 or 3 
small keys/ the wife and brother each to have one and to 
account for the money to Richard Knightley, Robert Chaintrell, 
gent., till the marriage money of the daughters be c clerely paid,' 
after which the wife and brother may divide the money between 
them ; the box only to be opened by two or three together 
when money is wanted for stocking the pastures. The elaborate 
instructions as to the disposal of wool, sheep, etc., proves how 
large a part they occupied in the agricultural life of those days. 

Jane the second daughter married first William Lumley 
father of John Lord Lumley of Cheame, and secondly (her 
first husband having been beheaded 1534) John Knotsford of 
Malvern in the county of Worcester. Both lie buried under 
a fine monument in Malvern Church. 

Thomas, the second son of Sir Richard Knightley, Ivan 
Skinnerton having died without children before his father, Sir 
Edmund Knightley, the third son, succeeded on the death of 
his eldest brother, Sir Richard, in 1537. He is certainly one 
of the most interesting members of the family. Bred to the 
bar, he became eminent in his profession, was returned for 
Wilton in 1529, and was knighted by Henry VIIL, and in 
1535 appointed one of the Commissioners for the visitation 
of the monasteries prior to their dissolution. The letter, 
addressed to Cromwell, and signed by himself and his brother 
commissioners, interceding for the priory at Catesby, has been 
often printed. Family tradition has it that Sir Edmund had a 
penchant for the priory. Before he received this appointment 
Edmund Knightley seems to have fallen into disgrace by some 
unadvised proceedings with regard to the affairs of his brother- 
in-law Sir William Spencer, who died in 1 532. Cromwell writes 



to Henry VIII., September, 1532, that Edmund Knightley < has 
done his utmost to set the executors at variance and defeet the 
King's title to the heir, to effect which he has presumptuously 
caused proclamations to be made in various towns in Cos. 
Warwick, Leicester, Northants, in contempt of the King and 
his laws. My Lord Keeper has therefore committed him to 
the Fleet until the King's pleasure be known/ 

His imprisonment did not last long. Towards the end 
of the month we find him petitioning Cromwell for his re- 
lease, and urging as a reason 'the plague with which Fleet 
Street is now sore infected, to my no little danger ; besides 
my imprisonment move the King to have pity on me ' ; and 
apparently he was at once set at liberty, for on October 20 
John Onley writes to Cromwell : c Since the King left, Serjeant 
Knightley has not ceased to slander his title to all the justices, 
declaring his sister's great griefs, and the causes of his im- 
prisonment. Knowing such days as be prefixed for the 
Exchequer for the King, he has ridden down into the country 
to do some mischief. To counteract him I have caused the 
King's Council to meet to survey the matter on the King's 
behalf, and have caused Mr. Paul Devon, the King's serjeant, 
to ride into the country to meet with him. I wish he had 
continued in the Fleet.' * 

Sir Edmund married Ursula daughter of Sir George Vere, 
and one of the sisters and co-heirs of John Vere, Earl of 
Oxford. Her first husband was George Windsor son of 
Andrew Lord Windsor of Bradenham, Bucks. This lady 
curiously enough figures on no less than three several monu- 
ments in different parts of the kingdom. Weever 2 records 
her name as appearing on the monument to her first husband 
in Hounslow Chapel (now destroyed). A brass in Fawsley 
Church depicts her by the side of her second husband, 
Edmund Knightley, and she lies buried in Letheringham 
Church, Suffolk, with which place she was connected through 
her sister Elizabeth Wingfield. Her will, dated 1557, dis- 
poses of much property, both in Suffolk and Norfolk. 

Sir Edmund it was who built the great Hall at Fawsley, 
with its handsome chimney piece and oriel window. It is 
roofed with Irish oak, concerning which the family historian 
quaintly remarks : c It is said the timber of that country will 

1 Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, vol. v. Henry VIII. 1531-2. 
2 Monuments (ed. 1631), p. 529. 


not bear a spider, and I am apt to believe it is true, for I 
never saw a cobweb upon the roof, though so high that 
nothing could molest them.' In the windows appear the arms 
of Knightley and Vere with supporters, the blue boar of 
Vere on the sinister side, and on the dexter side a golden 
falcon, taken from the crest of the Skinerton family. Sir 
Edmund Knightley died September 12, 1543, and his six 
daughters all died young. 

The next brother, John Knightley, Rector of Byfield and 
Dean of the Collegiate Church of St. Mary's, Warwick, being 
by reason of his Holy Orders incapable of inheritance, executed 
a, deed, March 21, 1542, confirming his father's will, and re- 
leasing the property to his younger brother Valentine, sixth 
son of Sir Richard and Joan Skinnerton. Valentine succeeded 
therefore on the death of Sir Edmund to an estate large in 
itself and greatly increased by his brother's requisitions. 
'This made him,' says the Family History, c of great weight 
and consideration in his county,' and accordingly we always 
find him in the Commission of Peace and Array, as well as 
High Sheriff for the county. There is a quaint account l of 
the creation of certain knights, of whom Sir Valentine 
Knightley was one, at the coronation of Edward VI., February,. 
1546-7. c Because the time was so short that they colde not 
be made of the Bathe according to the ceremonyes thereto 
apperteyning,' it was decided that c they shulde be made by his 
Highness being crowned ' ; c and because they were nominate 
of the Bathe and made with so great royaltie, they were 
commanded to pay the deutyes of money every one of them, 
after their degrees and estates double the some of other knights.' 

Sir Valentine married Ann daughter of Sir Edward 
Ferrers of Baddesley Clinton, co. Warwick, and died 1566, 
leaving five sons and four daughters. Of these sons Edmund 
the second was called of Grandborough, co. of Warwick, his 
father having settled that property upon him. The line how- 
ever became extinct in the next generation, and the estate 
reverted to the elder line. Edmund Knightley died 1575, leav- 
ing his lands to his wife and his second and third sons ; to his 
eldest son Richard his velvet cloak and velvet hose, with strict 
orders not to molest, trouble or hinder his mother and brothers 
in letting the land. To Sir Richard Knightley he leaves 

1 Quoted in Literary Remains of Edward VI. by T. G. Nichols, vol. i.. 
p. ccc. 


his velvet saddle, and to his brother Berry c his night gown.' 

Thomas the third son of Sir Valentine Knightley was 
commonly known by the name of Thomas of Burghall or 
Brough Hall in Staffordshire, and from him the present family 
are descended. 

Edward the fourth son was called Edward of Offchurch, 
co. Warwick, a property acquired by Sir Edmund at the time 
of the dissolution. It remained in the hands of his de- 
scendants until the death of Sir John Knightley, Bart., in 
1688. c He had always promised faithfully to leave his pro- 
perty to his cousin Richard Knightley of Charwelton, but, 
disregarding his promise, left it to his wife's grandson, by her 
first husband Thomas Wightwick.' Sir John himself states 
in his will that he did this in consequence of the unkind 
behaviour of kis Knightley male relations, c who refused to 
go to him in his illness/ Major Wightwick assumed the 
name and arms of Knightley ; but this line also terminated in 
the person of John Wightwick Knightley, who died in 1830, 
leaving an only daughter, Jane Countess of Aylesford. 

Sir Valentine Knightley died 1566, his wife Anne Ferrers 
1554. Both are buried under a large monument in the north 
aisle of Fawsley church. 

He was succeeded by his eldest son Sir Richard Knightley, 
born in 1534, and quite the most interesting of all the race. 


Sir Richard Knightley, after a youth which is said to have 
been at the least a light-hearted one, gave his sympathy to the 
grim sect which was to be labelled with the name of Puritan ; 
and in the autumn of 1588 c Martin Mar-Prelate ' set up his 
travelling printing press in a garret at Fawsley, where was 
printed the Epitome, an onslaught upon Dr. Bridge's Defence of 
the Church of England, followed by a broadside sheet of abuse 
aimed at * the reverende bishops.' Whilst this work was going 
forward in the garret, Master Penry, for the allaying of sus- 
picion amongst curious malignants, walked in Fawsley Park 
clad as a gay gallant with a long sword, a hat of the fashion, 
and a broad sky-coloured cloak with a collar of gold and silver 
and silk lace. It may be that the sour fanatic did not carry 
these Babylonish garments with a convincing swagger, for 
curious eyes pried into the garret. The press was borne 
away to Sir Richard's house at Norton and thence out of 


Northamptonshire, but it had left a trail of evidence, and Sir 
Richard Knightley made an unwilling appearance before the 
Court of Star Chamber, and was only rescued from the clutches 
of that tribunal by the generous aid of Archbishop Whitgift, 
who had been a chief mark for Mar-Prelate's shot. Six years 
later Sir Richard came again to the same bar, for meddling in 
a petition, drawn up in 1605, against the suspending of the 
Nonconformists, and this time came not off so lightly, for his 
sentence was a fine of ,10,000 and deprival of his posts. He 
lived until 1615, and died at an age of 82 years. 

He left a long family of children, who did much to im- 
poverish their father's great estate, which had been reckoned 
at 13,000 a year. By his first wife, a Fermor of Easton 
Neston, he had six children, and nine more came of his second 
wife. This second wife was a daughter of the great Protector 
Somerset, and it is strange to note that in but four generations 
her numerous Knightley descendants end in obscure London 
tradesmen drapers and oilmen outside the city gates. 

His son Sir Valentine Knightley succeeded to Fawsley and 
to the Puritan tradition, for with his father he had been a 
signer of the unlucky petition of 1 605, and from him Fawsley 
passed in 1618 to his nephew Richard Knightley of Preston 
Capes. With him another Puritan ruled in Fawsley. He 
returned again and again to Parliament, where he ranged 
himself with the obstinate opponents of the Court. His 
shrievalty of Northamptonshire in 1626 is said to have been 
due to the king's desire to keep him from Westminster. He 
saw the inside of the king's prison of the Fleet for resisting 
the forced loan ; was close at the elbows of Eliot, Pym and 
Hampden ; and set John Dod, the Cambridge Puritan, in 
Fawsley rectory. At his death Fawsley passed again from the 
direct line to another Richard Knightley, a nephew of Penry's 
patron. This Richard's son married a daughter of John 
Hampden, and sat in the Short Parliament and in the Long. 
He signed the solemn league and covenant, but refused to aid 
in the plans for trying the king, and for his reluctance was a 
prisoner for a fortnight in the hands of the army. He might 
have been Speaker, had he willed it, of Richard Cromwell's 
Parliament ; but the tide was turning. Richard Knightley 
sat as one of that Council of State which recalled the king to 
enjoy his own again ; and at the coronation of King Charles II. 
the Puritan statesman became a Knight of the Bath. 




At the death of Richard Knightley Fawsley again left the 
direct line, coming to one Lucy Knightley of Hackney, a 
Hamburg merchant, whose father, another Lucy Knightley of 
Hackney, citizen and mercer and Hamburg merchant to boot, 
could hardly have hoped such fortune for his branch of the 
family, he being sixth of the eight younger brothers of Sir 
Richard, the Knight of the Bath. This was in 1695, an( ^ since 
that year the direct line has failed again five several times. In 
1798 John Knightley of Fawsley was created a baronet with 
remainder to the issue male of his brother Charles. The third 
baronet was Sir Rainald Knightley, a well-known figure in the 
House of Commons as member for South Northampton for 
forty years. He was created in 1872 Lord Knightley of 
Fawsley, a title which became extinct with his death in 1895, 
when his cousin Sir Charles Valentine Knightley succeeded 
him in the baronetcy. The baronet and his brother, the Rev. 
Henry Francis Knightley remain the only known male de- 
scendants of Nicholas Maucovenant of Knightley, whose family 
with its troops of sons seemed in the seventeenth century as 
though its spreading line could never fail in Warwickshire or 


IN the year 1828, by the will of the Rev. Thomas Kerrich, 
the Society of Antiquaries became possessed of a number 
of valuable historical portraits. Four are here reproduced, 
those of Henry VII. of England, Mary of Bohemia, Sir 
William Paulet Marquess of Winchester, and finally the so- 
called likeness of Queen Jane Seymour. 

The portrait of Henry VII. is a small picture 1 5 by 9^ in., 
and is remarkably lifelike and well painted. The expression 
is such as one would expect from a king who was a lover 
of peace yet hated by his subjects. There is something of 
the School of Clouet in the treatment of the face, and the 
garments and jewellery are painted with accuracy and a careful 
differentiation of textures. The chain, consisting of a roselike 
ornament and knot, is painted in extraordinary detail. Mr. 
Scharf says (Arch<eologia^ xxxix. 267) that there may be in c this 
ornament a reminiscence of the old Yorkist badge, the rose 
en soleilj which Henry VII. may have used in respect of his 
wife ; but the tints are green and white, the colours of the 
Tudor family.' The hands are not so well painted as the rest. 
The colouring of the whole is admirable, and Henry's character- 
istic pallid face, faintly pink eyelids, and long slightly crooked 
nose are not exaggerated, as is frequently their fate. 

The picture is painted on wood, and is of one piece with 
the frame. The Society owns three other portraits of 
Henry VII., all artistically inferior. 

c Syr William Paulet, of the Honorable Order of the Garter, 
Knight, Marques of Wynchester and High Threasoroer of 
England/ as he is styled on his portrait, was born in 1475, 
and lived through the reigns of seven monarchs, dying at the 
age of ninety-six. He is represented as of dark complexion, 
with a reddish nose and a grey goat's beard. He bears in his 
hand the white staff of office. A similar but superior picture 
in the possession of the Duke of Northumberland, and repro- 
duced in Lodge^ vol. ii. plate 38, differs only from this one by 






the black cap being tied on the opposite side, and by having 
other arms enamelled on the signet ring. In neither case are 
the arms of Paulet indicated. The picture is painted very 
thinly on wood, allowing the grain to show through, and there 
are curious fine black lines on the surface, which might in- 
dicate that it was never properly finished. The expression of 
the face somewhat bears out the extraordinary character given 
him by Naunton, who, speaking of him and the then Earl of 
Pembroke, tells us generally that 

they were both younger brothers (a mistake with regard to Sir William), 
yet of noble houses, and spent what was left them and came on trust to the 
Court, where upon the bare stock of their wits, they began to traffic for them- 
selves, and prospered so well that they got, spent and left more than any 
subjects from the Norman Conquest to their own times. 

Sir William Paulet c being demanded by an inward friend 
how he had lived in the times of seven monarchs, in all times 
of his life increasing in greatness of honour and preferment/ 
replied : 

Late supping I forbear, 

Wine and women I forswear ; 

My neck and feet I keep from cold ; 

No marvel that though I be old 

I am a willow, not an oak ; 

I chide but never hurt with stroke. 

The fact that there is no record of his having taken part in 
public life before the age of fifty-eight is remarkable. 

The portrait of Mary of Bohemia at the age of fourteen 
is peculiarly attractive. Her face, in spite of the full and 
unmistakable Austrian lip, is pleasing, and her soft brown 
eyes set in a very fair skin have a gentle expression. She 
was a sister of the Emperor Charles V., and married Louis 
II., King of Hungary and Bohemia. She lost her husband 
when she was twenty-one, and vowed to lead a life of per- 
petual widowhood. She was Governess of the Netherlands 
in 1530, and died in the year of Queen Elizabeth's accession. 
The striking likeness of her features to those of Philip IV., 
as we know them from his portraits by Velasquez, is interesting 
to note, for the relationship was not close : she was his great- 

The technique of this picture is curious. It is painted on 
vellum stretched on a panel, and the gold work on the dress 
has been furrowed with deep lines, which have been filled in 


with crimson colour. The background is deep turquoise blue 
fading into a lighter tone towards the lower part of the picture. 
The crimson hat, enriched with pearl and gold ornaments, is 
oddly similar to those worn by ladies of the present day, and 
hair is gathered at the back of the head under a brown and the 
gold network. The whole picture is one of the most charm- 
ing in drawing, colour and expression that the Society of 
Antiquaries possesses. 

The portrait of a Lady or the Court of Henry VIII. en- 
titled, without any satisfactory ground, Queen Jane Seymour, 
is a remarkably fine painting, and for that reason alone of great 
interest. It is closely allied in feeling and treatment to the 
Holbein School, and reminds one insensibly of the great series 
of drawings at Windsor Castle. The face is kept light, and 
the black veil on the five-cornered English hood is cunningly 
arranged so as to form a dark background to the outline of 
the cheek, a contrivance often seen in Holbein's work. The 
figure is peculiarly well rounded and modelled, and the scheme 
of colour is most agreeable. A dark green background throws 
up the fair skin and the rich golden brown brocade of the 
bodice, while black sleeves and white ruffles balance the com- 
position of the lower part of the picture. The age of the lady 
might be thirty-five, yet no lines are painted on the straight 
English features, and the whole gives a pleasant impression of 
a person who was reposeful and agreeable to look upon, with- 
out possessing any great beauty of mind or body. 


STAPLETON, BART., 1656-1705 


AMONG the muniments at Carl ton Towers, Yorkshire, are 
a portion of the Household Books of Sir Miles Stapleton, 
beginning in April, 1656. Unfortunately the series is not 
complete, and there are several gaps, but that which remains is 
full of most interesting particulars, covering half a century of 
English social life.* Although the books are not in any way of 
the nature of a diary, nevertheless an outline memoir of the 
venerable owner of Carlton Hall, who suffered much and 
keenly for his allegiance to the Roman obedience, might be 
readily compiled. These books are eighteen in number. The 
first is for the years 1656-60 ; the second, 1661-3 ; the third, 
1664 ; the fourth, 1668-9 ; the fifth and sixth, 1672-3 ; the 
seventh, 1676 ; the eighth, 1678 ; the ninth, 1682 ; the 
tenth, 1688; the eleventh, 1696; the twelfth, 1697; the 
thirteenth, 1698 ; the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth, 
1 700-2 ; and the seventeenth and eighteenth, 1 704-5. 1 

The light thrown by these books on the life of a country 
squire of the last half of the seventeenth century, possessed of 
a limited income and much hampered by his religious disabili- 
ties, helps to prove the utter untrustworthiness of Macaulay's 
celebrated but coarsely-painted caricature of the provincial 
gentleman of the time of Charles II. He is there painted as 
a loutish hard-drinking clown, possessed of no refined tastes, 
hardly ever leaving his estate even for a visit to London, with 
farm filth heaped under his chamber window, and cabbages 
and gooseberry bushes growing at his doorstep. If he chanced 
to be a Roman Catholic, this imaginative historian (who could 
never have studied diaries, letters, or private accounts of the 
days he described) states that he would be c somewhat more 
simple and clownish ' than the rest of his brother squires, 

1 Permission was granted me some twelve years ago to make full extracts 
from these books and from a few other papers of the like period. To the best 
of my belief none of the matter here recorded has hitherto been printed. 



because he lacked the degree of polish obtained at a public 
school or the university, and was almost perforce obliged to 
vegetate on his own acres. The absurdity of Macaulay's 
estimate is strikingly demonstrated in the details that can be 
gleaned from these eighteen private ledgers. 

There were certainly a score or two of country gentlemen 
in equally affluent circumstances with Sir Miles Stapleton in 
each of the three ridings of the great county of Yorkshire ; 
and there is no reason to suppose that his taste and expendi- 
ture in building and in gardens, his love of pictures and of 
books, his frequent journeys to town and his visits throughout 
the country side, his purchase of silver and ebony and other 
rarities, his support of companies of players presenting the 
best known dramas of the day, his expenditure on oranges 
and lemons and the delicacies of the time, his care as to his 
own dress and that of the ladies and children of his household, 
his engaging of a dancing master and his delight in the playing 
of the virginals, as well as his general benevolence, were attri- 
butes peculiar to himself. Sir George Sitwell and others who 
have had access to old family letters and accounts of like days 
in different parts of the country have much the same story to 
tell ; so that Sir Miles Stapleton may be taken as the type of 
the better class of country gentlemen of the period following 
the Restoration, who, whilst having no sympathy whatever 
with Puritanical narrowness, were as remote from the boorish- 
ness of country clowns as from the viciousness of a licentious 

The Stapletons of Yorkshire derive their name from 
Stapleton-on-Tees, a village on the road between Richmond 
and Darlington, where they originally settled. An ancestor of 
Sir Miles, of the same name, obtained Carlton, a hamlet of the 
parish of Snaith, through his wife, in the time of Edward I. 

Richard Stapleton of Carlton, who died in 1612, married 
Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Henry Pierpont of Holme Pierre- 
pont. Elizabeth survived her husband for thirty-six years, 
and kept possession of the family estates for life, to the im- 
poverishment of the heirs. Her eldest son Gilbert and his 
family resided at Quosque Hall, a small adjacent dower house, 
whilst she herself occupied Carlton Hall, which had been begun 
to be rebuilt at the time of her husband's death. Gilbert Staple- 
ton, who died in 1636, married early in life Catherine, daughter 
of William Hurgate of Saxton. Their only child died in 


infancy. In 1618 he married, for his second wife, Eleanor, 
eldest daughter of Sir John Gascoigne of Lasingcroft and 
Barnboro', Yorks. They had six children. 

Richard, the eldest son, was fifteen at the time of his father's 
death, and declared the heir ; but after his grandmother's 
death, in 1648, Richard was declared a lunatic, and found to 
have been so since he came of age in 1641. 

Gregory, the second son, was the next heir ; but he was a 
Benedictine priest of the college of St. Gregory, Douay, and 
therefore incapable canonically of inheriting property. He 
resigned his birthright in favour of his brother Miles. Gregory 
became president of the English congregation at Douay in 
1669, and held that office until his death on August 4, 1680. 
He came to England in 1667 to give evidence at the Titus 
Oates trials. 

John, the fourth son, who was born in 1 630, died in 1 644. 

Mary, the elder daughter, became a nun of the convent of 
English Benedictines at Cambray in 1648, of which house her 
aunt, Catherine Gascoigne, was abbess. She died on August 
8, 1688. 

Anne, the younger daughter, married Mark Errington of 
Ponteland, Northumberland. Her son, Nicholas Errington, 
assumed the name of Stapleton after Sir Miles' death, and 
became heir to Carlton under his uncle's will. 

Miles Stapleton thus became heir to Carlton on the death 
of his grandmother in 1648 ; but he did not enter into all his 
inheritance until the death of his mother at a much later date. 

Miles took for his first wife Elizabeth, second daughter of 
Robert Bertie, Earl of Lindsey, K.G., who was slain at the 
battle of Edgehill. By her he had three children, Bryan, 
Elizabeth and Edward ; but they all died in infancy. She 
died on February 28, 1684. Sir Miles Stapleton, 1 who had 
been made a baronet in 1662, married for his second wife 
Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Thomas Longueville of Wolverton, 

1 See The Stapletons of Yorkshire (1897), by H. E. Chetwynd-Stapylton. 
This is in the main a reprint of articles from the Journal of the Yorkshire 
Archaeological Society. The danger of drawing hasty conclusions from slight and 
unwarranted inferences is strikingly illustrated in this book. The writer assumes 
that Sir Miles Stapleton deserted the Roman faith, because he made *a Protest- 
ant will* in 1692, * without any invocation of saints.' He makes the same 
blunder with regard to his second wife. These suppositions are wholly dis- 
proved by these household books. The wills of Romanists did not as a rule 
differ from those of other Englishmen after the Reformation. 


Bucks. By her he had one child that died at birth. Sir Miles 
died in February, 1 707, in the eightieth year of his age, the 
last male representative of this branch of the family. He was 
buried at Snaith. 

It will be found that the entries made by Sir Miles Staple- 
ton for half a century in his household books, acting as his own 
bailiff, steward and secretary, written in a clear, distinct hand, 
though latterly somewhat tremulous through age, fill up in a 
remarkable manner these bare outlines of his life. 

As his recusancy, or adherence to the Roman Catholic 
religion, was one of the main features of his life, and gave rise 
to several dramatic incidents, it may be well to begin with those 
extracts that have reference to this phase of the affairs of 
Carlton Hall. 


The genuineness of the baronet's religious convictions is 
constantly shown throughout these accounts. Among the 
payments are frequent sums bestowed upon the seminary 
priests, the harbouring of whom constituted an act of felony. 
The expression c to pray for me/ which so frequently occurs in 
entering gifts to priests, meant no doubt the commemoration in 
the mass, which it would not have been safe to name in express 
terms. A priest of the name of Harper was for some years in 
receipt of 5 a year for his secret ministrations in the private 
chapel of Carlton. He succeeded Mr. Thomas Thwing as 
chaplain in 1668, but all the Roman priests of those days had 
to keep moving from time to time to divert suspicion. They 
dressed as laymen and made frequent use of aliases. 

In the accounts for 1668 mention is made of thirteen 
pounds of wax purchased for altar lights, at is. the pound. 
The following are other entries of that year relative to priests 
and the altar : 

' * 

It. given to Mr. Pearson to pray for mee Apr. 2 2nd. . . . oo 10 oo 
It. given to Mr. Thomas Thwing May 9th when hee went 

away from mee, and Mr. Harper, or Mr. Poragh came 

in his place oo 10 oo 

It. paid to Mr. Harper for his first quarter's allowance due at 

Lammas 1668 01 05 oo 

It. given to good Mr. Hardwicke to pray for me when my wife 

and I was at Beedall July the nth oo 05 oo 

It. paid for two quarts of sack for the aulter bought at Yorke . oo 05 oo 
It. paid for a pinte of white wine for the aulter . . . . . oo oo 06 


Thomas Thwing or Thweng was a connection of Sir Miles, 
for he was a nephew of Sir Thomas Gascoigne, and of a good 
Yorkshire family. After his ordination at Douay in 1665, he 
was sent upon the English mission, and laboured, chiefly in 
Yorkshire, for fifteen years. He was imprisoned at the time 
of the Oates persecution, and tried at the York assizes in July, 
1680. The same two perjured witnesses, who were disbelieved 
in the charges against Sir Miles Stapleton, Sir Thomas Gas- 
coigne and others, gave evidence ; but he was not allowed, 
like the others, a special jury, and the contradictory evidence 
of many persons of position and character was rejected, and 
Thwing was condemned. Dodd observes, c It was requisite 
that one at least should die, to support the belief of the York- 
shire plot, and Mr. Thwing, being a priest, was judged a 
proper sacrifice.'. 1 He was reprieved for a time, and offered 
his life if he would take the oath of allegiance and supremacy, 
but he refused, though declaring his readiness to take any 
oath of civil obedience. He was martyred at York on October 
23, i68o. 2 

The expression from the just cited household book as to 
* Mr. Harper or Mr. Poragh ' probably implies that Poragh was 
an alias for Harper. John Harper, who was also a Douay 
priest, laboured to an advanced age, chiefly in the Lancashire 

In the accounts for the next year, payments were made to 
priests of the name of Rushton, Kirton, Harecoat and Whit- 
field, who seem to have been officiating at Carlton, and also to 
c poor Mr. Anthony Metcalfe ' at Bedale. William Harcourt 
was put to death on account of the Oates plot in January, 

1679 ; William Rushton was subsequently accused, but es- 
caped. Anthony Metcalf was imprisoned at York Castle in 

1680 for refusing the oath of supremacy. John Whitfield was 
an old priest of the Durham district ; he was seized when 
saying mass at Newcastle-on-Tyne in 1654, and imprisoned. 

In 1672 a priest of the name of Ralph Champney received 
IQS. for his services at Christmas. 

In 1676 Thomas Thwing was at Carlton for Easter Day, 
Ascension Day, Whitsun Day, as well as on two Sundays in 
June, one in July, and one in August, c helping mee and my 
familye,' according to the periphrasis used by Sir Miles in his 

1 Dodd's Church History, iii. 301. 
2 Records of the English Province 5. J. xii. 751, 761-2. 


account book. On Easter Day and Ascension Day he received 
ioj. for his pains, and 55. on the other occasions. On Septem- 
ber 1 6 he also received 55., c my mother's anniversary day to 
pray for her (soul).' Other priests who officiated at Carl ton 
and received gifts during the year were William Rushton, 
John Lodge, Ralph Champney and Mr. Hardwick. A special 
entry states that 55. was c given to Mr. John Lodge to pray 
for my good uncle Francis Gascoigne October the 8th, 1676, 
hee dyed in September before.' Sir Miles had subscribed los. 
in 1664 towards the maintenance of John Lodge, son of 
Christopher Lodge, who was then a student at Douay. 

In this same year, when the recusancy of the Duke of 
York was much discussed, great efforts were made to secure a 
full return of all the Roman Catholic recusants. The ecclesi- 
astical returns made by the churchwardens were known in 
many cases to be unreliable, and the justices were ordered to 
be exact in requiring recusant returns from the parish con- 
stables at Quarter Sessions. The squire of Carlton on this 
occasion not only dared to tamper with the constable of his 
parish, but was bold enough to enter the details in his house- 
hold book : 

It. given to Christopher Ward our constable of Carlton for not s. d. 
giveing in the names of the Cath(olics) at Waikfeild 
Sessions in January 1676 (7) oo 02 oo 

It. paid John Sotheby's chardges to Waikfeild Sessions Jan. 
the 12 1676 (7) goeing along with the constable to pre- 
vent giveing in names &c oo 03 06 

There are two most interesting entries, under the year 
1678, pertaining to Sir Miles' fellow religionists : 

It. given amongt the poore people of Carleton at Christmas s. d. 
every one a pecke of rye and sixpence in money and the 
pore Catholicks twelve pence, the money comes to two 
and twenty shillings and sixpence besides were four loads 
of rye 01 12 06 

It. given to the poore prisoners at York Castle 01 10 oo 

Throughout the seventeenth century York Castle was 
seldom if ever free from recusant prisoners. Many were 
detained there for five, ten, and even twenty years, solely on 
matters of religion. The Oates plot had at this time crowded 
York Castle with Roman Catholics. Canon Raine has given 
terrible accounts of the awful condition of the York gaols of 


this period, wherein so many of the victims died * the dungeons 
of the Inquisition were scarcely worse/ 1 

In 1678 c good Mr. Rush ton/ < good Mr. John Smithson ' 
and Mr. Ralph Champney administered to the spiritual wants 
of Carlton Hall. Ten shillings was forwarded this year to the 
c poor Catholicks of Beedale per Mr. Alleson of Danby.' Mr. 
Allison was shortly afterwards apprehended as a priest and 
lodged in York Castle, where he died in confinement. 

c Creeping to the Cross ' on Good Friday is several times 
mentioned in these account books in connection with the sum 
of 2J., which would be his customary offering for the safe- 
guarding of the Holy Places. 

In 1688 occurs the following entry : 

It. given to Mrs. Moore of Yorke May 26th 1688 fifteen shil- s. d. 
lings which %he is to give to the fryers for ten weeks 
allowance at the rate of is. 6d. for one meale a week and 
this for IQ weeks from Whitsun Monday the 4th of June 
till Monday the 1 3th of August oo 15 oo 

The sum of los. 6d. was afterwards expended in a like manner 
for seven weeks up to September 29. These entries seem to 
refer to some effort to re-establish Dominican friars at York 
towards the end of the reign of James II. It is well known 
that there was a nunnery at York at this period. 

In this year Mr. John Baits (a priest) received a quarter's 
allowance of ^5. Mr. Simpson received 55. < to say mass on 
Midsumer day/ This is the first time this expression is used. 
Other priests who ministered this year at Carlton were Henry 
Lawson and Francis Every (here entered under his alias of 
Evers). The former laboured in the Yorkshire district for 
fourteen years ; the latter was for a long period the superior of 
the district. A reward of ^100 was offered for Francis Every's 
apprehension in 1679, in consequence of the Oates plot, the 
reward for the other Fathers being only 50. He was a con- 
tinuous fugitive during the persecuting outburst that followed 
on the flight of James II. 2 

Under the year 1700, 10 was entered in two quarterly 
allowances at Michaelmas and Christmas of 5 each for Mr. 
Baits, who was evidently at that time the domestic chaplain of 
Carlton. In addition, he received another 5 on January i, 
1701, <for a new years guift.' 

1 York Castle Depositions, Surtees Society, vol. xl. 

2 Records of the English Province 5. J. xiii. passim. 


On Ash Wednesday (March 5), 1701, Sir Miles gave 5^. 
to c poore Catholickes.' A like bequest for a like object was 
handed to Mr. Baits on each Sunday in Lent. 

In 1 704, a diversity of priests served the private chapel at 
Carlton. The names entered in the household book are Parke, 
Littleton, Calvert, Selby, Corker, Barber, Henry Poole, William 
Calvert, Lodwick Fenwick, Eadsford, Robert Stanfield, William 
Champney, Clavaron, and Jenison alias Taylor. Of these, 
Father James Corker, a Benedictine, was a man of much note 
and remarkable experience. He was put on his trial in 1679 
with the four Jesuit Fathers, and was acquitted of complicity 
in the false plot. He was then charged (under 27 Eliz.) with 
being a priest, and condemned to death ; but he was reprieved 
and detained in Newgate gaol until the accession of James II. 
He was then received at court as resident ambassador of the 
elector of Cologne. On the landing of William, the frenzy of 
the London Protestant mob was first directed against Father 
Corker ; but he escaped to the continent, and was elected 
abbot first of Cismer, and afterwards of Lambspring. In 1696 
he resigned his abbacy and returned to England ; he died at 
Paddington in 1715. John Barber was one of the staff of 
missioners of the Suffolk district in 1 704. John Edesford was 
residing at Carlton in December, 1680, when the mob broke 
into Sir Miles' house in an endeavour to find him, but he 
managed to escape. The whole of that winter he always 
travelled by night and on foot. The Annual Letters for 1688 
and 1710 give most interesting accounts of him. 1 Sir Miles 
always terms him c good Mr. Eadsford.' Jenison alias Taylor 
was Father Ralph Jenison alias Freville ; he was superior of the 
Durham district. Clavaron is probably a misspelling for Ralph 
Clavering, a missioner of the Durham district, who had made 
some preliminary study for the priesthood at Carlton. 

In 17051 most of these priests are named again, as well as 
John Baits and John Lodge, each of whom received a quarter's 


The numerous entries in the household books pertaining 
to the chapel afford much interesting detail, pertaining to such 

1 Records of the English Province S. J. xii. 682-4 ; but the mistake is made 
of placing the Carlton of his residence near Skipton. 


matters as the supply of wafers, the houseling cloth, the 
paschal candle, the making of a vestment in 1664, and the 
construction of a new chapel in the gallery, with priests' cham- 
ber and two closets, in 1668. We wonder if the Quaker of 

Selby, from whom Sir Miles purchased hinges and lock, had 
any idea that they were to be used in the making of a 


Disbursed for things for the Chappell s. d. 

It. paid for a card for the alter . . oo 01 06 

It. paid for 2 paper pictures for the alter oo 01 oo 

It. paid for 2 little cruets for the alter oo oo 06 

It. paid to Mr. Bayly for a great picture for the alter being in 
colours, a crucifix and our blessed Lady and St. John with 

St. Mary Magdalene 02 oo oo 

It. paid for a box fo put the picture in oo oo 06 

It. paid for bringing the picture doune by the carryer . . . oo 01 oo 

It. paid for a pound and 3 quarters of bee wax for candles . . oo 01 08 

It. paid for a wax book for the chappell oo oo 09 

It. Jack spent at Doncaster when he fetched the picture . . . oo oo 04 

It. paid for 2 extinguishers and two savealls for the alter . . oo oo 08 

It. paid for a pound of wax for candles oo o I oo 

It. paid to Nan Hall for 3 quarters of a pound of wax for 

candles oo oo 08 

It. paid to my mo. for three pounds of wax for candles . . . oo 03 oo 


Inp. Paid for two new tin save alls for the alter . . - . . oo oo 06 

It. Paid for wax for a paschall candle . oo 01 04 

It. Paid for some hard rushes for the chappell . . . . . oo 01 oo 

It. Paid for a pinte of sacke for the alter oo oi oo 

It. Paid to Easier for 2 hundred and a halfe of breads for the Alter oo oi 03 

It. Paid for a box to put them in . . . . . . . . oo oo 04 


It. Paid for two new puter candlesticks for the Aulter . . . oo 02 oo 
It. Paid for halfe an ell of course holland to make a towell for 

communicants . oo 02 oo 


It. Paid to one's Manners wife for rushes for the chappell . . oo oi oo 

It. Paid for 200 of breads at York oo oi oo 

October the first 1664 

Laid out for furniture for chappell &c. 

Inp. Paid to Will Lodge of Beedall ten ells of holland at 4*. io</. 
an ell to make a new albe and some other little things as 

anisses, munditorye and little hand towels 02 08 04 

It. Paid then to Will Lodge for lace for the albe oo 08 oo 

It. Paid then to Will Lodge for inckle for 3 anisses . . . . oo oo 04 

It. Paid then to Hanna Lodge for making the albe and anisses . oo 05 oo 


It. Paid more to Will Lodge for 1 2 yards of pinke coloured s. d. 
floored tabbye at 3;. a yard for making a vestment and 
Antependium for the Aulter with two quissions and two 
corporus cases 01 16 oo 

It. Paid more to Will. Lodge for six yards of scotch tabbye 

to line the vestment with at 2s. 8</. a yard oo 1 6 oo 

It. Paid more then to Will. Lodge for a dozen and a halfe of 

galloon for the vestment and Antependium oo 02 06 

It. Paid then more to Will Lodge for red silk to make the vest- 
ment and Antependium with . oo oo 06 

It. Paid to John Hornbye for red silke for making the vestment 

and Antependium with &c oo oo 04 

It. Paid December the 9th 1 664 to a Scotch man for 3 yards 

and 3 quarters of fine Scotch cloth for an Aulter cloth . oo 07 06 

It. Paid for pinke coloured silk bought at York for makinge the 

church stufFe oo oo 06 

It. Paid more to Will Lodge for two yards more of the said 
pinke coloured floord tabbye to make a vaile and some 
other little things . oo 06 oo 


February the 23rd 1668, disbursed as followeth for makeing 
the new chappell in the gallerye and other partitions and 
roomes there, that is to say one bed chamber and two 
closets besides the chappell. 

Inp. Paid to Mathew Geere of Holden for 2 5 poles for makeing 

the partitions 01 10 oo 

It. Paid more to Mathew Geere for 30 fur deales for doores and 

for nailes and banisters before the Aulter in the chappell . o I 1 2 06 

It. Paid to Tho. Walker for deales for makeing the canopye 

over the Aulter, and the picture frame oo 1 5 06 

It. Paid for bringing the poles and deales from Holden by water oo 02 oo 

It. Paid to Cornelius Barker for goeing to Holden to buy the 

poles and deales oo 03 oo 

It. Paid to Cor. Barker for makeing the partitions in the gallery 

and five wainescott doores March the I4th 1668 . . . 011600 

It. Paid more to Cor. Barker for makeing the railes and banis- 
ters before the Aulter and for colouring them . . . . 01 02 06 

It. Paid more to Cor. Barker for makeing the new Aulter with 

steps above, and one belowe, and cubbert for tabernacle . 01 01 oo 

It. Paid more to Cor. Barker for makeing the picture frame . oo 09 oo 

It. Paid more to Cor. Barker for makeing a cannopye to hang 

over the Aulter with carveing it in all 01 10 oo 

It. Paid for linseed oyle, white lead, red lead, occar, gum, lams 
blacke for colouring the doores, canopye, picture frame, 
with railes and banisters in the chappell oo 09 1 1 

It. Paid to Cor. Barker for colouring the canopye and picture 

frame and doores oo 03 oo 

It. Paid for halfe a pound of leafe gold for picture frame . . oo 01 03 

It. Given to Cor. Barker to drinke . ...... oo 02 06 


It. Paid to the Quaker of Selbye for hinges and latches for the f. d. 

chappell and gallery chamber and closetts oo 1 3 oo 

It. Paid to him for a locke and hinge for the tabernacle . . . oo 01 08 

It. Paid for a locke for the chappell doore oo 01 oo 

It. Paid for laths for the partition walls oo 08 06 

It. Paid for nailes oo n 10 

It. Paid for lime for the walls and roofes in some places . . . 01 02 08 
It. Paid to Edward Clough, Joseph Rodger, and servers in wages 

for white limeing the partition walls and other walls and 

roofes of roomes where it wanted mending 02 13 01 

It. Paid for haire for the lime oo 04 oo 

Mem. Makeing and finishing the chappell and roomes ith 

gallery cost in all 1 7 04 1 1 

Disbursed about makeing Mr. Harpers closett as followeth : 

It. Paid to Tho. Walker for furr deales for the closett . . . oo 07 04 

It. Paid to Cor. Barker for makeing the partition wall for the 

closett, and a new doore and for seting up shelves . . . oo 1 7 06 

It. Paid for laths and nailes for the partition wall oo 05 oo 

It. Paid for lime for the wall . . . oo 02 oo 

It. Paid to Ed. Clough and Joseph Rodger and server for white 

limeing the wall oo 04 06 

Mem. This closett cost in all . . . 01 06 04 


It. Paid for 4 yards of staynd callicoe for covering the Aulter 

1 2th of November oo 07 04 

It. Paid for one pound of wax candles at Yorke, very ill ones . oo 01 08 
It. Paid for six pounds of white bleached wax candles at London oo 12 oo 
It. Paid for a firr box to put them in is. and for carriage is. jd. 

to Doncaster oo 02 07 


It. Paid for 3 pounds of Bees wax to make candles for the 

Aulter . . . . . . . .-*. .- . oo 03 oo 


The recusants of the township of Carlton were always 
numerous during the Elizabethan and Stuart times for so small 
a hamlet. This might naturally be expected, as the manor 
continued throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries 
in Roman Catholic hands. In 1604 there were twenty-six 
recusants returned at Carlton and fourteen in the adjacent 
parish of Drax, where the Stapletons were landowners. At 
that date three of the Stapletons occur in the Carlton recusant 
list, and there were seven others of the same family thus 
labelled in other parts of Yorkshire. 1 

The household books of Sir Miles Stapleton afford many 
incidental instances of the disabilities and hardships endured by 
1 Peacock's Torksbire Roman Catholics 0/1604., pp. 28, 29, etc. 


the recusants. The first of these occurs in 1661, when there 
are two noteworthy entries : 

Spent with my cosen Fardinandoe Thwenge March the 4th s. d. 
1 66 1, when I went to see him being then a prisoner in 

York Castle oo 03 oo 

Given then to the centry or doorekeeper oo oo 06 

The Thwings or Thwengs of Heworth were staunch 
recusants ; but they were thoroughly loyal to the royalist 
cause during the Civil War. Ferdinando Thwing lost much 
of his estate and was confined to his own house by the Round- 
heads in consequence of his services to the cause of Charles I. 
This made his arrest for being a Romanist all the more trying. 
In August, 1660, he had petitioned the Crown for the restora- 
tion of certain rights to the sea-wrack or seaweed on the coast, 
which his ancestors had held for three hundred years. 1 

The heavy fining of the estates of recusants was resumed 
in earnest in 1676. The Carlton household books yield 
evidence of Sir Miles' resolute endeavours to protect his 
property as much as possible. To secure this end he did not 
hesitate to bribe the acting under-sheriff, the high sheriff's son, 
and to treat the jury with much liberality. His interference 
with the parish constable in restraining him from making a 
return of the recusants of Carlton has been already mentioned. 

October the 1st, 1676, Disbursed since then, for rideing chardges, s. d 
and severall other things, &c. 

Inp. Spent in chardges to Rippon October the ist 1676 my- 
selfe with two men and three horses being there two 
nights about speaking with the high Sheriff S n Edmond 
Jennings to desire his favour to mee hee then haveing a 
Comission to enquire into the estates of recusants by a 
jurye &c 01 04 07 

It. Given then to the high Sheriffs sonn Mr. Edmond Jennings 
who was under Sheriffe to his father, two ginny peices of 
gold to be favorable to mee 02 03 oo 

It. Given to Mr. Tho. Headley of Snaith the bayliffe for 
shewing a coppye of the jurye that was to enquire after my 
recusansye oo 02 oo 

It. Given to Mr. Cooplands sonn when his father sent mee by 
him a deed w ch he drewe for mee about setling my estate to 
prevent sequestration &c oo 02 oo 

It. Spent in chardges for my-selfe, men and three horses goeing 
to Crofton, Fetherston, and Waikefeild, where the high 
sheriff impanneled the jurye that was to enquire into our 
estates &c. October the 6th 1676 01 oo oo 

1 Dm. State Papers, Charles II., x. 115. 


It. Spent in chardges with the jurye at Sellbye October the I 7th s. d. 
1676, when they mett there to receive information of our 
estates by the constables and neighbours &c oo 1 5 oo 

It. Given to Richard Dickinson and one 6*f my neighbours for 

goeing there to Selbye to informe the jurye &c. . . . oo 05 oo 

It. Given then to Mr. Levet Sr. John Dawneys clarke for goeing 
to Selbye by his maisters order to produce the deed to the 
jurye w ch I made to his maister, of my estate, for payment 
of debts &c oo 10 oo 

It. Given to Mr. Hayes the high Sheriffs officer for his favour 
in this busines about returning us &c. in the Exchequer 
for the jury could finde mee noe estate at all it being 

setled for payment of debts oo I o oo 

Mem. Mr. Ashton of Burne was the foreman of this 
jurye &c. 

It. Paid to Mr. James Thornton his chardges to Midleham to 
the jurye there that was to enquire into the estates of 
recusants &c. * oo 03 06 

It. Given to Dale of Thursk the Bayliffe to forbeare his levying 
of Ellington for mee w ch I bought of Mr. James Thornton 
for the poore people of Beedall and the jurye there found 
it as Mr. Thorntons lands by w ch it is returned into the 
Exchequer at twenty three shillings and foure pence . . oo 05 oo 

It. Paid in chardges at York at the Inn October the 24th 1676 
for my two men and three horses two nights as I went to 
Beedall, and my stay at York then was one night longer 
then I intended because the juryes of enquirye about our 
estates for recusancye was that day to give in their verdicts 
to the Sherriff soe as I was desirous to know what they 
did &c. . oo 1 3 07 

Unfortunately the household books for 1679 to 1682 are 
missing, when the Titus Gates plot charges in the north ot 
England were in full swing. Sir Miles Stapleton was indicted 
for high treason in 1681 on the information of two of the 
notorious informers. The indictment was removed by a writ 
of certiorari to the King's Bench, whence (Sir Miles having been 
arraigned and pleading not guilty) he was sent down to be tried 
at the York assizes. The trial was held before Justice Dolben 
and Baron Gregory on July 18. One William Widdows of 
York took down the whole trial in shorthand, and it was 
printed in London ; but the copies were seized and the short- 
hand writer indicted, so that we have to depend upon the 
report in the State Trials. 1 

Christopher Tankard was excepted against by the Crown 
as a juryman because he had been known to disparage the 

1 Depositions from York Castle (Surtees Society), p. 251. 


evidence of the plot and called his dogs by the names of Gates 
and Bedloe. The jury eventually sworn were : Sir Harrington 
Boucher, kt., Sir John Jennings, kt, Richard Hutton, Well- 
brough Norton, Tobias Hodson, John Beverley, Anthony 
Frankland, John Addams, Francis Battery, Francis Fuldgam, 
Humphrey Brook, and Thomas Lee, esquires. 

After John Smith had been called by the Crown to give 
evidence in general with regard to the plot, Bolron and 
Moubray gave their testimony. In addition to that which he 
had stated at the previous trial by Sir Thomas Gascoigne 
about the plot to kill the king, Bolron declared that Sir Miles 
Stapleton was to be rewarded by being made a privy councillor 
to the Duke of York, and that at a further consultation June 
13 or 14, 1678, it was agreed to let the French in at Hull as 
the easiest place for them to land. 

Evidence was given on Sir Miles' behalf by Mr. Lowder, 
Sir Thomas Yarbrough, Lady Yarbrough and many others. 
The jury, after half an hour's consultation, returned a verdict 
of c Not guilty/ 

Several entries occur in the troublous year 1688 that have 
reference to his religious opinions. The first of these relates 
to some matter in dispute with his co-religionists, the nature 
of which cannot now be determined. 

Paid at Selbye for my coatch and horses, when I went to Yorke s. d. 
Aprill the 3rd 1688 and stayed there two nights about 
the difference betwixt mee and the monks adviseing then 
with Mr. Bellwood and Mr. Langley about makeing my 
answere to the Attourney generalls bill oo 02 06 

Paid at Pomfret for ordinary and extraordinary for my selfe 
when I dyned there with the Comissioners S r- Walter 
Vavasour and Mr. Middleton who tooke subscriptions 
about the Tests and Penall laws &c. a great many gentle- 
men there Aug. 1688 oo 03 06 

In December, 1688, when Protestant fury was at its height 
in many parts of England, it began to be suspected that even 
the generally respected character of the squire of Carlton would 
not save him from molestation. On December 14 Sir Miles 
paid two shillings as the charges of Ann Barber, a woman 
member of his household and therefore the less likely to be 
intercepted, taking a message to c my Lord of Danby ' at 
York, telling him that he feared he was about to be plundered 
and asking protection. Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby, had 
recently by clever strategy seized on York for the Prince of 


Orange, and encouraged the * no popery' cry. It is not 
therefore scarcely surprising to find that, notwithstanding his 
kinship with Sir Miles, no protection was afforded. On the 
night of December 1 6 a large mob burst into the house, and 
failing to discover a priest, revenged themselves by carrying off 
Sir Miles Stapleton and his immediate retainers as prisoners. 
The baronet set down in his accounts the exact cost of their 
enforced entertainment : 

Spent in chardges the i6th of December 1688 when my house s. d. 
was searched by Mr. Hugh Taylor of Coats, Mr. John 
Taylor of Neuland, Alexander Clarke, John Lamb, John 
Barnes, and John Haworth of Rauckliff, and three score 
men more of RaucklifF and Neuland, and stayed all night 
in the house and drunke above halfe a hogshead of wine 
and as much ale with bread and chese and what other 
meat was in the house and carryed me and all my Catho- 
licke men prisoners to Ferry bridge where wee were re- 
leasd, and stayd all night, w ch cost me in all 04 10 oo 

Paid John Sothebys chardges to waite of my Lord Danbye, with 
my brother, to him to Leeds, where missing him he went 
on to Doncaster, to meet him the i8th of decem. 1688, 
after I was carryed away prisoner (tho released) to procure 
his protection from future trouble oo 08 10 

Sir Thomas Osborne had married Bridget, daughter of the 
Earl of Lindsey, and hence was brother-in-law of Sir Miles ; 
otherwise he would scarcely have thought of applying for help 
to the then great champion of the Protestant cause. Sir 
Thomas, who was Lord High Chancellor in 1673, was created 
Earl of Danby in 1674. William of Orange rewarded him 
by making him in 1689 lord-lieutenant of all the three ridings 
of Yorkshire, as well as of the county city of York. He was 
created Duke of Leeds in 1699. 

Among the MSS. of the Duke of Leeds at Hornby Castle 
is the original of the letter written from Ferry Bridge on 
December 1 7, and despatched by John Sotheby. In it Sir Miles 
describes how his house had been beset last night by sixty or 
eighty men of his neighbours armed with guns and pitchforks, 
who searched severely for arms (he is careful to say nothing 
about the priest), and had that morning brought him prisoner 
thus far on his way to Pomfret. But at Ferry Bridge they 
had met with Captain Tankard, and < the worthy captaine was 
pleas' d to take my word for my quiet liveing at home, which I 
hope your lordship will allowe me/ * 

1 Hist. MSS. Commission, Report xi. Append. 7, p. 29. 




Sir Miles Stapleton instead of vegetating on his own 
estates not only made frequent visits to London, but was often 
at the county town, and a constant visitor at the gentlemen's 
houses in his immediate neighbourhood and in some of the 
more distant parts of the great county. A considerable 
number of these visits can be traced in the household books 
by his generous vails to the servants or by other expenditure. 

On St. Peter's day, 1661, he visited the leading loyalist of 
the county, ' my Lord Langdale,' at his seat at Holme in the 
East Riding. He was then in poor health, and died on 
August 5. 

The considerable Stapleton estates that Sir Miles had 
secured at the market town of Bedale often took the baronet 
to the North Riding, though he had no seat there. He was 
at Bedale in 1662, as appears from the two following entries : 


It. Given to my cosen Grahams coatchman when I went with s. d. 
her and Lady Purbecke in her coatch from Beedall to 

Thorpe to see Mr. Danbye and his wife oo 02 oo 

It. Given to a boy that guided us the coatch way to Thorpe . oo oo 06 

This would be Thorp-under-Stone, in Catterick parish, a 
little to the south of Richmond. 

On September 1 6 of the same he spent 45. at York when 
on his way, with his uncle Sir Thomas Gascoigne, c to see the 
Bishopp of York at Bishopthorpe.' He gave 3^. to the 
c Bishop's porter and stable groome.' It is probably safe to 
conjecture that this visit of two Romanist baronets to Arch- 
bishop Frewen was on some question of recusancy. 

For the year 1663 there are two entries as to visits with 
Lady Stapleton to neighbours : 

It. Given to Collonell Twissellton's groome when my wife and s. d. 
I went to visit them May the nth 1663 oo 01 oo 

It. Given to Mr. Walmsleys coatchman May the I3th when 
my wife and I went to visit them and borrowed a paire 
of their coatch horses and a paire of harnis because the 
wayes were then very bad to Stay nor 000206 

The Stapletons' nearest neighbours were the Dawnays of 
Cowick Hall. Both Cowick and Carlton were townships of 
the parish of Snaith ; but visits were somewhat of an under- 
taking as they were separated by the river Aire. Sir John 
Dawnay of Cowick, who was M.P. for Yorkshire in 1660, 


and for Pontefract from 1661 to 1668, was raised to the 
peerage of Ireland as Viscount Downe in 1680. His first 
wife was Elizabeth daughter of Sir J. Melton, who died in 
February, 1663, and was buried at Snaith. Three months 
later Sir John married for his second wife Dorothy daughter 
of William Johnson. The Stapletons called on the second 
Lady Dawnay early in 1664. 

It. Given to my Lady Dawneys coatchman and footman when s. d. 
my wife and I went to Snaith to see her and her coatch 
met us at the ferry and conveyed us thither and brought 
us back to the ferry oo 03 06 

It. Given then to the Sexton at Snaith church being wee went 

in to see it oo 01 oo 

Another entry of this year relates to the return to Carl ton 
of his afflicted brother : 

It. Given amongst the servants at Quousque when we fetched s. d. 
home my bro. Rich. Apr. the 28th 1664, when he had 
been there with my mother most of the winter before. . oo 13 06 

Somewhat later in the year Sir Miles again visited Cowick 
Hall to learn the London news : 

It. Given is. to S r> John Dawneys man at Snaith May the loth 
1 664 when I went to visit him after his cominge from 
London from the Parliament. 

Barnbow Hall, the seat of Sir Miles' mother's family, the 
Gascoignes, was about twenty miles distant from Carlton on 
the Leeds road. On October 14, 1668, Sir Miles distributed 
9J. 6d. among the servants at Barnbow, c when I stayed there 
3 nights my unkle Gascoigne being then very sicke.' This 
uncle could not have been Sir Thomas, the second baronet, 
for he died in 1666 at the age of seventy. His three other 
Gascoigne uncles were all in Holy Orders. John was Abbot 
of Lambspring in Lower Saxony, Michael Gascoigne was a 
Benedictine monk, and Francis Gascoigne was a secular 
priest. It was probably Uncle Francis who was then ill at 
Barnbow. It may here be mentioned that Francis died 
ten years later. The household books for 1676 record the 
payment by Sir Miles to Catherine Gascoigne the Mother 
Prioris of the English Nuns at Paris' of 10 155., c for ten 
giny pieces of gold which my Uncle Francis Gascoigne left 
with mee, who being since then dead, gave it to my cosin 
Katherine who he made his executrix.' The eldest daughter 
of Sir Thomas Gascoigne (the second baronet) was Anne, wife 



of Sir Stephen Tempest of Broughton, who is afterwards 
mentioned in these papers. Katherine, the prioress, was the 
second daughter. 

In the same year (1668) various other visits obtain inci- 
dental mention in Sir Miles* accounts : 

It. Given to my Lord Darcyes groome at Hornebye when I s. d. 
visited my lord . . . . oo 01 oo 

It. Given Captain Pockleys man when my wife and I went 

thither to visit him and his wife oo o I oo 

It. Given to our ferry for helpeing our coatch over too and againe 
when my wife and I went to the buriall of Sir John 
Dawney's sonn Will oo 01 oo 

It. Given to my Ladye Yarbroughs gentlewoman Mrs. Margarett 
Holme May the I3th 1668 when my wife and I was 
there two nights at Snaith Hall and very kindly enter- 
tained oo 10 oo 

Sir Thomas Yarbrough, let, of the Lincolnshire family, 
at that time held Snaith Hall, and was their next nearest 
neighbour after the Dawnays ; though, like the Dawnays, they 
were on the further side of the Aire. The vails to the ser- 
vants on this occasion were considerable. Sir Thomas' man, 
as well as the butler and the c man-cook ' and the chamber- 
maid and the coachman, received 5^. each, whilst is. 6d. each 
was given to the under-cook and the two footboys. Sir Miles 
lost 155. at cards during those two evenings. 

During the months of June and July, 1672, Sir Miles and 
Lady Stapleton, ten days being spent at Harrogate to drink 
the waters, which were then beginning to be of fashionable 

1672 s. d. 

It. Spent in chardges at York one night June the I4th 1672 
when I went to my Lady Cholmleys funerall, haveing the 
coatch and foure horses w th two rideing horses besides . . 01 07 oo 

It. Spent in chardges at Harrigate when my wife and I, 
and Nan. Barber, with John Pullaine, John Taylor and 
Mat. Tillsley, and Will. Kendell the coatchman, when 
we went to drinke the spaw waters, haveing 4 coatch 
horses, and two rideing horses, wee layed at Mr. Hansitts 
from Tewsday the i8th day of June, till friday the 28th 
day of June 1672, and wee laid one night att Barmbow 
as we came home, our chardges in all for ourselves, and 
horses with advise of Doctors &c 1 2 oo oo 

It. Given to the servants at S r- Tho. Whartons at Edlington 
July the 2nd 1672 where my wife and I layed one night 
when wee went to see him after his ladyes death . . . oo 1 3 06 


It. Given to S r - Tho. Yarburgh's groom when I went to Snaith s. d. 
Hall to visitt his maister oo oo 06 

It. Lost at cards at Cowicke to my cosen Gregory julye the 
i yth 1672 when my wife and I went to visitt Lady 
Dawney oo 10 06 

It. Given then to my Lady Dawneys coatchman and footman . oo 03 oo 

It. Given to my Lady Yarburgh's coatchman and footman July 
the 1 8th 1672 when my wife and I went to visitt her at 
Snaith Hall and she carryed us to Heck and brought us 
backe to Carlton ferry in her coatch oo 03 oo 

It. Given at Thorpe to Captaine Pockleys man when my wife 

and I went thither to visitt them July i6th 1672 . . . oo OI oo 

It. Spent at Knaresbrough July the 23rd 1672 when my wife 
and I went to see S n Tho. Osborne, and his Lady there ; 
wee went from Barmbow and returnd backe ther that 
night oo 02 06 

It. Paid for our coatch horses and rideing horses two nights at 
Knarebrougfrjuly the 27th 1672 being the second time 
y* my wife and I went to Knarebrough, to see S r- Tho. 
Osborne and his Ladye 01 oo oo 

It. Paid then for the mens chardges those two nights . . . oo 10 oo 

Visits paid in 1676 obtain the following notices in the 
household books : 

It. Given to Mrs. Ward my Ladye Yarburgh's midwife August s. d. 
the 2nd when I went to diner at Snaith Hall when the 
child was christened oo 05 oo 

Given to my God daughter Doctor Talbots childe . . . . oo 01 oo 

It. Spent in chardges for myselt two men and our horses 
August the 3Oth when I went with my brother Stapilton 
and my cosen Gascoigne into Lancahshire to see my cosen 
Houghton, cosen Shearburne and other friends there and 
wee were about a fortnight abroad 05 oo oo 

It. Paid to Mr. Thornton 3*. for a paire of cordevant gloves 
which I gave to Mr. Feild my Lady Danby'es gent, when 
she went with mee and carryed mee with her coatch and 
six horses to Bolton to my Lord Marquess of Winchesters 
where wee dined and called at Burton at Will. Wivells 
both goeing and comeing and came back to Beedall the 
same night Novemb. 4th 1676. 

John the fifth Marquess of Winchester was the great royalist 
who lost Basing House in the Civil Wars ; he was then re- 
siding at Bolton Castle. Burton is a hamlet in Aysgarth 
parish. William Wyvil was the younger brother of Sir 
Christopher Wyvil, Bart., M.P. for Richmond. Lady 
Danby's coachman on this occasion received from Sir Miles 
55. and the postillion is. 


In 1678 Sir Miles stayed at Mr. Hamerton's at Borough 
Bridge on his way to Bedale. When at Bedale he dined at 
Lady Danby's at Thorpe, and at Lady Darcy's at Hornby. 
On his way back he gave ids. to Mrs. Fairfax's nurse at 
York that nursed her child, and is. to Mrs. Fairfax's nurse 
c that kept her when she lay in of her boy 3rd May, 1678.' 

On July 23 of that year Sir Miles and his lady went in 
great state to York to dine with 'judge Bartye* ; they had 
six horses in the coach and four outriders on saddle horses. 
They returned the same night, having incurred a charge of js. 
at the inn for their men and horses. Judge Bartye was Vere, 
fourth son of Montagu Earl of Lindsey and therefore nephew 
of Lady Stapleton ; he was one of the barons of the exchequer 
in the time of Charles II., and one of the justices of the 
common pleas. 

In the same year he dined at Sir John Boynton's and at 
Sir Thomas Yarbrough's, as we know from his presents to 
the servants. 

Sir Miles was evidently a believer in the efficacy of waters, 
for in 1678, and on two or three subsequent occasions, he 
bathed at St. Mungo's Well on the way to Bedale, giving the 
well-keeper 15. 6d. 

In 1682 Sir Miles and Lady Stapleton, with their nephew 
Nicholas Earington, spent a month at Bedale. During that 
visit the marriage between his nephew and Mary Scroope of 
Danby was arranged. The particulars of expenditure are given 
in much detail, and contain a variety of interesting features 
relative to visits. 

Disbursed as followeth in our jorney to Beedall &c. my wife, s. d. 
selfe, nephew Erington, Ann Barber, John Pullaine, John 
Taylor, Miles Stephenson the foot boy, Dick. Peares the 
coatch-man, and Robin Litlewood the postillion, with six 
coatch horses and three rideing horses, June the zyth 
Inp. Paid June the zyth 1682 for familay at Selbye for our 

selves w ch coatch and horses oo 03 06 

It. Given amongst Mr. Fairfaxes servants at where we lay one 

night June 2 yth 1682 oo 1 1 06 

It. Paid for hay for the horses that night at York oo 04 06 

It. Paid for come for the horses that night oo 1 2 i o 

It. Paid for meat and drinke for the men that night . . . . oo 07 08 

It. Given to the oastler and maid at Banks oo o I 06 

It. Given to Mr. Tankards groom and butler at Whilsley where 

wee cald, June the 28th 1682 . . . . . . . . . oo 02 oo 


It. Given then to his workman that shewed us his new building s. d. 

at Whilseley &c oo o I oo 

It. Paid for meat and drinke at Millers at Rippon one night 

lying there, June 29th 1682 oo 17 06 

It. Paid for hay and grasse for our horses at Rippon that night, oo 07 oo 
It. Paid for corne for our horses at Rippon that night . . . oo 1 1 08 

It. Given to the oastler and maid at Rippon oo 02 08 

It. Given to the ringers at Beedall June 29th 1682 . . . . oo 05 oo 
It. Given amongst the servants at Mr. Scroops at Danbye where 

I layed one night, July the 2nd 1682, when he and I 

concluded of the marriage between my nephew Erington 

and his daughter Mary &c oo 06 oo 

It. Spent in ale w th Geo. and Tho. Foothergill and others . . oo oo 09 
It. Given to Doctor Samways maid when my wife and I and 

severall others dyned with the Doctor, July the 4th 1682 oo 02 06 

It. Paid for a quire of paper at Beedall oo oo 06 

It. Paid for 4 bushells of oats at Beedall for the horses, July the 

6th 1682 4 oo 10 oo 

It. Paid then for two bushells of peaze oo 07 oo 

It. Paid then to Geo. Binseley for hay and grasse for nine 

horses a week or ten dayes 02 oo oo 

It. Paid for ale for the men at Holms oo 03 oo 

It. Paid for some few meales meat for men there oo 02 oo 

It. Paid for grease for the coatch oo 01 08 

It. Paid to my cosen Mary Darcye July the 6th 1682, for a 

weeks dyet for my wife, selfe, Nick. Erington and Nan 

Barber at ... a weeke at Beedall 01 08 oo 

It. Paid more to Mrs. Mary Darcye for a weekes dyet for 

Pullaine, John Taylor, Miles Stephenson, Dick. Peares and 

Robine Litlewood at 4*. a peece 01 oo oo 

It. Spent in ale at Beedall oo 03 02 

It. Given to Mr. Peirs boy y t- guided me the way from Lazenby 

to Riplin July the 1 1 th when I went to see the west end 

of the park w ch Mr. Hudleston farmes oo 01 oo 

It. Given to Mr. Rookbys man at Morton where I called as I 

went oo 01 oo 

It. Given to Major Hudlestons man that opened us the gate to 

goe through dere parke to view the west end of dere parke oo o I oo 
It. Paid for meat and drinke for my selfe Geo. Binsley and 

John Taylor one night at Barney Castle oo 06 02 

It. Paid for grasse and corne for 3 horses y*- night . . . . oo 02 oo 
It. Given to the oastler and maid at Barney Castle . . . . oo o i oo 
It. Given to Geo. Meynills groome at Dalton where I dyned 

as I came home oo 01 oo 

It. Given amongst Mr. Peirs his servants at Lazenby where my 

wife and I and our company laid a weeke or ten dayes . 02 1 5 oo 
It. Spent at Grace Lambs at Beedall w 01 younge Mr. Peirs, 

James Thornton and Geo. Binseley oo 05 oo 

It. Given to the fidlers at Danbye at Mr. Scroops when my 

wife and I was there 3 nights July 28th 1682 . . . . oo 06 oo 


It. Given then amongst Mr. Scroops servants at Danby when s. d. 
my wife and I and all our company had laid there 3 

nights, July the 2Oth 1682 02 19 oo 

It. Paid more to Mrs. Mary Darcy for dyet for my selfe, wife, 
and our servants, from Thursday the 2Oth of July, till 
Saturday the 22nd of July 1682, that wee came from 

thence to Yorke . o I oo oo 

It. Given then to Mrs. Darcys maids . . . . . . . . oo 07 06 

It. Given then to Mrs. Thorntons maid oo oo 06 

It. Paid for ale at Beedall at Nicholsons oo oo 08 

It. Given to John Holms maid where servants laid . . . . oo 01 oo 

It. Paid John Taylors chardges at Beedall oo oo 06 

It. Paid for a wash ball oo oo o I 

It. Paid for ale at Beedall &c oo 02 06 

It. Paid for washing our linen at Beedall . . . . . . . oo 02 oo 

It. Given to S r * Rich. Grahams groome at Norton, July the 
2Oth 1682, when my wife and I went to the Christening 

of his childe there oo 02 oo 

It. Paid for mending the port mantle at Beedall oo oo 06 

It. Given to the high Sherriffs porter at Yorke oo 03 06 

It. Given to the high SherrifFs butler oo 02 06 

It. Given to Mrs. Watkinson butler at Yorke oo 02 06 

It. Paid for wine and ale at Mr. Banks in Spurryergate where 

we layed at Yorke oo 04 03 

It. Paid to Mrs. Banks for dyet a weeke at Yorke for my wife, 
selfe, Nich. Eringtons, Nan Barber and other servants, 

July the 29th 1682 02 04 oo 

It. Paid then to Mrs. Banks for our lodgeings a weeke . . . oo 1 5 oo 

It. Given then to Mrs. Banks maids oo 03 06 

It. Given then to Mr. Banks man oo 01 oo 

It. Paid to Mrs. Banks for writeing a bond w ch I seald to my 
cosen Gasc. Aug. the 1st 1682 and payable July 3ist 

1683 oo 01 oo 

It. Given to John Pullaine towards his expences in Yorke 

July 27th 1682 oo 10 oo 

It. Given then to Dick. Pears for his expences oo 03 06 

It. Paid for grass, hay and come for our coatch horses and ride- 
ing horse at Banks in Castlegate in the Assizes at Yorke, 

July 29th 1682 01 19 02 

It. Paid for meat and drinke for the servants at Yorke in the 
Assize weeke at Yorke at Banks in Castlegate, July 29th 

1682 oo 16 08 

It. Paid more Dick. Pears chardges at Yorke oo 06 oo 

It. Given to the oastler and maid at Banks oo 02 06 

It. Paid for grease for the coatch at Yorke oo 01 oo 

It. Paid for ferrilay (?) for the liverys at Appleton y went to 

meet the high Sherriff oo oo 04 

It. Paid for mending my sword at Yorke oo 02 06 

It. Paid for meat and drinke for Robin Litlewood at York and 

for John Taylor &c. . * . ]&? * Y . , . ... . oo 02 10 


' d. 

It. Paid for a gross of corks at Yorke oo 02 03 

It. Given to the porter at Yorke Castle oo oo 06 

It. Paid to the ferryman at Selby for coatch and horses comeing 

home July 29th 1682 oo 03 06 

It. Paid more ferrilay for rideing horses oo 01 03 

It. Paid for removeing two horse shoues oo oo 02 

Soon after their return they paid a brief visit to the seat 
of Sir Thomas Vavasour, at Hazelwood Park near Tadcaster. 
Other visits are also recorded in August and September. 

It. Given to my Lady Vavasours servants at Hazlewood Aug. 3rd s. d. 
1682 when my wife and I went to her and dyned there 
and came back the same day oo 02 oo 

It. Given to my Lord Downy coatchman and footman Aug. 

the 5th 1682 when my wife and I went to visit at Cowick oo 03 oo 

It. Given to Mr. Ramsdons groome when my wife and I went 

to Hatefeild Und dyned there Sept. the loth 1682. . . oo 01 oo 

It. Given to Henry Bell our ferryman for carrying over the 
coatch when my wife and I went and dyned at Hatefeild 
the i ith of September and at Cowick the 1 2th of September oo 03 06 

It. Given amongst the servants at Reeton September the 1 5th 
1682 when I went to wait of my Lord Lattimer and Lord 
Dunblaine and missed them, but lay there that night, 
Pullaine and Dick with me oo 09 oo 

The two last entries relative to dining away from home 
occur in 1702. 

It. Given to John Reynolds servants when my wife and I dyned s. d. 

there Jan. 1702 oo 03 oo 

It. Given to Mrs. Champneys servants at Quousque when my 

wife and I dyned there January I4th 1702 oo 03 oo 


(To be continued) 


THERE is probably no proposition which has a more 
infuriating effect on the apostles of commercial heraldry 
than the statement that the user of a coat of arms, belonging 
to no other house, by a family of established social position 
for a period of several generations confers on those who use 
them a right to have them recognized. It elicits shrieks of 
abuse from the leaders of this new crusade. c Illegal/ c spuri- 
ous/ bogus/ c insane ' are among the terms applied to such 
coats as these by c X ' ; and his indignant scorn is echoed, of 
course, by Mr. Fox-Davies in a way that would arouse the 
envy even of such a c quick-change artist ' as Signer Ugo 

We will first select some gems of vehemence from that 
pseudonymous work, The Right to Bear Arms> by c X.' c For 
the sake of the mistaken ones who, for one reason or another, 
write to uphold the use of spurious and illegal arms ' (pp. 
1 63-4), the author is good enough to explain c that arms only 
originating from an unauthorized source, or in the invention 
or imagination of a man or of bis ancestors* are illegal, void of 
authority, and bogus ' (p. 1 1 6) ; and he is moved to indigna- 
tion by c the insane ideas of some heraldic writers, who glibly 
plead and advocate a kind of modern " prescriptive " right ' 
(p. in). Let us for an instant drop the curtain ; it rises 
again on Mr. Fox-Davies proclaiming ex cathedra : 

In my preface to the revised edition of ' Fairbairn ' I said, ' There is no 
such thing as the " prescriptive right to arms," as to which one heraldic shop- 
keeper with whom I have come in contact talks glibly ; it exists solely in his 
conversation. Others of his persuasion have other little plausibilities equally 
corrupt which they bring into prominence.' ... I have had no reason what- 
soever to in any way alter this opinion (sic). 

So intense, it will be seen, is his contempt for the c pre- 
scriptive right to arms * that even his infinitive is split with 

Now Sir George Sitwell, in the notable article which he 
contributed to this Review, has brought down, in his own 

1 This passage should be noted, for the italics are the author's own. 



words, the c fanciful edifice ' that c X ' has erected c in ruins 
about his ears/ and has claimed that by c the law of England 
at the present hour any subject may lawfully assume arms of 
his own mere notion.' x It is needless for us to add to his 
learned argument on the subject, but we propose to approach 
it from a different standpoint, namely that of the heralds 
themselves, and to show what was their official attitude to 
arms for which there existed no other right but that which 
was bestowed by user. 

Even the most impassioned opponent of the view that 
user confers a right to the recognition of a coat of arms is 
forced to admit, however awkwardly, and in however confused 
a manner, that the heralds themselves, at those visitations to 
which he is ever looking back with fond and loving gaze, did 
recognize and did confirm those arms which he fiercely de- 
nounces as c spurious/ c bogus ' and c illegal/ And with that 
admission there falls to the ground his whole contention that 
no arms which have not been originally granted by the Crown 
through its authorized officers-of-arms can or should be re- 
cognized. Let us quote his own words as to the practice of 
the heralds at those visitations in which is found c the most 
crucial incident in the history of British armory* (p. 87) : 

The definite production of a specific grant for the arms in question was not 
necessarily insisted upon by the Heralds, who allowed and confirmed arms as 
borne by right 2 when the right to these was established to their satisfaction. 

What proofs the Heralds required the production of to establish this legal 
right I am utterly unable to say, nor can I find that any one else is at the 
present time exactly aware upon what lines the Heralds worked. One can 
only surmise. But I fancy it can be taken for granted that all arms shown to 
have been in use prior to the battle of Agincourt were accepted as then exist- 
ing by right without question. 3 

We shall be able to enlighten the writer, who would have 
us accept him as an authority on c the right to bear arms/ as 
to what he is c utterly unable ' to tell us. Meanwhile we may 
observe that his theory that c prescription . . . meant use at 
or before the date of the battle of Agincourt ' (1415) 4 will be 
shown to be wildly wrong. But let us continue the quotation : 

In the case of less important families using arms which in no way inter- 
fered with the rights of other people, one's experience leads one to suppose that 
the claimants were treated more easily and the arms admitted (that is, they 
were recorded and confirmed with little or no alteration) upon the strength of 

1 pp. 84, 87 above. 8 The italics are our own. 

3 The Right to Bear Arms, pp. 87, 98. 4 Ibid. p. 108. 


<age for a certain period! What this needful period oj mage 1 was none of my 
inquiries have so far obtained for me any definite knowledge, etc., etc. 2 

The writer however hastens to add, in his own graceful 
English, that as to the arms then c registered and admitted by- 
virtue of sufficiently ancient usage, there were precious few 
(sic) of that character in existence/ 

Now, putting aside the writer's efforts to gloss and ex- 
plain away the facts, what have we seen him forced to admit ? 
He has admitted that after c usage for a certain period,' a 
* needful period of usage,' arms which had no other sanction 
acquired a right in the heralds' eyes to be recognized by them 
as valid. To insist that until they were so recognized they 
were ( bogus, not merely unrecorded ; the arms were illegal ' 
(p. 100), is merely to throw dust in our eyes. His own 
quotations show that as indeed we should presume the 
heralds recognized that a certain user conferred an actual 

This then was the practice of the heralds in the days of 
those famous visitations, the discontinuance of which, in c X's ' 
eyes, c is the saddest thing one can find to chronicle in the 
history of British armory' (p. 108). Let us hope therefore 
that he will yet be converted to the practice of the heralds in 
those palmy days when visitations were, and will publicly 
recant his heresies with his violent but impotent abuse of those 
who take their stand upon the practice of that palmy time. 

Why the heralds have taken on themselves to repudiate 
the practice of their own predecessors it appears impossible to 
say. That they have done so, however, is notorious. As c X ' 
puts it, with his usual impertinence : 

When a family have been illegally making use of arms for some time, and 
are then, for some reason or other, induced or required to place their armorial 
matters on a legal footing, and a patent of arms is obtained under the hands 
and seals of the Kings of Arms, the coat of arms which has previously been in 
use is never granted to the person intact. 

The words c legal ' and c illegally ' are of course mere 
c bluff,' for the writer knows as well as we do that there is no 
law in existence forbidding the use of arms. But if we are to 
use such words in connexion with arms at all, should they not 
rightly be applied to the usurpation of the heralds, who now 
( illegally ' reject that right to arms by user which their prede- 
cessors duly recognized ? 

1 The italics are our own. 2 pp. 98, 99. 


With these introductory remarks we pass to an interesting 
and important paper, apparently from the pen of that well- 
known writer on genealogy and heraldry, Sir Harris Nicolas, 
which appeared in his Retrospective Review three-quarters of a 
century ago. It deserves quotation in extenso : 

On this occasion ... we shall . . . introduce a letter from Sir William 
Dugdale on a ' prescriptive right ' to arms . . . Before inserting the letter to 
which we allude, a few remarks are necessary in explanation of its importance. 
With the same freedom with which we shall discuss every question that may 
come before us, we must speak of the present practice of the College of Arms 
with respect to allowing the right to armorial ensigns ; and whilst we are un- 
fortunate enough to question the justice of that practice, we are assured that 
we shall be credited by its intelligent members for having agitated it with no 
hostile feelings. On the contrary we believe that the opinions of some of 
those Officers on the subject are strictly in unison with our own ; and we are 
convinced that the admission of the principle for which we contend would do 
more to benefit that Institution than any other measure it could adopt. It is 
known to most of our heraldic readers that the right to armorial bearings is de- 
rived in two ways a descent from a man entitled to them, or a Grant from 
the Kings of Arms. Of the former, the Heralds allow of no other evidence 
than their own records, which consist either of their Visitations, that com- 
menced in 1530, and ceased in 1687, though of some counties the last were 
made in 1620 ; or of Grants. Thus, whatever may be the antiquity of a 
man's family, or the proofs he may possess that his ancestors used arms, unless 
they are recorded in the Heralds' College, he must submit to the same process 
to establish his right as the veriest parvenu that has just emerged from a counter. 
There is at least moral, if not legal, injustice, in such a regulation, which those 
who are acquainted with the manner in which entries were made at the Visita- 
tions will at once understand ; for absence from the county, caprice, pride, 
minority, illness, and several other causes, might operate to prevent an obedience 
being paid to the summons of the visiting Herald. But we contend that, 
where an individual can show, by indisputable evidence, that his family have 
borne arms for several centuries, and cases may occur in which such proof can 
be adduced from a period long before the institution of the Heralds' College 
itself, he ought to be allowed, as a matter of right, to have those arms confirmed 
to him, and to the descendants of the first ancestor to whom they can be 
traced. To subject a man so situated to the indignity of receiving a grant of 
arms, to place him on a level with those who know not the names of their 
grandfathers, to fix upon armorial bearings which have been borne for centuries 
the impression of modern manufacture and perhaps too to ' spiflicate ' them with 
all the bedaubery of modern invention, is both an injury and an insult. Should 
he, however, be created a baronet or receive the first class of the order of the 
Bath, he has no choice ; since, to be eligible to either, he must be entitled to 
coat armour ; and thus whilst he is honoured by his sovereign he is dishonoured 
in his own opinion, by being compelled to undergo the process of being made, 
according to the statutes of chivalry, a gentleman. We know numerous persons 
so situated who would willingly have their arms confirmed or registered, but 
who properly shrink with horror from submitting to the degradation of a 
modern gift. The opinion which we have long entertained is, that where a 


man can show that his ancestors have borne arms for a certain number of years, 
for instance, from the accession of Charles the Second, such usage ought to be 
held as sufficient proof of his right to them. Being impressed with this con- 
viction we were much gratified in finding evidence that such was once the 
practice : and that too under the most distinguished of the heraldic monarchs 
Sir William Dugdale. The following letter shows that about 1668 the College 
had agreed to consider the usage of arms from the early part of the reign of 
Elizabeth, i.e. for the preceding hundred years, as a prescriptive right to them ; 
a decision founded upon the soundest principles of equity and justice. When, 
and by what authority, we would venture to ask, was this principle abandoned ? 
Has every Garter king of arms the power to dispense with the existing laws of 
the College, and to make others ? And hence, are the public subjected to the 
caprice of every temporary occupier of the throne of St. Bennet's Hill ? 
Surely Garter king of arms cannot possess more despotic powers than are vested 
in the sovereign of the empire ; but, be this as it may, it is really desirable that 
the laws of the College of Arms should be certain and invariable. We mean 
no disrespect to the present Garter, or to any of his immediate predecessors, 
when we say that the abandonment of a regulation laid down by such a man 
as Dugdale reflects as little credit upon their judgment as it was unfair to the 
community at large, and it appears to us that the public are entitled to be 
governed by regulations on this, and all other similar subjects, which can 
neither be altered nor abrogated by the individuals who from time to time may 
succeed to the supremacy of the Corporation of Heralds. Potentates of every 
description are, we know, not very likely to adopt suggestions, but we take the 
liberty of recommending it to the earnest attention of the Kings and other 
members of the College of Arms, to advocate the true interest ot which our 
pen will ever be cheerfully devoted, to recur again to the practice sanctioned 
and adopted by Sir William Dugdale ; to fix upon a period when the usage of 
arms shall constitute a prescriptive right in the descendants, and as, in 1668, 
the preceding hundred years was deemed sufficient, let the right now be held 
to commence before the accession of Charles the Second ; but the most rigid 
proofs should be required of such usage. If however the arms then borne are 
notoriously those of another family whose ensigns are recorded at an earlier 
date than the claimant can establish them to have been used by his ancestors a 
distinction might be adopted in such cases, and which, to avoid disputes, should 
be always the same ; whilst the fee ought not to be a tithe of the expense of a 
grant. By this practice we are convinced the funds of the College would be 
materially benefited, and justice would be rendered to many families who now 
join the common herd in abusing an institution which, whether from its in- 
nate respectability or the private characters and high literary attainments of a 
large majority of its members, merits an elevated place in public esteem. 

It is singular that this letter is not inserted in Mr. Hampers' recent Col- 
lection of Dugdale's Correspondence, but from a note to p. 367 it seems that 
the editor unfortunately trusted to the opinion of some friend on its merits, 
who reported that it and some others, of which we shall give extracts, ' were 
merely on business connected with his heraldic visitations/ he being probably 
totally ignorant of its great value in illustration of the subject which has induced 
us to insert it, though it is otherwise of at least equal importance to many 
which occur in that volume. 


Lansdown MS. 870 [fo. 88] 


I did receive your letter, dated May 3Oth, with that sume of zL 5/. which 
was from Sir Miles Stapleton, of Weighill, since which I wrote you by the 
post to let you know so much. As for Mr. Raynes, 1 if I can find anything 
in our books at the office to justifye the arms you drew with his descent, I will 
do it ; but I have allready perused some books and can find nothing out ; 
therefore it will be requisite that he do look over his own evidences for some 
seals of arms, for perhaps it appears in them ; and If so and that they have used 
it from the beginning of Queen ERzabeth's reigne, or about that time, I shall then 
allowe thereof, for our directions are limiting us so to do, and not a shorter prescription 
of usage. 

I hear nothing as yet from your brother at Newcastle as to those descents, 
and the money which he promised to send before the end of this last term. I 
think I shall not go from hence before tomorrow fortnight. 

Having an opportunity and this bearer, I have now sent you a trick of the 
arms which are entered in my visitation of Yorkshire, wherein you will see 
which are not yet proved ; such other as I shall enter, I shall send you a trick 
of hereafter. 

I pray you present my most hearty service to worthy Sir Thomas Herbert ; 
here is nothing of concequence to impart to him, otherwise I would hare 
written to him myself, so wishing you good health, I rest, 

Your affectionate friend, 


LONDON, 15 Junii, 1668. 

Let us first see what Dugdale does. He blows to atoms 
the ridiculous pretence that c Arms are good or they are bad 
as they are recorded or unrecorded/ 2 For he is ready, on 
evidence of user, to c allow ' arms of which he could find no 
trace at the college. He further tells us what c X ' was c utterly 
unable ' to discover, namely the c prescription of usage ' re- 
quired to give a right to recognition. The c Agincourt ' myth 
goes by the board, and we discover that the < needful period 
of usage ' was under a hundred years \ Again, he writes after 
the third and last visitation, 3 a fact which forms a pleasing 
comment on c X's ' reckless assertion : 

It is a safe conclusion that after the end of the third Visitation the whole 
of England had been swept clean, and that every coat of arms continuously in 
use, properly or improperly, during the period 4 had been by then either 
allowed or condemned. Since the Visitations it has been absolutely impossible 

1 See for this family Poulson's Holdemess, ii. 45, 270. 

2 The Right to Bear Arms, p. 108. 

3 That of Yorkshire by himself in 1665-6 (see Dr. Marshall's Notes on the 
Visitations). Horsley was a herald-painter at York. 

4 Reckoned at 1580-1666 on p. 87. 


to obtain, and utterly useless to put forward, any prescriptive right to arms 
whatsoever. 1 

c And yet,' in his elegant phrase, 'there are some silly fools' 
who take this trash for gospel. 3 

We have now heard what Dugdale has to say as to the 
c insane ' idea that c prescription of usage ' can confer a right 
to the recognition of a coat of arms. We are vehemently 
assured by Mr. Fox-Davies that the officers of the college are 
' the sole authority upon matters of arms/ 3 Of these officers 
the chief is Garter ; and of all Garters the most famous, beyond 
doubt, is Dugdale. If then it comes to weighing authorities, 
we may say that Dugdale's relative position to c X ' or Mr. 
Fox-Davies is as Rudyard Kipling, we think, has said of 
an admiral's relation to a middy 'that of the Almighty to 
a blackbeetle.' 

It is a matter for plain speaking when families of social 
position, whose arms would be sanctioned by Dugdale himself, 
require, in the words of C X,' to be insulted c in black and 
white,' or are denounced by Mr. Fox-Davies as e bogus pre- 
tenders ' for using them. The readers of 'The Ancestor at least 
will now be able to gauge, in ' the light of Dugdale's words, 
the value 'of this bluster. All this wild denunciation of 
c bogus ' and c illegal ' coats, all these silly attempts to cast 
dust in our eyes, cannot i obscure the grim fact that, if they 
enjoy the c prescription of usage ' given by a user of a hundred 
years, they would be recognized by Dugdale as valid. 

The quibble that such arms were valid c not by virtue or 
such usage, but on the strength of their being recorded, or 
of their confirmation at the visitations,' 4 although it is made 
the most of by c X,' is merely tantamount to saying that the 
whole trouble is caused by the heralds themselves repudiating 
their own historic practice and encroaching on the right con- 
ferred by c user.' If they admitted that right, as we have 
seen they used to do, they would record and confirm such 
arms at the present day as can show c prescription of usage.' 
The principle at stake is precisely the same now as in Dug- 
dale's day, namely that a certain period of usage gives to arms 
for which no original grant by the Crown o? its officers can be 
shown a valid right to recognition. This principle, as is well 
known, is still acted on in Ireland. 

1 The Right to Bear Arms, p. 108. 2 Ibid. p. 163. 

3 Armorial Families, p. xxx. 4 The Right to Bear Arms, p. 99. 


Ulster Kings of Arms have had the power (and have continually and con- 
tinuously exercised it) of confirming by patent arms which have been in use, but 
for which usage no sufficient legal l sanction or authority can be shown. Whether 
or not the required length of usage has always been the same I am unable to 
say, but at the present time Ulster King of Arms will issue a confirmation, 
under his hand and seal, to any one within his jurisdiction, of any arms in use 
when these can be shown to have been continuously borne for at least three 
generations, or else for at least one hundred years. 2 

Here we have the very same period, roughly speaking a 
century, as that required by Dugdale to confer by c prescription 
of usage ' a right to confirmation. Why then cannot the 
College of Arms revert to its own former practice, which not 
only still prevails in Ireland, but is actually praised by c X ' 
himself ? 3 We do not even suggest that it should only require 
proof of user for a century or for three generations. Let it, 
if it likes, make the period half as long again. A proved 
c user * of a century and a half or of five generations would, 
in our opinion, be a fair limit, and we would call attention to the 
point that it would not dissuade a novus homo from taking out 
his grant, as no man would adopt a coat for himself if his family 
could only secure its confirmation a century and a half hence ! 

That such a reform would greatly strengthen the position 
and authority of the college needs no demonstration. It would 
not only enlist the sympathy and support of families of estab- 
lished social position who now look on it, with much justice, 
as catering only for the novus homo, but it would enable it, with 
a better grace and with infinitely more chance of success, to 
insist upon all arms receiving the cachet of its sanction and to 
suppress the widespread c pirating ' of arms, to which, as inflict- 
ing a wrong on individuals rather than on itself, it seems so 
strangely indulgent. Indeed, it may fairly be said that the 
man who usurps the arms of a family with which he has no 
connexion actually receives at its hands more favourable treat- 
ment than he who inherits or adopts a coat distinct from any 
other. For the former, as has often been pointed out, is 
actually encouraged in his imposture by granting him a coat 
closely resembling that which he has wrongfully usurped. 
* But that is another story ' to which we may have to recur. 

1 i.e. official ; law has nothing to do with the matter. 

2 The Right to Bear Arms, p. 153. 

3 'The fees upon a confirmation amount to very little . . . That this 
opportunity of confirmation exists in Ireland for those within the jurisdiction 
of Ulster King of Arms, I think cannot be too widely known or taken advan- 
tage of, etc.' (ibid. pp. 157, 158). 



OUT of the records of the court of Star Chamber we 
draw Richard Barker of Hoo next East Dereham in 
Norfolk. The artless tale of Richard's gentility, and how it 
fared under the hands of twelve Norfolk jurymen may serve to 
carry a stage further the inquisition into the meaning and value 
of this our word c gentleman,' to which Sir George Sitwell has 
held us so searching a lantern. A moving story, too, as it 
unfolds itself in the best legal English of the Hundred of 

Our first scene shall be laid in the village of Hoo. It is 
the twenty-third of October in the thirty-fourth year of King 
Henry VIII., of * most dread memory,' as with some reason 
the scriveners of later reigns described that hasty-tempered 
sovereign, and the first document of our bundle is the bill 
of complaint of Richard Barker, c gentylman.' His complaint 
does not want for force and clearness, although for the seasoned 
student of such ' bills ' the suspicion that we have here but 
one side of a case springs up and marches with the reading. 
One Thomas Warner of East Dereham, yeoman, the baily of 
Launditch Hundred, was in Hoo on that October day. To 
him came Christopher Spurne, labourer, Robert Pedder, 
Richard Harecroft and some eight others who c in ryottouse 
maner assembeled to the seyde Thomas Warner as to theyre 
pryncypall capteyne wyth staves and clobbes.' With great 
force and arms riotously so assembled did they enter in at the 
gate adjoining the mansion place of Richard Barker and made 
a great assault and affray upon the said Richard ; and Thomas 
Warner, that ungentle baily, with a staff which he had in his 
hands, beat and wounded Anne, the wife of Richard Barker, 
so grievously that she was put in great danger of her life. A 
perilous example, says Richard Barker the gentleman, to the 
other riotous and misruled persons in like case offending 
against the king's peace. 

It is in the nature of Star Chamber suits that such a bill 
should be countered with a sweeping traverse. The good 
baily of Launditch is ready enough with his answer. He 
exhibits the due surprise of a man injured shamefully and 



unawares : the etiquette of these courts asked no less of a 
defendant. Could any answer be needed to a bill so slander- 
ously conceived and manifestly set forth to the only intent and 
purpose to put him to wrongful costs, trouble and expenses 
without good or just ground or cause ? So much of the answer 
we may imagine the practised scrivener will have set upon the 
broad parchment whilst the baily is choosing his first words. 
For the declaration of the truth the baily braces himself to 
answer the slander. 

He is in no manner guilty. The sovereign lord to whom 
bill and answer are addressed will remember that on the day 
of the affray, according to the king's own commandment, 
general processions were made through the whole diocese of 
Norwich, as through other dioceses, for the preservation and 
prosperous proceedings of the King's Grace's army then 
entered into Scotland, to which processions, by the way, we 
may no doubt attribute the rout of the Scots at Solway Moss 
in the month following. The defendant had left his house to 
go in procession, being, as he recalls, in that state of almost 
unnatural innocence peculiar to defendants, and also in God's 
peace and the king's. In such meet mood for works of piety 
he is going down by the king's highway towards the parish 
church of Hoo, alone, without any manner of weapon, when 
he casts his eye upon the yard of the slanderous Barker, and 
there c sees and perceives ' twenty-four of his own cattle which 
have no manner of business in Barker's yard. The baily's 
dovelike humour, mark you, is in no wise broken by the 
sight. In right peaceable manner he enters the yard and 
called to the complainant, <axyng him how his cattel came 
into his yard.' There is no sufficient answer from Barker, 
who disappears into his house in great haste, and therefore 
the baily goes toward the cattle to drive them away, and here 
for the first time he has occasion to speak of that staff or club 
so feelingly alluded to by the injured Anne Barker. In Thomas 
Warner's word it becomes a light thing, a mere switch, a little 
rod, and we may wonder how the famous stone, described by 
a prosecutor's witness as c the size of a lump of chalk,' was 
measured by the witnesses for the defence. With this innocent 
twig he is urging his cattle from the yard, when Richard Barker, 
whom we take for a man of deeds rather than of words, re- 
appears in his doorway with his bent bow in hand and looses 
an arrow at the baily. Thomas Warner is careless of his 



reputation for courage : he confesses that he was c astonished,* 
and admits that he wente and conveyed hymself in all the 
haste that he myghte oute of the daunger of eny more 
shotyng.' But another danger was close at his back. Anne 
Warner, forgetting that reserve of manner which should adorn 
the wife of a c gentylman,' came suddenly upon him, and c wyth 
a grette ironne malle gave hym a grette stroke in the nekke,' 
so that he was like to have fallen to the ground. The worm 
turns Thomas Warner's innocent processional humour fails 
him for a moment. We can sympathize but cannot excuse, 
when, perceiving that the said Anne would have stricken him 
again, he did strike the said Anne upon the shoulders with the 
< sweye ' that he had in his hand to drive the cattle. This is 
the end of the affray, protests the baily. The other defendants 
come up, weaponless and innocent as himself, and Christopher 
Sporne, his servant, drives the cattle away without more hind- 
rance from the unneighbourly family of the Barkers. 

With Thomas Warner, with the twenty-four cattle and with 
the grievous injuries suffered by Anne Barker's shoulders, we 
have no more concern, although doubtless it is an action arising 
out of the affray of Barker's yard which Thomas Warner brings 
against Richard Barker at Norwich before the justices of the 
King's Bench that same Michaelmas term. 

Our next document is another bill of complaint in the 
Court of Star Chamber set forth by Richard Barker, gentle- 
man. Thomas Warner in bringing his action at Norwich 
named him by the name of c Richard Barker of Hoo next 
Estderham yoman,' unto which the complainant made answer 
that at the time of such action c he was gentleman and so ever 
sythens called, reputed and taken,' and so traversed the matter. 
Thereupon Barker and Warner were at issue, and a jury was 
summoned to appear. This jury, we may note, was summoned 
from the classes of gentry and yeomen, the names of the panel 
being as follows : William Lambe, gent., Hugh Hastynges, 
gent., Edmund Dogett, gent., William Smalpece, gent., Edmund 
Gogney, William Cook, Richard Wright, John Hobson, Robert 
Seman, Nicholas Barham, William Spany and Thomas Cowper. 
To this jury the complainant, in his own opinion, showed 
sufficient and lawful matter, as well of record as otherwise, 
to prove his case, but the jury, alas ! nothing regarding their 
oath nor the evidence before them, gave their verdict c that the 
said Richard Barker was yoman and not gentleman,' and this, 


as Richard protests, contrary to all truth, right and conscience. 

Follows then the answer of William Lambe, gentleman, 
and his fellow jurymen. Their twelve minds, it is needless to 
say, are agreed that the bill is to the only intent to put them 
to wrongful suit, vexation, troubles, costs and expenses, and 
for none other cause. 

For an answer they admit that in Michaelmas term, 1542, 
Thomas Warner named the complainant as c yoman,' and that 
they were empanelled to try out whether this addition was a 
true one. The complainant's case for his gentility and their 
reasoning upon this case are then set forth by them at length, 
and the account is certainly of the rarest interest to all who are 
studying English social history of this time when the old order 
was stubbornly making way for the new. 

The complainant gave in evidence these matters following : 

First, he rehearsed that long before the suit he was servant 
to the late Duke of Buckingham since attainted of high 
treason and was steward of his courts. 

To this the jury reply that they assuredly knew that the 
said Richard Barker was never servant nor attendant upon the 
said duke, neither was he steward of his courts. It seems pos- 
sible that had Richard proved such service the jurymen might 
have given some weight to the contention, for such service 
was at that time generally reckoned the service of a gentleman 
and an honourable one. But the alleged falsity of the plea 
was enough, and it is determined to be no proof of the issue. 

Secondly, Richard Barker urged that he must needs be a 
gentleman, for that he had married the sister of Sir Walter 
Luke, knight, late deceased. Of this match we have no proof, 
although it was doubtless as Richard Barker states, and the jury 
does not question the fact. Nothing is known of the origin 
of Sir Walter Luke. His name is a rare one in Norfolk, and 
he was a new man, the heralds' pedigree of his family begin- 
ning with himself and ignoring his sister Anne, the wielder of 
the iron mall. He advanced himself in the world by a judicious 
marriage with Anne, the heir of John Launceleyn of Launceleyn 
in Cople, a Bedfordshire squire. This lady had been the nurse 
of Henry VIII., from whom she had divers life annuities out 
of the Exchequer. Her husband became a judge of the King's 
Bench, being knighted in August of the year before the affair 
of Barker's yard, and may be allowed some share of fame as 
the ancestor of Sir Samuel Luke, the c valiant Mamluke ' of 


Butler's epic. He died in 1544, which gives us a point for 
dating these undated Star Chamber proceedings, and lies with 
his wife under a brass. But, brother-in-law of Richard Barker 
or no, the alliance weighed nothing with William Lambe and 
his judicious fellows c the which matter these defendants little 
esteem ' for that the marriage had by the said complainant 
with a gentlewoman could not make him a gentleman. 

At the third and last proof of gentility produced by 
Richard Barker our attention is stayed. His last card was 
without doubt played with a certain assurance. Richard 
Barker was a gentleman because c the heroldes at armes of 
thys realme had grawnted and gyven unto hym armes that 
ys to saye a hunde barkyng stondyng in a shyld of \blanK\S 
Here was a question for a jury box, with four country gentle- 
men in the front bench. The heralds at arms of this realm 
were busily putting about their novel doctrine that gentility 
went not by the birth, rank or standing of a man, but was a 
condition of the blood of the bearers of such shields of arms 
as were recognizable in the scanty registers of the Heralds 
Office. Above all, the new doctrine insisted that gentility was 
a purchasable thing, which might however be bought only of 
the heralds at arms, who would sell it c good chepe.' In Richard 
Barker then we have a purchaser of such c tokens of gentility,' 
the warranty for which he brings confidently into court. Mark 
how his new purchase, the c hound barking,' is viewed by the 
old gentry whom it should make his loving fellows. 

The first impression which this impressive document makes 
upon the jury is, sooth to say, a mirthful one c the which con- 
ysaunce althowe yt myght perchaunce bryng to remembraunce 
the name of Barker yet the said defendauntes as men not 
sene in blasyng of armes dyd gyve therby ther jugement the 
said compleynant shuld have rether ben made a esquier then 

Putting their heavy Norfolk wit aside the jury debate the 
evidence. They remember of their own knowledge that the 
father of the said complainant all his life exercised for the 
sustentation of his living the mystery and occupation of * a 
turner of bollys and maker of treen dysshes ladelles and 
potledes.' His ancestors also, his uncles, brethren and kins- 
folk, although they were right honest poor folks, yet none of 
them ever enterprised the name or degree of a gentleman, and 
were contented to be taken and reputed of the common poor 


sort. The complainant, to the mind of the jury, for the con- 
tinuance of his living was not like to be compared to the 
leading of the estate of a gentleman, nor yet to the honest 
sort of a yeoman. On these considerations the jury grounded 
their verdict, for the further justifying of which they add that 
divers were present at the verdict that did believe that the 
father of the said complainant did gain more in one year by 
his unfeigned mystery of a c boiler ' than the said complainant 
hath done in half his life by his usurped name of gentleman. 

Because of the great destruction of the books of the Court 
of Star Chamber we can never learn the result of Richard 
Barker's suit against the jury, but here, arising out of a chance 
medley of neighbours, we have this precious record of the 
opinion of twelve men of the middle rank concerning the 
social value of the purchase of a shield of arms. Their 
opinion may outweigh in value a thousand of the preposterous 
claims which the bemused pedants were beginning to make 
for the objects of their worship, claims which would be eagerly 
welcomed when a new nobility then upspringing from obscurity 
should be glad to recognize in their new shields a definition 
of their gentleness not to be gainsaid. 

Here at least we have the findings of common sense and 
equity. This Barker, reasons the jury, is known to us all. 
His claim to have been steward of a duke's manor is a lying 
story. That the brother of scolding Anne Barker, for whom 
the cuckingstool waits, has married the king's nurse, and is a 
judge and a knight therefore, is not to the purpose. Sir 
George Sitwell, a knight and baronet who shall come after 
us, will show that our fathers reckoned a man a gentleman 
if he were of free birth. It may be so ; for us a gentleman 
is at the least one to be recognized as such, one who in his 
port and carriage, in his estate and manner of living, is known 
for a gentleman. This Barker comes of the baser sort, and 
we do not perceive that he has bettered his father's condition. 
To what purpose then does he flourish before us the coloured 
ticket of a boughten coatarmour, and how shall such a matter 
change his manifest rank which is barely a yeoman's. There- 
fore this Barker is no gentleman, as we stand by our verdict, 
let his hound bark never so loudly. 

What more reasonable verdict could be found were another 
such jury empanelled to-day on such a plea of an Armorial Gent ? 



A CURIOUS point of heraldry contributes to the darkness 
which veils the Cowrie conspiracy of August 5, 1600. 
William, Earl of Cowrie, on May 4, 1584, was charged, among 
other offences, as c challenging that honour to be of his High- 
ness's (the King's) blood,' to which he merely replied that he 
was c as near in sibness ' as his accuser, the Earl of Arran 
(James Stewart, a Stewart of Ochiltree). 1 There was clearly 
some royal jealousy about this claim of royal kindred. Cowrie 
was the husband of Dorothea Stewart, a daughter apparently 
of Henry Stewart, Lord Methven, third husband of Margaret 
Tudor, wife of James IV. It is impossible that Dorothea, Lady 
Cowrie, should have been the daughter of Margaret Tudor, 
but it has been conjecturally suggested that she was really the 
daughter, not of Henry Stewart, Lord Methven, by a later 
marriage, but of a son of his by Margaret Tudor, a son 
who fell at Pinkie. King James' obvious relationship to the 
Ruthvens was on the side of his father Darnley, whose grand- 
father was Archibald, Earl of Angus, while the Cowrie who 
was executed in 1584 was James' first cousin. But if this 
first Earl of Cowrie's wife was really of Tudor blood, her 
son, the Cowrie who fell in the Cowrie conspiracy of 1600, 
was of kin in that way to James and to Elizabeth. Some such 
idea may have aroused ambition in so young a man, only 
twenty-two at his death. 

Now on June 22, 1609, Ottavio Baldi, from Venice, wrote 
to the English Government about a curious device which this 
young Cowrie, John, third earl, had placed in a dancing school 
in Padua, while a student in that university (1594-7). Baldi's 
letter was forwarded to the king by Sir Henry Wotton, and 
was copied from the Venice papers in the Record Office by 
Father Stevenson, SJ. It is published in Hill Burton's History 
of Scotland, vi. 135, 136, note i (1870). Baldi says that he 

1 MS. Cotton, Caligula, c. viii. fol. 24^. Printed in Papers concerning 
the first Earl of Cowrie. (Taylor & Co., London, 1867.) 


has received from Sir Robert Douglas <a strange relique/ 
which he is sending to the king. Sir Robert, in Padua, met 
a brother Scot, to whom he said that when in Scotland he had 
heard talk of { a certain emblem or impresa,' left by Gowrie 
in Padua. Sir Robert had a clansman, perhaps a kinsman, 
Archibald Douglas, who was a fellow student of Gowrie in the 
Law Faculty of that university, where there were several other 
Scots, among them a Ker of Newbattle. This we know from 
the lists of the Anglo-Scottish c nation ' at Padua. One of 
these students, Archibald Douglas or another, would talk at 
home about Cowrie's c emblem.' Sir Robert found it in c the 
public school of a dancer,' had it copied, and c by well handling 
the matter,' left the copy in the school and stole the original ! 
This original Baldi sends to the king. Baldi writes : c Thus 
hath your Majes'ty now a view in umbra of those detestable 
thoughts which afterwards appeared in facto, according to the 
said Earl's own mot* 

This implies that the Scottish student of Padua, who carried 
home news of the earl's emblem, also repeated a mot of the 
earl on the subject. The emblem expressed in umbra an idea. 
Baldi goes on : c For what other sense or allusion can the 
reaching at a crown with a sword in a stretched posture, and 
the impersonating of his device in a black-a-more, yield to any 
intelligent and honest beholder ? ' 

What, indeed ! Had the emblem been a recognized part 
of the armorial bearings of the House of Ruthven, then the 
person who brought home tidings of it and Sir Robert Douglas 
himself would have known the fact and seen nothing remark- 
able in Cowrie's conduct. He might blamelessly hang up his 
family arms anywhere. But was this figure, or anything like 
it, part of the arms of the House of Ruthven ? On this point 
I consulted Sir James Balfour Paul, Lyon King, who kindly 
answered as follows : 

DEAR MR. LANG, March 25, 1902. 

If you will look at vol. i. ot Stodart's Scottish Arms, in the additions to 
Sir David Lindsay's MS. (probably made about 1580-90), you will there find 
the arms of the Earl of Gowrie bearing a shield with Ruthven, Cameron and 
Habburton thereon quarterly, within a Royal Tressure, and supported by a ram 
on the dexter, a goat on the sinister. On the outside of the dexter supporter is 
the figure you want. He is hardly a black-a-more, only a somewhat ill-favoured 
man-at-arms, clad in blue armour, a baldric of twisted black and white stuff 
over the left shoulder, and a short skirt to his doublet or cuirass (it is not clear 
where the plate armour ends), with the Ruthven pallets and the Cameron bars 


impaled. His left hand grasps the belt of his sheathed sword and his right is 
extended above his head ; out of his mouth comes a scroll with the words 
TIBI SOLI ; a crown hangs in the air some distance above his head. 

In an old MS. I have in this office, commonly but erroneously called 

* Workman's MS.,' there is a representation of the arms with exactly the same 
figure, drawn indeed I should think by the same hand. Below the arms are 
the words : 'The 5 th of August 1060 [sic for 1600] John Earl of Gowrie 
Committed treason to murder his prince who praised be God was disapoynted 
and slayne by Sir John Ramsay. The coat is scored out in this book, it being 
then a Register which is to be seen.* 

The book really belonged to Sir Robert Forman, who was Lyon at that 
time. If it was his official register it is but a sorry production. 

I can't explain this man-at-arms ; and I don't know any other instance of 
a third figure in an achievement appearing in addition to the supporters. 

Yours sincerely, 


The figure thus described, so oddly introduced beside one 
of the supporters, does not answer exactly to Baldi's account 
of John, Earl of Cowrie's device erected at Padua, and in 
Baldi's hands when he wrote. That c emblem,' if correctly 
described, is more menacing and ambitious. The figure 

* reaches at the crown with a sword.' But when and how did 
this odd addition of the man with the crown in air above his 
head find its way into the Gowrie arms ? It was clearly added 
by the young Gowrie of the conspiracy (1600). 

Mr. Bruce, in Papers relating to William^ first Earl oj 
Gowrie (pp. 51, 52), cites a paper in the possession of 
Colonel Stepney - Cowell. It is a deed of February 28, 
1583-4, dated at Perth, by which William, first Earl of 
Gowrie, surrenders into the king's hands his estates, in 
favour of his eldest son James, later second earl, who died 
in early youth, being succeeded by his brother John, third earl. 
Gowrie reserves a life interest to himself and his wife. At his 
trial in May, 1584, Gowrie pled that his heirs should not be 
forfeited for his treason, because c my sons are in my lands/ In 
fact, in February, 1584, Gowrie was on the verge of his last 
and fatal plot, and was trying to * hedge,' in the matter of 
forfeiture, in case he failed, by handing his estates to his son. 
It was a common trick. 

The point for our inquiry is that the first Earl Cowrie's 
seal appended to this document, which was executed within 
two months of his death, does not y as described by Mr. Bruce, 
include the enigmatic man under an airy crown. c The arms are 


quarterly : i and 4, Ruthven ; 2, Cameron ; 3, Haliburton ; 
all within a double border. The crest is said to be a 
goat's head, issuing out of a crown. The supporters are 
two goats. The motto is DEID SCHAW. The legend is 


Thus the seal was made between 1581-2, when Ruthven 
first obtained the title of Gowrie, and 1584. As no third 
figure beside one of the supporters is mentioned, that appears 
to have been an addition by the young John, third earl. 
What did he mean by the armed man, the air-hung crown 
and the words Fibi Soli ? The seal was exhibited to the Society 
of Antiquaries in 1851. The new device certainly suggests 
the existence of ambitious designs in the young earl, who died 
in his own gallery chamber on August 5, 1601. The report 
brought to Scotland of a mot by the young earl on the subject, 
and the certainty, derived from the records of the University 
of Padua, that a Douglas, a Ker and other Scots of good 
family were fellow-students of Gowrie, and might report the 
mot to Sir Robert Douglas, makes a pretty chain of circum- 
stantial evidence. 

Since writing this note I have learned from my friend, Mr. 
Anderson, of the Register House, Edinburgh, that no Ruthven 
seals, cited in Henry Laing's Scottish Seals, contain the enig- 
matic figure, not even in a seal of 1597. But Crawford, in 
his Peerage of Scotland (1716), p. 166, gives the arms of John, 
Earl of Gowrie, not with the old Deid Scbaw, but with that 
motto Latinized as Facta Probant. The copy in Crawford 
(note C) is c from an authentick copy, richly illuminated in 
the year 1597 ' (when Gowrie was at Padua), and in this work 
of 1597 occurs c a chevalier garnished with the Earl's coat of 
arms, pointing with a sword upwards to an imperial Crown, 
with this device Tibi Soli. J 

All this clearly dates the strange addition in 1597, and 
certainly suggests that Gowrie was entertaining, about the 
time when he reached his majority, some idea connected 
with the Crown. 



TO Mr. T. E. Tomlins is due the credit of tracing, in his 
Perambulations of Islington (1858), the early descent of 
the manor of Newington Barrow, better known to the Lon- 
doners of to-day as Highbury. Basing his conclusions, in the 
modern spirit, on the sure foundation of record evidence, he 
showed that its early owners were the heirs of that c Derman 
of London ' who is found in Domesday holding in chief of the 
king half a hide c in Iseldone ' [Islington], and that this entry 
must therefore represent the manor of Newington Barrow. 

As usual, we are indebted to monastic charters for the first 
stages of the pedigree, which by their help we are enabled to 
establish beyond doubt. We have two charters granted to 
Clerkenwell nunnery by 'Bertramus filius Terrici filii Der- 
mani ' alias c Bertramus filius Theodorici filii Derman/ and 
bestowing on that house 60 acres in c Newetone ' [Newington] 
and 20 in ( Tolesdone ' [Tollington], and a confirmation of 
them by Bertram's son Thomas. Bertram moreover names 
his mother Maud. 1 Thierri the son of Derman was a citizen 
of note forty or fifty years after the date of Domesday. He 
occurs on the Pipe Roll of 1 130 as one of the men of Lon- 
don * who pay for the right of the city to choose its own 
sheriff, 2 and I have discovered him among a number of the 
chief citizens in H37- 3 

Thierri's son Bertram was known both as c Bertramus filius 
Theodorici filii Derman ' and as c Bertramus de Barwe,' which 
latter name I shall explain below. His charter granted, under 
the former name, to the nuns of Clerkenwell is addressed to 
Richard, Bishop of London, and witnessed by Henry of Essex ; 
it was granted between 1151 and 1161, probably very shortly 
after his father's death. 

1 These charters are printed and translated in the Perambulation of Islington 
(pp. 61-4) from Cott. MSS. Faust. B. ii. p. 151 ; Plut. xxv. B. fo. 43. For 
the origin of this and of the other Clerkenwell Priories see my paper in 
jfrcbteo/ogiayVoL 56, pp. 223 et seq. 

2 Rot. Pip. 31 Henry I. p. 148. 

3 The Commune of London and other Studies, pp. 101, 106. 


The succession of Bertram's son Thomas leads me to 
explain the name c Barwe.' With great confidence Mr. 
Tomlins wrote : 

That the descendants cf Dereman of London took the name of Barow 
from the name of their chief possession at the Barrow in Newington is very 
clearly shown by the following entry in that ancient book called Liber A. sive 
PilomSj to which I have before referred (p. 60). 

He also asserted of Highbury manor that 

The manor of Newington Barrow, otherwise Highbury, takes its name 
from lying in that part of Newington distinguished by the Barrow, Camp, or 
Mound that also gave the name to one of its earliest possessors, Bertram of the 
(sic) Barrow, whose descendant, Dame Alice of the (sic) Barrow, gave it to the 
hospital or priory of St. John of Jerusalem in England (p. H5). 1 

The charter pn which Mr. Tomlins relied, and of which he 
printed the text, was again printed, but from the original (and 
with all the witnesses), by Sir Henry (then Mr.) Maxwell- 
Lyte in his Report 2 on the muniments at St. Paul's, and 
assigned by him to '1204-16.' It is a gift by 'Thomas de 
Barwe ' son of c Bertram de Barwe ' to St. Paul's of William 
c nlius Reginaldi de Barwe ' and all his family (sequela). 
William was bound to render a pound of wax yearly for 
the light before the high altar of St. Paul's, and the Report 
speaks of * the man conveyed being perhaps a relation of the 

It is at this point that I take up the story and proceed to 
explain the true origin of the name c de Barwe.' The above 
Thomas de Barwe, son of Bertram, is found making a pre- 
cisely similar grant to the great abbey of St. Edmund's as lord 
of the neighbouring manor of Barrow ( c Barwe '), Suffolk ! 3 
At the prayer of Sampson, its famous abbot, and Walter de 
Banham the sacrist, he gave the abbey c Seuardum de Barwe 

1 The traces ol earthworks at Highbury (Newington) were described by 
Mr. Tomlins on pp. 175-6, but his argument on p. 175 that 'the Saxon 
word Barrow evidently points to some earthwork thrown up and raised either for 
defence or for burial' shows that, having first misunderstood the name, he then 
based an argument upon it. So too on p. 1 80 he observed that ' the affix of 
Barowe to Newington is not without its significance, even if the word Barouuc 
were not merely applicable to the eminence at what was, in later times, called 
High-bury/ this somewhat obscure sentence meaning, we find, that Barowe 
may possibly have been derived from ' its vicinity to the woods.' 

2 Ninth Report Historical MSS. App. i. p. 42*. 

3 Barrow is about four miles west of Bury St. Edmunds. 


filium Alurici le fader cum omnibus catallis suis et cum 
sequela sua,' l and he also gave the abbey the homage and 
service of Robert son of Wimer. 2 Lastly, as Thomas son of 
Bertram de Barwe, he granted land in Barrow to Adam the 
clerk at the request of Richard, parson of Barrow. 3 

The manor of Barrow passed to his heirs, who (unless there 
were two Thomases, father and son) were his daughters Maud 
and Alice. The former married Hamon Passelewe, and a 
charter of hers printed by Gage 4 speaks of her sister Alice 
as her co-heir, and Thomas ' de Barewe juxta Sanctum 
Edmundum ' as her father. It is interesting for students of 
county history to observe that while Mr. Gage was ignorant, 
as he well might be, of the London origin of the lords of 
Barrow, and could therefore only begin their pedigree with 
* Bertram,' Mr. Tomlins, on the other hand, was ignorant of 
Mr. Gage's valuable work, and was consequently quite mis- 


taken as to the identity of 'Barwe,' and ; had no idea of the 
connection of the family with Suffolk. He also > wrote of 
c Alice of Barowe, the last known descendant of Derman ' 
(p. 64). These remarks are only introduced to enforce the 
necessity of keeping one's eyes open to the possible connection 
of a family with more counties than one. We can now con- 

1 The charter is printed in Gage's Tkingpe Hundred (p. i) from the ' Regis- 
trum Sacristae ' at Cambridge. It was executed * coram tota curia mea de 

* Ibid. 3 Ibid. p. xxvi. * Thingpf Hundred, p. 3. 



struct a pedigree of Derman's descendants by combining the 
evidence given in the works of Gage and Tomlins with some 
that was known to neither of them. 

Derman ' of London ' 
held half a hide in 
Islington 1086 

Thierri * son of=Maud 
Derman ' occurs 
on Pipe Roll of 

Bertram * son of Thierri son 
of Derman ' alias l de Barwe ' 
[Barrow] gave land at New- 
ington in Islington to St. 
Mary's Priory, Clerkenwell, 
for soul of hrs father Thierri 

a dau. 1 =William Blemund 
of Blemundsbury 
(now Bloomsbury) 

Thomas de Barwe ' 
(* son of Bertram de 
Barwe ') Lord of 
Barrow, Suffolk, and 
of Newington * Bar- 
row ' in Islington. 
Living temp. John 

William a canon 
of Holy Trinity, 


I. I 

Hamon Passelewe=Maud co- Alice co-= William dc 
Sheriff of Suffolk, I heiress heiress St. Albanc 
i 242-9 

Katherine sole=Sir William Giffard of Wenton, 
heiress I co. Glouc. 


It is clear, from what we have seen, that this London 
family acquired the Suffolk manor of Barrow probably about 
the middle of the twelfth century and took their name from 
it, and that then their Islington manor of Newington derived 
from them in turn its name of Newington c Barrow.' A court 
roll of 1449, according to Mr. Tomlins (p. 229), styles it 
* Newenton Barwe/ Alice de Barrow was supposed by him 
to be the sole heir of Thomas, and he printed the fine of 1271, 
by which Alice gave the nuns of Clerkenwell seven marcs of 

1 * Will. Blemunt prist la suer Bertram de Barue et engendra Will' et Terri * 
(see The Commune of London and other Studies, p. 106). 


rent charged on a tenement which the Priory of the Hospital 
held of her in Newington. Her marriage was not known to 
him or to Mr. Gage, but her husband's name is supplied by 
the Suffolk fines calendared by Mr. Walter Rye. One of 
19 Henry III. (1234-5) shows Hamon Passelewe and Maud 
his wife, William de St. Albans and Alice his wife, dealing 
with land in c Baruhe ' ; and another of the same year men- 
tions William and Alice there (pp. 33, 38). Gage also 
observes that c William de St. Albans and Alice his wife were 
impleaded in 25 Henry III. for impeding Hamon Passelewe 
and Maud his wife from presenting to the living of Barrow. 1 
Maud seems to have inherited the Suffolk property, for she 
had a grant of a fair and market at Barrow, February n, 
51 Henry III. (1267). Alice appears to have had Newington. 


1 Thingpc Hundred, p. 17 note (From Rot. Cur. Reg. 25 Henry III. m. 24 



AN examination of the various documents relating to the 
coronations of the Tudor sovereigns shows very clearly 
that the state of crystallization as regards the ceremonial and 
ornaments which began to set in early in the fifteenth century 
had become chronic by the end of it, and so continued into 
the sixteenth century. 

Although no detailed accounts of the coronations ot 
Henry VII. qr Henry VIII. seem to have survived, the 
document or order known as the Little Device has been pre- 
served in the case of each king ; 1 but so far as the royal 
ornaments are concerned neither differs substantially from 
that already quoted in connexion with the coronation of 
Richard III., from which they must have been copied. 

This directed the king to be arrayed on the day of his 
coronation in two shirts, one of lawn, the other of crimson 
tartaryn, with convenient openings for the anointing, breeches 
and hosen, and a coat or cassock of crimson satin, also with 
openings for the anointing ; and over these other crimson 
robes, consisting of a surcoat, hood and mantle, with a cap of 

For the anointing the king was divested of his outer 
robes as far as the crimson cassock, and then afterwards in- 
vested with the linen gloves, the ' tabard of white tartaryn 
shaped in manner of a dalmatick ' (otherwise the colobium 
sindonis\ the linen coif, the long coat wrought with great 
images of gold (i.e. the tunicle or dalmatic), the hose and 
sandals, the armils and the c pall royal iiij square woven all 
w l golden eagles ' (the pallium regale]. The king was also 
invested with the usual regalia. 

At the end of the service the king was c unarayed of his 
Regalls to his cote and shirte,' and arrayed with hose, sandals, 
and other robes of estate, similar to those in which he walked 

1 The Little Device for Henry VII. 's coronation has been printed in full by 
the Camden Society in vol. 21, The Rutland Papers (London, 1842), and by 
Mr. L. G. W. Legg in English Coronation Records, 219-239. 

6 3 E 


to the church, but purple in colour and of richer material. 
He also wore the crown over the cap of estate and carried the 
sceptres in his hands. 

For the coronations of the three Tudor kings there are 
preserved in the Public Record Office the accounts of the 
emptions and provisions of stuff necessary. These are 
arranged somewhat differently from those for Richard III.'s 
coronation, the materials bought being set down separately, 
with the prices and the cost of the making. They are there- 
fore more tedious to quote. As moreover one substantially 
follows the precedent of the other, their stereotyped character 
renders them less interesting, and for that reason it may 
suffice to refer to the accounts for Henry VI I. 's coronation x 
as typical of the series. 

They record the purchase for i os. of a piece of sipers 2 for 
the king's shirt and of three yards of crimson sarcenet at 
3^. 8^/. for the second shirt, and is. for the making of * a 
cote of crymsyn satyn lyned w* white fustian/ The king's 
breeches and girdles are only incidentally mentioned. To 
wear over these in the procession from Westminster Hall to 
the church there were provided c a long mantelle w l a trayne 
of crimsin saten furred w* menever ' with a hood, kirtle and 
cap of estate of the same material. The cost of 22 \ yards 
of the satin was 22 los. The robe or mantle had a mantel- 
lace of crimson silk and three buttons. The cap of estate was 
adorned with gold, and surmounted by a button and silk 

To the vestments put on the king after his anointing we find 
reference in c iij quarter of an elle holaunde clothe for gloves for 
the King ' and c a elle holaunde clothe for a coif for the King ' ; 
for the making of c ij dalmatikes one of crymsyn saten the 
other of white sarsinet,' the latter being the colobium sindonis ; 
for the cloth of gold for the king's c sabatons ' and the crimson 
silk for lining them ; for * Riban of venys gold for the Kinges 
gloves and his Sabatons,' and c riche corsse of gold for girdels 
for the Kinges swerdes and for his Spurres.' 

Neither the armils nor the Dallium regale, or c pall royal iiij 

1 These accounts have been twice printed : firstly by the Rev. W. 
Campbell in his Materials for a History of the Reign of Henry VII. , Rolls Series 
60 (London, 1873 and 1877), " 3~ 2 9 > an ^ a & a * n by Mr. Legg in English 
Coronation Records, 198-2 1 8. 

2 = Cypress, or fine lawn. 



square woven all w l golden Egles,' can be identified, probably 
owing to their being those known as St. Edward's, which were 
kept with the rest of the regalia. 

The cost of the purple velvet mantle, etc. directed by the 
Little Device to be worn by the king on his return from the 
church is set forth in detail. The 27 J yards of velvet required 
for the mantle, hood, kirtle, c surcot overt ' and cap of estate 
cost ^55, and 20 J yards of purple velvet c for performing of 
the same' 17 is. %d. The mantle is described as c a longe 
mantelle of purpull velvet with a trayne furred w' Ermyns 
powdred.' The mantellace was of gold and silk, and three 
buttons were provided for it. The cap of estate was garnished 
with cloth of gold ; it had a button which cost 135. 4^., and 
the tassell of Venice gold for the * grete boton ' cost 45^. 

The account *also includes the purchase from John Smith, 
armourer, of c a Swerde w l a poynte price viijs a other Swerde 
w* a poynte price vjs viijd ij other swerdes w'oute poyntes 
called Curtana price the pece vjs viijd xiijs iiijd . . . xxviijs. 
Item for garnysshing of a Swerde xijd.' Elsewhere in the 
account are charges for cloth of gold for the sword scabbards. 

Sir J. Charles Robinson, F.S.A., has in his possession a 
magnificent English state sword, which may be one of those 
referred to in this account, and possibly that wherewith the 
king was girded. The hilt, which is plated with gold, is of 
the second half of the fourteenth century, and has on one 
side of the flattened circular pommel an enamelled shield of 
the royal arms, France ancient and England quarterly^ on a 
ground of green enamel, and on the other a relic, apparently 
a piece of some woven stuff 7 , enclosed under a clouded agate. 
The plain surfaces of the pommel and quillons are ornamented 
by small gold cinquefoils or roses in low relief. The blade 
is clearly of the time of Henry VII., and has on one side a 
Tudor rose within the Garter with a crowned portcullis above, 
and on the other faint traces of another rose also within the 
Garter. The mottoes are in black letter. As this is a state 
sword the pendants of the Garters are properly turned towards 
the hilt, so that the badges are the right way up when the 
sword is borne point upwards. 

The wardrobe accounts for the coronation of Henry VIII. 
are followed in the manuscript by an interesting list of the 
things to be provided. This list, which should have preceded 
the accounts, is entitled : 


The abbrigement of the precedent of the Coronacion of the moste excellent 
prince King Henry the viij* solempnyed at Westmynster the Sonday being 
Midsomerday the xxiiij day of June the first yere of his Reigne and of Quene 
Kateryn his Wyf. 

The list so closely follows the language of the Little Device, 
from which it was evidently compiled, that there is no need 
to repeat it. It contains however one item not found in the 
other lists of the king's ornaments : 

Item a Cap of blacke velvet for the fillyng of the Crowne and an other of 
blak Satyn for to sitte strayte uppon his hed under that to be delivered to hym 
by the seid maister of the grete warderobe. 

Of Henry VIII.'s regalia there has been preserved a 
minute account of his crown imperial, the bracelets, the rod 
with the dove, another rod, and the orb or sceptre with the 
cross, in an inventory of the master of the king's iewels taken 
on I4th February, 12 Henry VIII. (1520-1) i 1 

Furste the kingis crowne of golde the Bordour garnisshed with Six Balacys 
ffyve Saphures fyve pointed Diamoundys twanty Rubyes xix pearlys and iiij 
Collettis the Balacys with the king 

And one of the crosses of the same Crowne garnisshed with a greate Saphure 
an Emerade Crased iiij Balacys and ix pearlis not all of a sorte 

Item on the left side of the same Crosse a Floure de luce set w* an ymage 
of Cryste with a great Balace Brooken a less Balace a poynted dyamounde two 
pearlis and the Collet where a fayre Balace stode and a crampon where the 
pearle stode. the Balace and the pearle w* the king 

and next that a nother Crosse w* a course saphure iiij course balacys a tayre 
litle Emerade a lozenged Diamonde like a harte a ruby viij perlis and a crampon 
where the pearle stode the pearle w* the king 

and next that another Floure de luce sett w* a saunte George a fayre balace 
a poynted Diamounde and thre perlis a collett where a Balace stode The Balace 
with the king in oon leaf And of the other leaf both collett and Balace with 
the king 

and next that Another Crosse w* a large Round Saphure iiij Balacys iiij 
perlys and a Collett the emerade w* the king and v crampons the pearlis w* 
the king 

and next that an other flour de luce set with our ladyes ymage and hir 
childe a Balace a poynted Diamonde thre pearlis and two Collettis The 
Balace w fc the king 

and next that a nother Crosse set w* two Saphures iiij balacys viij pearlis 
and a crampon where the pearle stode, The pearle w* the king 

And next that an other flour de luce set w 1 an ymage of Cryste a Balace a 
poynted Diamonde thre pearlis and ij colletis The balace w* the king 

1 The list was printed from the original MS. in the possession of the 
Duke of Portland, signed by the King himself, by the late Bishop Trollope in 
Associated Architectural Societies' Reports and Papers (1883), xvii. 1 5 8, 1 59. It is 
here reprinted in paragraph form for greater clearness. 


and next that an other Crosse set w t a course Saphure iiij balacys ix pearlis 

and a Collett The Emerade w* the king 

And next that an other flower Deluce sett w* an ymage of Criste w* a 

Balace a Smalle poynted Diamounde thre pearlis and two Collettys th Balace 

w* the king 

Item oon the Diademe above twelf poynted diamoundys some better then 

the other thre Tryangled diamoundys oon table diamounde and xxviij pearlis 

two in a troche 

poysaunt to gidders iiii xx> x oz d 

Item a payer of Braslettis garnissid w* vj balacys not fyne vj Bigge course 

pearlis moche of a Sort And v lesser pearlis of a sorte waiyng to gidders w* ij 

blak poyntis vij oz d 

Item a Septour of golde w* a Dove theruppon waiyng . xij oz 

Item a Rodde of Golde waiyng iij oz d d qrt 

Item a Rounde Balle with a Crosse of gold waiyng .... xvij oz d 

From the description of the crown it is clear that around 
the border or circlet were arranged five crosses and as many 
fleurs-de-lis alternately, and that to the latter were affixed small 
images, three representing our Lord, the fourth our Lady and 
Child, and the fifth St. George. From within this coronet 
rose the crossed arches of the crown, here called the diadem, 
and no doubt surmounted by the usual ball and cross. The 
whole crown was richly jewelled, and from the description we 
learn that many of the gems were loose, and in the custody of 
the king himself. 

Of the coronation of Edward VI. we have ample particulars 
in the form and order recorded in the Acts of the Privy 
Council of 1 3th February, 1546-7,* and in two independent 
accounts of the actual ceremony in a manuscript volume be- 
longing to the Society of Antiquaries. 2 As these two accounts 
are substantially the same so far as they furnish us with any 
particulars of the king's coronation ornaments, it will suffice to 
quote the first of them. The king's array on the morning of 
the great day is thus described : 

From Whitehall therefore upon Sunday the xx th of february about 9 * of the 
clock went by water to Westm r . where in the chamber of the augmentation 
court he put on his Robes * viz. a Robe of crimson velvet with a long trayne 
furred withe ermynes. A circot of the same furred with minever, the collar, 
skirtes, and sieve handes garnished with ryband of gold and two tabbardes soe 
theck (?) furred with ermynes * 4 fingars broad * with a whood lykewise furred, 
which were called his parlement Robes wearing on his head a cappe of blacke 

1 J. R.Dasent,^/j0/V^/ J nV); Council of 'England, n.s. ii. (A.D.I 547-50) 29-33. 

2 MS. cxxiii. The volume is not paged. The accounts of the king's 
coronation are at the beginning. 


Just before the anointing the king was 

ledd into his Travers where being disarrayed by his great Chamberlayne was 
clothed with newe array in a cote of crimson sattyn open before, behynd, at 
the shoulders and at the elbowes and a coyfe of gold put on his head. 

After the anointing 

the openinges of his cote and shirt were closte by the Archbishop, putting on 
his handes a payer of Linnen gloves and a Linnen coyfe upon his head brought 
him by the L. great Chamberlayne. He was conveyed thence to his Travers 
where after he had shifted him self into his rich robes he returned to the Altar 
and there offered up his sword that he was gyrt withall which after ward was 
redeemed for v n . 

Then were hallowid the Kinges Regalles and ornamentes and sitting in his 
chayre before the high Altar the L. ArchB. and L. Protector with great Rever- 
ence brought him 3 crownes. 

The first was S- Edwardes crowne. 

The second was the Kinges Imperiall crowne. 

The third a very rich one made pourposely for his grace. 

All which one after another were set upon the Kinges head, and betwene 
the putting on and taking of, of them the Trumpettes soundid. And the 
Quyer began to sing Te Deum & c> and whilst they were singing the Arch 
Bishop put a ring of gold upon his mariage finger. Bracelettes and other 
ieweles were brought by the Master of the iewelhouse. 

The Erie of Shrewsbury delyverid him the sceptre. 

The Arch Bishop of Canterbury gave him S t- Edwardes staft. 

The Erie of Rutland presented the spurres. 

The Duke of Suffolk delyverid the Ball of gold. 

The Erie of Oxford delyverid the Regalles of gold. 

At the conclusion of the service 

he was conducted downe to the high Altar where the Arch Bishop taking of the 
crowne from his head set it on the Altar * and then retyring him selfe into his 
Traverse, his Regalles were delyverid to the Deane of Westm' to be layd also 
upon the Altar. And putting on a Surcott of pourple velvet furred with 
ermines, and a Crowne on his head he retornid unto Westminster hall to 
dinner the Barons of the 5 portes bearing the canapy over him and in the 

same order of proceeding as before. 


The second of the accounts describes the king's appearance 
when he received the homage of his peers : 

settenge in the chayre apparelled in his Royall Robes, havinge his crown 
Imperiall on his hed his Scepter in his Right hande and the ball in his lefte 

The Privy Council form and order mentions the c cote of 
crymesyn satyn ' or cassock worn by the king over his shirt at 
the anointing, and directs that after the imposition of the linen 
gloves c the Archebushope of Canturbury shall put on the King 


a tabert of tartaron white, shaped in manner of a dalmatike ; 
and he shall put apon the Kinges hedde a coif/ There is no 
order for the imposition of the three crowns, but simply that 
the king c shalbe crowned with St. Edwardes Crowne.' 

The imperial crown wherewith King Edward is stated 
above to have been crowned was that of King Henry already 
described, and a detailed account of it, in almost the same 
words, is given in the great inventory of the deceased king's 
jewels made the 2oth of January, 3 Edward VI., and now in the 
library of the Society of Antiquaries. 1 From a comparison of 
the two descriptions it is clear that the crown had undergone 
repair since 1521. Some slight changes seem also to have 
been made in it, for, although it continued to bear the images 
in the fleurs-de-lis of our Lady and St. George, the three other 
figures of Christ are now described as those of kings. The 
weight had also been increased to fourscore and eighteen 
ounces, which may partly be accounted for by the fact that the 
crown now contained c a Capp of purple vellat lyned with 
blacke satten.' 2 This cap was of course the cap of estate be- 
longing to the purple velvet mantle, etc. which the king 
assumed at the end of the coronation service, and he quite 
properly wore it surmounted by or placed within the imperial 
crown. The inventory above mentioned also includes the 
bracelets, etc. but their descriptions and weights are identical 
with those given in 1520-1. 

The same manuscript volume belonging to the Society of 
Antiquaries that contains the accounts of King Edward's 
crowning, also contains an original draft of the form and order 
of Queen Mary's coronation. 

As this was the first occasion in the history of England on 
which a queen-regnant was to be crowned, it is possible that 
some question arose as to the vestments in which the queen 
should be arrayed. But the directions in the draft are some- 
what confusing, and for the actual facts we have to fall back 
upon another authority. 

The queen is directed to go to the abbey church in her 

1 MS. cxxix. f. 7. 

* The accounts for Henry VIII. 's coronation record the purchase of ' a 
yerde of blacke velvet for a bonet with a Tarsse mete for the Kynges hede to 
bere the Sercle of golde,' and of half a yard of black satin * for a faux bonet 
w'in mete for the Kynges hede to bere the Crowne.' It will be noticed that 
Edward VI. wore a cap of black velvet in the procession to the church. 


parliament robes of crimson velvet, as had now become 
customary, and previous to the anointing she is to retire to 
her traverse, which was on the left hand of the high altar, and 
to be unarrayed and unclothed and newly apparelled in crimson 

viz. a robe containing] mantell w tk a trayne a kirtle furred w th wombes 01 
menever a Surcoate a ryban of Venice gold a mantelace of silke and gold w* 
botons and tassells for the same for the Kertill Ixx annellettes of silver and gilte 
and for to lace w* the Kirtells and robes iiij annellettes of silver and gilte in 
w ch robes she shall reseave hir noyntem tes and also thimperiall crowne. 

After the anointing and the putting on of the linen gloves and 
linen coif the queen is again to retire to her traverse to putt 
on her riche robes of crymoysin velvet.' There must how- 
ever be some confusion here, the robes so minutely described 
evidently being those which the queen was to wear in the 
procession to the church, and she certainly could not have 
been anointed in them. For the actual facts it may be worth 
while quoting the evidence of an eye-witness. 

The French ambassador, Antoine, seigneur de Noailles, 
who was present at Mary's coronation in his official capacity, 
records how the queen went from Westminster Hall to the 
abbey church 

vestue d'ung grand manteau de velours cramoisy avec une tres longue queue qui 
luy estoit ported de son chamberland, 1 

but he notes that after the Litany 

sa majeste se retira en ung cabinet prive", & s'estant oste" le manteau & demouree 
en ung corset de velours pourpr, sortit ; 2 

and the anointing done, he says the queen was 

apres vestue d'une robe de taffetaz blanc & d'ung manteau de velours pourpre" 
fourre d'ermine & sans rabbat. 2 

This is certainly more in accordance with precedent, and it is 
interesting to notice that, despite the sovereign being a woman, 
she was invested in the colobium sindonis^ for such the c robe de 
taffetaz blanc ' evidently was. But if we are to believe De 
Noailles, Queen Mary does not seem to have been invested 
with either the tunic or the stole or the pallium regale^ but with 
a purple velvet mantle only over the colobium sindonis. 

1 Ambassades de Messieurs de Noailles en Angleterre. Redige"es par feu M. 
PAbbe" de Vertot (Leyden, 1763), ii. 199. 2 Ibid. 201. 


The French ambassador continues : 

& ainsy de rechef asseoise avecques beaucoup de ceremonies, luy furent pre- 
sentdes toutes les enseignes dictescy dessus que portoient les princes en main, & 
finablement fust couronnee de trois couronnes, & luy demourant la derniere en 
teste. 1 

This crowning of Queen Mary, like her brother, with three 
crowns one after another, c to wite one king Edwardes crowne 
the other the Imperiall crowne of this realme of Englonde the 
thirde a verie riche crowne to be purposelie made for hir 
grace/ is directed to be done in the order, and to be followed 
by the investiture with the ring, the jewelled bracelets c of 
golde and precious stones,' the sceptre, St. Edward's staff, the 
spurs, the ball of gold and the regall of gold. 

To receive the homage of her peers, Mary was to sit 

apparelled in hir roiall robes of crymoysin velvet cont. a mantell w* a trayne 
a circuit 2 w* a kirtle furred w* wombes of mynyver pure a rybend of venice 
gold a mantell lace of silke and gold w* botonnes and tasselles of the same for 
the kirtle Ixx annellettes of silver and gilte and for to lace the Kirtles and robes 
iiij annellettes of silver and gilte. having her crowne Imperiall on her hedde / hir 
Scepter in hir right hand and the ball in hir lefte hand . . . having a paire of 
Sabotons on her feete covred w* crymoysyn clothe of gold lyned withe cremoysin 
satten garnished w* rybend of venice gold. 

Here again there must be some confusion, for the am- 
bassador says clearly that she was finally habited after the 
anointing in a purple velvet mantle and then invested with the 
regalia. Since the fealty and homage followed, there was no 
opportunity for the queen to exchange her robes for the 
crimson velvet suit. 

At the end of the service the order properly directs the 
queen to lay aside c all her regalies,' to be 'uncladde of her 
apparell,' and to be arrayed in the usual robes of purple velvet 
with her crown set on her head, and so to leave the church. 

The coronation of Elizabeth does not seem to have differed 
materially from that of her sister Mary, the order being as 
before, the Latin version of Liber Regalis. From a wardrobe 
account of the necessaries for the coronation, signed by the 
Marquis of Winchester and the Earl of Shrewsbury, 3 we learn 
that besides the queen's parliament robe there were provided a 
kirtle, surcoat, and mantle of crimson velvet furred with ermine, 
and like robes of purple velvet, also furred with ermine, that 

1 Ibid. 20 1. 2 i.e. surcoat. 

3 Public Record Office, Exch. Q. R. Accounts, 429/3. 


is to say c a Kirtle and a Surcote made rounde to the showe 
with tabberd Sleaves and a Mantle with a long trayne/ The 
queen's sabbatons were of c clothe of golde and silver tissue 
with golde and silver ' lined with crimson satin and adorned 
with c Passamnyne Laice of golde and crimson silke/ The 
gloves to be put on her hands after the anointing were c a 
payer of fine gloves knytte w 4 fine whyt threade,' and the coif 
was of c fine camericke with Laces/ The colobium sindoms is 
described as c A Taberde of white sarcennett,' and for it were 
provided five yards of c White Sarcenett for a taburde to be 
putt on the quenes gowne when she is annoynted.' The items 
that follow are : 

(i.) a c Cloke and Cloke bagge,' the former of crimson 
velvet adorned with twisted gold lace, the latter of c clothe of 
golde crimsen with werkes ' ; both were lined with c satten 

(ii.) c a Male ' of crimson velvet striped with gold, orna- 
mented with gold and crimson silk fringe and passamnine lace 
of silk and gold. Another account describes the stuff of the 
male as 'Bawdekyn golde Crimson raised with crimson velvet/ 
(iii.) * a Hatte ' covered with crimson velvet. c The same 
hatte all over embroidered with venice golde and a fewe pirles 
of damaske golde lyned with taphata Tassells and a band of 
silke and golde for the same hatte/ 

There were also provided c a payer of hose of crimson silke 
and golde ' and c Cotton Wolle. To drye upp the oyle aftre 
the quene is annoynted/ 

There were further c to be prepared owte of the Jewel- 
house ' : 

The Sceptre. 

The Rodde. 

The Balle. 

Three Crownes. 

A Ringe. 

A paier oiBracellettes. 
also S t- Edwaraes Spurres. 

S*- Edwardes Staffe. 

The queen was therefore probably crowned with the three 
crowns in succession like her brother and sister. From another 
wardrobe account * we find that c for lyninge the Crowne 
imperiall ' half a yard of purple velvet was provided. 

1 Exch. Q. R. Accounts, 429/4. 


The coronation of James I. was the first at which the ser- 
vice was in English throughout, the old Latin form of Liber 
Regalis having been translated for the occasion. It seems also 
to have been the first at which the wearing of the red silk shirt 
by the king was omitted, although it was provided as usual ; it 
was also omitted at the coronation of Charles I. We have 
this on the authority of Archbishop Laud, who has left a note 
in his own copy of Charles's coronation order, after the rubric 
directing the delivery overnight to the king of c the Tunica, 
or Shirt of Red Silke, open and looped at the Places of 
Anoynting ' : 

This was not worne : And my L : of Winchester A whoe was Dean of 
Westminster when K. Jeames was crowned avowed y l he did not wear it. 
And thear is noe use but for warmth. 2 

After the anointing, in the case of each king, the linen coif 
was put on his head, and then he was arrayed in the colobium 
sindomS) the super-tunica or close pall, the ( Tinsin hose ' and 
the sandals, and the spurs, and after the girding with the 
sword with the armill and the mantle or close pall. Lastly, he 
was crowned, but with one crown only, and not with three 
successively, as in the case of Edward, Mary and Elizabeth, 
and invested with the ring and gloves, the sceptre with the 
cross, and the rod with the dove. 

Although, as will appear presently, one of the crowns 
used at the coronation of James I. was the great crown of 
Henry VIII., the king had another c crown imperial, 1 probably 
that which was placed on his head at the end of the service. 
It is thus described in a list of the c Jewelles remayninge in 
an yron cheste in the secrete jewelhouse w th in the Tower of 
London' on 22nd March, 1604-5: 

Fyrste a Crowne Imperyall of golde sett about the nether border w* ix em 
greate pointed dyamondes and betwene everye dyamonde a knott ot perle 
sett by fyve perles in a knott, in the upper border eight rocke rubies and xx tic 
rounde perles the fower arches beinge sett eche of them w th a table dyamonde 
a table rubye an emeralde and uppon twoe of the arches xviii en perles * and 
uppon the other twoe arches xvii en perles and betwene everye arche a great 
baUace sett in a collet of golde and uppon the topp a verye great ballace 
perced and a lytle crosse of golde uppon the top enamelled blewe. 3 

1 Bishop Lancelot Andrewes. 

2 The Manner of the Coronation of King Charles the First of England, ed. Chr. 
Wordsworth (Henry Bradshaw Society, London, 1892), 9. 

3 F. Palgrave, The Antient Kalendars and Inventories o r the Treasury of 
H.MSs. Exchequer (London, 1836), ii. 299. 


Mr. L. G. Wickham Legg has printed at length l the 
inventory of the regalia in the custody of the Dean and 
Chapter of Westminster made on iyth December, 1606, 
when Dr. Richard Neile assumed the deanery. It enu- 
merates the king's principal crown, the c calix Lapideus cum 
Patina, vulgo dictum y e Regall,' the spurs, a long spoon gilt, 
a jewelled cross with a crucifix, an eagle of gold called the 
ampull, the sceptre with the cross, the rod with the dove, S'- 
Edward's staff, and a comb of ivory ; also two pairs of shoes, 
c the one litle, y e other great,' a femoral of linen, a shirt of red 
silk, a rich girdle, a pair of c bootes of Tynsine,' a pair of 
fustian gloves, and a tunicle of sarcenet. The queen's crown 
is also included, as well as her sceptre and ivory rod with the 

Within a few months of the martyrdom of King Charles 
the whole of the ancient regalia were scheduled and valued, 
and finally broken up. One of the original copies of the 
inventory, which includes all the plate in the lower and upper 
Jewel Houses of the Tower, is in the possession of the Society 
of Antiquaries, 2 by whom it has been printed in full in Arcb<eo- 
logia* and the sections relating to the regalia have lately been 
reprinted from the original MS. by Mr. L. G. W. Legg. 4 

These sections are three in number : 

(i.) the valuation of the crowns, bracelets, and sceptres. 

(ii.) an inventory of the regalia removed from Westminster 
to the Jewel House. 

(iii.) an inventory of certain ornaments remaining at West- 

The last-named are described as * in an Iron Chest where 
they were formerly kept,' and consisted of c One Crimson 
taffaty Robe very old,' { One Robe laced w th gould lace,' c One 
Liver Cull ed silke Robe very old and worth nothing,' * One 
Robe of Crimson taffaty sarcenett,' c One paire of buskins 
Cloth of silver and silver stockins very old,' c One paire of 
shoos of Cloth of gould,' c One paire of gloves embrod ed w th 
gould,' 'Three swords w' scabbards of Cloth of gould,' and 
c One old comb of home worth nothing.' The whole lot was 
valued at 4 IQS. 6d. 

It is not unlikely that the contents of this chest formed 

1 English Coronation Records, 242-4. 2 MS. cviii. ff, 1-19. 

8 Vol. xv. 271-90. 4 English Coronation Records, 272-5. 


part of the relics of St. Edward enumerated by Sporley. 1 
The remainder are probably among the other regalia described 
below. The liver-coloured robe may be identified with the 
pallium regale^ and the tunica and supertunica with one or other 
of the rest of the robes. The other ornaments explain them- 

The second section, from its interest and the information 
it contains, is sufficiently curious to justify its being again given 
in full in an article on the King's Coronation Ornaments, 
especially since it gives us the last particulars of the ancient 
regalia. The list has been transcribed from the manuscript : 

f. i7b 

An Inventory ot that part of the Regalia which are now removed 
from Westm r to the Tower Jewellhouse 

Queene Ediths frowne formerly thought to be of Massy s. d. 
gould but upon triall found to be of Silver gilt En- 
richd with Garnettes foule pearle Saphires and some 
odd stones poz 50 Ounces \ valued at 0016 oo oo 

King Alfreds Crowne of gould wyerworke sett with slight 
stones ; and 2 little belles poz 79 Ounces J at 3 ti 
per ounce 0248 10 oo 

A gould plate dish Enamelld sett with slight stones weighing 

23 Ounces J valued at 3 ii 6 s - per Ounce .... 0077 II oo 

One large glass Cupp wrought in figures and sett in gould 
with some stones and pearles formerly Calld an Aggat 
Cupp poz 68 oz i valued at i 1L io s - per Ounce. . . 0102 15 oo 2 

A dove of gould sett with stones and pearle poz 8 ounces 

J in a box sett with studds of silver gilt valued at . 0026 oo oo 

The gould and stones belonging to a Coller of [Esses struck 
out] Crimson Taffaty wrought with gould and stones 
sett in plates of silver Enamelld wanting 5 weighing 
7 Ounces J valued at 2^ I o s> per Ounce . . . . oo 1 8 1 5 oo 

0489 1 1 oo 3 

f. 18 

One staff of black and white Ivory with a dove on the top 

with binding and foote of gould valued at .... 0004 10 oo 

A large staff with a dove on y e top formerly thought to be 
all gould but upon triall found to be the lower part 
wood within and silver gilt without weighing in all 
27 Ounces valued at 35 

One small staff with a floure de Luce on the topp formerly 
thought to be all of gould but upon triall found to be 
Iron within and silver gilt without the silver valued at 0002 10 oo 

1 L. G. W. Legg, English Coronation Records, 191. 

2 Written over 0068 oo oo struck through. 

3 Written over 0454 16 oo struck through. 


Two Scept rs one sett w th pearle & stones the upper end s. d. 
gould the lower end silver, y e gould poz 23 Ounces 
valued at 55 s - per Ounce the lower end being home 
and a little silver gilt val at izs. The other silvar 
gilt with a dove formerly thought gould poz 7 ounces 
| at 5 s - 6 d - per Ounce 0065 16 lo 

One Silver spoone gilt poz 3 Ounces val at 5 s - 4 d - per ounce oooo 16 oo 

The gould of the Tasselles of the Liver Cull rd Robe weigh- 
ing 4 Ounces valued at zli per Ounce 8ti / and the 
Coat with the Neck button of gould valued at 2 li / 
the Robe having some pearle valued at 3 li / In all oo 1 3 oo oo 

All these according to Order of Parliam* are broken and 

One paire of silver gilt spurres with buckles sett with 1 2 
slight stones and Crimson silke strapps weighing 6 
Ounces J at 5 S< 4 d- per Ounce oooi 13 04 

0118 16 02^ 

The total value of the regalia, that is of the ornaments 
just quoted and of those kept in the iron chest, is given as 
612 175. 8J^. 

There can be little doubt that these regalia are the remainder 
of the relics of St. Edward enumerated by Sporley. Queen 
Edith's crown is that pro coronacione Regine, and that called 
'King Alfreds' ought to be King Edward's corona aurea optima. 

The gold and enamelled paten and the c large glass cup ' 
are the calix lapidis onicbini cum pede ligaturis et patena de auro 
optimo of Sporley's list ; and it is interesting to compare with 
the description of them here given a note upon the cup in the 
inventory of 1 606 : c Imprimis Calix Lapideus cum Patina, 
vulgo dictum y e Regall in y e Anticks of the Stone Cup y e 
Dog's head is broken off, and 3. small Pearles wanting in 
y e foote thereof.' 1 

The collar of crimson taffaty may be the armilla of Sporley's 
list, and the tassells of the liver-coloured robe suggest that the 
latter was his paleum brudatum. 

The ivory rod with the rod and one of the c Two Scept rs ' 
lower down in the list seem to be the duas virgas for the 
coronation of a queen. 

The large staff with a dove is probably the sceptrum aureum 
and the small staff with a fleur-de-lis the virga ferrea. The 
other of the pair of sceptres will then be the lignea virga 



The silver-gilt spoon is of course the cocliar of Sporley's 
list, and there are good grounds for believing that the same 
spoon is the well known one still preserved among the regalia. 
This is certainly not the spoon made for the coronation of 
Charles II., but one of the end of the twelfth or early part 
of the thirteenth century. 1 

The dove of gold and the pair of spurs are not included 
in Sporley's list. The former is undoubtedly the ampul for 
the cream, and it is an interesting question whether, although 
it is now fashioned as an eagle, it was not of old in form of a 
dove as here described. 

There still remain to be noticed the jewels in the first 
section mentioned above, viz. the crowns, bracelets and sceptres. 

The sceptres included (i.) the globe, weighing i Ib. 5^ oz., 
and valued at ^57 IQJ. ; (ii.) two sceptres, weighing 18 oz., 
and valued at 60 ; and (iii.) a long rod of silver gilt, weigh- 
ing i Ib. 5 oz., valued at ^4 los. %d. This last was perhaps 
St. Edward's staff. 

The c 2 Coronation Braceletts ' weighed 7 oz., less one 
ounce to be deducted for the weight of the stones and pearls, 
and were valued at 20 ; 3 balas rubies set in each of them 
were valued at 6, and 12 pearls at 10, or ^36 in all. They 
were no doubt the same as those included in the inventory of 
Henry VIII.'s jewels, and described as 

Item one paier of Bracellettes of golde garnished with six ballaces nott 
yne six course bigg perles muche of one sorte and v lesser perles of one sorte 
weying togethers with blacke lace poyntes vij ounces di. 8 

The globe above mentioned is also probably that specified 
in the same inventory as : 

Item a Rounde Ball with a crosse of gold weying xvij oz dl. 
The crowns were three in number : 

(i) The Kings Crowne s. d. 

The Imperiall Crowne of Massy gold weighing 7 ti * 
6 ounces, enriched with 19 Saphires * 37 * Rubies 
Ballass, 21 small Rubies * 2 * Emrodes 28 Diamondes 
[232 erased] 168 Pearles. The gold (6 * oz being 
abated for the Stones,) valued at 280 ii. The 
Saphires at 198 ii 'the Ballass Rubies at 149"- the 
small Rubies at 16 * ii the Emralds at 5 ii the 
Diamonds at 288 ii the pearles at 174 ii * amounts 
in all to 1 1 1 o oo oo 5 

1 See Arch*ohga, liii. 1 18, 1 19. 2 MS. Soc. Antiq. Lond. cxxix. f. jb. 
1 The total was originally 990, but has been altered to the above amount. 

7 8 


(ii) The Queenes Crowne j. d. 

The Queenes Crowne of Massy gold weighing 3 ii 
10 ounces, enriched with 20 Saphires 22 Rubies 
Ballass 83 Pearles. The gold (5 ounces being 
abated for the weight of the stones) y e gold valued 
at 40 Ii per Ii the Saphires at 1 20 ii the Rubies 
ballass at 40 ii the pearle at 41 ii * IDS. which in 
all amountes to . . . . t . . . . . . . 0338 03 04 

(iii) A Small Crowne found in an Iron Chest formerly 
in the Lord Cottingtons charge enricht with Dia- 
monds Rubies Saphires Emrods and pearles the gold 
Weighing 25 ounces (whereof 3 ounces being abated 
for the weight of the stones,) is valued at 3"- 6 s - 8 d - per oz. 073 1 6 08 

The Diamonds Rubies Saphires Emrods and pearles are 

valued at .............. 355 oo oo 

A note a few pages further on states [f. i6] that 

The foremenciond Crownes since y e Inventorye was Taken are accordinge to 
ord r of Parlam te totallie Broken and Defaced. 

In the Minute Book of the Society of Antiquaries, 1 under 
date I2st April, 1748, is the following record of another 
inventory taken at the same time as the other, but arranged 
differently and giving further details. As it does not seem to 
have been noticed elsewhere no apology is needed for printing 
so interesting a document : 

p. 180 

Dr. Lyttleton favoured the Society with sight of the following transcript 
from a loose sheet among Mr. Aubrey's MS. Collections relating to North 
Wiltshire in the Ashmole Musaeum. 

Decimo quinto Augusti 1649 

Plate remaining within the upper Jewell howse in the Tower 
and delivered over to the Trustees of Parliament for sale of the 
late kings goods, &c. 


In a flower de Luce having the) Two Saphirs) , Eight Rubies Ballaces) , 

Picture of the Virgin Mary J valued at J * valued at J 

In the Crosse next to that) Four saphirs) , Six Rubies Ballaces) ~ 

flower de Luce J valued at J * valued att . . . / 

In another Flower de Luce) Four saphirs) Seven Rubies Ballaces) 

and Cross . . . . J valued at J 23 val d . . . J ' 

In another Flower de Luce) Six Saphirs) , Eight Rubies Ballaces) 

and Cross . . . . J valued at J valued . . . ./ * 

In another Flower de Luce) four Saphirs) R Eight Rubies Ballaces) 

and Cross . . . . J valued at / val d . . . J ' 

204 204 

Saphirs and Rubies toto 380 
1 Vol. v. 1 80. 


Eight & Twenty Diamonds in the Crowne valued at Six pounds 

each. In all 168 

p. 181 

Two Emeralds valued at 5 

Two hundred and thirty two Pearls valued at fifteen shillings each, 

in all 174 

One and twenty Rubies valued at 1 6 

Seven Pound and six ounces of Gold valued at 40 per Ib. with 

6 ounces abated for stones weight in all 280 

Brot over the value of the Saphirs Rubies and Diamonds . . . . 548 

Summe in Money is 1023 


'* d. 

Twenty Saphiers valued at 120 - 

Two and twenty Jlubie Ballaces val 40 

Fourscore and three Pearls valued at io s - each . . . . . 41 10 

The Gold three pound five ounces at 40 per Ib. weight . . 137 6 8 

338 16 8 

'* * 

One Saphire valued at 60 

One Diamond valued at 200 

One Emerauld valued at 12- 

Two Rubies valued at 43 - 

Thirteen Diamonds val. at 32 

Threescore and ten Pearles valued at two and sixpence each . 815 

In Gold 73 16 

429 ii o 

sh. d. 

The Globe poiz seventeen ounces & a Quarter 57 10 - 

The Two Scepters eighteen ounces 60 o o 

The Bracelets valued at 36 - - 

153 10 - 

Colonel John Dove of Surrey kept in his Chamber in the Middle Temple, 
the Book of Sales of the King's plate, and Jewels. I transcribed this for the 
Crowne, for which Mr. Simpson &c. were much beholding to me when King 
Charles the second's crown was made. 

J : Aubrey 

Sic transit Gloria Mundi. 

It will be seen from the mention of { a flower de Luce 
having the Picture of the Virgin Mary ' on the king's crown, 
as well as the number of the crosses and fleurs-de-lis, that the 



crown broken up by order of the Parliament was the one 
described in Henry VIII.'s inventory of 1520-1. The c Small 
Crowne found in an Iron Chest ' we also learn was c King 
Edward the 6 st Crown/ and the 'very rich one made pour- 
posely for his grace * which was finally set on his head at his 

The history of the King's Coronation Ornaments since the 
Restoration is accessible in so many well known works that 
little need be said here on the subject. Every effort was made 
in 1660 to replace the ornaments that had been destroyed, and 
as far as possible after the old fashion, and the existing regalia 
are for the most part those then made. But the time was not 
a favourable one from the artistic standpoint, and if the regalia 
are more tolerable in design than they might have been, they 
who refurnished the wardrobe certainly had less taste and 
knowledge than the goldsmith. In the case for instance of 
the vestments put on the king after the anointing, that most 
unsuitable and intractable material, cloth of gold, was chosen 
for the supertunica, the armilla, the pall, etc. instead of the 
beautiful silks with their graceful and clinging folds which 
were used in olden days. The succeeding period moreover 
has been one of gradual degradation, so that each coronation 
has produced something a little worse than the preceding, 
and at the coronation of Queen Victoria in 1838 things had 
reached a very low level. 

The form and order of the coronation of their Majesties 
King Edward VII. and Queen Alexandra on 26th June next 
informs us incidentally that the King will enter the abbey 
church of Westminster in his crimson robes and a cap ot 
'* crimson velvet turned up with ermins,' but there is no men- 
tion of the white and red shirts or the crimson cassock, with 
openings for the anointing, which of old time would have been 
worn under them. The colobium sindonis however is directed 
to be put upon him, and the supertunica^ which is described as 
the c close pall of cloth of gold, together with a girdle of the 
same.' Finally the King is to be invested with < the Armilla 
and Imperial Mantle or Pall of Cloth of Gold.' It remains to 
be seen whether the boasted improvement in taste at the 
present time, and the more illuminating information at the 
disposal of the authorities, will lead to anything better than the 
result of a mere following of the hide-bound precedent of 
recent coronations. With respect to the regalia it is only 


necessary to point out that the mistake of delivering the orb, 
which is identical with the sceptre with the cross, is to be 
continued ; and to make the confusion worse, the final 
notice states that c their Majesties will proceed through the 
Choir to the West Door of the Church, in the same way 
as they came, wearing their Crowns : the King bearing in his 
Right Hand the Sceptre with the Cross, and in his Left the 
Orb/ So that the King will perform the apparently impossible 
feat of carrying the same sceptre in each hand. 

A little investigation on the part of those responsible 
would have shown them that previously to 1685, when the 
existing blunder was first committed by Sancroft, the orb 
with the cross was generally the sceptre delivered to the king 
after his crowning ; and so long as he was seated in the church 
it was not unduly inconvenient for him to hold. But when at 
the end of the service the king exchanged his vestments and 
crown for others, the sceptre with the cross was put into his 
hand instead of the orb, owing to the greater ease and comfort 
with which that form of the ornament could be carried in the 
procession back to Westminster Hall. 



THIS ring, which was recently exhibited at the Norwich 
Art Loan Exhibition, and which is undoubtedly of the 
Stuart period, was shown by a family of high standing in the 
county, settled at Beeston St. Lawrence in Norfolk since 1640, 
when they bought the estate, and has for many (certainly 120) 
years been believed by them to have been given to their an- 
cestor Jacob (sometimes wrongly called Sir Jacob) Preston, c a 
faithful servant of Charles the First,' on the scaffold. It is a 
c doublet ' of little intrinsic value and hardly what one would 
have expected a king to wear. 

From the magnificent MS. history 1 of the Hundred of 
Tunstead, in which Beeston is situate, compiled by Antony 
Norris, Esq., of Barton Turf (the next parish to Beeston), who 
completed such history before 1782, we learn what was then 
his opinion of the story. He writes : 

It has been said by the family of late years that Jacob Preston was a 
favoured servant of Charles I., that he attended him on the scaffold, 8 and 
show a ring which they say was given him by the King at that time, that he 
was so persecuted by the prevailing party that he was forced to live concealed 
for some time, on which occasion he used sometimes to be let into his own 
house here by a window in the middle of the night. 

Norris points out that the existence of the ring, which he 
says c no one out of the family ever heard of till of very late 
years,' is no proof, and the only thing they could show in 
corroboration of the story is a passage from Herbert, which 

1 Formerly in the Frere collection, and now in my library. 

2 He could not have been on the scaffold, for, as S. R. Gardiner, in his 
account of the execution, says, the only friend who attended the king on the 
scaffold 'was Juxon, Herbert having begged to be excused from witnessing 
the painful sight. No other persons were admitted to a place on the scaffold 
excepting Colonels Hacker and Tomlinson and the two masked figures of the 
executioner and his assistant,' and this is borne out by the early prints of the 
scene showing two executioners and three spectators only. 


says that the king's body was delivered to four of his servants, 
Herbert, Mildmay, Preston and Joyner. 1 

He considered that the Preston was probably the John 
Preston, Esq., bow-bearer to the king, who was presented as 
a recusant in 1626, and was a recusant in arms against the 
Parliament in 1 644, but I have satisfied myself that he could 
not have been. 

Long before I bought the Norris MSS., or knew he had 
written on the subject, I had come to exactly the same con- 
clusion as he had done as to the truth of the legend, so I will 
use his and my own material, drawn from calendars and books 
published long after his death, together. 

John Preston, thought by Norris to have been the real 
man who accompanied the king, and who is known to have 
been a servant of the king and his bow-bearer, was certainly 
one of the knightly family of Preston of Lancashire, all 
devoted cavaliers ; and names of no less than eighteen of 
them appear as such in the Domestic State Papers, the 
Calendars for Compounding, etc., etc., and in fact in all the 
cavalier literature of the period. 

He might well have been attendant on the king, but 
recent researches show that the attendant who had to do 
with the king and his funeral was one Captain Robert 
Preston, whose name does not appear on the pedigrees of 
either the Lancashire or Norfolk families. 

Mr. E. G. Atkinson of the Public Record Office, who 
has made the period his special study, has kindly sent me 
the following extract from the Exchequer Miscellaneous 
Rolls : 

To Capt. Robert Preston one of the 4 gentlemen attending the late King in 
the Isle of Wight and elsewhere in full of his allowance of 200 per ann. for 
one year ended the last of Jany. 1 648 in pursuance of an Order of the House 
of Commons 20 March 1647 and by warrant dated 26 April 1649 100. 

After this clear contradiction to the family story it is 
hardly worth while to point out its inherent improbability 
or to emphasize the facts that Jacob Preston, the hero of the 
tale, whose mother bought Beeston in 1 640, and who was born 
in either 1613-4, had married and settled at Beeston and had 
four children before 1 645-6, so is hardly likely to have been 

1 Captain Preston and Captain Joyner were in 1656 paid various sums for 
money spent at the funeral (Dom. State Papers, cxxix. 69). 


following the Court before Charles' death in 1649, when he 
was thirty-six or thirty-seven. 

The persecution tale is never now told, and in fact was 
unknown to the present family, so it is hardly necessary to 
point out that Jacob Preston, so far from being in hiding about 
the period, levied fines in the King's Court on Mich. 21 
Chas. I. (1645), as to l an d in Gissing ; in Mich. 22 Chas.(i646), 
as to land in Old Buckenham and Eye ; and in Mich., 1650, in 
Witton, and again in 1656. 

If he had been a Royalist and in trouble we should expect 
to find his name occur in the old list of Norfolk Royalists who 
compounded in 1655, but ^ does not do so. Nor does it, nor 
the name of any Norfolk Preston Jacob or Robert appear 
in the eight volumes of reports of the Committee for advance 
of money, or in the Calendars of Compounding*, which give 
the names of every one who was in the least degree interested 
on the Royalist side ; nor in the list of those who were to 
have been decorated with the Order of the Royal Oak ; nor 
in the list of Royalists published by the Camden Society ; nor 
in Hotten's Royalist and Roundheads Army List ; nor in the 
long list of Norfolk Compounders given in Mason's History of 

In fact no negative evidence could possibly be stronger. 
The name is simply non-existent among the Royalists in the 
lists which detail all the sufferings and losses of the Astleys, 
the Kemps, the Anguishes, the Pettuses and all the few Norfolk 
Royalists. All the members of the Lancashire Prestons who 
were Royalists are to be found in these documents, but the 
same documents are absolutely silent as to a Norfolk Royalist 
of the name. 

It would indeed have been strange if Jacob Preston of 
Beeston bad been a Royalist, for his own associations 
and those of his family were distinctly with the other 

The Christian names of Isaac, Abraham and Jacob in one 
generation speak for themselves as to the side the father 
and mother took in religion. 

Before Charles' death he had married and had a family by 
the sister of Sir Isaac Appleton, who seven years before (in 
1642) had been a Commissioner for prosecuting scandalous 
ministers. He was a J.P. and Custos Rotulorum in 1664, 
and I am inclined to think he may be the Jacob Preston of 


Lincoln's Inn, Esq., who sold land in Gissing and Burston in 
I642. 1 

His son Isaac 2 married the daughter and heiress of Charles 
George Cock of Norwich, one of Cromwell's Judges of the 

The family, I believe, now consider that though Jacob 
married the daughter of a Roundhead he may have per- 
sonally been on the other side, and argue that his first 
cousin Thomas Preston, the Herald, was presumably of 
Royalist opinion, as he was sent by Charles I. to Ireland 
in 1630 to acquaint the Lords Justices of the birth of Prince 
Charles. But he was then a Herald, and the fact that he was 
afterwards made Ulster King of Arms in 1633 seems to me to 
prove nothing. 

Heralds were privileged people, and it will be remembered 
that Sir William le Neve, who had been sent in 1 643 to the 
Earl of Essex with a proclamation of pardon if his army would 
lay down their arms, was not disturbed in his office when the 
Commonwealth came into power, and kept his berth till 1658. 

Norris rather doubts the authenticity of the entries of the 
baptisms of Thomas, Jacob, Francis and Charles Preston, in 
1642-6, entered in the Beeston register, and points out that 
they are all in a different hand to the rest of the register, and 
considers Jacob to have been the son of Isaac Preston of 
Pulham in Norfolk, afterwards of Thelveton. 

Yet the entry in the visitation of 1664, made while Jacob 
and his first cousin, the Ulster King at Arms, were alive, states 
the pedigree thus, the additions in italics being mine : 

1 Carthew, Launditch, i. 38. 

2 This Isaac may be the Isaac Preston of Yarmouth who bought his free- 
dom there in 1642, and who in 1650 received a captain's commission in the 
Commonwealth army, who in 1654 was associated with this Mr. Cock as Com- 
missioner for scandalous ministers, who influenced the return of Colonel Wm. 
Goffe (the regicide) for Yarmouth, and who in 1657 was one of the Norfolk 
Commissioners for raising 60,000 for the use of the Commonwealth. But 
more probably this Isaac was his namesake and first cousin, the son of Thomas 
Preston, the Ulster King at Arms. 



William Preston =Rose daughter of ... Whiple of 
late of Preston Dickleburgh, Norfolk. Her -will 
in Suffolk d. at Giving 1586 (Norris 1 'Tun- 

stead,' p. 112) 

Isaac Preston 



eldest (?) son, 

dead by 


ofHoxne, Suff. 



yeoman, bad 

lands in Pul- 

ham. Will d. 

1636, proved 


Thomas Tacob 

Thomas Preston = Barbara 
Ulster King at 
Arms in Ireland 

\ \ 

Thomas Isaac Sherwood Penelope 
vix. vix. vix. bapt. 

1636 1636 1636 Buck- 


Jacob Preston of Buck- 
enham, co. Norfolk, 
born 1 564, died 8 Mar. 
1630, aged 66. De- 
scribed as a yeoman in 
1613 (^Norf. Arcby. 1 
xii. 86). Possibly the 
Jacob Preston who in 
1625 bad a warrant to 
receive money for press- 
ing 333 men in Norfolk 
(Masons ' Hist, of Nor- 
folk^ p. 308). His inq. 
p.m. mentions land in 
Wattlesfield, Suff., and 
Old Buckenham, Norf. 

=Thomasine Lovett 


of Shipdam in 

vix. 1586 

Norf. In 1632 <was 

of Pul- 

party to a fine in 


Buckenham. Bought 


manor and advow- 


son of Beeston in 


1 640. Signed by 

= Dyna 

her mark in 1655 


(Norris' 1 Tunstead,' 

p. 117). Died 

1658, at. 82, and 

bur. at Beeston. Was 

possibly a widow 

'when she married, 

as we Jind that a 

Jacob Preston mar- 

ried a Thomasine 

Lyngward on 3 

Sept. i6i$,at Nor- 

wich Cathedral 

Jacob Preston of Beeston: 
St. Lawrence, Justice of 
the Peace and Quorum. 
Born circa 1613-4,^5 he 
was aged 16 on 2 April, 
1630, the date of his father's 
inq. p.m., and is said on 
bis monument to have died 
30 Sept. 1683, at. 70. 
Possibly the Isaac Preston 
of Lincoln's Inn, barrister, 
who in 1642 held land in 
Gissing (see his grand- 
mother's will) and Burs ton 
(Carthew's ' Launditcb,' i. 

Frances daughter and co- 
heir of Sir Isaac Appleton 
of Little Waldingfield, 
Suffolk, who was a Com- 
missioner for prosecutions of 
scandalous ministers in 
1 642, and a strong parti- 
san of Cromwell 

bur. 17 

Isaac Preston son and heir = Elizabeth daughter and heir Thomas Jacob Charles 

harrister-at-law. Sent to 
Bury School 1656 

of Cbas. Geo. Cock of Nor- 
wich, a Commissioner for 
Sequestration and one of 
Cromwell's Judges of Ad- 

Now I cannot help believing this pedigree, and thinkinj 
that Jacob the hero of this tale and his first cousin the Heral< 


must have known their own grandfather's name, and that it 
was William, but that he came from Buckenham in Norfolk 
and not from Preston in Suffolk, and that when calling him 
Preston of Preston in Suffolk 1 they were laying down a 
fabrication for the use of future generations and with the idea 
of founding a territorial family. 

As far as I can make out there never were Prestons of 
Preston in the territorial sense. 

The only old Suffolk family of Prestons mentioned in Davy 
(p. 285) come from one Peter Preston of Micklefield, who 
died 1 6 1 6, having also married a Thomazine. 

All Davy says of this family is 2 

William Preston of Preston=Rose Whipple 
Suffolk I of Dickleburgh 


William Isaac Preston=Mary Abraham Jacob = Thomazine 

ofPulham I Lovett 

Thomas William 


That the Jacob Preston of Old Buckenham, who died 
1630, and whose brass was moved to Beeston, came from the 
yeomen family of Preston of Pulham seems to me clear. But, 
with Norris, I have grave doubts if he bore arms in 1630, and 
think they were added to his brass afterwards. 

Norris derives the Buckenham and Pulham Prestons from 
Isaac Preston of Thelveton by Diss, not far from Buckenham 
and Pulham, whose wife Margaret died 1 540 ; and there are 
entries in the Pulham St. Mary Magdalen registers from 1558, 
though none of a baptism of a Jacob in or about I564. 3 

1 Of recent years the family have again stated their early pedigree with 
Prestons from the village of Preston, * where its ancestors held rank as gentle- 
men in the reign of Edw. III.' But this is all Burkian flourish. There are 
Subsidy Rolls for Preston, Suffolk, for 39 and 43 Eliz. and 8 Jas. I., but the 
name does not occur in them or in the Suffolk Visitations. Isolated instances 
of people of the name * de Preston ' occur in the Suffolk Fines from 1 9 Hen. 
III. to 20 Ed. II., but the only fragment which might help to prove a Suffolk 
descent is that the Rev. John Preston in z Hen. IV. had to do with land in 
Whatefield, and Jacob Preston, who died 1630, is said to have had land in 
Whattlesfield. 2 Add. MSS. 19,145, p. 283. 

3 The first layman of the surname I find in Norfolk is Henry Preston, 
who in 4 & 5 Hen. V. (1417-8) was party to a fine of the manor of Surling- 
ham and advowson of Bramerton. 


He suspects that the brass to Jacob Preston of Buckenham, 
who died 1630, was erected long after his death, and points 
out that the date was first cut 1627, which he considers shows 
that it was first put up when the exact date of his death had 
been forgotten. There is no doubt about the genuineness of 
the brass or rather brasses one with the arms and the other 
with the inscription, for they were seen and noted by Tom 
Martin and Blomefield long before they were improperly and 
foolishly removed from Buckenham to Beeston in 1808. It is 
not impossible however that the brass with the arms is of a 
later date than the inscription brass, and it is strange that the 
motto on it is the canting one of c Pristinam spero lucem,' 
and not the more recent motto of c Lucem spero clariorem.' 

The crescent of the crest is marked with a mullet of five 
points, the difference of the third son, whereas Jacob, if he ever 
was entitled to arms at all, was the second son. 

Let us now try to fix the identity of the Captain Robert 
Preston, the actual attendant on the king. 

Though we have satisfied ourselves that the alleged re- 
cipient of the ring could not have been Jacob Preston of 
Beeston, as has always been alleged, it is possible that this 
Captain Robert 1 Preston may have been a kinsman of the 
Beeston family, and sharing its politics have been a servant 
nominated by the Commonwealth to attend the king, and 
while acting in that capacity may have behaved kindly to him 
and received the ring. The fact that Jacob had a son named 
Charles, born in 1646 Charles being a name I cannot trace 
in the family earlier may show some sentimental good feel- 
ing in the Beeston family towards the king. 

To begin with, we know for certain that the king's four 
attendants who received his body were Thomas Herbert 
(author of the well known Memoirs), Captain Antony 
Mildmay, 2 Captain Robert Preston and John Joyner. 3 

1 There had been several Robert Prestons in Norfolk, e.g. Robert Preston 
nephew of William Preston, rector of St. Creak in 1509 ; Robert, freeman 
of Norwich in 1514 ; and Robert Preston, witness to the will of Nicholas 
Bell of Great Bircham, 1 609 ; while later we find a Robert Preston freeman 
of Yarmouth in 1692, a fact doubly interesting in view of the connection 
between the Beeston family and Yarmouth. 

2 Possibly of kin to Sir Anthony Mildmay of Apthorp, Northampton, who 
died 1617, whose daughter and heir married Francis Fane first Earl of 

In Heath's Chron. of the late Intestine war (fo. 1676, p. 221), Preston is 


Herbert we know was a Cavalier, but may not some of 
the others have been Roundheads ? Besides the funeral 
warrants mentioned above there are warrants, 1 dated Novem- 
ber-December, 1648, to Mildmay and Preston in payment of 
official services in respect of the said captain's allowances of 
200 each per annum as two of the four gentlemen attending 
the king in the Isle of Wight. 

Now these payments would be excessive allowances if made 
out of compassion to two faithful Royalists who personally 
waited on the king (it is noteworthy I find no trace of pay- 
ments to Herbert or Joyner, who are known to have been 
personally attached to him), but none too much for the pay of 
men who were practically responsible for his safe custody. 

I expect Mildmay 2 and Preston were two of the < staff of 
attendants appointed by the House to wait on the King,' 3 for 
Gardiner 4 refers to the king being accompanied in his flight 
from Hampton Court by Berkeley, Ashburnham and Legge, 
and on page 259 to his own attendants, Herbert and Harrington, 
but does not mention either Mildmay or Preston. 

Now we come again to the question Who was this 
Captain Robert Preston ? As before mentioned, I cannot 
trace him on any pedigree, but it seems to me that he must 
have been the Robert Preston, otherwise Captain Robert 
Preston, who had been an active agent of, in fact an informer 
in the service of, the Commonwealth. 

In 1643 (J u ty 2 4) there is a complaint of one Raleigh 
Sanderson that he had been improperly denounced as a de- 
linquent c on the mis-information of Robert Preston,' 5 who 
later on 6 seems to have issued a writ of < quo minus ' on the 
same man's wharf at Shadwell. 

On August 13, 1645, Captain Robert Preston (no doubt 
the same man) informed the Commonwealth that there were 
three trunks of goods at the Savoy belonging to one Alexander 

called his server and Joyner family cook to the king. The last named being 
in a subordinate capacity did not apparently receive the high pay Mildmay and 
Preston did. 

1 Morrison MSS. 9th Rep. Hist. MSS. Com. p. 440. 

2 Antony Mildmay. Probably the same man had in 1644 been appointed 
agent for wine licences by the Commonwealth Revenue Committee (Cat. for 
Com. for Compounding, p. 1520). 

3 Gardiner's Hist, of the Great Civil War, iv. 17. 4 Id. p. 17. 
5 House of Lords MSS. p. 96. 6 Pp. 100, 101. 


Courtney, who was in actual war with the Parliament. 1 Next 
year there is an order to the Committee for the safety of 
Warwick and Coventry to billet Captain Robert Preston. 2 

Then in 1 648-9 we find the c Captain Robert Preston ' in 
attendance on the king, and as late as 1656 being reimbursed 
the money he had spent at the funeral ; 3 and a few months 
later, on March 2, 1657-8, 'Captain Preston' is appointed 
one of the Commissioners appointed to examine Bailiff England 
of Yarmouth as to words spoken by him in 1 649,* though ot 
course the Captain Preston may be the Captain Isaac Preston 
of Yarmouth mentioned in note (2) on p. 85. 

Further local inquiries may tell us more of this Captain 
Robert Preston, and enable us to ascertain if he had any con- 
nection, through Yarmouth or otherwise, with the Beeston 

If it turns out that he had, it would give some sort ot 
an explanation how the ring came to it, but a widely different 
one to the picturesque tale which has been so credulously 
believed for many generations. 


1 Committee for Advance of Money, i. 49. 2 Dam. State Papers. 

3 Ibid, cxxix. 69. 4 Ibid, clxxx. 312. 



1 PROMISED to deal in the second portion of this paper 
with the younger sons of Walter FitzOther, castellan of 
Windsor. Of these there has hitherto been recognized the 
existence of two only, namely Robert, who according to Dugdale, 
c had Estone in Com. Buck.,' and Gerald de Windsor, ancestor 
of the house of FitzGerald. I hope to show that there were 
other sons, but we must first deal with Robert, whose pater- 
nity is clearly established. 

A charter of Henry I. granted at Argentan in the Christmas 
of a year which is not named, but which must from the 
witnesses' names have been towards the close of his reign, 
speaks of c Robert son of Walter de Wyndesore,' whose lands it 
confirms to his son William. Of this charter the text is given 
in the Harleian Roll (P. 8) and in the Inspeximus by Edward 
III. (April 10, 1336 *). It is needful to insist on the identity 
of this Robert de Windsor, because, in an elaborate study on 
c The Rise and Race of Hastings,' 2 Mr. G. T. Clark converted 
him into a Mascherel or a Hastings. The pedigree he gave 
was this 3 : 

Walter Diaconus 

Robertas d'Estan, de 
Hastings or Mascherel 

William son 
of Robert 

Walter Mascherel 
or de Hastings 

William de Hastings = Sister and h. of 

of Fillongley, first I Maurice de Windsor 

Baron by tenure I of Eton, Berks 

Robertus de Hastings 
mar. d. and heir of 
William de Hastings 


Ralph de Hastings 
1165, second Baron, 
d. s. p. 

1 Calendar of Patent Ro/ts, 1 334-8, p. 249. Among its witnesses is Maurice 
de Windsor, to whom we shall next come. 

2 Archaeological Journal (rtbtj), xxvi. 12-9, 121-36, 236-56. 

3 Ibid. p. 129. 


9 2 


Mr. Clark, having wrongly identified Robert, proceeded to 
argue thus from his own erroneous conclusion: 

It has been shown that Robert d'Estan or Mascherel bore also the name 
and was ancestor of a family of Hastings ; there is therefore nothing improb- 
able in Hastings having been also a designation of his brother Walter (p. 236). 

Mr. Clark developed his error out of the original mistake by 
which Morant, the historian of Essex, had failed to identify 
rightly the c Eistanes * of Domesday Book, which was Little 
Easton, now known as Lady Warwick's ancestral seat, but 
which he placed far away in the Hundred of Dengey. 1 One 
could not desire a better illustration of the mischief in county 
history that may follow from identifying wrongly a single 
Domesday manor. 

Little Easton, wrongly described as c Estone, Bucks,' by 
Dugdale, 2 was the head of a barony of ten fees which Robert 
de Windsor obtained in the days of Henry I. and which was 
subsequently liable, like the fief of his elder brother, to castle- 
guard at Windsor. 3 William the son of Robert obtained a 
fresh confirmation of it from Henry II., and William's daughter 
and heir brought it to a Hastings. 4 

The next of Walter FitzOther's sons though not hitherto 
recognized as such with whom we have to deal is Maurice. 
If, because he is once styled Gerald c de Windsor,' the ancestor 
of the house of FitzGerald was a son of Walter, then a fortiori 
Maurice was so also, for he is repeatedly styled Maurice c de 
Windsor.' The great interest of this affiliation is that it car- 
ries the name Maurice, afterwards famous in Ireland, a gener- 
ation further back and takes it to a time when it rarely occurs. 5 
We are indebted to Mr. Rokewode's preface to Jocelyn de 
Brakelond* for the text of some important charters relating to 
the great abbey of Bury St. Edmund's. Among them is one 
(p. 1 1 8) of Abbot Albold, belonging to the years in 5-9, 

1 History of Essex, i. 350, 466 ; ii. 430. 

2 Baronage, i. 509. 

3 See my paper on 'Castle-guard' in Archaeological Journal (1902). 

4 It was in the time of Robert de Hastings that the return of knights for 
this fief was made, but it belongs to a later date than 1 1 66, though included 
among the returns of that date in the Red Book of the Exchequer (pp. 3 5 8-9) 
by the editor. 

5 The only ' Maurice ' in Domesday Book is the newly-appointed Bishop 
of London. 

6 Camden Society's Series. 


in which he grants to Maurice c de Windleshore ' the steward- 
ship of the abbey with its curious privileges, together with the 
land of the previous steward (dapifer)^ amounting to three 
knights' fees, which were increased by the addition of two others 
to five. Among the witnesses to this charter are c Robertus de 
Wyndeleshore ; Reinaldus de Wyndeleshore. ' Another of these 
charters (p. 119) contains King Stephen's confirmation to Maurice 
of all his land and his office, etc., etc., as he held them in the 
time of Henry I. Lastly we have the confirmation of all this to 
his nephew Ralph de Hastings, who was holding the five fees 
of the abbey in 1166. Maurice is mentioned in several of the 
charters relating to the abbey; a writ of Henry I. issued during 
a vacancy is addressed to 'Eadnoth the monk and Maurice 
the steward (dapifero) . . . and all the barons of St. Edmund's 
Honour ' ; 2 a Hengrave charter of Abbot Anselm is witnessed 
by c Mauricius dapifer ' ; 3 and another of his charters, appar- 
ently belonging to 113548, refers to proceedings before 
Maurice the dapifer under Henry I. and is itself witnessed by 
him. 4 Lastly, in a charter of Stephen's queen granted at 
Reading to the Templars Maurice de c Wyndleshore ' is a 
witness. 5 

Maurice was clearly in office or in favour with Henry I., 
for we find him excused his Danegeld on the Pipe Roll of 1 130, 
and thus learn that he held land in no fewer than eight coun- 
ties : Dorset, Essex, Northants, Norfolk, Suffolk, Beds, Berks 
and Middlesex. The fact that Maurice de Windsor died 
without issue is proved by the succession of his nephew Ralf 
as his heir in land and office. 

As I have said, the name of Maurice suggests that of 
Maurice FitzGerald, the first member of his house to take 
part in the invasion of Ireland. As this suggestion strengthens 
the received version of their origin, I would call attention to 
the very interesting and little known document which proves 
that Maurice FitzGerald was made dapifer of St. David's pre- 

1 totam terrain quam Radulfus Dapifer predecessor suus tenuit de Sancto 
Edmundo et totum dapiferatum de tota terra Sancti Edmundi cum omni con- 
suetudine et omni liberatione que pertinet ad eundem dapiferatum, scilicet 
cum liberatione sua et clerici sui et viii hominum et viii equorum cum dimidio 
sextario vini si vinum affuerit et cera cum xxiiij candelis et cervisia. Cum vero 
Mauricius prenominatus ierit longe aut proprie in servicium meum ad custum 
meum ire debet honorifice sicut dapifer. 

2 Gage's Hundred of Tbingoe, p. 276. 3 Ibid. p. 165. 
4 Ibid. p. 406. 5 Monasticon, vi. 843. 


cisely as Maurice de Windsor, his uncle ex bypotbesi, had been 
made dapifer of St. Edmund's. It is an inspeximus of certain 
charters, among which are those of David (FitzGerald), Bishop 
of St. David's and of his chapter, bestowing on Maurice 
FitzGerald the office and certain lands, together with that of 
Henry II. confirming the grant. 1 As the terms of the grant 
have a strong resemblance to those employed in the grant of 
the same office at St. Edmund's, I give them in a footnote for 
comparison. 2 In each case the grantee received not only the 
lands which had been held by his predecessor in office, but 
others in addition. The same document contains for us one 
more point of interest. The charter of Peter, Bishop of St. 
David's (i 176 98), confirming the office of dapifer to Maurice's 
son William, has among its witnesses Walter de c Vinsor,' 
doubtless the head of the family who was living under Richard I. 
This is, I think, the only charter that brings one of the Fitz- 
Geralds into connexion with a Windsor. 

We saw above that among the witnesses to Abbot Albold's 
charter to Maurice was a Reinald de c Wyndeleshore.' Mr. 
H. J. Ellis (of the British Museum) has kindly drawn my 
attention to the Reading Abbey charters in which he occurs as 
a witness. Queen Adeliza (widow of Henry I.) granted a 
rentcharge at Stanton, Oxon, to the abbey, her charter having 
as a witness c Reginaldo de Wind'r ' ; 3 she issued a writ re- 
lating to Stanton, c teste Reinaldo de Wind'r, apud Aron- 
delle ' ; 3 and her husband William, Earl of Arundel (or of 
Lincoln) confirmed her gift of a Hertfordshire manor, his 
charter including as a witness c Reginaldo de Windleshores.' 4 
Mr. Ellis ingeniously suggests that he was the queen's dapifer^ 
who witnesses two of her charters, as Rainald or Reginald 
dapifer? Here then we have not only another member of the 
family, but another who was a dapifer. 

At last we come to Gerald de Windsor (Windesora)^ an- 
cestor of the house of FitzGerald. It is singular that the 
Brut y tywysogion, which has so much about him, persistently 
styles him Gerald the steward (ystiwart\ that is to say dapifer. 

1 Fourth Report Historical MSS. App. i. p. 383. 

2 dapiferatum tocius terre Sancti Davit ... et ... omnes terras illas 
quas predictus Bernardus (episcopus) prefato Henrico (filio regis) cum dapiferatu 
dedit ... per servicium dicti dapiferatus. 

3 Archaeological Journal, xx. 287-8. 4 Ibid. xxii. 153. 
5 Add. MS. 15,350, fos. 5, $d. 


But his grandson and namesake, Gerald 'Cambrensis,' the 
delightful though garrulous historian, styles him on one occa- 
sion c Geraldus de Windesora.' 1 This appears to be the only 
ground for making him a son of Walter FitzOther, though the 
plain saltire borne by Windsors as by the FitzGeralds confirms, 
as Sir George Duckett has observed, their common origin, 
while carrying back the charge, apparently, to a very early 
date. Gerald is spoken of by his grandson as the constable 
and captain (primipilus) of Arnulf de Montgomeri, who raised 
the castle of Pembroke and placed him in charge thereof under 
William Rufus. His gallant defence of that fortress against 
the Welsh and the c slim ' stratagems {figmenta exquisitiora) by 
which he induced them to abandon the siege are narrated with 
delight by his descendant, 2 who adds that, to strengthen his 
position in the> district, he married Nesta, the sister of Griffith, 
prince of South Wales, who bore to him famous children, c by 
whom the southern coast of Wales was saved for the English 
and the bulwarks of Ireland stormed.' 

The Brut tells us that, in the early days of the reign of 
Henry I., Gerald was sent with others to Ireland by his lord 
Arnulf to seek the hand of King Murcard's daughter for him 
and was successful. 3 On the fall of Arnulf with his brothers, 
Gerald obtained from the king the castle of Pembroke, 4 which 
he seems to have subsequently rebuilt 'in the place called 
Little Cengarth.' There ' he deposited all his riches, with his 
wife, his heirs, and all dear to him; and he fortified it with a 
ditch and wall, and a gateway with a lock on it.' 5 This was 
in 1105. Next year occurred the famous and tragic incident 
of the surprise of this castle by Owen son of Cadugan at night 
and Gerald's narrow escape, his wife and children being carried 
off by the fiery Welshman, an outrage which Gerald later on 
was able to avenge. Of Gerald's death we have no mention, 
but in 1135 and 1145 we hear of his 'sons' fighting the 
Welsh at the head of c French and Flemings.' 6 

On these sons the best authority is their nephew Gerald the 
historian, whose autobiography contains a passage of great genea- 
logical interest. 7 Towards the end of the reign of Henry II., 

1 Itinerarium Kambrite, p. 89. This is, so far as I know, the only mention 
of him by that name. 

2 Ibid. p. 90. 3 p. 69 (Rolls Series). 4 Ibid. p. 77. 
5 Ibid. p. 83. See the Brut for all this. 

1 Giraldus Cambrensis (Rolls Series), i. 58-9. 



Rhys ap Griffin, who had come to meet the envoys of the king, 
namely Baldwin, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Ranulf de 
Glanville, the chief justice, was sitting at table in the house of 
William de Ver, Bishop of Hereford (1186-99), between the 
bishop and c Walter FitzRobert, a noble baron, who like the 
bishop was of the stock of the Clares ' (Clarensium). 1 Gerald, 
historian and archdeacon, chaffingly congratulated the Welsh- 
man on sitting between two of the Clares (duos Clarenses) y of 
whose inheritance, namely Cardigan, he was in possession. 2 
The prince turned the jest aside by a graceful compliment, 
which the bishop returned, and c after the midday slumber ' 
they all went out on the lawn, where Rhys recited the names 
of the eight sons and two daughters who represented Nesta's 
c matrimonial adventures.' William FitzGerald ( c primaevus ') 
he named first, 3 Maurice fourth, and David the bishop last. 
He spoke of the lands they had acquired in Wales and of those 
they had conquered in Ireland, adding that * their conquest 
there was great, if only they could keep it.' And this he 
added, observes the narrator, * because these two nations, the 
Welsh and the Irish, ever feed upon the hope that they will 
recover the lands taken from them by the English.' 

It is somewhat singular that Gerald c Cambrensis,' who 
sang the praises of his family in no measured strains, says 
nothing, so far as I can find, of Gerald de Windsor's origin or 
of his Windsor relatives. c Oh race ! oh family ! ' he ex- 
claims, c ever viewed with suspicion, not only for the numbers 
of the race, but also for its innate energy. Oh race ! oh 
family ! sufficient of itself for the conquest of any kingdom, 
but for the envy their energy excites.' 4 In another place 
his ecstasy, as he thinks of his relatives' achievements, leads 
him into wild hyperbole. 5 A few lines before he had drawn a 
picture of some thirty members of the clan, mounted on 

1 Adeliza, daughter of Gilbert de Clare, married Aubrey de Vcre, Great 
Chamberlain, father of Aubrey, first Earl of Oxford (Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 
390); Walter FitzRobert (lord of Dunmow) was son of Robert FitzRichard 
de Clare (Feudal England, pp. 475, 575). 

2 See Studies in Peerage and Family History, pp. 2112. 

3 Compare Expugnatio Htterniee (Rolls Series), p. 214. 

4 Expugnatio Hibernla (Rolls Series), p. 326. 

5 ' Hoc etenim gentis hujus omen, et haec conditio. Semper in armata 
militia cari, semper primi, semper, rebus in martiis, ausu nobili famosissimi. 
. . . Qui sunt qui penetrant hostis penetralia ? Giraldidae. Qui sunt qui 
patriam conservant ? Giraldidae/ etc., etc. (ibid. p. 335). 


splendid horses, and apparently displaying shields bearing the 
same ensigns, in 1176* a passage, if it could be relied on, 
which is obviously of great importance for the early use of 
armorial bearings and for their collateral adoption. 2 

I close this article with a chart pedigree embodying the 
results attained. 

There is one point which has to be explained in connexion 
with this pedigree. The Rotulus de Dominabus (1185) shows 
us (pp. 1 8, 21, 46) William de Windsor's widow, Hawys, in 
the king's gift, with one son William (eighteen years old), 
who had been in her ward for nine years, and six or seven 
daughters. This would carry back her marriage to William 
at least as far as 1 166. William appears to have had an earlier 
wife, the mother of Walter, his eldest son ; but this evidence 
of the Ro tutus *shov/s that she can hardly have been Christina 
de Wiham (as I suggested in No. I. p. 125), who was holding 
her land on the Gernon fief in 1 1 66. On the other hand, the 
argument there given as to a Christina having married a 
Windsor and brought him two manors on the Gernon fief 
remains unaffected, and is indeed strengthened by the fact that 
Walter de Windsor had a daughter and granddaughter re- 
spectively named Christiana. 

Another matter involved as yet in some obscurity is that 
Maurice de Windsor was succeeded by a sister's son. This 
cannot be accounted for on the basis of the pedigree as shown, 
but he and the mother of Ralf de Hastings may have been 
the children of Walter Fitz Other by another wife. It is also 
to be remembered that his lands and office had not come to him 
by inheritance, and that the succession therefore might not be 
regular or certain. 


1 Expugnatio Hibernia (Ed. Rolls Series), p. 335 : clipeis assumptis unius 

5 The thirty warriors in question would not be all descended from Gerald 
even in the female line. 


2 -S Jij % $ qq 



,3 ^-o < 















, 2 

E i 

T3 'o 4> 


."2 o*r2 

" -a w 


O i-4 O 

8 ^ 

3 * > "2 


s i 



N "2 c __ 

3'l g 

2 v d 

g wj 5 *; 

p *> *g 


"S ^t*T3 

.S K | g | Q ^ 



ll^l "^^ S 







T3 O C! ^ 

.ii b - OT bo 

w 2 

'i E O "~ "" 

Q I 

*"* ^j"^ C r! 
""~ Q^ 3 '.> jrj ^ 

* l|p> 

W s<o^ 
O s s. S -S 
SI fe-SJ^ 3 
H ^s^ .s 
H ^c5ll2 

S ^ { " S J 

^ -S a -S 2 a "g 

tJa'oO., rt"5 P^O 
_____ OJ - U JtJ u^ 3 5 

- T3 M J- 

|5 -I5 

tfc i5 /? 2 o 

P>- -o vc O w u 


/CERTAIN fictile forms seem to spring naturally from the 
\^4 human mind. This does not solely apply to the strictly 
geometrical figures. It is equally true as regards such conven- 
tionalized emblems as the cross with expanded limbs (the so- 
called cross patee, or more corectly formee, of the heralds), the 
tau and the Ansata crosses, which we find in Egyptian, eastern, 
and in Central American memorial carvings, some of which 
belong to periods long anterior to the dawn of our own era, 
in certain instances occurring spontaneously in each region. 
An example of this appears to exist in the Fleur-de-lis. 

In Europe from medieval times downwards force of cir- 
cumstances has conspired to endow the beautiful figure with a 
peculiarly French character. The French themselves say that 
they owe their lilies to Clovis, and it is worth noting that 
according to a very old legend they were a gift direct from 
heaven to the first Christian king of the Franks, they having 
been brought by an angel to a pious hermit for transmission to 
the monarch. This in itself is evidence of the extreme an- 
tiquity of these emblems, an antiquity which shrouded their 
beginning in obscurity. It is true that opponents of the 
miraculous have assigned amusingly divergent theories as to 
this origin. Naturalists look upon it as the arbitrary form of 
the iris, supposed to have been used as a primitive sceptre for 
early chieftains ; others think it is the riverside flag, the yellow 
flowers of which were plucked by the victorious soldiers of 
Clovis after the battle of Tolbiac to adorn their flowing locks, 
and so adopted as a royal badge. We are also told that it may 
be a painter's rendering of the bee, very doubtfully asserted to 
have been the badge of Childeric; or even the three frogs 
which foreigners attributed to the Gauls. But the two great 
opposing schools are those who believe the emblem represents 
the garden lily, the white lily of the Virgin Mary ; and those 
who, with some show of reason, regard it as a war symbol, a 
beautiful partisan or pike head. If we consult old documents 
and monuments evidence may be found to support each of 
these theories and several more. Deeper study, however, can 


lead to but one conclusion, and that is, the fleur-de-lis is a 
conventionalized marsh or water flower. Its prototype may 
have been the yellow blossom of the river flags, or the charm- 
ing iris (which, by a natural transition, would be overlaid with 
gold, for c painting the rose and gilding refined gold ' has ever 
been a favourite pastime), or, again, it may have been the 
eastern lotus. Egyptians and Asiatics held the lotus sacred, 
not only as a food-giving plant, but as a symbol of fertility, 
the product of earth and water vivified by solar heat, exhibit- 
ing the striking phenomena of opening and shutting with the 
rise and setting of the sun. Hence it was sacred to Phthah, 
to Osiris and Isis, all relating to the Nile and its wondrous 
floods. In the east, Vishnu issues from the floating lotus, 
symbolizing the creation of the world from chaos. Possibly 
this lotus may have travelled westward through Greece and 
Rome. On the other hand, it belongs to the common fund of 
symbolism, and while the nenupha spoke of the life-giving 
overflowing Nile to the dwellers in Egypt, the lotus pictured 
fertility to the Hindoos, the iris and kindred growths budding 
luxuriantly on the river bank foreshadowed spring to others. 
It is certain that we find the Greeks and Etruscans using a 
fleur-de-lis, and generally in much the same sense as the 
Egyptians did the lotus, as a sign of plenty and happiness. In 
this sense too was it employed by the Romans on some of 
their coins and medals the French say chiefly in connection 
with Gaul. It is notable enough that many of the monetary 
horns of plenty have a trifoliated object in the mouth of the 
cornucopia, and this occurs on coins struck in Rome as well 
as in the distant provinces. 

The fleur-de-lis belongs to the mystic tri-parted symbols 
so early venerated ; in later times, like the shamrock, it told 
the devout of the blessed Trinity ; while still later heralds saw 
it in a painted sermon, silently appealing to knights and 
squires : the three lobes standing for c Sapience, foy et prou- 

One difficulty in treating this subject is that in spite of 
the great diversity of shapes given to the fleur-de-lis though 
throughout its primal character is maintained it is practically 
impossible to assign dates to these different varieties as they 
are used simultaneously, especially so in the early days. For 
instance, we find a perfect conventionalized fleur-de-lis in the 
ancient hieroglyphics of Upper Egypt. In the Zodiac room 


of the temple of Denderah were to be seen three floral sceptres 
one is topped by a bell-shaped flower, a mere outline of the 
symbolical lotus ; a second has a calyx formed of two sepals, 
with an inner lanceolate bud; the third has at the top two 
steps, from the smaller of which springs an exact fleur-de-lis 
of the strictest Bourbon period. 

A complete fleur-de-lis consists of three petals, a transverse 
fillet, and beneath this the stalk. Sometimes filaments are 
placed between the central petal and outer curved ones. 

In one type we find the two curved outer petals joined 
together and forming a cup or calyx, from the midst of which 
springs an upright petal. Usually the fillet is absent, and the 
stalk is not triparted but merely a straight stem. Examples 
of this are seen in the flowers among Egyptian hieroglyphics 
in the Louvre; and Assyrian sculptures in the British Museum. 
The type is comparatively rare in heraldry. Dr. Bonavia 
regards this as the only true representative of the Lilium can- 
didum^ or Madonna lily. 

The outer leaves in the best examples are not too large, 
and are well curved over. If of nearly the same size as the 
central petal, and made to stand upright with only their tips 
curved, an awkward combination is the result. Frequently 
the undercurved edge is serrated, unlike any true lily leaf. 

The central petal may be long with a slight globular swel- 
ling near the top, or it may be of a more nearly oval form. 
Other favourite shapes are the squat club-like leaf seen on the 
Denderah sceptre, and the long diamond, of which rather hand- 
some specimens are seen on French illuminations and carved 
work taken to Scotland by Queen Mary Stuart. As a rule 
the petal is unmarked, but occasionally it has a ridge down 
the centre, giving it a convex appearance. This is particularly 
noticeable in the pike or lance-head designs, in which the 
central lobe is made to assume the appearance of a double- 
edged weapon with more or less curved cutting edges. How- 
ever, it also characterizes the three herbaceous-leaved lis, such 
as that seen as early as 1199 on tne C * V1C sea ^ f Lille. 

Perhaps the most puzzling part of the emblem is the fillet. 
It has no counterpart in the lily or iris, unless we take it to 
be a somewhat clumsy rendering of the calyx base, which 
has a rather marked series of protuberances in some of these 
flowers. This base may also account for the stalk of our 
typical lis. The fillet may be a thin, small band, constricting 


the emblem, or holding the separate parts together. At other 
times it is thick and long, very prominent. It is sometimes 
treated like a coronet fillet and studded with jewels. It may 
be double or even triple. Dr. Bonavia regards this as the 
essential part of the fleur-de-lis, which betrays its symbolical 
value. To him the fillet is a ligature, attaching two curved 
horns to an upright tree symbol. He argues that the central 
lobe is the Assyrian date palm, and the curved outer petals and 
their stalks are the luck-bringing, evil spirit banishing sacred 
horns actually attached to the trees. This theory is, of course, 
equally applicable to those lis which are shown with the outer 
curved parts springing from the fillet itself, and having only 
a central stalk. In the first case he sees two pairs of horns, 
in the second only one pair. This would be giving a definite 
birthplace to the symbol, which may have been brought to 
Europe either by the crusading knights, or much earlier by 
means of the far-reaching Phoenician commerce. 

As regards the heraldic stalk, we may have three short 
stems ; a short central and two long outwardly curving stalks ; 
a central long spike and two short curves ; or we may have 
practically a replica of the top part, and this repetition may 
be given such prominence as to detract from the elegance of 
the design. So far is this carried, indeed, that a double fleur- 
de-lis may be produced, as in the example drawn by Rey from 
a shield on a church at Altramura in the province of Naples. 
It appears to be the result of design, and not a mere whimsical 
exaggeration. It is constructed much on the principle of 
Jupiter's thunderbolt. Curiously enough we find a very 
similar object on the reverse of a British coin, ascribed to a 
king of the Iceni about A.D. 50. In many cases, and this is 
a characteristic of most of the badge lis on our Great Seals, 
the three petals and fillet form a single part, while the stalk 
is a small three-branched attachment. 

It must be confessed that many European artists, even in 
early times, treated the symbol as though composed of three 
distinct parts, bound together by the fillet. Thus we have a 
central globular or lanceolate blossom with two leaves, each with 
distinct stalk, and not touching each other. In two quaint 
examples found on seals attached to abbey charters in France 
this independence of parts is made quite plain. That on the 
seal of Theobald de Blangy, recorded at Bayeux, consisted of 
an upright ear of wheat between two ragged leaves. That of 


Robert Mahias, Knight Templar (Abbaye d'Aunay), has a 
central twig with alternate lanceolate leaves (perhaps this, too, 
may be an ear of wheat), between leaves having an upright 
shoot and an outward curved part. In this latter example there 
is no ligament. Yet in both instances, which belong to the 
thirteenth century, the general outline of the lis is preserved. 
Other examples closely allied to these are recorded at Aunay, 
Caen, and so on. This idea of the fruitfulness of the symbol 
is shown in another way. Often (both in heraldic painting 
and sculpture) the central lobe (and sometimes the three) is 
treated as though it were a pod partly burst and showing seed 
within. Or again we may have birds connected with the 
emblem. On the seal of Guillaume Baron, Knight Templar 
(Abbaye d' Aunay, 1260), we have a lis treated rather archi- 
tecturally, the oentral lobe being a long oval cartouche with 
a fillet, apparently to represent a bud, between two curved 
leaves with serrated under parts, and a fillet. Standing on 
each leaf is a small bird pecking at the central bud. On the 
seal of Raoul de Carpiquet (Abbaye de la Sainte Trinite, Caen) 
is a fleur-de-lis composed of a curving calyx, fillet and triparted 
plain stalk, and a central oval seed pod, whence springs a sprig 
with seven filaments having trefoil buds at the ends. Clinging 
to the pod on each side is a bird pecking at the lowest blossom. 
On the ancient seal of the town of Liskeard, Cornwall, we find 
a large fleur-de-lis, with filaments between the centre and outer 
petals, and on the anthers of these filaments are perched two 
small birds. It is probable that in this case the small birds 
were originally intended for the eagles of Richard, second son 
of King John, King of the Romans and Earl of Cornwall. 
Both he and his son Edmond used the sable eagle of Rome 
and the bezants of Cornwall. It is worth noting that Piers 
de Gaveston, Earl of Cornwall, bore : six golden eagles on a 
green field. No doubt this explains the presence of the birds 
on the Liskeard seal, but those on the seals of the crusading 
French knights suggest a curious connection with birds, winged 
figures, and men shown in Eastern symbolism as always guard- 
ing sacred trees, which Sir George Birdwood regarded as the 
* witnesses ' in connection with phallic worship. Did the sup- 
porting angels of the French king's golden lilies come from 
the same region ? 

May we explain that extraordinary anomaly, the leopard's 
head, jessant de /is, on which we see a lis thrust through the 


mouth of a leopard, the stalk between its teeth and the three 
petals coming out at the back of its head, by a metamorphosis 
of the Egyptian and Hindu god-bearing lotus ? On a beauti- 
ful sardonyx intaglio in the Demidoff Collection (shown in 
C. W. King's Antique Gems and Rings) we see Cupid rising from 
a pomegranate flower. On a sceptre shown in a painting at 
the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, attributed to a Roman 
consul A.D. 525, we see a winged child issuing from a lis. A 
gold sceptre found in the tomb of Philippe le Bel, at St. Denis, 
had a serrated leaf on each side of a rod topped by an eagle 
with half spread wings. All these look very much like steps 
in the degeneration of the seed-bearing flower symbol. 

The filament almost invariably springs upwards between 
the three petals, although a few rare instances are found of 
fleur-de-lis with filaments springing from the ligature outside 
the curved petals. Generally the filament bears at its end some 
kind of anther. This may be a mere ball, a concretion of 
small balls, or, as in the case of the so-called St. Louis ex- 
ample, it may take the form of a well marked trefoil. On 
some early Florentine coins the anther partakes of the charac- 
ter of a trident, or an open fleur-de-lis. A daisy ornament 
tip is also met with, as well as starred blossoms. When there 
is the filament with anther, and the petals are more or less 
decorated with serrations, curved over leaves, perhaps enclosing 
seeds, English heralds call it a 'fleur-de-lis flowery/ The 
French speak of it as epanoui, and the Italians as a giglio Fioren- 

A quaint form of decoration adopted by a few early herald 
painters was to diaper the three petals : that is, to cover them 
with running floral or simple geometric patterns drawn in very 
faint lines. Occasionally examples of diapered fleur-de-lis are 
met with in carvings and on seals. 

I have said that the lis belongs to the triparted class of 
symbols. This is true as a rule, for the pictorial idea appears 
to guide even the sculptor. But there are exceptions. The 
Bourbon crest, worn on the helmet and apparently on some of 
their crowns and coronets, had four curved petals and a central 
upright bud, either oyular or carved so as to present four club 
or pike faces. This method has also been adopted with some 
sceptres, and more commonly when forming architectural 

It is generally assumed that the earlier French monarchs 


bore the lis c without number,' c powdered/ or c semee,' and 
that the use of only three, two below and one above, came in 
with Charles V., some say in honour of the Trinity, others to 
denote the three races of kings. As a matter of fact, from 
the earliest times heralds treated the lis as a symbol of such 
importance that it could be shown singly. The royal shields 
appear semee, with ten (placed 4, 3, 2 and i), and with only 
three, long before Charles' day. It even occurs that the three 
flowers may be borne not as a pyramid, but placed two above 
and one below. While most herald painters did not hesitate 
to slice off the lis in any way when decorating a c powdered ' 
field, others strove to get in regular lines and only show com- 
plete flowers. But in course of time there was evolved a 
variety named a ' fleur-de-lis au pied nourri,' when only the 
top petals and 'filaments are shown. It was evidently derived 
from the royal sceptre or crown, and was probably an aug- 
mentation granted by kings as a mark of honour. 

In England the fleur-de-lis was used at least as early as the 
first half of the eleventh century. A good specimen is seen 
on the coins of Harthacnut (103941). It is also seen on the 
coins of Edward the Confessor and of Harold. On the Great 
Seal of Edward we find the king holding a sceptre with a 
trefoil, three well marked lobes forming a cross. On his crown 
we see trefoils round the band, but in the centre there appears 
to be a distinct fleur-de-lis. On the Conquerer's coins we find 
a lis sceptre and a flory cross. Henry II. has a crown de- 
corated with lis on his Great Seal, and so had the Empress 
Matilda, but her sceptre is tipped with a trefoil, not cruciform 
like the Confessor's but approaching the form of the lis. After 
this the symbol appears on the whole series of our Great Seals. 
The sword of Edward I. has a pommel shaped like a lis. On 
Edward III.'s first Great Seal we see a large castle on both sides 
of his throne, and above these a small top-heavy lis, the three 
petals being of almost equal size, and the stalk very small. 
On his second seal the castles disappear and we have two large 
lis, with a big lanceolate upright petal and two well curved leaves, 
below the fillet small but well defined stalks. On his third 
Great Seal we find the monarch on horseback, with a shield 
quarterly, France ancient and England. These arms are on 
the horse's neck and hind quarters, while the background is 
diapered with lozenges containing a lis. The reduction of the 
fleur-de-lis to three on the royal coat of arms first appears on 


the second Great Seal of Henry IV. Henry VI. had a special 
seal for French affairs. Thereon we see him with a fleur-de-lis 
sceptre : on his right is a crowned shield bearing the three 
lilies, on his left a shield quarterly France and England. 
Elizabeth has on her second seal two big dpanoui examples, 
with very small filaments, and each petal shaped as a separate 
bud enclosing seeds. With the House of Hanover the lis 
often becomes deplorably squat, sometimes looking much like 
ill drawn three ostrich feathers. 

St. Louis of France used many forms of the fleur-de-lis. 
On one of his seals it appears as a compact flower, with lanceolate 
central petal and two filaments with trefoil tips. It is some- 
times named after him, but this variety was used both before 
and after his time. Indeed, many of Saint Louis' lis are very 
suggestive of metal work lance heads, pierced and otherwise. 

Artists have often adorned the petals, sometimes placing a 
small crown on the centre lobe, or topping it with a Latin or a 
Lorraine cross. We have already seen that the side leaves may 
bear birds. But in heraldry the lis is never charged with 
another object ; on the other hand it is sometimes placed on a 
rose, castle, etc., and it may be dimidiated : for instance, half a 
rose and half a lis being stuck together, or half a lis and half 
an eagle. Its decorative value is very great. 






v ) a 
' w 

y t 


^.^^ ' 

>* ': v 


< I .. / ' , J , 

" ' ; tt * . { 

;.\ .. 









EDMUND OF LANGLEY, Earl of Cambridge, Duke of 
York and a knight of the Garter, fifth son of Edward III., 
was born at Kings Langley in Hertfordshire on February 2, 
1 34^-. He married Isabel, the younger daughter of Pedro the 
Cruel, King of Castile and Leon, who died in 1393 and was 
buried at Kings Langley, where her husband, who died August 
i, 1402, was buried beside her. His second wife Joan, 
daughter of Tlfomas Holand, Earl of Kent, survived him. 

Their tomb, once in the church of the Friars Preachers, 
has been moved to the parish church of Langley, where it now 
stands within a screened space at the eastern end of the 
northern aisle. A piece of an altar stone of Purbeck marble, 
three of its consecration crosses still to be seen, covers the 
tomb. Formerly twenty shields ran round it, of which 
thirteen remain, the seven along one length having been 
destroyed when the tomb was set up against a wall. 

These thirteen shields have been reproduced in the present 
number of 'The Ancestor, some by permission of the Society of 
Antiquaries from plaster casts in their collection, and others 
from casts taken by the editor of this review. Although some 
of the charges have been sadly fretted by time, enough remains 
to afford us a useful picture of heraldry at the transitional 
period when the vigour of fourteenth century art was in the 
beginning of its splendid sunset. No trace of colour is left 
upon the alabaster of the shields, which must have been gay 
with vermilion and gold. 

The shields may be thus described. At the north end of 
the tomb three shields : 

i. A cross paty between five martlets. SAINT EDWARD THE CONFESSOR. 
ii. The old coat of France quartered with England. RICHARD II. 
iii. Three crowns. SAINT EDMUND. 

On the length of the tomb seven shields : 

iv. An eagle with two heads. THE EMPEROR. 
v. France and England with a label. THE PRINCE OF WALES. 



vi. France and England with a label, with a quarter (for Clare) on each 

pendant of the label. LIONEL OF CLARENCE. 
vii. France and England with a label, with three roundels on each 

pendant, impaled with Castile and Leon. EDMUND OF LANGLEY 

viii. France and England with a label, with three roundels on each 


ix. France and England with a border. THOMAS DUKE OF GLOUCESTER. 
x. France and England with a label having two pendants of Brittany and 

three pendants of France. HENRY OF BOLINGBROKE. 

At the south end of the tomb three shields : 

xi. England with a border. HOLAND EARL OF KENT. 
xii. England with a border of France. HOLAND DUKE OF EXETER. 
xiii. A lion rampant. FnrzALAN OF ARUNDEL (grandfather of Joan of 

The tenth of these shields bears a coat said to have 
been borne by Henry of Bolingbroke from the death of John 
of Gaunt on 3 February -fff$, to 30 September next fol- 
lowing, when he succeeded to the throne, which affords the 
strong presumption that this monument was set up in the 
year 1400. The tomb therefore was made by Edmund of 
Langley during his lifetime, following a practice not extinct 
even in our time. The shields he set round his tomb need no 
explanation of their being chosen. The king's arms are set 
between those of the two royal saints. The others are those 
of Edmund and his wife, of the king's brother-in-law, the 
Emperor Wenceslaus, of Edmund's three brothers the Black 
Prince, Clarence and Gloucester of his nephew Bolingbroke, 
and of his wife's Holand and FitzAlan kinsfolk. 

v *..-.._. . % . -, I 14 \ 

,^ * U \ D 




WERE was a time 
when the compilers of 
peerages were wont to assign 
to the families of most of 
their patrons a Norman 
origin. To have received a 
patent of peerage in the 
reign of George III. argued 
that the subject so honoured 
came almost of necessity in 
a right line from a com- 
panion of the Conqueror. 
King George himself pos- 
sessed a true pointer's nose 
for that Norman blood so 
highly esteemed in those pre- 
Tennysonian days, and was 
of opinion that all country squires in whose veins it coursed 
should be baroneted when found. { Lovet ! ' he is reported to 
have exclaimed on hearing that a gentleman before him was 
of that surname. < Lovet ! Lovet ! One of the old Norman 
families ! Why isn't he a baronet ? ' and a baronet Mr. 
Lovet became. Such was the rule, although playful originality 
caused some few peers and baronets to range themselves 
with c the Saxons.' Stourton pointed proudly to Botulph, his 
gigantic forefather, who, garrisoning the gloomy passes of 
Salisbury Plain, forced the Conqueror to terms. 'Crocker, 
Cruwys and Coplestone,' when the Conqueror came west- 
ward he c found them at home,' as the old rime declares. 
Further north he found Shirley, seated at Ettington so long 
that it might be doubted whether he was not rather an Ancient 
Briton than a Saxon. Amongst the families who were really 
of ancient origin the choice of forefathers was often an 
unfortunate one. Neville and Fitzwilliam, each of English 
descent, chose to regard themselves as typical Normans. 

1 For details of the scheme of this series see The Ancestor, No. I, p. 278. 



Shirley of Ettington on the other hand was in reality one 
of our invaders, and came over, as the Slys did, c with 
Richard Conqueror/ It has been already announced that it 
is proposed to set forth in The Ancestor a list as perfect as 
may be of the existing landed houses whose pedigrees can 
be traced as far as the twelfth century. The two of which 
we shall treat in our present issue -the Wakes and the 
Tichbornes each exhibit this perversity of tradition. 

Amongst the charters of the Abbey of Saint Sauveur in 
the diocese of Coutances, is a deed whereby Richard Wach 
gives to the abbey of St. Sauveur a rent in the parish of 
St. John of the Oaks in the island of Jersey, in frank almoin 
for the souls of himself and of his father and mother. 1 It is 
undated, but a deed of William Bishop of Coutances, refer- 
ring to matters in debate between the monks of St. Sauveur 
and one Richard Wace, apparently identical with the above 
Richard, is dated in 1 1 2O. 1 The last witness to the former 
deed is < Alveredus clericus pro anima Hugonis Wach/ which 
gives us the suggestion that the dead father of Richard was 
Hugh Wach. Here it may be we have the remote ancestors 
of the Wakes, but whether this be so or no, we are soon upon 
firm ground. In 1 168 Hugh Wac gives in alms to the church 
of St. Mary of Longues, where he has founded an abbey, two- 
thirds of the tithe there. After his death Baldwin Wac his 
son is found renewing his father's charter to the abbey of 
Longues, Hugh Wac the younger being a witness. Hugh 
Wac the father of Baldwin is a figure well known to the 
genealogist. He made a great match with Emme, the 
daughter and heir of Baldwin fitz Gilbert (of the house of 
Clare). With her he had the barony of Bourne in Lincoln- 
shire, which her father had held in 1130. He was probably 
with King Stephen at Stamford in 1142, when a certain 
Hfugo] Wac attests a charter which Mr. Round assigns to 
that date. 2 

His son Baldwin Wac, the renewer of the charter of 
Longues, married Agnes the daughter of William de Hommet, 
the constable of Normandy, with whom her father gave in 
frank marriage the lands of Winchendon in Buckinghamshire. 3 
Baldwin Wake, son and heir of the last Baldwin, married the 

1 Cartulaire de la Basse Normandie. 

2 Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 159, 160. 

3 Coram rege, East. 5 Hen. III. mi. 


daughter of William Briwere, sister and co-heir of another 
William Briwere. Baldwin being dead, the king on 21 July, 
I2I3, 1 gave to William Briwere his father-in-law the ward- 
ship of his lands and heir, with the marriage of Isabel his 
widow, daughter of the said William. Hugh Wake, the son 
of Baldwin, made another of those marriages which were 
building up the importance of the family. Joan was his wife, 
a daughter and co-heir of Nicholas de Stutevile by Dervorgil 
his wife. She became sole heir of her father after the death 
of her sister Margaret. On 19 October, 1233, the king 
ordered seisin of the lands of Nicholas de Stutevile to be 
given to Hugh Wake, husband of the one daughter, and to 
the guardian of the other daughter. After the death of Hugh 
Wake at Jerusalem in 1246 Joan de Stutevile remarried Hugh 
Bigot the justice. Baldwin Wake was her son and heir, born 
about 1238, being returned as aged thirty-eight years in the 
inquest after her death. On i May, 1276^ the king took his 
homage as son and heir of Joan de Stutevile, and in 1280 he 
is styled son and heir of Hugh Wake and co-heir of William 
Briwere. 3 He was dead on 10 February, 128 J, when the king 
ordered the lands which he had held in chief to be seized. 
Marriage brought to this Wake, as to his fathers, added 
wealth and importance. He married twice, his first wife 
Ele de Beauchamp being sister and co-heir of William de 
Beauchamp, baron of Bedford, who was killed on the barons' 
side at Evesham. By her he had three daughters only. His 
second marriage was with Hawise de Quency, daughter of 
Robert de Quency, whose sole heir she became on the death 
of her sister Joan in 1283. Baldwin Wake fought in the 
cause of the barons, but was allowed to return to his allegiance. 
His son and heir, John Wake of Liddell in Cumberland, fought 
in the wars in Gascony and Scotland, and was summoned to 
Parliament as a baron by writs dated from i October, 1295, 
to 19 December, 1299. He died in 1300, leaving his son and 
heir Thomas Wake, second and last Lord Wake of Liddell, a 
child of two years. Thomas Wake, the last of the direct 
line of Wake, made the greatest of the Wake marriages by 
matching with Blanche of Lancaster, daughter of Henry Earl 
of Lancaster, grandson of Henry III. Under Edward II. 
he was the queen's man, and she made him a justice of the 

1 Close Roll, 15 John, m. 8. 2 Fine Roll, 4 Ed. I. m. 21. 

3 Close Roll, 8 Ed. I. 



forests and constable of the Tower, but the fall of the queen 
made no break in his fortunes, and under Edward III. he was 
governor of Hertford Castle and also of the Channel Islands. 
On his death on 31 May, 1349, without issue, the representa- 
tion of the house of Wake passed to Margaret, his only sister 
and heir, who as widow of John Comyn of Badenoch had re- 
married Edmund, Earl of Kent, the youngest son of Edward I., 
who had been beheaded within three years of the marriage. 
She lived but to the September after her brother, and through 
her daughter Joan, the Fair Maid of Kent, Margaret Wake 
was grandmother of Richard, King of England, the representa- 
tion of the Wakes going at last through the Holands, children 
of the fair Joan by her first husband, Sir Thomas Holand, Lord 
Wake of Liddell in right of his wife, and Earl of Kent. 

The male line of Wake was carried on through the 
descendants of several younger children of the house, few 
of whom however can be allotted their due place in the 
pedigree with any assurance. But of one branch at least we 
may speak with tolerable certainty. John Wake, the baron of 
Liddell, is stated in the inquest made after his death to have 
given half a knight's fee in Blisworth to Hugh Wake and his 
heirs. This Hugh, the founder of the line of Wake of 
Blisworth, is said to have been brother of John, but the theory 
presents certain difficulties. 

The Hungerford Cartulary, from which Sir R. C. Hoare 
took notes in the last century, gives us a series of deeds 
beginning with one of John Wake, son and heir of Sir 
Baldwin Wake, dated 21 Ed. I. (1291 or 1292), giving to 
Hugh Wake, his brother, his manor of Winterborne Stoke 
in Wiltshire. From this Hugh the following charters in the 
series enable us to trace a line of Wakes extinct in the early 
fifteenth century, and this line is not the line of Wake of 
Blisworth. But heraldry comes to our help. In the great 
roll of arms preserved amongst the Cotton MSS., 1 which 
was compiled soon after 1300, we have the arms of Sir 
John Wake de or a deux barres de goules en le chef iij rondels 
de goules. This Sir John Wake is the baron of Liddell who 
was probably alive when this collection of arms was making, 
although dead at the actual date when the roll assumed its 
last shape. Beside him we place from the same roll Sir 
Hugh Wake, called c le oncle,' who bears the arms differ- 

1 Caligula, A. xviii. 


enced by changing the bars and roundels into silver on a field 
of gules. Another Sir Hugh Wake who is placed before Sir 
Hugh the uncle differences the arms of Wake of Liddell 
with a baston of azure. As the roll deals with the genera- 
tion represented by John Wake of Liddell, we may fairly 
assume that Hugh with the baston is the brother of John the 
baron, and that Hugh with the silver bars and roundels is 
uncle to both of them. 1 This Hugh the uncle was probably 
our Hugh Wake of Blisworth, from whom a pedigree may 
be traced to the Wakes now in Northamptonshire, the head 
of which family is Sir Herewald Wake of Courteenhall. 

Thus we have amongst our landed families one which, 
although through the younger line of a cadet branch, can 
still show a male descent from a house of Norman lords of 
the twelfth century. Yet oppressed with a legendary descent 
from the half mythical Hereward, a pedigree which crumbles 

j * r o 

at the inquirer's touch, the family of Wake in taking names 
for its children sets Herewald and Hereward before Baldwin 
and Hugh, and chooses to reckon itself sprung rather from the 
c last of the English ' than from the great Norman stock in 
which it has its true beginning. So far from being an ancestor 
Hereward the Wake may be regarded as a humble dependant 
of this house of Wake, for their enthusiasm has been the main- 
stay of his legendary fame, and to their bounty he owes his 
very name of Wake, given him by the house when it took 
him for an ancestor. 

1 Wake of Blisworth, son of Sir Hugh ' le oncle,' was at Boroughbridge in 
1322 with a shield on which a sable border engrailed had been added to Sir 
Hugh's coat. The existing family of baronets appear to use the undifferenced 
arms of the Wakes of Liddell, a use for which no authority, unless that of the 
heralds, could be shown. The right to this coat descended with the heirs of 
the Fair Maid of Kent. 



The claim of ancient 
descent cannot be disputed 
when it is put forward by 
one of those few families 
who have never parted 
with the house and land 
from which they take their 
name. The Tichbornes 
are still of Tichborne and 
have been so in an un- 
broken line from the days 
when surnames were first 
assumed. The great pedi- 
gree of the house drawn 
up in the seventeenth cen- 
tury is content to trace 
them from Roger de Tich- 
borne, miles strenuuS) a lord of Tichborne who flourished under 
Henry II. The genealogist however can now take the line a 
step further back, and Roger may be given Walter for a 
father. Tradition is naturally scornful of such a grudging 
concession, and Tichborne is everywhere recognized as a family 
whose Saxon lineage would have satisfied the thane of Rother- 
wood. For the Tichborne pedigree in the full limelight of 
legend the reader may be referred to the back numbers of the 
British Archaeological Journal^ and to Mr. F. J. Baigent's essay 
therein upon the Tichbornes and their descent from the Lady 
Mabel, heir of the Lymerstons of Lymerston. Research is 
outstripped at the start c the family of Tichborne are well 
known to be of Saxon descent, and date their possession of the 
manor of Tichborne two hundred years before the conquest/ 
Of the family of Lymerston of Lymerston it was difficult to 
treat as fully as might be desired, for its members carried their 
island shyness to such lengths that no one of the name could 
be discovered in any available document, and the earlier lords 
of Tichborne guarded their own privacy as jealously as did the 
allied house. Mr. Baigent was at no loss to explain the 
meaning of the absence of the Tichborne forefathers from the 
records of their country. The conquering, curfew-ringing 
hordes of the Norman are to be blamed. c From history we 


learn how it fared with those of true and noble Saxon descent 
when the Norman entered and a mighty monarchy laid in 
blood, bound by laws of iron, ruled over England's destinies. 
The family of Tichborne for a period remained in obscurity 
and was not seen or heard of in the courts of kings or moving 
to and fro amongst the nobles of the land/ Doubtless the 
pre-conquest records of such a house were burned by the 
Norman with envious glee. c But when the first of the 
Plantagenets ascended the throne and the Saxons were allowed 
to resume their wonted places of honour and no longer looked 
upon with scorn by those of Norman blood the chroniclers 
tell of a gallant crusader, whese name and prowess were known 
far and wide, Sir Roger de Tycheburne, who oft had waved 
the standard of the cross high above the infidel Moslems and 
Saracens, and for these deeds of high emprise and love he was re- 
warded by the hand of the fair Lady Mabella, the heiress of De 
Lymerston, for " right faithful true he was in word and deed." 
Now it is indeed possible that Sir Roger in word and deed 
was all that his panegyrist might claim for him. The red 
cross may have been his only wear and the path to the Holy 
Land as familiar to his feet as the high road to Winchester. 
To wave the standard high above the infidel Moslems and 
Saracens may indeed have become with him one of the rooted 
habits of his strenuous manhood, and one well deserving the 
hand of the fair Lady Mabella. But here again we face the 
Tichborne nature, shy and reticent. The chroniclers who told 
of these deeds omitted them in their definitive editions, and for 
proof of the crusader's prowess we must be content with the 
epithet of miles strenuus applied to Sir Roger in a pedigree 
made five hundred years later for his remote descendant, a 
citizen and draper of London, whose exploits in the field as 
colonel of the Yellow Regiment of London Militia are cer- 
tainly mentioned by the chroniclers of his day, but in lukewarm 
terms. For the legend of the Saxon Tichbornes authority 
may be quoted, but our authority is of the date of 1586. 
Master Chidiock Tichborne, a remote cadet of the Tichbornes 
of Tichborne, having wasted his estate in riotous living, fell 
amongst dangerous companions, and was at the last laid by the 
heels with Ballard and Babington for plotting against the life 
of the { bright occidental star, Queen Elizabeth.' He suffere 


in Lincoln's Inn Fields the fearful death which waited for his 
like, and left behind him a widow and orphan, three exquisitely 


turned verses of farewell, and a speech of wailing regret in 
which he asks pity for his sad case. c I am descended/ he 
said, c from a house, from two hundred years before the Con- 
quest, never stained till this my misfortune/ 

Here then, in the reign of Elizabeth, we have the Tich- 
borne legend in flower, but in that reign the imaginative 
genealogist was in his golden prime and poor Chidiock's 
speech carries as little weight with the genealogist as did his 
bitter plea for mercy with the unmoved Walsingham. What 
shade of evidence can be found in the first records of the 
family tells, if anything, against the Saxon legend. In 1 1 66 
the Bishop of Winchester returned that two knights fees were 
held of him by Roger de Thikeburne, which had been held by 
Roger's father Walter in 1 135.* This Walter also occurs in the 
Survey of Winchester in the time of King Stephen. By a deed 
now existing and made between 1160 and 1169 his son Roger 
quitclaims to the Bishop of Winchester certain lands in 
Alderwic, Hortun and Winchester, with a mansion without 
the King's Gate at Winchester which his ancestors held, and 
the bishop therefore grants to him two hides of his demesne 
in Tichborne, which Roger 2 claimed to hold in fee farm. 
Walter de Tichborne, who succeeds him in the pedigree, occurs 
as a witness to several of the Selborne charters between 1230 
and 1238, but although there seems little doubt that the lands ot 
Tichborne descended in the same family, much difficulty must be 
encountered in reconciling the accepted statements with regard 
to the exact line of descent. The family genealogy gives us 
the following pedigree from Roger (the son of Walter) : 

Roger Mabel de Lymerston 

Walter Geoffrey 

Roger= Alice John= Margaret 

and heir 



1 Red Boob of the Exchequer, p. 205. 

2 This Roger is also found as a party to a fine in I Ric. I. 


Of Roger, the husband of Alice, we have ample evidences. 
By an existing deed which must be set down as of later date 
than 1252 he quitclaims to the chapel and chaplains of Lymer- 
ston the land in Langred in Brading which his uncle Geoffrey 
gave to the said chapel. The seal of this deed affords us the 
earliest example of the arms of Tichborne vair with a golden 
chief. Roger is represented as armed and on horseback and 
carrying a shield upon which the field of vair and the chief 
may still, it is said, be traced. In 40 Hen. III. he is not yet 
a knight, for in an assize roll of Hilary term 40 Hen. III. 
(125!-) he is presented as holding a whole knight's fee in 
the hundred and as being of full age and not yet a knight. 
In a deed undated (before 1260) and in another executed 
about 1266 l he occurs as a witness, being then a knight. But 
in another of the Selborne charters, to which a date of 1240 
has been assigned, occurs a Sir Roger de Thycheburne, knigbt y 
for whom no provision is made in this' pedigree, one 
Henry de la Charite (de Caritate) granting him c in arduo 
negocio meo ' his tenement of the Rode (in Selborne) for 
seventy marks. In this tenement of the Rode Alice the widow 
of Roger claims her thirds after the death of her husband, 
and it remained in the family until another Roger de Tich- 
borne in 133-1 granted it to the Prior and convent of Selborne 
in consideration of their maintenance of a chantry priest cele- 
brating in Roger's new chantry which he had established in 
the chapel of his manor of Tichborne. 2 

It may be that in this Sir Roger of 1240 we have the 
ancestor who married c the Lady Mabella ' for whom a single 
evidence may be found. In Michaelmas term 40 Hen. III. 
(1256) Mabil de Tycheburne is party to a fine of a messuage 
and land in Lymerston, which are to be held of the said Mabil 
for life by Hawise, daughter of Geoffrey de Loges, which 
Geoffrey, by the way, is a suggestive contemporary for the 
Geoffrey de Ticheborne, whom Roger styles his uncle in the 
Langred deed quoted above. It is at least difficult to believe 
that in Mabil who is thus associated with Lymerston in 1256 
we have an heiress who could have been married to a crusader 
whose father flourishes about 1135, himself being party to the 
deed of exchange of 1 1609. 

From Roger de Tichborne, the husband of Alice, few diffi- 
culties are encountered. He is dead in 1275 when his widow 
1 Selborne Charters. 2 Ibid. 


Alice sues John de Tichborne his brother for dower in the 
manors of Tichborne and Lymerston, and in the tenement of 
the Rode and elsewhere. 1 He was coroner at the time of his 
death, as we learn from a plea concerning a baby whom its 
mother had drowned in a mere. 2 The finder of the body had 
been attached by Roger as coroner. Roger had since died, and 
in 1280 none answered for him, as his son (sic) and heir John 
de Tichborne was within age and in the wardship of Geoffrey 
de Pycheford. His widow Alice remarried with Walter Drueys, 
who with the Abbot of Wherwell had been an executor of her 
late husband. In a plea of dower which Walter Drueys and 
Alice his wife bring in 1280 concerning a messuage and land 
in Bryston the defendants call to warrant John, son and heir of 
John de Thycheburne, who is within age and in the wardship 
of Geoffrey de Pycheford aforesaid. 3 

This John, then within age, becomes a knight and a sheriff 
and is the undoubted ancestor of Sir Henry Tichborne, who is 
lord to-day of John's manor of Tichborne. Benjamin Tich- 
borne the first baronet of Tichborne was so created by King 
James on 8 March, 162^. Sir Benjamin and his successors 
were devoted followers of the Roman obedience, and a long 
list of Tichbornes suffered death, imprisonment or heavy fines 
for their faith. In the cadet branches of the family no such 
consistency is to be found. In Dr. Tichborne, a chaplain to 
King Charles I., we have a clergyman whose matrimonial and 
financial adventures caused no little scandal in his day. The 
Surrey Tichbornes as they sank in fortunes followed the new 
sect of Quakers, and strangest ornament for the pedigree of a 
house of Romanist cavaliers we have Robert Tichborne, son of 
a citizen and skinner of London and nephew of the adventur- 
ous Doctor of Divinity, becoming a Puritan alderman and 
Lord Mayor of London, rising to a seat amongst Oliver's 
peers and dying prisoner in the Tower. His signature and 
his seal of the arms of Tichborne are found amongst those 
appended to the death warrant of King Charles. 

That this family with its venerable tenure of its home 
should ever have coveted such additional honour as might be 
derived from a descent from shadowy crusaders and from 
Anglo-Saxon thanes who are less than shadows is an example 

1 De banco Trin. 3 Edw. I. m. 7. 

3 Assize Roll, No. 787, octave of St. Martin 8 Edw. I. (1280). 

3 Ibid. 


of the pedigree-maker's perversity. A family whose first 
ancestor, found under Henry I. with the oversea name of 
Walter, is followed by Geoffreys, Walters and Rogers, without 
an English name amongst them, would have shown more of 
the historical instinct had it decided to come over, like its 
less imaginative neighbours, with King William the Con- 

O. B. 




WHEN recently going through the Curia Regis Rolls, I 
found an interesting entry relating to the armorial seal 
of Earl Gilbert de Clare [A.D. 1243-95], a translation of which 
reads as follows : 

' Memorandum that R. 1 Earl of Gloucester and Hertford informed the 
Justices here on Sunday next before the Feast of St. Peter in Cathedra, that in 
crossing a certain bridge he lately lost his seal (sigi/lum), of which the impression 
was six small shields, together with " alio hernesio suo," and he asked the 
Justices to proclaim this publicly, and that for the future no credit may be 
given to that device (signum), and that credit may be given to the device 
(signum) now sent to the same Justices in which the impression of one shield 
with the arms of the Earl is contained : and the Justices did this publicly, etc.' 

This Memorandum appears on a De Banco Roll, Hilary 
Term, 51 Henry III. 2 A.D. 1267, and as the Earl did not suc- 
ceed his father Richard till July, I262, 3 and since the above 
extract shows that the seal was lost before February 22, 1267, 
we are thus enabled to assign a limit of a little less than five 
years to any charter to which the lost seal may be appended. 

Examples of both seals have been found. The earlier one 
is attached to a charter now in the Public Record Office, by 
which the Earl granted the manor of Begeworthe, etc., to Sir 
John Giffard, 4 and a cast of a seal in the British Museum 
collection is evidently of the seal with c the impression of one 
shield.' Both are defective, the older seal having slipped in 
the ensealing of the Begeworthe deed, although the c six small 
shields ' each on a leaf of a six-foil may still be made out. 
The Penrice MSS. also contain two impressions of the seal 
that was lost, attached to charters executed the loth and 28th 
April, 126 5- 6 Illustrations of the two seals will appear in a 
future number of The Ancestor. 


1 An evident mistake of the scribe ; it should be ' G.' 

2 Curia Regis Roll, No. 180 (formerly No. 130), memb. 25. 

3 Vide Dictionary National Biography. 

4 Ancient Deeds, A. 922 ; see i. 108. 

6 Cartee et Munimenta de Glamorgan, iii. 507-12 (Geo. T. Clark). 


No. 2 

RIGHTH worshipfull aft r all due recommendacion had pies 
it you to understand I perceve by my brother woo is nowe 
gonne owt off towne for such causez as he is bound to do that 
e stond and be to me singler good and Sir I perceve nott this 
y hym only but by other my especiall good frendes as Sir 
John Russell and other for the wich 1 hertely thank you Sir 
I hertely to have me in yo r rememburanz for spedy 
remydie ye knowe rigth well my trouble is not only to me but 
partely to my frendes and kyne and so consequently I ame nott 
only to gyve you thankes for your benevolens to me shewed 
but they in like maner and summe watt I require you to re- 
gard the pore honeste that god and the kyng haith called me 
to and allso the plage that fleetstrett is nowe sore infect w* to 
my no litell danger over and besides myne imprisonement and 
that iff it wold plees you to shewe me your favour in such 
wise as the kynges hignes thorow your goodnes shewed may 
be the suner moved to have pite ye shall bynd me to you as 
long as I liff as knoweth all myghthy Jhesu woo kepe you to 
his plesur and your hertes desire written in the fleet 

by your assured 

To the rigth worsschipful 
Master Cromewell one off 
the kynges most honorable 
Counsell this byll bee de- 


Aftur all due recommendacion had Please it your honor- 
able maistership to be advertised that I have received your 
benevolent and favorable lettres touching suche my busines 

1 From State Papers, Hen. VIII. Ixxi ; see also the article on the family 
of Knightley. 

2 State Papers, Hen. VIII. Ixxxxvii. 



and suet for the liberties of my parke as my lorde Leonard 
Grey hath moved unto you on my behalf, for the which duety 
bindeth me unto you with a requytell for the same if it might 
lie in my litell power. And sir before the receite of your 
saide lettres I sent unto my saide lorde Leonarde a bill to be 
assigned by the kinges highnes consernyng my saide suet which 
plenarly will declare theflfect of my purpose. And right glade 
I wolde have bene to have sent my sonne Serieant l unto your 
maistership now at the kinges graces being at Winchester, but 
that he is letted by reason of the kinges commission consern- 
ing his subsidie, but by godes grace he shall wayte upon you 
at the kinges commyng to Notley where I shall desire you to 
receive of him my poor patent of a graunte unto you to be 
maister of the game of my saide park with such fee conteigned 
in the same patent as I trust shalbe to your contentacion. 
And thus I beseche almighte Jhesu preserve you to his pleasure 
and your hertes desire. At Falwesley the xxvj 1 * day of Sep- 

By yo r poor beedes woman assured 


widow 1 

To the right honorable maister 

Crumwell chief secretary to 

o r Soveraign Lorde the King 

1 Edmund Knightley the serjeant-at-law. 

* Dame Jane's name is not written by herself letter and signature alike 
being in a scrivener's hand. 




1 . A cladher mor or great sword of the Scottish fashion, with 

drooping quillons, each ending in a quatrefoil ornament, 
and a small hollow wheel pommel. (Temp. Hen. VI?) 

2. A two-hand sword with gracefully facetted pear-shaped 

pommel and slender drooping quillons. The blade 
grooved and tapering, stamped with a fleur-de-lis. 
Flemish workmanship. (Early XVth century?) This 
sword was found in the river Scheldt. 

3. A heavy fighting sword with a deep wheel pommel of 

octagonal outline, straight and heavy quillons widen- 
ing slightly at the ends, and original leather grip. The 
blade inlaid with an inscription in brass. Of German 
fashion. (Temp. Hen. 




1. A heavy fighting sword of the c bastard ' type, having a large 

wheel pommel with straight quillons of octagonal sec- 
tion. The blade is stamped on the tang with an 
armourer's mark. A sword of German workmanship 
and found in Hamburg. ('Temp. Hen. IV.) 

2. A sword with a laton hilt, deep wheel pommel and slightly 

drooping quillons of square section. Probably a French 
sword. (Temp. Edw. III.) 

3. A heavy fighting sword of the c bastard ' type, having a 

deep wheel pommel inlaid with a crossed crosslet in 
brass, and slightly drooping quillons of square section. 
(Temp. Hen. IV.). This sword is from Mogowo in 





1. A small fighting sword with flat wheel pommel and straight 

quillons. On the tang of the blade is stamped an 
armourer's mark. Of Italian workmanship. (Temp. 
Hen. F.) 

2. A sword with a moulded, crown-like pommel and drooping 

quillons. The surface of the hilt is enriched with a 
form of geometrical ornaments in gold, silver and 
copper, worked after the fashion of the Azziminia, 
Italian work of the sixteenth century. This superb 
sword was found hilt upwards in the mud banks of the 
Thames at Westminster some little time ago ; its state 
of preservation is most astonishing considering its long 
immersion under water. Its date must be considered 
as anterior to the Norman Conquest. An almost 
similar sword was found in the river Witham and is 
now in the British Museum. 

3. A sword with long and straight quillons and inscribed blade. 

(Temp. Hen. ///.) This sword was found in France. 

4. A sword with russet hilt, pear-shaped pommel and straight 

quillons with an early example of the pas-cTdne, small 
counter-guards issuing at right angles. Of Italian 
workmanship. (Temp. Hen. VII?) 




FOLLOWING Mr. W. H. B. Bird's article upon the 
origin of the Grosvenors published in the first number of 
The Ancestor this large body of Cheshire deeds from a Cheshire 
muniment room should be of interest and service to the 
genealogist. The bulk of them were executed before the 
practice of dating such instruments became general. They 
have been chosen for their bearing upon the history of 
Lostock and the Grosvenors. Few seals of arms remain, one 
however exhibiting an example of the Holford arms, Holford 
adding a cheveron for difference to the coat of his Toft ances- 
tors, who bore the curious shield of three letter Q's. Unfor- 
tunately no Grosvenor seal of arms occurs which would throw 
light upon the hotly debated bearing of azure ove une bende dor. 
The deeds have been arranged for more convenience under 
the headings of Lostock Gralam, Toft and Holford, Hulme, 
and Allostock. The grouping is however only roughly 
arranged. Thus various deeds of Plumlegh, etc., which bear 
upon the Lostock pedigree, have been set under the heading 
of Lostock Gralam. 




i. [1233-4?] 

Gralam [Gralambus] de Lostoc to Richard son of Randle Grosvenor [Grossi 
venatoris\. Grant of the whole land in Hulm between the hedges which 
Richard son of Maurice and David son of Adam held, with common of pasture, 
for his homage and service, to hold of the said Gralam and his heirs, paying 
yearly 6s. and one pig, provided he and his heirs erect no mill. Witnesses : 
Richard de Sandbach, Richard de Wibbenbury, sheriff of Cheshire, Robert 
Grosvenor [Grosso venatore\ Randle the clerk of Ruston, Randle de Herton, 
Roger de Kegworth, Adam parson of Limme and Hugh de Bostoc. No date. 
Large seal with device of a hart running. SIGILL . . . LOMI DE LOSTOC. 

H. 1269 

Covenant between Alexander son of John de Lostoc and Sir John de 
Sonbach, rector of Rowthisthorn. Demise to the said Sir John for a term of 
twenty-four years of the waste of the said Alexander in the town of Lostoc 



with licence to assart, etc., and of his part in the mill of Lostoc, with remainder 
to John son of the said Alexander. Witnesses : Sir W[illiam] de Wenables, 
Sir Richard de Wilburham, Randle de Oldeton, W. de Bostoc, Richard de 
Swetenham, William Bernart and Hugh de Cotun. Dated Whitsuntide A.D. 


Adam son of Richard son of John de Lostok to Robert le Grovenur. 
Quitclaim of two acres in Lostok, bounded by Blac wode strete, Pevere he, 
land late of Th[omas] le Lomb, tenant of Adam de Mertun, and land of 
Adam de le Wode, in cons, of 4*. Witnesses : A[dam] de Mertun, Stephen 
ni the Gale, Richard son of Henry le Bor, Gilbert de Bradeschawe, Robert 
son of Robert de Pevere and John de Pevere. No date. 


Richard de Lostock to William son of Robert de Wyninton. Grant of the 
whole part of my land and waste bought of Ralph de Wasteneys and Beatrice 
his wife between Peuerhee and le lynstrete, except a piece of waste between le 
fendeshers Clowe and le Brocholes, with 2s. rent which John son of Thomas 
de Lostock, Ralph de Wasteneys and Beatrice his wife pay (reddif). Warrant 
against all men and women. Witn. : Sir Ralph de Wernoun, William de 
Toft, Randle de parua Ouere, John de Noua Aula, Henry de Pykemere, Robert 
Chaplain of Weuerham, etc. Undated. Endorsed ' Rec' de Rad'o de Holes 
de ten' in Wyninton.' 


Thomas son of Thomas de Lostok to Agnes * my daughter.' Grant of a 
house with a curtilage and three half selions in Lostok, lying within certain 
bounds, * beginning at the Doubledyche which Robert Gorst made between 
my land and the lands of Richard de Lostok,' the old ditch, the Stubbisfeldis- 
stwyle, GrenecrofFt, Hermitishull, the Marleput upon the Blakeflatte, Grene- 
hulle on the highway, with an additional piece on the other side of the 
highway. Witnesses : Richard de Lostok, Richard de Andirton, Stephen 
Venator, Henry de Banecroffte, Richard Burdon, Adam Gorst and Roger the 
clerk. No date. 


Richard son of Richard de Lostock to Richard son of Letice de Tabbelegh. 
Grant of a piece more (aumentum) land next the land the grantee holds of him 
bounded by the Barndhoc, Fulfordesiche, the water of Peuerhee, the little 
stream between the Clov, the Markedehoc, to hold of him, etc., with haybold 
in the woods of Lostock, with warrant against all men and women. Witn. : 
Thomas de Lostock, Robert le Grouenor, Robert del Holes, Stephen Venator, 
Robert de Wyninton, Randle de Horton, Robert de Nortwyc, clerk, etc. 
Undated. Seal broken. [For the * burnt oak ' and the * marked oak ' see Nos. 
Ixiv., xvii.] 


William son of Robert de Banecroft to Henry de Banecroft. Grant of a 
croft of land in Lostok, bounded by the little thorn upon the old ditch to the 
great thorn thereupon, the ditch to the corner thereof, and so ... to the 
great pool in the Mossiche, along the Mossiche to the corner ... of Robert- 


son of Gralam de Lostok, and slantwise to the little thorn : also a piece of 
land by that croft called the Mersse, bounds from the great pool straight to 
the great well, along by the Heetside to the great well there, thence to the 
great Wastle and slantwise to the little thorn, which is the boundary between 
Robert son of Graylam and said croft, with fencing for inclosing his hedges in 
the wood of Lostok and pasture for 20 beasts on the pasture of Lostok. War- 
rant against all men and women. Consideration 3 marks. Witn. : Richard 
lord of Croxton, William de Meynwaring, William de Modburlegh, Robert de 
Wyninton, William de Tofft, [John] de Noua Aula, John the clerk, etc. 
Undated. Seal S'.WIM* BANCR* + 


Robert son of Roger de Banecroft to Henry de Banecroft his heirs or assigns. 
Quitclaim of all the lands formerly of Bertram de Banecroft in Banecroft, in 
cons, of 4/. Witn. : Richard lord of Lostok, Robert de Wyninton, Adam de 
Hatton, Nichol de Vernon, Hugh his brother, Stephen Venator, John de 

Peuere, Robert his brother, etc. Undated. Seal. 

ix. [1276-7?] 

Richard son of Richard de Lostok to William son of Roger de Tofte. 
Grant in frank marriage with Joan sister of the grantor of lands of his share 
in the wood of Plumlegh, viz. 3 acres bounded by Houeneford, the water, and 
the heath, and 3 acres by Holeford, the assart of Randle de Hulle called flax- 
cinheye, and 3 acres of the said William beginning at Holeford between the 
church way and the water of Peuere, provided they erect no mill on the water 
of Peuerhe, to be held of the said Richard and his heirs at a rent of a pair of 
white gloves, remainder to grantor and his heirs. Witnesses : Sir G[uncelin] 
de Badelesmere, justice of Chester, Sir Patrick de Haselwelle, sheriff of Cheshire, 
Randle de Vernun, Richard de Massy, Randle de Horton, Robert de Wyninton, 
Roger de Tofte, Robert le Grovenor and Gilbert the clerk. No date. Seal 
with device of a fleur de lys. s j RIC . . . RIC . . . SSTOC. 

x. [Before 1293] 

Richard son of Richard de Lostok to Robert son of Richard le Grosuenor. 
Grant, for his homage and service, of lands within bounds, viz. the portforde, 
a hedge and ditch, and Lostokbrook, to hold of him, etc., paying yearly one 
[pair] of white gloves at midsummer. Said Robert not to erect a mill upon 
Lostok brouk within the bounds of Lostok. Warrant clause. Witn. : Sir 
Ralph dz Vernun, Sir Hamon de Mascy, Sir Richard de Mascy, knights, 
William de Modburlegh, William de Meingaryn, Thomas his brother, Roger 
de Tofte, Hugh de Stok, Robert de Peuere, etc. Undated. Seal wrapped. 
(Endorsed, de terra de Hulm.) 


Robert son of Robert de Pevere to Robert le Grosvenor. Grant of * all 
my part ' of that piece of land which stretches longways from the garden of 
Robert son of Nicholas de Pevere to the Portforde and broadways from the 
highway to Lostokebrok, with the islands between the leats called the Holmes 
(except one acre in tenure of Robert son of Nicholas, and the land I had in 
exchange from William de Modburlegh), with husbold and haybold in the 
wood (nemore) of Pevere. Witnesses : William de Meyngaryn and Thomas his 


brother, William de Modburlegh, Roger de Vernun and Hugh de Stok. No 


Richard, son of Thomas the cook of Lolstock to Ellen his daughter. Grant 
of all his lands, etc., in the town of Lostockgralam, in tail, remainder to grantor 
and his right heirs, with warrant. Witn. : Sir Ralph de Vernon, Sir William 
de Brerton, knights, Robert de Wenyngton, Thomas de Vernon, Geoffrey de 
Wenynton, Thomas the clerk, etc. Undated. 


Richard son of Richard de Lostok to Robert Grosvenor (Grosso venatori). 
Grant of all his land within these bounds, the Wetesiche as it descends into 
the field of said Robert upwards to the boundary of Craunache and Allostok, 
the border of Allostok, the hedge of Bradeschawe, the leat of Lostok ; on the 
other side, the ditch extending from the outlying (forinsecd) house of said 
Robert towards the stubbes as far as the Wytesiche when it descends from the 
heath into the field of said Robert : also a piece of land between the hedge 
of the Birches and the boundary of Schibbrok, from the corner of said hedge 
towards the new hall down (decendo, i.e. descendendo) a pool to the high road 
from the Bothe to Nordwych, and along the road by the bounds there made 
to the corner of said hedge towards Lostok : to hold of me, etc., with warrant. 
Witn. : Sir Ralph de Vernun, Sir Richard de Sondbach, William de Meingarin, 
Robert de Vernun, Richard lord of Croxton, William lord of Bostok, Richard 
de Bradewalle, etc. (A translation attached, in fine seventeenth century hand, 
is defective. Forforinseco it reads ' forraine.') Undated. 

xiv. [Before 1293] 

Robert son of Richard le Grosuenor to Richard son ot Richard de Lostok 
his heirs and assigns. Quitclaim of all common and estovers in the groves 
(nemoribus) of Plumlegh, both in the purparty of said Richard and in that of 
William de Tofte and his tenants, saving his common of pasture within the 
bounds of Plumlegh over the whole thereof provided it be without the hedges, 
in cons, of a grant by said Richard of a part of his wood (bosci) and land in the 
said town, and a piece of land in Lostock by charter. Witn. : William de 
Tofte, Randle de Parva Overe, Richard lord of Croxton, Richard son ot 
Robert of the same, Hugh le Tyu, John de Noua aula, etc. Undated. Seal. 

xv. [After 1286] 

Richard lord [son] of Richard de Lostok to Thomas son of Thomas 

de Lostok for his homage and service. Grant (indented) of a piece of land in 
Lostok bounded by the yardrawe of brockholis, the rowe hock in the long 
snapeheued, the ditch and bound to the qwytestofflodelynd upon Peuereheeboug, 
the middle of the watercourse of Peuerehee to the Brockeholisyord, provided 
he and his heirs make no mill there, to hold of him, etc., with housbold and 
haybold in all the woods of Lostok except his park, quittance of pannage, and 
grinding wheat hoperfre and tolfre, paying yearly one pair of white gloves at 
midsummer, in cons, of two bovates of land in the town of Lostok which 
Leticia once wife of Gralam de Lostok held as dower granted by said Thomas. 
Warrant against all men and women. Witn. : Sir Ralph de Vernon, Sir 
Richard de Massy, Sir Hugh de Dotton, knights, William de Preheris sheriff 


of Cheshire, Robert Grosvenor (grosso venatore) Bailiff of Nortwych, Robert de 
Wyninton, William de Horton, Stephen Venator, etc. Undated. Seal . . . 
DE LOS . . . (Slightly defective.) 


Richard son of Richard de Lostock to Richard son of John Burdon ot 
Scladehurst. Quitclaim of lands, etc., which the said Richard Burdon bought 
of Thomas son of Thomas de Lostok in Lostok, by the field of the Brocholes. 
Witnesses : William de Toft, Adam de Tabbelegh, Richard de Andreton, 
William de Horton and John the clerk. No date. 


Roger son of Thomas de Lostok to [Richard] son of Richard de Banecroft. 
Grant of a piece of land in Lostok [bounded by] . . . the corner of the hedge 
of Adam son of Geoffrey Gorst towards the heet . . . the marked oak, the 
marked elm grove ... as the said Roger had the same by the grant of 
Richard de Lostok. Witnesses : Sir Ralph de Vernon and Sir Hugh de 
Venables, knights, JPhilip de Egerton, sheriff of Cheshire, William de Tofte, 
Stephen Venator, John de Newhall [Nova Aula\, Richard de Anderton and 
John the clerk. No date. Seal with device of a fleur de lys . . . OG' DE 
LOSTO. . (Defective.) 

XVHI. [13015] 

Thomas son of Thomas de Lostok to Robert son of Robert de Lostok. 
Grant of a piece of land in le stubbes feld in Lostok bounded by the bridge on 
le sty waye, the high road, le Brere Grene above the ditch of Thomas Balle 
the utere brerd of said ditch, the land of Robert Gorst, and that of Agnes 
daughter of grantor, the middle of the double ditch, and Lostok Broke as far as 
said bridge, with housbote and haybote in all the woods of Lostok except the 
park, paying yearly to the chief lord one pair of white gloves at Michaelmas. 
Warrant against all men and women. Cons. 9^ marks. Witn. : Sir William 
Trussel then Justice of Chester, Sir Ralph de Vernon, Sir Hugh de Venables, 
knights, Robert de Bressy then sheriff of Cheshire, Robert de Wynington, 
William de Horton, Randle de Merbury, John of the same, Richard de 
Wynington, John the clerk, etc. Undated. (Seal broken.) 

xix. 1305 

Thomas son of Thomas de Lostok to Robert son of Robert de Lostok 
Deed of gift of ' all my goods and chattels ... in all the land which I gave 
him, etc./ in Lostok. Witn. : Robert de Wynington, Richard of the same, John 
de Noua aula, John de Marbury, Henry de Banecroft, Richard his brother, 
William de Horton, John the clerk and others. Dat. Lostok Saturday after the 
Ascension 1305. (Seal broken.) 


Thomas son of Richard de Lostock to Thomas de Vernoun and Joan his 
wife, their heirs and assigns. Quitclaim of the Manor of Lostockgralam. 
Witn. : Sir Ralph de Vernoun senior, Sir Ralph his son, and William de 
Brereton, knights, John de Legh, Geoffrey de Werberton, Robert son of 
Robert le Grosuenour, William de Coton, Thomas Danyel, Randle the clerk, 
etc. Undated. 


xxi. ['1320] 

Agnes, formerly wife of Richard de Lostock Gralam, to Thomas son of Sir 
Ralph de Vernoun. Quitclaim indented of a piece of land called the Lavedi- 
feld in Lostock Gralam, in exchange for all the land which William son o 
Maude and the said Maude his mother held to farm of the said Thomas in 
Lostock Gralam. Witnesses : Sir Ralph de Vernoun, John de Merbury, 
Robert de Wyninton, Roger de Holfort, Henry de Banecroft and Henry the 
clerk. No date. 

xxii. [1329] 

Thomas of Vernon and Johan his wife to John son of Hugh of Erds- 
wicke. Grant of a place of land of their waste in Lostok Gralam, bounded by 
' the newe ditche of Rondull of Merton, the meates of Grovenoreslostok at the 
quitesiche, the bounde betweene Lostocke Gralam and Craunache vnto the 
ditche of Hughe of Erdeswik, etc., alsoe turbarie to one mesuage vpon the 
said lande in their mosses of Lostok Gralam, and pasture in their wastes of 
Lostockegralam.' Warrant, with power to enclose, etc. Witn. : ' Oliver of 
Ingham, then Justice of Chester, RaufFe of Vernon, knightes, John of Wrennebur', 
then sheryff of Chesshire, Henrye of Craunache, Thomas of Craunache, 
Thomas of Sladehurste,' etc. Dat. Lostok the Tuesdaye after the nat. of S*- 
John Baptist 3 Edward III. (A translation, attested by Richard Glutton, 

xxm. 1333 

Richard del Schagh and Joan his wife to Robert de Grovenour ol 
Ruddeheth and Emme his wife in tail. Quit-claim indented of a messuage 
and a piece of moor and pasture in Lostok Gralam between the Quytesiche and 
the road from Werynton to Newcastle, the road from Bradeschagh to Middle- 
wich and that from Nether Pevere to Middlewich, and also in the common ol 
pasture and turbary which they the said Richard and Joan had by the demise ol 
Thomas de Vernon and Joan his wife in Lostok Gralam. Witnesses : Stephen 
de Merton, Hugh de Erdeswyk, Randle de Merton, Henry de Coton and 
William de Bradeschagh. Dat. at Hulm upon Ruddeheth Sunday after St. 
Nicholas 1333. Broken seal. 

xxiv. [1339] 

Richard son of Thomas de Vernon to Randle son of Randle de Merton 
and his heirs. Quitclaim of a piece of land upon Ruddeheth in the town of 
Lostok Gralam, bounded by the high road from Bradeshagwe to Middlewich, 
the boundary between said Randle and Robert le Grosuenor, the boundary 
which Hugh de Erdeswyk made upon Ruddeheth, and following same on the 
south side as far as said road, for los. to be paid yearly to me and my heirs, 
with warrant. Witn. : Robert de Wynyngton, Richard de Vernon of Wate- 
croft, Henry de Holford, John de Nova aula, Hugh de Erdeswyk, etc. Dat. 
Lostok Gralam, Friday after St. Lucy V. 1 3 Edw. III. 

xxv. [1342] 

Ellen and Alice daughters of Richard Burdon to Richard son of Richard 
Burdon. Indenture witnessing that all lands, etc., held by Maude late wife 
of Richard Burdon for her life in Lostok Gralam by [grant] of John Spendeloue, 
chaplain, with remainder to said Ellen and Alice, shall remain wholly to said 
Richard the son, his heirs and assigns, with warrant. And in exchange said 


Richard the son grants to said Alice all lands late of her said father in 
Rouschagh in Lostok Gralam, with warrant. Witn. : Richard de Vernon of 
Lostok, William de Wyninton, Richard de Anderton, Richard del Redemore, 
etc. Dat. Lostok, Tuesday the Circumcision, 1 5 Edw. III. (Slightly defective.) 
One seal (of two). 

xxvi. [1343] 

Robert son of Robert de Lostok to Randle son of David le Wolf. Grant 
of all his lands and tenements in the territory of Lostok, with the reversion of a 
dower which Agnes, wife of John le Voudrey, mother of the grantor, holds, save 
only one piece of land called Schawerudyng. Witnesses : Richard le Vernon 
of Lostok, Peter de Legh, Richard de Anderton, Richard de Lache and John 
the clerk. Dated at Lostok Tuesday the feast of St. Hilary 16 Edw. III. 

xxvn. [1345] 

William son of Hugh Nichtingale to John his brother, chaplain. Grant 
of all the land, etc w grantor had of the demise of Hugh his father in Lostok, 
as contained in the original deed, paying yearly to the heirs of Robert le 
Grouenour the chief lord 6d., with warrant. Witn. : William de Mayn- 
waring, Roger de Toft, Randle de Mertone, Walter de Bradeschawe, John 
the clerk, etc. Dat. Lostok, feast of St. Botulph Abbot 1345. Seal of a 
nightingale (?). 

xxviii. [1346] 

William son of Hugh Nithgale to Emma late wife of Robert le Grouenour 
of Ruddeheth, her heirs and assigns. Quitclaim of all lands, etc., which she 
had of the gift of John Nithgale, chaplain, in Lostok ; and grant of the rever- 
sion of all lands, etc., which Alice late wife of Hugh Nithgale of Lostok holds 
of her husband's gift of his inheritance in Lostok, with remainder to grantor : 
Warrant clause. Witn. : Roger de Leycestre, Hugh de Pikemere, Roger de 
Toft, Henry de Holford, William del Helde, etc. Dat. Lostok, friday before 
the Conversion of St. Paul 1345. 

xxix. [1346] 

Emme, who was wife of Robert le Grovenour ol Ruddeheth, to William 
the son of Hugh Nithgale of Lostok. Grant indented of the lands she had of 
the gift of John Nithgale, the chaplain in Lostok, and also all the lands, etc., which 
Alice, who was wife of Hugh Nithgale, holds in dower of the gift of the said 
Hugh of the grantor's inheritance in Lostok by the grant of the said William, 
and which, after the death of the said Alice, ought to revert to grantor and 
her heirs, to be held of her for the life of the said William by the service of 
six silver pennies yearly. The said Emme also grants to the said William the 
reversion of the four acres of land which the said Alice and Hugh the son 
of the said Hugh Nithgale hold of her for a term of four years from Martin- 
mas 1345, to be held for the life of the said William at a rent of six shillings 
yearly, etc. Witnesses : Roger de Leycestre, Hugh de Pikemere, Roger de 
Toft, Henry de Holford and William del Helde. Dated at Lostok Ash 
Wednesday 1345. Broken seal attached, which shows two shields side by 



xxx. [1351] 

Richard son of Gralam de Morton to Nicholas son of William de 
Wyninton of the Birches and his heirs. Quitclaim of lands, etc., which 
Nicholas son of Robert de Wyninton had of his feoffment in the Birches 
by Shibbrok, in rent as in demesne. Witn. : Hugh de Venables of 
Kynderton, Richard de Wyninton, knights, Richard de Leftewych, Richard 
del Shawe, William del Helde, etc. Dat. the Birches by Shibbrok, Wednesday 
after Trinity 1351. 

xxxi. [1350-3] 

William son of Roger Gorst to Roger le Pauer, chaplain. Grant of all his 
lands, etc., in Rouschwe {elsewhere Roshaw), in the town of Lostocke. Wit- 
nesses : Thomas Dauners, sheriff of Cheshire, Richard de Leftewich, Richard 
le Vernun, Robert de Winnyngton, Warin de Both and Richard de Bothe. 
Broken seal. Undated. 

xxxii. [1373] 

John de Holfort to Robert le Grosvenor. Quitclaim of all the messuages, 
lands and rents in possession of said Robert, which were formerly of Gralam 
de Lostok, or of Richard his son, or of Richard the son of the said Richard 
in Allostok, Hulm and Lostokgralam. Witnesses : Ralph de Vernon, John 
de Mascy and William de Carynton, knights, Hugh de Venables and John 
Dounvill. Dated at Lostokgralam Friday before the feast of St. Michael in 
Monte Cumba 47 Edw. III. (1373). Seal of arms a cbeveron between three 
letter ft's. Sigtllum Sojjannig to ftolfortr. 

xxxni. [1382] 

Robert Bordon of Sladeshurst to Ellen daughter of Richard de Sladeshurst 
and Margery her sister, in tail. Grant of all his lands, etc., in the town of 
Lostokgraulam, rendering to the chief lord one pair of white gloves (serote- 
charum) at midsummer, with warrant, remainder to grantor and his heirs. 
Witn. : Randle le Vernon, Richard de Lyttelor, William de Tabbelegh, 
Thomas de Berinton, Randle le Vernon, etc. Dat. Lostokgraulam, Sunday 
after St. Wilfrid B. 6 Richard [II]. Seal. 

xxxiv. [1387] 

John son of William de Holford to Thomas son of Robert Kynsy, John 
de Alkumlowe, John son of John Alkoc of Toft, John de Bostok, William 
le Baker and Robert de Peuver the younger, abiding in the town of Toft, 
and John son of Randle son of Hugh del Toun. Grant of all his lands, 
etc., formerly of Nicholas son of William de Wenyngton in Lostok Gralam. 
Witnesses : Sir Robert le Groswenor, Sir Richard de Wenynton, John de 
Laycestre, Robert de Toft and Richard de Dutton. Dat. at Lostok Gralam 
the Epiphany 10 Ric. II. (1387). Seal in white wax, very imperfect ; a 
shield of arms, possibly with a bend or cheveron. 

xxxv. [1402] 

Robert de Wynyngton to Nicholas de Wynyngton his brother. Grant ot 
all his lands, etc., in the towns of Birchis upon Ruddeheeth and Lostok 
Gralam with a salt pan in Northwich called * Tatton Wiche Hous ' and half 
a ledpanne and rake. To be held by the aid Nicholas for his life at a 
rent of a red rose. Dated at Birchis 2 Aug. 3 Hen. IV. (1402). Broken 
seal. (Endorsed erroneously 1401.) 


xxxvi. [1422] 

William de Schirburn and Ellen Burden his wife to John Godemon and 
Joan his wife, their heirs and assigns. Grant of their share of a piece of 
land called Roshagh lying between Moysingeslowe and Lostokbroke, with 
buildings thereupon, with warrant. Witn. : John Wrenche, John Thomlynson 
of lostok, Thomas de Faryngton, Clerk, etc. Dat. Roshagh, Sunday after the 
Assumption, 10 Hen. V. (1422). Two seals. 


xxxvii. [After 1292] 

Roger lord ot Tofte to Roger his eldest son and heir and Margery 
daughter of Thomas de Weuere, his wife. Grant indented of all his land, 
etc., in Kinderton, viz. in a place called Russeford, with housbold, haybold 
and quittance of pannage in the wood of Bradesvvall, and a piece of his waste 
land in Tofte bounded by the lamputtes near Toft, Hullesey (saving a right of 
way), the hedge of his hay to the boundary of Plumley, the said boundary to 
the boundary of t Nether Tabbeley, the boundary between Tofte and Bexton 
to Bextundale, the old ditch to said lamputtes, and the new piece of an assart 
between Bradeleybrock and the assart of Hamon de Tofte, the land, etc., which 
Henry grantor's brother gave him in Tofte, with buildings, etc., thereon, as 
in the charter of Roger his father to said Henry, to hold in tail, paying yearly 
to grantor for life, for his warrant, i</.,and if there be no issue, to said Margery 
for life as her dower of the rest of grantor's lands, remainder to grantor. 
Warrant against all men and women. Witn. : Sir Hugh de Venablis, Sir 
Hamon de Mascy, Sir Ralph de Vernon, Sir Richard de Mascy, knights, John 
de Lee, William de Meynwar', William de Modburlegh, William de Tofte, 
etc. Undated. Seal. S'ROG * DE TOFT. 


Roger son of William de Tofte and Margery his wife, daughter of Richard 
le Despenser, to John son of Richard le Despenser, chaplain. Grant of their 
mansion of Holford, with the demesne, lands, mills, etc., in Plumplegh and 
Holford, and their hay called Holfordehurst. Witnesses : Sir Hamon de 
Mascy, Sir Peter de Dutton, knights, John de Legh, Payne le Wasteneys, 
Matthew de Holgrewe, Roger de Tofte and Richard the Chaplain. Broken seal. 
R . . . TOFT. Undated. 


John the Chaplain son of Richard le Despenser to Margery his sister, wire 
of Roger son of William de Toftes. Grant of his mansion of Holeford, with 
demesne lands, mills, etc., within the bounds of Plumplegh and Holeford, the 
Hay called Holefordhurst, etc., for life, with housboild and hayboild in the 
woods of Plumplegh, common of pasture, etc., remainder to Roger her husband 
and the heirs of their bodies, remainder to said Roger and his heirs. Warrant 
against all men and women. Witn. : Sir Hamon de Mascy, Sir Peter de 
Werberton, knights, Payne de Wasteneis, John de Legh, Roger de Leycestre, 
John de Bexton, Randle de Lettleouer, Mathew de Holegreue, etc. Undated. 
Fragment of seal, a lion, s' HENRI . . . 

[See fine between the same parties of a messuage, two carucates of land, 
three acres of meadow, four acres of wood, a mill and three parts of a mill in 
Plumlegh, Holford and Lostock. Plea Roll, i & 2 Edw. III. m. 21.] 

i 3 8 


XL. 1316 

Roger lord of Tolt to Thomas his son, clerk. Grant in tail ot a piece ot 
land called Esaub, as inclosed, and a piece by it as the bounds shew, and a 
third on the other side of the sponway by the said land, as the bounds shew, 
in Toft, with the wood thereupon, to hold of him, etc., with housbold and 
heybold in the groves (nemoribus) of Toft, quittance of pannage, and all 
commons, etc., and licence to have two undertenants, paying yearly one pepper- 
corn, remainder to Hamon his brother, with warrant. Witn. : John de Legh, 
William de Modburlegh, William son of Roger de maynewaryng, Roger son of 
William de Toft, Nicholas son of John de Peuer, Robert the clerk, etc. Dat. 
Toft, Friday after St. Andrew Ap. 1316. (Copy ill written.) 

XLI. [1450] 

Thomas de Swetenham and Robert ... of Cholmondeley to [William 
Bulkeley of ?] Holford. Grant of all messuages, lands, etc., which they had of 
the feoffment of said William in Holford and Tofte [to hold] for life without 
impeachment of waste, remainder to Matilda daughter of William Bulkeley 
for life, remainder to Thomas son of Thomas son of said William in tail, 
remainder to the right heirs of said Thomas son of William, with warrant. 
Witn. : William Bulkeley of Ayton, Thomas . . . etc. Dat. Friday before 
St. Simon and St. Jude Ap. 29 ... VI. (Very defective.) 


[See also under Lostock Gralam Nos. i., x., xxxii.] 

XLII. [Before 1260] 

Richard de Chernoc to Richard le Grouenur, his heirs or assigns. Quit- 
claim of two bovates of land in the town of Hulm whereof he impleaded 
said Grouenur by writ of entry in the court of Chester, in cons, of 2 marks. 
Witn. : Sir R. de Monte alto then Justice of Chester, Sir William de Venables, 
Roger de Tofft, William de Bostock, Warin de Croxton, Hamon le Bret, Randle 
de Horton, Randle the clerk of Ruston, Robert de Wyninton, Geoffrey de 
Lostoke, Thomas his brother, Randle the clerk of Merton, Roger the clerk, etc. 
Undated. Seal S'RICARDI D CIR . . . 


Ralph son of Ralph de Vernoun, knight (militis), to Robert son of Robert le 
Grosuenour and his heirs. Quitclaim of all lands, etc., which said Robert held 
in Hulm upon Ruddeheth at the time of this writing. Witn. : Sir Hugh de 
Venables, Sir William de Brerton, knights, Richard de Foulishurst then sheriff, 
John de Legh, William Gerard, Randle de Merton, William de Coton, etc. 
Undated. Seal broken. A shield of arms with fesse . . . ADVLFI DE VERNOVN. 

XLIV. 1334 

Cristiana de Bircheles to Robert Le Grosuenour of Ruddehet. Grant of all 
cattle (animalid), wheat and hay and all dung, also cloths and utensils, also a 
term of years of lands in Hemdebur'. (No witnesses.) Dat. Bircheles, 
Friday after St. Calixtus P. 1334. ( Seal g ne ) 


XLV. 1424 

Roger le Venables, parson of Routhestorn, and John Chardero, Chaplain, to 
William del Grene and Thomas de Stanyhurst. Letter of attorney [to deliver 
seisin] to Thomas le Gros[venor] in all the messuages and lands [specified in] 
their charter indented, etc. Dat. Bancroft . . . 1424. Seal. (Damaged 
and defective.) 

XLVI. [1468] 

Bills indented of William Stanley, knight, Sheriff of Cheshire, witnessing 
that by virtue of a writ of admeasurement of dower sued by John Legh of the 
Bothes, esquire, and Emme his wife and others, the lands which Joan late wife 
of Robert Grosvenor, esquire, hath in dower were found to be five marks 
worth by the year more than she ought to have by right. Five marks worth 
in Hulme and Allostok are therefore delivered to the said John Legh and 
Emme his wife, one of the daughters and heirs of the said Robert Grosvenor, 
and to the other named in the said writ. Dated 12 June 8 Edw. IV. (1468). 
Seals with device of a hart's head. 

XLVII. [1496] 

John Leycestre son of Thomas Leycestre, esquire, to his kinsfolk Peter 
Shakerley and Elizabeth his wife in tail. Indenture granting them liberty to 
divert Lostok broke and lead the water thereof from a wood called the Sprynge 
in Lostok beyond his meadow and land in Netherpeuer to their Mill called 
Hulme Milne, as Joan Grosuenor used to do, and the attachment (attachiamentuni) 
of the mill and pool, also a piece of land 7 feet in width and half a foot in 
length from the said wood to Hulme parke for that purpose, and liberty to dig 
earth and turves on my meadow and lands for repairs, and carry stones, timber, 
etc., with warrant. Witn. : Ralph Eggoton, John Leycestre of Toft, Peter 
Page, etc. Dat. Allostok, Monday after St. Gregory P. 1 1 Henry VII. 

XLVIII. [1497] 

William son and heir of Ralph Eggerton late of Hulme, esquire, William 
Croxton and John Leycestre of Toft to Peter Shakerley. Bond in 500 marks, 
with condition that Peter Shakerley and Elizabeth his wife and the heirs of 
their bodies shall enjoy the manor of Hulme, etc., late of Emme daughter of 
Robert Grosvenor, without disturbance of said William. Dat. 14 Sept. 13 
Hen. VII. [1497]. Three seals. 

XLIX. [1547] 

Geoffrey Shakerley, esquire. Inq. p.m. at Wich Malbank, Saturday before 
the Assumption I Edward VI. (1547), stating that he died 5 June last past, 
and that Peter Shakerley was son and heir, aged 28 and upwards at the date 
of the inquisition. (See Ches. Inq. I Edw. VI. No. 5.) 


Peter Shakerley of Hulme, esquire, to Brian Travers, gent., and Andrew 
Rider, chaplain. Indenture of feoffment of the manor or capital messuage in 
the town of Allostocke, called * the hall of Hulme/ with lands, etc. [specified 
at length]. Hugh Bonell and Richard Mershe are attorned to deliver seisin. 
Witnesses : Roger Anderton, gent., Simon Hurst, William Kenworthey, 
Robert Tumlynson and Randulphe Wilkynson. Dated 21 Dec. 6 Edw. VI. 


A declaration of the uses of the feoffinent is attached. The said manor 
and lands in Hulme, Laich Denis and Byley, are settled to the use of the said 
Peter Shakerley for life, with remr. as to one portion to Geffray Shakerley son 
and heir of Peter and his right heirs, as to another to Elizabeth wife of Peter 
for life in augmentation of jointure, remainder to said Geffray and his right 
heirs, and as to the rest to Elinor Margaret and Dorothy (minors), daughters 
of Peter, for 20 years, his brother-in-law Roger Anderton and cousin John 
Venables, gent., being trustees for them, remainder to Geffray as before. 

[See also under Lostock Gralam No. xxxii. and under Hulme Nos. xlvi., xlix.J 

LI. [Before 1211] 

Robert le Brun to Robert son of Picgot. Grant of Alelostoc with all its 
appurtenances to be held of the said Robert le Brun and his heirs at a rent of 
five shillings. Witnesses : Ralph de Meidnibar' [? Mesniwarin], Lydulf the 
sheriff, Patrick de Moberlegh, Henry de Stapelford, Peter the earl's clerk, 
Richard de Maltebi, William son of Hugh and Richard de Rodest'. Seal 
of a knight on horseback, the inscription lost. [Ralph de Mesnilwarin was 
justice of Chester before Philip de Orreby who occurs in 1211.] 


Alan, lord of Lostok, and Michael de Gostre. Covenant whereby the said 
Alan conveys to the said Michael the moiety of his lands in Lostok for a 
term of twenty-four years beginning at Whitsuntide A.D. 1264, in case the 
marriage to be had between John son of the said Alan and Margery daughter 
of the said Michael, or between other children of the said Alan and Michael 
shall not stand. Witnesses : William de Menewarynk, Roger de Tofte, 
Warm de Croxton, Richard de Croxton, Richard de Swetenham, Hugh de 
Coton, Henry de Coton, Bertram de Hulm, Richard de Crawnach and Adam 
the clerk. No date. Seal S'ALANI . . LOSTOC. 

LIII. [ c 1 2 70-1] 

John son ol Alan de Allostok to Robert son of Richard le Grosuenur. 
Grant of all his land in the town of Allostok with all his right in the 
said town. Warrant against all men and women. Witn. : Sir Ralph de 
Vernun, Sir Hamon de Mascy, Sir Richard de Mascy, Sir Hugh de Pulford, 
knights, William de Modburlegh, William de Meyngaryn, Roger de Tofte, 
Thomas de Meyngaryn, Hugh de Stoke, etc. Undated. Seal s' . . . DE LOS . . . 

LIV. [1270-1] 

John de Sondbache, rector of Routhisthorn, Richard de Croxton, parson, 
Roger de Sondbache and Richard de Suetinham, on behalf of John son of 
Alan de Allostok, to Robert le Grosvenor. Recognisance in 407. of silver for 
the ratification by said John son of Alan de Allostok, when he shall come of 
age, of the grant which he made to the said Robert le Grosvenor of land in 
Allostok, for that Thomas Persed and Emme his wife and Avice sister of the 
said Emme quitclaimed to the said John. Witnesses : Sir Reynold de Grey, 
justice of Chester, Sir Richard de Wilburham, sheriff of Cheshire, John de 
Wetinhale, Robert de Moldeuurdthe, William de Bonebur', William de 
Bulkylegh, William de Bostok, Hugh de Coton and Thomas de Lostok. 


Two seals (of 4) remaining one with a device of a lion fighting a dragon, 

LV. [I270-I] 

Adam de Merton, Richard son of William Smith (fabri) and Margery his 
wife, John Marshal and Emme his wife, Randle de Ruston, Stephen Nittegale 
and Robert his brother, and Richard son of Henry le Bor, parceners and 
charterers of Allelostok, to Robert son of Richard ie Grovenor, his heirs and 
assigns. Quitclaim of all common right in the lands which John son of Alan, 
lord of Lostok, gave to the said Robert in the manor of Allostok. Witnesses : 
Sir Reynold de Grey, justice of Chester, Sir Thomas de Meingwarin, Sir 
Richard de Wilburham, sheriff of Cheshire, Robert de Huxley, John de 
Sandbach, rector of Roudestoron, Warin de Croxton and Richard his brother, 
Richard de Suetenham, Hugh de Coton and Roger de Nortwych, clerk. 
No date. One seal (of 9) remaining. 


Randle son of William Smith (Fabri) of Frodisham to John Marshal ot 
Frodisham. Quitclaim of all the land of Lostoc which was the land of William 
his father to hold of him, etc., in cons. 2is. Witn.: Robert Chamberlain then 
bailiff of Frodisham, Th[omas] son of Nicol, Richard the provost of Hingesleg', 
Nicolas Opndor', Walter Smith (Fabro), William de Netherton, Henry his 
brother, Walter son of Nicol, Th[omas] son of Payne Clerk, etc. Undated. 


Adam de Merton to Robert son of Richard Le Grosuenor. Grant ot all 
his land of Alneschawe which Stephen Nittegale and William Rawald held of 
him in Alle Lostok, with all his waste in that town, viz. one fourth besides 
that piece of waste between grantor's house and the house which [Richard] son 
of Matilda held of said Robert as far as to Spurneschawe Lache : also his land 
adjoining, between that of Hugh Nittegale and that which Henry servant of 
Robert holds of said Robert, all his land in the Field held by Hugh Nittegale 
between the high way to the Brydenebruge and the bounds of Over Pevere, 
and a small Croft called Lombescroft, saving to grantor common of pasture and 
turbary. Mention of iron mine. For this grant said Robert has given all his 
land in Spurneschawe which Amisia de Alle Lostok held in dower, with that 
which Alexander of beyond Merse held of said Robert, and a piece of meadow 
(described). Warrant by Adam against all men and women. Witn. : Sir 
Richard de Mascy, Sir Richard de Sondbache, William de Modberlegh, 
William de Meingarin, Hugh de Stoke, Richard de Craunache, Henry of the 
same, etc. Undated. 


Adam de Merton to Robert le Grosvenor. Quitclaim of ' my part of the 
mill of Allostok,' namely the fourth part of the moiety of the said mill. 
Witnesses : William de Meingarin, William de Modburlegh, Hugh de Stok, 
Richard de Craunach, Henry of the same, and John de Coton. No date. 


John son of Alan de Allostok to Robert le Grosuenur. Confirmation and 
quitclaim of the whole town of Allostok, according to a charter said Robert 


previously had of him. Witn. : Sir William de Venables, Sir Ralph de 
Vernun, Sir Richard de Mascy, Sir Richard de Sondbache, knights, William 
de Modburlegh, Roger de Vernun, William de Meyngaryn, Hugh de Stok, 
tc. Undated. Seal broken . . . NI DE LOS . . . 

LX. and LXI. 

Thomas son of Michael de Goiestre to Robert Le Grosuenor. Grant of 
all his land in the town of Allostok bought of Richard son of the smith (Jabri) 
and Margery his wife, to hold of him, etc., paying yearly zs. at midsummer 
and Martinmas, with warrant against all men and women. Witn. : Sir William 
de Venables, Sir Richard de Sondbache, William de Meingarin, Robert de 
Wyninton, Richard de Lostock, Richard lord of Croxton, Richard de Crawe- 
nache, Roger de Tofte, Henry de Craunache, etc. Undated. [Indenture 
and counterpart.] 


Robert le Grosvenor to Adam de Merton. Grant of the land in Allelo- 
stock, bounded by the leat of Allelostock, the ford by the land Alkoc de 
Ultramerse held, the hedge and ditch to the syke (sichetum) coming down from 
Lostokehurst, said syke to the road towards Richard le Bor's house, the hedge and 
ditch to said Richard's house in Lostokehurst, downward to said leat, the leat 
to said ford ; with one acre in addition of waste outside Spurneschaue, and the 
whole land of Spurneschaue which William Smith (faber) held, in exchange 
for the land Adam held in Allelostock, to hold of the said Robert and his heirs 
at a rent of seven shillings. Witnesses : William de Mayngwarin, William de 
Modbirlegh, Richard de Lostock, Adam de Tabbelegh, Stephen the Hunter 
(vena tore) , John of Newhajl [de Nova Aula\ and Randle of Little Over. No 
date. Seal with an inlay of a gem ? an eagle ? S'ROBERTI P'SONE DE HAMT*. 


Adam de Merton to Robert le Grosuenor. Grant of the homage, rent 
and service of Richard le Boar. Witn. : William de Meingarin, Roger de 
Tofte, Adam de Tabbelegh, Richard de Craunach, John de Noua Aula, etc. 
Undated. Seal. (Endorsed, Lostok.) 

LXIV. [Before 1279] 

John de Lostok to William Nytegale. Grant in cons, of 22/. of a certain 
land, bounded by the hedge next the smithy (fabricam) of Stephen Grenehoyt 
upwards to the oak in the hedge, alfenesaheforde, the burnt oak, and the 
boundary to the said hedge, to hold of him, etc., by said William his heirs 
and assigns, saving men of religion and the chief lord, with all commons, 
husbote, haybote, and quittance of pannage in the woods of Lostok, etc., 
paying yearly 2s. at midsummer and Martinmas. Warrant against all men 
and women. Witn. : William de Vernon, Ralph Curnouylen, Robert de 
Peuere, Adam de Acliston, Henry de Crawnach, Warin de Croxton, William 
de Bostoc, William Bonetable, Robert de Bernunsah', etc. Undated. (Endorsed, 

LXV. [Before 1297] 

Robert le Grouenur to William son of Hugh Nitegale. Confirmation of all 
the land which Hugh Nitegale father of William formerly held of him (metes 
and bounds) in exchange for all the land which Hugh Nitegale held of the gift 


of Stephen Nitegale and Robert his brother, to hold of him, etc., paying yearly 
2J., and doing service to the lord of Weverham, with warrant to William his 
heirs and assigns (except men of religion) against all men and women. Witn.: 
William lord of Modbirlegh, William de Meinwarin, Hugh de Stoke, William 
de Tabbelegh, Adam le Dunne de Tabbelegh, Roger de Tofte, Th[omas] de 
Meinwarin, Nicholas Haregreue Chaplain, etc. Undated. Oval seal with 
device of two fighting lions : s j ROB* L . . . OVENVR. 


Richard son of Randle de Ruston, clerk (clericui), to Gilbert his brother. 
Grant of all his land, etc., and all his right in the land of Bradesah, formerly 
of Randle his father, to hold of him, etc., with all easements, etc., pertaining 
to the said land and to the town of Lostok, paying yearly one pair of white 
gloves at Michaelmas, with warrant against all men and women. Witn. : 
William de Menewar', Roger de Tofte, Ralph de Brerton, Richard Bonetable, 
Robert Grosvenor (Grosso venatore), Nicholas de Vernon, Adam de Merton, 
Hugh de Stoke, Th[omas] de Gostre, etc. Undated. Seal, s' RIC' F'R'D'RVSTO*. 
i % 


Stephen Nyttegale to Richard his son. Grant of all his land and his tene- 
ment in the town of Lostok, as in the original charter thereof, paying yearly to 
Robert le Grouenor and his heirs, the chief lord, 6d. at midsummer and 
Martinmas, with warrant against all men and women. Witn. : William de 
Meinwaring, William de Tofte, Gilbert de Bradesawe, John de Peuere, John 
de Noua aula, William the Clerk, etc. Undated. 


Adam son of Adam de Merton and Adam de Merton his father. Deed of 
covenant whereby the son grants to his father his land, etc., in Allostoc which 
his father gave him (saving a certain field called Hethalefeld) for life, performing 
due services, and to the son and his heirs a pair of white gloves at the feast of 
St. Oswald, with warrant against all men and women. Witn. : William de 
Menewarfine], Thfomas] de Lostoc, Rob* grosso uenatore, Robert de Peuere, 
Martin de Peuere, Hugh de Stoke, Roger de Brunlisah'[?Gunlisah'], Thfomas] 
de Gost', Adam the clerk, etc. Undated. Seal. 


Adam son of Adam de Merton to Robert le Grosvenor. Quitclaim of all 
lands, etc., which the said Robert has of the gift of the said Adam the father 
in Alle Lostock. Witnesses : William de Meingerin, Richard de Lostock, 
Richard lord of Croxton, William de Tofte, Randle de Parva Ouere [elsewhere 
de Little Oure] and John de Newhall [Nova Auld\. Seal attached. 

LXX. [1292 ?] 

Gilbert son of Randle de Ruston to Gilbert his son, his heirs and assigns. 
Grant of the moiety of all the land of the said Gilbert son of Randle in 
Halelostoc, according to the purport of the deeds which he and Randle his 
father had of the lords of Hallelostoc, paying yearly one rose, remainder to 
Robert brother of Gilbert the son, or to his sister. Witnesses : William de 
Venables, William de Perers, then sheriff of Cheshire, Roger de Toft, William 
de Toft, John de Newhall [Nova Aula\ William de Mere, Robert de Grovenor, 
then lord of Lostoc, and John the clerk. Seal. Undated. 




John son of William Nightegle of Allostock to Robert le Grosvenour and 
Margery his wife. Grant of all his lands and tenements, etc., in the town of 
Allostock. Witnesses : Sir Ralph le Vernon, Sir Hamon le Mascy and Sir 
William le Brereton, knights, John de Legh and William de Moburlehe. 
No date. 


Adam son of Adam de Merton to Robert le Grosvenor and Margery his 
wife. Quitclaim of the whole fourth part of the town of Allostok which 
Adam the father bought of John Marshall [Marescalld], Witnesses : Sir Ralph 
de Vernun, Sir Richard de Mascy, knights, William de Meingaryn, John de 
Newhall [Nova Auld\ y Hugh le Tyu, Stephen the Hunter [venatore] and 
Richard de Anderton. Seal, s' ADE DE M'T'. Undated. 


Thomas son of Michael de Gorestre to Robert le Grosvenor. Quitclaim 
of all right in the town of Allostock. Witnesses : Sir Hugh de Venables, Sir 
William de Brerton, Sir Richard de Sondbache, knights, Robert de Brescy, 
sheriff of Cheshire, William de Meynwaring, Richard de Croxton and Gilbert 
Dodefin. No date. Seal with device of a star (?) + s' TH'E DE GOSTRE. 

LXXIV. [After 1307] 

Richard le Boar de Allostok to Robert son of Robert le Grosuenour. 
Grant of all his lands, etc., in Allostok, with warrant. Witn. : Sir Ralph de 
Vernoun senior, Sir William de Brerton, knights, Richard de Foulishurst then 
sheriff, John de Legh, William de Modburlegh, William de Coton, Andrew de 
Allostok, clerk, etc. Undated. 

LXXV. 1324 

Andrew son of Henry le Seriant to Robert son of Robert le Grosuenour 
and his heirs. Grant of a rent of I id. to be received of him and his heirs in 
Allostok at midsummer and Martinmas, secured on all his lands in Allostok 
and Nethurpeuere. Witn.: William de Modburlegh, William de Mascy, 
William de Coton, Roger de Tofte, Roger de Holford, Henry de Coton, 
William de Bradeshawe, etc. Dat. Allostok Thursday after the Circumcision 
1324. Seal broken. 

LXXVI. 1328 

John son of William Nictegale to Robert le Grouenor and his heirs. Quit- 
claim of all the lands, etc., which said Robert had of his gift in Allostok, ' as 
well in dower as in the two thirds.' Witn. : William de coton, Roger de 
Toffet, Roger de Holford, Tohmfas] de Vernoun, Avery the clerk, etc. Dat. 
Allostok, Wednesday the Exaltation of Holy Cross 1328. Seal. Endorsed, 

LXXVII. 1328 

Robert le Grovenor of Rodheth to John le Warde. Grant indented of a 
messuage and eight acres of land in Allostok which the said Robert had of the 
gift of the said John, to hold of grantor for life, with license of cutting turves in 
the turbaries of the said Robert in Allostok, paying yearly one rose. Witnesses : 
William de Coton, Roger de TofFete, Roger de Holford, Thomas de Vernoun, 
and Andrew the clerk. Dated at Allostok Michaelmas 1328. 


LXXVIII. [1334] 

William de Grotewych and John Spendeloue, chaplains, to William son 
of Adam de Bradeshawe. Grant of all lands, etc., in Allostok which they 
had of the feoffment of said William, to hold for life of them, etc., remainder 
to Walter son of said William and Maude his wife (uxon) in tail, remainder 
to the right heirs of said Walter, to hold of the chief lords, etc., with warrant. 
Witn. : Robert le Grosuenour, Stephen de Merton, Randle his brother, Roger 
de Tofte, Thomas his brother, Richard le Vernon of Watecroft, Hugh de 
Drakelowe, Andrew de Lostok, Roger the clerk, etc. Dat. Lostok, Monday 
after the Assumption, 8 Edw. III. 

LXXIX. [ C I345] 

John Neyttegale chaplain to Emma le Grosuenour. Grant of all lands, 
etc., which he had of the gift of William his brother in the town of Allostok, 
with warrant. Witn. : Henry de Holford, Thfomas] son of John de Dauene- 
port, knights, Randle de Merton, Hugh de Drakelouwe, Henry de Hanlegh, 
chaplain, etc. Undated. Seal. 

LXXX. [1346] 

William son of Hugh Neyttegale to Emma le Grosuenour, her heirs and 
assigns. Quitclaim of all lands and tenements which John Neyttegale, chap- 
lain, held ' of my gift ' in the town of Allostok, with warrant against all men. 
Witn. : Henry de Holford, Th[omas] de Dauynport, Randle de Merton, Hugh 
de Drakelowe, Henry de Hanlegh, chaplain, etc. Dat. Hulm Sunday after 
St. Hyllary 1345. Seal. 

LXXXI. [1396] 

Peter Elice, chaplain, to Henry son of Thomas the Seriaunt, his heirs and 
assigns. Grant of all his lands, etc., in all \toto\ Lostok and Netherpeuer which 
he had of the feoffment of said Thomas, with warrant. Witn. : Thomas 
de Bradshagh, William de Bradshagh, Thomas de Bradshagh, William de 
Alcmudelowe, John de Alcmudelowe. Dat. Lostok Sunday after the 
Purification, 19 Ric. II. Seal. 

LXXXI I. [1407] 

Mabel late wife of Randle de Lytteloure in her widowhood to John de 
Lytteloure, chaplain. Grant of a messuage, lands, rents, etc., in the town of 
Allelostok, with warrant. Witn. : Thomas le Grosuenor, knight, John de 
Holford, Thomas de Bradshawe, William de Bradshawe, Randle de Roulegh, 
etc. Dat. Allelostok, Saturday before St. James Ap. 8 Henry IV. (1407). Seal. 

LXXXIII. [1407] 

John [de Lytteloure, chaplain ?] to Roger de Lyttelour son of Randle 
de Lytteloure in tail. Grant of a messuage, lands, rents, etc., (which he had) 
of the feoffment of Mabel late wife of Randle de Lytteloure in the town of 
Allelostok, remainder to William de Merton, his heirs and assigns, with 
warrant. Witn. : Thomas le Grosuenor, knight, John de Holford, Thomas 
de Bradshawe, William de Bradshawe, Randle de Roulegh, etc. Dat. Alle- 
lostok monday, St. James Ap. 8 Henry IV. (1407). Seal. 

LXXXI v. [1407] 

Mabel late wife of oure in her widowhood to 

Roger de Lyttelour her son in tail. Quitclaim of a messuage, lands, rents, 


etc., which Roger holds by feoffment of John de Lyttelour, chaplain in the 
town of Allelostok, remainder to William de Merton, his heirs and assigns, 
with warrant. Witn. : Thomas le Grosuenor, knight, John de Holford, 
Thomas de Bradshawe, William de Bradshawe, Randle de Roulegh, etc. 
Dat. Allostock, Wednesday after St. James Ap. 8 Henry IV. (1407). Seal. 

LXXXV. [1415] 

Thomas le Grosuenor, knight, to Robert le Page and John de MunsshulL 
Letter of attorney to deliver seisin of all his messuages, lands, etc., in the towns 
of Allostok and Oueralderley to Robert de Knottesford, parson of Pulford, 
William Faysand and Thomas de Pulford, chaplains, their heirs and assigns. 
Dat. Saturday after the Translation of St. Thomas M. 3 Henry V. (1415). 
Seal, with device of a talbot. 

LXXXVI. [1434] 

William de Hendeley otherwise called William son of William Tomelynson 
to Robert, son of Thomas le Grosseuenor knight, his heirs and assigns. Quit- 
claim of all messuages, lands, etc., in Allostok and Netherpeuer wherein said 
Robert is now seised. Witn. : Randle le Maynwarynge, John le Maynwarynge, 
knights, John le Laycestre, etc. Dat. Allostok, Thursday after the Invention 
of Holy Cross 12 Hen. VI. (1434). Seal. 

LXXXVII. 1497 

William Eyton son and heir of Ralph Eyton to John Merton son and heir 
of William Merton. Quitclaim in a messuage and lands in Allostok in the 
tenure of Geoffrey Madoke. Dat. 24 October 13 Henry VII. (1497). 

LXXXVIII. [1505] 

John a M[ert]on son and heir of William a Merton, deceased, late ot 
Bernton, co. Chester, to Thomas a Merton his brother. Grant of lands, etc., 
in the parish of Pever, which descended [to him after the death] of William 
a Merton. Thomas Tew of Witton and Robert son of the late William 
Pikmer, attorneys to deliver seisin. Dat. . . . June 20 Henry VII. (1505). 
(Defective.) Seal. 

LXXXIX. [ C i505 ?] 

William Norcote, chaplain to ... son and heir of William Merton. 
Quitclaim of messuage and lands in Allostok which he had of the [feoffment 
of] ... Dat. 3 April . . . Henry VII. Seal. (A mere fragment.) 

xc. [1550] 

William Bradshawe, son and heir apparent of Henry Bradshawe ot 
Allfostock], to Evan Holford, gent. Bond in 4O/. to execute a lease of a tene- 
ment and lands in Allostocke, now in the tenure of William Cheshwurthe, 
within twelve days after the death of the said Henry Bradshawe, for a term of 
2 1 years. Witnesses : George Torbocke, John Sworton the younger and 
Hugh Bonell. Dated 19 July 4 Edw. VI. (1550). 

xci. [1550] 

William Bradshay son and heir of Henry Bradshay to Evan Holford. 
Receipt for 3*. ^d. for 20 trees growing upon his land. Dat. 3 November 
4 Edward VI. (1550). (Endorsed.) Witn. : Ric. Wilbre, Hugh Batell, etc. 


xcn. [1550] 

Bond wherein William Bradshaw, son and heir of Henry Bradshaw of 
Allostocke, yeoman, is bound to Evan Holford, gent., in the sum of zo/., 
conditioned for allowing the said Evan to cut down and carry away twenty 
trees upon the lands of the said William, after the death of the said Henry 
Bradshaw. Dat. 3 Nov. 4 Edw. VI. (1550). Seal. 

xcm. [1550] 

Peter Shakerley of Hulme, co. Chester, esquire, and William son and heir 
apparent of Henry Bradshawe of Allostock, yeoman. Indenture reciting bond 
of said William in zoo/, (in cons, of n/.) before Edmund Gee, mayor, and 
Richard Sneyde, recorder, of Chester, dated 21 Nov. 4 Edw. VI., whereby 
said Peter covenants for the defeasance of the above recited bond, provided 
that said William within one quarter ot a year after the decease of his said 
father assure to said Peter and his heirs for ever one meese with lands, etc., in 
Allostocke in the tenure of Nicolas Jacson, and that if said William be here- 
after minded to selj or lease other meeses, lands, etc., in Allostocke they shall 
sell or let to no other person, provided that if said William or his heirs repay 
to said Peter \l. within one quarter of a year after the decease of his said 
father, the bargain shall be void. Dat. 24 Nov. 4 Edward VI. (1550). 

xciv. [1550] 

Bond of William Bradshawe son and heir apparent of Henry Bradshawe of 
Allostocke, yeoman, to Peter Shakerley, esquire, for payment of loo/, on 
Christmas day following the date. Dated at Chester 6 Dec. 4 Edw. VI. 
(1550). Sealed with a classical gem. 

xcv. 1 609 

Indenture between Geffrey Shakerlye of Hulme, co. Chester, esquire, and 
Thomas Mee of Allostocke, husbandman. Lease of a messuage and lands in 
Allostocke late in the tenure of Thomas Mee, deceased, father of the said 
Thomas, for the lives of the said Thomas Mee, Anne his wife and Elizabeth 
Mee his daughter. Witnesses : Thomas Jackson, William Steele, William 
Longworth and Thomas Wright, clerk. Dated 8 April 1609. 

Livery of seisin in the presence of Thomas Bramall and John Brooke 
20 April 1609. 

xcvi. [1680] 

Peter Shakerley, esquire, pit., Robert Higgenson and Mary his wife deforc. 
Chirograph Fine of 3 acres of land, 2 of meadow and 3 of pasture in Allo- 
stocke. Warrant against the heirs of Robert : cons. loo/. Chester, 14 Aug. 
32 Charles II. (1680). 

(Folded in letter and lawyer's bill, and endorsed ' concerning the Mill 
Fields and Haume End.') 


IN the last number of The Ancestor I cited Ormerod's 
account of the deeds copied by Sir Peter Leycester some 
250 years ago, little thinking that the originals would ever 
come into my hands. Hardly was my article in print however 
when, by a singular piece of good fortune, thanks to the 
kindness of the editor, I had an opportunity of examining 
them for myself. That any one, with the whole series before 
him, should accept the history of Allostock put forward in the 
depositions of John de Holford, is almost inconceivable, or 
rather the fact affords a fresh and striking example of the 
power a preconceived idea has to defeat sound judgment. 

Leycester's pedigree of the Lostocks, incorporated in 
Ormerod, 1 accepts Hugh de Ronchamp as founder of the 
family, and makes Gralam de Lostock his grandson. On 
what authority he inserted a Richard de Ronchamp as son of 
Hugh and father of Gralam, and a second Gralam, is not 
stated. The grantee of Hugh Lupus would hardly have a 
grandson living in 1234, though a grantee of Hugh Kevelioc 
might. Gralam de Lostock is really the first of the house of 
whom we have any definite knowledge. 2 His charter (No. i) 
carries a large round seal with a running hart ; the background 
shows lines which probably represent undergrowth. Letitia 
his widow is mentioned (No. 15). He occurs in 1234 and 
1241, and had at least four sons and a daughter : 
Richard, his successor. 

Robert, of whom mention is made (No. 7). Robert 
son of Robert de Lostock also occurs 1303-5 (Nos. 18, 
19). A Robert son of Robert is found again in 1342 
(No. 26), but he is probably of a third generation. His 
mother Agnes had remarried John le Voudrey. 

Geoffrey de Lostock (No. 42), elsewhere called de 
Moreton, 3 who had a grant from Richard his brother of a 
moiety of Rode, and was seated at Moreton-Rode, or 

1 See Holford in Plumley, Ormerod, i. 669. 

2 He granted land in Lostock to the canons of Warburton, and as Gralam 
de Rundchamp is said to have witnessed a deed circa 1227, Beamont, Arley 
Charters, pp. 8, 16. 8 Ormerod, iii. 49. 



Little Moreton in Astbury. He had a son Gralam de 
Moreton ; and Richard son of Gralam de Moreton occurs 
in 1351 (No. 32). 

Thomas de Lostock, brother of Geoffrey (No. 42), 
had a son Thomas living in 1305 (Nos. 5, 15, 16, 18, 
19), who had a daughter Agnes (Nos. 5, 18). Roger 
and John sons of Thomas de Lostock are named (Nos. 
4, 17). There is also Richard son of Thomas the cook 
of Lostock, with a daughter Ellen (No. 12). 

Maude c de Lache,' mother of John de Cotun. 1 
Richard de Lostock, son of Gralam (circa 1250-75), was 
living at the accession of Edward I., 2 but died before 1277. 
He had certainly two sons and a daughter : 3 

Richard, his successor. 

Thomas de Lostok (No. 20) survived his brother, and 
is called his heir in Holford v. Vernon. He left a wife 
Roesia, who was suing for dower in 1324, but no issue. 

Joan, called heir to her brothers, married circa 1277 
William, a younger son of Roger de Toft (No. 9), by 
whom she had two sons : 4 

1. Roger de Holford, son and heir (1312), married 
circa 1307 Margery daughter of Richard le Despenser, 
and had from her brother John, a clerk, a conveyance 
of Holford, from which he took his name (Nos. 38, 
39). He died without issue, Leycester says, in 1330. 

2. Henry de Holford, heir to his brother, who wit- 
nesses deeds of 1345-6 (Nos. 28, 29, 79, 80). He is 
said to have survived his son William, who occurs in 
the Recognizance Roll of 1356, and was succeeded 
before 1368 by his grandson John de Holford, son of 
William, who recovered Lostock Gralam from Richard 
Vernon of Lostock, claiming as heir at law of Richard 
de Lostock the elder. 

1 See fragment of confirmation charter to Vale Royal, Recognizance Roll 
50, m. 6. 

8 Holford v . Vernon, cited below. 

3 In a charter in the Trafford Collection (Chetham Library, Raines MSS. 
xxv. 91) Gilbert son of Richard de Lostock grants to William de Modlowe 
lands in Plumley, referring to a charter of Richard his brother : witn. Adam 
de Taweleg [Tabbelegh], William deTooft, Joh' fil' de p'sona aula [sic : ? John 
son of the parson, John de Newhall], Randle the clerk, etc. Unfortunately the 
copy is a very bad one. Richard's charter is copied, very inaccurately, on f. 197. 
4 Sir Peter Leycester mentions also a son Walter. 



According to Leycester and Ormerod, she married 
secondly (about 1316, or some forty years after her first 
marriage) Thomas, a younger son of Sir Ralph Vernon of 
Shipbrook, by whom she had a son Richard, ancestor 
of the Vernons of Haslington ; and thirdly (in 1337) 
William de Hallum. 

Richard de Lostock the younger had a grant from his 
father in I26O 1 of all his land in Plumley and Lache Denis. 
He married before 1277 Agnes (daughter of Richard de 
Wilbraham, as Leycester says), who survived him, and was 
claiming dower in 1316. Holford's case was that he died 
without issue ; but by a fine of December, 1306, the manor of 
Lostock Gralam is settled on Joan his daughter and heir, 
Ralph son of Ralph de Vernon and Richard her father being 
the parties. This fine, followed by the quitclaim from her 
uncle Thomas (No. 20), seems to indicate that she, and not 
Joan her aunt, was the wife of Thomas Vernon, and mother or 
grandmother of Richard Vernon of Lostock, who held the 
manor in 1368 ; and if we compare the ages of the two ladies, 
it will be seen that this inference is more likely to be correct 
than Leycester's pedigree. Thomas, as lord of c Lostock upon 
Rudheth,' with his wife, granted licence to William Abbot of 
Chester (1324-49), who held the adjoining town of Holes, to 
enclose certain waste and heath. 2 She may have been after- 
wards wife of William de Hallum, for Thomas Vernon was 
dead before 1336 ; 3 but the deeds contain no evidence of such 
a marriage. 

Meanwhile we have mention of other estates in the manor, 
the nature of which is somewhat mysterious. In 1320 
Margaret widow of Ralph de Vernon the younger sues Thomas 
Vernon and his wife for dower of twelve messuages, with 
lands, and two-thirds of two mills in Lostok Gralam, claiming 
no doubt under the fine above mentioned. 4 I find no termi- 
nation of this suit. In 1321 there is another fine by which 
Stephen de Trafford and Isabel his wife convey the manor to 
William de Baggelegh, sen. In the previous year Stephen and 

1 Plea Rolls I, m. 4^. 2 Recog. Roll 50, m. 3. 

3 In that year Joan, who was wife of Thomas de Vernon lord of Lostok, 
granted the manor of Lostok Gralam to Gilbert her son and heir (Arky 
Charters, p. 19). It has been assumed that the name is an error. Thomas 
Vernon granted lands in Lostok to John de Wyninton and John de Wyninton, 
jun. (Ibid. p. 17). 4 Plea Roll No. 32, m. ^d, d. 


Isabel were claiming against Richard Vernon, knight, who 
vouched Ralph de Baggelegh to warrant a charter of the 
manor of Lostok by Ponynton. 1 Isabel heiress of William 
Baggelegh married Sir Thomas Danyers, and he was seised of 
Lostok at his death in I354, 2 leaving an only daughter his 
heir. This estate probably arose in some way out of the 
settlement made upon Joan Vernon ; for when John Holford 
brings forward his claim on a writ of ' formedon, Richard Vernon 
vouches to warrant Margaret cousin and heir of Thomas 
Danyers, then wife of John Radclyf, but still under age. 3 First 
the plea of nonage, and then the death of the husband in 1369, 
delays the suit ; after which the defendant shifts his ground, 
and pleads that the grant to his predecessor, the younger 
Richard, conferred an estate in fee simple and not in fee tail, 
which would leave the property at his disposal. Unfortunately 
the record does not set out his case in full detail, or explain 
the circumstances of his mother's birth, which was probably 
the real question at issue ; nor have we a verdict, but merely 
a statement that in 1370 Vernon was in mercy for wrongful 
detenue of the manor. Holford was thus successful, and 
accordingly we find him making a quitclaim to Grosvenor in 
J 373 (No. 32), to confirm his title in the estates acquired from 
the Lostocks. 

John de Holford was the deponent on Grosvenor's side 
in 1386, and died in 1408, seised of the manor of Plumley, 
and lands in Rudheath and Lachedenys. 4 Either the judg- 
ment just cited was upset, or he seems to have soon parted 
with Lostock Gralam, for it is not mentioned in the inqui- 
sition, or found afterwards in the possession of his heirs. 
He was however mesne lord of Hulme. 

The arms of the elder line of Toft (for whom see No. 37) 
were silver with three text tees sable. 6 Joan Lostock's hus- 

1 Plea Roll No. 32, m. 22. 2 Qies. Inq. 28 Ed. III. No. I. 

3 Additional Roll 6279 contains an exemplification of this suit in the 
Court of Chester ; see also Plea Rolls 72, 73. Leycester probably is referring 
to it when he states that the plaintiff recovered Holford from Vernon. The 
description of the vouchee is remarkable, since her title was apparently derived 
from her mother, and not from her grandfather. For her pedigree see 
Bulkylegh v. Savage and others, Plea Roll 73, m. 16. 

4 Ches. Inq. 9 Hen. IV. No. 19. Vernon 's descendants are described as 
of Lostock in Ormerod, iii. 317. 

5 So Leycester, who adds the maxim, Omnis additio probat minoritatem. 
Should they be called tau tees, or perhaps A^tees ? 



band, as a cadet, added a chevron, and John de Holford 
sealed with this coat. See for example No. 32. Later Hoi- 
fords bore silver a greyhound sable, which we may probably 
regard as a Lostock coat, 1 since it was also borne by the 
Moretons. From Holford it was transferred to the Halfords 
of Leicestershire, who added for difference three gold fleurs- 
de-lis on a chief azure. 

Of Hulme not much need be said. The grant or sub- 
infeudation of 1233-4 proves tol>e correctly reported. Hulme 

was thus originally a member of Lostock Gralam, and held 
later of the Holfords as heirs of the grantor. Like Lostock 
itself, we find it described as c upon Rudheath ' ; but at a later 
date, after being for many generations the seat of the Gros- 
venors, it was deemed to be c in Allostock ' (e.g. No. 50). 
There was litigation, it appears, of which no record remains, 
between Grosvenor and Chernoc about two bovates of land 
there, and that gave occasion to the release (No. 42). The 
quitclaim by Ralph Vernon the younger (No. 43) probably 
followed the fine of 35 Edward I., as that from John de Hol- 
ford (No. 39) followed the successful termination of his suit 
with Vernon. 

The story that Allostock was granted by Hugh Lupus to 
Robert Grosvenor is finally and absolutely disproved by this 

1 Is it possible to connect the greyhound with the name Gralam ? 


series of deeds ; for here we have the names of several lords 
of Allostock, predecessors of the Grosvenors, in the thirteenth 
century. Those children of the forest could evidently draw 
the long-bow. First, there is Robert le Brun (of Stapleford 
Bruen), in King John's time, making a grant or subinfeudation 
to Robert son of Picgot (No. 51). About half a century later 
Alan de Allostock is lord of the manor, and makes an agree- 
ment to marry John, his son and heir, to a daughter of Michael 
de Goostrey (No. 52), who was one of the younger sons of 
Liulph the Sheriff, lord of Croxton. 1 Alan was dead before 
1271 ; and his son John, while still a minor, agreed to sell 
the manor to Robert Grosvenor, an agreement to which effect 
was given by a subsequent instrument (Nos. 53, 54, 59). At 
the same time the purchaser bought up the common rights 
possessed by certain c parceners and charterers ' upon the de- 
mesne lands (No. 55). The first of these is Adam de Merton, 
who appears elsewhere (Nos. 57, 58, 72) as owner of a fourth 
part of the royalties. 

This fact enables me to correct an error in my former 
paper, into which I was led by a statement in the Ledger Book 
of Vale Royal. 2 Robert le Grosvenour there owes service to- 
the abbot for the town of Lostock, viz. his own share and that 
of Adam de Merton ; but it is now clear that Allostock only 
is meant, and not Lostock Gralam as well. The latter was in 
fact held of the barons of Halton. 3 Merton's interest was 
acquired from John Marshall (No. 72), who however seems to 
have retained property in the place afterwards (No. 55). 

One is tempted to dwell more at length upon the under- 
tenants, Burdon and Boar, and that Stephen Nigh the Gale r 
whose name we see gradually transforming itself into Night- 
ingale. There were Bradshaws at an early period seated at 
Bradshaw and Haigh in Lancashire ; others again, bearing 
singularly enough the same arms, at Bradshaw in Glossop. 
Here we find a holding called Bradshaw in Allostock, and a 
third family, also named Bradshaw of Bradshaw, deriving from 
one Randle de Ruston. Like the Goostreys, the Winningtons 
are said to spring from a son of Liulph of Croxton. Alkoc 
of beyond Mersey is worth a note, for he is found again as 
Alexander (Nos. 57, 62), and thus supplies us with the ety- 

1 Ormerod, iii. 211. * Harl. MS. 2064, f. 274. 

3 See apposed claim quoted, The Ancestor, No. I , p. 1 8 1 . Moreton Rode 
and Plumley were also held of them. 



mology of a well known surname, which occurs in Toft 
(No. 34). Similarly I have found elsewhere a Hugh called 
also Hulkoc. 

The Grosvenors themselves were so fully treated in my 
former paper that there is not much to add about them. 
Richard son of Randle le Grosvenor, purchaser of Hulme 
(No. i), is followed by Robert son of Richard, purchaser of 
Allostock, and Robert son of Robert, with mention of Mar- 
gery wife of one of these Roberts. One of them, probably 
the first, is described as bailiff of Northwich (No. 1 5). Then 
Robert le Grosvenor of Rudheath, and Emme his widow ; but 
Ralph, their son, is never mentioned. A quitclaim of 1328 
(No. 76) may be read as a confirmation of the recent death of 
the second Robert. Sir Robert Grosvenor, Scrope's antagonist, 
and his son Sir Thomas follow. At the partition of the 
Grosvenor estates, Hulme passed to Emme wife of John Legh 
of the Booths, and from her descended to the Shakerleys ; and 
with it went the collection of deeds here printed. 

To return to the record of the Scrope and Grosvenor con- 
troversy, we find there a goodly array of deponents who, in 
answer to the usual interrogatory, acknowledge their connection, 
by blood or marriage, with Sir Robert Grosvenor. First how- 
ever a few who reply to it in the negative : 

Hugh de Coton, aged 48 and more 

Rauf de Egerton, 56 

Roger de Moldeworth, 50 

Robert de Hassall, 40 

John de Frodesham, 56 

John de Burgh's, ,,41 
Those who simply answer in the affirmative are : 

Raufe de Stavelegh, aged 24 and more 

Thomas de Stavelegh, 2! 

Robert de Dounes, 40 

John de Davenport of Bromhale, 48 

Robert de Hide, ,,50 

Sir Richard de Bold, 46 

Thomas le Vernoun, ,,28 

William de Praers, ,,50 

Sir John Mascy of Tatton, 50 

Sir John Mascy of Podynton, ,,30 

The last two are among Scrope's witnesses. Others are more 
precise. William and Robert Danyell and Lawrence de Dutton 
claim affinity, the Danyells no doubt being of his first wife's 
family. Her father is said to have had natural sons of those 


names. Button was twice married, but both his wives are of 
unknown parentage. Hugh de Co ton, junior, aged 31 and 
more, a cousin, degree unknown, no doubt descended from 
the Coton who married a Grosvenor, and was of a different 
family to the Hugh already mentioned. The following were 
cousins within the degrees of marriage : 

Randle Mayn waring, aged 26 and more 
John Mayn waring, 29 

Robert de Stavelegh, Esq., 50 

William de Hulme, Esq., 43 

John de Etoun, 26 

Arthur de Davenport, aged 50 and more, claimed to be a cousin 
in the second degree ; Hamon de Ascheley, 38 and more, in 
the third degree ; Sir Rauf de Vernoun, knight, 46 and more, 
in the third and fourth degrees ; and Matthew del Mere in 
the fourth degree. 

It is remarkable in how few of these instances kinship can 
be satisfactorily traced. Sir Robert's grandmother, Emme de 
Modberlegh, had several sisters, of whom Margery married 
Richard de Bold of Bold in Lancashire, and Sir Richard was 
her grandson. John and Randle Maynwaring were, on their 
mother's side, grandsons of another sister, Mary wife of 
Nicholas Leycester of Tabley ; and their sister Ellen is said 
to have married a Rauf Vernon. The wives of Matthew del 
Mere and John Davenport were granddaughters of Ellen, a 
third sister, who married Richard de Bromhale. Robert de 
Stavelegh was the father of Raufe and Thomas, but how 
related to Grosvenor does not appear. Were it possible to 
identify his mother, no doubt some of these kinsmen might 
be accounted for. As it is, the list will serve to illustrate the 
limits of our knowledge as genealogists. It is much if we can 
trace a single descent in the male line ; collaterals and female 
descents are hardly ever known to us at so early a date. 

In the case of Cheshire, the Plea Rolls are a mine of infor- 
mation on these subjects, had any one the time and patience 
to make a thorough study of them. Mr. Peter Turner's 
work in this direction was most valuable ; but he has merely 
scratched the surface. Let no one therefore suppose that the 
genealogical treasures they contain have been exhausted, or 
be deterred from searching the rolls themselves. Even if the 
evidence he wants be not forthcoming, his labour will hardly 
be without reward. yy H. B. BIRD. 


This Companion to English History is at least a spirited 
attempt to encourage schools and schoolmasters to give some 
measure of their day's work to the study of the past of the 
nation. For its success it must wait until the day when the 
rulers of the nation's schooling see fit to allot the all-needful 
* marks ' to this learning which may be surely placed amongst 
the more enlightening of the humaner letters. And as that 
day is certainly far ahead of us we may hope that Mr. Barnard 
will by that time, in a second edition, have re-organized what 
should be a more useful and in some respects a more trust- 
worthy manual than is this first issue of his Companion. 

The very design of the book c primarily for higher 
educational purposes ' has hampered its making. Twelve 
closely written essays, with their accompanying illustrations, 
pack very uncomfortably into some 350 pages, and the 
desire to produce a book which should be first a school book 
has cramped size and form with bad results for the illustra- 
tions, which are for the most part tracings and drawings from 
well known sources over-reduced in fitting them to the small 

The selection of twelve essayists who should speak with 
authority on subjects which range from Shipping to Monasticism 
has in the nature of things proved no light task. Familiar 
names are here. We may trust Dr. Jessopp to discourse 
pleasantly of the monks and the friars, and may hope for 
instruction when Mr. Leadam speaks of trade and commercial 
polity. But the twelve oarsmen row Mr. Barnard's galley 
with a very uneven stroke. The Rev. Arthur Galton on 
Ecclesiastical Architecture may here be compared with his 
bench-fellow, Mr. J. A. Gotch, on Domestic Architecture. 
By an unfortunate selection Mr. Galton's ill-written and un- 
critical compilation is allowed the first place in the volume, 
and with it run the most spiritless diagrams that ever illus- 
trated a trot down the well beaten track from Earls Barton 

1 The Companion to English History (middle ages), edited by Francis Pierre- 
pont Barnard, M.A., F.S.A. (Oxford : The Clarendon Press, 1902). 



tower to Magdalen College. So little feeling for the treasures 
within our churches inspires Mr. Galton, that in pattering his 
list of them he ends with the characteristic remark that the 
boards painted with the royal arms which are generally found 
amongst church lumber are c among the most interesting and 
satisfactory memorials in our national churches/ The account 
of monastic buildings calls for correction line by line. A 
general notion of the arrangements of monasteries can be 
obtained only, we are told, from c disconnected accounts and 
from various ruins/ and Mr. Galton does not appear to have 
been aided in his general notion by the study of the arrange- 
ments of Canterbury, Westminster, Durham or Fountains. 
The old buildings of the Oxford colleges, although plainly 
founded upon the lines of private houses, follow, in Mr. 
Galton's opinion, the plan of the monastery. The list of the 
books which Mr. Galton has studied upon his subject is 
eloquent in its omissions, especially those of books embodying 
the results of modern research, and it is clear that Mr. Galton 
should have stayed longer at the bookshelves before helping 
to add to them. 

For a contrast follows from Mr. J. A. Gotch's practised 
hand a history of Domestic Architecture, which should in- 
terest student and antiquary alike. Mr. Gotch's heart is 
too much in the English work of the renaissance to allow him 
to stay his pen short of the Jacobean period, but the small 
space at his command does not hinder him from giving in a 
lucid and connected story a workmanlike outline of the growth 
of the English house, and his illustrations and plans are well 
chosen and illuminating. 

Military Architecture and the Art of War ' must inevitably 
bring Mr. Oman upon the stage, and Oman on the Art of 
War is naturally placed by him at the head of the works of 
reference upon his subject. His illustrations he draws for the 
most part from the useful M. Viollet le Due, and the first 
sentences of his story of the castles show that he is still an 
obstinate believer in the legend of the burb, and that the 
exploded theories of Mr. G. T. Clark may still reckon one 
loyal supporter. Once clear however of the Norman keep, 
in whose shadow the antiquary to-day exchanges cut and thrust 
with a fierceness sympathetic to his surroundings, Mr. Oman 
tells his tale clearly, marking well the points of change during 
the centuries. 


When papers from The Companion to English History 
come, as its editor prophesies, to be set in the higher forms 
of public schools, the schoolboy, even though he be Macaulay's 
schoolboy, and with a pretty taste for drawing knights in 
armour on fly leaves, will set Mr. Albert Hartshorne's essay 
on Military and Civil Costume with the irregularities of the 
Greek verb and the like accursed things. For Mr. Hartshorne 
is less interested and indeed much less successful in describing 
the histciy of costume than in finding a Latin or French word 
to pin to each piece of stuff or steel plate. The feather-bush 
must be a panache^ the knee-cop a genouillere y the belt a cin- 
gulum, and the strap a guige, until the page, powdered with 
italics, becomes most uncomfortable reading, and the wood is 
obscured by the trees. 

The editor's own article upon Heraldry is manifestly the 
affair of one with heart and enthusiasm for the little art. It 
is to be regretted that doubtless by reason of over-generousness 
to his fellow-workers he has denied himself a sufficient body 
of illustration. With bad economy a great part of his plates 
are filled with diagrams showing how the ribs and bars and 
clamps of the fighting shield may have influenced the form of 
the early heraldic charges. Although interesting enough in 
themselves, we could have spared a few of them in exchange 
for illustrations of heraldry from original sources of the great 
period, the more especially as Mr. Barnard himself is too good 
a critic to attach too much importance to these coincidences 
of shield-stays with bars and cheverons, or to rank himself 
with those who will not credit our twelfth century ancestors 
with enough artistic initiative for the devising out of hand of 
a broad stripe of paint up and down or across the shield. The 
rest of the illustrations are not always well chosen, and the 
lack of original authority is marked. The two or three coats 
given as from rolls of arms are in each case from copies. In 
one case the sketch could have resembled no possible original 
of early date, and with hundreds of horseman seals in existence 
to choose from we ought not to be fobbed off with a picture 
of the seal of Sayer de Quenci from Spelman's ridiculously 
inaccurate engraving of 1654. How little a good library will 
supply the place of original work at headquarters is shown 
again by the four shields which Mr. Barnard takes from 
Camden to illustrate a case of arms derived from an over-lord. 
In this case Camden is followed to disaster, for three out of 


four surnames are mis-spelt. Mr. Barnard sins with the 
nineteenth century novelists from Walter Scott onward in 
regarding the hobeler and archer as necessarily yeomen, and 
therefore ungentle. As a matter of practice the class which 
we may describe as that of the country gentleman served with 
the hobelers, and the mounted archer also must have been as 
a rule a gentleman. The statement that coat-armour was the 
preuve de noblesse might have been modified had Sir George 
Sitwell's now famous article been put forth earlier. From Mr. 
Barnard we look for better work, as we understand that from 
his hand we are to expect the long-needed modern editions of 
the medieval treatises on heraldry. 

Mr. Oppenheim's account of English Shipping is well 
arranged and excellently illustrated. Mr. Rushforth's article 
on English Art is thin and unsatisfactory, and occasionally 
misleading. c Learning and Education,' c Town Life ' and 
< Country Life ' are each good essays, although suffering from 
the narrowness of their space limits, Mr. Warner's story of 
the medieval games under * Country Life ' being especially 
delightful reading. 

For the good essays then let us hope that they may en- 
courage their readers to wider study of their themes. Their 
dulness should take from the bad ones their power for harm. 
We leave The Companion to English History with the feeling 
that although it may never reach the public schoolboy his 
form master at least might be allowed to benefit by many of 
its chapters. 


When death, as William Dunbar laments, had taken c out 
of this countrie ' the good Sir Hew of Eglintoun, the good 
knight's fame as a maker soon followed him into silence, the 
single line of Dunbar standing for his only monument. Mr. 
Neilson in the present treatise asserts that Sir Hew was none 
other than Huchown of the Awle Ryale Hugh of the Hall 
Royal the first great master of Scottish verse and author of 

1 Huchown of the Awle Ryale, the Alliterative Poet. A historical criticism 
of fourteenth century poems ascribed to Sir Hew of Eglintoun, by George 
Neilson (Glasgow : James MacLehose & Sons, 1902). 



the Morte Artbure, the Destruction of Troy, Wynnere and 
Gawayne and the Green Knight, and much more. To follow 
Mr. Neilson's careful and constructive criticism is hardly 
within the scope of such a review as The Ancestor, but the 
attention of our readers may be called to Huchown's heraldry, 
in which Mr. Neilson finds many a clue to hand. A useful 
work might be done were a student to collect all such passages 
from middle English work, for from sources such as Gawayne 
we can draw some knowledge of the English forms of those 
blazons which the early rolls of arms record only in the French 
tongue. Thus in Gawayne the 

. . . banere is upbrayde with a bende of grene 
With thre hedis whiteherede with howes on lofte ; 

and the knight's scarf crossed from his shoulder is described 

A bende, a-belef hym aboute, of a bright grene. 

Needless to say, these English romances of chivalric days give 
us nothing of the ors and argents of the handbooks of heraldry. 
Our study of medieval costume also might gain were the 
middle English romances searched for words which should 
replace the late French vocabularies which are thrust upon us 
by the authors of the dictionaries of costume. 


The house of Burley-on-the-Hill is a great square-built 
mansion of grey stone with noble terraces before it. Standing 
on a plain 500 feet above sea level, there are few places in 
Rutland from which one may not see the heavy mass of this 
grim Italian palace, which Lord Nottingham reared to be his 
seat in the place of Kensington House which he had sold to 
his master King William. 

Before it came to the hands of the grave son of a grave 
Lord Chancellor, Burley had been a dwelling of George 
Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, and it was here, during the 
revels played before King Charles and Queen Henrietta, that 
Jeffrey Hudson, ' the smallest man of the smallest county,* 

1 History of Burky-on-tbe-Hill, Rutland, by Pearl Finch. London : John 
Bale, Sons & Danielsson, Limited, 1901. 



was served up in a pie at the high table. Two pictures of the 
Burley dwarf are reproduced by Miss Finch, whereof the 
earlier one shows Jeffrey as a merry little fellow in a feathered 
cap ; but in the later picture which hangs at Hampton Court 
we see more of the sour, tetchy little dwarf who shot the 
foolish young gentleman who mocked him by bringing a squirt 
upon the duelling ground. With the second Villiers the idle 
revelling days of Burley were ended. A Roundhead garrison 
sat in its high places, spoiling and wasting its treasures, and 
firing it at the last when rumour of a Royalist attack made 
them leave the ruined house behind them. All that remains 
of the palace of the Buckinghams is the great stables, of which 
Fuller jangled out the phrase that it must be the best house 
in England for horses ' if their pabulum were so plenty as 
their stabulum stately/ 

After these waterfly Villierses came the black funereal 
Finches to nest at Burley. The house which the fire had gut- 
ted was pulled down and the new house begun in 1674. 
j 1 5,000 was the sum at which Lord Nottingham estimated the 
work before him, but j8 0,000 were spent in the thirty years 
which passed before the work was brought to an end. 

It is her detailed description of this building from the first 
quarrying of the stone which gives its great value and interest 
to the work of Miss Pearl Finch. Contracts, estimates and 
plans are set forth at length, and from few other sources could 
the student of architecture of the late Renaissance in England 
draw so complete a picture of the building of a great house. 
Good detail again is given of the restoration of Burley church 
in 1 700. Burley had the sad history of many churches which 
lie too near a great house and a rich and benevolent neigh- 
bour. Quod non fecerunt barbari y fecerunt Barberini. A church 
restored in 1700, and again in 1795, on which occasion the 
windows were cut square and filled with plain glass, keeps 
little of its original flavour after a thorough Pearsonizing in 

As with the architectural portion of the book so with the 
family history. Miss Finch in her story of her family from 
the seventeenth century to the present has chosen wisely 
amongst letters, diaries, accounts and household orders, and 
put together a pretty picture of the ordered life of Burley- 
on-the-Hill. The family pedigree is modestly approached. 
Although the legend which makes Henry I. the founder of the 


Finches is seemingly given the credit which it does not de- 
serve, the tabular pedigree begins with William Finch of 
Netherfield, sheriff of Surrey and Sussex under Henry VI., 
beyond whom the family might be traced for two or three 
generations at the least. The second volume is made up of a 
catalogue of the treasures of Burley pictures, plate and MSS. 
The list of MSS. however shows indifferent appreciation of 
their relative value, and the list of plate is hurried through 
without any cognizance being taken of such matters as plate 
marks or dates. 

With much valuable material the book is far from being 
one which may be held up for the imitation of others who 
would set about such a pleasant task as this which Miss 
Finch has achieved. In too many places where expert assist- 
ance should have been sought Miss Finch has dealt unaided 
with matters outside her experience. More especially is this 
the case with her account of the early history of the parish 
and church, which would have been far better omitted. For 
this early history, from Domesday to the days of the Bucking- 
hams, no authority is referred to beyond a single reference to 
Wright's Rutland. Personal names suffer the strangest mang- 
ling. Warin de Lisle appears as c de Insular,' the Despensers 
as the c De Spensers.' The story of the church is allowed to 
begin with c Robert Molent (sic\ Earl of Leicester/ who 
c founded in the reign of Stephen (1140) of Foulelevrond (sic) 
(Normandy), a Benediction House (sic !).' A footnote lays 
the guilt of this paragraph upon the Rev. M. Barton, for 
whose information the author acknowledges herself indebted; 
but before accepting such information Miss Finch would have 
done well to inquire of some competent person the meaning, 
if any, of the words she was setting down. The first insti- 
tution to the church of Burley is recorded as that of Abraham 
de Sacristor in 1275 c by prioress and convent of Eaton, i.e. 
Nuneaton or diocese of Geoffry ' ! Here again Miss Finch is 
entitled to an explanation from the Rev. M. Barton of these 
mysterious words. Fortunately these faults occur in but a 
small section of the book, but they catch the eye too readily 
to be passed over. 

The volumes are handsomely produced, lavishly illustrated 
with good reproductions of family portraits, two of which by 
the courtesy of Miss Finch we are enabled to reproduce. 
And the index, although reasonably full, might be a better one. 



Sir Edmund T. Bewley has issued in pamphlet form his 
notes upon three members of the Lowther family who held 
judicial office in Ireland in the seventeenth century. 1 The 
first of these was Sir Gerard Lowther, a son of Sir Richard 
Lowther of that ilk. In 1610 he was sent over from England 
to be a judge of the court of Common Pleas in Ireland, that 
court being then presided over by three judges who are 
described in a state paper of 1611 as c old and weak men.' 
One only of these judges, Nicholas Welche, knight, is 
described in this memorandum as a native of Ireland. Sir 
Gerard Lowther he was knighted in 1618 became an 
undertaker in the plantation of Ulster, where upon his lands 
in the county of Fermanagh he built a fort with a c bawn ' 
about it, whereof he made his brother Captain Hugh Lowther 
his castellan. Sir Edmund Bewley gives a full abstract of his 
will made September 24, 1624, from the original remaining at 
Dublin, and it is noteworthy that this original is described as 
being engrossed upon a skin of parchment with the remains of 
a large pendant seal attached. Unless Sir Edmund has been 
deceived by the appearance of a probate copy, to which a 
signature in imitation of an original one is often added, we 
have here an example of that parchment will with its hanging 
seal so frequently brandished by the wicked steward of the 
play, and familiar in the last chapter of the historical novel. 
Those who have handled great store of ancient wills know 
that paper was the material used by the scriveners who drew 
them up. Mr. Walter Rye, in his well-known work upon 
records and record searching, declares that he has never handled 
an original will upon parchment, and the present writer can 
only recall two instances. The second Lowther of whom Sir 
Edmund treats was Sir Lancelot Lowther, a younger brother 
of Sir Gerard and Captain Hugh. In 1617 he followed his 
brother into Ireland with a patent of a Baron of the Exchequer, 
and died in 1637. The third Lowther judge in Ireland was 
another Sir Gerard Lowther, a baron of the Exchequer in 1628 
and Chief Justice of the Common Pleas from 1634 to his 
death in 1660. Sir Edmund Bewley has set himself to clear 

1 Some Notes on the Lozuthers who held Judicial Office in Ireland in the Seven- 
teenth Century, by Sir Edmund T. Bewley, LL.D., late a Judge of the Supreme 
Court of Judicature in Ireland (Kendal, 1902). 



up the obscurity of this Gerard's birth. The ordinary works 
of reference confuse him with his godfather, the first of the 
Lowther judges, Sir Egerton Brydges, Mr. Joseph Foster and 
the Dictionary of National Biography all allowing Gerard the 
second to swallow up Gerard the first. The disentanglement 
of these two is the point achieved by the present pamphlet. 
Sir Gerard II., although he was admitted to Queen's College, 
Oxford, in 1605, as c of Cumberland, arm. fil. nat. max.,' is 
described in a privately compiled pedigree now in the Ulster 
office as a bastard son of Sir Christopher Lowther of Lowther, 
the elder brother of Gerard I. and Lancelot. Certain passages 
in his will, which contains a bequest in peculiar form to his 
mother's unnamed kindred, and the limitations of his estates, 
which seem to be framed in recognition of the fact that a 
bastard has no heirs at law, appear to confirm the statement of 
the Ulster Office pedigree. 

It is matter of remark that these three lawyer settlers in 
Ireland founded no family of Lowther in the island. Each 
married two wives, but the transplanted stocks were fruitless, 
and each judge died leaving no issue behind him. 

The Irish author of the History of the Kings Inns writes 
that c Sir Gerard Lowther acquired a large property by steering 
with unprincipled craft through the boisterous ocean of con- 
temporary troubles.' The description seems to serve well 
enough. He was the king's man at Oxford in 1644. In 
1 646 he was one of the commissioners treating for the surren- 
der of Dublin to the parliament, and afterwards slips easily 
into the attitude of a devout and loyal supporter of the dynasty 
of Cromwell. Sir Edmund tickets him as a time-server, and has 
contempt for his humble letter of thanks to Henry Cromwell 
in acknowledgment of good offices ; but it was an age of time 
servers, and the letters of the cavalier gentry to the Com- 
missioners for Compounding have many passages which would 
have been sad reading for Sir Walter Scott. 


THE study of genealogy is rich in illustration of the men- 
tal perversity of man, of his misdirected toil, of his self- 
deception. It is no exception to the standing rule that in all 
departments of antiquarian research the c crank ' ramps and 
revels. The distinctive mark, perhaps, of the c crank * is that, 
even when his premisses are right, his conclusions are invari- 
ably wrong. Book after book has been compiled, often with 
much labour, the contents of which are either useless or worse 
than useless, because misleading, from the fact that the author 
is unable to reason even if he would, or that he is under the 
obsession of some wonderful theory which distorts his view of 
the simplest facts and with which the whole of the evidence 
before him must be forced, by hook or by crook, to fit. In 
the course of a long and varied experience of this curious and 
provoking genus I have been struck by its endless varieties, but 
one of the most common and quite the most dangerous may 
be described as the plausible < crank.' His reasoning might 
deceive even the elect. It is only when an expert devotes the 
time and labour necessary for testing his facts, his quotations 
and his arguments one by one, that the whole edifice is found 
to have been raised laboriously on nothing. And then the 
c crank ' will curse him or charge him with personal spite ; and 
if the f crank ' has friends they will support him, right or 
wrong ; and the public well, the public will say that it really 
does not matter, and may even ask why the poor * crank ' 
should not have as good a right to his views as the expert. 
All which is scarcely encouraging to the pursuit of mere truth. 
With this short introduction, which is by no means un- 
needed, I pass to the book of which the name stands at the 
head of this review. It was announced in the prospectus of 
The Ancestor that a feature would be made of < retrospective 
notices of works which are considered useful to the antiquary 
and of works against which he may need to be warned/ To 
the latter class, I propose to show, The Norman People emphati- 
cally belongs. It is obviously no easy matter to assess even 

approximately the influence that may have been exercised by a 



book of this character, or the weight that may have been at- 
tached to its authority by seekers after ancestry ; but there is 
certainly no work that can rival The Norman People in its appeal 
to claimants of Norman descent or in the vast number of 
families who will find their surnames within its covers. More- 
over, its statements are accepted and quoted verbatim in the 
Duchess of Cleveland's work The Battle Abbey Roll (1889), 
which, setting aside its main contention, contains much excel- 
lent and up-to-date genealogy. And the irony of the position 
is this : the duchess, who accepted the Roll as a genuine and 
contemporary list of those who accompanied the Conqueror, 
cited without question the assertions of T'be Norman People^ of 
which the author, in his Introduction, had expressly rejected 
the KolPs authority, cruelly observing that c its existence from 
the Conquest at Battle Abbey is a mere myth, depending on 
the authority of some unknown herald of the sixteenth cen- 

Indeed the strangest feature of this curious book is the 
healthy scepticism and sound criticism evoked from its author by 
certain pedigrees of an obviously fabulous character coincident 
with his own manufacture, on a wholesale scale, of others invit- 
ing precisely the same criticism as that in which he has indulged. 
Take, for instance, the origin of the Cliffords. In his chapter of 
c Criticism of Family History ' he takes this as a test instance 
and discusses it at some length. The c peerage writers * are con- 
demned for providing Richard FitzPons, the family patriarch, 
with an impossible father ; and for this affiliation, we read, there 
is no authority c except the statement of the peerage no other 
authority in support of that statement is vouchsafed/ Pre- 
cisely the same remarks apply to the author's own derivation 
of the Cliffords from the barons or princes of Pons in Sain- 
tonge, for the pedigree rests, it will be found, on no authority 
but his own. 1 To anticipate somewhat, one may state at once 
that his assertions, however definite, are found, in case after 
case, to have no foundation whatever. He guessed that A was 
the son of B, and then proceeded to state it as a fact. Dealing, 
for instance, at great length with the origin of the Stuarts, he 
asserted that Alan seneschal of Dol was the son of a c Guienoc,' 
who c was probably a son of Hamo I. Viscount of Dinan, 

1 A special authority on Domesday tenants, Mr. A. S. Ellis, has observed 
that ' the statements about the ancestry and descendants of Pons in a work 
called The Norman People are untrustworthy.' 


representative of the ancient counts of Dol and Dinan,' whose 
c origin is lost in antiquity ' (p. 409). This guess for it is 
nothing more develops, even on the same page, into the definite 
statement that Hamo c had six sons,' of whom Guienoc was 
the youngest ! 

If the book were obviously one in which no confidence 
could be placed, there would be no need to warn the reader 
against accepting its statements. But on the one hand its 
author assumes the character of a cautious, careful, critical 
writer ; and, on the other, he fortifies his position by an im- 
posing array of references, references moreover to works which 
he has evidently read and studied. He proves, for instance, 
that descent from c Guienoc ' by a charter in Lobineau's Eretagne^ 
which mentions c Alan the Seneschal son of Guienoc ' (p. 408). 
But on verifying his reference we discover unfortunately that 
the words c the Seneschal ' have been interpolated by him, and 
that this c Alan son of Guienoc ' might have been any one. 
Another similar collapse occurs in the descent he assigned to 
the Toler family, which he made the subject of special study 
(pp. 73-4, 420). Here is his statement, definite as usual : 

Hugh de Toulouse obtained grants from Richard FitzGilbert in Surrey. 
His grandson Peter de Thalews (Toulouse) held more than two fees there in 
1 165 from the house of De Clare (Liber Niger). 

Again we verify the reference and discover that Peter's 
name was not < de Thalews,' but de c Talewe,' de c Thalewe,' 
or de * Talleu,' according to the official edition of The Red Book 
of the Exchequer (p. 405). This correction in itself would not 
be of much importance ; but there is more to come. For, like 
the author of The Norman People^ the editor of The Red Book 
has his obsessions ; and it is one of these that a contraction 
occurring at the end of a name should be normally extended 
as c e.' Remembering that this learned person has actually 
delivered a course of lectures on the reading and editing of 
MSS., one almost hesitates to recall the fact that his quaint 
delusion evolved an c Armere' out of a member of the 
Armenti^res family, 1 or to point out that his Black Book 
Thalewe ought to be read Thalew[urth], that is, Talworth in 
Surrey. 2 The name presents no difficulty, for Talworth was 

1 See p. 193 above. 

2 See his own Preface, pp. xlvi., xlviii., for a mention of Talworth ('Thale- 
wurtha '). The actual spelling of the termination varied, of course, as in all 
such names. 


one of the De Clare manors, and had been held by Richard 
FitzGilbert in 1086, as a large manor, in two moieties. 1 

Thus then there vanishes into space the Toulouse descent 
of Toler, as indeed it might be expected to vanish, for the first 
Toler was of course a c toller/ that is, a taker of tolls. 2 He 
had naturally nothing to do with Toulouse or, for the matter 
of that, with Talworth. 

But the really serious point that here emerges is the liberty 
taken by the official editor of The Red Book of the Exchequer 
with the MSS. with which he had to deal. The return of the 
knight's fees of the Clares in which this entry occurs is one of 
the two of which the originals are fortunately still preserved, 
and Mr. Hall asserts that it gives the name in question as 
c Talewe,' and that in The Black Book of the Exchequer the form 
is 'Thalewe.' Knowing the untrustworthy character of the 
work, I have been at the pains to examine both MSS., although 
there was great difficulty in finding the original return. As 
might be expected, it turned out this return had Talew and 
that the Black Book had Thalew\ both forms representing 
Talworth when properly extended. It is obvious that such 
treatment of names as this makes the official edition of a 
record worse than useless, because misleading. And no amount 
of pompous talk in a quasi-scientific jargon can alter this ele- 
mentary fact. If we require instructing in the art of c diplo- 
matic,' we shall certainly not obtain it by the light of a 
c Talewe ' candle. 

To return to The Norman People. It may have been observed 
that among the families claimed by its author as c Norman ' 
are families which he himself deduces from Saintonge, Brittany 
and Toulouse, yet it is the very thesis of his book that about 
a third of the English people are not only of Norman origin, 
but therefore of Scandinavian blood, and akin consequently to 
another third, which is roughly the proportion he assigns to 
the Danish element in the people. As a matter of fact the 
Bretons and the Flemings were numerous in William's host, a 
fact to which we have been largely blinded by our use of the 
word c Norman.' But even including all the populations 
represented among the invaders we can only reach the author's 
estimate by adopting every conceivable device to twist a name 

1 See the Victoria History of Surrey, i. 317, 318. 

2 See Bardsley's Dictionary of English and Welsh Surnames (1901), p. 756. 


into a foreign shape, or to trace a house to a foreign stock. 
The real wonder is that there are any English left. 

The first of these extraordinary devices, or c constructive 
principles ' as the author terms them, to which I shall call atten- 
tion is that a Latinized name was of necessity a Norman one in 
medieval England. On the Hundred Rolls, for instance, the 
scribes Latinized the village reeve, smith, miller, reaper, etc., as 
pr<epositus, faber, molendinarius, messor, etc. These are at once 
claimed by our author as the names of men who were certainly 
or probably Norman (pp. 96-7). We even read (pp. 80, 401) 
that c the name Smith does not appear till the thirteenth cen- 
tury, being then a translation from Faber or Le Fevre.' In- 
deed the c Godric Faber ' of Domesday, bearer of a typical 
English name, is cited in perfect unconsciousness of the fact 
that the scribes kad merely Latinized c the smith/ And every 
reeve on the Hundred Rolls was assumed in like manner to 
be one of the Le Prev6t family, because he was Latinized as 
c prepositus.' The next device was based on an assumption far 
too commonly made, namely, that because a family bears the 
name of some locality it is therefore of necessity descended 
from its former lords. The name, of course, would be simi- 
larly borne by a native of that locality who sought his fortune at 
a distance and even, one finds, by serfs. The author however 
constructed many of his fanciful descents by looking out the 
name of the place in Domesday and then deriving the family 
which bears it from that of its alien lords. Proof he deemed 
superfluous. The third device, the one perhaps of which the 
author was proudest, was the use he made of the evidence 
furnished by armorial bearings (pp. 715). This 'indepen- 
dent and most satisfactory testimony ' depended on the author's 
curious belief that c in numerous instances families have pre- 
served their armorial (sic) under all the changes which their 
names have undergone in the course of ages.* Apparently it 
did not occur to him that a family which had sunk and had 
subsequently emerged anew was not in the habit of using an 
c armorial ' in the intervening period. Moreover, Robson's 
British Herald, from which he derived his information, would 
obviously include mere assumptions of old coats by novi homines 
while even the grants of new coats are based on the lamentable 
principle of assigning close imitations of old ones to those 
who have no right to the latter, although they may happen to 
bear a name more or less similar. The pirating of old arms 


or their < colourable imitation ' are the practices mainly respon- 
sible for the alleged similarity on which the author's conclu- 
sions are based. He was in fact c arguing in a circle ' which 
began with the assumption by a family, or the grant to it, of 
arms resembling those borne by an ancient house of similar 
name, and ended by adducing the fact as proof that they were 
descended from the house in question. 

Some instances of the application of his methods may now 
be given. The Peerage affords the choicest cases, for c the 
origin of the peerage families of the kingdom ' formed the 
subject of his keenest investigation (pp. 12-22) and of his 
most sensational discovery. Refusing to accept early pedigrees 
on the mere authority of the heralds or genealogists of the 
sixteenth or seventeenth century/ our critically-minded author 
swept aside their c fabrications/ cleared the ground c from the 
rubbish which had been permitted to accumulate/ and then 
'traced family after family historically to the Conquest and 
beyond it.' What he was pleased to term c an unbiassed and 
independent enquiry ' revealed to him the fact that the peerage 
of England is c almost entirely Norman, . . . and that this 
observation especially applies to peerages of modern date.' To 
do justice to this discovery, one must quote the author's own 
words : 

Why is it that the peerage of England, which is continually recruited from 
the lower and middle classes, nevertheless remains essentially Norman, and not 
only Norman, but in a great degree lineally descended from the Norman 
nobility of the Conquest ? . . . The same Norman nobility which surrounded 
the throne of the Conqueror continues, in its remote posterity, to occupy 
the same place in the reign of the Conqueror's latest descendant, our present 

How this conclusion was reached a few examples will show. 

The modern Percies, as all the world knows or ought to 
know, are in reality Smithsons ; and Smithson is a name which 
cannot well present the slightest difficulty, especially to those 
who remember such names as Cookson, Clarkson and Wright- 
son. But this, of course, would never do. The Smithsons, 
our author explains, are c a branch of the baronial family of 
Sealers or De Scallariis/ for whom even a Norman origin is 
not of sufficient antiquity. They c probably ' came, we learn, 
from Aquitaine, where they had flourished since the eighth 
century. The proof? Well, 'soon after 1086, Smydeton, or 
Smithton (now Smeaton)/ was granted to a Malger de Sealers. 


Need one observe that Smydetone is not c Smithton,' that a 
family deriving its name from it would be c Smeaton,' and that 
even c Smith/on ' is not c Smithjon ' ? No derivation is too im- 
probable, too far-fetched, too unsupported by evidence to be 
adduced by our author, if only it enables him to claim a 
c Norman ' origin for a modern peerage family. The pindar, 
like the toller, was a functionary whose name speaks for itself ; 
and most of us have heard of the Pindar of Wakefield. But 
because the Earls Beauchamp are Pindars paternally, it is 
claimed, apparently, that Pindar is a translation of Le Bailli, 
and therefore Norman ; nay, even that the Pindars are c prob- 
ably descended from William, a Norman of distinction/ though 
the pedigree is impossible to follow. It was one of the author's 
delusions that a name of office, like Pindar, was only borne by 
one family. Fot he similarly makes the astonishing suggestion 
that Hugh Wac, the earliest known ancestor of the Wake 
family, was c probably ' the son of c John Vigil/ who occurs on 
the Pipe Roll of 1 130. Need one explain that the vigiles who 
occur on the early Pipe Rolls were simply night-watchmen who 
are entered as paid for their services ? Another name of occu- 
pation met with on the early Pipe Rolls is that ofparcarius, the 
keeper of a park or wood. It is obvious that the families of 
c Parker ' who descended from these officers would be wholly 
unconnected in each case, the name being solely derived from 
the office. Our author assigns to the Parkers, Earls of 
Macclesfield, and to Archbishop Parker, a pedigree from the 
Conquest, as having been originally c de Lions/ Unfortunately 
for him I happen to know that the c Parker ' family of Croxton, 
through whom he traces them, really bore the name, not of 
Parker, but of Porter ! And in this way another pedigree 
goes by the board. 

There is grim if unconscious humour in the author's com- 
ment under Rawdon, that c the early pedigree of this family 
from the Conquest stated in the Peerages is mythic and unsup- 
ported by any evidence.' For the comment applies exactly to 
innumerable pedigrees of his own. Reckless affiliation in the 
earlier generations and mere assumption for the later ones are 
often their sole basis. Two families of c Browne ' are recog- 
nized, the one 'evidently of foreign descent,' which c is armori- 
ally connected with an Irish line,' and thus provides a Nor- 
man ancestry for the Lords Oranmore ; the other, descended 
from 'Turulph, a companion of Rollo,' who < obtained, 912, 

I 7 2 


the barony of La Ferte,' contributes c the Marquises of Sligo, 
Barons Kilmaine, and Viscounts Montague ' to our Norman 
Peerage. 'Cooper' or c Cowper,' the author admits, was in 
some cases derived from c Le Cuper, a trade ' ; but, in order to 
support his great theory of the Norman origin of our peerage, 
the Earls Cowper and the Earls of Shaftesbury are asserted to 
descend from the house of De Columbers, one of whom was 
styled c Le Cupere, being probably cupbearer to the King ' ! 
It is after such frantic efforts as this to twist facts to suit his 
theory that the author reminds us of his c persuasion ' that, 
with his scientific caution, he has rather 'understated' his case. 
His utterly reckless treatment of names is seen in such a 
case as c Knatchbull or de Molbec from Molbec in the Cotentin,' 
of which we read : 

Hugh de Molbec held Chenebella from Walter Giffard, 1086 (Domesday). 
His descendants were named De Kenebel, Kenebol, Kenetbole, Kenechbole and 
Knatchbull. In 1165 Matilda de [Moljbec held a fee from Earl Walter 
Giffard, Humphry de Kenebelle (her son) in Gloucester, and William Fitz 
Matilda, another son, four fees in Bucks, from Earl Walter (Liber Niger). . . . 
The name of Kemble is the modern form of Kenebel. 

On this I would observe (i) that the Hugh de c Molbec ' of 
1086 is a demonstrable error of the scribe for Hugh de 
' Bolbec,' a great tenant of Walter Giffard, whose heir held of 
Walter's heir in 1166 ('1165') 20 knight's fees as Hugh 
' Bolebeche ' ; (2) that c Matildis de Bee (Liber Niger) was 
neither a Molbec nor a Bolbec ; (3) that c William Fitz 
Matilda ' was c Richard Fitz Mabel' (Liber Niger), and conse- 
quently not her son ; (4) that { Humphry de Kenebelle ' also was 
not her son ; (5) that Kenebelle is now Kimble, Bucks ; (6) 
that neither Kimble nor Kemble have anything whatever to do 
with Knatchbull. Fast on the heels of Knatchbull follows 
Knill. The bearers of the latter name appear to have derived 
it from Knill (Heref.). But our author declares the surname 
of Knill to be identical with Channel, which is c armorially 
identified with Charnell,' which, in turn, is really c Carnell, from 
Carnelles near Evreux.' This derivation is as wild, it will be 
seen, as that of Knatchbull. 

Let us take another instance. The early lords of Aber- 
gavenny were named de Ballon, from the stronghold of Ballon 
in Maine ; the early lords of Monmouth were descended from 
William Fitz Baderon, Baderon being a Christian name. Our 
author jumbled in hopeless confusion the names of Ballon and 


Baderon and the two distinct families. The first derivation is 
this : 

BALLADEN from Baladon (sic), a castle in Anjou. Drogo de Baladon held a 
Barony in the Welsh Marches, 1086, and from him descended the De Baladuns 
or Balaons, Barons of Monmouth. From a younger branch descends the 
existing family of HUNTLEY. 

The facts are that no such barony was held in 1086 by Drogo 
de Baladon (whose very existence indeed appears to be fic- 
titious), and that c the De Baladuns or Balaons ' had nothing to 
do with Monmouth. Under c Huntley ' we plunge into the 
other family, as * Huntley or Fitz Baderon, 7 lords of Mon- 
mouth. No proof of the alleged Huntley descent is given, 
but the author hurries on to the desired conclusion, namely, 
that the c ancestor of this house, William Fitz Baderon or 
Baldran, appears to have been a scion of the lords or princes of 
Jarnac in Angoumois or Saintonge, probably of Gothic race/ 
A few lines further on he is definitely made the son of Baudran, 
4 Prince of Jarnac/ The true origin of the house in a village 
near Dol has been elsewhere established by me. 1 With c Tre- 
lawny ' we return once more to the house of Ballon. 

It is presumed that this family descends from Hamelin de Balaon, baron of 
Abergavenny, who had vast grants in Cornwall. 

To Wynebald, brother of this Hamelin, are assigned three sons, 
from one of whom the Trelawneys are derived. But the full 
pedigree of Hameline and Winebald has been worked out by 
me, 2 and all these three suppositious sons can be clearly proved 
to be inventions. And Hamelin de Ballon was quite distinct 
from Hemelin the Domesday under-tenant in Cornwall. 

Enough has been said, perhaps, by this time to give the 
reader a true idea of this misleading book. It is the combina- 
tion of reckless assertion with perfectly sound criticism that 
forms its most singular and its most dangerous feature. The 
criticism, for instance, of the received origin of the Windsor 
and Fitzgerald families (pp. 62, 63) is absolutely sound ; but 
when we turn hopefully to the author's own version, we start 
'about A.D. 660' with 'Aother or Other/ for whom the refer- 
ence is ' Bouquet x. 342.' We turn to it, only to find that it 
refers to an c Otherius ' living about A.D. 1000, whom the 
author makes the second of the name and dates c arc. 987.' 

1 Studies in Peerage and Family History, p. 121. 
2 Ibid. p. 195. 


This Other is made the father of another for whom no refer- 
ence is given or can be discovered, but of whom we read that 
he was 'Lord of the Castle of Mortaine, Aquitaine, circ. 1030, 
and had issue Gilbert, Lord of Mortaine (Gallia Christ, ii. 48 
Instr.), and Walter Fitz Other ' (p. 243). This gives us the 
following pedigree : 

circ. 987 

circ. 1030 

Fitz Other 
[living after noo I 1 ] 

Wearily we turn to Gallia Christ, ii. 48 1 (not 48) Instr., and 
there discover Gilbert c de Mauritania ' as witness to a charter, 
with nothing whatever to connect him either with Other or 
with Walter. Nor can I connect Other with Mortaine, 
wherever in c Aquitaine ' it was. His land was ( Sacerge,' 
which was c finibus Biturigum situm Lemovicinis contiguum ' 
(Bouquet), while Gilbert occurs in a charter of the church of 

Those who have striven to trace the origin of our great 
families can hardly write calmly of a book which, while profess- 
ing to provide pedigrees based on evidence and proof, indulges 
in utterly baseless statements and < wild cat ' genealogy. 
Everything is sacrificed to the one determination to find a 
Norman ' ancestry. Even the author's criticism on others 
c Such theories as these only tend to show the influence 
which pre-conceived notions are capable of exercising on the 
strongest minds ' will not explain or excuse the astounding 
methods he employed in what he was pleased to term his 
c unbiassed ' inquiry. 


1 See p. 123. 



IN the first rank of the Huguenot families settled in 
England were the Tryons, rich merchants in London, 
baronets in Essex and great squires in Northamptonshire. 
Their founder, PIETER TRIOEN, a merchant, was born at 
Wulverghem in Flanders, and holding the reformed doctrine 
was so well advised as to remove himself and his family out of 
the reach of the claws of Inquisitor Titelmann. Coming to 
London he had* letters of denization granted to him 4 Feb. 
156!, as 'Peter Tryoen, from the dominion of the King of 
Spain/ 1 He was a deacon of the Dutch church in London in 
1580, and dwelt in a house called the c Worm on the Hoop,' 
in the parish of St. Christopher-le-Stocks, which he bought of 
Henry Becher, esquire, and William Becher his son. William 
Camden, Clarencieux, granted him on i July, 1610, the arms 
azure une fesse embattellee entre six estoiles de or y with a crest 
caput ursi native colore septem stellulis aureis aspersum. By an 
inquest taken after his death 6 Dec. 1611, it was found that 
he died 29 March, 1611, and that his son and heir Moses was 
aged 30 years and upwards. He made a will 20 Jan. i6of, 
describing himself therein as c Peter Trioen borne at Wulverg- 
hem in Flaunders in the partes beyonde the seas now dwelling 
in the parishe of Sainct Christofer nere the Stockes in London 
and free denizen of England/ By it he made his son Moses 
his heir of all his lands in Flanders and gave him 5,ooo/. He 
gave to his sons Samuel and John 5,ooo/. each, and to his 
daughters Mary, wife of Mr. Sebastian Harvey, and Hester, 
wife of Mr. William Courten, 4,ooo/. each. He gave to his 
grandson Peter, son of Moses, 3OO/., with remainder to the 
rest of Peter's brothers and sisters. He gave to Peter, Mary 
and Sara, children of David le Maire by testator's late daughter 
Sara, 4,ooo/. amongst them, with ioo/. more to Peter, who was 
his godson. To his god-daughters Sara Trion, daughter of 
the said Moses, and to Hester Courten, daughter of the said 

1 Pat. Roll 4 Eliz. p. n m. n. 

173 M 


Hester, he gave ioo/. each. He gave to Anthony Trioen 5O/. 
if he should be a bachelor at the testator's death. He gave 
legacies to the poor of the Dutch and French churches in 
London, and to the Dutch churches in Norwich, Colchester 
and Sandwich ; to the poor of Rickmansworth and to the poor 
of St. Christopher's parish. He gave to his sons Samuel and 
John equally his capital messuage, etc., in St. Christopher's and 
St. Bartholomew's by the Exchange, his wife Mary dwelling 
there and taking the rents and profits. The residue of his 
estate he gave to his wife. He made his wife Mary and his 
sons Samuel and John his executors, who proved the will 30 
March, 1611 [P.C.C. 24 Wood\^ after sentence had been 
promulgated in its favour on 28 March, 1611, following litiga- 
tion between the exors. and Mary Harvey and Hester Courten 
[P.C.C. 49 Wood}. He was buried in the church of St. 
Christopher 1 5 April, 1 6 1 1 . 

His wife Mary, who was probably a Fleming like himself, 
died 3 Jan. i6if, in London, and was buried by her husband 
in St. Christopher's church 16 Jan. i6if. She made a will on 
25 Sept. 1617, giving to her sons Moses Tryon and Sir Samuel 
Tryon, knight, 6,ooo/. each, to her daughters Mary, wife of 
Sir Sebastian Harvey, knight, and Hester, wife of Mr. William 
Courten, 3,ooo/. each, and to her grandson Peter le Maire 
2,ooo/. Her other legatees included her grandchildren Samuel, 
son of Sir Samuel Tryon ; Mary, John and James, children of 
her son Moses ; Mary Harvey and William Courten. She 
also gave legacies to her cousin Anthony Tryon, who was then 
married to a wife named Jacomin, to the wife of Lucas Roberts 
of Sandwich, to Samuel Godscall of Sandwich, and to his two 
sisters (whereof one, Jacomyn Godscall, had been servant to 
the testatrix), and to her god-daughters Mary van Golgye, 
wife of Peter Richolte, a merchant, Mary Vaughan, daughter 
of Thomas Vaughan, and Mary Hellam, daughter of Jasper 
Hellam. She gave legacies for mourning to Peter le Maire's 
sisters Mary Swynnarton and the Lady Baesh. Her son Sir 
Samuel Tryon, knight, the residuary legatee and exor., proved 
the will 6 Feb. 1 6 if [P.C.C. 19 Parker]. 

Of the children of Pieter Tryon and his wife eight sons 
and four daughters are known : 

i. Abraham Trioen alias Tryon, who was a merchant of St. 
Mary Aldermanbury in London. He married at the 
Dutch church in Austin Friars, 16 Oct. 1599, Leonora 


daughter of Adrian Vierendeels, a citizen of Antwerp, 
who survived him. She married (ii.) Gregory Downe- 
hall, a master in Chancery, and (iii.) Sir John Bennet of 
Uxbridge, knight, whose third wife she was. She died 
1638 and was buried in Uxbridge Chapel (M. I.). By 
an inquest taken after his death 23 July, 1608, it was 
found that he died 29 Dec. 1607, and that Moses his 
brother was his next heir and aged 28 years and more. 
His will dated 25 May, 1605, was proved 7 Jan. i6o| 
[P.C.C. 7 Windebanck] by his brothers Samuel and 
John Tryon, the executors. 

ii. Moyses Tryon of Harringworth, co. Northants, esquire, 
of whom presently. 

iii. John Tryon, who was christened 15 Sep. 1577, at the 
Dutch church in Austin Friars and died young. 

iv. Sir Samuel Tryon of Halstead, co. Essex, baronet [see 
pedigree of TRYON OF HALSTEAD]. 

v. John Tryon, christened 19 April, 1584, at the Dutch 
church. He was an executor of his brother Abraham's 
will and was buried at St. Christopher's 14 Sep. 1612. 

vi. Daniel Tryon was christened 28 Aug. 1586, at the 
Dutch church and died young. 

vii. Daniel Tryon was christened at the Dutch church 8 

April, 1588, and died young. 
viii. Peter Tryon was christened at the Dutch church 2O 

May, 1 602, and died young. 

i. . . . Tryon, a daughter, who was married before 1603 to 
Levinus Munke, a Dutch merchant in London, by 
whom she had issue. She probably died before 29 
Dec. 1607. 

ii. Sarah Tryon, married at the Dutch church 9 Feb. 159^, 
to David le Maire of London, son of James le Maire 
of Tournay. She left issue by him, who survived her. 

iii. Mary Tryon, christened at the Dutch church 25 March, 
1575. She married (i.) Sir Sebastian Harvey of Lon- 
don, knight, Lord Mayor in 1619, by whom she left 
one daughter. She married (ii.) Sir Thomas Hinton 
of Wansborough, co. Wilts, knight, and dying about 
1630 was buried at Wansborough. (M. I. Aubrey s 

iv. Esther Tryon was christened at the Dutch church 13 
Dec. 1579, and was married there 17 July, 1604, to 


Sir William Courten, knight, who was born in London 
in 1572 and died 27 May, 1636. She was his second 
wife, his first being Catharina, daughter of Pieter 
Crommelin, a deaf and dumb girl who was heir to her 
father's fortune of 6o,ooo/. Sir William Courten left 
issue by both wives. 

II. MOYSES TRYON of Harringworth, co. Northants, esquire 
(son of Peter and Mary Tryon) was christened at the Dutch 
church in Austin Friars 21 Dec. 1572. He was returned as 
heir of his elder brother Abraham at his death in 1607, and as 
heir of his father Peter Tryon at his death in 1611. He was 
high sheriff of Northamptonshire in 2 1 Jac. I. 

His wife was Sarah van der Peele of Sandwich, whom he 
married at the Austin Friars 3 June, 1 600. They had issue 
four sons and four daughters. 

i. Peter Tryon of Bulwick, co. Northants, esquire, of whom 

ii. John Tryon, who was christened at the Austin Friars 

22 Jan. i6o|-, and was buried at St. Christopher le 

Stocks 27 March, 1632. 
iii. James Tryon, who was christened at the Austin Friars 

ii Nov. 1610, and died soon after, 
iv. James Tryon, who was christened 21 June, 1612, at the 

Austin Friars. He matriculated at Wadham College, 

Oxford, 14 Jan. 1631- (as third son of Moyses Tryon of 

Harringworth, esquire, being then aged 1 8 years), 
i. Mary Tryon, who was christened 10 Jan. i6of, at Austin 

ii. Sarah Tryon, who was christened 23 June, 1603, at 

Austin Friars, 
iii. Elizabeth Tryon, who was christened 19 Oct. 1606, at 

the Austin Friars. She married John Huxley, who 

was born about 1599, son and heir of George Huxley 

of Edmonton, esquire, who died 30 April, 1627. 

(Funeral certificate at Heralds' College). 
iv. Joan Tryon, christened at Austin Friars 8 May, 1614, 

and married 20 Nov. 1634, at Allhallows-in- the- Wall, 

to John Crooke, esquire. 

III. PETER TRYON of Bulwick, co. Northants, esquire (son 
and heir of Moyses Tryon by Sarah his wife) was christened 
1 6 Dec. 1 604, at the Dutch church in the Austin Friars. He 
matriculated at Christ Church, Oxford, 2 May, 1623 (as eldest 


son of Moyses Tryon of Harringworth, esquire, aged 18), 
B.A. 10 Feb. i62f. He was admitted to Lincoln's Inn in 
1624. He married Judith Cullen, daughter of Abraham 
Cullen and sister to Sir Abraham Cullen of Sheen, co. Surrey, 
baronet. After his death she married for her second husband 
Thomas Cole of Lisse, co. Hants, esquire, their allegation for 
marriage licence being dated 23 April, 1662 (Vicar-General's 
Office), she being then of Edmonton and aged about 30, and 
he aged about 40 and a widower. 

Peter Tryon and Judith had issue two sons and two 
daughters : 

i. James Tryon of Bulwick, of whom hereafter, 
ii. Samuel Tryon of Collyweston, co. Northants, gent. Born 
about 1656, being aged about 24 years at the date of 
the allegation for his marriage licence, when he was 
described of St. Paul's, Covent Garden. He died 4 
Feb. 171-2-, in his 55th year, and was buried at Har- 
ringworth 7 Feb. 171-!-. He married (i.) Elizabeth 
Hoste, sister of James Hoste, esquire, and apparently a 
daughter of Theodorus Hoste of Mortlake, co. Surrey 
gent. She was born about 1662, being aged about 18 
years on 24 Dec. 1680, the date of the allegation for 
her marriage licence (Vicar -G ener aP s Office), to which 
her parents consented. She was buried at Harringworth. 
10 May, 1695. ^ e married (ii.) Christian Wenyeve. 

He was lord of the manors of Collyweston, co. 
Northants, and Ketton, co. Rutland. His will was 
dated 15 Sept. 1711, and proved i March, 171^. 
[P.C.C. 60 Barnes] by his son John Tryon the exor. 
He was buried at Harringworth. The will of Christian 
his widow was dated 27 Feb. 17 if, she being then of 
St. James's, Westminster, and was proved 6 June, 
1718, by her brothers John Wenyeve and North 
Wenyeve of the Inner Temple, esquire, two of the 
exors., power being reserved, etc., to Edward Wenyeve, 
a third brother and executor. [P.C.C. 122 Temson.~\ 
She was buried 27 May, 1718, at Harringworth. 
By his first wife Samuel Tryon had issue 

i. John Tryon of Collyweston, who was one of 
the exors. of the will of his cousin Charles 
Tryon of Bulwick in 1 705. His will dated 
15 June, 1747, was proved i June, 1751 


[P.C.C. 191 Busby] by the relict and extrix. 
He was buried at Colly weston 14 April, 
1751. Sarah his relict was buried at Colly- 
weston 20 Aug. 1771. They had issue 

A. Sarah Tryon, who was christened at 

Colly weston 16 Apr. 1719. She was 
a legatee under her father's will but 
died before him, being buried at Colly- 
weston 7 Jan. 17^-. 

B. Elizabeth Tryon, who was christened at 

Colly weston 5 March, 172-7-. A lega- 
tee in her father's will, 
c. Susan Tryon, who was buried i Jan. 
T 73f> at Harringworth. 

2. Samuel Tryon, christened 13 Nov. 1688, at 

Colly weston, and dead in 1711. 

3. Peter Tryon, christened 14 June, 1691, at 

Collyweston, and dead in 1711. 

4. Charles Tryon, christened 14 May, 1693, at 

Collyweston. Buried at Harringworth 22 
Oct. 1713. 

1. Jane Tryon, christened 3 July, 1687, at Colly- 

weston, and dead in 1711. 
By his second wife Samuel Tryon had issue 

5. George Tryon, who was christened at Colly- 

weston 29 July, 1699, and buried 3 Nov. 
1699, at Harringworth. 

2. Mary Tryon, buried at Harringworth 21 May, 


3. Anne Tryon, christened at Collyweston 23 Feb. 

170?-. Called c Nanny' in her mother's will. 

4. Elizabeth Tryon, christened at Collyweston 

i Feb. 170!. Called 'Dedle' in her mother's 

5. Christian Tryon. Called c Kitt ' in her mother's 


i. Sarah Tryon, born about 1651 and married to John Savile 
of Methley Hall, co. York, esquire, who was christened 
at Methley 1 1 July, 1 644. He bought Thribergh from 
the Reresbys. Allegation for marriage licence dated 
2 June, 1666 [Faculty Office], she being then a spinster 
aged 15 and living at Lisse with her mother, Judith 


Cole, who consents. He died 25 Jan. and was buried 
at Methley 12 Feb. 17 if, leaving issue by his wife, 
from whom descend the Saviles, Earls of Mexborough. 
ii. Mary Tryon, born about 1650, died 13 Jan. 167!. She 
married (i.) Sir Samuel Jones of Courteenhall, co. 
Northants, knight, whose first wife was Mary Middleton 
of Denbigh. He purchased Courteenhall in 1650 and 
died s.p. The allegation for his licence to marry Mary 
Tryon was dated i June, 1669 [Faculty Office], she 
being then living at Bulwick with her mother, who 
consents. She married at Greetham, co. Lincoln, 2 Sep. 
1674, (ii.) Charles Bertie of Uffington, co. Lincoln (fifth 
son of Montague Bertie, Earl of Lindsey), who died 
22 March, 1711-5 in his 7ist year. 

IV. JAMES m TRYON of Bulwick, co. Northants, esquire 
(eldest son of Peter and Judith Tryon). He was buried at 
Harringworth, He married Margaret Stydolfe, daughter and 
co-heir of Sir Richard Stydolfe of Norbury in Mickleham, 
baronet, whose sole heir she became on the death of her sister 
Frances, wife of Jacob, Lord Astley of Reading [Chan. pro. 
before 1714, Collins 19611]. She died about 1690, having 
married (ii.) Richard Savage, Earl Rivers, Commander-in-Chief 
of the forces in England, who was born in 1660 and died 
19 Aug. 1712, s.p.m.s. The first wife of Earl Rivers was 
Penelope Downes, daughter of John Downes of Wardley, co. 
Lane., whom he married 21 Aug. 1679 at Chiswick. The 
allegation for licence for his marriage with Margaret Tryon, 
then of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, widow, is dated 28 Jan. i68|- 
\Vicar-G enerar\. 

James Tryon and Margaret had issue two sons 
i. Charles Tryon of Bulwick, esquire, of whom hereafter, 
ii. James Tryon of Norbury Hall in Mickleham, co. Surrey, 
esquire, born about 1682. He matriculated at Christ 
Church, Oxford, n May, 1699, being then aged 17. 
He was buried at Harringworth 24 Jan. 172!. By his 
will dated 12 Jan. 172! and proved 29 Jan. 172! [P.C.C. 
1 9 Richmond'} by Charles Tryon the nephew and exor. 
he made the said Charles his heir. 

V. CHARLES TRYON of Bulwick, co. Northants, esquire 
(eldest son of James Tryon and Margaret). He was born 
about 1678, and dying 7 Nov. 1705 in his 27th year [Par. reg. 
of Harringwortb] was buried n Nov. 1705 at Harringworth. 


His will dated 2 Nov. 1705, with a codicil 3 Nov. 1705, was 
proved i Dec. 1705 [P.C.C. 159 Gee] by the relict, his uncle 
Samuel and his brother James Tryon, the exors. He married 
his cousin Jane Savile, fourth daughter of John Savile and 
Sarah Tryon, who was christened at Methley 27 Dec. 1675. 
Allegation for marriage licence dated 2 1 Feb. 1 70^, she being 
then a spinster and of St. Giles's parish. She was buried 
9 June, 1743, at Harringworth. She made a will 30 Aug. 
1742, being then of Gretton, co. Northants, a widow, which 
was proved 6 July, 1743 [P.C.C. 246 Boycott] by John Tryon 
of Collyweston, the cousin and exor. 

Charles Tryon and Jane had issue an only son, Charles 

VI. CHARLES TRYON of Bulwick, co. Northants, and of 
Norbury Hall, co. Surrey, esquire (only son of Charles Tryon 
and Jane). He was born 17 Sep. 1702, and matriculated at 
Christ Church, Oxford, 2 Sep. 1717 (as son of Charles of Bul- 
wick, esquire, aged 14). He married at Fulham Chapel 3 
July, 1722, the Lady Mary Shirley, daughter of Sir Robert 
Shirley, knight, first Earl Ferrers. She died 17 May, 1771, 
and was buried at Twickenham (M. I.), and admon. of her 
goods was issued 31 May, 1771 [P.C.C.] to her son Robert 
Tryon, clerk. 

Charles Tryon and Lady Mary had issue four sons and 
three daughters : 

i. Charles Tryon of Bulwick, esquire, of whom hereafter, 
ii. Robert Tryon, clerk in holy orders, rector of Seaton, co. 
Rutland. Born about 1727. Named as his father's 
second son in the will of his grandmother Jane Tryon 
in 1742. He matriculated at Christ Church, Oxford, 
13 Dec. 1749 (as son of Charles of Norbury, esquire), 
then being aged 22. B.C.L. in 1757. He died 27 Jan. 
1774, leaving a will dated 26 June, 1771. His widow 
renounced execution, and administration was granted 
17 March, 1774, to a creditor [P.C.C. in Bar grave']. 
By his wife Rebecca who survived him he had issue 
Charles Tryon, who was buried 28 Nov. 1763 at 

Harringworth, aged 7 months. 
Mary Tryon, to whom her father gave the rever- 
sion of his lands after her mother's death, 
iii. James Tryon, who was buried 25 Feb. 173!, at Harring- 


iv. William Tryon. In many respects he was the most 
eminent member of his family. He is commemorated 
in the Dictionary of National Biography, which however 
follows most works of reference in wrongly tracing his 
ancestry to Abraham Tryon, the eldest son of Peter the 
emigrant. The date of his birth is given as 1725, 
which is also incorrect, as he was younger brother of 
Robert, whom we know to have been born about 1727. 
He entered the army and was Captain of the ist Foot 
Guards in 1751, and Lieut-Colonel in 1758. On 26 
Dec. 1757 he married at St. George's, Hanover Square, 
Margaret Wake of Hanover Street, who brought him 
30,ooo/. and the interest of Wills Hill, Viscount 
Hillsborough, first commissioner of trade and planta- 
tions, whose kinswoman she is said to have been. 
Through the good offices of Lord Hillsborough he was 
appointed Lieutenant-Governor of North Carolina, 
where he arrived 27 June, 1764. He became Governor 
20 July, 1765, on the death of Governor Dobbs. 
Whilst in office he distinguished himself by building a 
governor's house with money which he had induced 
the Assembly to vote for the purpose, and by crushing 
in 1770 a force of rioters calling themselves the 
Regulators. He exchanged offices with the Earl of 
Dunmore, thereby becoming Governor of New York, 
where he arrived 8 July, 1771. He speculated in land, 
and visiting the Indian country in 1772, assisted at the 
settlement of a new district west of the Schenectachy 
which was called after him Tryon county. On 29 
Dec. 1773 tne governor's house in Fort George was 
suddenly destroyed by fire, and the governor and his 
family escaped with difficulty, his daughter Margaret 
being dangerously burned. A sum of 5,ooo/. was 
voted to him in consideration of his losses, and in 1774 
he visited England. He returned to find the colony 
in open rebellion, and for nearly a year his seat of 
government was a ship lying in the North river. He 
resigned his governorship in 1778 to take up military 
employment, and James Robertson succeeded him as 
the last civil governor of New York. By a despatch 
from Whitehall, 5 June, 1778, he was given command 
of the 7Oth Regt., and was also promoted to be Major- 


General c in America.' His severe reprisals upon the 
colonists earned him the hatred of the Americans, who 
declared his lands forfeit and attainted him by Act of 
Congress 22 Oct. 1779. Ill health and gout took him 
to England in 1780, and the rank of Lieut.-General 
was given him 20 Nov. 1782. He died at his house 
in Upper Grosvenor Street 27 Dec. 1788, and was 
buried near his mother in Twickenham churchyard. 
His will dated 21 Nov. 1787 was proved 21 Feb. 1789 
[P.C.C. 103 Caheri] by the relict and extrix. by whom 
he left issue : 

Margaret Tryon who died unmarried 29 July, 1791. 
i. Mary Tryon (? christened at Harringworth 23 Oct. 1738), 
living unmarried at date of her brother William's will 
in 1787. She died 18 March, 1799, at her apartments 
in St. James's Palace, having been a maid of honour for 
3 Shears. 

ii. Sophia Tryon, wife of Richard Bulstrode of Hounslow, 

esquire, whom she survived. Born 3 Sept., 1739. 

Named as his sister Sophia Bulstrode in her brother 

William's will. 

iii. Anne Tryon, living unmarried at date of her brother 

William's will. 

VII. CHARLES TRYON of Bulwick, co. Northants, esquire 
(eldest son of Charles Tryon and Lady Mary). He was born 
about 1724, and matriculated at Christ Church, Oxford, 30 
June, 1739 ( as son of Charles of Westminster, esquire, aged 
15). His will dated 29 Aug. 1767, with codicil dated 7 Nov. 
1768, was proved 9 Dec. 1768 [P.C.C. 468 Seeker] by Rebecca, 
the relict and extrix. He married Rebecca (probably daughter 
of James Bennett of Potton, co. Bedford, by Rebecca his wife), 
by whom he had two sons born before marriage. He died 
28 Nov. 1768, s.p.l. 


II. SIR SAMUEL TRYON of Boys Hall in Halstead, co. Essex, 
baronet (fourth son of Pieter Trioen and Mary). He was born 
in England, and christened 25 March, 1582, at the Dutch 
church in Austin Friars. He purchased Layer Marney Hall 
of George Tuke, esquire, and the manor of Halstead of Sir 
Thomas Gardiner, knight. He rebuilt Boys Hall in Halstead. 
He was knighted by King James at Newmarket 25 April, 1613, 


admitted to Gray's Inn 29 Dec. 1617, and created a baronet 
28 March, 1620. He died at Boys Hall 8 March, 162^, and 
was buried on the north side of the chancel of Halstead Church. 
His will dated 14 April, 1626, was proved 26 April, 1627 
[P.C.C. 42 Skinner], by the relict Elizabeth and Sir Henry 
Yelverton, knight, justice of the Common Pleas, power being 
reserved, etc., to Sir William Courten, knight, the third exor. 
By an inquest 19 April, 1627, Samuel his son was found to 
be his heir. He married Elizabeth Eldred, daughter of John 
Eldred of London, who married (ii.) Sir Edward Wortley, 
knight, second son of Sir Richard Wortley of Wortley, co. 
York, baronet. Sir Samuel Tryon had issue by his wife 
Elizabeth : 

i. Sir Samuel Tryon of Halstead, baronet, of whom pre- 
i. Elizabeth Tryon, christened 29 April, 1619, at St. Chris- 

topher-le-Stocks, and buried there 2 June, 1620. 
III. SIR SAMUEL TRYON of Halstead (son and heir of Sir 
Samuel Tryon). He was born in April, 1626, and christened 
28 April, 1617, at St. Christopher's. By the inquest after his 
father's death it was found that he was aged 10 years and 10 
months and 24 days at his father's death on 8 March, 162^. 
He was in ward to his stepfather Sir Edward Wortley, who 
married him to Bridget Lee, daughter of Sir Henry Lee of 
Quarrendon, co. Bucks, baronet, by Eleanor Wortley, sister of 
the said Sir Edward. He died about 1666 at Halstead. 
He married (ii.) Susan Harvey, daughter of John Harvey 
of Newton, co. Suffolk, gent., who survived him, and married 
(ii.) Timothy Thornbury of London, gent. She died 'in 
Michaelmas after the great frost.' Her father was a deponent 
on ii Sep. 1666, during a suit in Chancery brought against 
her by her stepson Sir Samuel \Chan. depns. Collins 189, 17]. 
Sir Samuel Tryon had issue by Bridget Lee a son and a 
daughter : 

i. Sir Samuel Tryon of Halstead, third baronet, who died 

unmarried about 1671. 

i. Eleanor Tryon, born about 1673. She carried the Essex 
estates out of the family of Tryon, being married at 
St. James', Clerkenwell, 30 April, 1661, to Sir Richard 
Franklyn of Moor Park, co. Herts, who had been 
created a baronet 16 Oct. 1660. Allegation for marriage 
licence dated 20 April, 1661 [Vicar-General], she being 


then of Halstead, a spinster, aged about 18. Sir 
Richard had married (i.) Elizabeth Cheke, daughter 
and co-heir of Sir Thomas Cheke of Pyrgo, co. Essex, 
knight. He was born about 1636 and died in 1685, 
having sold Boys Hall to Sir Josiah Child, bart. He 
left issue by both wives. 

Sir Samuel Tryon had issue by Susan Harvey five sons and a 


iii. Samuel John Tryon, who died young, 
iv. Sir Samuel John Tryon, who succeeded his half-brother 
Samuel as fourth and last baronet. He would seem 
to have lived in poor circumstances, and died 24 April, 
1724, leaving by his wife, Mary Bownds, daughter of 
Robert Bownds of Chelmsford, draper, two daughters 
and co-heirs : 

1 . Mary Tryon, daughter and co-heir, who married 

Thomas Davy of Shipdam, co. Norfolk, gent. 

2. Susan Tryon, daughter and co-heir. 
v. John Tryon, who died young. 

vi. Moses Tryon, who died young. 

vii. Moses Tryon, who died young. 

ii. Anne Tryon, who died young. 


Francis Trioen, who may have been a kinsman of Pieter 
Trioen of St. Christopher's, was a woolcomber at Norwich 
and a member of the Dutch Church there. He arrived in 
England from Flanders in 1564, and founded a family from 
which descended Francis Tryon of London, a rich merchant, 
who died in 1666, one of whose descendants, Rowland Tryon, 
a West India merchant, purchased Frognal in Chiselhurst. 
His nephew Thomas Tryon, also a West India merchant, 
who died in 1747, would seem to have been the last male 
descendant of this family of Tryon. 


Under this beading The Ancestor will call the attention of press 
and public to much curious lore concerning genealogy, heraldry 
and the like with which our magazines, our reviews and news- 
papers from time to time delight us. It is a sign of awakening 
interest in such matters that the subjects with which The 
Ancestor sets itself to deal are becoming less and less the sealed 
garden of a few workers. But upon what strange food the 
growing appetite for popular archeology must feed will be 
shown in the columns before us. Our press, the best-informed 
and the most widely sympathetic in the world, which watches 
its record of science, art and literature with a jealous eye, still 
permits itself, in this little corner of things, to be victimized by 
the most recklessly furnished information, and it would seem 
that no story is too wildly improbable to fnd the widest cur- 
rency. It is no criticism for attacking s sake that we shall 
offer, and we have but to beg the distinguished journals from 
which we shall draw our texts for comment to take in good 
part what is offered in good faith and good humour. 

DR. F. J. FURNIVALL calls our attention to his letter 
to the Academy concerning the pedigree of Robert 
Browning, which, with characteristic industry, he has tracked 
backward through two clerks in the Bank of England and a 
village publican to one Robert Browning, footman and butler 
to Sir John Bankes of Corfe Castle, who must for the present 
be regarded as the founder of the family. It would appear 
that certain unworthy members of the Browningist faith boggle 
at this origin of the object of their cult, and Dr. Furnivall 
charges Mr. Edmund Gosse in particular with something more 
than reluctance to accept Dr. Furnivall's c favourite Browning 
ancestor/ Whilst availing himself of Dr. Furnivall's genea- 
logical researches, Mr. Gosse deliberately suppresses Browning 
I., and in his article on the poet in the supplement to the 
Dictionary of National Biography states that c the stock has been 

traced no further back than to the early part of the eighteenth 



century, when the poet's natural great-grandfather owned the 
Woodgates Inn in the parish of Partridge in Dorset.' 

* * * 

Dr. Furnivall falls upon the quoted sentence even as Mr. 
Horace Round would fall upon a misdescription of a Domes- 
day tenant. Robert the First was not c owner ' of the inn 
being but a lessee thereof. The inn was the Woodyates not 
the c Woodgates ' inn. For c Partridge ' read Pentridge near 
Salisbury. And Robert shall have a father, maugre Mr. Gosse, 
and that father shall stand behind Sir John Bankes's chair, Dr. 
Furnivall's c favourite Browning ancestor.' 

* * * 

The genealogist may be allowed to sympathise with Dr. 
Furnivall. A family can delimit its pedigree with any an- 
cestor which it may select, beginning its history if it will with 
its most honoured forefather and ignoring at taste the rock 
from which he was hewed. But a chronicler in the place of 
Mr. Edmund Gosse is surely allowing such reticence to carry 
him to the edge of mis-statement when he denies that the 
source which gave him his two clerks and his innkeeper will 
yield any other ancestral figure. 

* * * 

To the first bank-clerk Dr. Furnivall assigns the purchase 
from a heraldic seal engraver of the c sham coat of arms ' which 
in after years, on the sleeves of the poet's Venetian gondoliers, 
was to make the poet's Venetian equipage splendidly ridiculous. 
For his own share in the innocent vanity the poet will be 
excused by the custom of his tribe. Many a poet has looked 
uneasily over his shoulder and felt that his picture needed the 
glowing patch of an ancestral escutcheon in the shadows of the 
background. The great Hugo, demanding an atmosphere 
for the greatest Frenchman, did not stay at setting up an 
escutcheon with a peer's coronet set above it, but went on to 
ennoble a line of mythical heroes, who were to supply a more 
seemly origin for a Hugo than the humble one which the un- 
imaginative registrars of his native place were prepared to 
certify to him. The casual purchase from a broker of six 
ancient chairs in faded velvet would so inspire him that within 
a few weeks of the bargain the chairs would become age- 
honoured heirlooms of the house of Hugo ; and, at the last, 
red silk cords would be drawn across the arms that no one 


might by carelessly sitting down profane cushions which had 
become as full of Hugo family legends as of clothes moths. 

# * # 

In a more reserved and English fashion the late Lord 
Tennyson recognized the same need. The fact that some 
industrious person had traced out for him that c royal descent ' 
in the female line from the house of Anjou, of which most 
middle-class Englishmen may boast, was allowed to justify the 
recurrent newspaper paragraph which described the Laureate 
as sprung from ancient kings through a line as many- 
scutcheoned as that of his own Sir Aylmer Aylmer, and we 
cannot believe that these paragraphs were unwelcome to the 
poet. The story of Lord Tennyson's coat of arms is as simple 
as that which decorated the Browning gondoliers. His line 
could be traced with certainty about as far as the line of 
Browning to the father of an eighteenth century Lincolnshire 
apothecary. Official heraldry provided for him a slightly 
differenced cadets version of the arms used by Archbishop 
Tenison, with whom the poet's family were not allied in any 
known degree. The arms of the archbishop himself had been 
sought further afield, for it is evident that as the stock armories 
yielded no blazon for any one of the name, Tenison was trans- 
lated into c the son of Denis,' which has a basis of philogical 
fact, and the archbishop was therefore heraldically affiliated to 
the family of Denys, Gloucestershire knights under Henry 
VIII., for which most impudent grafting neither philology nor 
genealogy can find the least excuse. 

* * * 

Many a genealogist was to be puzzled by the ancestry 
which an earlier poet, Edmund Spenser, chose out for himself 
in the charming lines of the Epithalamium. That pushful 
house of shepherd kings, the Spencers of Badby, were coming 
to the peerage, and to their name the heralds were tacking a 
brand new and more than doubtful pedigree from the Despen- 
sers, Earls of Gloucester. c A house of ancient fame,' quoth 
the poet and not unmindful perhaps that he was a place- 
hunter and courtier as well as poet, Master Edmund Spenser 
dismissed his own ancestry of small Lancashire gentry and 
planted himself modestly in the shadow of the newly- 
discovered shield of arms of that house c of which I meanest 
boast myself to be.' 


Much after all may be forgiven to the temperament of the 
poet ; but what shall we say to the satirists and to the rebukers 
of our follies whom the like birdlime catches. Mark how the 
wise French lord, Michel d'Yquem, Seigneur de Montaigne, 
flavours his allusions to his own house until his dazzled readers 
conceive that the wise lord's ancestors were concerned but with 
polite letters and the administration of the high and the low 
justice. The respectable wine merchants are transfigured in 
the imagination of their descendants. c False pride of name 
and birth ' showed its head but shyly when Mr. Charles 
Dickens and Mr. Thomas Carlyle, the one with switch and the 
other with club, were beating the hedges for it and its sister 
vanities. Yet nevertheless each of these policemen of manners 
had books at home with book-plates inside the covers, and on 
those book-plates the crests of ancient families of their respec- 
tive names whom they had adopted for ancestors by the simple 
exercise of choice. 

* * * 

The fable of the London arms still shows the unconquer- 
able liveliness of the antiquarian myth. Wat Tyler spurs up 
to his king in the plain of Smithfield, and Sir William Wai- 
worth, burning before his monarch's eye to show that the city 
has a loyalty as active before dinner as enthusiastic after it, 
draws dagger upon the prancing radical. Wherefore King 
Richard grants to his loyal city of London a red dagger in its 
shield of arms in memory of Walworth's deed. For such 
pretty chickens of legend the modern antiquary has no mercy. 
He is unwearied in pointing out that the arms with the dagger 
appear upon a City seal of earlier date than the Smithfield 
stabbing, and moreover that the dagger is no dagger, but the 
sword of St. Paul, patron of London City, set beside the red 
cross of St. George, patron of England. There are those who 
have urged these novel heresies even as they sat before the 
City's tablecloth, but for such the turtle has died in vain and 
the City will have none of them. 

After luncheon the loving cup was circulated in accordance with the time- 
honoured City custom, and the Lord Mayor rose to propose the toast of ' the 
King.' In doing so he said that the City of London carried on its coat of 
arms the dagger a perpetual reminder that the foes of the King and those 
who disseminate disloyal and treasonable notions would find sworn enemies 
among a race of men trained for centuries to * Fear God and honour the King.' 


Before this loyal eloquence carping facts are in full flight. 
The City dagger remains up the City's furred sleeve in case 
another Tyler lurk in Spring Gardens, and St. Paul may 
present his sword hilt to good Sir William Walworth with 
what grace he may. 

From an evening newspaper we draw this romaunt of a 
baronet : 

THE RED HAND. There was a stern justice, however, in the manner in 
which the early baronetage was regulated. Two hundred years ago Sir Thomas 
Holt murdered his cook in a cellar, and for generations his descendants were 
compelled to represent a murderer's hand in their armorial coat. The red 
hand is said to be still seen clearly in a painted window in Aston Church, near 
Birmingham, but it disappeared from the coat of the Holts before the title 
became extinct. One by one the Holt baronets secured leave to take away a 
ringer from the hand, and slowly, in this way, the mark of murder passed. 

Surely a legend with the very peach-bloom of misapprehension 
upon it, a legend to be handled as gently as Isaac Walton's 
worm. Five fingers to the hand if we reckon the thumb, five 
generations before the hand becomes fingerless. Add a 
generation to efface the maimed palm and wrist and six 
generations pass. At three generations to a century we have 
arrived at our own Edwardian days, and it must be but yester- 
day that a contemporary Holt has c secured leave ' to wipe 
from his shield the last remembrance of the murdered cook. 
It says little for our paragraphing journalists that this 
authorization, which must have seen the light in the Gazette 
or at the least in the second column of the Times, has escaped 
their observation. To a genealogist the fact that the line of 
Holt baronets became extinct in 1782 would add a new 
difficulty, and that this family should be singled out for 
reprobation seems a harsh thing when it is considered that all 
baronets of Ulster and of the United Kingdom bear the bloody 
hand in their shields, the same stain of blood and gravy blot- 
ting, as we may imagine, a page in each family history. 

Municipal authorities have been bitten of late with a taste 

for heraldry, and appear, from certain recent grants, to rejoice 

in a kind of c jumble ' coat, which doubtless suggests to the 

grantees a great deal for their money. But at times it takes a 

igher flight, as, for instance, at Kingston-on-Thames, where 



we read that the mayor has just presented to the town hall a 
stained glass window 

which represents the arms of his present Majesty in the centre, underneath 
are those of Edward the Elder, and surrounding them those of the six other 
Saxon kings, Athelstan, Edmund, Edred, Edwyn, Edward the Martyr and 
Ethelred, who were also crowned at Kingston, and the arms of the borough, 
three fishes on a ground azure. The window is of the heraldic, and not the 
usual ecclesiastical type, for though the Saxons knew not heraldry as we knew 
it, arms were granted (sic) to these sovereigns in the reign of Henry III. and 
enrolled at Heralds' College. 

The fashionable morning paper from which we glean this 
information does not explain upon what ground it thinks 
c ecclesiastical ' windows c usual ' in a secular building, or who 
c granted ' to these English sovereigns this armorial canoniza- 
tion after they had lingered for ages in a non-arm igerous 
limbo, or how these grants were c enrolled at Heralds' College ' 
more than two centuries before that institution existed. It is 
true that the Saxons knew not heraldry c as we know it ' ; nor, 
we are thankful to add, did c the reign of Henry III.' 

* * * 

We read recently that certain ladies of the diocese of St. 
Albans had presented its cathedral church with a mace bearing 
at one end the arms of the Dean and at the other those of 
King Offa, founder of the famous abbey. Let us hope that 
the kind donors have duly ascertained that the latter are 
c registered ' at the College of Arms, or there may be trouble 
in store. It would be a shock to learn that Offa was not an 
c armigerous person.' The borough of Colchester, in the 
adjoining county, has set an excellent example by ascertaining 
the c Arms of King Coel of Colchester, as recorded at Heralds' 
College, London.' The brochure from which we take the 
phrase contains also an illustration of the arms of c Guiderius ' 
(a forefather, apparently, of Coel) c as supplied by the Heralds' 
College.' The word supplied ' is good. 

* * * 

Colchester, however, seems to be unfortunate with its 
heraldry. The c raven ' which appears on the gates of its new 
Town Hall, side by side with the borough arms, and which 
peers down upon the High Street from the summit of the 
hall's tower, attracted the attention of Lord Rosebery when he 
lately opened the building. It was 'Danish,' of course, he 
naturally suggested, only to be interrupted by the Mayor with 


the information that it represented c the arms of the portreeve/ 
This curious local delusion appears to rest on an ancient seal, 
of distinctly non-armorial character, which bears the device of 
a bird, and of which the owner, whoever he was, was certainly 
not c portreeve/ an officer whose name is not to be found in 
any of the local records. For this freak of municipal heraldry 
the best that can be said is that it is free from that ingenious 
combination with advertisement seen in the c arms ' of South- 
end displayed within the same building, of which one of the 
watertight compartments is a view of Southend pier ! 

* * * 

It has been a matter of remark that during this second 
quarter of the year matter calling for comment under our 
heading of c What is Believed ' has grown rarer. Even the 
genealogical and'heraldic notes of the evening paper and of the 
illustrated weekly appear strangely cautious and restrained. If 
this be the result of a single issue of Tke Ancestor^ we can but 
chronicle the fact with meek satisfaction. 

* * * 

The journal which was last to afford its readers the 
spectacle of the spreading family tree of the house of Denbigh, 
with * Geoffrey, Earl of Hapsburgh,' for a founder, has again 
unrolled the pedigree apropos of Lord Denbigh's mission to 
Rome, only to assail it with mocking doubt. 

* * * 

Not long since a journal taught its readers that Lord 
Pauncefote, the descendant of a long Norman line of Paunce- 
fotes, derived his name from 'his crest,' which was 'pettsez 
fort' The same column has told us since Lord Paunce- 
fote's lamented death that Pauncefote is c certainly not a 
corruption of " pensez fort" which saying is now styled 
the c family motto,' and spoken of as c a good example of 
canting 'heraldry.' It has been borne in upon few of our 
journalists that Pauncefote conceals one of the many cadets 
of the powerful house of Smith of No. i Lombard Street, 
even as do Bromley and Carington and Dorien and the like. 
Pauncefote in this case indicates as little Norman ancestry as 
Lytton, for our ambassador to the United States did but 
assume under a will a name which for itself may claim Norman 
descent from one of those unpleasant epithet names with 
which our Norman forefathers delighted to miscall one another, 


Pauncefote equalling Pauncevolte, which is in good English 

* paunch face/ 

* * * 

A hero of the Mutiny days in India passed away with Mr. 
Herewald Wake, the civilian defender of Arrah. Here at 
least our genealogically inclined journalist would strain at the 
bit, and for the hundredth occasion the long descended house 
of Wake was hailed as from the stock of c Hereward the Wake, 
last of the English/ Since they gave their own surname of 
Wake to this half-mythical champion, Hereward may be said 
to spring in some sort from the house of Wake, but the 
descent of the house of Wake from Hereward is a less assured 


* * # 

Lord Kimberley's death brought the Kimberley legend 
from the lumber room of such things. An illustrated weekly 
and a great morning newspaper shall afford us our texts : 

Lord Kimberley represents a family which is not only ancient but distin- 
guished. The Wodehouses bear the motto 'Agincourt ' under their coat 
armour for the personal valour of an ancestor in that field. He was granted, 
though a commoner, not only the motto, crest and arms, as now used, but 
supporters. His grandson had the unique distinction of being fined for 
refusing the honour of knighthood. The dislike was evidently not hereditary, 
for his son, grandson and great-grandson were knights. 

And again : 

One of his ancestors was knighted by Henry I., and another so distinguished 
himself at the battle of Agincourt that Henry V., as a reward for his valour, 
allowed him to use the name of the battlefield as one of his mottoes, and it is 
borne on the arms of the family to this day. 

* * * 

Now Wodehouse is a Norfolk family, and therefore one 
may turn to Mr. Walter Rye for the declaring of the truth. 
The Agincourt legend goes down at once before his statement 
that John Wodehouse, the ancestor in question, does not 
appear amongst those who fought on Crispin Crispian's day. 
He was serving his country like a true man no doubt, but 
Mr. Rye is of opinion that it was in the more peaceful fields 
of his native Norfolk, where he was inspecting the coast 
defences. If our national interest in armory were not bounded 
by the c handbooks of heraldry,' the story of the crest, the sup- 
porters and the motto would scarcely pass muster. Supporters 
in the days of Agincourt were little more than ornament 
wherewith to fill in the spaces beside the shield in a round 


seal. Commoners used them freely, and no idea of rank was 
symbolized in them. The idea of a king setting forth a 
c motto ' to be used by a knight and his descendants is strange 
in our ears. Such a matter as the c word ' or * reason ' of a 
knight was not one with which our kings would meddle. 
The c motto ' was but rarely used, and was often a word or 
sentence with no meaning for any one but its user. The tale 
that a king devised and prescribed it is as though < Old Grouse 
in the Gunroom ' were presented to us as an old family after- 
dinner anecdote, the telling of which had been secured to and 
settled upon an ancestor of Squire Hardcastle's by King 

John at Runnymede. 

* # # 

Can aught of valid comment be made upon the Wodehouse 
ancestor with the farouche dislike of the honour of knighthood ? 
First of all let us say that a study of the landed Gentry will 
reveal many such ancestors, whose shy refusal of the title is a 
matter of modest pride with many of their descendants. From 
the Landed Gentry our studies might be extended to some 
elementary manual of English history, and Macaulay's school- 
boy might reasonably be asked for the reasons why the 
Wodehouse ancestor with a thousand other ancestors regarded 
knighthood as something other than a distinction to be com- 
peted for with feverish chivalry. 

* * * 

The king's bookplates for the Windsor library have been 
on view in London shop windows. To say that they show 
from the point of view of artist or antiquary better work than 
any earlier book-plates of our princes is as true as it would be 
to add that their mediocrity is disappointing. It is to be 
presumed that the designer is responsible for the Wardour 
Street latinity of one of the inscriptions, which runs, we believe, 
c ex bibliotheca regia in castel de Windesore/ 

* * 

A long pedigree made its appearance in court during the 
Rock libel case, when Father Vaughan, a member of the Society 
of Jesus, declared under oath that his family had for a thousand 
years * lived here, true to their king and country.' It is 
evident that a pedigree which has puzzled many a genealogist 
has no difficulties for Father Vaughan. The Landed Gentry 
begins its account of Vaughan of Courtfield with Thomas ap 


Gwillim of Perthyr, fourth son of William ap Jenkin alias 
Herbert (here wrongly styled Lord of Gwarindee), and husband 
of Maud, daughter (here wrongly styled co-heir) of Sir John 
Morley, knight. The senior line of Herbert of Llanarth 
carries the family back to Herbert, Count of Vermandois,' a 
companion of the Conqueror, and this upon the slender 
authority of c the family pedigree/ Even if we disregard the 
claims of another family pedigree which would trace the house 
from Herbert, a noble lord, natural son to Henry I., and 
accept Herbert the Count, we are yet a long way from our 
thousand years of loyally disposed Herberts or Vaughans. 
But Herbert the Count and Herbert the king's son may be 
set aside until the fact has been faced that the pedigree rests in 
the main upon the evidence of a commission appointed by 
King Edward IV. to enquire into the origin of the family, 
which commission has been shown to be a forgery of the time 
of King Edward VI. It would appear that no authentic 
ancestor has been found for the family beyond one Jenkyn, 
who was master Serjeant of the lordship of Abergavenny and 
lived under Edward III. and Richard II. Jenkyn, it is 
hazarded, was c the son of Adam,' but so was Matthew Prior, 
and so indeed were we all until a painstaking genealogist 
named Darwin threw doubt upon our family tree. 


OUR present selection of notes from the Reports of the 
Historical Manuscripts Commission is taken from Appendix 
VI. to the Tenth Report, the contents of which are of special 
authority as being the work of the present Deputy Keeper of 
the Public Records. 

J. H. R. 


A thick volume, quarto, in old binding, not lettered. It contains 
. . . Memorandum of the birth of Thomas Nevill of Mereworth, fifth 
son of Sir George Nevill, Lord Burgavenny, and the Lady Margaret 
his wife, at Birling, co. Kent, March i, I482[~3]. Memorandum of 
the birth of Margaret Nevill, daughter of Thomas Nevill, knight, and 
the Lady Katharine Fitz-Hugh his wife, at Mereworth, September 26, 
1520, and that her godfather was the Abbot of Boxley, and her god- 
mothers, the Abbess of Mallyng and the Lady Wyett, and that her 
godmother before the Bishop was the Lady Margaret, wife of Sir John 
Heron of Hakeney, Treasurer of Kings Henry VII. and Henry VIII. 
Memorandum of the death of Margaret, wife of John Bramswy, of 
London, May 5, 1556. (p. i) 


Grant by John Alford of Williton, clerk, to Sir Ralph le Fizours, 
knight, lord of Williton, Sir Robert le Fizours, brother of the said Sir 
Ralph, Annora daughter of Sir John de Memburi, knight, Sir John 
de Pouldoune, chaplain, Ralph Darderne, John Ylebrouwere, and 
Hawis daughter of the said Sir Ralph [le Fizours], of a tenement, etc., 
at Williton. 9 Edw. III. 

Grant by Ralph le Fizours and Matilda his wife to Hugh de 
Durbugh and Hawis le Fizours their eldest daughter and to the heirs 
of their bodies, of land, etc., at Withycombe and Carhampton. 18 
Edw. III. 

Release of the same by Matilda, relict of Ralph le Fizourz, knight. 

Grant by Ralph le Fizours, knight, lord of Williton, to Sir John de 
Durbiirgh, knight, Hugh son of the said John, and Hawis wife of the 

, 1 These are only a selection. 


said Hugh, James son of the said Hugh, and William Dygon, of land, 
etc., in his borough of Watchet. 23 Edw. III. 

Grant by Geoffrey Loni, vicar of St. Decuman's, and John Ilond, 
to John Fizours and Joan his wife, in tail, of land between the two 
roads that lead from Watchet to Williton, with remainder to the 
commonalty of the borough of Watchet, for the sustenance of a 
chaplain celebrating in the chapel of the Holy Cross at Watchet, who 
in all his masses shall pray for the souls of William Fizours and Lucy 
his wife, John Fizours and Joan his wife and Annora and Joan their 
daughters, John de Trebourghe, Adam de Trebourghe and Cristina his 
wife, Ralph Fizours and William his son, Richard Fygere and Joan 
his wife, and all faithful departed. 43 Edw. III. 

Confirmation by Hugh de Durburgh, son and heir of John de 
Durburgh, knight, deceased, of a demise by his said father to Thomas 
atte Pole and Sabina his wire, and Elizabeth their daughter, of a tene- 
ment, etc., at Stogumber (Stokegomere). 33 Edw. III. (p. 74) 

Agreement between Hugh Durburgh, knight, and Robert Cheddre 
of Bristol, that James, son and heir of the said Hugh, shall take to wife 
Alice daughter of John Bathe, late burgess of Bristol, before Michaelmas 
next. Hugh undertakes to settle rents to the yearly value of 4<D/. out 
of his manors of Magor, near Chepstow, and Withycombe. Robert 
Cheddre undertakes to pay 350 marks to Hugh Durburgh, and 5 
marks to James Durburgh for the chamber and apparel of his wife. 
Sept. 2, 3 Richard II. [1379]. 

Grant by James Durburgh and Alice his wife to Robert Pyppyng, 
Cristina his wife, and John their son, of a cottage at Witheycombe. 
1 1 Ric. II. 

Release by James Durburgh to Ralph Durburgh, his brother, of all 
his right in all the lands, etc., at Carhampton (Karampton) which Hugh 
Durburgh ever held. 10 Ric. II. Heraldic seal attached. 

Agreement between Ralph Durburgh, esquire, and Alexander Anne 
and Alice his wife, relict of John Durburgh, concerning parts of the 
manors of Withycombe, Williton, Batheneston, Watchet, and Alms- 
worthy, co. Somerset, and Magor, co. Gloucester, after an award by 
William Kynwoldesmersshe, Treasurer of England, and William 
Wenard, apprentice of the law. Feb. 13, 9 Henry V. [1422]. (p. 75) 

Agreement between John Courteney, esquire, and Joan his wife, 
and Edward Grevyle, for a marriage between the said Edward and 
Isabel daughter and heir of the said John and Joan. July 8, 10 
Henry VI. [1432]- (p. 75) 


Letter of attorney of Thomas Kyngeston, for delivery of seisin of 
lands, etc., at Williton and Watchet, to Alexander Hadley and Alice 


his wife, with remainder to John Hadley their son and heir apparent. 
2 Edw. IV. 

Release by Elizabeth Hadley, gentlewoman, daughter of John 
Hadley, esquire, deceased, to Richard Hadley, her brother, of all her 
right in the manor of Withycombe. 7 Henry VIII. Seal attached. 

Agreement between Christopher Mathew of the county of 
Glamorgan and of Morgannock in South Wales, esquire, and Richard 
Hadley of Withycombe, esquire, for a marriage between James Hadley, 
son and heir apparent of the said Richard, and Frideswide, daughter of 
the said Christopher. Feb. 26, 8 Henry VIII. [1517]. 

Release by John Hadley, son of John Hadley, esquire deceased, to 
James Hadley, of all his right to land, etc., at Withycombe, under the 
will of his father. 1 7 Henry VIII. 

Indented will of James Hadley of Withycombe, esquire, dated 
December 13, 19 Henry VIII. He makes mention of his mother 
Phelippa, his uncle John, his wife Elena, his eldest son James, and his 
other children Christopher, Richard, John, Alice, and Catharine, some 
of whom were the children of the said Elena, and some of a former 

Inquisition taken on the death of James Hadley, esquire, Oct. 6, 
31 Henry VIII. [1539]. Christopher his eldest son is twenty-two 
years of age and more. (p. 76) 


Grant by Simon Everard to William Everard his younger brother, 
of all his rents, services, etc., at Williton, in tail, with remainder to the 
grantor in tail, and to his brother Robert Everard in tail. 49 Edw. III. 

Probate copy of the will of John Everard dated August 6, 1494. 
He desires to be buried in the parochial church of Carhampton, and he 
bequeaths a cow towards the fabric of the new seats in the said church. 
He appoints his wife Isabel to be his executing and residuary legatee, 
and John Hadley gentleman to be the overseer of his will. (p. 76) 


A.D. 1608. I was much importuned to marry my Lady Garrardes 
daughter of Dorney by Windser, Mrs. Martha Garrard, a fine gentle- 
women truly. I sawe her and no more. 

A.D. 1609. I was importuned to see a brave spirited gentlewomen 
named Mrs. Kate Howarde, beinge one of the two daughters and 
hey res of the Viscount Bindon's brother. I saw her not far from Bath, 
was earnestly sollicited to proceede ; being halfe afraid of the greatnes 
of her spirit, I did not. Shee was since more worthily bestowed, and 
she was most *||porthy so to be. 


A.D. 1610. My Lorde Wharton's eldest sonne and Sir [James] 
Stewarte killed each other by Islington by London. Mr. George Carewe 
a friend and an old acquaintance of mine was killed by one Mr. Deane 
at Thistleworth (Isleworth). 

A.D. 1611. ... Sir John Spencer the Alderman died. My 
Lord Compton havinge maryed his only daughter oppressed with the 
greatnes of his sudaine fortunes fell madde. The Erie of Suffolke 
havinge begd the keeping of him would have seized upon his money 
and jewelles at Islington ; my Lord Compton's mother the Countesse of 
Dorset playinge the valiant virago, withstood him, and he was therby 
defeated ; my Lorde Compton, being kept in the towre a little while, 
recovered. The Erie of Suffolk marryed in one day three daughters, 
the elder to the Lord Knowles, another to the Erie of Essex, the third 
to the yonge Erie of Salisburye. These t[w]o last to be referred to the 
year 1609. (p. 83) 

I was credibly informed by his stewarde Mr. P. that my Lorde 
Compton at the first comminge to his great estate after the death of Sir 
John Spencer did within lesse than 8 weekes spende 72,ooo/., most in 
great horses, rich saddles, and playe. 

A.D. 1614. Sir Edwarde Sackvill brother to the Erie of Dorset 
killed the Lorde Bruse beyond the seas in single fight. The Erie of 
Montgomery was lasht with a riding rod by one Mr. Ramsey a 
Scotchman, but I think twas taken up by the King, and the Erie well 
rewarded by the King for his patience. The Ladye Honoria daughter 
and heyre of the Lord Denny and wife to the Lord Hayes (sic), 
cominge in her coache out of the towne somewhat late either from a 
masque or from supper about Ludgate Hill had a very rich Jewell 
pulled violently from hir forehead by a fellowe, who was presently 
taken, and although shee was an earnest suiter to the Kinge for him, 
was hanged for it in Fleet Streete ; shee beinge great with childe and 
by reason of the sodaine fright miscarying dyed about a weeke after. 

( P . 8 4 ) 

The Lord Clyfton having maryed his daughter to the Viscount 
D'Aubigny, since Earl of Marche, who was at lawe with him for his 
landes, and being put into [the] Fleete, did or would have cut his own 
throate. Yong Sir Thomas Sherley being in the Fleete for debte 
attempted to poyson himselfe. 

[A.D. 1616] The Lorde Boyle made a Baron, who (they say) not 
above sixteene years afore, being a poore fellowe and in prison at 
Monster in Ireland, borrowed sixpence, and now hath a great estate 
I2,000/. yeerly of Irish land. 1 

1 This is a malicious exaggeration of Lord Boyle's humble start. 


Mr. Palmer sent a challenge to the Erie of Sussex by Mr. Man- 
waringe and L. Huntley and others being with him upon St. George's 
daye as he was going to the tilte yearde ; he received it ; the busines 
was heard e before the Councell and there argued by the haroldes, and 
agreed upon that a gentleman of three descents might challenge an 
Erie and he was bound upon point of honour to answere him, but 
because this was done upon St. George's daye when the Erie was as it 
were a companion to the Kinge, therefor Mr. Palmer was put into the 
towre, and I think fined 3OO/. (pp. 84-5.) 

1633, October 28. Island of Providence. William Rudyerd, 
William Rons, Roger Floyde and John Brigham, to [John Pym ?]. 
We do not find here the largeness that was reported. At the arrival of 
the Seaflower, the country was furnished with an overplus of pro- 
visions for the number of persons here. In October following, the 
new-comers had a crop of corn. In that month eighty more came 
from Bermuda, who had been dissuaded by the seamen from bringing 
provisions. Although they had felled a great quantity of ground by 
the end of November, and planted it with corn, the dry season came 
on so fast that little of it came to good. These Bermudans (Bare- 
moodians) had little help of the provision of store which was spent in 
the fruitless work of Warwick Fort. Thus many have endured great 
hardness. The island is full of hills and not so fertile as was reported. 
At New Westminster, and where Captn. Axe lives, the ground has 
this year twice failed in corn. This allotment of two acres a head 
will no more than find food, etc., etc. (p. 85) 


1 685 [6], January 9. [London.] William Longueville to 
Thomas Hales. The Earl of Northampton is at the Countess of 
Conway's, and like to be married to that very rich, hunting lady. 
The Earl of Nottingham has been above a week married to Lord 
Hatton's only daughter. 

1685-6, February 4. [London.] William Longueville to Thomas 
Hales. There has been too much bloodshed here. You will hear of 
duels the Duke of Grafton and Mr. Talbot, Vario's (Verrio's) son 
and another, Mr. Henry Wharton and a Lieutenant. The Earl of 
Northampton has at last given over Lady Conway, and come to town. 
Heraldic seal. 

i685t-6, February 23. [London.] William Longueville to 
Thomas Hales. One of the first obligations I had to your Lord 
[Clarendon's] family was by reason of your grandfather's patent of 
baronetcy which was stopped. My father and I applied to Lord 
Clarendon, then Lord Chancellor, and I had five hundred broad pieces 
to present to him on the occasion, but the good old Lord told us that 


he would oblige us, and never had a penny. It is expected that all the 
baronets of the late King's time will be brought by Exchequer process 
to pay and plead the discharge of i,ooo/. recited to be paid in the usual 
patents of baronet. Some quietuses or discharges will not be allowed. 
Sir Thomas Osborne and Sir William Temple have applied to the 
Lord Treasurer, and have gained stop of this process against themselves. 
The King will ease those who have family merit or personal merit. I 
have sent for your father that we may resolve what to do ' under this 
rod.' You must show all diligence for the Lord Lieutenant, * his 
talent being in his over-measure diligence.' There has been duelling 
about Lord Northampton's match or no-match. If either of the 
wounded who are in danger Mr. Conyers or Mr. Seymour happen 
to die, the King will let the law run with severity against all the six 
concerned. 1 Heraldic seal. 

1686, May 8. [London.] William Longueville to Thomas 
Hales. Books instruct and ' gentilize a man.' The Earl of North- 
ampton is to marry Sir Stephen Fox's daughter to-morrow, (p. 97) 


Confirmation by Walter, son of Hugh de Burley, to Christiana his 
sister, of a messuage in the vill of Kington, in the fee of Claverdon. 
(i3th century.) 

Grant by Hugh de Burley, son of William de Burley, to the church 
of St. Mary of Bordesley, and the monks thereof, of the homage and 
service of Juliana, niece of his wife, and a yearly rent of id. Seal 

Release by Nicholas, son of William de Burley, to the Abbot and 
monks of Bordesley, of the land which he held of them at Claverdon, 
adjoining the land of Hugh, son of William de Burley. (p. 100) 

Release by William, son of John de Burley, to the church of St. 
Peter of Wotton [Wawen], and the monks thereof, of all his right in 
the land at Claverdon which they had of the gift of his uncle, Hugh de 
Burley, and his grandfather, William de Burley. Witnesses : Walter 
de Wolverton (Wlvardinton), and eight others named. Fragment of 
heraldic seal attached. 

Confirmation by Walter, son of Hugh de Burley, of the grants of 
his father to the Abbot and Convent of Conches and the Prior of 
Wotton [Wawen]. (p. 101) 


Demise by John de Dufford, knight, to Matilda daughter and 
heiress of John de Shrewley (Schreveleye), of all the lands, etc., which 
Helisencia, relict of John de Shrewley, held in dower. 35 Edw. I. 

1 It was then the fashion for the seconds to engage as well as the principals. 


Release by Matilda de Culi, widow, to William de Fililed, son of 
Roger de Fililod, and Nicholas his brother and heir, of a rent in 
Shrewley, Hatton, and Rowington. 30 Edw. III. 

Grant by Michael son of Robert de Wolverton (Wolwardington) to 
William son of Richard Geri of Bearley (Burleg), in free marriage with 
Florence his daughter, of the service and homage of Simon de la Hulle 
of Wolverton (Wolwardington). Witnesses : Sir Elias GifFard, Gil- 
bert his brother, Sir Robert de Clopton, Sir Peter [de Wolwardington], 
knights, and three others named, (p. 102) 


Grant by Elizabeth Vyell, daughter and heiress of Henry Vyell, late 
burgess of Bristol, to John Sutton, her cousin, son and heir of Henry 
Sutton, son of Thomas Sutton, burgess of Bristol, of her late father's 
lands in the counties of Northampton and Leicester, viz., at Swinford, 
Yelvertoft, Iser&m, and Welton, mentioning her mother Agnes, wife of 
Thomas Burford. 22 Ric. II. Two seals, one that of the Town of 
Bristol, (p. 1 06) 


Grant by William Argent, by consent of Sara, his daughter and 
heiress, to Alice daughter of Agnes his wife, of a messuage in his court 
(curia) in Oakley (Ocle) adjoining the house which the monks of 
Pipewell hold of him. Witnesses : Seyr the parson of Childle, 
William de St. Maur, Alberic de Ocle, and four others named. Seal. 

Grant by John de Houby to Robert de Oseville, of a fourth part of 
the manor of Little Oakley, which he had of the grant of Matilda de 
Houby his mother. 13 Edw. II. Seal. 

Grant by John Giffard of Cotterstock (Cotherstoke), clerk, to John 
Giffard his nephew and Isabel his wife, of a fourth part of the manor 
of Little Oakley and certain services in the vill of Newton, with suc- 
cessive remainders in tail to John Fitz-William of Lyveden, Ellen 
niece of the grantor, and Joan and Joan (sic) sisters of Sir Luke GifFard, 
Rector of Cotterstock. 1 7 Edw. II. Two heraldic seals. 

Settlement of the manor of Little Oakley and the advowson of the 
church on John Filiol, knight, and Margery his wife, and on Richard 
and John, sons of the said John, in tail. 5 Edw. III. 

Release by Walter de Houby, knight, to Isabel, relict of John 
Giffard of Oakley, and William his son, of all his right in a fourth part 
of the manor of Little Oakley. Witnesses : Sir John Engaine, Sir 
Simon de Drayton, knights, and seven others named. 9 Edw. III. 
Five heraldic and five other seals. 


Release by John, son and heir of Roger Giffard, of Cotterstock, 
cousin and heir of John Giffard, lord of Cotterstock, clerk, to Henry 
Mulso of Geddington, of all his right in a fourth part of the manor of 
Little Oakley, with certain services in Great Newton. 35 Edw. III. 

Grant by Henry de Geytington, clerk, and John Basset of Rushden 
(Rushenden), chaplain, to William Purly of Oakley and Matilda his 
wife, of the fourth part of the manor of Little Oakley, called < Gyffards' 
place,' which they had of the grant of Henry Mulsho. 42 Edw. Ill 

Grant by John Basset and Henry Drayton to Richard Erchebaud 
and Matilda his wife, for life, of the manor of Little Oakley and the 
advowson of the church, which they had of the grant of William 
Pirly, with remainder to Peter son and heir of William Pirly and the 
heirs of his body, and to William brother of the said Peter and the heirs 
of his body, and to the heirs of the bodies of the said Richard Erche- 
baud and Matilda his wife. 49 Edw. III. 


A box containing six volumes of registers of the baptisms, marriages, 
and burials in the following parishes, etc. : 

Stanford, co. Northampton . . . A.D. 1607-1668 

Swinford, co. Leicester .... A.D. 15591632 

... , A.D. 1706-1741 

Claybrook, co. Leicester .... A.D. 1563-1636 

.... A.D. 1637-1664 

.... A.D. 1664-1685 

(< Lord Braye's MSS.' p. 107) 


READERS of Lincolnshire records frequently come across 
the name of Multon, and the Thomas and John de Mul- 
tons are most confusing ; it may therefore be of some service 
to give a pedigree of one of the families of the name, and so 
help to distinguish the different individuals. Two De Banco 
Rolls are my chief authorities. The first 1 records a suit A.D. 
1343 between King Edward III. and Henry Hillary, chivaler, 
concerning the next presentation to the church of Somercotes. 
The king claims against Henry, and John de Multon, to present 
by reason of the temporalities of the abbot of Langonet in his 
hands because of the war with France. Henry Hillary says 
that one Thomas de Multon of Frampton was seised of four 
acres of land in Somercotes, to which the advowson of the 
church belongs, and presented Richard de Trowell, clerk, who 
was instituted in the time of peace in the time of King Henry 
the great-grandfather, and from Thomas the said land and 
advowson descended to one Thomas as son and heir, and from 
the same Thomas to one Alan as son and heir, and from Alan 
to one Thomas as son and heir, who was under age, and Joan 
who was the wife of Alan de Multon presented to the church 
in his right in the time of King Edward the grandfather, and 
from this Thomas de Multon of Frampton the right descended 
to one Thomas as son and heir, who being within age was in 
the custody of Thomas de Multon of Egremound, who in his 
right presented to the church one Walter de Ratheby, who was 
instituted in the time of King Edward the father, and by whose 
death the said church is now vacant ; and this same Thomas 
de Multon of Frampton, when he came to his full age, granted 
the said four acres and advowson, with other manors, lands, 
etc., to Thomas Pecche, chivaler, and William Hardy, citizen 
of Lincoln, to hold for their lives, who demised their whole 
c status ' to the same Henry. As no one appears for the king 
a writ is issued to the bishop to admit Henry Hillary's 

1 De Banco Roll, No. 333, m. 114, Hillary 16-17 Edw. III. 



It must be said that Testa de Nevill (p. 303) states that the 
heir of Alan de Multon held the fourth part of a knight's fee 
in Somercotes, and (p. 3 1 2) that Margery, who was the wife of 
Alan de Multon, who has the custody of the son and heir of 
the same Alan, held the third part of a knight's fee in Framp- 
ton. This last statement makes Alan's widow Margery, not 
Joan as in the plea roll, and is confirmed by the Bishop's Insti- 
tutions at Lincoln, from which we learn that Margery, who 
was the wife of Alan de Multon of Frampton, presented to the 
church of Saltfleetby in 1252. 

The latter portion of the pedigree is proved by a De Banco 
Roll 1 of A.D. 1383. Thomas de Gra and Maude his wife 
demand against William Dyotson two acres of land in Kirkton 
next Fraunkton, which were given to Thomas de Multon of 
Frampton and Elizabeth his wife and the heirs of their bodies, 
and which after their death, and that of Thomas their elder 
son, 2 and of John another son, and of Thomas the younger, 
another son, who died without heir of his body, and of John 
son of the said John son of Thomas, ought to descend to the 
said Maude, daughter of the said John son of John, and kins- 
woman and heir of the said Thomas the elder. 

The Inquisition post mortem 3 of John de Multon of Framp- 
ton in 1373 proves that he held nothing in Lincolnshire on 
the day he died but the advowson of the church of Mithyn- 

fesby, but that the said John de Multon of Frampton, son of 
ohn de Multon of Frampton, knt., alienated in fee the manor 
of Frampton to certain trustees. He died in foreign parts on 
Friday before the feast of St. Bartholomew in the xlii nd year, 
and Maude his daughter is his next heir, and of the age of 
seven years and more, and is married to William son of William 
Spaigne of Boston. 

1 De Banco Roll, No. 491, m. 546, Mich. 7 Rich. II. 

2 It is stated on the Roll that he died without heir of his body. 

3 Chancery Inq. p.m. 47 Edw. III. ist Nos. No. 26. 


Thomas de Multonr= 
of Frampton 

Thomas de Multon 
son and heir 

Alan de Multon = 
son and heir 

Thomas de Multon= Elizabeth 
son and heir 

Thomas de Multon * the elder,' Sir John de Multon= Thomas de Multon * the 

son and heir. Ob. s.p. knt. 1343 younger.' Ob. s.p. 

John de Multon= 
underage in 1355, I 
died in 1368 

William Spaigne= Maude = Thomas Gray 
d. and h. I plaintiff in 
7111373 I 1383 





Answer (27 July 1647) of Anne Darell, one of the defendants to the 
bill of Thomas Allanson. 

Concerning a conveyance of a messuage and lands called Wapses, made 
to this defendant by her grandfather Christopher Hampden, esquire, 
now deceased. This defendant sold the same about nine years since 
to Mr. Waller of Beconsfeild, co. Bucks, esquire. The defendant is 
daughter of Sir Sampson Darell. 

A-gL Bill (12 Feb. 1646) of Christopher Atkinson of Rookewith, co. York, 

and Dorothy his wife, formerly wife and administratrix of James Dodsworth, 


Answers (21 April 1647) of William Sothill and Alice his wife, Simon 

Hutchinson (of Rookewith), Augustine Allen (of Rookewith), Francis Grayson 

and Godfrey Dawson. 

Concerning the claim of Dorothy Atkinson to her portion of the estate 
of her late husband, who died intestate in Feb. 1640. Christopher 
Dodsworth his father died soon after, leaving a will whereof the said 
Alice, wife of William Sothill of Heeninge, co. York, was extrix. 
Dorothy is daughter of Thomas Dennison. 

Bill (9 June 1646) of Ralph Ashbie of Shorditch, co. Middlesex, 

Answers (17 June 1646) of William Pennoyer and Stephen Thompson ol 
the city of London, merchants. 

Concerning goods shipped on board the ship Gift of London. 

Bill (20 May 1644) of Edward Alcorne of Leighing, co. Kent, gent. 
Answer (24 May 1644) of John Wildish and Elizabeth his wife. 

Lease made 26 Sep. 8 Car. I. by the compt. to Elizabeth Ramsden ol 
Rochester, widow, and John Wildish of Rochester, butcher, of a 
messuage and shops in the parish of St. Nicholas, Rochester. The said 
Elizabeth Ramsden, mother-in-law of John Wildish, is another defen- 
dant to the suit. 

AgV Bill (6 Feb. 1644) of Thomas Arnold (admor. of John Cranfeild ot 
Redriffe, co. Surrey, mariner, deceased, who died intestate in August 1643) 
complainant against Robert Earle. 

Concerning the said Cranfeild's share in the ship George of London. 

Bill (3 Feb. 1644) of Matthew Ablett of Chelsey, co. Middlesex, 


Answer (10 April . . .) of Thomas Griffin and Elizabeth his wife. 

Concerning a loan made to the defendants about three years since by 
Thomas Ablett alias Burnell of Eversall, co. . . . , which Thomas died 
intestate, leaving the complainant his only son and admor. The said 
Thomas, at the time of the loan was lodging in the defendants' house 
at Eversall or Eversholt. The defendants style him Thomas Burnell, 
and say that he had left his house and family in Yorkshire, fearing 
arrest for debt, and that his widow is still living. 

A-^y Bill (13 Feb. 1629) of Thomas, Lord Arrundell of Warder, son 01 
Sir Matthew Arrundell, deceased. 

Answer (13 April 1630) of John Foyle of the Middle Temple, gent. 

Answer (6 April 6 Car. I.) of George Preston, esquire. 

Concerning settlements of his lands which Sir Matthew Arrundell 
made with the privity and aid of the defendant, who says ' that the 
greatest worldly care which Sir Mathewe Arrundell hadd was to prevent 
the sale of Warder Castle * or of such lands as should be in the power 
of his son to sell, and that he desired to entail them upon his grand- 
child Thomas, the son of the complainant. The said Thomas the 
grandson hath married the Lady Blanch, one of the daughters of 
Edward, Earl of Worcester, which match was well approved of by the 
compt. when he came back from the Low Countries. Mary, the first 
wife of the complaint., did not live many years after his said return. 
Afterwards the said complainant, having a purpose^ to marry the gentle- 
woman now his wife, is said to have assured his son that he would not 
match with any great person, so that the estate might not be clogged 
with a great jointure. The marriage portions are named of Katherine 
and Anne, two of the daughters of the said compt. 

A-i- Bill (14 Nov. 1629) of Nathaniel Allen of Sturmere, co. Essex, gent. 
Answer (6 Dec. 1629) of Henry Gent, esquire, Frances Chapman widow and 
John Chapman her son and Ralph Fitch, yeoman. 

Answer (18 Jan. 1629) of Reuben Robinson and of John Smith and Priscilla 
hie wife. 

Concerning a messuage and land in Sturmere settled by defendant 
Frances on the marriage of William Chapman her son and heir in Oct. 
1 8 Jac. I. with Margery, dau. of Henry Robynson of Fairested, co. 
Essex, clerk, now deceased, whose exors. were his children the defend- 
ants Reuben and Priscilla. 

A-sV Bill (5 Feb. 1624) of Sir John Anderson kt. and bart. a minor, one 

of the sons of Sir Francis Anderson kt. deceased, by Francis, Lord Dunsmore, 

and Dame Audrey his wife, his guardians. 

Answer ( ) of Elizabeth, Viscountess Beaumont and Henry 

Cockram (defendants with Eleanor Sapcoats and Samuel Smally and William 


Concerning a lease of the manor of Mesam, co. Leicester, etc. made by 
complainant's father. The said Dame Audrey is relict and extrix. of 
the said Sir Francis Thomas. Viscount Beaumont married Elizabeth, 
the defendant, dau. and heir of Henry Sapcotes, a recusant, who died 
in July 1629, a prisoner in the Fleet, leaving defendant Eleanor his 
relict and administratrix. Frances Anderson, compt.'s only sister, is 


named as lately dead. Thomas, Viscount Beaumont, made a will in 
February 22 Jac. I. and died leaving Sir Sapcoats Beaumont, Viscount 
Beaumont, his son and heir, then aged 10 years, 9 months and 3 days. 

A^L. Bill (21 April 1630) of John Asberrye of Chartley, co. Stafford, and 
Margaret his wife. 

Answer (3 May 1630) of William Johnson of London, gent. 

Concerning an alleged feoffment made by Matthew Erdeswicke gent, of 
lands in Millwigge, co. Stafford. Complainant Margaret is daughter of 
John Johnson of Millwigge, co. Stafford, by Alice his wife, who re- 
married with the said Erdeswicke. The defendant is the said com- 
plainant's uncle. 

AJ T Bill (10 May 1630) of Robert Aylett of Peering, co. Essex, doctor 
of law. 

Answer (27 May 1630) of George Cooke alias Barker of Peering, draper, 
and Joane his wife and John Clench. 

Concerning messuage and lands in Peering. 

A^_ Bill (26 Nov. 1629) of Thomas, Lord Arundell of Wardor, on his 
own behalf and on behalf of other creditors of William, Lord Eure of Malton. 

Answer (21 April 1630) of William, Lord Eure, one of the defendants. 

Concerning the debts of the defendant, and settlements made on the 
marriage of Rafe Eure, son and heir of the defendant, with the com- 
plainant's daughter Katherine about four years since. 

A-g 1 ^ Further answer (21 Nov. 1646) of Sarah Rowed, defendant, to the 
bill of Robert Aylett and Margery Huggen. 

Debts of defendant's late husband Thomas Rowed. 

Bill (6 Feb. 1 644) of Thomas Ashberrye of St. Martins in the fields, 
gent., and Elizabeth his wife and Thomas Cotton, Dorothy Cotton and Isabel! 
Cotton, son and daughters of Sir John Cotton of Wooddytton, co. Cambridge, 
Knight, and of Dame Elizabeth his wife, and brother and sisters of the said 
Elizabeth Ashberrye. 

Answer (19 April 1645) of Walter Pratt of Ditton, gent. 

Concerning money which the said Dame Elizabeth, dying fifteen years 
since, is said to have entrusted to the defendant for his children's benefit. 

Agi_ Bill (28 Nov. 1644) of Valentine Austin of Well, co. Kent, yeoman. 
Answer (5 Feb. 1644) of Paul Parker of St. Nicholas in Thanet, yeoman. 

Concerning land in Ickham, co. Kent, of which one William Parker of 

Wingham was formerly seised whose son the defendant is. Jane 

Parker, wife of the said William, is named. 

A-^L. Bill (9 July 1644) of William, Lord Alington, complainant against 
George Foalkes of Bottisham, co. Cambridge, gent. 

Concerning a sale to the defendant of grass at Bottisham. 

A-g-y Bill (18 July 1646) of George Awcocke of Penhurst, co. Sussex, 
yeoman, exor. of the will of Richard Awcocke late of Penhurst, yeoman, 

Answer (20 June 1646) of John Atkins, the younger, of Brightlinge, yeoman 
(son and exor. of John Atkins the elder, who died in June 1644) and Thomas 
and Matthew Atkins, his younger brothers. 


Concerning a messuage and lands in Penhurst of which Elizabeth 
Elphicke, widow, who died in July 1640, was seised for life, with 
remr. to the said John Atkins the elder, who conveyed his estate in the 
same to the defendant John on his marriage. 

Ag^g- Bill (20 April 1646) of Phinees Andrew of London, gent., and 
Thomas and Jonathan Andrewe, both of London, merchants. 

Answer (2 May 1646) of Thomas Falthroppe, clerk, and Elizabeth Fal- 
throppe his daughter (who is aged 22 years). 

Concerning a conveyance of the Manor of Little Berkhamstead, co. 

Bill (8 Feb. 1646) of Edward Arblaster of Longdon, co. Stafford, 
gent., Henry Robinson of Mavison Ridware, co. Stafford, yeoman, and 
Francis Browne of Longdon, yeoman, administrators of Henry Wescott of 
Handsacre, gent., deceased, and also Edward and Margaret Wescott, children 
of the said Henry Wescott, by the said Edward Arblaster, their next friend 
and kinsman. 

Answer (24 Ap. 1647) of Richard Ward and Margaret Littleton (defendants 
with John Cay wood). 

Concerning the estate and debts of Henry Wescott, deed., who was son 
of Edward Wescott. The defendants deny that the compt. Edward 
Arblaster is of kindred to the said Edward Wescott the infant, who is 
ward to the Lord Paget. Edward the grandfather was seised of the 
manor of Handsacre Hall. Walter Wescott (now living), brother of 
Henry, and Jane Wescott, Henry's relict, are named. The defendant 
Margaret Littleton is sole surviving dau. and heir, and also administra- 
trix of the will of Richard Bartlemewe, deceased. 

A John Westcote procured letters of administration of the goods of 
Henry Westcote, of whom, according to the bill, he was of little or no 
kindred. Edward, Walter and Elinor Wescott were the younger 
children of Edward the grandfather. 

Replication ( ) of Thomas Ayloffe, esquire, and Anne his 

wife, complainants, to the answer of Lawrance Homes, defendant. 

Bill (2 July 1628) of John Attrithe of Sandhurst, co. Berks, yeoman, 
on behalf of himself and of John Trigg of Crundole, co. Southt., and of 
Lawrence Watts of Yatelie, co. Southt., yeoman. 

Answer (7 July 1628) of William Turner and Barnaby Alloway (defendants 
with Sir Daniel Norton and Robert Poore). 

Concerning the arrest of the complainant upon an attachment. 

Bill (21 May 1645) of Erasmus Amy of Moulton, co. Lincoln, gent., 
and Anne Crosse of Wisbech in Ely, co. Cambridge, late wife of Thomas 
Crosse the elder, gent. 

Answer ( ) of John Swaine and Robert Swaine of Leverington in 

Ely, gentlemen, and John Coventry of Wisbech, gent. 

Will of Edward Crosse of Wisbech, gent., one of the sons of the compt. 
Anne, who made his will about 1 8 Oct. 1 644, having issue Thomas 
his only son and Katherine his only daughter. He gave legacies to 
Anne and Elizabeth Amy, two of the compt. Erasmus's daughters, to 


be paid them by their mother. He made the said Erasmus Amy and 
John Swaine, his brothers in law, his exors., and died 21 Oct. 1644. 

Bi Bill (24 Nov. 1637) of Francis Bauldwyn of St. Mary Strand, co. 
Middlesex, gent., and Richard Powell of St. Clement Danes, butcher, and 
Alice his wife, the said Alice being prockeine amle in behalf of Leonard Martin, 
Charles Martin and Mary Martin, infants, the sons and daughter of her late 
brother John Martin of St. Giles's in the fields. 

Answer (7 Dec. 1637) of Jane Seaward, widow, and Walter Pope (defend- 
ants with Roger Osbaldstone and Hannah Harman). 

Concerning leases in Lewknor's Lane, Crosse Lane and Parker's Lane, 
and the estate of the said John Martin, who died intestate, Anne his 
relict being his administratrix. The said Anne died 19 April 1637, 
leaving a will dated the day before, by which she gave legacies to 
Leonard and Charles, her husband's sons by a former wife, and to 
Martha and Mary Martin her own daughters, whom she left to the 
care of her sister Jane Seaward the defendant, whom the complainants 
describe as a poor woman selling apples. Martha Martin died soon 
after her mother. Lydia Seaward, dau. of Jane, was also a legatee of 
her aunt. 

B^ Bill (30 June 1637) of Thomas Brooker of Sundrish, co. Kent, esquire, 
and Mary his wife, John Topp of Stockton, co. Wilts, esquire, and Elizabeth 
his wife, which Mary and Elizabeth are daughters and coheirs of Sir Thomas 
Hamon, deceased. 

Answer (22 and 23 Sep. 1637) of Sir Peter Heyman, knight, Richard 

Hardres, esq., and Anne his wife, Thomas Godfrey and Peter Godfrey, esquires 

(defendants with Sir John Bruyn, knight, Richard Ferrand and Katherine his wife. 

Concerning the will of Sir Thomas Hamon, knight, deceased. His 

daughter Katherine, the defendant, married Richard Ferrand against 

her father's wish. 

Nicholas Martyn of Athelhampston 
co. Dorset, esq. decd.= 

> I >. 

Henry Bruyn = Elizabeth Martyn=Sir Thomas Hamon= Dorothy = Peter Godfrey 


dau. and coheir 

knight, died 7 

Sep. relict 



of Sir 


Sir John Bn 

lyn Ma 
of r 

ry wife 

wife of 

John Latton esq.: 
(son and heir of 

= Katherine= Richard Thomas 
Ferrand and Peter 



William Latton 

esq. Godfrey, 


, Topp esq. 

esq.) lived 

9 or 

the defts. 

10 years 



Thomas Latton 
s. and h. 




Bi Bill (18 Oct. 1637) of William Brand of Lincolns Inn Grange, co. 

MX., gent., John Chappell and Thomas Gould, citizens and stationers of London. 

Answer (16 Nov. 1637) of William Tyrwhitt (of Kettelby, co. Lincoln) esq. 

(defendant with Sir William Hanserd, George Tyrwhitt and Faith his wife, 

Thomas Hildred and his wife, John Oldfeild and Robert Pagett). 

Concerning a conveyance made in Michaelmas 1635 by the said 
George Tyrwhitt and his wife to the compt. William Brand of lands in 
Horncastle, Thimelby, Thorneton and Langton, co. Lincoln, for the 
life of the said Faith. Thomas Hildred's wife was a dau. of William 
Pagett, whose son William was first husband of the said Faith, who was 
daughter of Everingham Cressy, esq., a Lincolnshire justice, to whom 
her second husband George Tyrwhitt was clerk and servant. The 
defendant Robert Pagett is heir of Arthur Pagett, deceased. 

Bi Bill (28 June 1637) ot Nicholas Burlace, esq. and Katherine his wife. 
Answers (5 Oct. 1637) of Richard Berry, esq., Ralph Berry, esq., John 
Coffin and John P6yntz, gentlemen. 

Concerning leases made by Humtrey Berry, esq. deceased. 


Nicholas Berry deed. 

Humfrey Berry of Berry Nerber, co. Devon, = Prudence Richard Berry esq. 
esq. Died Nov. 1618. Will dated Aug. relict a deft. Is married 
1618 proved by his brother Richard now dead and has male issue 


T T 




Nicholas Berry 

George Berry Richard Berry 





eldest son, died 

died vitS heir of his 

coheir of 



died very 

in father's life- 

patris s.p. father. Died 

her bro- 

of her 

of her 


time s.p. Ad- 

Easter 1619 

ther. Wife 



soon af- 


s.p. aged 7 or 

of Nicho- 



ter her 

to mother and 

8 years. Ad- 

las Bur- 

Adm o n. 


sister Kathe- 

mon. Oct. 

lace esq. 


Ad m o n. 


1621 to his 

1621 to 


mother and 

her mo- 

to mo- 

sister Kathe- 




Bi Bill (17 May 1637) * John, Earl of Bristol. 

Answer (3 Nov. 1637) of John Freke of Cerne Abbas, co. Dorset, esq. 
(defendant with John Trenchard, esq., and George Ryves). 

Concerning settlements made upon the marriage, about 3 years since, 
of the defendant's son and heir with the compt.'s second daughter ; who 
had a portion of 50007. 


Sir Thomas Freke kt.= Elizabeth 
deceased I relict 


=John Freke of Cerne=rLady Covert Thomas Freke 

I Abbas, esq. 

George Freke esq. = Lady two sons and 

son and heir aged 
19 at marriage 

Abigail a daughter 


a son 

born i June 1636 

B Bill (18 rjune 1646) of Joseph Bell, son and heir and admor. of 
William Bell of Thirsk, co. York, mercer, deceased. 
Answer (20 July 1646) of Michael Askwith, gent. 

Concerning leases in Kilvington, co. York, etc. 
B^ Bill (24 Nov. 1646) of Robert Barnardiston, esq. 
Answers (9 Jan. 1646) of Mary Paradyne, widow, and (15 Jan. 1646) of 
Lewis Mordant, esq., defendants with Edward Baber, esq., Thomas Sheafe, 
M.D., Henry Isles, gent., Thomas Paradyne, gent., Lewis Paradyne, gent., 
William Gery and George Barnardiston. The two Paradynes, Thomas and 
Lewis, are sons of Peter Paradyne, deed., son and heir of the said Mary 

Concerning a settlement of the manor of Ickwelbury, co. Beds, made by 
Robert Barnardiston 20 Jan. 14 Jac. I. after the marriage of his son Henry.. 
John Barnardiston 
seised of manor of 

. . . Barnardiston= 

Robert Barnardiston esq. 
of Ickwelbury. Died 4 
Aug. 7 Car. i leaving 
a relict Katharine- 

Henry Barnardiston = Margaret 
died 28 Nov. 16 I 
Car. I. 

Robert Barnardiston esq. 


Bi Bill (20 May 1642) of Sir Thomas Brooke of Rotherbie, co. Leic. r 

Answer (10 June 1642) of John Jackson and (14 June 1642) of Richard Roe. 
Concerning a sum of 5OO/. borrowed about 12 Nov. 13 Jac. I. by Sir 
Alexander Cave, kt., now deceased, of one William Goodall, gent., or 
of Richard Goodall his father. 

B Bill (25 May 1644) of Thomas Birkehead, citizen and armourer of 


Answer (4 June 1644) of John Eaton, defendant with James Butler and 

Robert Rollings. 

Concerning the estate of Rombolt Jacobson a brewer who died some 
months since possessed of a brewing copper worth 2307. Rombolt 
made a will and named as his executrix his wife Joane, who renounced 
probate, and thereupon letters of admon. were granted (P.C.C.) 12 
Oct. 1643 .to Robert Rollings and John Eaton, creditors of the 

Bill (26 Nov. 1646) of Ralph Britten of Bexhill, co. Sussex, yeoman. 
Answer (29 Jan. 1646) of Thomas Collingham of Bexhill, husbandman^ 
defendant with Nicholas Jarrett of the same, butcher. 

Concerning the estate of William Hull of Bexhill, co. Sussex, butcher,, 
who was indebted to compt. 

B T V Bill (10 Dec. 1646) of Faithfull Boughey of Stony Stratford, co. 
Bucks, gent. 

Answer (22 Jan. 1646) of Matthias Penn of Newport Pagnell, gent. 

Concerning the estate of Henry Penn of Stony Stratford, gent., de- 
ceased, who is said by the compt. to have made a will whereof Peter 
Penn his grandson was named exor. Letters of admon. were granted 
to compt. during the said Peter's minority. 

Bill (3 July 1639) of Robert Bulkeley of London, gent. 
Answer (16 Nov. 1639) of Thomas Bulkeley, esq. 

Concerning alleged concealment of evidences by the defendant, and the 
legitimacy of the defendant, who claims to be now the second son of 
Sir Richard Bulkeley the younger by Dame Anne his wife. The 
defendant denies the claim and says that Dame Anne refuses to acknow- 
ledge the compt. as her son, and that the said Dame Anne is well 
aware of his real parentage. The following pedigree is derived mainly 
from the recital by the defendant of an entail made by Sir Richard 
Bulkeley the elder. 



Bulkeley= Thomas Bulkeley John Bulkeley 


Sir Richard Bulkeley kt.=Mary John Bulkeley Danie! Bulkeley 

of Bewmaris, co. Anglesey " 

sir Rich* 

i. il 

Sir Richard Bulkeley kt.= Anne = Thomas Chedle Thomas Bulkeley Daughters 
of Bewmaris the defendant 

Richard Bulkeley esq. Peter Bulkeley Mary Anne 

son and heir 2nd son now 

dead (?) 

Bill (9 Feb. 1645) of Thomas Backe of Hinxhill, co. Kent, gent., 
exor. of the will of his father Thomas Backe of Hinxhill, gent., deed. 

Answer (26 May 1646) of Anne Backe, widow, and (16 Apr. 1646) of 
William Denne, gent. 

Concerning the estate of Edward Backe ot Billesborow, co. Kent, a 
grazier, the brother of the complainant, who died I Apr. 1639 l eavm g 
Anne, the defendant, his relict and admix., who was aided in the dis- 
position of the estate by the said Thomas the father. The said 
William Denne is brother in law to the said Anne. 

Bill (20 April 1646) of Elizabeth Bathurst by Thomas Weldon her 

Answer (29 May 1646) of Edward Bathurst, gent. 

Concerning the compt/s claim to a share of rents out of the manor or 
farm of Finchcockes, co. Kent, whereof the brothers Thomas, Edward 
and William were seized as co-parceners. 



ft Richard Bathurst = 

Thomas Bathurst Edward Bathurst William Bathurst Richard Bathurst= Robert 

of Finchcockes of Finchcockes of Greenwich gent, died before 
gent. Died 12 gent, defendant gent. his brother Tho- 

/ears since s.p. mas 

son and 

Elizabeth Bathurst 


Bill (25 Jan. 1639) of Nicholas Blake of Halstoe, co. Kent, yeoman. 
Answer (9 May 1 640) of Sir Edward Hales, bart., and William Powell, gent. 
Concerning the Customs of the manor of Hoo, co. Kent, etc. 

Nicholas Hardes of Halstoe 
gunner, seised of lands etc. in 
Halstoe, Hoo and St. Nicholas 
which he devised to his son 
with diver remainders 
amongst his two daughters 
and their issue. Died 1609= 

Nicholas Hardes 
only son. Died 
1625 s.p. 

Anne wife of 
. . . Marshall 

Joan wife of 
William Blake 
who is now old 




Nicholas Blake 
son and heir, the 

B^-g- Bill (10 June 1646) of Edwin Buckmaster, citizen and woodmonger 
of London. 

Answer (16 Nov. 1646) of William Hart of Lullingstone, co. Kent, esquire. 
Concerning dealings in billet wood lying in Aynsford and Lullingstone, 
co. Kent. 

Bill (28 June 1645) of Richard Blade of Shipdham, co. Norfolk, 


Mi Answer (4 Oct. 1645) of Thomas Blade, Anne Blade, widow, William 

Wells and Anne his wife. 

Concerning the payment to the complainant of a legacy due to him 
under his father's will. The complainant modestly describes himself as 
' illetorate and of a meane capacity and of a quiet and peaceable 

Richard Blade of Sporle, co. Norfolk = Alice, relict and extrix. Died 
yeoman. Will dat. 2 Sep. 1625 | soon after her husband 

Valentine Blade had = Anne 
his fathers freeholds relict 
in Sporle. Died s.p. 
after making a nun- 
cupative will in 
April 1643 

Henry Blade 
Dead in 1643 

Thomas Blade Richard Blade of 
a defendant Shipdham, yeo- 

Anne Elizabeth 

both married at 
date of suit 


Bill (8 Feb. 1646) of William Bradshaw ot Richards Castle, co. 
Hereford, gent. 

Answer (27 May 1647) of John Ambler of Wolforton, co. Salop, yeoman. 
Concerning a messuage and lands held by defendant in Richards Castle. 
The defendant denies that he holds under a lease from complainant's 
grandfather, and asserts that his family have held the same for more 
than 400 years. The compt. is son of Francis Bradshaw, gent., who 
died about two years since, and grandson of Rowland Bradshaw, esq., 
lessee of the manor of Richards Castle, who died twenty years since. 

Bill (13 May 1646) of Richard Browne of Ilchester, co. Somerset, 

keeper of his majesty's gaol for 33 years past. 

Answer (13 June 1646) of John Swadell, Henry James, Richard Browne 

and Susan Banton. 

The compt. made a deed of gift of his goods in Nov. 1639 fearing that 
they would be taken from him on account of the Attorney General's 
prosecution of him for misconduct in his office. The compt. makes 
bitter complaint of his ill usage by his sons, who called him a murderous 
old rogue, and accused him of murdering their mother. Also they 
threatened him in his house with pistols, so that he was forced ' to 
secure himself behind the chimney,' and turned him from his door at 
ten o'clock of the night. The defendants allege that the compt. is in 
the ill hands of one Dorothy Doudney, a dissolute woman, and one 
John Poole, a seditious fellow, who desires to marry him to one of his 
own daughters, ' very young and not very honest.' 

Richard Browne=Sarah dau. of John Swadell 


of Puddimore co. 
gent. marr. about 28 


Richard Browne 
son and heir, a 


John Browne Christopher Browne 

Five other childi 

Bill (12 Feb. 1639) of William Barton of Titherington, co. Glouc.,, 

Answers (26 Sep. 1640) of Susan, wife of Robert Barton, George Roch and 
Judith his wife, William Pullin, Edith Wood, James Pullin, Oswald Hill and 
Nicholas Smyth, all of Titherington, defendants with William Hobbs and 
Judith his wife, John Holly and Joan his wife and others. 
Concerning a messuage and lands in Titherington. 

Bill (6 May 1646) of Henry Bonyon, yeoman, and Joan his wife,, 
late wife of Henry Pedder. 

Answer (17 Oct. 1646) of Richard Sharpe and Ellen his wife, defendants 
with John Griggs and Ellen his wife and Thomas Pryor and Anne his wife. 

Concerning legacies under the will of Thomas Pedder of Eyton, co. 
Beds, yeoman, made in 1630, whereof Henry Pedder was exor, 


Thomas Stonesbye Ellen = Richard Sharpe 


Ellen wife Anne wife 
o f J o h n of Thomas 
Griggs Pryor 

Bill (26 Jan. 1646) of Martyn Bradgate of London, merchant. 
Answer (4 Feb. 1 646) of Mary Carter the defendant, who since the exhibi- 
tion of the bill is wife of Edmund Ellis. 

Concerning the complainant's dealing in wines with Thomas Carter, 
citizen and vintner, who died in May last, leaving the defendant Mary, 
his relict and admix. 

Bill (2 5 May 1 647) of Elizabeth Best of Eynsbury, co. Hunts, spin- 


Answer (17 June 1647) of Frances Underwood, widow, Richard and Grace 
Coe, defendants with Thomas Adams. 

Concerning *two messuages in Eynsbury which John Best of Eynsbury, 
gent., is said by the compt. to have bought about 40 years since of 
Thomas Walker of Eynsbury, yeoman, now deceased, and which are 
claimed by compt. as devisee under the will of her father, who was son 
and heir of John Best. 

Walker= Margaret 
Will dat. 

John Best of Eynsbury, gent, 
died about 15 years since 

Thomas Walker =Frances= 

of Eynsbury yeo. 
The vendor died 
34 years since 



Stephen Best of Eynsbury, gent, 
son and heir. Made a will in 
Michaelmas last 

Richard Coe= Grace Walker 
married about their only dau. 
a year since now aged about 
38 years 

Elizabeth Best 
the compt. 

Bill (21 May 1645) of William Bourchier of Rochford, co. Essex, 

Answer (30 Oct. 1645) of William Taynter of Staple Inn, gent., a defendant 
with Charles Nuthall (his kinsman) and Titus Eyres. 

Concerning a debt of the complainant, who was employed in the 
Parliament service for three years from 1642 onwards 

Bill (9 July 1647) of Richard Browne of Great Torrington, co. 
Devon, woollendraper. 

Answer (16 Oct. 1647) of Grace Wellington of Great Torrington, widow, 
and Thomas Wellington her son. 

Concerning trade disputes and money matters. 


Bill (12 July 1644) of John Bedwell of Peering, co. Essex, gent. 

Answer (14 Oct. 1644) of John Byatt of Sawson, co. Cambridge, gent., and 
(10 Dec. 1644) of Nicholas Fox of Depden, gent. 

Concerning money matters. John Lyttlebury esq. is named as having 
married Elizabeth, widow and admix, of Isaac Sutton of London, gent. 

B^ Bill (n Feb. 1645) of Thomas Bowes of York, grocer. 

Answer ( ) of William Trewman of Crake, co. York. 

Concerning a sum of 2O/. which the compt. alleges to have been de- 
livered by his mother Emott Bowes of York, widow, during her last 
sickness about six years since, to the defendant, for the setting up in 
business of the compt., who was then an apprentice. Francis Bowes 
was her exor., whose widow married one Mr. Musgrave. 

B^g- Bill (21 June 1645) of Thomas Browne of Rendham, co. Suffolk, 
exor. of his father William Browne of Rendham. * in 

Answer (17 Oct. 1645) of William Hurryon the elder and Mary his wife 
and Mary Hurryon their daughter defendants with Robert Dynington and 
Elizabeth his wife and John Browne. 

Concerning the estate of William Browne deceased. 
William Browne of Rendham 
will dat. 1 6 March 1641 : 
died about 15 months ago = 

i. | ii. 

Thomas Browne John Browne=Margery=Thoma8 William = Mary John Browne 
son and heir, the I Johnson Hurryon J a deft, 




n Johnson Elizabeth Mary 

wife of Robert Hurryon 


Bill (25 April 1646) of John Burton of York, draper, and Elizabeth 
his wife, Beatrix Loftus, Frances Loftus and Mary Loftus (which three are 
minors and by their guardian James Shoreswood of York. 

Answer (4 June 1 646) of Henry Collinson and Anne his wife and Percival 
Levett of York. 

Concerning the alleged concealment of certain evidences by the de- 
fendants. The complainants Elizabeth, Beatrix, Frances and Mary are 
daughters of Edward Loftus of York, deceased, who died seised of a 
messuage in Fossegate in the city of York, leaving a will dated 2 Aug. 
1643, whereof his widow, the defendant Anne, was extrix. 

B-^Q- Bill (27 Nov. 1632) of William Browne, citizen and cordwainer ot 

Answers (7 Dec. 1632) of William Drake and James Drake. 

Concerning the suit of William Drake late of Fincham in Stanley, gent., 
now deceased, against Charles Saltaston alias Saltonstall, for whom the 
compt. and Thomas Browne, citizen and clothworker, now deceased, 
became bail in Trinity term 6 Car. I. The defendants are sons and 
exors. of the said Drake. 


Bill (19 June 1632) of John Browne, esq., one of the aldermen of 
the city of Gloucester. 

Answer (26 Sep. 1632) ol Henry Stringer of Oxford, gent., and Thomas 

Concerning a like estate of Henry Stringer in the office of the Con- 
stableship of the Castle of Gloucester. 

B-g 1 ^- Bill (14 May 1630) of William Baispoole of London, gent. 

Answer (10 May 1630) of Talbot Pepys, esq., and Mary his wife, defendants 
with Mary, wife of George Fairfax of Armagh, gent. 

Concerning certain bonds and bills obligatory which, the compt. alleges, 
were delivered by him to the custody of Henry Barker of Norwich, 
esquire, about I Aug. I Car. I. These bonds were for payment of 
certain sums to Thomas Lane and Robert Palgrave of Norwich, gentle- 
men, as trustees for the benefit of Alice, Mary, Elizabeth and Sara 
Baispoole, four of the children of the complainant. Henry Barker died 
soon after. The defendants Mary Pepys and Mary Fairfax are his 

Bill (12 Feb. 1629) of Digory Baker of Pollzaugh in Jacobstow, co. 
Cornwall, gent. 

Answer (6 Apr. 1630) of Richard, Lord Roberts, exor. of his father John 
Roberts, esq. 

Concerning a sum of loo/, which one John Stevens, on I 5 Sep. 1601, 
borrowed of John Roberts of Truroe, esq., father of the defendant, for 
payment of which Nicholas Baker, gent., father of the compt., became 
bound with Angell Madocke and Richard Crosseman, gent. 

B^ Bill (21 April, 1630) of Wilson Berisford of London, grocer. 
Answer (3 May 1630) of Richard Turke of London, merchant. 
Concerning dealings in tobacco. 

BgV Bill (6 Feb. 1629) of Thomas Burrowe of Lyth, co. York, clerk, 

admor. of William Burrowe, deceased. 

Answer (8 Apr. 1630) of Christopher Baitson, defendant with William 

Stockdaile and William Towler. 

Concerning a bond whereby Christopher Stockdaile of Greene, co. 
Lancaster, gent., and George Stockdaile of Casterton, co. Westm., gent., 
became bound to William Burrowe of Kirkby Lonsdale, gent., for the 
payment of 1 5/. William Burrowe was father of the compt., and died 
about 5 years since. Christopher Stockdaile died intestate about 7 
years since. The defendant William Stockdaile is the said Christopher's 

Bill (6 Feb. 1629) of Thomas Burrowe of Lyth, co. York, clerk, 
admor. of his father William Burrowe, deceased. 

Answer (9 April 1630) of Thomas Smythies of Tunstall, co. Lane. 

Concerning the estate of the said William Burrowe, who is in this bill 
described as late of Tunstall, gent, [vide 

B^L- Bill (22 Jan. 1629) of Matthew Bracken of London, gent. 
Plea (23 March 1629) of Thomas Gilbye, esquire. 


Concerning money matters. About ten years since one Robert 
Williamson of Raton, co. Notts, gent., was arrested in London and 
imprisoned on the suit of George Browne of Broxholme, co. Lincoln. 
The compt. alleges that the defendant, who was then of Boale, co 
Notts, a neighbour and kinsman of Williamson, requested the compt. 
to become bail with him for Williamson, whose father Robert 
Williamson the elder was then living. The defendant pleads that the 
compt., as Matthew Bracken late of Litton, co. York, gent., was out- 
lawed 27 Oct. 21 Jac. I. in a plea of debt at the suit of the defendant. 

B-gL- Bill (17 April 1630) of Humfrey Baldwin of London, yeoman, and 
Richard Baldwin his brother. 

Answer (29 April 1630) of Andrew Colman of London, silk thrower. 

Concerning an alleged agreement made 3 April 5 Car. I. whereby it 
was agreed that the said Humfrey should labour with the said Andrew 
and be instructed in his craft. 

Bill (26 Nov. 1628) of Timothy Browneing of Moorwinstow, co. 

Cornwall, gent., Eulalia his wife, extrix. of her former husband John Ley alias 

Kempthorne, esquire, deceased. 

Answer (19 Jan. 1628) of John Molesworth, esq., of Egloshayle, one of the 

exors. of John Render, esq., deed., Walter Roskarrocke of Trevalga, gent., and 

(12 Jan. 1 628)of Edward Render, gent. 

Concerning lands called Penpethicke in Trevalga, co. Cornwall, of 
which the compts. allege that one Thomasine Ley alias Kempthorne, 
widow, and her son John Ley alias Kempthorne, esquire, the elder, 
were seised. The said Thomasine and John are alleged to have 
granted a lease of a moiety of the same, dated 7 Eliza., to Agnes Render 
now deceased, then wife of William Render, gent., for her life, with 
remr. to Edward Render the defendant, son of the said William and 
Agnes, for his life, with remr. for life to William Render another son 
who is now dead, the reversion being, with the other moiety, amongst 
lands conveyed in jointure by the said John the elder to Katherine his 
wife, who survived him and died after having married Digory Tremayne, 
esq. Walter Roskarrocke claims the lands as of the ancient inheritance 
of his name. 

Lee alias Kempthorne=Thomasine 
relict deed. 

I i i. ii. I 2 

John Ley alias Kempthorne = Katherine = Digory Tremayne Nicholas Ley 

esq. the elder. Died s.p. dead 14 esq. alias Kempthorne 

years and esq.= 

John Le 

Ley alias Kempthorne = 


L ii. 

Ley alias Kempthorne esq. = Eulalia=Timothy Browning gent. 


Bill (30 April 1630) of Robert Bartlett of Cherington, co. Wilts, 


Answer (9 May 1630) of Edward Stratum of Bremble, co. Wilts, gent. 

Concerning a bond of Francis Buckle of Dantsie, yeoman, in which 
the compt. was bound as a surety about ten years since. Francis 
Buckle died about two years since and the defendant was one of his 

Bill (5 Feb. 1629) of Thomas Burt of London, clerk. 
Answer (15 Feb. 1629) of Katherine Manny nge, widow. 

Concerning the will dated 9 Jan. 1611 of Randall Mannynge, citizen 
and skinner of London, the late husband of the defendant, and the 
portion of the compt.'s wife. 

Randall Mannynge = Katherine relict 
and extrix., now 
aged over four- 
score years 

Nicholas Mannynge the 
elder, dwelling at 
Weybridge, co. Surrey: 







Two sons 

Two daughters 
who were mar- 
ried before 
25 June 1620 

Thomas Burt=Ja 
2 5 

25 June 1 620 

Eleven grandchildren of 
Randall Mannynge were 
living at his death 

B^ Bill (28 Oct. 1629) of Lawrence Beresford of Chesterton, co. Cam- 
bridge, gent., and Katherine his wife and John their eldest son (an infant) 

Answers (10 Jan. 1629) of Elizabeth Battisford, widow, Robert Battisford, 
Elizabeth wife of Roger Hutton and George Cawsey, and (n Feb. 1629) of 
Roger Hutton, and (9 Nov. 1629) of Sir Thomas Gee, knight. 

Concerning the portion of the compt. Katherine. The compt. 
Lawrence names his lands in Wilden, co. Beds. 

John Battisford of Chesterton, esquire, 
who died n April 1628 leaving the 
deft. Elizabeth, his relict and admix. 

Margaret wife 
of Sir Thomas 
Gee, kt. 

wife of Roger 


icrine youngest 
wife of Lawrence 
sford, gent. 



Bill (i Feb. 1629) of Edmund Barber of Roukesley, co. Derby, gent. 
Answer (22 March 1629) of John Leigne the younger of Offerton, yeoman, 
and William Glossopp of Offerton. 

Concerning a debt of the compt. to one John Skinner of Hathersedge, 
gent., about seven years since. 

Bill (8 Feb. 1629) of Richard Blackaller of Lyons Inn, co. MX., gent. 
Answer (i Apr. 1630) of Sir William Pole, knight, defendant with George 
Monck, John Vigures and William Cowse. 

Concerning the estate of Peter Blackaller deceased. His will was 
dated in March 1613 and he died about 1 5 years since. Bridget his 
wife survived eight years. Thomas Blackaller was his son and heir. 
The compt. came to the age of 2 1 years about eighteen months since. 

Bill (16 June 1631) of Thomas Burye of Baggrave, co. Leic., gent. 
Answer (5 Oct. 1631) of John Smithe of Tunstall, co. Suffolk, gent. 

Concerning the manor of Eason, co. Lincoln, whereof James Burye 
died seised, and concerning the portions of the younger sons of John 
Smith, gent., deceased. 

Sir Thomas Cave of= William Readham gent.= 

Baggrave knight 

Sir Alexander 
Cave knight 

James Burye =. 

a dau. 

Thomas Burye 
of Baggrave 
gent, compt. s. 
and h. 

two sons four daus. 

i. | ii. iii. 

John Smith gent.=Cecily=R a 1 p h = Thomas 

was seised of lands 
in Cratfeld, co. 



Sir Thurston 
Smith knight 
son and heir 

Thomas John 
Smith Smith 
the deft. 

only son 

B V Bill (25 June 1631) of Sir Richard Buller of Shillingham, co. Corn- 
wall, knight. 

Answer (3 Oct. 1631) of Thomas Wyvell, esq. 

Concerning a lease of the rectory of St. Stephens near Saltash. 

Bill (12 Feb. 1629) of Richard Bonython of Carclewe, co. Cornwall, 
esquire (controller of the Stannaries). 

Answer (6 Oct. 7 Car. I.) of Elizabeth, wife of John Tregosse, esq., de- 
fendant with the said John, and with Charles Vaughan, esq., and John Upton, 

Concerning a debt of John Tregosse of Trewsthack, esq., to the compt., 
which debt was contracted 22 years since, upon which the debtor was 
imprisoned. Charles Vaughan is brother of the said Elizabeth, who 
was daughter of Hugh Vaughan, esq., who died in 1606. Leonard 
Yeo, esquire, married the relict and extrix. of the said Hugh Vaughan. 


Bill (28 June 1631) of Nathaniel Burton of Eastbucland, co. Devon, 
gent., son and heir of Richard Burton of the same place, gent., deceased. 

Answers (30 Sep. 1631) of Bartholomew Tossell of Eastbucland, mason, 
and Edmond Huxtable, defendants with John Tossell, brother of the said 
Bartholomew, and brother also of Andrew Tossell, deceased. 

Concerning the farm and barton of Middlecott in Eastbucland, which 
the said Richard Burton bought about 30 years since of Hugh 
Fortescue, esq., and John Fortescue his eldest son. 

Gould=Joan of Charles co. 
Devon widow 


Maclyne Gould who by deed George Gould. On 30 May John Gould died 

dated i April 25 Eliza, had a 14 Jac. I. he purchased before his brothers. 

lease with his two brothers his brother Maclyne's pur- Dead 14 Jac. I. 

from Hugh Fortescue of a party in the lease, which 

close called the Middle Bar- he sold 25 Oct. 14 Jac. I. 

ton in Eastbucland, for their to Bartholomew Tossell 
three lives 

Bill (12 Oct. 1631) of John Brooke of London, citizen and grocer. 
Answer (19 Oct. 1631) of Henry Beale of St. Andrew's in Holborn, de- 

Concerning the debts of defendant and his wife and their pawning of 
pieces of silver with compt.'s wife Elizabeth Brooke. 

Bill (3 Nov. 1631) of William Baker of Ewston, co. Suffolk, shepherd. 
Answer (7 Nov. 1631) of Peter Beeke, of Wilbye, yeoman, defendant with 
William Salter, Thomas Wright and Robert Jeames. 

Concerning the lease of a messuage and lands in Wilbye, co. Norfolk. 

Bill (29 Jan. 1629) of Joan Blachford, widow, late wife and admix. 
of Thomas Blachford of Dorchester, co. Dorset, merchant. 

Answer (6 Apr. 1630) of Henry Henley of Leigh, co. Dorset, esquire, de- 
fendant with Thomas Brag. 

Debts of Thomas Blachford, deceased. Richard Blachford his brother 
survived him. 

B T V Bill (n June 1631) of John Bellingham of Hackwood, co. South- 
ampton, gent. 

Answer (5 Oct. 1631) of Henry Nevill of Bathwick, co. Somerset, esquire. 
Concerning a rent charge out of the manor of Bathwick, which was 
purchased of the defendant by Sir Edward Bellingham of Newtimber, 
co. Sussex, knight, and by the compt. about 7 Nov. 1 8 Jac. I. The 
defendant names Henry Bellingham, brother of the compt. He 
alleges that the purchase was with the money and for the use of 
Mrs. Giffbrd, sister of the compt., who was then, and yet remains, a 
recusant convict, and that he sought therefore of the compt. some 
security whereby he might be secured against any harm arising from 
the payments of the rent charge. 


Answer (2 July 1631) of Selwyn Parker, esq., a defendant with 
Edward Parker to the bill of Robert Bowers and Elizabeth his wife. 

Concerning the settlement of his estate made by Thomas Parker, esq., 
deceased, father of the defendant Selwyn, who is his heir. [The de- 
fendant Elizabeth is perhaps the relict of Thomas Parker.] 

Bill (26 Nov. 1629) of Robert Blagden the younger of Keevill, co. 
Wilts, yeoman. 

Answer (18 Nov. 1629) of Alexander Stratton, John Nicke and Michaell 
Titcomb, defendants with John Jorden. 

Concerning a forfeited bond of John Jorden of Keevill, husbandman. 

Bill (14 June 1629) of Anthony Berry, gent. 
Answer (25 June 1629) of Richard Berry, M.D., dwelling in London, 
brother of the compt. 

Concerning sums lent out by the compt. with the assistance of the 

B-^ Answer (27 June 1646) of Dame Jane Wiche, a defendant to the 
bill of Henry Burnall. 

Concerning a lease of a messuage made by Henry Forrest of Channell 
Row in Westminster to Sir Thomas Cecill, whereof the reversion came 
at Henry's death to his brother and heir Samuel Forrest. The right 
in the said term was conveyed to Sir Peter Wiche, whose relict and 
extrix is the defendant Jane. Nicholas Burnell is named as the father 
of the compt., and Grace Burnell as the compts. grandmother. 

Bill (23 Oct. 1629) of Robert Browne Lilly of Chancery Lane, co. 
Middx., gent. 

Answer (n Jan. 1629) of Samuel Wortley (alias Burdett), gent., de- 
fendant with Beatrice Staunton and Jane Harleston. 

Concerning the manor of Swinton with lands in Mexborough, co. 
York, whereof Richard Browne, esq., compt.'s grandfather, was seised, 
and concerning an alleged conveyance by the said Beatrice to the 
compt. of a rent charge. Eight years since the compt. was a prisoner 
in York Castle. 

Richard Browne of Swinton, esquire 
died about 17 years since 

John Lilly, an esquire of the=Beatrice=Thomas Staunton of London, 

body to Queen Eliza, and to 
King James. Died in life- 
time of Richard Browne 

dau. and gent, died soon after Richard 
heir Browne 

Robert Browne Lilly Jane the Other sons and 

the compt. son and defendant daughters 



Bill (10 Feb. 1629) of James Bois of Hooe, co. Sussex, yeoman. 
Answer (i I April 1630) of Stephen Whoode and Katherine his wife, mother 
of the compt. 

Concerning the estate of Ralph Bois, the compts. father, who died 
leaving by Katherine his wife one son the present complainant. 
Katherine remained with one John Knowles, whose admor. she was. 
The said Katherine is said by the compt. to have had * severall other 
husbandes ' after the death of Ralph Bois. She is said to have assigned 
a debt to the compt. in consideration of a gift of * a new petticoate of 
stamell and a wastcoate.' 

BJy Bill (n June 1631) of Henry Bokenham of Great Thornham, co. 
Suffolk, knight. 

Answer (6 Oct. 1631) of William Hewes of Bury St. Edmunds. 

Concerning an ordinary kept by agreement of the compt., who was 
last year's sheriff of Suffolk, during the time of the assize. 

Bill (13 Nov. 1629) of William Bryard, admor. of Richard Malyn, 
deed., and Mary Bryard, relict and admix, of John Bryard of Poole, co. Dorset, 
merchant, deceased. 

Answer (25 Jan. 1629) of Sir Maurice Abbot, kt., and others, the Governor 
and Company of East India Merchants. 

Concerning the wages of Richard Malyn or Malym, who was a servant 
of the Company, and John Bryard was his creditor. He died about 
13 Jan. 1627 and his widow Jane Malym refused administration. 

B^V Answer (i July 1645) of Robert Bromsall, defendant to the bill of 
John Bromsall. 

Concerning the estate of the compts. father. The defendant denies a 
promise to pay the compt.'s guardians any indifferent allowance during 
the compt .'s minority. 

BgL Replication ( ) of Richard Balthroppe, gent., to the answer 

of Nicholas Luke, esquire, maintaining his bill of complaint. 

Replication ( ) of John Bridges, to the answer of John 

Watson, maintaining his bill of complaint. 

Replication ( ) of Elizabeth Bentham, widow, relict and 

extrix. of Thomas Bentham, to the answer of William Speed, maintaining her 

Bg 1 ^ Replication ( ) of Nicholas Bowers to the answer of John 


Concerning two boxes which the defendant is alleged to have carried 
away from the compt.'s warehouse on 9 Dec. 1643, within an hour 
after he had deposited them there. 

BgL Replication ( ) of Thomas Butler to the answers of Anne 

Butler, widow, and Thomas Sibthorpe alias Bucher. 

Concerning a legacy to the compt. under the will of Henry Butler,, 
who upon the marriage of the compt. with Elizabeth, his now wife, 
promised to make a certain settlement of lands in Cranfeild and Litling- 
ton, co. Bedford. The defendant Anne is extrix. of the said Henry. 


Replication ( ) of Emmanuel Bourne, clerk, to the answers 

of John Reresbye, esq., Isaacke Scott, gent., and Christopher Bower, maintain- 
ing his bill. 

BgJg Answer (16 June 1646) of Thomas Deereinge, gent., one of the 
defendants to the bill of Samuel Blackwell, Edward Spencer, John Humphreys, 
John Locke and David Hutton. 

Concerning the voyage to * Canady ' of the ship Jonas of London . 

Christopher Potts is named as a defendant. 

Replication ( ) of Nicholas Burnhill to the answer of 

Samuel Forrest. 

Concerning an annuity. 

Bill (i June 1646) of John Ball the elder and John Ball the younger 
of Kingston on Thames, co. Surrey, gentlemen, t now miserable prisoners in 
y e Poultry Compter and y e Kingsbench.' 

Answer (16 June 1646) of Thomas Brandlinge and Obediah Weekes, and 
demurrer ( ) of William Hopton and George Gildon, gentlemen. 

Concerning the debts of the complainants . 

B T a T Bill (5 March 1645) of James Beaumont, citizen and whitbaker of 

London . 

Answer (16 March 1645) of Sarah Hind, widow, and Dameris Beaumont, 

an infant of the age of fourteen years, by the said Sarah her guardian . 

Concerning the will of Richard Beaumont of the Spittle, co. Middle- 
sex, citizen and whitbaker of London, dated 18 July 1645, by which 
he gave certain messuages and lands in Thornell near Wakefield and in 
Lachingdon in Essex to the compt. his second son, and legacies to his 
daughter Sarah Hind the defendant, late wife of John Hind, citizen 
and leatherseller, deceased, and to his daughter Dameris Beaumont. 
The defendants say that the messuages and lands were held by knights 
service, and should descend to William Beaumont the son and heir of 
the testator. 

Bill (16 April 1646) of Thomas Blake the younger of Eastont, co. 
Southt., gent. 

Answer (23 May 1646) of Edward Pyle, Robert Pyle, Robert Blake and 
Joan his wife and John Francis. 

Concerning a debt of compt.'s father Thomas Blake to Edward Pyle of 
Over Wallop, gent., for which the compt. became bound about 2 May 
1 8 Car. I. with John Treadgold of Woodhowse, yeoman. One 
William Blake is named, and also Arthur Blake the compt.'s uncle, 
brother of Robert the defendant. 

Bill (li May 1646) of Margaret Boniface of Walberton, co. Sussex, 
widow, relict of Thomas Boniface, for herself and for Mary Boniface, her 
daughter, an infant aged three years, the heir of the said Thomas. 

Answer (25 May 1646) of Edward Boniface and Edmond Bredham and 
Jane his wife. 

Concerning a lease of a messuage and land in Walberton and the estate 
of Thomas Boniface, deceased, who was brother of William Boniface 
and son of John Boniface of Walberton, yeoman. 


Bill (29 May 1646) of William Burges of Westminster, tailor. 
Answer (10 June 1646) of Robert Kinaston of Westminster, poulter. 
Concerning the lease of a cellar in Westminster. 

Bill (17 April 1646) of Susanna Briggs of Kingston upon Hull, relict 
and admix, of Miles Briggs of the same, merchant, deceased. 

Answer (29 May 1646) of Thomas Bates, Richard Thomson and Tobias 

Concerning a messuage in the high street of Kingston upon Hull, 
which the defendants allege to have been granted by Thomas Bates, 
father of the defendant Thomas, by his deed I June 34 Eliza, to 
William Richardson of Kingston, merchant, now deceased, to the use 
of Elizabeth Richardson, dau. of the said William, whom the said 
Thomas intended to marry, with remr. to the heirs of their bodies. 

Thomas Bates= Elizabeth, dau. of William Richardson. 
I Survived her husband. Now dead. 
I She was of Battesworth, co. Lincoln 


William Bates 
of London, 
gent, died s.p. 


Thomas Bates 
of Bawtrey, a 

Tobias Bates 
a defendant 

Bill (27 June 1631) of Robert Beales of Cley next the sea, co. Nor- 
folk (son of Robert Beales, deceased). 

k Answer (5 July 1631) of Sir John Heydon, kt., Christopher Parr and 
Richard Jones. 

Concerning a rent out of the manors of Cley and Blackney, co. Nor- 

Sir Christopher Heydon, knight, = Temperance 
seised of the manors of Cley and " 
Blackney. Will dated 9 Dec. 
1579. He died the 7 Jan. fol- 

>ir Willi 

Sir William Heydon, knight 

Heydon, esq., 
an idiot 

Henry Heydon: 
of Watford, co. 
Herts, esq. 


Sir Christopher Heydon, knight, 
sold the manor of Cley to James 
Hobart, esq., now deceased, 
whose son and heir is Hobart= 

Sir William Heydon, 
knight, lately de- 


Sir John Heydon, 
knight, brother 
and heir, the de- 




The interesting and important article on this subject con- 
tributed by Sir George Sitwell will be supplemented, one may- 
hope, by the notes of others, which will doubtless confirm his 
conclusions. A good early example of c generosi ' being used 
as denoting a class already distinguished from esquires is 
found in Dean Kitchin's c Obedientiary Rolls of St. Swithun's, 
Winchester ' (Hampshire Record Society). Mention is there 
made of a corrody, the recipient of which is to have bread, 
beer and candles, c prout armigeri et generosi dicti Prioris habent ' 
(p. 489). The date of this document is 1425. An earlier 
but less definite phrase is found in the will (1386) of Edmund 
Tettisworth, serjeant-at-arms, who bequeaths to the prior and 
convent of St. Mary Overy 100 marks to find board and 
clothing c prout decet gentilem hominem ' for his brother 
Thomas. 1 From these two examples it would seem that 
agreements for corrodies are likely to afford further illustration 
of the origin and development of c gentlemen ' as a class. 



The definition of a gentleman is a thorny subject, like that 
of orthodoxy. There are so many points of view. c I am 
a gentleman, I am ! ' protests the sodden loafer at the door of 
his favourite pub. c It was another lady,* explained the his- 
toric hospital patient, when asked whose dog gave her that 
nasty bite. On the other hand there is the small boy at a 
very select preparatory school, who was heard to exclaim, with 
genuine feeling, c What cads those lords are ! ' Conversely, 
we all know vulgarity means the behaviour of other people. 

Is one a gentleman because he bears arms ? Or does he 
bear arms because he is a gentleman ? The question sounds 
a bit metaphysical, recalling Ciceronianum illud^ whether ykf was 
anterior to lex, or lex to jus. But when Sir George Sitwell, 

1 Wykebanfs Register (Hampshire Record Society), p. 393. 


scouting arms and heralds, requires the gentleman to be c a 
freeman whose ancestors have always been free,' one asks in 
dismay, Who then can be saved ? c Always ' ! Even the 
Plantagenet Harrison descent from Woden is only in a female 
line. Some Welsh families trace their pedigree through kings 
without number, Brut the Trojan, and Noah, to Adam, which 
was the son of God. Others there may be among the ten 
tribes ; or possibly in China. The rest of the world, king 
and beggar alike, must remain beyond the pale. 

Those unhappy heralds yet more unhappy in their 
champions, perhaps, than in their assailants. Now it is Sir 
George's turn to fling a stone at them. They may not be 
perfect, whether regarded as a judicial body, or as an academy 
of taste. But the kings, I understand, only purport to grant 
arms by virtue % of delegated authority, conferred by their 
patents. That the royal prerogative extends so far is conceded. 
A certain power to control, here represented as a Tudor 
usurpation, seems to arise naturally out of their duty to 
register. Could you and I be appointed, sir, in place of 
Garter, to watch with jealous eyes the practice of differencing, 
and devise some appropriate and artistic coat for each approved 
applicant, all would be for the best. Otherwise to disestablish 
the college might make confusion worse confounded. Mr. 
Foster could do better than Sir Albert Woods : he hints as 
much. But consider the window heraldry displayed by 
suburban undertakers. Reflect upon the worthy and eminent 
shopkeepers who award to doughty knights, such as the late 
Sir Augustus Harris, the arms of some ancient family, or 
design armorial bookplates at prices exceeded only by the 
approbation of their patrons. Why even Mr. Fox-Davies, 
finding his occupation gone, might end by setting up shop 
on his own account. 

On my table lies a genealogical work in which Ivanboe is 
gravely quoted as an authority. The theory of four races 
forming four distinct social strata reads as if it had some such 
origin. Or is it allied to the notion which has led others to 
deduce statistics of population from Domesday ? The actual 
lords of manors are not always named in that record. So few 
documents have we of the time that proof of such omissions 
can rarely be found ; but they are perhaps more numerous 
than has been supposed. With the liberi tenentes as a class the 
survey is little concerned ; some however there must have 


been in every manor, and but a part of them can have been 
Normans. As to the serf Bishop Stubbs is perhaps the safer 

The happy fusion of races is perhaps one cause of a 
phenomenon upon which Sir George Sitwell dwells, namely 
the singular absence of class divisions in this country. Two 
others suggest themselves ; but that subject must not be 
pursued now. The earl was merely a chosen baron, the baron 
a prominent knight, the knight and esquire wealthier free- 
holders. Technically the status of the villein was sharply dis- 
tinguished from that of the free-tenant ; but was there in fact 
any social barrier between them ? The earliest court rolls I 
have seen show barons, knights and esquires buying up villein 
tenements. Had any social stigma attached to these in the 
fourteenth century, the investment would hardly have been 
attractive as a provision for younger children. 

As society became more self-conscious, no doubt, need was 
felt for further classification. The earl was already marked 
by his hereditary dignity and his share of the firma comitatus^ 
the knight by his investiture, the esquire by his statutory duty 
to arm himself cap-a-pie. To those knights deemed worthy 
of special summons to parliament the term baron came thus 
to be especially applied ; while the lesser landowners were 
divided into gentlemen and yeomen. But between these two 
classes at no period has there been a clear dividing line ; hence 
the difficulty of our definition. To describe the introduction 
of the new term as c the rise of the gentry ' seems to argue a 
certain confusion of thought. The pestilence, again, caused 
one family here and there to rise upon the wreck of another ; 
but that is not to create a new class. 

Who is then the gentleman ? One cannot hail a cab and 
drive to Queen Victoria Street to discuss every new acquaint- 
ance, or even consult the latest handbook of Armorial Gents. 
If one did, in nine cases out of ten the result would be purely 
nugatory. For while Sir George Sitwell is so exclusive, the 
law of arms on the contrary embraces all legitimate male 
descendants of all who have ever lawfully borne arms in Eng- 
land. And this, it seems, is the official test. The notorious 
fact that such persons are now to be found in every position 
of life, from the highest to the lowest, has not deterred our 
Boanerges, Mr. c X,' for 

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. 


But a responsible herald is bound to allow the meanest crossing 
sweeper the benefit of the doubt, unless he be known for 
either an alien or a bastard. Very much to the point is the 
case of old Mr. Brassey, who could not write his own name, 
but wheeled his barrow on the works and totted up the dibs 
on his five fingers to so much purpose that he was able to 
place a cool million at the disposal of his old partner at a pinch, 
without security. The college satisfied itself of his lineage, 
and acknowledged him a gentleman jure sanguinis. Some 
of us may opine that he had an even better tide to show. 

There seems to be authority for styling certain members 
of the royal household gentlemen ; also subaltern officers of 
either service (but what of the civil service ?) ; also solicitors 
and attorneys, and possibly some others. Does the distinction 
descend to their, children ? My solicitor adds that it is usual 
so to describe any person who lives comfortably upon his private 
means ; a retired publican for example. What becomes of the 
retired gentleman he cannot tell me, and I have never met 
with one, except in the columns of a newspaper. 

Outside these somewhat narrow limits, what is our criterion 
to be ? Is it birth ? The bluest blood flows in the veins of 
peasants and labourers. Is it wealth ? Then Sir Gorgius 
Midas and the late Mr. Barnato are our models. Is it landed 
property ? Then the duke's younger son, with his portion 
in consols, must give place to the distributor of unconsidered 
trifles with a pound of tea. Is it dress, manners, education ? 
The retail shopkeeper may shine in all of these ; yet modern 
snobbishness will affect to exclude him. What of the detri- 
mental lordling, who goes to the bad, and swindles his friends 
and relations ? What of the country squire with the speech, 
appearance, and manners of a chawbacon, the shady captain 
living by his wits, the solicitor who has been struck off the 
rolls ? What again of the factory lad who becomes an intrepid 
explorer and missionary, the carpenter's son who rises to high 
honours in the church, the butcher's boy who closes his career 
a wealthy captain of industry and a genial and widely respected 
justice of the peace ? What of the ploughman who leaves 
behind him a deathless name in the literature of his country, 
or the miner who, from the management of his comrades' 
savings, is promoted to play a weighty part in the great council 
of the nation ? 

The truth is that we, in this country, have long contrived 


to harmonize aristocratic forms with democratic sentiments. 
La carriere ouverte aux talents that is the key to English 
society. What has brought about this happy result I cannot 
now discuss ; but among us a man is not judged in the long 
run by what he wears, or what he has, but by what he is, or 
perhaps even more by the company he keeps. Each has to 
find his own level as he may. Suppose three men, starting 
from the same humble sphere, all win success in life, and all 
by creditable means. One will nevertheless end his days 
among his original surroundings, envied or admired as a warm 
man by his neighbours, the oracle of his little circle, a triton 
among the minnows. A second will elbow his way into a 
society where he is never at home tolerated, but not accepted. 
The third will easily and naturally fit into a new position, 
without question or remark, as by inevitable ordinance of fate. 
And so it has ever been. Centuries back we find one man 
styled a husbandman, another a yeoman, a third a gentleman. 
We look in vain for some distinguishing mark, in birth, 
in property, or what not. There was no material distinction ; 
each was classed according to the position he succeeded in 
asserting for himself, or more often by the common consent 
of his neighbours. 

For my part, despite my shabby coat, my plebeian origin, 
and all my other disabilities, I can afford to regard these 
questions with calm superiority. Am I not, upon good 
medieval precedent, entitled to the style of knights and 
barons ? Postulo librum. I claim benefit of clergy ; and sub- 
scribe myself, 

Sir, your most humble servant, 




Surtees' History of the County Palatine contains some account 
of the genealogy of the family of Holme of Bishop Wear- 
mouth, and of the marriages of the Holmes with members of 
several well-known Durham families, the earliest Holme men- 
tioned being Adam Holme, whose daughter Frances was 
married to Robert Goodchild of Pallion in 1608. 


Harleian MS. 1540 (45) gives the following pedigree of 
Adam Holme : 

John Holme of Holme Hall,= 

Robert Holme came into the=Anne, daughter of 


Arthur Myddleton 
of Sylksworth 

Robert Holme of Warmouth= Margaret, daughter 
of John Hedworth 

Raffe Holme of Warmouth = Margaret, daughter 
of ... Grey of 
Horton Grange 

William Holme of War- = 

Adam Holme = . . . 

This pedigree seems to have been unknown to Mr. Surtees. 
I should be glad to know whether any records exist of the 
precise parentage of Anne Myddleton and Margaret Grey, and 
of the marriages of William Holme and Adam Holme. 

I am, sir, 

Your obedient servant, 



IN the course of the article upon c Heraldry Revived ' in 
the last issue of ^he Ancestor comment was made upon the 
rare appearance in early heraldry of the lions looking backward, 
a position which modern blazonry terms 'regardant/ The word 
did not carry this meaning in the middle ages, never being 
applied in this sense even by the heralds of the early Tudor 
period. The arms of the principality of North Wales were 
instanced as being possibly the earliest example of lions look- 
ing backward. The seal for the principality used by our kings 
from Henry IV. to Henry VII. bears the three lions passant, 
carrying themselves in such wise that skulking must be the 
only epithet for them as they crawl with their tails lashing 
between their legs and their eyes glancing uneasily behind 
them, no doubt at the three conquering leopards of the Eng- 
lish. But as it seems hard to find authority for this shield 
beyond the time of Henry IV. a St. Quintin coat may perhaps 
be an earlier instance of a lion in this uncertain mood. The 
roll known as c jenyns' Ordinary,' the coats in which are 
mainly those of the reign of Edward III., has this blazon for 
Monsire Hubert Seint Quintin dargent a une leon rere re- 
gardant de sable (autrement de purpre]. This is especially valuable 
as giving us the simple blazon which might be looked for in 
an early roll silver with a lion looking backward of sable. 

* * * 

With Westminster Abbey in the hands of the upholsterer 
many delays have been encountered in setting about our work 
of picturing and describing the ancient heraldry of the place. 
Our first instalment of the work will include all those shields 
in the aisles of the nave which may be reckoned amongst the 
most venerable and important monuments of early heraldry in 
Europe. It has been found that photography is all but im- 
possible in the cramped space and indifferent light of the place, 
and therefore arrangements have been made for plaster casts to 
be taken of the whole series, from which the first perfect pic- 
tures of these shields will be made. In view of this delay our 

readers are offered in this issue of The Ancestor pictures of the 



shields round the famous tomb of Edmund of Langley at 
King's Langley church. 

* * 

We commend to the notice of our genealogist readers the 
great and rapid progress which Mr. W. P. W. Phillimore has 
made with his many schemes for the transcription and print- 
ing of parish registers in many counties. No one who has 
considered the present position of these priceless records will 
doubt that their home and housing should be either in Lon- 
don under the care of the Master of the Rolls or in the 
county towns in well ordered district record offices. Till the 
better days come the antiquary can occupy himself in no more 
useful task than in assisting Mr. Phillimore to transcribe and 
print the scattered books. 

* * * 

In this matter we are unable to agree with many of Mr. 
Phillimore's critics. He gives twice who gives quickly. Mr. 
Phillimore's system of printing cheap and clearly arranged 
abstracts of all marriage entries has already put in our hands 
the clue to much obscure genealogy in Cornwall, Gloucester- 
shire, Nottinghamshire, Norfolk, Somerset, Worcestershire, 
Bucks and Hampshire. Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincoln- 
shire and Berks are also in progress. 

* * * 

We desire especially to call attention to Mr. Phillimore's 
work in London. The series of county marriage registers are 
for the buying of the county antiquary, or for the antiquary 
with a long purse and a wide range of interest. But London 
parish registers appeal to every pedigree maker, and we regret 
to learn that here Mr. Phillimore has had little support or 
encouragement. Yet from such a register as is contained in 
his four thick volumes of marriages at St. James's in Duke's 
Place almost every pedigree in the country might gain annota- 

* * * 

The Northern Genealogist under the direction of Mr. A. 
Gibbons, F.S.A., should see every northern pedigree maker 
upon its subscription list, and the more so for its refusal to 
allow itself to degenerate into a Notes and Queries of the 
familiar type, interesting to the c general reader ' and useless 
to the antiquary. Its abstracts of heriot entries from the 


ancient manor rolls of Wakefield, York Marriage Bonds and 
Lincoln Marriage Licences may be instanced as examples of 
useful record work. Mr. W. Greenwood in a paper upon the 
Redmaynes of Levens does much to disentangle the history of 
a family famous in border warfare, and wisely refrains from too 
great sureness in his identification of the several Matthew 


* * * 

Our pedigree of Tryon, given in this issue of The Ancestor ^ 
suggests that the many descendants in England of families 
from Holland and the Low Countries may be glad to be re- 
minded of the good work which is being done in the new 
series of the Algemeen Nederlandscb Familieblad, a Dutch journal 
of genealogy of which we acknowledge the receipt from its 
conductors. The mass and detail of Dutch family records and 
municipal archives make the study and practice of genealogy 
popular in Holland, and Englishmen of Dutch stock will have 
cause for gratitude to the Familieblad if future numbers main- 
tain its present standard. 

* * * 

In our next issue we shall continue the series of notices of 
families which may claim a descent from ancestors known in 
the twelfth century. In all probability the next instalment of 
this c Libro d'oro ' will deal with the houses of Carteret and 
Shirley. With Shirley indeed we might have fittingly begun, 
for the idea of the series had its beginning in the late Mr. 
Shirley's famous list of English landed houses which could 
show a pedigree through landed ancestors as far as the fifteenth 

* * * 

Our illustrations of armour and weapons will be carried on 
with pictures of a number of helmets accompanying an article 
by Mr. T. G. Neville, F.S.A., on the gradual evolution of the 
cockscombed helmet. 

Arrangements have been made by us for the reproduction 
of a book of arms which shall afford ample illustration of the 
heraldic art of the fifteenth century, and a portion of this roll, 
with a critical description of its contents, will appear in our 
third quarterly volume. 


The harmless antiquary has long been an acceptable butt 
for the novelist, and never a quill has been splintered in his 
defence. The third number of 'The Ancestor will enter upon 
the quarrel, and in an article on c The Novelist and the 
Antiquary ' will attempt to show with what little judgment 
the school of historical novelists help themselves from the 
antiquary's heap of laboriously gathered trifles. 

* * * 

The many letters and notices which have followed upon 
The Ancestor s plea for a return to a simpler and more reason- 
able system of blazonry show that in this movement we have 
the sympathy of the antiquary and the scholar. On the other 
hand a writer in the Ex Libris Journal, for copies of which we 
have to thank Messrs. A. & C. Black the publishers, must 
be quoted as showing how far afield misunderstanding may 
stray. It may be remembered that the whole force ot our 
article went to show that the iron laws of blazonry as laid 
down in the heraldry books had neither common sense nor 
ancient prescription to back them, and that heraldry, a 
medieval art and science, must be studied in its medieval 
examples. This being so, Mr. W. Cecil Wade, author of 
Symbolisms of Heraldry, a work which we had not had the 
advantage of studying, is unjust as he is merciless when he 
attacks and instructs the author of our article in this wise : 

He seems to forget that this is a romantic subject, and will always be bound 
up with the chivalry and poetry of the past, and that its old legends, quaint 
wording and drawing, invest it with a glamour which would inevitably vanish 
should this study develop into a fixed science with millimetre rules, micro- 
scopical limitations and granite-faced definitions. Heraldry must be taken as 
a whole, as a simple but mediaeval relic. It will never be separable from the 
pageantry of ancient symbolism, and it never will possess that matter of fact 
regularity and method that Mr. Barron seems to require of it. 

Here the galled jade may wince, but The Ancestor is 
unmoved. Mr. Wade having set up his scarecrow is at 
liberty to thrash it at his will. The c millimetre rules, 
microscopical limitations and granite-faced definitions ' were 
but spoken of in The Ancestor article as food for the great 
dustbin. Such cuckoo's eggs are not to be hatched in The 
Ancestors nest. Rules, limitations and definitions all come 
from c the best of old heraldic authorities/ as Mr. Wade 
styles Edmondson, Dallaway and Brydson, and their earlier 
fellows, authorities whom Mr. Wade gravely recommends to 



misguided Mr. Barren, if he would seek c to seriously acquire 
[sic] a knowledge of the true spirit and practice of heraldry/ 
Edmondson and Dallaway digested, Mr. Wade would have 
Mr. Barren carry his studies as far as Miss Ellen J. Millington, 
possibly a better old heraldic authority, whose book, c published 
about fifty years ago, also abounds in useful information, 
coupled with poetic references to the ancient science.' 

* * * 

To Mr. W. Cecil Wade it is an offence that Mr. Barren 
should have c gone out of his way to disparage the excellent 
modern works of Boutell, Cussans and of other modern writers 
on heraldry.' But if Mr. Wade will allow us to attach to his 
words a c granite-faced ' definitiveness of meaning, he is wrong 
to say that Mr. Barren c went out of his way ' to do this. On 
the contrary, Mr. Boutell's ridiculous handbook of heraldry 
stood full in the way of an article aimed at the c excellent 
modern work ' of Mr. Boutell and his kind. That c excellent 
modern work ' was disparaged as the petty pedantry of writers 
whose scholarship was insufficient for their task, whose foolish 
little books are traps for the uncritical student. As Mr. 
Barren's argument remains untraversed by Mr. Wade, it is 
a fruitless begging of the question to speak of Mr. Boutell's 
as 'excellent modern work.' Loyalty to fallen Humpty- 
Dumpty does not help to set him up again on his bookshelf. 

* * * 

A touch of Mr. Wade's own quality as critic is afforded 
us by his agreement with Mr. Barren's 'attack on Planche, 
who was such an ardent advocate of the punning origin of 
heraldry.' A reference to Mr. Barren's article will show that 
Planchl, so far from suffering attack, was given his due place 
as a pioneer of heraldry research ; but what would Mr. Wade 
have us understand by his agreement with this fancied attack. 
Neither Mr. Planch nor any other writer we have met with 
makes heraldry have its origin in a crackle of puns. Never- 
theless, Mr. Planch6, in common with every one who has an 
elementary knowledge of early heraldry, points out that a round 
number of blazons are based upon words which play upon the 
bearer's name. This being no theory, but accepted fact, there 
is no controversy, and therefore no c ardent advocacy ' about 
this point. If Mr. Wade, in his character of author of the 
Symbolisms of Heraldry, does not agree with Mr. Planch, so 


much the worse for Mr. Wade, and our desire to make our- 
selves acquainted with the Symbolisms of Heraldry suffers abate- 
ment, if indeed Mr. Wade's last paragraph does not quench 
it outright. For he tells us that when the student, having 
mastered his Dallaways and his Edmondsons, has been in- 
formed by Miss Ellen J. Millington's c poetic references,* and 
has added to his library a certain treatise on Scottish heraldic 
antiquities and a heraldic engraver's work on * Decorative 
Heraldry,' he will have c a clear view of nearly all that is 
worth preserving in heraldry.' 

* * * 

If that be Mr. Wade's message we may leave him to the 
heraldry of his * old legends ' we know those old legends 
the heraldry of c glamour,' of c quaintness,' of c poetic refer- 
ences,' the c sirr\ple but medieval relic ' of the medievalism of 
the Castle of Otranto. And we do not want to read the 
Symbolisms of Heraldry. 

* * * 

Of the special appointments for the Coronation none was 
of more interest, at least for the readers of The Ancestor, than 
that of the standard bearers for the three realms. There had 
been a desire in several quarters to claim an hereditary right 
to bear the royal standard of England, but no claim could be 
successfully advanced, and that of a person styling himself 
c Lord de Morley ' was promptly dismissed by the Court of 
Claims. It was by a singularly happy thought that the 
coveted honour was bestowed on the king's champion, Mr. 
Dymoke. The function discharged by his family since the 
days of Richard II. being now obsolescent, it is pleasant to see 
the old name so prominently and appropriately connected with 
the coronation ceremony. 

* * * 

Scotland had its own c battle of the standard,' which was 
fought out with much stubborness before the Court of Claims. 
Mr. Wedderburn, K.C., who championed the cause of his 
kinsman, was successful on behalf of Mr. Scrymgeour 
Wedderburn against Lord Lauderdale ; but we believe that 
the last has not been heard of this standing controversy. 
Allusion was made by Mr. Wedderburn before the Court to 
the gaining of this hereditary distinction by the Scrymgeours 
in battle, an event traditionally assigned to c the first year of 


the reign of Alexander I.' (1107-8). Our authority for this 
date is Burke s Landed Gentry. 

* * * 

Students of heraldry may be interested to learn from the 
same source how the feat of arms by which this hereditary 
honour was won was commemorated in those early days. The 
gallant ancestor, we read, c seizing the standard from Banner- 
man ' who must have been looking for Campbell c crossed 
the Spey, and placed it on the other side of the river in sight 
of the rebels.' For this he was made hereditary standard 
bearer, received a grant of lands together with c the name 
of Skirmisher or Scrymgeour, signifying a hardy fighter,' 
and was given c a part of the royal arms of Scotland for his 
armorial bearing, viz., gu. a lion rampant arg. holding in his 
dexter paw a crooked sword pp. and the word " Dissipate " for 
his motto. 1 The arms of Scotland, be it remarked in paren- 
thesis, contain no field of gules, no lion 'argent,' and no 
crooked sword, and the motto of Scotland is not c Dissipate ' 
far from it. In any case this elaborate development of heraldry 
at so very early a date is probably little known, nor would it 
have been suspected that such mottoes as c Towton ' and c Agin- 
court' had so ancient a predecessor. What the grantee did 
with it is unfortunately not recorded, but it was doubtless in- 
serted in the next edition of The Landed Gentry. 

* * * 

The standard of Ireland was assigned to c the Rt. Hon. 
O'Conor Don.' This is one of those Irish titles which are 
somewhat of a mystery to the slow-witted Saxon. The family, 
we believe, is of great antiquity, though the pedigree is not 
carried back in Burke s Landed Gentry further than A.D. 366 or 
thereabouts. We have always found it difficult to understand 
how Irish native titles, which were bound up with Tanistry, can 
be claimed under the English law of primogeniture by which 
Tanistry was finally abolished. But ours, as we have said, is 

a slow-witted people. 

* * * 

In any case it is a welcome and interesting innovation to 
find all the three standards assigned to commoners of old 
family and not to peers. Another innovation of similar 
character is the invitation to several baronets of the original 
creation, among whom, as is well known, are the bearers of 


ancient names. It is fitting that at so historic a ceremony as 
the coronation of our kings such names should not be excluded 
by those of the modern nobility even when of English blood. 

* * * 

There are at present several peerage cases before the House 
of Lords, and some of them involve interesting questions. It 
is claimed on behalf of Lord Mowbray and Stourton that the 
earldom of Norfolk held by Thomas c of Brotherton ' eldest 
son, by his second marriage, of Edward I. is now in abeyance 
between himself and Lord Petre, as representing its elder co- 
heir, and the Baroness Berkeley, as representing the younger one. 
This claim is opposed by the Duke of Norfolk as holder in 
tail male of an earldom of Norfolk created in 1 644. It will 
be argued on his behalf that the doctrine of abeyance does not 
apply to earldoms, and the decision of the Committee for 
Privileges on the point will be awaited with some interest. 

The claims to the baronies of Fauconberg, Darcy (de 
Knayth) and Meinill will also raise some important points 
as to the necessity of proving sittings under writs and the 
nature of the proof required, and as to the necessity also of 
proving the pedigrees of all the co-heirs to a barony by writ. 
The claimants are the Countesses of Yarborough and of Powis, 
daughters of the late Lord Conyers, and they have petitioned 
that the abeyance of one of the above baronies may be deter- 
mined in favour of Lady Powis, and of the other two in favour 
of Lady Yarborough, who is already Baroness Conyers in her 
own right. 

Butler & Tanner, The Selwood Printing Works, Frome, and London, 








President of the Zoological Society 

Chancellor of the University of Cambridge 



Chancellor of the University of Oxford 

K.G., K.T. 

President of the Royal Agricultural Society 


President of the Society of Antiquaries 


Regius Professor of Modern History, Cambridge 


President of the Royal Society 


Lord Chief Justice 

F.S.A., ETC. 
Corpus Professor of Jurisprudence, Oxford 

D.C.L., LL.D., F.S.A., ETC. 
Director of the British Museum 

General Editor H. 


F.R.S., F.S.A. 

President of the Royal Geographical Society 
M.A., F.S.A., ETC. 

Keeper of the Public Records 
SIR Jos. HOOKER, G.C.S.I., M.D., D.C.L., 

F.R.S., ETC. 


Director of the National Portrait Gallery 
M.D., Ph.D. 

President of the Linnean Society 

Director General of the Ordnance Survey 


Director of the Natural History Museum, 

South Kensington 

University Lecturer in Diplomatic, Oxford 
Regius Professor of Modern History, Oxford 

Assistant Secretary of the Society of Antiquaries 




The VICTORIA HISTORY is a National Historic Survey compiled 
under the direction of a large staff comprising the foremost students in science, 
history and archaeology, and is designed to record the history of every county 
of England in detail. 

This work was approved by our late Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, who 
graciously gave it her own name. 

It is the endeavour of those who are associated in compiling the 
VICTORIA HISTORY to treat it as a scientific undertaking and to embody 
in it all that modern scholarship can contribute. And it is believed that the 
system of co-operation between experts and local students, which is the funda- 
mental principle of the whole work, will give to the History a completeness 
and definite authority hitherto lacking in similar undertakings. His Majesty's 
Government, in recognition of the educational and statistical value of the 
History, has placed all the Government publications freely at the disposal of 
the editorial staff. 

The VICTORIA HISTORY as projected comprises 1 60 large volumes, 
and already numbers many hundreds of selected contributors to its pages in 
all parts of the country. The price of the complete set of 1 60 Volumes is 
252 net. There are also forty supplementary Volumes of Genealogy one 
for each county containing the pedigrees of all families that have been pos- 
rsessed of a seat and an estate in the male line since the first year of George III. 
These Volumes are issued at 5 5*. net each. 

The History of each county is obtainable separately, and the number of 
volumes and the prices for each county are here appended. 



No. of Vols. 
not exceeding 

Price in 


No. of Vols. 
not exceeding 

Price in 








Berks ... 






Bucks ... 

























Derby ... 



Nottingham .. 



Devon ... 






Dorset .... 



Salop ... 









Essex ... 













Hants ... 


















Kent ... 



















Payment may be made on receipt of each Volume as delivered, or in 
instalments by annual banker's order (in which case the price for a complete 
set is ,240) as preferred. Orders will be entered by any bookseller in town 
or country. The Volumes are bound in stout cloth gilt. They may however 
be obtained very handsomely bound in half morocco by Zaehnsdorf, price 
1 us. 6d. extra per volume. 



WHEN this great series of the County Histories was first planned 
the approval of our late Sovereign Lady was sought and gained, 
the Queen became patroness of the work, watching its growth with 
interest and giving it her own name as the Victoria History of the 
Counties of England. By her orders a set of the whole series was to 
be reserved for the royal library at Windsor, and to her memory the 
work is inscribed in the hope that it may prove a worthy memorial of 
her illustrious reign. 

That reign saw the beginning of many great literary enterprises 
whose monumental scale sets them amongst national achievements. 
The Dictionary of National Biography, whose additional volumes are 
closing with the biography of the great Queen, is a work of which no 
nation has seen the fellow ; and the English Dictionary, now midway in 
its labours, stands a tall head and shoulders above the nearest of its 
foreign rivals. 

But vast as these undertakings may be the Victoria History competes 
with them in friendly rivalry. Its bulk is the least of its claims, but 
the fires of Peking, which burned the sole perfect copy of the half- 
mythical Chinese Encyclopaedia, have made an end of the one book 
which could compare with it in size. The complete History itself 
marshals a hundred and sixty volumes, and to these are added the 
supplementary volumes containing the pedigrees of the county families, 
so that it will be seen that it is almost a library in itself for those who 
desire the complete series, rather than a book which is in the course of 

Such a neglected study has been the history of our own towns and 
fields that it may be well that the public should learn what county his- 
tory should be. And yet from the seventeenth century to the earlier 
years of the century now gone by many score tall folios and fat quartos 
of county history came through the press, among the most noteworthy 
being those of Surrey by Manning and Bray, Eyton's Shropshire, 
Nichols' Leicestershire, Hutchins' Dorsetshire, and Blomfield's Norfolk. 
As a rule however, for all but the determined antiquary or grubber of 
pedigrees, the county history of the past has been for the most part too 
dull for general perusal. Still, old and new, county histories have one 

quality in common, that their buyer acquires a sound property upon a 
rising market. In the words of The Times describing the Victoria 

4 Everybody knows what sort of a book was the normal old- 
fashioned county history. It was commonly the work of one man, 
laborious in the extreme, praiseworthy, decorous and dull. It ran to 
three or four immense volumes, with steel plates of churches and 
gentlemen's seats, good maps according to the lights of those days, and 
a good index. Sometimes, as in a few of the Yorkshire histories, a 
factitious value was lent to the books by the drawings specially made 
by Turner, which soared as high above reality as the prose of the 
author sank below it. But the real fault of the county history of this 
type was that the local aspect of things was not presented in its proper 
relation to the history of the country as a whole. The spirit in which 
the book was written was too commonly the spirit of the topographer. 
Every local unit remained a unit ; the writer, as a rule, had his 
county or his township so much before his eyes that he paid no atten- 
tion to the wider aspects of the national life. Nor was it possible that 
the idea of development, which is the root idea of the modern historian, 
could take any great place in the older local histories. Probably many 
excellent local historians of to-day would be guilty of the same faults if 
they were left to do their work alone ; but the organization of the 
Victoria History is such as to prevent this. 

What County History may be, in the hands of no one man, but 
in the hands of a national company of scholars, the Victoria County 
History sets forth to - prove. That the story it has to tell should be 
dull is heresy for an Englishman to believe ; that it is, as a fact, far 
from being dull, a glance at the volumes of the Victoria History already 
published will convince the greatest sceptic.' 

Nowadays we are a restless people, ever on the move, for the most 
part regarding a seven years' lease as chaining us unduly to a house. 
Many a man does not know the very name of his great-grandfather, 
and whence that remote ancestor may have come is as obscure as the 
origin of the Aryans. Having no tie of place or blood such a man 
may reasonably contend that the discovery of his own pedigree, though 
it were for thirty generations back, would move him no more than any 
other string of names. Yet could we present before him that pedigree 
in flesh and blood could he see his grandfather in high stock and 
hessians, his great-grandfather in powdered hair and top-boots, his 
great-great-grandfather in ruffled cuffs, bob-wig and three-cornered hat, 
and even the first of his name franklin, yeoman, or Piers the Plow- 

man, surely the liveliest interest and the most human would be 
awakened as he saw pass before him these forefathers in their habit as 
they lived, as when the spark of his own life was in their breasts. 

So then with our histories. A man's interest in his land, in his 
native county, in the corner of England which chance has brought him 
to dwell in may be all too sound asleep to be awakened by a pedant's 
string of names and dates, but it is there to awaken when the past story 
of town and field is brought to him as a living thing coloured in all its 
strange and many hues. 

To know how and in what manner his crowded city grew up from 
a line of straggling cottages round some industry reckoned a little thing 
in its beginning, how his county town, dozing through a week broken 
only by the rustic chatter of market day, was once a point towards 
which the merchants from far countries came with bales of outlandish 
merchandise along the packhorse roads this where a half-dozen 
farmers' traps come in our day this is surely knowledge which is 
good company for a man to carry with him in his daily round. 

This land, now sheep pasture, was open sea in days of which 
County History will tell us, and on the hillside far inland are stones 
which were a quay to which Roman galleys were moored. This high 
country dotted with villas was the great forest in whose secret places 
the strange rites of wood-devils were celebrated. This cornland was 
marsh and mere, the home of pike and waterfowl, and where the 
mound is at the village end was a castle with inner and outer bailey, 
keep and drawbridge, the nest of an evil man of foreign speech who 
oppressed the stubborn English until in full stream of fortune he broke 
himself against the king's power, a clay pot against a brass pot. 
Where the duke's towers are to-day there was once a charcoal burner's 
hut, and where Hodge has his thatched cottage on the down a great 
Roman proconsul had his villa with its libraries, its baths and hypo- 
causts, its hall with seagods in tesserae colouring the floor and the loves 
of Apollo upon the painted walls. 

Such a story as this might be dull in the telling, but the Victoria 
County History relies upon no one man's pen, and it is not too much to 
say that no such body of scholars and specialists has ever been mustered 
before for a national work. 

After what fashion the Victoria History will follow its task may be 
estimated when we consider the roll of distinguished men who are at 
work for it. 

The history of each county begins with its geology. The story of 
the formations which have become England are told by the members 
of His Majesty's Geological Survey. 

The description of English flora and fauna are exhaustive and accu- 
rate. From the forests of the coal period to the weeds last arrived in 
our hedgerows, from the mammoth to the brown rat which lately drove 
out our native black rat, our birds, beasts, fishes and insects, herbs and 
forest trees find describers amongst a group of editors including every 
name of the first rank amongst students of Natural History. 

Coming at last to man and his work, Mr. Boyd Dawkins, the well 
known author of Early Man in Britain^ is the general editor of those 
chapters of the history which deal with the history of man in our 
island in the remote days before the coming of Romans or Anglo- 

England can never forget that she was once a province under the 
Roman power, for over the country still runs the network of roads 
which grew up in the wake of the Roman eagles, the Roman tile is in 
most of our ancient walls, and some fragment of toy or tool from 
Roman hands is turned wherever the ploughshare runs. Great care 
therefore has been spent upon the section of the history relating to 
Roman England, which is directed and edited by Mr. Haverfield, 
whose name stands for the archaeology of Roman England amongst 
antiquaries all over the world. 

Anglo-Saxon remains are dealt with by Mr. C. Hercules Read, of 
the department of Antiquities at the British Museum, and by his 
assistant, Mr. Reginald Smith. 

Ethnography is in the hands of Mr. G. Laurence Gomme, well 
known by his work for the Folk-lore Society ; and the dialects, so fast 
disappearing before the face of the School Board, are treated of by Mr. 
Joseph Wright, the Editor of the Great Dictionary of the English 

There are those for whom English history begins with King 
William the Conqueror and Domesday Book. The smatterer in 
antiquities is wont to nourish a belief that Domesday Book is a record 
easily to be construed although a trifle dull withal ; the more advanced 
antiquary or historian knows Domesday Book for a maze of puzzles 
and pitfalls, but a record which has not its fellow in the deep interest 
it holds for English people. Amongst the names of the skilled inter- 
preters of Domesday Book that of Mr. Horace Round stands eminent, 
and from his hand come the articles upon Domesday Book and its 
kindred records which will appear in each of the Histories. 

In no point will the Victoria Histories contrast more notably with 
the histories that came before them than in the care with which the 
story of our national buildings is set forth. The history and description 
of castles and houses, walled towns, cathedrals, abbeys and churches is 

under the supervision of a large committee of students of architectural 
history from Mr. George Fox, who speaks with authority of the Roman 
work, to Mr. Gotch, whose name is so familiar by reason of his brilliant 
studies upon the English Renaissance in architecture. 

Mr. St. John Hope, whose researches into ancient architecture 
have left little untouched from the beehive hut to Sir Christopher's 
dome, edits the section dealing with the cathedrals and monastic 
remains, and directs the making of the coloured ground plans which 
show the growth and architectural history of the greater buildings. 

Mr. A. F. Leach edits the history of the English public schools 
and grammar schools. Where counties have a seaboard Professor J. K, 
Laughton edits their history so far as it relates to the story of our fleets. 

The history of the feudal baronage, of the Nevills, Mortimers, 
fitzAlans, Bohuns, and their fellows, is in the hands of Mr. Horace 
Round and Mr. Oswald Barron. 

His Grace the Duke of Beaufort is editor-in-chief of the articles on 

Sir Ernest Clarke, Secretary to the Royal Agricultural Society, 
directs the section on Agriculture. 

The greater part of the volumes of each county will contain the 
history of the English parishes, the sum of which is the history of the 
county. The parish and its beginnings, its church and its memorials, 
the story of its manors and of their lords, of its ancient and interesting 
buildings, the story of that change in the face of things which once so 
slow seems in our day to be hurrying the land towards a time when 
England will be an island town inlaid with market gardens. For this, 
the most important share of our work, the Victoria History has the help 
of nearly every English historian or antiquary, and in its pages will be 
found the results of many men's lifework of scholarly labour and re- 
search. Yet it is not upon such collections alone that the parish his- 
tories are based. The vast records of the nation records which for 
bulk and interest excel those of all other peoples are being system- 
atically searched by a staff of skilled workers, assisted by a Records 
Committee headed by the Deputy-keeper of the Public Records and the 
Director of the British Museum. 

Illustrations are bestowed plentifully upon the history : illustrations 
of Roman and Anglo-Saxon remains, of castles and manor houses, of 
cathedrals and churches, and of the fast-perishing beauties of English 
house and cottage architecture. Illustrations of famous monuments, 
Roman pavements, brasses and coloured glass have their place, and 
ancient pictures of the towns and countryside stand in contrast with 
photogravures and mezzotints from the hundred and sixty paintings of 

modern English scenery which are being specially made for the His- 

There is an abundance of good maps, from the geological and 
botanical maps and the maps which illustrate Domesday Book, to 
Speed's wonderful maps published in 1610 and the maps of the modern 

In an additional volume are added to each county history elaborately 
drawn pedigrees with many portraits of those county families, titled and 
untitled, who have held a seat and landed estate in their male line since 
1760, the first year of the reign of George III., the reign which saw 
the beginning of the modern period of change. 

At a price and under conditions of purchase which allow the 
history of his own county to find a place on the bookshelf of every 
Englishman who buys books, and to set the whole work within reach 
of the least endowed of provincial public libraries, the Victoria History 
cannot fail, owing to its wide interests and deep educational value, to 
take its place amongst the greatest of the familiar and trusted books of 

Such a work as the Victoria History may be amplified in detail ; 
indeed it is hoped that the great work will be the fruitful mother of 
much local archaeological study. But the vastness of its conception 
and the accuracy of its detail will make it stand whilst black ink and 
sound rag-paper endure, a national record and a landmark in our history. 

Full detailed prospectuses of each county as issued may be had on applica- 
tion to booksellers or to the Publishers, Messrs. Archibald Constable & Co. 
Ltd.) 2 Whitehall Gardens, Westminster. Specimen volumes will be sent 
on approval to be viewed at any bookseller's in town or country. 

The Stall Plates of the Knights of 
the Order of the Garter 1 348-1485 

Consisting of a Series of 9 1 Full-sized Coloured Facsimiles 
with Descriptive Notes and Historical Introductions by 

W. H. ST. JOHN HOPE, M.A., F.S.A. 

Dedicated by gracious -privilege during her lifetime to HER 

The edition is strictly limited and only 500 copies of the work 
have been printed. 

The object of the work is to illustrate the whole of the 
earlier Stall Plates, being the remaining memorials of the four- 
teenth and fifteenth century of Knights elected under the 
Plantagenet Sovereigns from Edward the Third, Founder of 
the Order, to Richard the Third, inclusive, together with three 
palimpsest plates and one of later date. 

The Stall Plates are represented full-size and in colours on 
Japan vellum, in exact facsimile of the originals, in the highest 
style of chromolithography, from photographs of the plates 

Each plate is accompanied by descriptive and explanatory 
notes, and the original and general characteristics of the Stall 
Plates are fully dealt with in an historical introduction. 

There are also included numerous seals of the Knights, repro- 
duced by photography from casts specially taken for this work. 

The work may be obtained bound in half leather, gilt, 
price 6 net ; or the plates and sheets loose in a portfolio, 
^5 ictf. net; or without binding or portfolio, ^5 net. 

4THENJEUM : ' It is pleasant to welcome the first part of a long 
promised and most important heraldic work, and to find nothing to say of it 
which is not commendatory. The present part contains ten coloured facsimiles 
out of the ninety plates which the work will include when completed. They 
reflect the greatest credit on all concerned in their production.' 

MORNING POST : ' There is a fine field for antiquarian research in the 
splendid collection of heraldic plates attached to the stalls in the choir of St. 
George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, and it will be a matter of satisfaction to all 
who are interested in old memorials that Mr. W. H. St. John Hope has given 
close examination to these ancient insignia and now presents the results of his 
investigations, with many reproductions.' 



Edited by 


Imperial 8vo. Edition limited to 500 copies. 

Price 315. 6d. net. 

This work is an attempt to illustrate the history of the 
coronation of the Sovereigns of England from the earliest 
times to the present. Twenty-nine documents have been 
collected ; and, so far as possible, the transcripts have been 
made from contemporary manuscripts. 

A translation has been added to the Latin and Anglo- 
French documents. 

Mr. W. H. St. John Hope has written a note on the 
c Cap of Maintenance,' in which he has described the history 
and manner of the investiture of peers. 

The whole work constitutes a full collection of coronation 

The illustrations include a reproduction in colours of the 
picture ot an English coronation at Corpus Christi College, 
Cambridge, and a photogravure of the coronation of St. 
Edmund in a manuscript belonging to Captain Holford ; and 
also reproductions in collotype from the manuscript life of 
St. Edward in the University Library at Cambridge. The 
Crown of Queen Edith, which is represented from a portrait 
of Queen Henrietta Maria in the National Portrait Gallery, 
has not, it is thought, been noticed before. A feature of the 
illustrations will be the coronation chair which has been taken 
from the block cut for the late Sir Gilbert Scott's Gleanings 
from Westminster Abbey ; and there are also three plates show- 
ing the coronation robes of Queen Victoria. 

ATHENMUM : ' Among the minor compensations for the prolonged delay incident to 
a modern act of crowning is the time that it affords for the production of such an important 
historical treatise as that which has just been produced by Mr. Wickham Legg. In this hand- 
some volume we find brought together every historical document of importance that bears on 
the question of English coronations from that of Aidan in the sixth century to that of Victoria 
thirteen centuries later.' 



Illustrated with Twelve Coloured Plates 
of the Arms of families of distinction, 
drawn in the Mediaeval Style, de- 
signed and arranged by 


His Majesty the King has signified his 
interest in this attempt at the popularization 
of Heraldry by ordering a supply of the St. 
Georges Kalendar for his personal use. 

Price is. net. 

M.A.P. : The brightest bit of colour printing I have seen 
for some time are the admirably executed heraldic blazons 
which illustrate the Sf. George's Kalendar. 

ARMT AND NAVT GAZETTE: An attractive pro- 
duction which will please those interested in heraldry. 

WESTMINSTER GAZETTE : A delightful little Sf. 
George's Kalendar for 1902. The dates noted are those of 
historical events, of saints, religious festivals and battles, but 
the principal feature is the introduction of a dozen heraldic 
emblems pertaining to historical English houses, boldly drawn 
and coloured. 

MANCHESTER COURIER : Useful and artistic, in addi- 
tion to a well arranged Kalendar it gives the arms printed in 
colours of some of the most ancient houses of the nobility. 




Of the Public Record Office 

4 Vols.y 2 is. net. 


Price i os. 6d. net. 

These Letters are the genuine correspondence of a family in 
Norfolk during the Wars of the Roses. As such they are altogether 
unique in character ; yet the language is not so antiquated as to present 
any serious difficulty to the modern reader. The topics of the letters 
relate partly to the private affairs of the family, and partly to the 
stirring events of the time ; and the correspondence includes State 
papers, love-letters, bailiffs' accounts, sentimental poems, jocular epistles, 

Besides the public news of the day, such as the loss of Normandy 
by the English ; the indictment and subsequent murder at sea of the 
Duke of Suffolk ; and all the fluctuations of the great struggle of York 
and Lancaster ; we have the story of John Paston's first introduction 
to his wife ; incidental notices of severe domestic discipline, in which 
his sister frequently had her head broken ; letters from Dame Elizabeth 
Brews, a match-making mamma, who reminds the youngest John 
Paston that Friday is 4 St. Valentine's Day,' and invites him to come 
and visit her family from the Thursday evening till the Monday, etc., 

Every letter has been exhaustively annotated ; and a Chronological 
Table, with most copious Indices, conclude the Work. 

HENRT HALL AM, Introduction to the Literature of Europe, i. 228. Ed. 1837 : The 
Paston Letters are an important testimony to the progressive condition of Society, and come in 
as a precious link in the chain of moral history of England which they alone in this period 
supply. They stand, indeed, singly, as far as I know, in Europe ; for though it is highly 
probable that in the archives of Italian families, if not in France or Germany, a series of 
merely private letters equally ancient may be concealed ; I do not recollect that any have 
been published. They are all written in the reigns of Henry VI. and Edward IV., except a 
few that extend as far as Henry VII., by different members of a wealthy and respectable, but 
not noble, family ; and are, therefore, pictures of the life of the English gentry of that age.' 

THE MORNING POST : * A reprint of Mr. James Gairdner's edition of The Paston 
Letters with some fresh matter, including a new introduction. Originally published in 
1872 75, it was reprinted in 1895, and is now again reproduced. The introductions have 
been reset in larger type, and joined together in one, conveniently broken here and there by 
fresh headings. The preface is practically a new one. ... It is highly satisfactory for 
readers who care about history, social or political, to have this well-printed and admirably 
introduced and annotated edition of these famous letters.' 

MANCHESTER GUARDIAN : * One of the monuments of English historical scholar- 
ship that needs no commendation.' 



Time Table of Modern 
History A.D. 400-1870 

Compiled and arranged by M. MORISON. 160 pp., 
about 15 in. x 12 in. i2s. 6d. net. 

CONTENTS : Parallel Vertical Tables Genealogical Tables Ruling 
Monarchs General Chart of Ancient and Modern History Index- 
Maps Europe showing the Barbarian Invasions : Europe, A.D. 45 1 ; 
Europe, A.D. 476 ; Europe, A.D. 500 ; Europe, A.D. 768-814 ; Europe, 
A.D. 962 ; Europe showing the spread of Christianity, circa 1000 ; 
Europe, A.D. 1360; Europe, A.D. 1648; Europe, A.D. 1740; Central 
and Eastern Europe, 1814-1863. 

The work is an epitome of Modern History, 400-1870, 
and constitutes a book of reference invaluable to historical 
students. Facts and dates in the history, not of Europe 
alone, but also of Asia and America, are dealt with. 

The tables consist of parallel vertical columns, each column 
containing a history of one of the important nations of the 
world during the period covered. 

The work also contains a series of the more important 
European Genealogical Tables, complete list of ruling 
Monarchs and Popes, a chart showing a bird's-eye view of 
ancient and modern history, and a full index. Added to these 
are a series of Maps showing the barbarian migrations over 
Europe, the spread of Christianity and the various important 
territorial changes which have taken place in Europe since the 
year 400 A.D. 

THE SCHOOLMASTER : This is a most valuable book of reference for teachers and 
students of history. . . . We can heartily recommend it as a work of real usefulness.' 
THE ACADEMT : 'A most valuable book, and almost deserves the adjective "monumen- 
tal." It is a compendium of historical dates viewed from almost every possible aspect. No 
student should think his shelves complete without this uniquely valuable book.' THE 
DAILY NEWS : 'To the professional historian this volume will prove a convenient " ready 
reckoner " ; to the amateur it will come as a boon and a blessing.' WESTMINSTER 
GAZETTE : * The information is given in the clearest type, with ample margins, and as a 
book of reference it is one of the easiest to consult with the assurance of satisfactory results ' 
THE GUARDIAN : * Remarkably accurate. . . . We can conscientiously recommend the 
book as a companion to the histories of Europe.' 




Illustrated Edition of 

The Works of William 

In 20 Imperial i6mo Volumes with coloured Title Page and 
end papers designed by Lewis F. Day, and a specially 
designed Coloured Illustration to each Play, the artists 
being : L. Leslie Brooke, Byam Shaw, Henry J. Ford, 
G. P. Jacomb Hood, W. D. Eden, Estelle Nathan, 
Eleanor F. Brickdale, Patten Wilson, Robert Sauber, 
John D. Batten, Gerald Moira, and Frank C. Cowper. 
The Title Page and Illustrations printed on Japanese vellum. 
Cloth gilt extra, gilt top, gilt back with headband and book- 
marker, 2s. 6d. net each volume. Each volume 

sold separately 
Price per set of 20 volumes, 2 IQJ. net. 

ATHENJEUM : * Well produced, the convenience and comfort of the reader having been 
fully considered.' 

PALL MALL GAZETTE : l Beautifully printed in bold sizeable type upon good paper, 
and bound in handsome dark red cloth.' 


Edited by AUGUSTINE BIRRELL and Illustrated with 100 
Portraits selected by Ernest Radford. 6 Vols. Red 
buckram, label, gilt top, 365. net. Sold in Sets only. 
This Edition is limited to 700 copies for sale in this 

TIMES : ' The distinctive feature is the series of portraits of the actors on Boswell's 
stage. Of these there are 100, carefully selected by Mr. Ernest Radford, who writes an excel- 
lent introduction to explain his method of selection. The portraits have been well reproduced, 
and their tone is generally soft and pleasing.' 

DAILT CHRONICLE : l The whole of his (Mr. Birrell's) appreciation of the book's 
value and its causes the size (" it is a big book "), Boswell's perfection of method, his genius 
for portraiture, his immense pains, his freedom and glorious intrepidity all this is excellently 
done, with due brevity and orderliness. . . . The Edition is supplied with a series of portraits, 
about sixteen to each volume. They have been carefully selected by Mr. Ernest Radford, 
Mr. Birrell's colleague, we believe, in the first volume of Obiter Dicta. He writes a Preface 
giving an account of his selection, and a history of many of the portraits. The volume is light, 
well bound, and altogether satisfactory.' 



A Volume of Hitherto Unpublished Autograph 
Works by 



HER LATE MAJESTY QUEEN VICTORIA graciously accepted the 
Dedication of the Volume scarcely a month before her lamented death. 

The title-page is an exact collotype reproduction, mutatis mutandis, 
of the beautiful title-page specially designed and engraved for the folio 
edition of the king's works, published under his own supervision in 
1616. The text is accompanied by several Collotype Reproductions 
of the pages of the book, and by the courteous permission of Sir Robert 
Gresley, Baronet, the frontispiece is a fine portrait of King James, 
which has never hitherto been published. 

Of this unique and highly interesting work 275 copies only have 
been printed, of which 250 numbered copies only are for sale. 13 x 9^ 
inches. Price 42*. net. 

ATHENAEUM : These are for literary history nothing short of treasure trove. . . . The 
poems interest chiefly because they are history. A very pleasant reflection of the man and 
his time. Mr. Rait is to be complimented.' 

DAILY NEWS : * Messrs. Archibald Constable & Co. have produced Mr. Rail's edition of 
Lusus Regius in a most sumptuous form. It contains a portrait of the Royal author, James I., 
which has only been privately reproduced before $ the original design executed for the title- 
page of 1616 ; and several MSS., now published for the first time from a copy found in the 
Bodleian Library, and evidently written by the dreamy son of Mary Stuart and Lord Darnley 
in his earlier years. They all show traces of the influence of his tutors, George Buchanan 
and Sir Peter Seaton, in an artificial atmosphere of their humanistic pedantry j but they place 
the character of the king in a somewhat novel and certainly attractive light, and the verses 
" On Women " are a graceful proof of his sportsmanlike knowledge of Scotch natural history. 
... In binding, type, and paper the volume leaves nothing to be desired.' 

LITERATURE : *A sumptuous and beautiful book is Lusus Regius. . . . The volume 
is an interesting one, and our best thanks are due to the editor. Perhaps the last instance of 
her late Majesty's sentiment towards the Stewarts was her consent to accept the dedication of 
this book, which is now inscribed to her memory.' 

SCOTSMAN : * It is a rare, if not unexampled, thing that meritorious specimens of 
poetic art from a kingly hand should have to wait for some three centuries before being given 
to the world 5 and one thinks none the worse of James for having withheld some of the fruits 
of his " ingyne " from a public that in his day was ready to applaud anything that he wrote. 
. . . Great interest attaches to the unpublished MSS. that alone are printed and provided 
with introductions by the editor of the beautiful work, which Mr. Rait has inscribed to the 
memory of Queen Victoria, who before her death accepted the dedication of these poems by 
her " direct lineal ancestor," ' 


Women and Men of the French 

By EDITH SICHEL, Author of The Household of the Lafayettes. 
Fully Illustrated. Demy 8vo. Second Impression. Price 165. net. 

TIMES : * Miss Sichel has read much, approaches her subject without prejudice, and 
writes intelligently and well. Her book is as good a compendium of the period of Francis I. as 
any that we can name.' 

M. E. COLERIDGE in THE GUARDIAN: * Kings and queens, philosophers and poets, 
painters, printers, architects, come alive, and there is glowing colour, speech, movement every- 

English Schools at the Reformation 

i 546-48 

By A. F. LEACH, M.A., F.S.A. 
Demy 8vo. 12s. net. 

THE TIMES : i A very remarkable contribution to the history of secondary education in 
England, not less novel in its conclusions than important in the documentary evidence adduced 
to sustain them.' 

Spenser's Faerie Queene 

Complete in Six Volumes. 

Edited by KATE M. WARREN. 

Foolscap 8vo. is. 6d. net per Volume. 

Also Art Canvas gilt extra, with Photogravure Frontispiece, 2s. 6d. net 
per Volume ; complete in case, 1 5$. net. Each Volume sold separately. 

SPECTATOR : 'The text of the present issue, which has been prepared with great care, 
is based on that of the editions of 1590 and 1596. Each volume is provided with an admirable 
glossary, and with notes, containing all that is necessary for an understanding of the text. The 
introductions are ably written, and show much critical power.' 


Reprint of The Waverley Novels 

The Favourite Edition of SIR WALTER SCOTT. 

With all the original Plates and Vignettes (re-engraved). In 48 vols. 

Foolscap 8vo. Cloth, paper label title, is. 6d. net per Volume ; 

cloth gilt, gilt top, 2s. net per Volume ; and half leather 

gilt, 2s. 6d. net per Volume. 

THE TIMES : * The excellence of the print and the convenient size of the volumes and 
the association of this edition with Sir Walter Scott himself, should combine with so moderate 
a price to secure for this reprint a popularity as great as that which the original edition long 
and justly enjoyed.' 



CS The Ancestor