Skip to main content

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

See other formats

//,, y f , y////y . 


A Quar v and 


JULT 1904 



A Quarterly Review of County and 

Family History, Heraldry 

and Antiquities 



JULT 1904 



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 













S. H. SCOTT 70 











Herald, and the EDITOR 147 






The Copyright of all the Articles and lUuitratims 
in thii Review it strictly reserved 















THE history of the Cartwrights cannot be taken back to 
the days of the pointed shoe. Square toes and the 
Tudors were reigning when we hear first of a Hugh Cart- 
wright who, by his wife Maude Coo, was father of some 
three or four sons, two of whom at least prospered in the 
world. William the heir was of Malbeck and Norwell in 
Nottinghamshire, and as neither his marriage nor his acti- 
vity was noteworthy, some inheritance must have come to 
him from his father. Rowland Cartwright, a younger son, 
is hailed as the founder of the Cheshire Cartwrights, from 
whom come the Cartwrights of Aynho, opulent squires and 
great parliament men with manors in Northamptonshire and 
Oxfordshire ; but this descent is wrongly stated, and it seems 
probable that careless pedigree-makers have tagged the first 
known ancestor of the Aynho line to the nearest unappro- 
priated cadet of a county family with a genealogy in the 
heralds' books. 

Of the sons of this Hugh Cartwright, one Edmund Cart- 
wright, wrought best for the family and its advancement. 
His wife Agnes is claimed as a daughter of Thomas Cranmer, 
the squire of Aslacton, whose son Thomas rose to be Lord 
Archbishop of Canterbury. She is not named in her father's 
will, but the near kinship of Edmund Cartwright to the 
Cranmers is made apparent in many ways. When the Arch- 
bishop had leases from the Crown of certain manors in Kent, 
West and East Mailing, Ewell and Parrock, and the site of 
Mailing nunnery, Edmund Cartwright had these long and 
rich leases from his patron. In Nottinghamshire Edmund 
bought Ossington, which was to be the chief seat of his 
branch, a manor near Newark, which had been late of the 
lands of Newark Priory. With his hands thus full of church 
lands the squire of Ossington should have earned the church's 
curse for himself and his line, but the ill-gotten Ossington 
lands were long handed down by prosperous descendants. 
He died in the first year of Queen Mary, before my lord 


archbishop came to the fire and faggot. His son and heir, 
Hugh Cartwright of Mailing, married a daughter of Sir John 
Newton, a lady whose hand he might have demanded with 
less than the traditional diffidence of the suitor, for she is said 
to have left no less than sixteen sisters in her father's house. 
He lived in his Mailing home, and when the Kentish rebels, 
under Sir Harry Isley and the two Knevetts, were marching 
to join Wyatt at Rochester, Hugh Cartwright was one of 
those from Mailing who met them in Wrotham and routed 
them in the little Kentish battle of Blackesol field. 

His nephew, William Cartwright, followed Hugh of 
Mailing as his heir. This William, who died in 1602, as 
appears by his tomb at Ossington, married Grace Dabridge- 
court, a descendant of the knightly house of Aubricicourt, or 
Dabridgecourt, the Hainaulters whose ancestor Nicholas 
received Queen Isabel of England and her son Edward when 
they fled from Paris in 1326. Young Edward the king 
remembered the kindness to the prince, and the Dabridge- 
courts prospered under him. The stall plate of Sir Sanchet 
Dabridgecourt, a founder of the Order of the Garter, still 
remains in St. George's Chapel, enamelled in its colours. Sir 
John, another Dabridgecourt came to be honoured in the same 
order, and Froissart has much to tell of the deeds of Sir 
Eustace Dabridgecourt, who was struck to the ground at 
Poitiers, and taken by five German men-at-arms to be tied 
ignominiously to a cart until his own men rescued and re- 
mounted him. From this house descended a family of mid- 
land gentry, and Grace, the wife of William Cartwright, was 
daughter of Thomas Dabridgecourt, of Longdon Hall in 
Warwickshire. The shields of husband and wife may be seen 
painted on the doors of the curious chest of drawers still in 
the possession of their descendant, Mr. George Cartwright. 

These Cartwrights of Ossington threw themselves in the 
civil war and spent themselves for the king. Ossington Hall 
went to ruin in these troubles, and William Cartwright of 
Ossington, the head of the branch, was amongst those who 
must needs compound for their estates with the committee 
of the parliament in 1646. He is described as of Ossington 
in Nottinghamshire, and of Stoke Lacy and Mintridge in 
Herefordshire, and pleaded that he had been in arms in 1643, 
but not afterwards. In that year also came Sir Hugh Cart- 
wright of Southwell, and Hugh his son, to compound. These 



two cadets of the house had been at the taking of Newark. 
Before Pontefract fell, Sir Hugh and his son were excepted 
as dangerous malignants from the mercy offered the garrison, 
and Sir Hugh's life was saved by his suffering himself to be 
bricked up by his friends in a hiding hole with a month's 
meat and drink. John Cartwright of Wheatley, who was 
probably a younger brother of William, was another com- 
pounder, confessing ' delinquency in arms.' He made his 
peace, taking the Covenant and the Negative Oath in this 
same year. Another kinsman, Lieutenant-Colonel George 
Cartwright, who had a pass to go beyond sea in 1645, may 
have been the Colonel Cartwright of whose ill-treatment 
Mrs. Lucy Hutchinson makes her complaint. 

Side by side with the Ossington branch the elder line of 
Cartwright survived, descendants of William, the eldest son 
of the founder of the house. That the two branches held 
together is shown by more than one marriage of kinsfolk. 
William Cartwright of Norwell married a daughter of Rey- 
nold Peckham of Wrotham, by a daughter of the first Ossing- 
ton Cartwright, and his grandson, another William, who 
built a new house of brick and stone at Normanton, married 
his cousin Christian, daughter of Sir Hugh Cartwright the 
cavalier. This William is said to have been himself a cava- 
lier in arms, but he begot a son, again a William, who 
left the Stuart cause and served as a captain in Ireland in 
the regiment which the Earl of Kingston led for King 
William of Orange. He died in this campaign, not by the 
sword, but by small-pox, and was buried at Belfast. John 
Evelyn, in his diary, names him as a Nottinghamshire man, 
who persuaded the council of state to send a letter of amnesty 
to the New England colonists, who were even then in a 
' peevish and touchy humour.' His son's marriage with 
Rebecca, daughter and heir of Edmund Nicholson, squire 
of Marnham, made Marnham the chief seat of his family. 
Elizabeth, youngest daughter of William and Rebecca, 
married Sir John Brownlow, K.B., Viscount Tyrconnel. 
William Cartwright of Marnham, high sheriff of Notting- 
hamshire in 1742, brought both lines of the family together 
by marrying his distant cousin, Anne Cartwright, daughter 
and heir of George Cartwright of Ossington. 

The marriage of cousins is held to beget weaklings, but 
the children of these cousins defied the rule by growing up 


as a nest of celebrities. It is not demanded of a squire's son 
and heir that he should be famous, and William the son and 
heir is only a name in the pedigree, with more than a sus- 
picion of extravagance and loose living clinging about his 
memory. Charles Cartwright, the youngest of the five sons, 
entered the navy, and with a lieutenant's command took a 
West African Dutch fort. But he left the navy too soon to 
take part in the great sea epic of his later days, and died at 
home with nothing more than lieutenant for his tombstone. 

The second brother advanced but to a captain's rank in the 
army, but fame came to him with a surname. He is Labra- 
dor Cartwright. Born at Marnham in 1739, ' a P a i r ^ 
colours,' as the saying of his day went, was procured him, and 
he sailed to the East Indies, coming back in 1757 as ensign 
of the 39th. He went to the German wars in 1758 and 
1759 as aide-de-camp to that popular hero, Marquess of 
Granby. As a captain of a company of the 37th he was sent 
back to England from Minorca in failing health, and from 
this time he gave himself to sport and travel. The young 
officer, whose health would not allow him to stay with his 
regiment, hardened into a mighty hunter, who spent sixteen 
years trapping and exploring amongst the snows of Labrador, 
to which coast he made five voyages, and lived to hearty old 
age, dying at Mansfield in 1819. 

From one of his voyages he brought home five Innuits of 
Labrador, whose arrival in eighteenth century London was 
more than a nine days' wonder. The life of the Innuits 
inspired half Grub Street to tales of the frozen lands, and 
doubtless even good Mr. Barlow's anecdotes of Esqui- 
maux life and the social moral to be drawn from it came to 
Master Sandford and Master Merton at secondhand from 
Captain Cartwright. 

Like a good son of the house, Captain Cartwright first 
delighted the home at Marnham with his Innuits. In a little 
diary book in faded red morocco with silver clasps his sister 
Catherine tells the story of the Innuit invasion. Under the 
date of 1 6 April 1770 ' my brother George left Marnham 
after breakfast to go upon his Labrador scheme.' On 13 De- 
cember 1772 brother George landed at Gravesend from Cape 
Charles in Labrador, bringing with him five fur-clad visitors. 
These were Ittuiack, aged forty, and Econgoke his wife, aged 
twenty-four, with Ikkyana their daughter, whose years were 




two, Tooklavvinia, aged nineteen, brother of Ittuiack, and 
Cauboic his wife, aged seventeen. On a never-to-be-forgotten 
1 8 March ' my brother George came to Marnham with his 
five Indians in their proper habits, which are very curious 
and ingeniously form'd and ornamented with bead. All the 
Indians have bright black eyes and dark complexions. Cau- 
boic is very handsome, has a regular face with an uncommon 
degree of sense, sweetness, sprightliness and sensibility in her 
countenance, and of ease and gentility in all her actions and 

The party stayed at Marnham until 9 April, when 
they departed ' with mutual regret.' The kindly spinster 
sister at home took the whole party to her heart, and 
although she came at the last to admit that the natures of 
Ittuiack and Tooklavvinia were rude, and that Econgoke was 
something wanting in the esteemed quality of ' gentility,' 
her affection for the beautiful Cauboic never failed, and it 
is evident that only the constraints of genteel language keep 
her from describing brown baby Ikkyana as a duck. ' For 
Cauboic,' says Miss Catherine Cartwright, ' I conceived such 
a love and friendship as I am convinced neither time or ab- 
sence can ever efface.' 

Two post-chaises carried Captain Cartwright and his 
friends to London, where the town seized upon them. King 
George received them at his Court of St. James's, and the 
sights of the town were at their feet. Five wondering 
Innuits walked with Captain Cartwright amongst the fiddlers 
and coloured lamps of Ranelagh, the crowd in its floured 
wigs and hooped petticoats pressing with giggling amazement 
upon these beings so strangely clad in deerskin coats and 
moccassins. They must have supped in one of the arbours 
on the famous Ranelagh punch and the transparent slices of 
ham, for they stayed until half past eleven at night, by which 
hour we may hope that Ikkyana was asleep in somebody's 

On 4 May they embarked in the Thames on a ship named, 
after Captain George's aunt, the Lady Tyrconnell, and began 
coasting towards the west, whence bad news comes to Marn- 
ham to be recorded in the red leather diary with the silver 
clasps. The London crowd of the eighteenth century might 
not be mingled with without risk, and off Lymington or 
Weymouth the beautiful Cauboic sickened of a fever. Small- 


pox declared itself, and Econgoke was the next to take the 
disease. With putrid fever and small-pox aboard, the Lady 
Tyrconnell became foul as a plague pit, and her crew were fain 
to run for Plymouth, where ' Ikkyana, that sweetest of babes, 
resigned her innocent soul.' The baby was buried in the 
sand of ' thafrneckof land which helps to form the harbour of 
Catwater. She was in her sealskin dress, wrapped up in a 
deerskin, and had all her cloaths, beads and ornaments, 
sewing implements and a knife and spoon inter'd with her.' 
After her death her father and mother lost hold on life. 
Econgoke died. Miss Cartwright, when the news came, 
' wished her well, but could not love her.' Ittuiack died, 
and within half an hour of him, Tooklawinia. 

Captain George had been summoned to London by 
urgent affairs, and hurried back fearful of news of Cauboic, 
but the news was good. As he came before the house Cau- 
boic's window was open and the curtain drawn. In our 
grandfather's time the physician boxed the sick man in his 
room to struggle with the pestilence behind closed doors and 
sealed windows. The open window told the captain that 
all was over for good or ill, and in another minute he was 
wished joy of the recovery of his daughter, ' for so he calls 
that amiable Innuit.' 

The deaths of all her folk had next to be broken to Cau- 
boic, and George, who was setting about it with an anxious 
mind, found that Cauboic bore the news with calmness. 
' That amiable Innuit ' confessed to him that ' she hated 
them all excepting the child,' and begged to be allowed to 
live with him. Once again in the open air of Plymouth she 
mended fast, and Miss Cartwright, far away at Marnham, 
records thankfully how she had eaten in the morning a whole 
chicken roasted with pease, and was to eat another in broth 
before night. 

Captain George stayed at her side, and brought amuse- 
ments to divert her. A fiddler played by her bed, and on 
one memorable day her guardian ' obtain'd the Old Buffs' 
band of music, consisting of nine hands, with which she was 
so delighted that she kept the band for twelve hours, and 
never shed another tear for her relations.' 

The Lady Tyrconnell was cleansed and re-manned, the 
voyage was taken up again, and before the end of August the 
captain and his adopted daughter were landed at Cape 



Charles, where they were well received by Cauboic's people, 
who, listening to her tale, forbore to lay the deaths of their 
kinsfolk at the captain's door. It was probably not long 
before the wildest beliefs concerning Ranelagh and its coloured 
lamps had passed into the tribal lore of the Innuits. 

Southey's fat Commonplace Book gives us a picture of 
Captain George Cartwright eighteen years later. He was 
then a guest at the house of his brother-in-law Hodges, and 
the amazing appetite of the man kept the eyes of the young 
Southey upon him. With this mighty hunter the phrase of 
a hunter's hunger was indeed justified. The footman, who 
knew his manner of life, carved for him at the sideboard a 
plate of beef piled so high that Southey believed it a lackey's 
insult to a stranger, but the plate returned empty to the 
joint not once or twice. Satisfied at last, the captain ad- 
mitted that he was an earnest trencherman, and boasted that 
a leg of mutton was with him an affair of but two slices, the 
first slice taking one side away, and the other clearing the 
bone. Before he left in the morning he ate a breakfast with 
three cucumbers and much bread and cheese in it, and 
Southey thought he had never before met so extraordinary 
a man. Few of us to-day have read George Cartwright's 
Journal of Transactions and Events during a Residence of 
nearly Sixteen Tears on the Coast of Labrador (three volumes 
quarto, 1793), but Southey read them with delight : 

The annals of his campaigns amongst the foxes and beavers interested me 
more than ever did the exploits of Marlboro' and Frederic ; besides, I saw plain 
truth and the heart in Cartwright's book, and in what history could I look for 
them ? 

The third son of the Marnham family was John Cart- 
wright of Wyberton, born in 1740. This was the ' Major 
Cartwright ' the reformer, very famous in his day and 
accursed of his brother squires. He began life in the navy, 
and saw servrce under Lord Howe, was first lieutenant of the 
Guernsey in 1766, and explored part of Newfoundland. 
The restless spirit of his brothers was upon him in good 
measure, and his popularity in the navy may have suffered 
through his being one of the first Englishmen to take up the 
cry of ' efficiency.' Towards efficiency he himself contri- 
buted improvements in the gun exercise, but by 1775 he was 
ashore and addressing a letter to Edmund Burke, Esquire, 


' controverting the principles of American Government laid 
down in his lately published tract.' If his ancestor were in- 
deed that Cartwright who, in 1671, was asking justice and 
consideration for the claims of the American colonists, we 
must recall this when we learn that John Cartwright left the 
navy and all hope of advancement in 1777 rather than join 
Lord Howe's new command on the American station. As 
a naval officer ashore he had busied himself in the Notts 
militia, and by his militia majority he was henceforward to 
be known, even after his commission had been taken from 
him by reason of a public meeting in which he had cheered 
for the fall of the Bastille. 

The busy life was before this sailor ashore, this major from 
the sea. At once he thrust both hands into politics, and the 
descendant on both sides of a line of squires declared boldly 
for the people. He was the father of reform, and more than 
two generations before the coming of the Chartists he was 
fighting in and out of season for annual parliaments, universal 
suffrage and the ballot, demands which, to the ears of most 
of his astonished class, must have sounded as the blasphemings 
of the restless pit. 

In those anxious times when a troubled government was 
wont to see Armageddon and red revolution awaiting it round 
the very next corner, it is at least remarkable that the major 
came so safely away from his political adventures, but the 
hemp was never heckled for him, and the loss of his militia 
commission and a hundred pound fine for sedition were the 
worst that he came by. 

Politics were not enough to fill his life with. He made 
experiments in husbandry on his Lincolnshire lands, he 
fought against slavery with Clarkson and Granville Sharp, 
and when his old calling of the navy was to be honoured with 
a public monument by a people in high delight over Nelson's 
doings at sea, this handy sailor man was ready with marvellous 
designs for a Hieronauticon or Naval Temple, which came to 
a quarto volume, but never rose in stone and bronze. 

In this red radical our little Englanders can have no 
pleasure, for he was full of schemes for the better defence of 
England and her coasts. He had good counsel for the Spanish 
patriots, and Greeks were helped with his money and with 
tracts on the proper use of the pike when bayonets may not 
be obtained. 




He wrote eighty political tracts, and saved four lives from 
drowning. He was a generous soul, a dull and troublesome 
writer and orator. Mr. Francis Place did not love the major, 
but others found him a cheerful man and good companion. 
He died in Burton Crescent, where now his grimy monument 
looks upon the windows of that encampment of paying guests. 

The major's next brother was Edmund Cartwright, born 
in 1743. Something in the Treasury had been found for 
the eldest son during his father's lifetime. Two of the 
squire's sons had been given to the navy and one to the army ; 
the career, therefore, of Edmund Cartwright was clear before 
him. It is superfluous to add that it led to a rectory. But 
the soldier had taken to radical politics, the surviving sailor 
to fur-trapping, the Treasury clerk to the Bad, and it was 
written that Edmund Cartwright should not find his way to 
the Biographical Dictionary by his divinity. To the mind of 
the young Edmund it was literature which should lead him 
towards posthumous fame, and his Armine and Elvira, a 
Legendary Poem, was long admired in his family, and was well 
received by that eighteenth century so easily pleased, so 
artless in its literary pleasures. The twentieth century 
writer, in the moments when ' the ink and the anguish start,' 
may look back with an unfeigned regret to the day in which 
a Hermit, a Pilgrim, and their encounter by a Mossy Cell 
would furnish all that the public at its Chippendale reading- 
desk would look for in a polite author. A hermit was not 
lacking in Armine and Elvira. Rage, Despair, Pity, Distrac- 
tion, Friendship and Grief, and other abstractions with 
capital letters, were pleasantly met in the underwoods of the 
quatrains, and the whole poem, as an admiring daughter 
most justly observes, is of the ' refined and classic school.' 

The rectory was not too long delayed, the living of 
Goadby Marwood coming to Mr. Edmund in 1779, a rectory 
with a glebe upon which the rector fell at once to work with 
experiments in agriculture. The author of Armine and 
Elvira could never degenerate to the life of Parson Trulliber, 
but he became a keen and successful farmer, who brought his 
active Cartwright brains to the toil with an originality which 
is politely lacking in his gentle verses. A farmer he might 
have stayed, if aught might be safely predicted of one of these 
restless brothers, had it not been for a holiday visit to Mat- 
lock in Derbyshire. From Matlock he went with a party, 


Manchester spinners amongst them, to see Arkwright's cotton 
mills at Cromford. The talk amongst the Manchester men 
was of the weaving trade going abroad to German cheap 
labour, and the poet, eager as a Pepys after a new fact, flashed 
out with the fancy that machines must come to the help of 
England, and maintained the possibility of such machinery 
to the contempt of practical Manchester, with a tale of the 
wonderful movements of the Automatic Chess Player which 
had been shown in London. 

Home again at the rectory, he walked his study hour by 
hour before his delighted children imitating with his hand 
the cast of the shuttle. Before he had even seen a handloom 
this wonderful man had framed a clumsy power loom, and 
his earlier patents were taken out in 1785, 1786, and 1787. 
The poet, the rector, and the farmer turned weaver, and set 
up a factory in Doncaster with the first power looms by which 
wide cloth was ever woven for practical purposes. His 
wool-combing machine of 1789, in its crudest form, did the 
work of twenty men, with the result that fifty thousand wool- 
combers cried aloud to Parliament for the restraint of the 
rector of Goadby Marwood. ' My father,' says his daughter 
in her diary, about this time was so absorbed by his machinery 
that he instituted processions in honour of Bishop Blaise, 
the patron of woolcombing, which we young people dis- 
liked as being a -popish ceremony unbecoming bis clerical pro- 
fession? By 1793 he had come by the fate of the inventor 
who invents for the generations after him. Thirty thousand 
pounds of the Cartwright money was sunk in machinery 
and patents which yielded no return. Giving up the 
works to his creditors, and his patents to his brothers, he 
left invention and imagination and fell back upon his 
poetry, consoling himself with a sonnet on his ill fortune. 
He came to try his fortune in London, where, the itch of 
invention taking him anew, he built a house with his own 
patent geometrical bricks, patented an alcohol engine, and 
experimented with the application of steam to navigation. 
In intervals of leisure he invented a reaping machine, wrote 
a prize essay on husbandry, and became manager of the Duke 
of Bedford's experimental farm at Woburn. 

Now and again he was reminded of his orders. Lincoln 
made the maker of the power loom a prebendary, and Oxford 
in 1806 gave the degree of Doctor of Divinity to the patentee 



of the geometrical brick. He lived to see the power loom 
making wealth for others, and to define a patent as ' a feeble 
protection against the rapacity, piracy and theft of too many 
of the manufacturing class.' Parliament in 1809 gave 10,000 
to the man who had shown the way to the northern million- 
aires, and the Rev. Dr. Edmund Cartwright took the sum like 
a philosopher and bought a farm in Kent with it. His active 
and, one must believe, his happy life was lived out busily to 
the end. Little there was in nature that he did not finger. 
In his parish he practised medicine, and ' exhibited ' yeast in 
a case of putrid fever with a recorded success. In his eighty- 
third year he offered the Royal Society a theory of the move- 
ment of planets round the sun. The year before his death, 
in 1823, he was at Dover for warm bathing in sea-water, and 
though old and ill he must needs teach his bathing man a 
method of filling his cistern by an application of power. 

He was the only one of the brothers to carry on the family. 1 
The next generation was a less strenuous one, but it pro- 
duced the Reverend Edmund Cartwright, F.S.A., a topo- 
grapher and county historian who in 1830, with the aid of 
his friend the Duke of Norfolk, made a respectable continu- 
ation to Dallaway's History of Sussex. He married twice, 
his first wife being one who, had she borne children, would 
have brought a curious strain of blood to the family. She 
was the daughter of John Wombwell, apparently a cousin 
german of the first baronet of that name, by a lady who is 
styled in the family records a Persian princess. The child 
of this union was married to Mr. Cartwright in 1795 at St. 
George's, Hanover Square, and died in February of the next 
year, being then but a child of sixteen years. 

Of the daughters of the inventor one lived with her uncle, 
the reforming major, and wrote his life. Another wrote a 
memoir of her father. A third daughter was Elizabeth, who 
married in 1814 the Reverend John Penrose, a Bampton 
lecturer, and dying in 1837 was buried in Lincoln Cathedral. 
Few will recognize from this description one of the most 

1 Our family picture of Cartwright and his children is thus described in 
his daughter's notes for 1786 'In this year my brother and sisters and 
myself all met together at Doncaster and had our picture taken by Mr. 
Hawes. We are represented sitting under the great mulberry tree at 
Mirfield Hall, my father standing behind and looking at us with a pensive 
expression of countenance well suited to his widowed situation.' 


famous of our countrywomen, one whose work three gener- 
ations of English children have thumbed. For Elizabeth 
Cartwright, Mrs. John Penrose, was no other than the MRS. 
MARKHAM of our childhood, MRS. MARKHAM of the history- 

Let us laugh indulgently as we remember the conversation 
of Richard and George, of their sister and their mamma. 
Before the day of Mrs. Markham the history of our country 
was administered to the young from the ponderous inaccura- 
cies of Rapin, the dulness of Goldsmith's unwelcome task. 
From Mrs. Markham in her later form, made glorious with 
charging knights and battling archers ' from an old MS.,' 
many a child has persuaded himself to grow up a man to whom 
the history of the English and the mystery of old and far-off 
days are not things which may be lightly cast into that calm 
limbo where rest for the most of us the irregularities of the 
Greek verb. 

There are school room histories nowadays which even in 
the matter of the pictures in the margin drive poor Mrs. 
Markham from her pride of place, and much of her chronicle 
was the Berlin woolwork of history, now sadly faded. But 
from 1823 to 1880, at the least, all young England learned 
history at Mrs. Markham's knee. Little Arthur was her 
wash-pot, over Mrs. Mangnall she cast forth her shoe, and, 
be it said to her credit, her steady popularity saved a gener- 
ation of us from the rant of that Child's History of England, 
in which a great man went so deplorably beyond his last. 

The year 1904 has seen an attempt to give his due 
measure of fame to one of this family of Cartwright. 
Bradford and Lord Masham have raised the Cartwright 
memorial hall in honour of the name of Edmund Cartwright, 
upon whose labours the town's prosperity rests. Lord 
Masham, in reproaching his countrymen with having so 
easily forgotten Edmund Cartwright, did not hesitate to call 
him the greatest of English inventors, beside whose achieve- 
ments those of Stephenson and Watt suffer in comparison. 
This article will have served its purpose in showing that so 
famous a man was English in blood and nurture. 

O. B. 




IN the Ancestor (v. 159) will be found transcripts of the first 
ten wills written in English in the registers of the Arch- 
deaconry of London. The four wills which follow are taken, 
two from the Commissary Court of London and two from 
the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. When the wills 
published by the Early English Text Society are reckoned 
with it will probably be found that all English wills made 
before 1410 and now in London are in print. 


In the name of god Almythty in Trinite Amen I Robert 
Baran in good mynd and memorie I make myn testament in 
this maner In the ferst begynnyng I be quethe myn soule 
to almyghty god in Trinite and to hys blyssyd moder holy 
made Marie and to alle the holy compayne of hevene Also 
I be quethe myn body to be beryed in the church of Bethlem 
befor the cros in the body of the church Also I be quethe to 
the heye auter xl d Also to the church pavyng xl d Also I 
be quethe to the prest that shall berye me xl d Also I be 
quethe to the ordre of the qwhyte frers of london X s Also I 
bequeth to the ordre of the Augustin x* to preye for me 
Also I bequethe to Syr Thomas Grene prest x 1 Also to Sire 
Thomas Riedle xl d to preyn for me Also I be quethe to 
Annes Nok myn servaunt a coffre wyth a lok and a keye 
Also I be queth to the fornseyd Anneys a bed of suych as 
Hawys my wyf wyll ordeyne for here. Also I bequethe to 
John Baran sadyller the best goune and the hood that I have. 
Also I bequeth to Robert cordwayner dwellyng wyth inne 
bysschopsgate a goune and a hood to preye for me Also I 
bequeth to Hawys myn wyff the place that is ours wyth inne 
Bethelemthewhyche place wewonynin wt. all portenance and the 
termes of Wynter and other covenantz as oure dedes makyn 
mencioun and sche to yeven and to sellen and to do what sche 
wolle al the fornsayde terme Also I wyll that the fornsayde 
Hawys have the place wyth all the portenans that sire Hugh 
dwellit in the persone be hire live and the termes as myn dedes 

1 Commissary Court of London. 463 Courtney. 

13 D 


specifien Also evermore I be queth to Hawys myn wyf and 
assigne to have myn new place wt the aportenans that I have 
do made in Bethelem be twyxen the kychan and the gardyn 
the forsed Hawes to have and to holden al be hyr live tyme 
and oure termes as oure dedes maken mencioun and in cas 
that the forsede Hawys deye bynne the terme I wyll that the 
forsede place torne sir Nicholl myn cosyn and evermore yef 
it so be that Sir Nicholl deye bynne the terme I wil that the 
fornseyd place wyth alle the portenans torne to Anneys Nook 
myn servant and yef it so be that Anneys deye bynn the 
terme I wyll that it torne to John Baran myn cosyn tailor of 
London Also I be queth to Hawys myn wyff all myn neces- 
saries that arn in myn place be hyr live as of masiers pecys 
spounes naperis bakclothis bedclothis and all other divers 
necessaries that arn in houshold and after her disses sche to 
sellen hem and to do for oure soules Also overmore I for- 
seyde Robert Baran I have ordeyned and made and i wreten 
here in myn testament myn executour Hawys myn wyff and 
sir Nichol Byschop myn cosyn and nalych Hawys myn wyf to 
be myn principalle executor sche to do for me Als she 
wold that I dede for hyr and overmore myn wyl is that sir 
Thomas Grene be an overseer by myn goodes so that 
myn godes be yovyn and dispendid as I have ordeyned an 
wrytyn in this fornseyd testament in wytnes of wych thing I 
Robert Baran have set myn seel wretyn and yoven atte 
Londene as the xvij dey of Juin the yer of the incarnacion of 
our Lord Jeshu Crist mlcccc wytnesyng sir Thomas Redele and 
sir Thomas Grene prest Richard Spencer and William Lylbech 
and Nicholas of Norfolk 

Proved 3 November, 1400. 


In the name of god amen the vj te day of the monthe of 
August In the yere of oure lord a ml cccc xxxix I John Ryng- 
feld citezin and drapo r of London beyng in good and hool 
mynde make ordeyne and dispose this present testament aftir 
my last wille in this maner of wise First I betake my soule 
to almyghty god my worth! creature and maker to his blessed 
modir mary vurgyn and to all the holy company of hevyn 
And my body to be beryed in the church by the north est 

1 Comm Court of London. 28 Prctcef. 




piler of the stepil in seint Michell of Cornhull in london And 
on the same piler over me I wol have a table peynted with an 
image w' a similitude of a risyng of the dome l havynge iij 
rolles in the right and writen ther yn Mercyful lord over al 
tbynge For mercy and grace to the I calle for thejoye that ever is 
lastynge lord fro dampnacion save us all And in the lift hand 
Godefrendes of me taketh bede prent in youre hertes in speciall In 
the ertbe here am I leyde wormy s to ete thus shall ye all And over 
the heed For Jb's love that died for yow and me belpetb the soule 
of John Ryngfeld with a pater noster and an ave and a ston upon 
me w' my mark and theron writte declina a malo etfac bonum I 
bequethe to the high auter iij s iiij d Item I bequethe for the 
table and for the stoon xxvj s viij d Item for lying in the 
church vj s viij d Item I beqwethe to the church vj newe 
torchis everych of xvij" Item ij tapres I bequethe everych of 
xiiij lb And ij of the torchis I bequethe to Markyatte 
nonnery beside seynt Albons in the worship of the Trinite and 
an other torch to the praye that is a nonry beside and ir s iiij d 
of money to the laumpe of the same church and vj* viij d for 
selynge of her parlour And that the seid nonnes sette me in 
here marcilage to pray for me perpetuall Also I woll that the 
pore men of the parissh atte the service tyme hold my torchis 
Item bequeth every of hem iiij d and her mete for her labour 
Also and I have seynt Michell candelstykkes and tapres to 
stonde beside the cors and I be fette to church with here torches 
they shul have vj 5 viij d Also I beqwethe for the torchis of 
oure lady and of seynt Anne to brynge me to church xl d and 
to pray for me Item I bequeth to the fyndyng of a laumpe 
brennyng atte Markayate to fore the Trinite xlvj' viij d and 
that laumpe to be found still as longe as the seid money 
lastith undir this condicion that the seid covent have a laumpe 
in here dorto r al the wynter nyghtes of the seid cost and that 
my name be sette in here martilage and I for to have the a 
dirige and a masse on the inorow and so to be prayed for per- 
petuall to the which light a barell of oill of iiij galons wol serve 
it a yere And I beqweth to the prestes there xx d and to my 
sistur xx d and every nonne of the same hous xij d aftir my 
decesse that I am past hens and that I have there a dirige and a 
masse Also whanne that ye se that I shal nedely passe lete be 
done for me a Tretall of massis by my life dayes and lete me 

1 A picture of the resurrection of the dead is here described. The rolls 
are the scrolls bearing the legend. 


have a pryve dirige by my life that I may her hit and yeve x* 
of money to pore folk of the parissh to pray for me and let 
hem be atte the dirige and eerie of hem sey oure lady sawter 
And I bequethe every preste ij d and every clerk ij d that is atte 
this servys thus doon and affir that they have bredde and 
drynke whanne dirige is doon And aftir that my soule and 
my body be departed I charge yow myn executours that it be 
kept w' v pore folk men and women and eche of hem to have 
ij d and here mete and they sey oure lady sawter Item that I 
have vij tapres eche of half a Ib and iiij or of hem lete brenne 
abowte me til that I be bore to church And thenne take the 
iij hole tapres and bere hem unto the iij upper Auters in my 
parissh churche And the other iiij tapres that are brent be 
sette upon the iiij or lower Auters And thanne forthw' a dirige 
by note and xiij massis on the morow and xiij pore men and 
women with here children to here the service ther of And 
they to sey oure lady sawter Item I bequethe to the person 
for sey ing and syngynge atte my dirige viij d Also to every 
prest doynge the holy service for me with massis and all iiij d 
And every pore man and woman a j d and here mete in the 
parissh Also whenne the cors is leid in the erthe that all the 
prestes assoille the body undir here seele Also I wol have 
every day this monyth folowyng iij massis of the Trinite of 
our lady and of the holy gost and iij pore men and women to 
here tho massis seying oure lady sawter And every prest 
shal have j d And every pore man j d Also I wol that every 
day in thik month the vij tapres brenne atte messe tyme in the 
worshipe of the sacrament And that the prey for me by 
name And that the tapres be renewed til the month be endet 
And atte ye month is ende I wol have xiij masses and xiij pore 
men and women seying oure lady sawter And I woll that 
every prest have j d And every pore man and woman 
of hem a j d and a lowe dirige And every prest therat 
ij d And so every monthes ende duryng xij month 
sewynge xiij masses and xiij pore men and women 
seying oure lady sawter and every prest a j d And every 
pore man and woman a j d Also more over it is my 
ful will and I wol have yerely every xij monthis ende a 
messe of requiem and a lowe dirige withoutenote and 
xiij pore men and women heryng the servys of the parissh 
seyng oure lady sawter havynge bredde and ale as the maner 
is til the summe of xli be spent for my soule and the soules of 


my fadir and modir and of trew cristen peple and al my gode 
doers that I have ferd the better fore And that this be 
contynued til this seid x" be fully spent and more over if god 
sent it yow Item I bequethe to the almes of pore peple vij 1 ' 
of money this vij u to be fully spent in this maner use that ye 
hire an hors and ley ther in xiij quartres of coles and a m 1 of 
bilet and dispose 'it thus to pore folk yef ther of litel and litel 
to pore folk. They that have wife and children delyvre hem 
ij busshels and xx" billetes And they that have no children a 
busshell and x billettes And al one man or al one woman 
half a busshell and v billettes and let hem be refresshed often 
sithes to the somme yerely of xvij s vj d and more over if god 
send it til the somme of vij 1 ' be fully spent and more and god 
sent it yow Item I bequethe iiij ridelles to the iiij lowe 
auters with wepyng eyen with this poysy writen ther upon 
Declina a malo et fac bonum Also I bequethe to Anneys my 
wife in money x u and the bedde that I lye in and al that 
perteyneth to the seid bedde Also a coverlit and a testre of 
tapicers werk that sumtyme was Danyells and half a doz of 
peuter vessell that is to wete yj platers and vj saucers and al 
burdcloth and a towell of diaprewerk and ij paire shetes Item 
a basyn and a laver countrefait Item a grene gown furred 
with libbards and a medley gowne furred w' bevir and othir 
and a ridyng of medley Item I bequeth unto my sister a 
maser with a beryng bonde with a p'nt a mydds of silver and 
overgilt Item and iij silver sponys marked with ermyn tailles 
and a basyn and a laver and every yere an noble whil she 
lyveth to pray for me and al cristen Also I bequethe to 
the same to the sams hous of nonnes of Mergate other iij 
silver sponys to the use of the covent perpetuall to prye for 
me and all cristen Item I bequethe to Jonet Fuller my 
servant xiii s viij d Item I bequeth to Robert Tharcot my 
servant that was xiij s iiij d To Gillion on London brigge 
yj 9 viij d Item to Thomas Brambill vj s viij d Item I bequethe 
unto Symkyn Gold and his wife a coverlite of tapiceys werk 
w' a lyon and lebard and I bequethe to the same Symkyn an 
harnysshed gurdill with a blakke cors y harnesshed rounde a 
bowte Also I forgife William Smyth my prentys of his 
termes an yere and an half so that he truly labor to gete in my 
dettes to the executours and that he be undir governance of 
Clement Liffyn duryng the said termys. And I bequethe to the 
same William Smyth whan his termes be come up xl s Also I 


relesse of certeyn sommes of money that is owed of sondry 
persons of detters Furst I relesce unto John Walron of the 
somme of xxvj 1 ' vj s viij d I forgife hym vi" vi s viij d so that he 
pay xx n every weke xij d and atte the quarter ende x s wikely and 
quarterly til xx 1 ' be ml paied Item I forgif John Mark 
of xx 1 ' v 1 ' the seid John to paye xv 1 ' to myn executours 
withynne the quarter folowynge aftir my decesse Item I 
forgive the same mark of an obligacion that Adrian Grove and 
he is bounde to me in of xij 1 ' of sterling xl s to be paied in the 
forme aforesaid Item I forgife John Everard al that he oweth 
me Item to John Lord I forgife x s of Caunterbury Item 
Middilton gentilman of Feversham I forgife him al his dette 
to me ward unto xx s Item William Covinton of Feversham 
I forgife him xxxv 1 ' every peny Item Gors of the Kynges 
benche I forgife hym of xiij 1 ' vj s viij d in to vij 1 ' vj s viij d Item 
John Everton undirporter of the Tour I forgife hym xi s Item 
John Hill of Maideston 1 foryife him all his dette Item 
John Costantyn sherman I forgife xliiij 5 Thomas Scotte draper 
of xij 1 ' that he oweth me I foryeve hym unto iiij 1 ' Richard 
Shudd draper I forgife him al his dette Thomas Hamond of 
Caleys of ix 1 ' xiij 5 iiij d that he oweth me I forgeve him unto 
v 1 ' Item William Dormyk of Caleys oweth me vj s viii d I 
foryeve hit him Item Hwe servant of the Staple I foryeve 
hym all his dette Item Downe draper I forgife hym al his 
dette Item Nicholas Mondy I foryeve hym that he oweth 
me unto xx 1 ' And therof I yeve hym this ij yere day of 
payment aftir my decesse to paye myn Executours and that 
he be delyvered out of prisoun Also I gife Wynter of Caun- 
terbury my best harnesshed girdell with a blew cors Of this 
present testament I make overseer William Parker draper And 
myn executours I make Clement Lyfyn draper and William 
Reresby draper And I gef either of hem for her labour iiij 
nobles every of hem iij to their part Also I gyf my fadir an 
hanger harnesshed with silver Item I gife my modir the 
best pece of lynnyn cloth that I have over that that beleveth 
over my wyndyng cloth The residue of my godes noght 
bequoth aftir that the will of my testament be fulfilled and my 
dettes paid I wol that hit be disposed for my soule and al 
cristen aftir the will of myn exec In witnes herof I putte to 
my seel And the gode that be sette to my wife I wol that 
hir fadir have it in governaunce Also I wol that Richard 
Shudd draper have al his gere ayeyn that he toke me in 


E < 

2 ; 




plegge and that he pray for me I writen and made the yere 
and the day afore rehersed 

Proved [no date given]. This will was afterwards declared 
void, and its registration was cancelled. 


In the name of God amen The xiij day of Septembre in 
the yeer of our Lord mcccc and on I Thomas Latymere of 
Braybrok a fals knyt to God 8 thankyng God of hys mercy 
havynghe siche mynde as he vouchit saff desyryngge that 
Goddes wyl be fulfillyd in me and in alle godys that he hath 
taken me to kepe ant to thaat make I my testament in this 
maner Furst I knowlyche on worthy to bequethyn to hym 
any thhyngge of my power and therfore i preye to hym 
mekely of hys grace that he wole take so pore a present as my 
wrecchud soule ys in to hys mercy thorw the besechyngeof his 
blyssyd modyr and hys holy seyntys and my wruchud body to 
be buryid were that evere i dye in the nexte chirche yerd God 
vouchesaff and naut in the churche but in the uttereste corner 
as he that ys unworthi to lyn therinne save the mercy of God 
and that ther be non maner of cost don aboute my biryngge 
neyther in mete nether in dryngg non in no other thynge but 
yt be to any swych on that nedyth it after the lawe of God 
save twey taperc of wex and anon as i be ded thud me in the 
erthe Also my wull ys pryncipaliche that my dedtes be 
payed that ys to seye thre maner of dettes the furste dette ys 
that i have borwyd of anyman or bout of any man or taken of 
any man and not payed therfore thys dette my wille ys to be 
payed furst the secunde dette ys to paye my servauntes 
here hyr that serven me or han servyd me and over that they 
be rewardyd by good discrecion be the oversite of Anne 
Latymer my wyve and Sire Lowes Clyffbrd and after the con- 
dicions that they standyn inne that ys to se afater the lengthe 
in ther servyce and after the bysynesse and the sor travayle 
and after that they han ben rewardyd more or lesse and also 
as they ben straunge or han fewe frendys or havyngge 
syknesse or elde or other poverte and most special as they ben 
of condicion and nedy and also havyng reward to the quantyte 
of the goodes that leve behynde me the thrydde ys to my 

1 P.C.C. 2 Marche. 

8 The pious clauses of this will have their own interest, seeing that Sir 
Thomas was suspect of Lollardy. 


tenauntes of thys condition that yyff any tenaunt of myn that 
hatt payed me ony sylver be it freyngge of her bodies or of 
here children or dowtris leve to wedde or sones to ben 
prestys or any man that hath made fyn for hous or lond or 
any other swych yyff they be lettyd thorw Edward my 
brother or oni other that ys myn eyr after me i wul thanne 
that the reversion of Caldensland and the reversion that was 
Jons of Trafford be solde be Anne mi wyfe and restitucion be 
mad to the seyd men or wymmen Also my wille is thys that 
yyff ther be ani tenaunt man or woman longynge to lorschipe 
the qwhech i schuld have be servant to that been poor and 
feble por and blynde por and crokyd thanne after her nede 
and after the quantite of godis and after here condicion than 
be discrecion of the forsayde Anne and Lowes that they be 
reward and ferthermore it is mi wille that alle the londes that 
holde in fe symple ether be heritage or be purchas in fee or in 
reversion that is in feffies handis after mi decces that they 
feffe Anne mi wyf in that forseyd londes the terme of hir life 
And yiff it so be that Edward Latimer mi brother wul holde 
the covenauntes that he hat behight to me that is to seye that 
enpeche not Anne Latimer mi wyff of the Castell of Braybrok 
ne of the maner wyth londes rentis avuouesons of chirche and 
chapel and the Westhalle fee with alle other purchases and 
alle the portynaunce w hem but lete hir holde it paysabeliche 
as as (sic) I have holden it ant conferme covenauntes that i have 
maad the wiche ben rehersid bi foore thanne the forsayde 
feffees to feffe Edward Latimer and eyris of his bodi Also 
this is my wull that yf Anne Latimer mi wiffe dye in myn 
absens or elles whan ever likith to hir to make a testament 
algates that the dettes aforesayd beyn payd that hire wulle be 
fullyd as fere forth as myn owene And if Edward Latimer my 
brother holde naut these covenauntes thanne reversion of the 
forsayde londes after the deces of the forsayd Anne to be sold 
and don for alle cristen soules be the disposicion of the forsayde 
Anne and Lowes And to thys testament treweliche executen 
ordeyne and do principaliche I desir and preye Anne Latimer 
mi wiff and Sire Lowes Clifford the on or bothe to been of 
overseers of alle these thyngges be fulfullid after the lawe of God 
myn executors of this testament I preie Thomas Wakeleyn 
Herry Sleyer Richard Marmion John Pulton and Janyn 
Baker and this be don in the name and in the worschip of 
God Amen 

Proved 20 April 1402. 



In the name of god Amen the xiij day of July in the yeor 
of our lord m mo cccc" 10 and ij I Anne Latymer thankyng god 
of his mercy havyng siche mynde as he voucheth saff desiring 
that godes wil be fulfild in me and in alle goodes that hath take 
me to kepe and to that entent make my testament in this 
maner. First I be take my soule in to the hondes of god 
preynge to hym mekely of his grace that he wole take so pore a 
present as my wrechud soule is to his mercy And I wole my 
body to be beried at Braybroke beside my lord myn hosebonde 
Thomas Latymer yiff god wole. Also I be quethe to 
reparacioun of the caunsel and of the parsonage of the chirche 
of Braybroke xl s Also to make the brigge that my lord bygan 
xl s Also I bequethe xx u to be deled to nedy pore men and 
knowen by the discrecioun of the overseers and executores of 
my testament Also to Roger my brother xl s Also to 
Alysoun Bretoun v marks Also to Kalyn Okham xx* Also 
to Anneys xx 5 Also to Magote Deye xx s Also to Thomas 
Fetplas xxvj s viij d Also to John Pissoford x s Also to Robert 
Koke vj s viij d Also to Wyllyam my brother man iij s iiij d 
Also to Wyllam Leycestrechyre x s Also I bequethe xl s to be 
departide among the remenant of my servauntes by the dis- 
crecioun of the executres and overseers of this testament 
The residue off my goodes I wole to be solde and deled to 
nedy pore men after the lawe of good by avisse and dis- 
crecioun of the overseers and executores of this testament 
And to this testament trewly executen ordeyne and do 
princypaly I desire and prey maystre Philipp Abbot of 
Leycestre and syre Lowes Clifford and Robert parson of 
Braybroke to be overseers that alle these thynges ben fulfild 
after the lawe of god. Myn executores of this testament I 
praye S r Robert Lethelade parson of Kynmerton Thomas 
Wakeleyn S r Henry Slayer parson of Warden and John 
Pulton. And thes be don in the name and in the worschepe 
of god Amen In wytnesse of this this (V) testament I 
seele wyth my scale thes wytnesse S r Robert prest of Bray- 
broke Thomas Fetplas and Alysoun Bretoun. Wrete the 
yeer and day befor seyde 

Proved 27 Oct. 1402. 

G. H. 

1 P.C.C. 3 Marche. 



THE letters of Giovanni Moro, Venetian Ambassador 
to the Court of France in 1583, and of Carlo Birago, a 
secret agent of Catherine de Medici, throw a very different 
light on the intrigues of Marguerite of Valois more particu- 
larly on that between her and Harlay de Chanvallon to that 
which the flattery of Brantome or of Sainte-Beuve give us. 

It must be confessed that a large part of the history of 
Queen Marguerite deals largely with her amours with various 
personages, from the Marquis de Canillac to her cook. And 
the following letters, found some years ago in an old chateau 
among the papers in the possession of a family which bore a 
prominent part in the events of that time, reveal a no more 
creditable part of her history. They deal however with a 
period of her life which has long been dark and obscured : to 
wit, the events which took place between her flight from Agen 
in 1585 to her captivity of eighteen years in the Castle of 

The worthy Brant6me and Sainte-Beuve have followed 
Marguerite into the shadows, ignorant of the secret springs 
of action, the evidences of which stand revealed to us to-day. 
A bundle of old faded letters often throws more light on past 
events than all the lucubrations of the schoolmen and pro- 
fessors. There are parts in the history of nations which have 
never been written, and perhaps never will be, for to the his- 
torian of the day only a minute portion of the evidence was 
available, and of the mass of evidence existent, little perhaps 
now remains. The contents of a secret drawer may upset all 
the theories and ideas which have been stereotyped for the 
last three hundred years. 

If the archives of the Vatican ever gave up their dead, what 
a revolution in history may take place. What secrets repose 
there, and how much unwritten history lies in the secret cor- 
respondence of Catherine de Medici in the Venetian archives, 
or is mouldering away in the garrets of many an old French 
and Spanish chateau. 

Among the crowd of shades whose voiceless phantoms flit 


across a ghostly stage, two figures stand forward in the dim 
twilight Mary Stuart and Marguerite of Valois third of 
the group of Marguerites ; daughter of Henry II. of France 
and Catherine de Medici : sister of Francis II., Charles IX., 
and Henry III., wife of Henry IV. of France and Navarre 
' The daughter, sister, and wife, of Kings.' 

To understand the character of Marguerite aright, one 
must remember the state of religious and social life in France 
at the time. It is not generally realized that the term ' Hugue- 
not ' itself bears a very different meaning in the sixteenth to 
that which it does in the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries. 
In the time of Marguerite of Valois and her husband Henry 
of Navarre, the term embraced two parties, religious and 
political ; those who embraced the doctrines of the Refor- 
mation, or rather of Protestantism, and were prepared to 
sacrifice everything for liberty of conscience ; and those who 
joined the party of Navarre, either from dissatisfaction with 
the existing state of things, or from feudal attachment to the 
kingdom of Navarre : the latter section carrying with them 
the majority of the noblesse of Gascony. And this fact ex- 
plains many of the apparent inconsistencies we find at this 
period. There were also three parties in France. The 
Ultramontane or Spanish, prepared to sacrifice all to ortho- 
doxy the party of the House of Guise and the Huguenots 
the latter not strictly synonymous with Protestantism, 
for it included many of Henry's feudal nobility, personal 
friends, and ministers, who while remaining Catholics sup- 
ported the cause of Navarre. 

The rank and file of the Huguenots were of course Pro- 
testants : largely the inhabitants of the towns the energetic, 
sober, well-to-do middle classes : the French puritans. It 
was in fact the leaning of the French puritans towards repub- 
licanism and secularisation of the estates of the church, which 
alienated many of the Gallican party in the church, who in 
the first conflicts, during the reign of Francis I., were disposed 
to toleration, and a measure of reform, while leaving to them- 
selves freedom from Italian temporal interference, and the 
enjoyment of their dignity and estates. 

Henry could scarcely be classed with the puritans his 
wife was a catholic and the Court at Pau and Nerac took its 
character from the king and queen : changed from the 
austere piety of Jeanne d'Albret and Beza. 


' Our Court,' savs Marguerite in her Memoirs, ' was so 
fair and agreeable, that we did not envy that of France. I 
had around me many ladies and maids-in-waiting, and my 
husband was attended by a gallant following of lords and 
gentlemen, in whom there was no fault to find, except that 
they were Huguenots.' Even d'Aubigne, historian of the 
Reformation, says of the Court of Nerac, ' we were all lovers 
there together.' 

The time passed, as we learn from his history, in love- 
making, intrigues, and gaiety, varied by occasional phases of 
religion. It was perhaps in one of the latter, that Marguerite 
found time to write a letter, dated from Nerac 13 January 
1583, to Jean de Galard, Sieur de Brassac, entreating him to 
set at liberty two soldiers of the Religion, whom he held under 
arrest at Brassac, contrary to the Edict of Pacification. She 
signs herself ' Votre bien bonne amie, Marguerite.' His reply 
was that they had committed theft and violence. 

This Jean de Galard was certainly a Protestant at his death, 
as appears by his ' acte de Deces,' and he died excommunicate 
from the Church of Rome. His wife, Jeanne de la Roche- 
Andry, was a Protestant and both he and his son Rene appear 
among the Protestant nobility and gentry of Angoumois, in a 
commission which laid their grievances before the king. 
Rene, his son, married Marie de la Roche-Beaucourt, and was 
ensign and afterwards lieutenant in the company of Coligny, 
and gentleman of the bed-chamber to Henry IV. In the 
following century, many of this family distinguished them- 
selves in the armies of the Prince of Orange, and the States- 

It would take too long to enter into the reasons for Mar- 
guerite's sudden removal from Nerac in 1585. She appears 
to have tired of her husband's court, especially as she had lost 
a great ally in the death of her brother the Due d'Alen9on, in 
June 1584. Her own excuse was the wish to keep Easter at 
Agen, a Catholic town, and her own personal appanage. The 
inhabitants received her with open arms, attributing her 
coming to her zeal for the Catholic religion. According to 
the chronicler she went with the laudable object of repairing 
the disorders of her past life by making war on the heretics : 
the said heretics being the subjects of her husband. She was 
joined by Lygnerac, with troops which he had raised in Quercy 
and Auvergne. While preparing however to make war on a 


small scale, she had word that the Marshal de Matignon had 
orders from her brother the King of France to arrest her. 
Finding herself between two fires, and not altogether trusting 
in the attachment of the townspeople, she began to fortify 
herself, and threw up some improvised works within the town. 
To do this, she had to demolish some houses which stood be- 
tween the Porte Neuve and the Convent of the Jacobins. 

This high-handed proceeding so exasperated the wavering 
town, that it rose in revolt ' a son de tocsain,' and massacred 
a great number of her troops. After a short conflict in the 
narrow streets, the queen's troops were overwhelmed, the 
town being aided, probably by a preconcerted plan, by the 
forces of Henry from Nerac, some twenty miles distant. She 
herself was compelled to mount in haste, en croupe, behind 
Lygnerac, attended by Jean de Lart d'Aubiac, one of her 
esquires, his sister Marguerite, the queen's maid 'of honour, 
and thirty or forty horsemen. After being pursued for two 
days by Matignon, the party escaped to the Chateau of Carlat 
in the mountains of Auvergne. Thus began the wanderings 
of the queen, which ended in the imprisonment at Usson, for 
a period of eighteen years ! 

The following letter from Joseph de Lart de Birac, bro- 
ther to d'Aubiac, to his brother-in-law, Henri de Noailles, 
gives an account of the rising in Agen, and the Queen's 

DE BIRAC, 29 Sept. 1585. 

Monsieur mon frere, comme je pensois, de jour a 1'autre envoyer en Limosin, 
pour entendre de vos nouvelles, j'ay tousjours est prevenu tant de la memoire 
du dcsastre qui nous est advenu ' en la perte du feu monsr. nostre frere, que de 
1'angoisse que j'en portois et porte, et que je prevoyois que vous et tous ses 
appartenans en portids ; si, que je ne sfavois quel chemin y prendre. Mais a 
la fin, un tres grand desir que j'ay de S9avoir de vostre estre, m'a releve' et mis 
en chemin d'y envoyer, non pas pour en ressusciter quelque chose qui vous 
puisse ou doive fascher, bien plus tost pour en mediter le sujet au del, oil il est 
si heureux et contant, que tous les grands biens qu'il promettoit le luy, fa bas, 
ne sont rien au prix de celuy qu'il jouit, mesme en ce temps calamiteux, qui 
rend la mort plus desirable que la vye. Attendant done une mesme felicit6, je 
vous requiers me departir de vos nouvelles et portement, et de vouloir faire 
tousjours estat A mon humble service, auquel vous me trouver6s dispose pour 
toute ma vye. 

Je vous advise que les habitans d'Agen se sont esleves contre la reyne de 
Navarre, a son de tocqsain, et, apres grande occision de ses gens et sur le conflit, 
elle, avertie que la victoire inclinoit pour les citoyens qui avoient forc6 un de 
ses citadelles, et maistrise la ville, reserve la citadelle des Jacobins, oil elle s'estoit 

1 Referring to the assassination of Charles de Noailles, the result of 
domestic feuds. 


retiree (quelque jours auparavant, mercredy dernier, que'cela fut execute) et la 
porte de Saint Antoine, n'eut remede que se sauver en trousse avec quarante ou 
cinquante chevaux, mon frcre estant du nombre. 

Et le lendemain, suivie par monsr. le marechal de Matignon, avec trois ou 
quatre cornettes de cavalerie ; mais il fust court, car elle avail gagne Cahors 
ou Quercy d'une traite. Mme. de Noailles, avec vos nieces, se retira"dans le 
couvent de la Nonciade, ou elle se porte tres bien, graces a Dieu ; le'quel je 
supplie, apres vous avoir bien humblement baise les mains, vous donner^Mon- 
sieur mon frere, en bonne sante heureuse et longue vie. 

Vostre humble et obeissant frere, 'BIRAC.' 

Joseph de Lart, seigneur de Birac, and his brother Jean, 
were the sons of Antoine de Lart, s r de Birac, de Galard 
d'Aubiac, and de Beaulens. The two latter baronies had 
come into the possession of the seigneurs of Birac, by the 
marriage of Gabriel, father of Antoine, with Anne de Galard, 
Dame de Beaulens and Aubiac. 

The chateau of Birac, or Virac, was built in 1152 by Ray- 
mond, first seigneur, on lands granted to him. This Raymond 
was fourth in descent from Pedro Raymond de Lar, seigneur 
de Lara, a cadet of the house of Castile and Arragon. 
Through him the present representatives of the family claim 
lineal male descent from Constantin, founder of the royal 
house of Arragon : born 525, and massacred 27 November 602. 
The fief of Birac remained in the possession of the elder 
branch until the year 1596, when it passed by the marriage of 
Henriette, heiress of Joseph de Lart, to Agesilas de Narbonne. 
It is probable that this letter was not written from Birac, 
which is thirty miles from Nerac, but from the ' Hostel ' or 
town house in Nerac, called the ' Maison de Birac,' which still 
exists ; now the many-gabled, red-tiled Convent, in the Rue 
du Pont de Lart. It stands in an enclosure of some four or 
five acres, surrounded by a high defensive wall, flanked by four 

By the end of the sixteenth century, the family had rami- 
fied into several branches, all of which espoused the cause of 
Navarre, though remaining Catholic. Bertrand, chief of the 
branch of Rigoulieres, still existing, was Chancellor of Henry 
IV. and Master of the Horse in 1624. A letter still exists 
from the king to his ' bon amy et fidele serviteur,' concerning 
a secret mission undertaken by him. In the persecutions of 
the next century, several members migrated to Holland and 
England. It is probable that Antoine de Lart, though 
claimed as a Catholic, was a Protestant. His wife was Renee 


de Costin de Bourzolles, whom he married in 1534, of a family 
which took an active part on the Protestant side. He paid 
homage to Henry of Navarre in 1538. His eldest daughter, 
Gabrielle, Baronne de Beaulens, married 2 August 1559, 
Charles de Bazon, Governor of Nerac, in the Chateau of 
Nerac, and in presence of Antoine de Bourbon and Jeanne 
d'Albret and therefore, it may be presumed, according to 
the rites of the reformed Church. His second daughter, 
before-mentioned, was maid of honour to Queen Marguerite, 
and was commonly known as ' Mademoiselle d'Aubiac.' 

The eldest son Joseph, S r de Birac, married, 25 February 
1572, Marie de Noailles, daughter of Antoine de Noailles, 
Ambassador to England in 1554, and of his wife Jeanne de 

The second son, Jean, commonly known as ' d'Aubiac,' 
gained an unenviable notoriety by his intrigue with the queen. 

According to one account he was ' un homme le plus laid 
de son temps.' However this may have been, he had every 
opportunity of falling under the sinister charms of the queen ; 
which, according to d'Aubigny, ' were so dangerous, that it 
was difficult to defend oneself when she chose to exert them.' 

The chateau and village of Aubiac is only a few miles from 
Nerac and Agen. His sister was a maid of honour, and as he 
himself became one of her equerries, he was in constant attend- 
ance at court. He is said to have exclaimed, on first setting 
eyes on the queen': ' Mon Dieu, 1'amiable personne ! Si 
j'etois jamais assez heureux pour lui plaire, je n'aurois qas 
regret a la vie : duss6 je la perdre une heure apres.' Words of 
evil omen, as events proved. 

According to La Ferriere, ' he never could have hoped, 
with his red hair, freckled skin, and rubicund nose, to become 
the lover of a daughter of France.' Cavriana, the Tuscan 
Ambassador, gives a more favourable description of him, 
viz., that he was ' noble, jeune, brave, mais audacieux et 


Marguerite succeeded in outriding her pursuers, and came 
at last to Carlat, a secluded chateau in the mountains of 
Auvergne. It belonged to a gentleman at the queen's court, 
named Lygnerac, another of her many admirers. Bazin, in 
his Etudes de VHistoire et de Biographie, says of this place of 
refuge, that it ' smelt more like a den of thieves than a resi- 


dence of a princess, a king's daughter, sister and wife.' 1 
Lygnerac, as will appear, seems to have been more of a robber 
chief than a French courtier. 

This sojourn at Carlat lasted for some months. It was 
during this time that the queen had a second child, which 
according to Bazin, ' resta sourd et muet.' 

At length the noise of this fresh scandal reached the ears 
of her brother Henry III. ; her husband, Henry of Navarre, 
apparently took no interest in his queen's doings. Henry 
was roused to even greater wrath than before, and ordered the 
arrest of Marguerite, and the execution of Aubiac : and orders 
were given to the Marquis de Beaufort-Canillac * to effect 

Word of this however came to Carlat, and the queen, 
attended by d' Aubiac, his sister and a few others, left Carlat 
hurriedly for Iboy, a place belonging to Catherine de Medici, 
as Comtesse d'Auvergne. Lygnerac, seeing that things had 
come to a crisis, and probably being jealous of Aubiac, threw 
off all disguise, and treated the queen with contempt and 
harshness, as appears by a letter quoted by Guessard in 
Memoires de Marguerite de Falois. 

La verit est telle, que le sieur de Lignerac, pour quelque mescontantement 
et jalousie qu'il a eu de la royne de Navarre, qu'elle ne se saisit du Chasteau, 1'a 
chassee : et si vous cognoissies 1'humour de 1'home, vous penseries que c'est une 
quinte aussy tost prise aussy tost executee. II a retenu quelque bagues en paie- 
ment, come il dist, de dix mil livres qu'il a despendus pour elle, qui, apres avoir 
bien conteste en son esprit, se resolut de s'en aller a Millefleur, et se mit en 
chemin a pied avec Aubiac et une femme ; 3 puys sur le chemin fut mise sur un 
cheval de bast ; et apres dans une charette a beufs, et come elle fut dans ung 
village nome Colombe, un gentilhome nome Langlas, qui estoit lieutenant dans 
Usson luy offrit le chasteau, et 1'y mena. Aussi tost qu'elle y fust arrive, luy 
mesme s'en va trouver le marquis de Canillac 4 a Saint-Hicques, qui monte a 
cheval, et s'estant faict ouvrir la porte, il demande ledict Aubiac cache entre les 
murailles. II le prend, et le met entre les mains d'ung prevost. Le marquis 
despescha incontinent le jeune Monmaurin au Roy et a la Royne mere. 
***** * 

A full account of the flight and capture is given in the 
following letter of Henri de Noailles to his mother (nee Jeanne 
de Gontaut), dated 29 October 1586. 

1 Sentant plus sa tanniere de larrons, que la demeure d'une princesse, fille, 
soeur et femme des rois. 

3 Jean Timoleon De Beaufort-Montboissier. 
3 Marguerite de Lart de Birac. 
* Canillac was Governor of Usson. 


Nous somes encore en ses carders attendant le retour de monsieur le marquis 
de Canillac, qui n'est encores venu de k Lymaigne, ou il alia apres la royne de 
Navarre, ayant sceu du chemin, come nous venions de dessa, qu'elle estoit panic 
soubdainement de Carlat, pour prendre ceste routte avecq peu de gens. Je ne 
vous mandois rien par ma precedents despeche, faicte a Margoulles, du comance- 
ment de ceste tragedie, parce que je pensois que La Font, que j'attendois plus- 
tost qu'il ne vint, deut estre a vous un jour ou deux apres, et me remettant 
encores a ce que vous en pourres apprandre de luy, je vous diray seulement 
cependant en sommaire que la farsse est telle que celuy qui 1'avoit conduite a 
Carlat, ayant heu oppinion qu'on le voulloit chasser, de la prenant ce pretexte, 
il se randit metre de la place et dit a Marion qu'il failhoit que Foncle cFTsabeau 
sautat le rochier, nouvelle qui luy fut si rude qu'elle se tresva bien en peine, et 
apres avoir garanty par prieres et aultrement ce personnaige, elle ayma mieux 
vuyder et changer de place que demeurer la sans luy. Et ayant prins son chemin 
en crouppe derriere luy, et accompaignee encore de Cambon, de Lignerac et de 
quelques aultres de sa maison, de ses filhes et Mademoyselle d'Aubiac, elle se 
retira a un chasteau pres Lancher, qui est a la royne mere du roy, appele Yvoy, 
ou, pour estre suyvie de fort pres par ledit sieur marquis, avec quarante on 
cinquante gentilshommes, qui avoit commandement du roy de s'ensaisir, elle 
se trouve tant surprinse qu'elle fut contrainte d'ousvrir la porte apres avoir faict 
un peu semblant de se deffandre, et Aubiac, qui s'estoit desguyse pour se sauver, 
fut recognu et mene 1 a une maison du diet sieur marquis, appelde Saint Cirque, 
et la dite Marion a une petite ville aupres en attendant k volonte du roi, vers 
qui le diet sieur marquis avoit despeche, et croys que cek le retient, mais on 
n'attend 1'heure qu'il arrive. On dit que cette paouvre princesse est si eplorie 
qu'elle s'arrache tous les cheveux. Lynerac 1'a traictee fort cruellement et 
contraincte de payer juscques au dernier denier de tout ce qu'il lui a mis en avant 
qu'elle luy debvoit et contraincte de luy kisser des gaiges. Jugez le bien qu'elle 
en doibt dire. A la verite, cek est estrange. Je croy qu'on la gardera bien 
asteure de courre. 

Henry de Noailles adds the following postscript to this 
letter : 

D'ORLAC, il Novembre 1586. 

P-S. J'ay depuis veu Monsr. de Bournazel, qui m'a dit que Mile, de Birac 
s'estoit retiree a Saint Vitour avec cent escus qu'on luy donna. II m'a confirm^ 
comme Marion est fort ^plor^edese voir prinse : Aubiac est entre les mains du 
prevost, ne sachant encores ce qu'il doit devenir. On attendoit des nouvelles 
du roy : cependant la dite Marion est a une petite ville appelee Saint-Amand, 
avec cent harquebuziers de garde. On m'a fait voir une belle lettre qu'elle 
avoit escrite durant son siege, dont je n'ay heu le loisir de tirer encore copie. 

In these trying circumstances, Marguerite wrote several let- 
ters to her brother the King of France, her mother, Catherine 

1 Marguerite of Navarre. 

> L'onde d'Ysabeau, i.e. d'Aubiac. Ysabeau was one of the four daughters 
of his brother Joseph de Lart and Marie de Noailles : commonly known as 
Ysabeau de Lart de Galard. 


de Medici, and to M. de Sarlan, makre d'hotel of the latter. 
One is worth quoting as showing the curious mixture in her 
character. Reading it by itself, with no knowledge of the real 
state of affairs, one would imagine the queen to have been the 
most virtuous, persecuted and unfortunate of mortals. 

A Monsieur de Sarlan. 

Monsieur de Sarlan, puisque la cruaute de mes malheurs et ce ceux a qui je 
ne rendis jamais que services est si grande que, non contens des indignites que 
depuis tant d'annees ils me font pastir, (ils) veulent poursuivre ma vie jusques 
a la fin, je desire au moms, avant ma mort, avoir ce contentement que la Royne 
ma mere sache que j'ay eu assez de courage pour ne tomber vive entre les mains 
de mes ennemys, vous protestant que je n'en manquerai jamais. Assurez 1'en, 
et la premiere nouvelle qu'elle aura de moy sera ma mort. Soubs son asseurement 
et commandement je m'estois sauvee chez elle, et au lieu de bon traicte- 
ment que je m'y promettois, je n'y ay trouve que honteuse ruine. 

Patience ! elle m'a mise au monde, elle m'en veut oster. Si sais-je bien je 
suis entre les mains de Dieu ; rien ne m'adviendra centre sa vollonte ; j'ay ma 
fiance en luy et recevrai tout de sa main. Vostre plus fidele et meilleure amye, 


d'Aubiac had not long to wait before he knew his fate : 
the Marquis de Canillac carried out the king's commands, 
and took the opportunity of removing two other aspirants to 
the queen's favour at the same time. 

d'Aubiac was hung a few weeks later at Aigueperce, and 
with him also Bussey d'Amboise and Lamolle. He died with 
a piece of blue velvet sleeve in his hand, which he never ceased 
to kiss to the last all that remained to him of the queen's 

The queen apparently was for the time so overcome with 
grief that she omitted to carry out the alarming threats of her 
letter. She however composed a sonnet to d'Aubiac. 

The captivity of Usson, which lasted for eighteen years, 
during which time her husband, Henry of Navarre, had ' pur- 
chased Paris for a Mass,' had been divorced from his wife, and 
remarried to Marie de Medici, has been variously described. 
Some historians, who ascribe all the virtues to the queen, 
describe the Castle of Usson as ' Mount Tabor pour sa devo- 
tion, un Libanon pour sa solitude, un Olympe pour ses ex- 
ercises, un Parnasse pour ses Muses, et un Caucasus pour ses 
afflictions.' One other however, Matthieu, not content with 
enumerating the above, gives himself away by adding 'un 
Citheren pour ses amours.' 

Certain it is that Canillac fell a victim to the fascinations 


of Marguerite. Pere Hilarion de Coste tells us that 'he 
imagined he was going to conquer her, and one sight of her 
ivory arm conquered him.' 

Others with fulsome adulation, liken Usson to Noah's Ark : 
a sacred temple of purity and peace ! Alas for history ! 
what are we to believe ? There are others who tell us that 
Usson was not all that the panegyrists painted it. 

The characters who acted their little parts in these events 
have long been dust : but the strange figure of the Queen of 
Navarre still lives. The sun of Gascony shines warm on the 
red roofs and grey walls of Nerac, and of Aubiac away on the 
hills above the Auvignon. But no archers tread the crum- 
bling battlements, or mailed knights clatter up the narrow 
streets. The little town sleeps in quiet after centuries of 
storm and stress, undisturbed by sound of shot or clash of 
steel. The pigeons which bask on the warm tiles of the con- 
vent are almost the only sign of life about the place, which 
breathes an atmosphere as of immemorial chant and psalm. 

The blank casements of Carlat and Iboy stare across the 
sunny vineyards like the dead eyes of those who have no part 
or lot henceforth in anything that is done under the sun. But 
the cicada unceasingly shrills in the grass, the lizards flicker 
among the stones, and a cool Pyrenaean breeze sings in the 
ilex, and speaks of life. 

In spite of all this queen was beloved. To this day in the 
Auvergne her memory is cherished by the peasantry. ' Entrez 
dans la plus pauvre chaumiere, isolee, perdue dans les mon- 
tagnes, on vous parlera d'elle. Marguerite est passee a P6tat 
de legende : elle le doit au souvenir de ses bienfaits.' 




TO deduce correctly the descent of notable families, and 
to discover their alliances during the first couple of 
centuries after the Conquest, is not only to render a genuine 
service to history, but to accomplish the most difficult of 
tasks. Over a later period the importance of genealogy goes 
on steadily diminishing, as the materials for it increase. The 
great Calendars of the Patent and Close Rolls, for mediaeval 
England, are on the verge of completion, and the revision of 
his Complete Peerage will soon be possible for the last new 
and appreciative citizen of the empire, under his own distant 

falm tree. He will find, for instance in one of his green 
atent Roll volumes, a ' Notification,' dated 20 February 
1314-5, 'that Ida, late the wife of John de Clynton, widow, is 
the first born daughter, and one of the four daughters of Wil- 
liam de Oddyngesele, deceased,' and from the volumes, which 
we are promised, of Calendars of ' Inquisitions post mortem 
and analogous documents,' he will doubtless be able to satisfy 
his curiosity as to her ancestry and her inheritance. All that 
I have to do, in other words, is to summarize, as briefly as 
possible, what is already or what will shortly be in print. 

I had promised myself, at this point, an excursus upon the 
doctrine of ' ennobling blood,' tending to show that, if Ida 
de Clinton's posterity have, without interruption, received 
summons to parliament, the reason is to be sought not only 
in their landed estate, to which she signally contributed, but 
in her illustrious parentage on both sides. There was also 
something to be said in explanation of the Irish affinities of 
her immediate kinsfolk ; but inasmuch as the Clintons them- 
selves remained English, and the earlier pedigree is in no 
way essential to establishing the match between John de 
Clinton (V.) and Ida his wife, I have decided to let these 
attractive side inquiries go. 

After a distinguished career elsewhere, including service 
in Scotland, William de Oddingeseles was appointed justiciary 
of Ireland, 19 October 1294. On 28 October in the same 


year the custody of the castle of Donymegan was committed 
to him, and on 25 November following he had a grant, for his 
service, ' of the land and castle of Donymegan in Connaught, 
Ireland, in fee, by the service of two knights' fees.' He died, 
19 April 1295, at least that is the date, according to the 
Chancellor's Roll (Irish Cal.), on which his salary ceased and 
his successor's began. His lands in England were thereupon 
seised into the king's hands, and on 12 May 1295 two writs 
issued, the one of diem clausit, while the other recites, that it 
has been shown on the part of Ela, late the wife of William 
de Oddingeseles, tenant in chief, deceased, that, whereas she 
was enfeoffed with the said William in the manor of Olton, 
and of certain land, etc., in Solihull, co. Warwick, nevertheless 
it has been taken into the king's hands, as though William 
had died seised thereof in fee. 

Two inquisitions were taken in response to the writ of 
diem clausit, in the counties of Herts and Warwick respectively. 
By the former taken Monday the morrow of the Holy 
Trinity, 23 Edward I. (23 May 1295), it was found that 
William died seised in fee, in the town of Pyritone, of a mes- 
suage, 2OOa. arable, loa. mowing meadow, loa. pasture, 
services of bondmen, loa. wood, rent of assize, profits of courts 
and half a water-mill, held of Robert de Pynkeny by homage ; 
and that Edmund de Oddingeseles, his son and heir, is twenty- 
two years old. 

By the Warwickshire inquisition taken at Makstok, Tuesday 
after the Holy Trinity, 23 Edward I. (24 May 1295), it was 
found that he held the manors and advowsons of Solyhull and 
Makstok, namely moieties thereof of Sir Hugh de Oddynge- 
seles, by service of half a knight's fee, and the other moieties 
of Sir Robert de Pynkeny, by service of a pair of gilt spurs and 
by service of a quarter of a knight's fee respectively. He had 
fourteen free tenants at Merston and Cotes, held of the earl 
of Oxford, by one twelfth of a knight's fee. He was patron 
of the church of Arley, held of Sir Hugh de Oddyngeseles. 
Theobald de Nevyle and John Hastang held a knight's fee 
of him in Buddebrok, which he held of Hugh de Oddynge- 
seles. On the day of his death his son Edmund was his heir, 
and of full age, who had since died. The said Edmund had 
four sisters, Ida, Ela, Alice and Margaret. Margaret is under 
age ; she was eighteen years old at Whitsun last (15 May 


With regard to the claim advanced by Ela, his widow, it 
was found by another inquisition taken also at Makstok, and 
on the same day, that she was so seised for four and a half 
years before William's death, to hold to them and William's 
heirs, of the fee of Hugh de Oddingeseles, belonging to half 
a knight's fee held of the said Hugh in Solyhull and Makstok. 
She was also jointly enfeoffed with William of \2d. yearly 
rent in Makstok, of the fee of Sir Robert de Pynkeneye, as 
above. William and Ela bought the said tenements of the 
tenants of the same William, which tenements were charged 
with z8s. to the said William and his heirs yearly before the 
said William and Ela bought them. 

The above findings are eloquent of the origins of the 
endowment of this branch of the Oddingeseles' family, a 
matter, however, upon which we are agreed not to enlarge. 
For the rest, it is evident from the returns, that William de 
Oddingeseles was a mesne tenant, and that the king had no 
title to wardship or marriage in respect of any of his lands 
of any of his lands, that is to say, in England. But how about 
the castle and land of Donymegan in Ireland, of which we 
have already heard ? We are still so much at the beginnings 
of history, that it was, to all appearance, a test case, which 
we find stated accordingly, as follows 

Edward par la grace de dieu roi Dengleterre seigneur Dirland et dues Daqui- 
tayne au Tresorer et as Barons del Escheker salutz. Nous auons entendu que 
Guillame Doddingeseles qui est a dieu comande ne tynt de nous en chief terres 
ne tenementez en Engleterre ne ailleurs le iour quil moreust fors qe tantseulement 
celes qui nous li donames en Irland ne gueres auant le Noel precheinement 
passez a tenir de nous en chief. Et pur ce que nous en voloms estre certefiez plus 
pleinement par aucunes reesons vous mandoms que sur ce faciez serchier et re- 
garder nos roules et les remembrances del Escheker Et puis ce qui vous enaurez 
troue ensemblement vos descrecions si par reeson du dit doun deuons selonc la ley 
et lusage de notre roiaume auer la garde del heir et des terres quil tenoit par tot 
en notre roiaume en Engleterre et ailleurs ou noun, nous faciez sauoir destincte- 
ment souz le seal de notre Escheker auantdit. Don' desouz notre priue seal a 
Keleseyn le. viij. iour de Juyn Ian de notre regne . xxiij. (8 June 1295). 

The above document is, at present, filed up with the three 
inquisitions which we have already abstracted (Chancery 
Inquisitions post mortem, ist Series, 23 Edward I. first numbers 
No. 130). The reply, whatever its nature, returned by the 
Exchequer officials, was not held to be decisive, and, pending 
a final decision, a modus vivendi was arrived at within the 
following month, as appears by two writs preserved in the 


series known as ' Escheators ' Inquisitions. Citra Trentam. 
23 Edward I Nos. 8 and 9 : 

Edwardus, etc. Quia de gratia nostra speciali concessimus Ide, Ele, Alicie, 
et Margarete, filiabus et heredibus Willelmi de Oddingeseles, nuper defuncti, 
per manucaptionem Philippi de Verney et Johannis de la Wade, duas panes 
omnium terrarum et tenementorum cum pertinenciis de quibus idem Willelmus 
fuit seisitus in dominico suo ut de feodo in balliva vestra die quo obiit et que 
post mortem ejusdem Willelmi in manum nostram cepistis, tenendum usque 
ad proximum parliamentum nostrum, ita quod de exitibus inde provenientibus 
nobis totaliter respondeant, si ad nos pertinere debeant ; vobis mandamus 
quatinus prefatis heredibus predictas duas partes omnium terrarum et tene- 
mentorum predictorum cum pertinenciis liberari faciatis in forma predicta, 
tenendum per manucaptionem predictam. Teste W. Bathoniensi et Wellensi 
episcopo, thesauarario nostro, apud Westmonasterium, secundo die Julii, anno 
regni nostri xxiij (2 July 1295). Endorsed ij die Julii apud London' mittitur 
subescaetori in comitatibus Hertf, Warr', Staff, et Rotel'. 

And again 

Edwardus, etc., Quia Johannes de Clinton junior et Philippus de Verney, 
qui sequuntur pro Ida, Ela, Alicia et Margareta, filiabus et heredibus Willelmi 
de Oddingeseles defuncti coram Thesaurario et baronibus nostris de scaccario 
concesserunt quod tercia pars omnium terrarum et tenementorum cum per- 
tinenciis, de quibus idem Willelmus fuit seisitus in dominico suo ut de feodo in 
balliva vestra, die quo obiit, et que per mortem ejusdem Willelmi in manum 
nostram jam cepistis per nos assignetur Ele, que fuit uxor prefati Willelmi in 
dotem ; vobis mandamus, etc. Date and endorsement as above, with ' ita quod 
. . . capiat sacramentum ' added. 

We may venture, I think, without injustice to the condi- 
tions then, or at any other time prevalent in Ireland, to suppose 
that something in the nature of a dispute had, in all probability, 
led to the extinction of the male line of Oddingeseles ; that 
the father, a fighting man, was killed outright, and that the 
son succumbed to his wounds. Two lives at any rate of 
William de Oddingeseles' coheirs were, it seems, exterminated 
in the same country in like fashion within the next fifty years. 

Of the four coheirs of William de Oddingeseles, Ida the 
eldest married, as we already know, John de Clinton, styled 
' the younger,' ' of Amington,' presumably after his mother's 
decease (see vol. viii. p. 190), and ' of Maxstoke ' not yet a 
castle licence to ' crenellate ' was only granted in 1345, as 
we shall see, after his marriage. At what date they were 
married does not appear. The mention of him, just above, 
as suing at the Exchequer on behalf of the sisters, suggests 
that he was married to Ida before the deaths of her father and 
brother. If the dates are correct and the identity established 


in the manner suggested in the previous volume, he was a 
man of close upon forty in 1295, his birth dating back to 1258. 
Ida's brother, on the other hand, was aged twenty- two at his 
death, was born that is to say about 1273, while her third 
and youngest sister was apparently born on 15 May 1277. 
We may accordingly assume that Ida herself was born about 
1270, and that she was married about 1290 to a man twelve 
years her senior. I do not however believe, with the dates 
of the subsequent pedigree before me, that her son and heir 
was born before 1300. It is accordingly possible that she 
was still unmarried at the age of twenty-five, that the deaths 
of the males of her house and her accession to fortune brought 
suitors, and that when she was thirty and her husband forty- 
two the heir was born. The lords Clinton, in any case, 
descended from her, and inherited her portion, which con- 
sisted of the manor and advowson of Maxstoke, and the 
alternate presentation to the church of Arley. 

Ela, the second daughter, is stated to have married ' Peter 
Fitz James Mac Phioris ' de Bermingham, and to have been 
the mother of the earl of Louth, lord justice of Ireland in 
1321, who was ' with his brothers Robert and Peter, and many 
of his race, treacherously slain,' in 1329, 'by the rebellious 
Irish.' In addition to Solihull, where as we shall see some 
part of her inheritance lay, she was presumably allotted a 
share of the Oddingeseles' estate in Ireland, and the above 
was the natural result. 

The third daughter, Alice de Oddingeseles, had her portion 
in England, but she married in Ireland, and you shall hear the 
consequences. I do not know if the little history has been 
set out before, but with the great green calendars to hand, it 
is only necessary to turn up a few references to recover it. 
The Irish Calendar abounds in references to the name of 
Caunton, variously spelt. Her husband, Sir Maurice, was 
one of this family. In November 1301 and April 1302 she was 
resident with him in Ireland, and ' Maurice de Cauntetone 
and Alice, his wife,' are licensed to appoint attorneys for all 
pleas in the English courts. In due time however we arrive 
at the inevitable entry ; it is on the Patent Roll, 9 September 
1319 : Grant to Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke, of all 
lands and tenements in England, late of Maurice de Caunton, 
and William de Caunton, his son, adherents to the king's 
enemies in Ireland, where the said Maurice was killed, and 


the said William taken prisoner . . . ; on 26 October, in 
the same year, the king is found stating that, although he 
could have presented to the church of Solihull, lately void, by 
reason of the lands of Maurice de Caunton, who lately was 
killed in Ireland fighting against the king, nevertheless he is 
content to confirm the presentation made thereto by the 
bishop of Ely, saving the rights of Aymer de Valence. 

The church of Solihull was, as we know, part of theOddinge- 
seles' inheritance, and could not by any manner of means 
have been affected by any treason, or subsequent attaint, 
of either Maurice, or of his son, in the lifetime of Alice 
to whom the alternate presentation had presumably de- 
scended. I judge therefore, from the following entry, that 
she survived, but did not long survive, her husband. It 
is the presentation by the king, entered on the Patent 
Roll, 26 August, 1320, of Nicholas de Moreby to the 
church of Solihull, in the king's gift note how much 
better informed he has become by reason of his custody of 
the lands and tenements late of Alice de Caunton, tenant 
in chief. This again is revoked on 16 October following, and 
the presentation made, as above, by the bishop of Ely is 
again allowed. In the following year the heir came of age, 
and in the year after that two inquisitions were taken upon 
a writ of Mandamus dated 8 May, 15 Edward II. (1322). By 
the first of these taken at Solihull, co. Warwick, 21 May, 
15 Edward II. (1322), it is found that Alice de Caunton held 
a quarter of a messuage and the moiety of a carucate in Solihull 
of John de Odyggeseles by fealty only, worth IQJ., and that 
David her son is her next heir, and is of the age of twenty-two 
years. The second inquisition was taken at Hertford on 
Monday after the Octave of the Holy Trinity, 15 Edward II. 
It is found that Alicia de Caunton held in chief, in the town 
of Pirton, a moiety of the manor of Pirton ; to this moiety 
there belong a messuage and two carucates of land, worth 2ol. ; 
it is held of the king in socage, by fealty and a pair of gilt spurs, 
price 6d., and to the view of frankpledge of Altonishevyd, by 
the hands of the sheriff of Herts, to be received yearly, 2J. Sd. 
for all service. David de Caunton is her son and next heir, 
of the age of twenty-two years. The moiety used to be held 
of Henry de Pyngkeney, after whose death the lordship came 
to the hand of king Edward the now king's father, in what 
way is unknown. 


All this is peaceful enough, and English, but there is still 
the Irish background, dark and threatening. We have heard 
that when Sir Maurice was slain, his son William was made 
prisoner. Possibly they hanged him, but he had left issue, 
very young as yet, but with friends, who forward the following 
petition, filed with the above inquisitions (Chancery Inquisi* 
tions -post mortem, ist series, 15 Edward II. No. 4) : 

Voilletz Sir Chaunceler si vous plest comander qe preiudice ne soit fait au 
verre heir Sir William Caunteton qui morust nageres en Irlaund par lenqueste 
qest prise par le Eschetour de la Trente a la seute Dauid frere le dit Sir William 
qui est en Engleterre et ad taunt procure qe la dite enqueste est passe par simple 
gentz qui mil conisaunce nauerent du fet qui ount dit quil le dit Dauid est 
prochein heir le dit Sir William en deseritaunce du dit heir qui est en Ir- 
laund et del age de cink auntz et ausi en deseritaunce des seignurages du fee. 
par quoi sir vous plese comander qe autre enqueste soit prise par chiualers et 
bones gentz qui ount conisaunce du droit le dit heir. 

David de Caunton, who thus poses as the wicked uncle, 
defrauding his nephew, the lawful heir, established his claim, 
possibly as heir to his mother, upon the outlawry in her life- 
time of his elder brother, possibly upon some plea of the 
illegitimacy of his brother's issue, a constant source of trouble 
when Irish heirship came to be tried by English tests ; but 
that his claims or rights were resisted is evident from an entry 
on the Close Roll. Not till 10 February 1326-7, nearly five 
years later, does an order issue to the escheator to intermeddle 
no further with a quarter messuage and a half carucate in 
Solihull, the king learning that Alice de Caunton held at her 
death of the king a moiety of the manor of Periton, etc., and 
that David de Caunton is her son and heir. 

Meanwhile the Valence family waited patiently, and as 
soon as it was decided whom they had to sue, laid claim to the 
whole Caunton inheritance, unless, as is quite possible, they 
had been in more or less quiet possession of Purton manor 
ever since the grant made to them on 9 September 1319. 
In any case the following entry occurs on the Close Roll, 
under date 10 July 1327: 

To John de Bousser, Gilbert de Toutheby, and John de Cantebrigge, order 
to proceed to take the assize of novel disseisin arramed before them by David 
son of Alice de Caunton against Mary, late the wife of Aymer de Valence, late 
Earl of Pembroke, and others named in the original writ, concerning tenements 
in Periton and Kemyton, and to proceed to render judgment therein with all 
speed, notwithstanding the king's late order not to proceed to render judgment 


without consulting him, which order he made because Mary alleged before them 
that the late King by his charter, which she produced, gave the tenements, to 
wit the manor of Peryton, to the said Aymer, and that they were assigned to her 
in dower. 

The decision was undoubtedly in David's favour it is 
difficult to see how it could possibly have been adverse to him, 
and he was free to attend to his Irish interests. Notices recur 
of his passage to Ireland. I select one, on the Patent Roll, 
4 May 1336 : David de Caunton, going to Ireland, has 
letters nominating Roger de Luda (scilt. Louth, a great name 
in Hertfordshire) and Lawrence de Ayet (another neighbour 
of whom we shall hear again) his attorneys in England for one 
year. He also married. Then on I October 1340 he died. 
His widow Joan re-married with Lawrence de Ayete, whose 
coheirs (he died 3 December 1353) by some previous wife are 
famous as the ' intruded heirs ' in one of the most complicated 
and prolonged law suits ever known, as may be seen under 
* Dodford ' in Baker's History of the County of Northampton. 
I mention this inasmuch as our Caunton investigations correct 
Baker's pedigree, who apparently considers our ' Joan ' to have 
been the mother of the Ayete coheirs, which from the 
Caunton side is impossible. Baker's work needs no apology ; 
but it is worth mentioning, as illustrative of the pitfalls pre- 
pared by the ancients for later day enquirers, that whereas, 
within a year, inquisitions were taken after the deaths both of 
Lawrence de Ayet, and, as we shall shortly see, of Joan, his 
widow, there is not a word in the former, or in the writ at- 
tached to it, to show that she had been previously married 
to David de Caunton, or in the latter, or in the accompanying 
writ, to show that she had ever been the wife of Lawrence 
de Ayet ; though when we have, from other sources, dis- 
covered that such was indeed the case, our conclusion is 
confirmed by the date of the lady's death, which is assigned 
in both documents to the same day. 

On 10 June 1343, as appears by an entry on the Patent 
Roll (cf. Inquisitions Ad quod damnum, file 265, No. Il), 
Lawrence de Ayete and Joan his wife, in consideration of 
401. fine paid by Lawrence, are licensed to hold a moiety of 
the manor of Pirton, co. Herts, with remainder to her heirs 
by David de Caunton, knight, her late husband, with remainder 
to William de Clynton, earl of Huntingdon, and his heirs, in 
accordance with a settlement made, without licence, by the 


said David and Joan a settlement made possibly for money, 
possibly to secure the earl's support, or possibly to bar the 
other descendants of his father, his nephew in particular. 

Lawrence de Ayete died, as I have said, 3 December 1353. 
His widow did not long survive, and from an inquisition taken 
at Pyriton, co. Herts, upon a writ of diem clausit, Thursday 
after Easter, 28 Edward III. (17 April 1354), and from the 
documents filed with it, we learn the rest of the remarkable 
history. It was found that she held a moiety of the manor 
of Pyriton in fee tail of the king in chief, by the grant of Adam 
Doverton, parson of Ibestok (co. Leicester) and Henry de 
Sodyngton, parson of Esshetesford (co. Kent), to hold to the 
said David, now long deceased, and Joan, and the heirs of 
their bodies, with remainder in default to William de Clynton, 
earl of Huntyngdon and his heirs, with the king's charter of 
licence. The said David and Joan had issue a daughter, born 
in Ireland, and whether she be alive or not the jurors do not 
know. The said moiety is held of the king, by service of one 
knight's fee ; it is worth I3/. 6s. 8d. The said Joan died on 
Tuesday after St. Gregory the Pope last (Tuesday, 18 March 
1353-4). The said daughter, if alive, is her heir, and is aged 
sixteen years and more. 

Next follows a writ, dated 6 June, 28 Edward III. (1354), 
addressed by the king to J., Archbishop of Dublin, Chancellor 
of Ireland. Supplication is made to us, it states, on behalf 
of John son of Nicholas de Kery, that whereas by our letters 
patent, under our seal in Ireland, we gave him, for his good 
service, the custody of all the lands in Ireland which were of 
David de Caunton, knight, in our hands by reason of David's 
death and the minority of his heir, till the full age of the said 
heir, and whereas upon the untrue suggestion of William son 
of Edmund de Caunton, by writ under the great seal of 
England directed to you, the said lands have been taken again 
into our hands, we wish to be certified of the tenor of such 
writ, of the process of taking again the said lands from the 
said John, and of the inquisition taken upon David's death. 

Thereupon follows the reply of the Chancellor. Nothing 
is found. It was said here, in council, that Sir Maurice 
Caunton, father of David, whose heir David was, as is asserted, 
forfeited, or was outlawed for rebellion (vel forisfecit erga 
Dominum Regem, equitando de guerra cum vexillo explicate, 
contra vexillum Regis in Hibernia, vel ea occasione utlagatus 


Juii) ; it is not found by what process David came to the said 
lands, but it is believed that David did his homage in Eng- 
land, and had restitution there ; this can be verified by the 
rolls of the English Chancery. Nevertheless the (said) lands 
and tenements, of late, by the death and by reason of the 
forfeiture of David, son of William de Caunton, nephew of 
the said David de Caunton, who slew the said David, and 
after his death intruded himself thereon, were taken into, and 
are in, the king's hands. 

Finally there is a writ, dated 8 August, 28 Edward III. 
( I 354) ordering a transcript to be made and forwarded of the 
inquisition, taken in Ireland on the death of David de Caunton, 
knight. The transcript follows. The writ bears date 13 Sep- 
tember, 15 Edward III. (1341). The inquisition was taken 
the Sunday after St. Luke the Evangelist, 15 Edward III. 
(Sunday, 21 October 1341). David de Caunton held at his 
death the castle of Balyderawyn, etc. David died the Mon- 
day after Michaelmas, 14 Edward III. (Monday, I October 
1340). Elizabeth, daughter of David, is his daughter and 
heir, aged three years, on the feast of the Nativity of St. John 
the Baptist last (24 June 1340). 

So, after all, the wicked uncle was slain, presumably in his 
own castle, by his disinherited nephew ; his wife, we may 
suppose, was safe at home, or was spared or escaped ; but 
her little daughter was taken from her, and when she died 
thirteen years later none in England knew if the child was 
living or dead. 

The death was at any rate assumed on this side. By letters 
patent dated 15 May, 28 Edward III. (1354), the king, reciting 
the inquisition upon Joan de Caunton, commits a moiety of 
the manor of Pirton to the earl of Huntingdon, who thus 
secured for the Clinton family another fraction of the Oddinge- 
seles inheritance. 


The pedigree seems to be as follows : 

Sir Maurice de Caunton = AIice de Oddingcseles 
dead or outlawed before I dead before August 
September 1319 I 1320 




Sir William de Caunton 

Sir David 

de Caunton=Joan . . . = 

Lawrence de 

Edmund de 


before May 1322 

n. circa 1 300, died 


Ayete, mar. 


(killed by his nephew) 

1 8 March 

before 1343, 

I October 



died 1353 



nd de Caunton 


n de Caunton 



killed his uncle 

set. 3, June 


1 340, dead and 

1 340 ; xt. 1 6 


forfeited before 

and more 1354, 



if alive.* 

Dugdale states that Alice de Oddingeseles remarried 
with Ralph de Perham, after the death of Sir Maurice de 
Caunton. He also gives references to the following fines, 
from which it would appear that the principal estate in Soli- 
hull was allotted to Ela de Birmingham, upon the division 
of the Oddingeseles inheritance, and was sold by her repre- 
sentative to the bishop of Ely, mentioned above : 

Hec est finalis concordia facta in curia domini regis apud Westmonasterium 
a die Pasche in quinque septimanas, anno regni regis Edwardi filii regis 
Edwardi septimo (May 1314) . . . inter Radulfum de Perham querentem et 
Elam que fuit uxor Petri de Byrmyngham deforcientem de duabus partibus 
manerii de Sulyhull cum pertinenciis . . . Habendum et tenendum eidem 
Radulfo de predicta Ela et heredibus suis tota vita ipsius Radulfi reddendo 
inde per annum viginti libras sterlingorum . . . pro omni servicio ... ad 
predictam Elam et heredes suos pertinente . . . Et post decessum ipsius 
Radulphi predicte due partes cum pertinenciis integre revertentur ad pre- 
dictam Elam et heredes suos . . . Feet of Fines, Warwick, file 42, no. 18. 

Ela was apparently possessed of two parts of the manor, into 
three parts divided ; the remaining third may have been 
still in dower to her mother. Her son, lord Louth, at any 
rate sells the whole : 

Hec est finalis concordia facta in curia domini regis ... in octabis 
sancti Johannis Baptiste anno regni regis Edwardi filii regis Edwardi duode- 
cimo (June 1319) . . . inter Johannem de Hothum Eliensem episcopum 
querentem et Johannem de Bermyngeham comitem de Loueth' deforcientem 
de manerio de Solihull cum pertinenciis et advocacionem ecclesie ejusdem 
ville . . . Habendum et tenendum eidem episcopo et heredibus suis . . . 


imperpetuum. Et preterea idem comes concessit pro sc et heredibus suis 
quod warantizabunt . . . Et pro hac recognicione reddicione warantizatione 
fine et concordia idem episcopus dedit predicto coraiti centum marcas argenti. 
Feet of Fines, Warwick, file 44, no. 42. 

There is, however, an endorsement to the above fine from 
which it may be inferred that the case, even then, was not 
wholly free from obscurity : 

Ida que fuit uxor Johannis de Clinton de Maxstok apponit clamium 

Robertus de Moiby (sic) et Margareta uxor ejus apponunt clamium 


That is to say, a caveat is lodged by the two surviving sisters 
of Ela de Birmingham, the earl's aunts ; for there can be 
little doubt that in Margaret de Morby we have Margaret, 
formerly the wife of John de Grey of Rotherfield, the 
youngest of William de Odingeseles' coheirs, and we get an 
explanation of a difficulty that Dugdale left unsolved. 

Whether by any conveiance from the Bishop of Ely, before spoke of, it 
was that Rob. de Moreby, of Moreby in Yorkshire, had an interest here, I 
know not, nor what he so had : But in 7 E. 3. I find that the K. granted 
him a Charter of tteewattcn in all his Demesn Lands here at Solihull, as 
also at Bonneteick and Moreby in Yorkshire. 

Nothing in the dates conflicts. Margaret, fourth daughter 
and coheir of William de Oddingeseles, youngest sister of Ida 
de Clinton, was born in 1 277 (see above) ; she married John 
de Grey of Rotherfield, who died 17 October 1311, leaving 
John de Grey, his son and heir, aged ten on 28 October in 
that year; in 1319 she occurs as the wife of Robert de 
Morby, who, as we have just learned, had a grant of free 
warren in Solihull as late as 1333 ; her share of the Oddinge- 
seles inheritance appears to have been the manor of Olton 
in Solihull, and the alternate presentation to the church 
of Arley, both of which passed to her descendants ; it is 
stated however in the inquisition on the death of her first 
husband, taken at Coleshull, 13 December 1311, that he 
held 22 marks of rent in Solihull and the said advowson, of 
her inheritance ; and it is possible that the manor of Olton 
may have accrued to her later, on her mother's decease, or 
represent a purchase from the other coheirs. 

The history of the manor of Solihull, as Dugdale left it, 
is confessedly obscure ; and if it has subsequently been 


made out, I have failed to find the reference. All we know 
for certain is that William de Oddingeseles died possessed of 
it, and that John de Hotham, bishop of Ely from 1316 and 
chancellor of England, who died 25 January 1315-6, in some 
way acquired it from the Oddingeseles' coheirs. Incidentally 
we have brought out the fact that one of these coheirs, the 
youngest, remarried with Robert de Morby, which explains 
the grant of free warren to this Robert in Solihull, in 1333. 
Robert had previously obtained a like grant in lands of which 
his wife was tenant for life ; and in the same year his stepson 
Sir John de Grey, being then just of age, had a similar grant, 
not only in lands already in his possession, but apparently in 
some of the lands stated in the previous grant to belong to 
his mother for her life, and also in Moreby, where his step- 
father's estate lay. This in itself is difficult ; and it appears, 
further, by the text of the charter of 1333 cited by Dugdale 
that the estate of Moreby was parcelled between three men, 
Henry, William and Robert de Moreby, to all of whom the 
like favour is extended, viz., of free warren in Morby, with, 
in the case of Robert, in Solihull as well. The text of these 
three grants is as follows : 

Pro Roberto R e x eisdem. Salutem. Sciatis quod cum dilectus et fidelis 
d ' Moreby et noster Robertus de Morby et Margareta uxor ems teneant maneria 

Margareta . _. . . _. J . . _ . J _ , 

more eju et de Coges m comitatu Oxome et de Opton et de Scolcotes m comi- 
Johanne de tatu Eboraci et Weford in comitatu Staffordie cum pertinenciis 
Grey. a( j vitam ipsius Margarete que quidem maneria post mortem pre- 
dicte Margarete dilecto et fideli nostro Johanni de Grey et heredibus suis 
remanere debent ut dicitur. Nos eisdem Roberto et Margarete, et Johanni 
gratiam specialem facere volentes in hac parte concessimus et hac carta nostra 
confirmavimus pro nobis et heredibus nostris prefatis Roberto et Margarete, 
quod ipsi ad totam vitam ipsius Margarete et predicto Johanni quod ipse et 
heredes sui post mortem predicte Margarete imperpetuum habeant liberam 
warennam in omnibus dominicis terris suis maneriorum predictorum, dum 
tamen terre ille non sint infra metas foreste nostre, Ita quod nullus intret terras 
illas ad fugandum in eis vel ad aliquid capiendum, quod ad warennam pertineat 
sine licencia et voluntate ipsorum Roberti et Margarete dum eadem Margareta 
vixerit seu predict! Johannis vel heredum suorum post mortem ejusdem Mar- 
garete super forisfacturam nostram decem librarum. Quare volumus et firmiter 
precipimus pro nobis et heredibus nostris quod predicti Robertus et Margareta 
ad totam vitam ipsius Margarete et predictus Johannes et heredes sui post 
mortem predicte Margarete imperpetuum habeant liberam warennam in 
omnibus dominicis terris suis predictis. Dum tamen etc. Hiis testibus ven- 
erabilibus patribus H. Lincolnensi episcopo, cancellario nostro, S. Londonensi 
episcopo, Johanne de Eltham comite Cornubie fratre nostro carissimo, Rogero 
de Mortuo Mari comite Marchie, Olivero de Ingham, Gilberto Talebot, 


Johanne Mantravers senescallo hospicii nostri et aliis. Data etc. apud 
Wodestok rxi. die Aprilis (1330). per breve de private sigillo. 

j Chaffer Roll, 4 Edward HI. (i 17) No. 94.] 

Rex eisdem. Salutem. Sciatis nos de gratia nostra special! 

Pro Johanne concess i SS e et hac carta nostra confirmasse dilecto et fideli nostro 

Rotherfeld*! Johanni de Grey de Rotherfeld quod ipse et heredes sui imper- 

petuum habeant liberara warennam in omnibus dominicis terris 

suis de Shobynton, Estcleydon et Botilcleydon in comitatu Buldnghamie, Cogges, 

Herdewyk, Stanlak, Feringford et Somerton, in comitatu Qronie, Wyntreburn 

in comitatu Berk', Duston in comitatu Norhamptonie et Upton, Stilingflete, 

Moreby, Drynghous, Sculcotes et Ketelwell in comitatu Eboraci . . . Data 

per manum nostram apud Clipston primo die Septembris (1330). 

per breve de privato sigillo. 
[Ibid. No. 44.] 

Pro Henrico Rex eisdem. Salutem. Sciatis nos de gratia nostra special! 
dc Moreby. concessisse et hac carta nostra confirmasse dilecto nobis Henrico 
de Moreby quod ipse et heredes sui imperpetuum habeant liberam warennam 
in omnibus dominicis terris suis de Moreby et Elvyngton in comitatu Eboraci . . . 
Data per manum nostram apud Berewicum super Twedam vicesimo tercio die 
Julii (1333). per breve de privato sigillo. 

Consimiles cartas de libera warenna habent subscripti videlicet. 

Pro Willelmo Willelmus de Moreby 'in omnibus dominicis terris suis de 
de Moreby. Bonnewyk et Moreby in comitatu Eboraci etc. ut supra. Data ut 
tupra, per idem breve. 

Pro Roberto Robertus de Moreby in omnibus dominicis terris suis de Bonne- 
de Moreby. wyfc e t Moreby in comitatu Eboraci et de Solihull in comitatu 
Warwici, etc., ut supra. Data ut supra per idem breve. 

[Charter Roll, 7 Edward III. (120) Nos. 12, 1 1 and 10.] 

There remains yet another difficulty with regard to Solihull 
Lord Louth sold to Bishop Hotham in 1319. In 1320 there 
is a sale, or release, to Hotham, of the same property, namely 
of the manor and advowson, by Philip Purcel and Ela his wife. 
Dugdale ventures the supposition that this Ela was the earl's 
daughter. Apart from the fact that the earl does not appear 
to have had a daughter of this name at all, the conjecture is 
not a happy one, seeing that Lord Louth himself survived till 
1329. It seems therefore more reasonable to suppose that 
in Ela wife of Philip Purcel we again meet with the earl's 
mother. The presentations to the church of Solihull, given 
by Dugdale are as follows : 

(1) Eustace le Poer and Ela de Oddingeseles his wife. Sans date. 

(2) Sir John de Grey, 1303. 


(3) The four daughters and co-heirs of John (sic) de Oddingeseles, 1310. 

(4) William de Bromwich, procurator of Sir Eustace le Poer, 1310. 

(5) Dame Alice de Caunton, lady of Pyriton, IV. Cal. Nov. 1311 ; and 
thereafter the bishop of Ely. 

It would thus appear that before 1303 Piers de Berming- 
ham, the earl's father, was dead, and that Ela, his mother, had 
remarried with Eustace le Poer, who was living in 1310 : that 
Eustace was, however, dead before May 1314, when by the 
description of ' Ela late the wife of Piers de Bermingham,' she 
granted two parts of the manor of Solihull to Ralph de Per- 
ham for life; that in the interval between 1314 and 1319, 
Ralph de Perham died, and that she, being again in possession, 
granted whatever she had in Solihull to the earl her son, who 
sold it in 1319 to the bishop ; and lastly, that in 1320, having 
by that time remarried with Philip Purcel, as her third hus- 
band, she joins with her husband in releasing her right to the 
bishop. Even the release is not in ordinary course, but is 
preceded by the following mandate, which may, however, 
have been occasioned merely by the residence of Philip and 
Ela in Ireland : 

6 May, To the Justices of the Bench. Order to cause a fine to be levied 

1 320. between John, bishop of Ely, demandant, and Philip Purcel and 
Ela his wife, deforciants, of the manor of Solihull and the advowson of the church 
of that town according to the acknowledgment made by the deforciants before 
the king, whereby they acknowledged the said manor and advowson to be the 
right of the said John, and released the same to him and his heirs quit of the said 
Philip and Ela, and her heirs, for ever, and warranted the same to him ; for the 
purpose of making which fine Philip and Ela have attorned in their place Alex- 
ander Aptot and John de Hales, whom they are to admit in the plea and to 
receive part of the chirograph in place of Philip and Ela. 

The Chancellor of Ireland received the acknowledgment and attornment 
by the king's writ of precept. 

[Close Roll Calendar.] 

The fine was levied accordingly : 

Hec est finalis concordia facta in curia domini regis apud Westmonasterium 
in crastino Ascensionis Domini anno regni regis Edwardi filii regis Edwardi 
terciodecimo . . . inter Johannem Eliensem episcopum querentem, per 
Johannem de Ponte Fracto positum loco suo per breve domini regis ad lucrandum 
vel perdendum et Philippum Purcel, et Elam uxorem ejus deforcientes, de 
manerio de Solihull cum pertinenciis et advocacione ecclesie ejusdem ville . . . 
scilicet quod predict! Philippus et Ela recognoverunt predictum manerium 
cum pertinenciis et advocacionem predictam esse jus ipsius episcopi, et ilia 
remiserunt et quietum clamaverunt de ipsis Philippe et Ela et heredibus ipsius 
Ele predicto episcopo et heredibus suis imperpetuum. Et pretera . . . con- 


cesserunt pro se et heredibus ipsius Ele quod ipsi warantizabunt predicto 
episcopo et heredibus suis predictum mancrium cum pertinenciis et advoca- 
cionem predictam contra omnes homines imperpetuum. Et pro hac recog- 
nicione . . . idem episcopus dedit predictis Philippe et Ele centum libras 

[Feet of Fines, Warwick, file 45, No. 19.] 

I am not at all sure that the explanation offered is correct ; 
and it is to be noted that Ela the wife of William de Oddinge- 
seles, mother of Ida de Clinton and the other sisters, survived 
her husband, and that she is not accounted for. 

We have thus ascertained the parentage, and the nature 
of the inheritance of Ida de Oddingeseles, wife of John de 
Clinton (V.). The manor of Maxstoke, which she brought to 
him, was not held in chief, nor was he himself a tenant in 
chief, in respect of his own manors of Amington or Lydiard 
or of any other lands. Thus it happens that no ' office ' or 
iniquisition post mortem was taken upon the death of himself, 
his widow, for Ida survived him, or of his son and successor ; 
and we are all the more dependent on such notices as we can 
find relating to them in the calendars issued under the super- 
intendence of the deputy keeper of the records. I do not 
propose to inquire into the summons to parliament received 
by successive members of this family. The distinction, upon 
principle, between parliaments and councils appears to me to 
break down. It is for the wisdom of parliament, which still hap- 
pily exists, in individual cases to decide and for the student of 
such matters to admire the expediency of its decisions. We are 
told nowadays that nothing I allude to disease is inherited ; 
but for the life of me I cannot see a very important distinction 
between the tendency in certain families to be summoned to 
parliament and a birthright inherent in them to such summons. 
The barony of Clinton, upon ' Garter's Roll,' must, as we 
learn from a note in the Complete Peerage, be considered by 
its ' ranking ' to originate in a summons to John de Clinton 
(VI.) son of John de Clinton (V.) and Ida his wife, and this 
in spite of the fact that John de Clinton (V.) was himself 
summoned to parliament 6 February 1298-9, which gives 
us however a date in his career. Other such dates are as 
follows. On I September 1300 'John de Clynton ' had a 
grant of freewarren in his demesne lands of Amington, co. 
Warwick (Charter Roll, 28 Edward I. No. 4). On 6 June 
1 306 there is a protection for John de Clinton of Maxstoke, 


going beyond seas with Robert de Burghersh, constable of 
Dover Castle (Pat. Roll Cal). On 5 August 1309 there is 
an order to deliver to John de Clynton the castle and honour 
of Walyngford, the honour of St. Valery and the town of 
Chichester (Close Roll Cal). That he was dead before 7 
January 1310-1 appears by a remission of payment to the 
heirs and executors of John de Clynton of 3i/. IQJ. 4^., in 
which he was indebted to the king for the time in which he 
was seneschal of Ponthieu ; also of 6il. is. 2d. as steward of 
Walyngford (Pat. Roll Cal). 

During the following ten years there are constant references 
to Ida, his widow. In September 1311, 'Ida, late the 
wife of John de Clynton,' is bound jointly with John de 
Bracebrigge, knight, for the proper debt of the said Ida, to 
Sir Edmund Deyncourt, in 450 marks, to be levied in default 
upon her land, etc., in Warwick and Wilts, by which it would 
appear, incidentally, that Lydiard was settled upon her (Close 
Roll Cal.). On 3 May 1313 and 20 February 1313-4 there 
are protections for ' Ida late the wife of John de Clynton ' 
going beyond seas with Queen Isabel (Pat. Roll Cal.). On 
9 September 1313 there is a pardon, at ' Ida de Clynton's ' 
request, touching a disseisin at Solihull (Close Roll Cal.). In 
1315 there is the ' Notification ' printed above that she was 
the eldest of William de Oddingeseles' daughters, upon what 
occasion issued I cannot tell. And lastly, on I March 1321-2 
there is an order to John de Walewayn, escheator this side 
Trent, to permit ' Ida, late the wife of John de Clynton,' to 
have the easement of houses in the manor of La Grove, till 
further order, as the king wishes to show her special favour. 

By Ida de Oddingeseles John de Clinton (V.) had issue, 
John de Clinton (VI.) and William de Clinton, summoned to 
parliament from 6 September 1330, and created earl of 
Huntingdon, 13 March 1336-7. There were presumably 
also daughters, to one of whom I suppose the following entry 
in the Calendar of Papal Letters to refer 

6 June 1336. Mandate to the bishop of Coventry to grant a dispensation 
to John de Steanuge, knight, and Ida de Clinton to remain in the marriage they 
have contracted, notwithstanding that the knight had for a concubine, before 
the said marriage, one who was related to Ida in the third degree of kindred ; 
declaring their offspring legitimate. 

John de Clinton (VI.), summoned to parliament as men- 
tioned above, from 27 January 1331-2 to I April 1335 I 


derive this information from the Complete Peerage was under 
age at his father's death. The further statement in the 
Complete Peerage that he was aged twelve in 1315, we have 
shown in the previous volume to be due to a confusion between 
him and John de Clinton of Coleshill, his second cousin ; but 
from the inquisition in which this cousin is found heir to his 
grandfather, also of Coleshill, we gathered that John de Clinton 
(VI.) was in 1316 in ward to the executors of the late earl of 
Warwick, and that he had been previously in the custody of 
that earl himself, who died 10 August 1315. We have also 
seen above that his parents were certainly married before 1 300, 
to which year we are inclined to assign his birth. As correctly 
stated in the Complete Peerage he married Margery, daughter 
of Sir William Corbet, of Chaddesley Corbet, co. Worcester, 
for we find in the Close Roll Calendar, under date 24 February 
1328-9, an enrolment of grant by William Corbet, knight, 
lord of Chaddesleye, to Sir John de Clynton, of ' Mastok ' and 
to Margery his wife and to the heirs of their bodies of 2OO/. 
yearly rent from his manor of Chaddesleye. That this 
Margery was the mother of his heir moreover appears probable, 
for in the absence of any inquisition taken upon his own death, 
we have a series of inquisitions taken after the death of his 
brother, the earl of Huntingdon, in 1354, by which his son 
John de Clinton (VII.) is found heir to the said earl, his uncle, 
and is variously stated to be aged twenty-three, twenty-four, 
twenty-six, and thirty years of age. Of these returns that 
for Warwickshire is presumably the most reliable, and in this, 
taken 24 September, 28 Edward III., the nephew is stated to 
have been aged twenty-six at Easter last, that is to say on 
13 April 1354 ; fr m which we gather that he was born in 
April 1328, just a year before Margery de Clinton's post- 
nuptial settlement. 

We find (Pat. Roll Cal.) the name of ' John de Clynton 
of Makstok ' in commissions of the peace for Warwick- 
shire, 1 8 May 1329, 23 March 1331-2, and 20 November 
1332. His summons to parliament in 1335 is not absolute 
proof that he was then living, but we have satisfactory evi- 
dence, at any rate, that he was dead in 1343. On 14 May in 
this year a commission of oyer and terminer was ordered, 
on the complaint of Margery, late the wife of John de Clynton 
of Maxstoke, that Sir Richard de Herthull and others of his 
name had broken her close at Amynton, co. Warwick, felled 


her trees and burned and plundered her goods (Pat. Roll 

John de Clinton (VI.) had issue by Margery Corbet a son 
John de Clinton (VII.), born as suggested above in 1328. I 
suppose that during a long minority he may have been in 
ward to his uncle, the earl of Huntingdon. The benefits that 
he received from this uncle, who died without issue, were 
immense. High in favour, married to the greatest heiress in 
England, but childless, William de Clinton, earl of Hunting- 
don, built up a lordly estate. He held at his death in August 
1354 land at Wythyhamme and Hertefeld, co. Sussex, land 
in Folkston of Nicholas de Sandwich, as of the manor of 
Folkston, besides a third of the manor of Goldestanton in 
Esshe, with lands in Esshe and Wyngeham, and the manor 
of Huntynton, co. Kent, and a moiety of the manor of Pirton, 
co. Herts, of which we have already heard. In addition to 
this, he was seised in fee of land in Nether Whitacre and 
Amynton, held land jointly with his nephew in Kynnesbury, 
and had the manors of Maxstoke and Shustoke by his nephew's 
demise, all in co. Warwick. The history of this manor of Shu- 
stoke is set out in full in the pages of the Patent Roll Calen- 
dar. It is concerned with the founding by the earl of a priory 
in Maxstoke. On 1 8 May 1 343 a series of licences is granted, 
by virtue of which the earl makes an exchange with John de 
Moubray of the manor of Hynton, co. Cambridge, for the 
manor of Shustoke ; he then grants Shustoke in free alms to 
the prior and convent of Maxstoke, who grant it to ' John son 
of John de Clynton, and his heirs, in exchange for 2O/. of land 
in the manor of Maxstoke, which 2O/., it appears by a further 
licence, 21 October 1344, consisted of ' the capital messuage 
of the manor of Maxstok, in the park there,' etc. Finally 
there is a licence, 17 June 1346, for 'John son and heir of 
John de Clynton of Maxstok ' to grant the manor of Shustok 
to the earl, his uncle, for life. The piety is delightful. The 
earl is enabled to dedicate to religion the very house in which 
we must presume he first saw the light. He supplied a stately 
substitute for the use of his heirs. On 12 February 1344-5 
there is a licence for William de Clynton, earl of Huntyng- 
don, to ' crenellate ' a dwelling place to be built in Maxstok for 
the use of John de Clynton, his nephew, and for his nephew 
to hold the same, thus ' crenellated,' to him and his heirs. 

Thanks to Ida de Oddingeseles and to William de Clinton, 


her son, the house of Clinton is now fairly launched on its 
superb career. The endowments are incessantly commuted. 
Never a family so variously at various times endowed; but 
whether reigning in the midlands, in Kent, on the east coast, 
or in the northern parts the heirs male have not lacked means, 
while the heir of line has somehow always contrived to re-gild 
the ancient barony. 

With the matrimonial alliances of John de Clinton (VII.), 
Lord Clinton, we return to pure genealogy, not without 


(To be continued.) 

5 2 




I NOW come to the final and most difficult point of this 
inquiry, the question so deftly evaded by ' X ' and Mr. 
Phillimore, namely, when did the heralds cease to recognize 
prescriptive rights in armorial bearings ? 

I have attempted to show that the principle was admitted 
by practically all the Kings of Arms down to Dugdale's time, 
thus confirming the statements of his letter of I668. 1 

I must now call attention to another change in heraldic 
practice which took place shortly after that time and has an 
important bearing on the question. In the earlier grants 
and confirmations we find no suggestion that any warrant of 
the Earl Marshal was necessary to set the heraldic machinery 
in motion. The grants, whether by Garter or by one of the 
Kings of Arms either alone or in conjunction with Garter, are 
expressed to be made by the authority of the letters patent 
conferring the office. Thus in 1541 we find Hawley, Claren- 
ceux, granting arms 

by the aucthorite and power annexed, attribued, given and graunted by the 
Kyng our Soverayne Lord's Highnes to me and to my office of Clarencieubc 
King of Armes, ... by expresse wordes under his most noble grete seale. 3 

This form, with slight variations, is almost universal. One of 
the later ones may be quoted also, a grant in 1663 by Sir 
Edward Bysshe, Clarenceux, to Silvanus Boycott ; ' by the 
power of my office granted unto me under the great scale of 
England ' ; no mention being made of the Earl Marshal or 
his warrant. 3 

Very rarely indeed down to Dugdale's time is any mention 
of the Earl Marshal made in a patent of arms, and then always, 
so far as I can ascertain, in a new grant, as opposed to a con- 
firmation. The earliest instance I have found may be given ; 
it is from a new grant made by Gilbert Dethick, Garter, in 

1 Ancestor, ii. 45. * Misc. Gen. et Her., i. 304. 
3 Misc. Gen. et Her. (new ser.), ii. 162. 


I ... by the authoritie and power off my offyce, anexed and graunted unto 
me under the greate scale of England, and also by the consent of ... Thomas, 
Duke of Norfolke, Erie Marshall . . . have ordayned, assigned, and set furthe, 
given, graunted, . . . these armes, etc. 1 

The distinction made in this respect between a new grant 
and a confirmation seems to have arisen out of the notorious 
quarrels and disputes that convulsed the college in the sixteenth 
and early seventeenth centuries. 

Among other things, some of the Heralds, especially William 
Dethick, afterwards Garter, had taken to visiting and giving 
grants of arms of their own initiative, which they had no right 
to do except as deputies to one of the Kings of Arms. 3 

It was in consequence of these quarrels, which had become 
a positive scandal, that the Earl Marshal framed some new 
orders regulating the respective rights of the disputants. 
They are very lengthy, but only one is material here. 

Orders to be observed and kept by the Officers of Arms, made by the high 
and mighty Prince, Thos. Duke of Norfolk, Earl Marshal of England, 1568, 
18 July, 10 year reg. Q. Eliz. 

Item, it is allso ordered and decreed by the said Earl Marshall that from 
henceforth there shall be no new arms granted to any person or persons without 
consent thereunto of the Earl Marshal had. Provided always that it shall be 
lawful! for Garter, Clarenceux and Norroy and every of them jointly together 
to give new crests and confirmances, as heretofore they have done . . . and that 
no patents of arms be granted unless the hands of the three Kings of Arms be 
thereto subscribed.' 

The most important fact in this rule is the Earl Marshal's 
recognition of the distinction between a grant of new arms 
on the one hand, and a grant of a crest or a confirmation on 
the other. The ' confirmances,' as he calls them, can only 
refer to arms not already recorded at the College, and con- 
sequently depending on outside proof of user, that is, on pre- 
scription. Nothing could be clearer or more in point : the 
new grant to the new man required the Earl Marshal's sanction ; 
the allowance or confirmation of arms to one who could prove 
a right to them, did not. 

The latter part of the rule was to a large extent disregarded, 

1 Misc. Gen. et Her. (ser. 3), ii. 193. 

a Noble, p. 198. 

Additional MS. 6297, fo. 19. The italics are mine. ' X ' states that 
these rules were made by the command of Queen Elizabeth ; The Right to Star 
Arms, p. 99. 


for new grants of arms continued to be issued on the authority 
of Garter or one of the Kings of Arms alone. In the majority 
of these the Earl Marshal's warrant is not mentioned, and 
presumably was not obtained. 

The earlier Garters do not seem to have interfered with 
the functions of the Kings of Arms, nor does it appear to have 
been the intention of the Crown that Garter should do more 
than superintend the work of the College generally. 1 William 
Dethick was responsible for the alteration. He ' induced ' 
(in plain English, I suppose, bribed) one of the Clerks of the 
Signet to insert words in the Signet Bill, giving him powers 
of making visitations and of granting arms. 2 This was a clear 
usurpation of the rights of the Kings of Arms, and they re- 
sented it very keenly. Many details are given by Noble. 

Dethick seems to have been as unscrupulous as he was 
violent, and was constantly in trouble. In 1595 or 1596, he 
was hauled before the Star Chamber on a complaint made by 
the Earl of Kent, Clarenceux King of Arms (Lee) and York 
Herald (Brookes mouth). It seems that Garter had made ' a 
testimonial^ under the sealle of the Office,' that one Rother- 
ham was entitled to quarter the arms of Grey of Ruthyn, 
' falsely, corruptely, contrarye to his owne bookes and to his 
owne knowledge.' * The result does not appear. James I. 
was advised to get rid of him, and after a great deal of trouble 
this was done in 1606. 

William Segar, his successor, was a weak man and careless. 
In 1616 he was the cause of a very serious affair. Deceived 

1 That is of course apart from his public duties and those in connection 
with the Order of the Garter. 

2 Noble, p. 198 ; Diet. Nat. Biog. I append quotations from the patents of 
Gilbert and William Dethick, the added words in the latter's patent being in 

Letters Patent appointing Gilbert Dethyck, Norroy, to the office of Garter ; 
da ted April 29, 1550. Habendum . . . officium illud . . . cum omnibus juribus 
. . . eidem officio qualitercumque debitis ... in tarn amplis modo et forma 
prout Christoferus Barker, miles, nuper Gartier, aut aliquis alius . . . habuit 
usus vel gavisus fuit ... in eodem officio. [Patent Roll, 4 Edw. VI., part 2, 
m. 22.] 

Letters Patent appointing William Detheck [sic] to the office of Garter ; 
dated April 21, 1586. Habendum officium illud . . . cum omnibus juribus 
. . . quibuscumque, necnon visitandi et insignia armorum claris viris concedendi, 
etc. [Patent Roll, 28 Eliz., part I, m. I.] Memorandum of surrender, De- 
cember 10, 4 Jac. I. 

> Hawarde, Let ReporUs del Cases in Camera Stellata, p. 66 j Noble, p. 199, 


by the malicious Brookesmouth, York Herald, Segar granted 
the royal arms of Arragon, with a canton of Brabant, to George 
Brandon, the public executioner,* for which he was promptly 

It was probably in consequence of this outrageous proceed- 
ing that James I. appointed a fresh commission to execute the 
office of Earl Marshal. The patent is most instructive, and 
demands a lengthy quotation. 

1618. Commission to Thomas, Earl of Suffolk, Edward, Earl of Worcester, 
Ludovic, Duke of Lenox, George, Marquess of Buckingham, Charles, Earl of 
Nottingham, William, Earl of Pembroke, and Thomas, Earl of Arundel. Dated 
7 February, 1618. 

Whereas the office of Earle Marshall of this our Realme of England re- 
raayneth at this presente voyde untill wee shall dispose of the same to some 
person of honor meete for it ; and there are and wilbe manye accidents of armes 
and chivalrie belonging to the same office undetermined ; and that amongeste 
other inconveniences of late yeares growne for wante of due regarde had to the 
actions of our officers att armes, the heraldes & kinges of armes and purse- 
rauntes of armes, wee are informed that divers errors are committed by certaine 
heraldes now deceased and by some such as doe live, to the dishonor of our 
nobilitie and chivalrie and to the disgrace of sondrie families of aunciente blood 
bearing the armes of their auncestors, in assigneing and appointing the aunciente 
armes, badges and crestes of some of our nobilitie and chivalrie and of other 
gentlemen of auncient blood, to men that weere and that bee strangers in blood 
to them and nott heritable thereto ; and likewise, that for gaine or other affec- 
cion the said heraldes have appointed armes, crestes and badges for some other 
persons of base birthe or of meane vocacion and qualitie of living, that were meete 
for persons of good birthe and ligneage to receive honor, either for service in 
politique governmente or in marciall actions : Which errors and disorders wee, 
of our Princelie and Royall dignitye (from whence all inferiour honors and 
dignities ought to be derived and protected), myndeing to refourme, uppon the 
certaine knowledge of your fidelities, knowledges and zeale that you and everie 
of you beare to the mayntenaunce of all states of our nobilitie and chivalrie and 
of all gentlemen of true blood, in their rightes, titles and degrees, aswell for their 
armes, crests and badges as for all other prehemynences of right by lawe of 
armes belonginge unto them and everie of them or to their children, doe by 
theis presentes authorize you or anye three or more of you, to exercise all accions 
belonginge to the offyce of the Earle Marshall to all purposes and intentes, 
untill wee shall committe the same office to some other : And by vertue hereof 
and by authoritie of theis presentes doe give and graunte to you, or anye three 
or more of you, as before is expressed, full power from tyme to tyme to call before 
you all our officers of armes, bothe kynges of armes, heraldes and pursevantes, 
and to cause due inquisicion to be made of all manner of armes by them of late 
yeares given to any person withoute good warraunte by the lawe of armes, or 
usurped and taken by anye person unlawfullie withoute good warraunte ; and 
uppon due examinacion and triall thereof, to revoke and disanull all such as 

1 Noble, p. 231. 


shalbe soe tried, and fownde unlawfullie or unworthilye assigned and given, or 
usurped by anye person unlawfullie : And further, to consider of such good 
ordynaunces as have bene made by former Earles Marshalles or Constables of 
England for the direction of the said heraldes in their severall offices, and for the 
limittacion of their authoritie, and their orderlie visitacion, and to restore the 
same to their aunciente usage . . . And generallie ... to doe and execute all 
other thinges and actes that of right mighte be donne and executed by the Earle 
Marshall of England according to the lawe and custome of this Realme, and 
according to the Lawes Marshall, for which this shalbe your sufficiente warraunte 
and discharge. 1 

The phrase * giving arms to such who had no pretensions 
to them by inheritance,' distinctly recognizes a prescriptive 
right ; no doubt the Rotherham case was the one aimed at. 

About 1619 York and Somerset Heralds complained to 
the Commissioners of ' the subtle practices of Garter, Norrey, 
and his sonne.' They alleged 

' that notwithstanding all your Lordships' especiall commaundement and his Ma- 
jestie's pleasure signified, yet do the Kings of Armes . . . continue the giving of 
armes and creasts without warrant, to men unfitting to receave the same ; and 
to secure their actions the more, they neither record or make knowen any of 
their doings in the generall office, as they ought to doe. . . . Also when heere- 
tofore any visitacions have been made, . . . those who made suche visitacions 
were bound to bring into the generall office (presentlie after their returnes) their 
whole collections formerlie taken ; but these (to obscure their proceedings and 
abuses) doe not performe any those auncient orders and rules, so that divers 
gent., from whom they have receaved large rewardes and fees to doe the same, 
comming after of purpose to see whether record hath beene made thereof 
accordinglie, and finding nothing to appeare as they expected (as of all their 
doings there is not so much as one leafe of paper brought into the office for these 
30 yeeres), they have with great exclamacions and bitter speeches taxed the said 
officers with little better than cousenage. . . . Latelie 2Otie of the best bookes 
of armes, creasts, visitacions and pedigrees have beene purloyned and stolne out 
of the office ... by which meanes the office is become so barren, as those nowe 
remayning in the office are not able to give satisfaction to gent, as is requisite 
and as ought to be done . . . And further . . . newe armes given to base men 
are entred by some of the office in olde bookes, dating them 3 or 4 hundred 
yeeres past.' 2 

Brooke, I admit, is not a good witness, but in a complaint 
of this nature to the Commissioners he would not be likely to 
make any statements that he was not prepared to prove. 

I have mentioned these old scandals in no unfriendly spirit 
to the College ; the present staff are no more responsible for 
the misdoings of their predecessors than King Edward VII. is 

1 Patent Roll, 15 James I., part 1 1, m. I2d. 

1 State Papers, Domestic, James I., vol. iii., No. 137. 


for those of the second of that name. But I wish to show that 
these successive restrictions on the powers of the heralds, and 
the gradual tightening up of the heraldic machinery, was as 
much for the protection of the public against the heralds as 
vice versa. 

In 1617 there is a document which at first sight seems to 
be an example of the Earl Marshal's warrant for a confirmation. 

Wheras wee are enformed that James Willan, sorme and heireof Leonard 
Willan, late of Kingston upon Hull in the county of Yorke, Esq., is of sufficiencie 
to beare armes, and hath such armes as are acknowledged by one of the Heralds 
of Scotland to be his ancestors', sent him thence, as it is informed, the w" h soe 
appearinge to you, Wee doe hereby require yow to ratifie and confirme the same 
unto him, as in like cases is usuall. And for soe doeinge this shalbe yo r warrant. 
Suffolke house, this 25th of Aprill, 1617. 

Yo' loving freindes, 


To our lovinge freinde S r Richard St. George, knight, alias Norroy Kinge 
at Armes. 1 

On I May 1617, St. George assigns, ratifies and confirms 
to James Willan, ' these armes and creast followinge.' The 
form is that of a new grant, and there is no mention of the 
Scotch coat. 3 

This grant is not easy to place. The office of Earl Marshal 
was in commission, and the Earls of Suffolk and Worcester 
were two of the Commissioners. Possibly the fact that the 
applicant was a Scotchman may have made some difference, 
and caused the English heralds to look upon the transaction as 
an English grant rather than as a confirmation. 

St. George, however, fully understood the distinction made 
in the orders of 1568. Thus in 1617 he recites : 

I ... having power from his Ma tle under the great scale, with the consent 
of the Earle Marshall of England, to give, grant, ratifie and confirme coates of 
armes unto men of quallitie meriting the same. 1 

The patent from which the extract is taken is a new grant. 

The same distinction is found in the letters patent of 
Charles I. appointing William Le Neve to the office of Claren- 
ceux in 1635. 

1 Harleian MS. 1470, fos. I, lob. 
> Misc. Gen. et Her. (3 ser.), i. 60. 
Harl. MS. 1470, fo. 3. 


The operative words are as follows : 

Habendum, . . . et exercendum officium illud . . . cum omnibus juribus 
. . . quibuscumque . . . pertinentibus ; dantes ulterius . . . eidem Claren- 
cieux authoritatem, potestatem et licenciam literas patentes armorum claris 
viris donandi secundum ordinacionem perComitem Marescallum nuper pre- 
scriptam et cum eorum consensu, ac cetera omnia et singula que dicto incumbent 
officio regis armorum sive in esse dignoscuntur in jure vel ex consuetudine 
temporibus retroactis faciendi, exercendi et exequendi. 1 

The power of giving ' patents of arms to worthy persons ' 
clearly refers to new grants, and the Earl Marshal's ordinances 
mentioned are probably those of 1568. 

With this we may compare the statement of Francis 
Thynne, Lancaster Herald and a careful antiquary. Writing 
in 1605 on the duty and office of a king of arms, he says : 

He shall make diligent search, if any bear arms without authority or good 
right ; and finding such, although they be true blazon, he shall prohibit them. 
The said king of arms in his province hath full power and authority, by the 
king's grant, to give confirmation to all noblemen and gentlemen, ignorant of 
their arms ... he hath authority to give arms and crests to persons of ability, 
deserving well of the prince and commonwealth. 2 

Note the antithesis, authority or good right, and the dis- 
tinction between the confirmations and the new grants to 
deserving persons, the claris viris of the letters patent just 

Edward Bysshe, the Parliamentary Garter, naturally does 
not refer to the Earl Marshal in his grants during that period ; 
but even after the Restoration, when he had been reduced to 
his former office of Clarenceux, he made grants which contain 
no reference to the Earl Marshal. 3 

Sir Edward Walker had been deprived of the office of 
Garter in 1646, when Bysshe was appointed by Parliament ; 
he was restored in 1 660. All through his second tenure of the 
office, 1660 to 1677, the Earl Marshal's warrant was not 
required, so far as we may judge from the absence of any 
mention of it in grants of arms. A large number of his grants 
exist, and many have been printed ; I have not found one 
reciting that the warrant had been obtained. 

Sir Edward Walker died on 19 February 1677, and Sir 

1 Additional MS. 6297, fo. I57b. 

2 Noble, p. 196. 

* e.g. Harleian MSS. 1172, fo. 46 ; 1470, fo. 81. 


William Dugdale was appointed to the office of Garter on 
26 May following. Despite Mr. Phillimore's sneers, he was 
the most distinguished antiquary who has ever filled that post. 
His career in the College runs thus : Blanch Lyon Pour- 
suivant Extraordinary, 1638 ; Rouge Croix Poursuivant, 1639 > 
Chester Herald, 1644 ; Norroy King of Arms, 1660 ; Garter, 
1667. Thus when he became head of the College he had 
already nearly forty years' experience of matters heraldic. 

His opinion on the question of prescription appears from 
his letter in 1668, when Norroy King of Arms. Shortly after 
this we find him reciting the fact of the Earl Marshal's warrant 
in a new grant. 

1676. Whereas . . . Henry, Earle of Peterborough, Deputy ... by 
warrant or order under his hand and the scale of the Earle Marshall's office . . . 
hath signifyed unto me his consent for my devising and assigning unto John 
North . . . such armes and crest as he ... may lawfully beare . . . Know ye 
therefore that in pursuance of the said warrant or order and according to the 
grant of my office under the great Scale of England, whereby I am authorised 
to devise and grant armes according to the Earle Marshall's orders, and with his 
consent, etc. 1 

In 1682, five years after his appointment as Garter, Dug- 
dale published his treatise on The Antient Usage in Bearing of 
Arms. The work itself does not throw any further light on 
the present subject, but the epistle dedicatory to Robert, 
Earl of Aylesbury, Deputy Earl Marshal, contains the following 
passage : 

Such have been the extravagant Actings of Paynters and other Mechanicks 
in this licencious Age, that, to satisfie those who are open handed to them, they 
have not stuck to depict arms not only for divers younger branches of Families 
with undue distinctions, if any at all, but to allow them to such as do bear the 
same appellation, though of no alliance to that stock ; the permission whereof 
hath given such encouragement to those who are guilty of this boldness, that 
there are not a few who do already begin to prescribe as of right thereto. 1 

The quarrel between the heralds and the ' painter fellows ' 
was of long standing, and indeed has descended to our own 
day. Dugdale resented as keenly as any of his predecessors 
the intrusion of the heraldic stationer upon the prerogatives 
of the College. Is it going too far to suggest that on his 
initiative the Earl Marshal or his deputy made a more drastic 
regulation to the effect that a warrant should be obtained for 

1 Misc. Gen. et Her. (new ser.), i. 301. 
" Edition by T. C. Banks, 1811. 


' confirmances ' as well as for new grants F I have not been 
able to ascertain that such an order was in fact made, the 
archives of the College would doubtless show, but this is clear, 
from this date onwards the Earl Marshal's warrant is recited 
in all patents, and not confined as before to new grants. 

It will be noticed that Dugdale, even when expressing his 
well-founded indignation against the painters, still admits 
that it is possible ' to prescribe us of right ' to armorial bearings; 
His wrath is directed solely to this being done by ' such as do 
bear the same appellation, though of no alliance to that 
stock.' The phrase is not very happily worded, but the mean- 
ing is unmistakeable. There is nothing against prescription 
per se ; but no prescription can give a right to the arms of 
another family. That is his grievance, and the distinction is 
both sound and sensible. No length of user can sanction what 
is in the beginning a fraudulent, if unintentional, usurpation 
of another's property. Here for once The Book of St. Albans 
and The Right to Bear Arms are in accord. Dame Julian says 
' for that thyng the wich is myne . . . may not be take fro 
me, ner the prynce may not do hit rightwysly ' ; ' X ' puts it 
' the Kings of Arms in England have no power in themselves 
to grant the lawful arms of one family to another family.' ' 
It is much to be regretted that this very proper principle has 
sometimes been lost sight of by those by whom it should have 
been held most sacred. 

It is difficult to see how the insistence on the Earl Marshal's 
warrant upon all occasions improved the position of the 
heralds, unless it may have done so in the matter of fees. The 
people who were content to deal with the herald painters were 
not affected by it, and no doubt continued to ' send name and 
county,' as they are still invited to do to-day. Moreover, it 
did not at first alter the old practice as to prescription, 
though it may have made the rules as to the amount of evidence 
required somewhat more stringent. 

The case of John Evershed seems to point in that direction. 
In 1696 he obtained a confirmation of his arms from Thomas 
St. George, Garter, and Henry St. George, Clarenceux, 
which contains the following recital : 

Whereas . . . Henry, Duke of Norfolk, Earl Marshal, . . . hath by warrant 
or order . . . signified unto us that he hath received testimonials that Mr. 

1 P- 49- 


John Evershed . . . is of an antient family : and whereas he hath also produced 
to his Grace an escutcheon of arms, attested under the hand of Sir Edward 
Bysshe, knt., sometime Clarenceux King of Arms, declaring his arms therein 
expressed to be the arms of their family, his Grace did thereupon order and ap- 
point us to allow and confirm the same unto the said John Evershed and his 
posterity in due form. 1 

This carries us a step further. A formal allowance of 
arms by the proper authority would, one would have thought, 
have been sufficient to satisfy the most exigent Garter or 
Earl Marshal. But something was clearly lacking, or why this 
confirmation ? Can it have been that Bysshe's allowance had 
not been registered at the College ? It is not so stated, but 
it is difficult to find any other explanation. Bysshe we know to 
have been a careless person ; witness the following : 

Sir Edw. Bysshe, Clarenceaux King of Armes, was at the Crowne Inn near 
Carfax in Oxon, in order to visit part of the County of Oxon. . . . Few gentle- 
men appeared, because at that time there was a horse-race at Bracldey. Such 
that came to him, he entred if they pleased. If they did not enter, he was in- 
different, so the visitation was a trite thing. Many look'd on this matter as a 
trick to get money.' 

The infallibility of the College records was clearly in the 
air, and we can trace the growth of the theory almost from 
start to finish. The Evershed confirmation of 1696, just 
quoted, seems merely to imply it ; the following grant by 
Henry St. George, Garter, in the first year of his office, 1703, 
goes a little further, and hints at it in set terms. 

Whereas Henry Gatchell . . . hath by petition humbly represented unto 
. . . Charles, Earl of Carlisle, Earl Marshal of England, . . . that he and his 
ancestors have been possessors and owners of lands of inheritance in the county 
of Somerset . . . ever since the reign of King Richard III., but for want of due 
entries in the College of Armes, not being able to make out so just a right to a 
coat of arms as he ought to do, has made application to his lordship for a grant 
. . . the said Earl Marshall did by warrant . . . order and appoint us to 
devysc and assign such armes, etc. 3 

Here then we get the first hint of the idea that the College 
records are the sole authority for the right to arms. But mark 
how tentatively the draftsman puts it forward ! Here is no 

1 Misc. Gen. et Her. ii. 191. 

*" Dallaway, 316; Noble, 272 ; quoting Anthony Wood. The visitation 
was in 1669. The note is a withering comment on X's statement that the 
visitations effected a ' clean sweep.' 

3 Misc. Gen. et Her. (ser. 3), ii. 101 



rude and blustering assertion that ' arms are good or they are 
bad as they are recorded or unrecorded.' ' The writer is more 
in sorrow than in anger ; there is a delicate suggestion that if 
the College records are incomplete, it is the dead and gone 
Gatchells who are to blame. They had been horse-racing, or 
cock-fighting, or something, when they should have been 
recording their pedigree and arms. 

In 1707 there was further trouble with the ' painter 
fellows,' and a royal proclamation was issued in the Queen's 
name, signed by the Earl of Bindon, which contains the fol- 
lowing recital : 

Whereas the ordering, judging, and determining all matters, concerning 
arms, crests, supporters, cognizances, pedigrees, devices, and ensigns armorial, 
the making and prescribing rules, ordinances, and decrees, for the granting, 
controlling, and regulating thereof, and the putting in execution the laws and 
ordinances relating thereunto, are, among other powers and authorities, with 
her Majesty's approbation, invested in me, Henry, Earl of Bindon, Deputy to 
Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, Earl Marshal.' 

By 1711 St. George had strengthened his formula. In that 
year he granted a patent of arms to Dame Sarah Pritchard, 
nee Cook, 

which family of Cook the said Lady Pritchard . . . affirms to have borne 
and used for their armes, Party per pale gules and blew, three golden eagles dis- 
played, and a like eagle for their crest ; but for want of due entries of the said 
family and arms in the Books of the Heralds' College, the right of the Cooks of 
Kingsthorp to the forementioned arms is become disputable.' 

This a distinct advance. In 1703, Henry Gatchell was 
' not able to make out so just a right to a coat of arms as he 
ought to do ' ; in 1711, the right of the Cook family had 
' become disputable ' for want of due entries at the College. 
We can see the theory feeling its way, if I may be allowed the 
expression, though as yet it still falls far short of X's vigorous 

Henry St. George does not appear to have pushed the 
infallibility theory any further. He was an old man of seventy- 
eight when appointed Garter in 1703, and at that age his 
reforming fires must have been burning low. Noble says of 
him : ' He does not appear to have been much skilled in the 

> The Right to Bear Arms, p. 1 39. 

3 Noble, p. 329. 

3 Misc. Gen. et Her. (new ser.), i. 349. 


profession of arms, or to have personally done much in the 
science.' * His successor, John Anstis, describes him in more 
caustic terms, as ' a timorous animal, governed by every 
creature, minding only his iron chest and the contents of it.' * 

St. George died in 1715, in his ninety-first year. 

Sir John Vanbrugh was nominated to succeed him. In 
the following year, 1716, before his patent was made out, he 
exemplified arms to Sir Matthew Decker on the strength of 
a prescriptive title. 

Whereas Sir Matthew Decker, hath represented unto . . . Henry, Earl of 
Suffolk and Bindon, . . . Deputy . . . Earl Marshal, . . . that his father . . . 
and other his ancestors, who were natives of Flanders . . . having borne and 
used the arms and crest depicted in the margin of this letter ... as the arms 
belonging to their name and family ; which arms the same Sir Mathew Decker 
alledgeth that he some yeares since bro' over with him into England, and hath 
used the same without any interruption ; yet in regard that himself and family 
are now setled in this kingdom ... he was desirous that the aforesaid arms and 
crest, as borne by his ancestors, might (with his lordship's permission) be assigned 
and confirmed unto him and his descendants in the usual form practiced in 
England. . . . And whereas the said Earl . . . did by warrant . . . order and 
appoint us to assign and confirm unto the said Sir Mathew Decker and his 
descendants the aforesaid arms and crest, unless tee should see cause to make any 
alteration or difference in the same, etc. 5 

Vanbrugh did not ' see cause to make any alteration,' and 
the arms were ' assigned and confirmed ' as claimed, on the 
strength of user alone. 

Vanbrugh never got his patent as Garter. He was ousted 
by John Anstis the elder, who may perhaps be best described 
by the modern slang expression, ' hustler.' A learned man he 
undoubtedly was, and his industry is unquestionable. 

In 1714, more than a year before St. George's death, Anstis 
obtained a patent of the reversion of the office of Garter, 4 
but he was unfortunately in prison on a suspicion of Jacobitism 
when the office actually fell vacant, and in the meantime 
Vanbrugh had been nominated. 5 Anstis, however, succeeded 
in getting his claim allowed in 1718, and he subsequently 
obtained a grant of the reversion in favour of his son. 

1 History of the College of Arms, p. 353. 2 Ibid. p. 354. 

3 Misc. Gen. et Her. (ser. 2), iv. 289 ; Vanbrugh describes himself as 
' nominated Garter.' The italics are mine. 

4 He had apparently been angling for it as early as March 1712. 

s Vanbrugh, it maybe remarked, obtained a confirmation of arms in 1714 
on the strength of user by his grandfather (Noble, 355). 


Anstis soon began to improve upon St. George's forms, 
and of course always in the direction of infallibility. Thus, 
in 1723, we get the following : 

William Heysham . . . hath represented unto . . . Henry, Earl of Berk- 
shire, Deputy . . . Earl Marshal . . . that his ancestors having for many 
generations lived in the credit and reputation of gentlemen, did bear a coat of 
arms as of right belonging to their name and family ; but being unable, for want 
of due entrys of their several descents in the College of Arms, strictly to justify 
their right to the same, and desiring an indisputable authority for using thereof, 
hath therefore pray'd his Lordship's warrant, etc. 1 

Again mark the subtle advance. In 1711, the right of the 
Cook family had ' become disputable ' for want of due entries 
at the College ; in 1723, Mr. Heysham for the same reason 
is ' unable strictly to justify ' his right to arms. 

In 1732, Anstis made a vigorous but futile attempt to 
revive the Court of Chivalry, when three persons were pro- 
ceeded against for the alleged improper use of arms. The 
results do not appear, but Noble says that ' this whole business 
was imprudently begun, and unskilfully conducted. The 
lawyers who were consulted laughed at it.' 

Dr. Andrews a spoke mighty well on this occasion, saying that Mr. Lad- 
brook's executors could not be to blame, for they only gave the same arms at the 
funeral as they found in Mr. Ladbrook's custody, and which he always bore in 
his life time unmolested ; and that as visitations had been discontinued so long, 
there was no certainty in arms ; and that several persons who had a right, might 
in length of time have lost their grants, 3 or not regarded them, but yet if they 
were so lost, that loss might be repaired for money, etc. ; and took notice that 
arms were granted not long since to a coffee-man on his paying for them. Mr. 
Ladbrook's son produced a ' brass plate from his grandfather's grave-stone,upon 
which was the arms that the son had borne.' 4 

In 1733 we find another variation : 

Whereas Robert Bostock of Orford in the County of Kent . . . hath re- 
presented . . . that his grandfather came out of Cheshire about the year 1630 
. . . that for want of due entries in the office of arms [he] is unable to prove 
his descent from the antient family of Bostock of Bostock in Cheshire . . . hath 
prayed his Lordship's warrant for our granting, allowing, ratifying and con- 

1 Misc. Gen. ft Her. (new ser.), iv. 375. 

1 He appeared for one of the accused persons. 

8 This is the only reference to a lost grant that I have found in the course 
of a somewhat lengthy search. I am afraid it does not strengthen Mr. Philli- 
more's argument very materially. 

Noble, p. 373. ' 


firming the same arms and crest borne by the said family, with such alteration 
as may be necessary to distinguish him and his posterity from all others of the 
same name and lineage. 1 

This case seems to sail perilously near Dugdale's phrase 
' such as do bear the same appellation, though of no alliance to 
that stock,' but we may take it that Mr. Bostock produced 
sufficient evidence to prove a prima facie descent from the 
Bostocks of Bostock, though unable ' for want of due entries 
in the Office of Arms ' to show the exact links. 

By 1738 there was an emphatic alteration, and we get the 
following : 

Whereas William Leeves . . . hath represented . . . that his ancestors 
were formerly seated at Wimbourn in the county of Dorset, and that he hath in 
his custody several of their ancient deeds, and among others a settlement bearing 
date in the year 1417, whereto four persons of his surname have severally set 
their seals, which are impressed with a fess dancette between three garbs, but the 
colours are not there to be discovered, however, his ancestors have borne them 
thus blazoned, viz. : gules a fess dancette between three garbs or, and that the 
same arms are engraven upon several tomb stones now remaining in the Church 
of Wimbourn aforesaid. . . . That as no entries can be found in the College of 
Arms, of their descent or of the arms thus used by his ancestors, the said William 
Leeves hath therefore prayed his Lordship's warrant for our granting and con- 
firming unto him and his descendants . . . the same arms as borne by his ances- 
tors, with some small addition, and a suitable crest thereto.* 

The ' small addition ' granted was the substitution of 
' erminois ' for gold in the fess, a substitution which daubed 
a coat, presumably ancient, with a brush dipped in the 
coach-painter's pot. 

Here at last we have it, at a date so near our own that two 
long lives will bridge the gap. In all its effrontery we have 
the new doctrine : ' as no entry can be found in the College,' 
therefore a new grant is necessary. Anstis has put the crown- 
ing touch upon St. George's usurpation of power, and thus 
created a precedent for the subsequent practice of the College. 

Apart from everything else, I have no hesitation in de- 
scribing this recital as a gross impertinence. Compare the 
facts in this case with several of the quotations I gave in a 
late number of the Ancestor. 3 Can there be the slightest 
doubt that Dugdale or any of the earlier heralds would have 
exemplified these arms without any hesitation ? 

1 Misc. Gen. et Her. (new ser.), iv. 92. 

Ibid. (ser. 2)^.53. 

' Ancestor, viii. 139, 140, 141 


The deed cited, and doubtless put in evidence, is only two 
years short of Agincourt, and we may reasonably assume that 
Mr. Leeves was one of the ' precious few ' (to use ' X 's elegant 
term) who could prove a user from that date. But to gratify 
the avarice or lust of authority of an Anstis, he is dragged 
down to the level of Dr. Andrewe's coffee-man. I repeat, 
it was a gross impertinence. 

In 1737 the College petitioned for a new charter. I have 
not been able to find a copy of the petition, and Noble merely 
mentions the fact, without giving any details. It is difficult 
to conceive what necessity there could be for a new charter, 
unless it was to confer greater powers on the heralds. It is 
curious that the petition should follow so closely after the 
failure to resuscitate the Earl Marshal's Court. The petition 
was not granted. 

One more quotation will show how the formula crystal- 
lized. Thus, in 1739, the elder Anstis recites that 

John Mason . . . hath represented . . . that his ancestors having borne for 
their arms, upon plates and seals, a lyon rampant with two heads . . . but find- 
ing no memorial of his descent is unable to justify such a right to the same as the 
strict laws of arms require. 1 

In 1746, John Anstis the younger, who had succeeded his 
father as Garter in 1745, gave a patent of exemplification on 
the strength of user. 

Whereas Samuel Dicker ... on behalf of his father Phillip Dicker . . . 
hath represented unto . . . Thomas, Earl of Effingham, Deputy . . . Earl 
Marshal . . . that his ancestors being descended from a family of the same name 
in Saxony, who have for many ages borne and used the coat of arms following 
. . . ; but by reason of the great distance of time, is unable to make the due 
proofs required ; and upon search made in the records of the College of Arms, does 
not find them borne by any other family ; hath therefore prayed his Lordship's 
warrant for our granting and confirming the same arms and crest . . . And 
forasmuch as his Lordship . . . did by warrant . . . order and direct us to 
grant and confirm unto the said Philip Dicker such arms and crest as he and his 
descendants may lawfully bear, etc. The arms and crest are granted without 
alteration. 1 

This is the latest case I have found in which prescription 
was recognized ; sixty years after ' X ' tells us that it was 
' utterly useless to put forward any prescriptive right to arms 
whatsoever.' 3 

1 Misc. Gen. et Her. (ser. 2), i. 295. 

2 Ibid. (ser. 2), iv. 290. The italics are mine. 

3 The Right to Bear Arms, p. 139. 



We are now in a position to apply the result of this evidence 
to the statements of ' X ' and Mr. Phillimore, and thus to test 
the soundness of their conclusions. 

Let us first see what they say. 

Since the Visitations it has been absolutely impossible in England to obtain, 
and utterly useless to put forward, any prescriptive right to arms whatsoever. 
Arms are good or they are bad as they are recorded or unrecorded. 1 

If a man did not embrace the opportunity [i.e. the visitation], the arms he 
used remained as they were before that is, bogus, not merely unrecorded. 
The arms were illegal ; the opportunity of making them legal was ignored, 
therefore the fault lay with the individual himself, not with the Heralds. The 
descendants of such people must blame their ancestors for being so foolish as to 
let the opportunity pass. 1 

Mr. Phillimore, like the Second Spirit in the Ancient 
Mariner, hath ever ' a softer voice.' He tells us that 

mere voluntary assumptions, whether by the applicant or his ancestors, are 
entirely disregarded, and the ultimate and only test is whether the arms rest on 
a grant or ancient allowance by the heralds at some visitation. 3 

The fundamental error in both authors seems to me to be 
this : each assumes that the heralds could record pedigrees 
and allow arms only at a visitation. In each case the language 
is clear and unmistakeable : ' since the visitation ' says ' X,' 
an ' allowance ... at some visitation ' says Mr. Phillimore. 
It is amazing to find two champions of the College thus limiting 
the powers of the heralds. And the point is vital to their 
argument. If arms could be exemplified and pedigrees 
recorded other than at visitations, there is no reason why the 
discontinuance of visitations should affect the heraldic prac- 
tice ; there is no reason why ' since the visitations ' it should 
be ' useless,' etc. ; there is no reason why the allowance should 
be ' at some visitation.' 

It is so notorious that all these things were done out of 
visitation time, that it cannot be necessary to cite authorities 
to that effect. A large number of the documents already quoted 
in this article were not made at visitations, and I have shown 
that exemplifications continued after the visitations had ceased. 
The powers of the Kings of Arms are granted by their patents 

The Right to Bear Arms, p. 139. 

1 Ibid. p. 131. 

3 Heralds' College and Coats of Arms, p. 6. 


of creation, the patent authorizing the visitation merely 
enlarged them for certain specified purposes. Thus the visit- 
ing King of Arms or his deputy had authority to summon 
individuals before him, to demand proofs, to enter castles and 
houses, to regulate costume under the various sumptuary laws, 
to use force if necessary, and to summon offenders before the 
Earl Marshal ; all of which, except perhaps the last, were in 
addition to his ordinary powers as contained in his patent of 
creation. While conducting his visitation he granted or 
exemplified arms by virtue of his authority as a King of Arms, 
not of his visitation commission ; and, once the visitation was 
concluded, the extraordinary and ancillary powers given to 
him ad hoc, ceased and determined. 

No doubt a large number of exemplifications were made 
at the visitations, but this was a matter partly of compulsion, 
partly of convenience. The Herald in Eyre brought heraldic 
justice to the door of the country gentleman, who, willingly 
or unwillingly, gratefully or otherwise, accepted his sovereign's 
consideration that ' the nobilitye and gentry of this our realme 
may be preserved in every degree as apperteyneth as well in 
honour as in worshippe,' * and saved himself the trouble and 
expense of a journey to London. 

The discontinuance of the visitations, though it may be 
' the saddest thing one can find to chronicle in the history of 
British armory,' 2 has nothing whatever to do with the pre- 
scriptive right to arms. That right was fully recognized by 
the heralds long before the visitations began and long after they 

The question next arises what authority if any had St. 
George and Anstis for altering ' the long practice of centuries ' ? 
That the ' very ancient and long usage ' beloved of Mr. 
Phillimore was capable of alteration we may admit, but how 
or by whom ? An Act of Parliament could doubtless have 
done it ; and so probably could a new charter, if Anstis had 
succeeded in getting one in 1737. The Earl Marshal's powers 
may perhaps extend so far, though I am inclined to think they 
do not. It is not necessary, however, to go into this, because 
it seems clear that the Earl Marshal did not make any orders on 
the subject. If he had done so, we should expect to find some 

1 Commission to Richard St. George, Clarenceux, to visit the east, west, and 
south parts (Patent Roll, 9 Charles I.). 
* The Right to Sear 4rms, p. 108. 


reference to them in Noble's work, and they would have been 
quoted by ' X ' as authority for his assertions. Moreover, 
the very gradual growth of the infallibility theory, which I 
have pointed out, the insidious steps by which it finally reached 
its ultimate form, preclude the idea of its being the act of the 
Earl Marshal. There would have been no necessity in that 
case for the cautious language used in the grants I have quoted. 
The Earl Marshal would have issued his fiat in set terms, both 
for the instruction of the public and the direction of the 

But if there were no Act of Parliament, no charter, no 
orders of the Earl Marshal, the change must have been made 
by St. George and Anstis themselves, and of their own autho- 
rity ; and this was most emphatically ultra vires. Garter's 
patent gives him no power to make any alteration in the law 
of arms, and to this we may attribute the care and caution so 
markedly displayed by the draftsman. 

A precedent had been set, however, and successive Garters 
have felt bound to follow it. The position was and is, I 
admit, a difficult one. It is almost as hard a task to upset an 
established precedent as it is to overtake a lie with a good start. 
And the demonstration that the lie is a lie and the precedent 
ultra vires does not necessarily diminish the difficulty. 




THERE is a little town in a corner of one of the Rhine 
duchies which has a special interest for the wanderer 
from the British Isles. The place bears the suggestive name 
of Schotten (Schotte is the German for a Scotsman) and it 
lies in an out-of-the-way district of the pleasant land of Hesse. 
A branch line of railway, which has its starting point at Nidda, 
one of the stations on the line from Frankfort to the University 
town of Giessen, connects Schotten with the outer world. 
But the tourist heeds it not, and passes by along the well-worn 

As the traveller steams away from Frankfort he leaves 
behind him the Germany of to-day Germany, the ' world- 
power,' strenuous and progressive and is borne away to an 
older Germany, the Germany of legend and romance, where 
the spirit of feudalism yet lingers ; to the land of quaint 
old towns and villages, of enchanted forests and pinnacled 
castles perched upon the hill tops, relics of the days when 
the robber-knight preyed on the treasure that flowed from 
the East into the rich cities of Almayne. 

From Nidda a single line winds slowly up to the foot of 
the Vogelsberg hills. The railway is laid through the very 
midst of a succession of picturesque villages, a bell clanging 
incessantly to warn the inhabitants of the leisurely approach 
of the train, which passes so close to their homes that one 
might think it possible to stretch out a hand, as the train crawls 
by, and touch the timbered walls of the houses. At last 
Schotten is reached a little town of a few hundred inhabi- 
tants, encircled by the wooded hills. 

There can be no certainty about its early history. ' Zu 
den Schotten ' (at the Scots') is the earliest form of the name, 
and there is no doubt that it points to the settlement here of 
a colony of Scoti, who crossed the sea and made a laborious 
pilgrimage to this spot, far inland, where they built a village 
and church. 


In the absence of any proof to the contrary, there is no 
reason why the traditional story should not be accepted, which 
tells that in the year 1015 two Scottish princesses began to 
build a church and village, coming hither, no doubt, with pious 
intent to found a religious house among a people who at that 
time had not yet found the light. 

The church of Schotten is a large and handsome fourteenth 
century structure. Above the west door there is some curi- 
ous mediaeval sculpture representing a knight on horseback. 
Within the church are shown the gilded busts of the two ladies 
whose piety raised the earlier building. Both have long, 
flowing locks ; one has her hair encircled by a wreath, the 
other wears a crown. Archaeologists are agreed that these 
effigies are probably of eleventh century workmanship. 1 More- 
over, not many years ago an ancient document was discovered 
in the ball of the church tower. Since it speaks of Schotten 
as already a ' civitas,' it is held that it was not written earlier 
than the fourteenth century, so that it merely represents what 
was the traditional belief at that time with regard to the 
foundation of the church. It is interesting, however, because 
it repeats what has already been the legendary account of the 
people of Schotten. 

It runs as follows : ' Anno milesimo decimo quinto post 
nativitatem Dom. nostri J. Christi sup. imperio regis dicti 
claudi civitatem hanc et templum nostrum Schottense primum 
aedificare coeperunt duae sorores ex Scotia oriundae, una 
Rosamunda, altera Dicmudis vocata ' that is to say : ' In the 
year 1015 in the reign of the king nicknamed the lame (Henry 
II, Emperor 1002-1024) two sisters from Scotland, one named 
Rosamunde, the other Dicmudis, began to build this town and 
our first church at Schotten.' 

In the annals of the nunnery of Wetter, not very far away, 
the names of two Scottish ladies appear at the same date. At 
Wetter they are called Dicmudis and Almudis. Whether 
Almudis was a third sister, or there was some confusion about 
the names, can only be conjectured. 

This part of Germany had, for many years before this date, 
a connexion with the British Isles, for there were already nine 
' Schottenkirchen ' in Mayence and in Upper Hesse, all 

1 We venture to dissociate ourselves from the archaeologists who assign these 
figures to so early a date. ED. 


dependent on Strassburg, where Florens, a Scoto-Irish hermit, 
had been elected bishop in 679 A.D. It seems quite natural 
that the Scottish sisters should settle at a place where their 
countrymen were already known. 

We have spoken of the settlers at Schotten as ' Scottish,' 
but it is impossible to decide whether these Scoti came from 
the country which is now called Scotland, or whether they 
came from Ireland, whence the Scots originally migrated to 

So generally it was recognized that the inhabitants of 
Ireland and the West Highlands of Scotland were of the same 
race that it was not until the twelfth century that the word 
' Scotus ' was used to denote exclusively a Scotchman in the 
modern sense. For instance, the celebrated ' Schotten- 
kloster ' at Ratisbon, which was in the hands of Scotsmen 
till the eighteenth century, was founded in the eleventh 
century by Marianus Scotus, who was in reality an Irishman. 

It has been suggested that the princesses ' ex Scotia ' who 
built the church at Schotten may have been two daughters of 
Brian Boru, the King of Munster, who was defeated and de- 
posed at the battle of Clontarf in 1014. Beyond the fact that 
the date fits in with that of the arrival of the princesses in 
Hesse, there seems little ground for this supposition. 

There is at least one German family which claims descent 
from the followers of these Scottish ladies. In the family 
MSS. of the Schotts of Braunfels (begun in 1587) this claim is 
set forth, and although it will not bear historical investigation 
it is not inherently improbable. The tradition need not 
summarily be rejected that the first recorded member of the 
family migrated from Schotten to the Nassau country in the 
twelfth century, and granting this, it is quite probable that 
most of the inhabitants of the Scottish village at that date 
were descended from the original settlers of the previous 



I HAVE read with considerable surprise, indeed with blank 
amazement, Mr. Bird's article on this subject. In order 
that I may run no risk of misrepresenting in any way his reply 
to my criticism of the Trafford legend, I will quote his own 
words. After setting forth the pedigree from ' King Kanutus 
his tyme,' he proceeds : 

It is a more serious matter when Mr. Round comes forward to denounce our 
pedigree as a ' grotesquely impossible tale," and declare that ' it is shattered by 
Domesday Book.' l 

Mr. Bird then prints abstracts of seven charters, and 
observes : 

In the light of this evidence I do not think the most impatient critic will any 
longer deny the existence of the impossible Randolph, or refuse assent to the 
following pedigree.' 

This pedigree makes the Henry de Trafford who fined for 
his relief in 1 205 the great grandson of a ' Randolph,' of whom 
Mr. Bird submits 

that we shall not be far wrong if we set down the impossible Randolph as a 
real person, probably a contemporary of the Conqueror, born omewhere in the 
latter half of the eleventh century. 3 

The article closes with a plea that we should ' try and 
be fair even to an old-fashioned maker of pedigrees on vellum.' 

Now it is an old and a very familiar device in all contro- 
versy to abstain from citing your opponent's case and then 
to claim to prove what he has never denied. In the present 
instance I need only cite what I have actually written (in the 
passages referred to by Mr. Bird) to show that what I de- 
nounced was not Mr. Bird's pedigree, but, to quote his own 

Ancestor, ix. 68. > Ibid. 71. 

s Ibid. p. 74. Genealogists should be careful to avoid this loose and 
misleading use of the word ' contemporary.' I was, in this sense, contem- 
porary with Queen Victoria, but I was not even born till she had been many 
years on the throne. 



phrase, ' the Trafford legend,' the pedigree from ' King Kanu- 
tus his tyme.' 

The two passages are these : 

The World (17 Oct. 1900), in an article on ' Sir Humphrey de Trafford at 
Home,' asserts that ' Randolph, Lord of Trafford, was the patriarch of the 
family, which for nearly nine centuries after him has produced an uninterrupted 
line of heirs male. The first recorded Trafford lived in the reigns of King 
Canute and Edward the Confessor, being succeeded by his son Ralph," etc. 
This grotesquely impossible tale is duly found in Burke's Peerage, although it 
is shattered by Domesday Book. 1 

Wilder, however, than the claims to descent from Norman invaders are 
those of the families who would ' go one better ' by asserting an earlier origin 
... As for ' Randolphus de Trafford,' who lived ante conquestum, ' as the family 
pedigree sets forth,' we may leave him to the company of an impossible, etc., etc. 
. . . An equally impossible ' Hugh Fitz Baldric, a Saxon thane,' was a Norman 
tenant-in-chief. 2 

It will be obvious to all who read these words that what 
I denounce as ' grotesquely impossible ' is the existence of a 
* Randolf, lord of Trafford,' who ' lived in the reigns of King 
Canute and Edward the Confessor* and was succeeded by his 
son ' Ralph.' In the very same number of the Ancestor 
as that which contains Mr. Bird's article several paragraphs 
of ' What is believed ' 3 are, devoted, as it happens, to other 
families which similarly claim ' fore-conquest ancestors.' Of 
these ancestors one is ' William Stanley of Stanley,' living 
' fifty years before the battle of Hastings,' who is justly de- 
scribed as ' a pretended Englishman with the very French 
name of William ' (p. 158). No less worthy of ' What is 
believed,' is that pretended Englishman with the very French 
name of Renouf (Ranulphus), who is said to have been lord 
of Trafford ' in the reign of King Canute,' ' nearly nine cen- 
turies ' ago, and to have given his son the no less distinctively 
foreign name of Ralph. 4 

Domesday Book shows us ' Ranulfus ' as a name that was 
common after the Conquest, and was (as we should expect) 
unknown before it. Mr. Bird pleads, quite justly, in favour 
of Randle Holme, that ' for him were no public libraries, no 
books of reference ; the public records were hardly accessible.' 

1 Peerage Studies, p. i. 
3 Ibid. pp. 64-6. 

3 These, I need hardly add, are not from my own pen. 

4 Compare Ancestor, v. 144, 146-7. 


And he urges that we should ' keep strong language in reserve 
for offenders of a different class.' But it will have been 
observed that I do not even mention Randle Holme in the 
passages above. My complaint is against those responsible 
for the issue of Burkis Peerage, precisely as was Mr. Free- 
man's. 1 The excuses that could be made for Randle Holme 
cannot be made for them ; nor can they even plead that they 
do but repeat legends as such. As Mr. Freeman complained 
before me, its information is put forward as " authoritative " 
on the ground of its ' testing of all facts by research and in- 
vestigation.' a Yet even now, in this year of grace 1904, the 
Trafford legend is thus set forth in that impenitent publica- 
tion : 

RANDOLPHUS DE TRAFFORD. who flourished ante conqnestum, as the family 
pedigree sets forth, was father of 

RANDOLPHUS, of whom mention is made in two deeds to ' Radulphus 
(sic) filius Radulphi (sic) ' by which it appears that Radulphus (sic) the 
father, * was then dead, and had flourished in King Canute the Dane 
his time, about the year 1030 and perhaps died after, in St. Edward 
the Confessor his time, about the year 1050 ; hee had noe surname, as then 
few of our Saxon nobilitie or gentry had.' From this Radulphus sprang 
the great house of Trafford, which has since uninterruptedly held a most 
distinguished place among the first families of Lancashire. His son 

ROBERT FILIUS RADULPHI was of full age at the time of the Conquest, and 
about A.D. 1080 he, with his father, received the king's peace and protection 
from Hugh de Massy, Baron of Dunham Massy ; his son 

HINRICUS FILIUS ROBERTI, temp. Henry I., d. about 1130, leaving a son 
HENRT DE TRAFFORD, etc., etc. 

This is ' the Trafford legend ' as preserved by Randle 
Holme, 3 but here given, it will be observed, without mention 
of his name, and not as legend but as fact. 

It is because we have here three generations of pretended 
English thanes, successively receiving before the Conquest 
distinctively foreign names, that I must denounce this legend 
as ' grotesquely impossible,' and everyone familiar with the 
period will know that I am right. Does even Mr. Bird ven- 
ture to deny it, though he vaguely hankers after a pre-Conquest 
pedigree for the family ? He does not and dares not do so. 

1 See his ' Pedigrees and Pedigree-makers ' in Covtemforary Review, rxi. 

2 See Ancestor, i. 190, and compare Peerage Studies, pp. 52-3. 

3 See Ancestor, Lx- 67. 


As to using ' strong language,' it is evident that, as Mr. 
Freeman found, not merely ' strong,' but ferocious language 
is needed to produce any impression on a work such, as Burke 's 
Peerage. I cited Trafford in my Peerage Studies, as an in- 
stance of how newspapers were induced to repeat these fables 
by ' the sanction they appeared to receive from their quasi 
official and persistent repetition in the pages of Burke' s Peer- 
age and of other ' Burke ' publications. 1 Even the excuse 
of ignorance, therefore, will not here avail. When the reader 
is assured, as this very year, in the usual preface, that 

The narrative pedigrees in Burke 1 s Peerage are subjected annually to search- 
ing revision, and . . . made to keep pace with the onward march of events and 
the latest results of genealogical research and discovery [!] 

it would not be pleasant, or even possible, to say what one 
thinks of that assurance in the light of the Trafford legend. 
I will only ask my readers Is it true ? 

When one turns from the distinctive glory claimed for the 
house of Trafford, a proved pedigree from the days of Canute, 
to Mr. Bird's claim that they descend from a ' Ranulphus ' 
(as he spells it) ' born somewhere in the latter half of the 
eleventh century,' the incredibility disappears but the dis- 
tinctive glory also. There is obviously nothing ' impossible,' 
still less ' grotesquely impossible ' in the existence of such a 
man at a time when, as Domesday shows, his name was 
common enough. Only and this is the essential point so 
strangely ignored by Mr. Bird he cannot have been an English- 
man born before the Conquest. 

The pedigree propounded by Mr. Bird deserves to be 
examined on its merits, and for my part I have no wish to 
question it. The date at which his ' Ranulphus ' lived cannot, 
of course, be exactly given ; but as he was the great-grand- 
father of Henry, who succeeded to Tra fiord in 1205, he 
must almost certainly have been born after the coming of 
the Conqueror (1066). Mr. Bird, I gather, admits this and 
suggests that he was born about 1095 if we allow twenty-five 
years to a generation, or 1075 if we allow thirty. But he 
thinks it impossible to say whether there were not two Henrys 
in succession (as in the above pedigree derived by ' Burke ' 
from Randle Holme), in which case these dates would be 

1 pp. ix.-x. 


thrown back to 1070 and 1045 respectively (p. 74). Now 
any date earlier than 1066 would, as I have shown above, 
settle the point decisively as against Mr. Bird by establishing 
the foreign birth of ' Ranulphus.' But what ground is there 
for supposing that there were two Henrys ? Mr. Bird can 
only produce evidence for one, and his sole ground for suggest- 
ing two is that ' Randle Holme supposed there were ' (p. 74). 
It is evident that he cannot emancipate himself from that 
' legend ' which his own evidence proves to be false. For the 
Randle Holme-Burke pedigree makes even the second Henry 
succeed as early as 1130, while Mr. Bird's Henry does not 
succeed to Trafford till 1205 ! 

We have here, in fact, but another example of that process 
which I have described as trying to put the new wine of scien- 
tific genealogy into the old bottles. However carefully the 
process is conducted, the bottles are bound to burst. In 
this case the pedigree begins with ' Ranulphus ' both in the 
old and in the new version ; but while, according to Mr. 
Bird's dates, ' Ranulphus ' must have spent under Henry I. 
his manhood, if not his boyhood, Randle Holme transports 
him to the days of ' King Canute.' The natural result of 
this absurdity was that, as Mr. Bird admits, ' subsequent 
generations, no doubt, had to be spread out rather in order 
to make all shipshape ' (p. 72). This spreading out was partly 
accomplished by making one Henry into two, but even then 
the gap yawned. 

Perhaps Mr. Bird's reverence for ' tradition ' may lead 
him to think that, after all, an authority so venerable as 
Weever did not lightly repeat the legend that ' Jernihingho 
now Jennings ' was among those ' of the moste esteeme with 
Canute,' who ' at a parliament held at Oxford ' gave him 
' certain manners lying upon the seaside near Harwich in 
return for services done to his father Swenus.' A recent 
paragraph in an evening paper on the name of an ancient 
family being ' a noted one in England long prior to the Nor- 
man Conquest,' is directly traceable to this source. The 
tale may strike us as hard to swallow ; ' but,' as Mr. Bird 
would say, ' no matter ' (p. 72). |r 

It is the same reluctance to shake himself free from that 
' grotesquely impossible ' ancestor who as ' equall to our 
Lord Barons nowe ' may have even been one of Canute's 
advisers on his attitude towards the tide, that lies at the root, 


as it seems to me, of Mr. Bird's wish to instal the Traffords 
at Trafford before the Conquest. For apart from Randle's 
nonsense, what proof can he produce ? Tradition ! 

There had formerly been within the Hundred [Salford] twenty-one bere- 
wicks held by as many thanes. ... At the next survey, in King John's time, 
we read of a number of manors still held in thanage (in thenagio), a fact which 
suggests that many or all of them had been left undisturbed. At any rate when 
one of these tenants in thanage is put forward by tradition (sic) as, not merely 
successor in title, but the lineal descendant of one of King Edward's thanes, I 
cannot myself see anything in Domesday to shatter his claim. Indeed I should 
go further, and say that Domesday, so far as it goes, tells in his favour (p. 74). 

Now how far back can Mr. Bird carry his ' tradition ' ? 
To ' the Elizabethan age ' (p. 66) at furthest ; definitely only, 
as it seems to me, to the days of Charles I. ! And yet it is he 
himself who says of Randle Holme on the Traffords . . . 
' " as is proved by Ancient Tradition," be weakly adds ' (p. 
67) ! It is also he himself who questions the tradition which 
makes the Pilkingtons, in the same Hundred, of ' Saxon ' 
origin, and holds that ' instead of being Saxon irreconcilables 
they were more probably on the side of the invader ' (p. 77).* 
He cannot, therefore, complain if I similarly decline to accept 
a tradition which traces the Traffords to ' one of Edward's 
thanes ' who bore, like his father before him, a wholly impos- 
sible name. 

There is nothing exceptional in the vague claim to ' tra- 
ditional ' Saxon origin ; and I am disposed to make the 
suggestion that it may have had its origin often in the pos- 
session by a family of the manor from which its name was 
taken. Even since this article was written a paragraph has 
appeared in the press on the present Earl of Chichester 
stating that his family, as Pelham of Pelham (Herts), had a 
4 clear ' pedigree to days before the Conquest ; it is claimed 
for the Crofts of Croft Castle (as, for instance, even in Fos- 
ter's Baronetage) that they are of ' Saxon origin ' ; and the 
same claim is made for Trelawney of Trelawney, Stourton 
of Stourton, and, as we have seen, for ' Stanley of Stanley,' 
Pilkington of Pilkington, and Trafford of Old Trafford. Mr. 
Bird, it is true, urges that the Lancashire belief in the ex- 

1 This tradition, which is duly ridiculed in the same number of the Ancestor 
( p. 155), is at least as old as the days of Fuller, who speaks, in his Worthies, of the 
Pilkingtons as ' a right ancient family of repute before the Conquest.' 


ceptional antiquity of the Traffords must be old because 
' a quaint local poet of the Elizabethan age, in A Golden 
Mirror* supports it in his ' acrostic verses of a complimentary 
character upon the names of knights and gentlemen of that 
country,' adding 

Now there were many old families then in Lancashire Ashtons, Pilking- 
tons, and Worsleys, Standish, Molyneux, and even Stanley. But it is only 
when Sir Edmund Trafford's name is the subject of his vision that our poet 
chooses Time for his interlocutor. 1 

One verifies the reference and discovers, first, that the 
' acrostic verses ' relate, not to Lancashire, but almost ex- 
clusively to Cheshire, and then (not without some surprise) 
that of the six houses named by Mr. Bird Stanley alone is 
dealt with by the author, and that as Strange,* not as Stanley. 
I venture to submit, therefore, that it is somewhat misleading 
to put the case as Mr. Bird puts it. 

But, it may be urged, there is the ' thanage ' argument ; is 
there not something in that ? Absolutely nothing whatever. 
Mr. Bird appears to have confused the holding of land ' in 
thanage ' with descent in blood from a ' thane.' The fact 
that holdings by thanage are found in the survey, temp. John, of 
Salford Hundred, does not, I assert, ' suggest that many or 
all " of the English thanes " had been left undisturbed.' At 
Pendlebury, for instance, a carucate was held ' in thanage ' 
because it had been so granted by John when Count of Mor- 
tain ; 3 and Little Bolton in Pendleton (opposite Trafford 
Park) was held by the Boltons ' in thanage ' because it had 
been so granted to William son of Adam by John when Count 
of Mortain ; * therefore the holding of land ' in thanage ' is 
no proof that it had not been acquired by a recent grant, 
though the absence of enrolment in the twelfth century 
makes it impossible, as a rule, to prove the fact of that grant. 

If then ' tradition ' and tenure in thanage are alike of no 
avail to prove that the Traffords held at Trafford before the 
Conquest, what remains ? There remains nothing. 

1 Ancestor, ix. 66. 

a Ferdinando, Lord Strange, who was summoned to Parliament as such 
1589-1593. He matriculated as ' Ferdinando Strange,' and was himself a poet. 

3 ' to hold of us and our heirs ... in free thanage by the free service of 
ten shillings yearly " (Farrer's Lancashire Inquests, p. 69). 

Ibid. p. 71. 


The only clue for our guidance is that of the Christian 
names borne by their earliest ancestors ; and these, we have 
seen, are distinctively foreign. This appears to me to afford 
a very strong presumption that they were not of English 
origin. Take the case of their neighbour, Roger son of Wil- 
liam, who held ' in thanage ' Reddish in Manchester ; l his 
ancestor was Orm the son of Ailward ' living in the time of 
Henry I.,' * founder of the Kirkbys of Kirkby Irleth. Or 
again, take the Singletons of Singleton, descended from Huck 
of Singleton, whose sons Uchtred and Siward were living 
under Henry II., and apparently under Richard I. 3 Lastly, 
take the Traffords' neighbour, Gospatric, lord of Chorlton, 
living in the days of John. One could easily adduce other 
instances of the retention of native names by men of native 
origin for some time after the Conquest. Had the Traffords 
been of English origin, it is most improbable that they would 
have adopted so early as the eleventh century so foreign a 
name as Ranulf, in view of the slowness with which such 
names were adopted in the north of England. The clue, it 
may be said, is slight ; but it is all the evidence that we have. 
For, be it observed, there is no proof that the family held 
Trafford before the time of ' Robertus filius Radulfi de Traf- 
ford,' whose son Henry succeeded in 1205. Even if it be 
claimed that Ralf, Robert's father, held it, this would not 
carry the tenure further back than the middle of the twelfth 
century. To this I attach some importance, for it is perfectly 
possible that, even as the carucate of Pendlebury was granted 
(we have seen) by Count John to be held ' in free thanage ' 
at ten shillings a year, the half carucate at Old Trafford was 
granted rather earlier to be similarly held ' in thanage ' at 
five shillings a year, the terms on which we find it held by 
the Traffords. It is, indeed, perhaps significant that the 
return of these holdings in 1226 4 records Trafford as the land 
of Robert son of Ralf, although, on Mr. Bird's showing, it 
was then held by his grandson. I do not wish to press the 
point unduly, but on comparing this with the other holdings 
one is tempted to suggest that Robert son of Ralf is thus 
entered because he had been the original grantee. ; 

1 P- 69- 

2 Farrer's Lancashire Pipe Rolls, pp. 404-6. 

3 See Mr. Farrer's books. 

4 Farrer's Lancashire Inquests, p. 1 38. 


With regard to the Trafford crest of the thresher, to which 
Mr. Bird devotes the latter part of his article, I cannot think 
that any serious student of such matters will pay much atten- 
tion to the story that accompanies it or will ask whether ' in 
this crude legend ' we have ' a genuine tradition of the con- 
quest ' (p. 75). They will remember Bulstrode riding on 
his bull to meet the Conqueror and his host, or will bethink 
them of Botolph, the Stourtons' gigantic ancestor, holding 
that host at bay. Like Botolph, a nameless ' Traford ' held 
the line of a river and ' kepte the passages against them ' till 
' the Normans having passed the ryver, came sodenlye upon 
him.' At this point, as it seems to me, Mr. Bird wholly 
misses the point of the story ; its hero, we read (p. 75), ' dis- 
guising bimselfe, went into his barne, and was threshing when 
they entered, yet, being knowen by some of them and de- 
manded why he so abased himself, answered " Now thus ! " 
Surely this Trafford is here alleged to have caught up a 
thresher's flail as the royal Charles might have done when 
fleeing from Worcester fight for the purpose of ' disguise,' 
not of defence. And when Mr. Bird further urges, of the 
Trafford in real life, that, being surrounded by Norman 
neighbours, ' never was sturdy thane in more precarious 
position ; good cause had he to keep his back to the wall, his 
wits about him, and a stout flail handy ' (p. 77) he not only 
treats the flail as a weapon (against Norman warriors !), but 
assumes exactly what he has to prove, namely, that Trafford 
was an English ' thane.' 

The Trafford claim, I must repeat, is by no means peculiar 
to their house. Stourton was of Stourton, as Trafford of 
Trafford, from early times no doubt ; but, not content with 
this antiquity, Stourton claims to have been ' traditionally 
a powerful and warrior family in the Saxon period,' and to 
have had as its ' traditional ' ancestor, in the time of King 
Alfred, ' Botolph de Stourton.' * Given the possession of 
a manor from twelfth century times, there is almost bound to 
arise a ' traditional ' descent either from its Norman grantee 
at the Conquest, or, as in the case of the Trelawnys, from its 
* fore-conquest ' possessor. 8 Mr. Bird, it is true, carries back 

' Peerage Studies, pp. 55-7. 

* Ibid. p. 65. And compare Mr. Barren's remarks on the Ogle's patriarch 
an the same number of the Ancestor as Mr. Bird's article (p. 181). 


the story connected with the Trafford crest to the days of 
Agard (1540-1615) ; but I have carried back to those of Par- 
sons (1546-1610) the story connected with the Stourton 
crest of ' a monk girt with a girdle, and armed with a scourge,' 
that it commemorates the fact of ' Sturtonus ' being ' among 
the first converts ' at the coming of St. Augustine (597).' 

Let me now endeavour to sum up the conclusions at which 
we have arrived. 

(1) The pedigree of the Traffords from ' Randolphus de 
Trafford,' who lived in the days of Canute, which is still pub- 
lished in Burke 's Peerage, remains ' grotesquely impossible.' 

(2) A vague belief that the name of Trafford ' hath been 
tyme out of mynde, before the conquest was,' is found in a 
local poem ' of the Elizabethan age.' 

(3) The above pedigree from the time of Canute was defi- 
nitely set forth by Randle Holme in 1638. 

(4) It is now admitted that the above Randolphus (or 
Ranulphus) was not even born till the ' latter half of the 
eleventh century,' and the claim to a pre-conquest pedigree 
is abandoned. 

(5) The distinctively foreign name of Randolphus (or Ran- 
ulphus) creates the strongest presumption that he was not of 
English birth (and a certainty that he was not, if he was born 
before the Conquest). 

(6) Trafford cannot be proved to have belonged to the 
family till the time of his grandson, or (at earliest) of his son. 

(7) Trafford was probably granted to a man of foreign 
blood, to be held as before ' in thanage,' not earlier than the 
middle of the twelfth century. 

A tenure of lands in the male line since that date is so ex- 
ceptional that it places the Traffords of Trafford among the 
oldest of our landed houses. 


' Ibid. p. 58. 


THE very interesting roll of arms of the fifteenth century, 
which was brought to a conclusion in the last volume of 
The Ancestor, presents a large number of points that seem to 
invite discussion. May I select one as a beginning, in the hope 
that my example will be followed by other readers, who must, I 
feel sure, have examined its quaint tricks and blazons with 
the same pleasure as myself. 

Among the last set of shields is depicted one to which no 
name is attributed : azure a leaping fox of silver carrying off a 
goose. 1 This coat arrests the eye as something singular, and 
not altogether heraldic in character. It stands apart from 
the familiar lion and leopard, as from the boars' heads, the 
corbies, and even the belled goats to be seen upon the same 
page ; for there is a certain element of realism in it, a natural 
vigour of action, foreign to the conventions of heraldic art. 

At every period of English history we find new families rising 
out of obscurity to wealth and position, as some are rising to- 
day. When the novus homo has to be fitted with coat armour, 
what shall be devised for him ? One will set up a claim, well 
or ill founded, to an ancient coat. Another would accept arms 
of affection from the chief of some established house, with 
whom he was connected by marriage or other ties. A third 
might prefer something more personal ; charges symbolical, 
perhaps, of his profession and career, or a canting coat suggested 
by his name. The shield in question may be an example of 
this last class ; but the treatment, I repeat, is not exactly 
that of the herald or herald painter. 

The origin of a certain number of armorial designs has 
been traced to antique gems. Hence come such cognisances 
as the Sagittarius, the Pegasus, the salvage man, the head 
bound with fillet or wreath. A gem, we may suppose, set in 
a signet ring, was handed down from generation to generation, 
with a legend perhaps attached to it, until the device upon it 

1 Ancestor, a. 166. 



was either chosen deliberately as a crest, or erroneously con- 
ceived to represent one. Possibly in other instances the 
design of a medieval seal engraver was similarly adopted, 
whether consciously or by misapprehension, for a coat of arms ; 
and the fox and goose is very probably a case in point. 

The seal, of which a rough drawing is here given, may 
lend support to this contention. Its subject happens to be 
the same ; and the device, in no way purporting to be 
armorial, is curiously similar in treatment to that of the later 
draughtsman. This was the seal of one John le Fox, and was 
appended to a letter of attorney, dated 35 Edward I. (1307). 

The seal of Simon de Alvitheleye, of which a drawing is 
also given, affords a remarkable parallel. It is taken from a 
deed of 1300, in the same collection, which came to my hands 
some years ago by the kindness of the late Mr. H. S. Graze- 
brook. Both instruments relate to land in the Shropshire 
parish of Alveley, lying below Bridgnorth on the left bank 
of the Severn, adjacent to the Staffordshire border and to the 
ancient forest of Morf. 

The design of this second seal again the buck's head 
surmounted with the cross formy, with crescent and star to 
fill the vacant spaces on either side below suggesting as it does 
the legend of St. Hubert, is of a type not uncommon, I 
believe, in forest districts, and makes no pretence to be 
armorial. Yet it reappears at a later date with little altera- 
tion, as the coat of a family named Vise of Standon, allowed 
by the heralds at several visitations of Staffordshire : ' argent, 
a buck's head cabossed sable, between the attires a plain_cross 


of the last.' * One might safely infer, therefore, that their 
arms were taken from a seal of this type, even if the manuscript 
of an earlier visitation had not shown such a circular seal in 
place of a shield. 3 No doubt other examples might be adduced. 

I should like to refer once more, in this connection, to the 
well known coat of Holford in Cheshire, silver a greyhound 
sable, adopted also, with difference, by a distinct family named 
Halford in the shires. Originally the Holfords sealed with 
the differenced arms of Toft, their male ancestor. On a former 
occasion I remarked that the greyhound is probably to be 
regarded as a Lostock coat, since it was also borne by the 
Moretons, who descend from Lostock in the male, as Holford 
in the female line ; and hazarded the question whether it 
could be connected etymologically with the name of Gralam 
de Lostock, an early member of the house. 3 The seal of 
Gralam has since been suggested to me as a more likely origin. 
True, the device upon it was interpreted (correctly, I have 
no doubt) as a running hart * ; but the creature is so rudely 
engraved that its species might easily have been mistaken 
when the arms were devised. 

Rather different is the case of a Cheshire coat of greater 
consequence, that of Mascy of Dunham. Mr. Round * long 
ago grouped together a number of families whose arms were 
quarterly of gules and gold, and was able to show that all of 
them were allied to the great house of Mandeville. But his 
list was not exhaustive. Two barons of the Palatinate also 
bore the quarterly coat, Mascy perhaps by the same title as 
the rest. At any rate the Beauchamps of Bedford belong to 
Mr. Round's group ; while among the wives of the last baron 
of Dunham was a Mary de Beauchamp, of unknown descent, 
who was the mother of his daughters.* It may be that his 
arms came by this wife, and that he retained them, though 
he seems to have divorced her. 

1 William Salt Soc. v. pt. 2, 295. 
J Ibid. iii. pt. 2, 144. 

3 Ancestor, ii. 152. 

4 Ibid. 129, 148. 

8 See his Geoffrey de Mandeville. He has since added Despenser (Peerage 
Studies, 328-9). 

Genealogist, new ser. rri. 17. I am not aware of any evidence for 
the use of this coat by earlier barons, nor indeed of any contemporary evidence 
for it at all. 


Several of the quarterly coats collected by Mr. Round, 
that of Beauchamp among them, were marked by various differ- 
ences. Like Vere, Mascy differenced his by a charge in the first 
quarter, in this case a lion passant. Now in slight drawings 
that I have seen of Mascy seals there appears the rude outline 
of a beast, which I take to be meant for a lion. The same 
device may have been borne perhaps upon their shields ; but 
once more upon the seal it is not treated armorially. When 
therefore the baron adopted his new coat, and it became 
necessary to consider the question of a suitable difference, it 
seems not improbable that he also had recourse to the art of 
the engraver ; and that the device upon his seal reappeared 
as the charge upon his coat of arms. 

W. H. B. BIRD. 


THIS curious little book of arms has a peculiar value by 
reason of its connection with the famous Paston letters. 
Friar John Brackley, D.D., a grey friar of Norwich, was the 
constant correspondent and hanger-on of the house of Paston 
between 1440 and 1460. The volume is small, with but one 
shield to a page. The shields are in colours and are of unequal 
merit and finish. Our illustrations are of the better ex- 

All the shields commemorate the descents and alliances 
of the Pastons and their kinsfolk the Barreys and Mawtebys. 
Agnes, daughter of Sir Edmund Barrey of Marlingford, 
knight, married William Paston of Paston, the settlement 
before marriage being dated the eve of the Annunciation, 
8 Hen. V. [24 March 1419-20]. Margaret, daughter and heir 
of John Mawteby, esquire, the wife of John Paston about 
1440, made her will 4 February 1481-2, and thereby directed 
that many of the shields in this MS. should grace her tomb. 
Four scutcheons were to be at the corners of her gravestone, 
whereof ' the first scochen shalbe of my husbondes armes and 
myn departed, the i]** of Mawtebysarmes and Berneys of 
Redham departed, the iij 3 * of Mawtebysarmes and the 
Lord Loveyn departed, the iiij" 1 of Mawtebysarmes and 
Sir Roger Beauchamp departed. And in myddys of the seid 
stoon I will have a scochen sett of Mawtebysarmes allone.' 

The arms are followed by some obscure pedigree notes of 
the Barreys, and these by directions for those who have ' an 
affection ' to learn the French language, with a short grammar 
of that tongue. 

The book was once in the hands of John Ives, Suffolk 
Herald extraordinary, some notes by him being written on 
the title pages in the tiniest of handwritings under the date 
of St. Stephen's Day 1772. It rests now in the collection of 
a more distinguished Norfolk antiquary, Mr. Walter Rye 
having acquired it in 1897. 



1. Gules [no charges] impaled with silver a cross engrailed gules between 
f our bougets sable for BOURCHER. 1 

2. Quarterly gules and gold with a pierced molet silver in the quarter for the 
ERLE OXFORD impaled with gules a bend between six crosslets fitchy silver 
for HOWARD. 

3. Silver six fieurs de lys azure with a chief indented gold for W. PASTON. 

4. PASTON impaled with silver a cheveron sable between three bears' heads 
sable cut off at the neck with golden muzzles for BARREY. 

5. Silver a fesse gules with two crescents gules in the chief for WACHESHAM 
impaled with azure a leopard rampant gold for HETHERSETT. 

6. Sable a fesse and two cheverons gold for JERBRYGG impaled with silver a 
fesse gules with three golden crowns thereon. 

7. Checkered gold and gules with a bend ermine [/or CLYFTON impaled 
with gold flowered with sable for MORTIMER. 

8. PASTON impaled with gold a cheveron 'gules between three lions' heads 
razed gules with three roundels sable on the cheveron for SOMERTON. 

9. BARREY impaled with WACHESHAM. 

10. Checkered silver and gules for MOWNCI. 

1 1 . Gules a scutcheon silver with an orle of silver martlets. 

12. Party azure and gules with a cross engrailed ermine for BERNEY. 

13. Azure three sheaves gold for RsnAu[?]impaledwith gules a cheveron 
silver between three eagles silver for CASTOWN. 

14. Silver a chief indented gold, 2 impaled with azure a cross gold [MAWTEBY]. 

1 The names attached to the shields are italicised in the cases where a 
later hand has inserted them. 

* This is doubtless for the arms of Paston, the flowered field being left un- 


15. MAWTEBY impaled with gules a fesse and six martlets of gold for 

16 Sable a bend silver [sic] with cotises dancy gold for CLOPTON. 

17. Silver a fesse sable between three crescents gules for PATSULL impatfd 
with paly azure and silver of eight pieces and a bend gules with three eagles 
gold thereon for GRANSUN. 

1 8. MAWTEBY impaled with gules billety gold anda fesse silver for LO[VEYN i], 

19. Party gold and gules with a lion passant silver for PLAYSE. 

20. Silver a fesse azure for CLERE impaled with ermine a chief gules charged 
with a fesse indented silver with a billet azure on each fusil. 

21. BARREY [the bears' heads unmuzzled], impaled with silver a chief in- 
dented gules /0fHENCRAVE. 

22. Barrey impaled with silver a fesse gules between sir crosslets fitchy gules 

23. Gules a saltire engrailed silver for KER[DE]STON. 

24. Gules [three round buckles pencilled] for KATISFYLDE [?] impaled with 
gules a chief [the chief with two pierced molets pencilled within a border !] 
for BACON. 


25. Quarterly gold and gules with a border engrailed sable charged with 
scallops silver for HENINCHAM impaled with silver a bend azure for GISSYNG. 

26. Paston impaled with azure a scutcheon gold and a border of martlets gold 

PECHE. A later band uti WALCQT in place of these two names. 

27. MAWTEBY impaled with CLIFTON. 

28. Quarterly gold and gules with a baston sable for CLAVERYNG. 

29. Gules three gimel bars gold and a quarter silver with five billets. . . 

30. Gules a bend engrailed gold SIRE MARCHALL. A later hand adds Mar- 
shall, olim Lord of the mannors of Buxton and Sparham. 

31. BARREY impaled with JERBRYGG [as in No. 6]. 

32. Silver a chief indented gold impaled with silver a fesse azure. 

33. Silver a cheveron gules with three fleurs de lys gold for PEVERE im- 
paled toith silver three lions gules. 


34. Azure a chief indented gold for MOUNSIRE LE GLANVYLE. 

35. Gules a cross silver with five voided lozenges sable. 

36. Checkered gold and azure with a fesse silver for MOUNSIRE SPRECCEYS. 

37. Gules a bend cheeky gold and azure [with six crosslets pencilled in the 

38. PASTON impaled with sable a scutcheon gold and a border of martlet 

39. Gold [with traces of a leaping lion gules] for FELBRIGG. 

40. Quarterly gold and azure with a bend gules and three crosslets gold on 
the bend for SIRE JON FASSETOLFE. 

41. Gules a cheveron between three boars' heads silver, with a border en- 
grailed silver. 


42. Quarterly sable and silver with a bend gules and three molets silver on 
the bend/orOuppESBY impaled with silver three lozenge bucdes gules for 

43. [PASTON]. 

44. Azure a cinqfoil ermine with a border engrailed gold for SIRE ASTELEY. 

45. Gules six hands silver for VAUX or GORNEY <?/ROKEWODE l 

46. Silver six chessrooks sable and a molet sable in the midst for difference 

47. Silver two bars gules and a quarter gules with a baston sable. 

48. Vert two cheverons silver each with three cinqfoils gules for SWANTON 
impaled with PASTON. 

' The shield may be meant for the sir gloves of Wauncy, as is suggested 
by a note in a more modern hand. 


49. Sable a]bend ermine with cotises dancy gold. [CLOPTON.] 

50. Sable three martlets silver for NANTOH. 



51. Gules a chief ermine for NARBOROW. 

52. Gules a cross flory silver for WALSH AM impaled with two coats PASTON 

53. Azure three boars gold for BACON. 

54. Azure a fesse and two cheverons gold for GRAY DE MERTON. 

55. Quarterly silver and azure with a bend sable and three martlets gold on 
the bend for GROSSE. 

56. Silver three lozenges buckles gold for SIRE GUNTUN impaled with 
azure a scutcheon silver with a border of martlets silver SIRE WAKESYLDE or 


57. Gules a cross silver with a border engrailed gold for LEIGH. 

58. Silver a cheveron azure between three squirrels gules with a rounde 
silver on the cheveron /orLovELL, impaled with two coats WAL[S]HAM as in No. 
52 above PASTON. 

59. Azure three griffons passant gold with beaks and claws gules for 

60. KERDISTON impaled with azure a fesse between three leopards 
heads gold for DE LA POOLS. 

61. Silver a fesse azure with three eagles gold thereon for CLEERE tw- 
paled with silver a lion gules and a baston sable for BRANCHE. 

62. Gold three pales gules and a chief ermine for RENEY [?] or MOLOWSE. 

63. KERDISTON impaled with silver a lion sable crowned gold. 

64. Gold a fesse and two cheverons sable impaled with [HENGRAVE]. 


65. Silver a cheveron azure between three scallops sable for LITLETON. 

66. Quarterly gules and silver with an eagle gold in the quarter for ERPINC- 
HAM impaled with two coats, one above the other, azure three roses on cinqfoils 
gold for LORDE BARDOF and vert a scutcheon silver and a border of martlets 
silver for WALCOT. 

67. Silver a fesse azure with three eagles gold for DOWDALE or CLEERE 
impaled with silver a millrind cross gules INCH AM. 

68. Silver a bend and sir crosslets fitchy sable for SIRE ROBERT TYE or 
ICHINCHAM. ' Tye weddid lady Ichingham now in Newsell.' 

69. Party gold and vert with a millrind cross gules for OLIVER INGHAM. 

70. Party vert and gold with a lion' rampant gules. [BYCOT.] 

71. A shield of twelve quarters : i. PASTON, ii. SOMERTON, iii. WALCOT, iv. 
BARREY, v. JERBRYCG, vi. HENGRAVE, vii. [as the impaled shield in No. 38], 
viii. CLERE, ix. GLANVILE as No. 34, x. [as the first shield of 64], xi. KERDISTON, 
xii. POLE. 

72. Gules a cheveron silver with arose . . . on the cheveron. [The spaces 
for two more roses are marked on the cheveron.] 

73. Barry gold and vert with a baston gules for LORD POTNINGS 
quarterly with gules three lions passant silver the whole impaled with PASTON 
quartering BARRET". 

These obits of the family of Barrey or Berry and its allied 
houses are written near the book's end. 

Obitus of Hewe Barrey the vij day of May the yere of howr lord MCCCL. 

The obite of John fader of Edmond Barry the viij day of May the yere 
MCCCLXVII, and the secund day of May than nex fowlyng Edmund Berrey 
knyght was of age ij yere. 

The obite of Cecile Barry wife of Hugh Berry and dowtyr of Heingrave 
xiij day of May the yere MCCCXLIX. The same Cecile and Beatrix Thorpe 
grauntdame of Edmund Thorppe knyght weryn sisteris. 


iij id' Maij obitus Cecile Berry filia Heingrave uxor Hugonis Berry a d'ni 
millesimo ccc quadragesimo nono. 

Non' Maij obitus Hugonis Berry anno d'ni millesimo ccc quinquagesimo. 
Eodem die obiit domina Julian de Hetirsett. 

iiijid' Octobris obitus domini Johannisde Wachesham anno d'ni millesimo 
ccc sexagesimo primo. 

xviij" kal' Julii obitus domini Roberti de Wachesham a d'ni m' CCCLXVII. 
viij id' of Marcij obitus Edmundi Berry a d'ni m' ccc sexagesimo septimo . 
zij kal' August! obitus domini Johannis Berry a d'ni M'CCCXXIX. 
Combustum magne grangie apud Markynford a gracie MCCCLXXXVIII. 

Obitus Cicilie Barrei filie Hengrave uxoris Hugonis Barrei a d'ni MCCC 
quinquagesimo nono. 

Obitus Clementis Paston [anno] d'ni M [cccc] xix. 

Obitus Biatricis nxoris dementis Paston a MCCCCIX. ^ 

Obitus Edmundi Paston a d'ni MCCCCLXVIII lit' d' E. 

Obitus Elizabeth Paston a d'ni 1425. 

Obitus Roberti Clere armigeri a d'ni MCCCCXLVI*. 

Obitus Willelmi Paston Justiciarij regis qui obiit a d'ni MCCCCXVIIJ 
litera dominicali D. 

Obitus Magerie uxoris Johannis Mawdeby armigeri et filie Johannis 
Berney de Redam a d'ni MCCCCXLV. 

Obitus Elizabeth Rothenale a d'ni MCCCCXXXVIIJ que fuit uxor Johannis 
Clere armigeri postea Johannis Rothenale militis. 


Obitus Galfridi Somerton a d'ni MCCCCXVI. 

xj kal' Januarij obitus dominc Elizabethe Gerbridge filie domini Roberti 
de Wachesham a domini M to cccn litera dominicali A. 

vij kal' of Febr' obitus Alicie filie Tohme Gerbrcge militis et uxoris 
Edmundi Berry militis a d'ni M' ccccxxx". 

iiij id' Octobris obitus Edmundj Berry militis a d'ni M^ 



THE enamelled stall plate of an early knight of the garter 
having been lately found in New Zealand, one may not 
wonder overmuch at Mr. McCalPs discovery of a mass of 
valuable Yorkshire deeds at Castlecomer House in the county 
of Kilkenny. Christopher Wandesforde of Kirklington, the 
Lord Deputy, went over to Ireland with the Earl of Strafford 
in 1633, and Castlecomer became at last the home of the 
Wandesfordes and the seat from which they drew the vis- 
count's title which five of them enjoyed. To Castlecomer 
the Wandesfordes carried the deeds of their Yorkshire lands, 
which Mr. McCall has now edited and annotated with a history 
of the Wandesforde family. 

This family took its name from a manor near DufKeld, a 
manor of the Percys, and Geoffrey of Wandesforde, first of the 
house, was granted lands in 1 3 3 8 in the Percys' town of Alnwick. 
Four years later Geoffrey had a pardon for taking uncocketted 
wool out of the kingdom at the instance of Henry Percy. 
John Wandesforde, son of Geoffrey, had before the year 1370 
married the heir of Kirklington, Elizabeth Musters, last of 
a family which had held Kirklington in Domesday under 
Earl Alan of Brittany, being probably Bretons from Moutiers 
near La Guerche. The evidences which carry the pedigree of 
Musters through the difficult period of the twelfth century 
are singularly complete. 

Of the intimate history of a family of squires during the 
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries little can descend as a rule 
to us, although the Paston letters show us the extent of our 
loss. Lawsuits concerning trespass and the like give us some- 
thing wherewith to pad our list of names, the more so as 
the plaintiff in such suits is wont to magnify any personal 
challenging of his rights in an acre or a cowshed into a raid of 
bloody minded men in bright armour, riding and ravening 

1 Story of the Family of Wandesforde of Kirklington and Castlecomer, edited 
by Hardy Bertram M'Call. London : Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent 
& Co., Ltd., 1904. 


with spear and sword. Wills come to the help of Mr. McCall 
from an early date. We have the will of the first Wandesforde 
lord of Kirklington, dated in 1391, with his gifts of gowns 
of green motley and russet with lambskin. John and Roger 
his sons both dying in October 1400 leave each a will. The 
one gives his mazer cup to the church for a mortuary gift, the 
other his best horse, with saddle and bridle, sword and shield. 
Roger had doubtless borne these arms beyond sea and had 
wandered as a younger son should, for he desires his executors 
to get for him a man who should go in his place as a pilgrim 
to the glorious confessors who rest at Beverley and Bridling- 
ton, to whom Roger had made a vow when he was tossed on 
the waves of the sea and all but drowned between Ireland 
and Norway. 

The elder of these sons had further established his 
family by marriage. Isabel, a coheir of Colville of Dale, was 
his wife, a daughter of that ' Colville of the Dale ' who was be- 
headed at Durham, a famous rebel whose fame endures 
because Sir John Falstaff took him, as witness the Second 
Part of King Henry IF. The second son of this marriage, a 
Wandesforde alderman of London, begat a son William, of 
whose treason and fall Mr. McCall should have had something 
to tell us. 

Fortunately for the family the Wandesfordes have no story 
to tell of the wars of the roses. In 1484 John Wandesforde 
began to rebuild part of his hall of Kirklington, the old house 
of the Musters being decayed, and the new work of timber 
framing with wattle and daub was to be built by contract 
for but 61 I3J. ifd. This new work was to contain two 
parlours, four chambers, a pantry, a buttery, and a larder or 
two. With this cheap building work we may contrast the fact 
that when John Wandesforde died twenty years later one 
of his old velvet gowns was valued at io/. 

In the next generation Christopher Wandesforde married 
a daughter of Sir John Norton of Conyers Norton, a marriage 
celebrated when the bridegroom was eleven years old, but in 
spite of this alliance the squire of Kirklington kept away from 
that Pilgrimage of Grace in which a Norton was a leader with 
many neighbours to follow him. The will of this Mistress 
Wandesforde in 1547 disposes of many of those rare pieces of 
plate standing cups, covered salts which fashion in our own 
day has made so costly to come by, and of a set of thirteen 


apostle spoons, whose price in a London sale room would be 
the price of a fair manor. 

In 1568 another Christopher, the heir of Kirklington, 
married Elizabeth Bowes, daughter of Sir George Bowes of 
Streatlam, the knight marshal. When the rising of the north 
country fell upon Sir George and besieged him in Barnard 
Castle, Christopher Wandesforde joined his father-in-law with 
his brother Henry and many horsemen. With the rebels were 
the desperate Christopher Nevill of Kirklington, who had 
married Christopher Wandesforde's mother, and old Norton 
of Conyers Norton, the Wandesfordes' cousin, who had been 
out in the Pilgrimage of Grace and now rode against his queen, 
a whitebearded man with nine sons following him. When 
rebellion was broken at the last, twenty-two names in Kirk- 
lington township were set down in the black list, and three of 
these suffered at the gallows. In such a hotbed of treason the 
staunchness of the squire of Kirklington must have been 
counted to him for great righteousness. He became deputy 
steward of Richmondshire, was a commissioner to search for 
' superstitious trumpery,' and it is on record that he tried and 
condemned a Ripon witch. 

The great man of the family comes with Christopher 
Wandesforde, who was born in 1592 to an estate impoverished 
by the fact that the heads of the house for several generations 
had died leaving young heirs during whose wardships the 
Crown and its nominees had battened upon the lands of Kirk- 
lington. He read law at Gray's Inn and came home to Kirk- 
lington. He married Alice, daughter of that Sir Hewet 
Osborne whose father, a city prentice, had saved his master's 
little daughter from the Thames to wed her and found a ducal 
house. The christening of Wandesforde's son George brings 
a famous name into the tale, for George's godfather was Sir 
Thomas Wentworth, afterwards Earl of Strafford. When Sir 
Thomas, then Viscount Wentworth, proceeded to Ireland in 
1633 as Lord Deputy, his faithful friend Christopher Wandes- 
forde went with him as Master of the Rolls. In 1637 tne chief 
seat of the family was moved to Ireland, the castle and lands 
of Castlecomer in Kilkenny, twenty thousand unkempt acres, 
being bought as a country estate. 

In Wentworth's absence, Christopher Wandesforde and the 
Viscount Ely were joint governors of the island, administering 
the absolute rule which had been established for the king, and 


when the Earl of Strafford, the great minister, left Ireland for 
the last time to go to his doom in London, he gave the sword 
of state into the hands of Wandesforde, who was appointed 
Lord Deputy of Ireland, l April 1640. But with the news 
of Stafford's arrest, the new Lord Deputy lost heart and 
health. Several months before the end came to Strafford, 
Christopher Wandesforde took to his bed and died. Living in 
evil times, he left no private enemy, and when his body was 
laid in its grave at Christ Church in Dublin the native Irish 
there assembled ' did set up their lamentable hone, as they 
call it,' a thing unknown at an Englishman's burial. From 
his prison in the Tower, Strafford avouched that in the Lord 
Deputy was lost ' the richest magazine of learning, wisdom 
and piety.' 

The rebellion of the Irish in 1641 drove the Lord Deputy's 
family to England, where they came first to Chester. Here 
civil war followed them, and the wanderers were in Chester 
when it was attacked by Brereton in 1643. From Chester 
they would have gone to their own house of Hipswell, but 
Hipswell was in the full path of the war, and at the last they 
came to their ancient home of Kirklington. A curious tale 
is told of the adventures of the Wandesfordes on the skirts of 
the battle of Marston Moor. Young Christopher Wandesforde, 
a schoolboy in York, was going forth with other lads to get 
sight of the great battle whose guns were booming in the 
distance, when he was met by his elder brother George, newly 
home from France, who was seeking him under the shelter of 
cousin Edmund Norton's troop of royal horse. George 
Wandesforde took his brother behind him on his crupper, and 
followed by Scots horsemen, who had seen George in Norton's 
dangerous company, they rode in full flight to Kirklington 
Hall, which they were fain to enter by night and by a back 

The next year George was under the Parliament's dis- 
pleasure for presenting a parson of his choice to Kirklington, 
in whose place General Fairfax sent a sour fanatic, who 
preached but one sermon in the church, declaring all damned 
who used the Popish invention of the Lord's Prayer. Kirk- 
lington rose in its pews in hot anger, and a Kirklington Jenny 
Geddes was found to flourish her stool at the minister, crying 
that Kirklington folk were ' noe more damned than himself, 
old Hackle Back.' After this the solemn league and covenant 


was refused by George Wandesforde, who thereby became a 
malignant manifest. The Hall and lands were sequestered, 
and the master was forced to take to the dales in a disguise. 
In 1651 George Wandesforde came by the early death which 
had waited on so many of his ancestors. He set out to cross 
the Swale, when it was swollen with rains. His horse gained 
the north bank without a rider, and the body of the squire of 
Kirklington was found two days later in a pool by Catterick 

The Lord Deputy's third and eldest surviving son Chris- 
topher was made a baronet by patent of 1662. His son, 
another Christopher, became in 1 706 Lord Wandesforde and 
Viscount Castlecomer in the Irish peerage. Three generations 
saw five Viscounts Castlecomer, and the fifth was created in 
1758 Earl of Wandesforde in the county of Kilkenny. 

The first earl, an unimportant figure but a sitter to Sir 
Joshua, was the last of the old line. His only daughter married 
an Earl of Ormond, and her fourth son was made heir of the 
Wandesforde estates at Kirklington and Castlecomer. This 
Charles Harward Butler became Clarke on coming to a Derby- 
shire estate, and Southwell and Wandesforde when his mother's 
lands fell to him. His only surviving daughter married the 
Rev. John Prior, a Dublin clergyman, and her grandson is now 
Richard Henry Prior Wandesforde of Kirklington and Castle- 

Mr. McCall's descriptions and pictures of old Kirklington 
hall and church are of the greatest interest, and his full tran- 
scripts of the early documents at Castlecomer will make good 
material for Yorkshire topographers, although the translations 
present here and there an amateur's too literal interpretation. 
The personal names of the Latin charters follow the usual 
haphazard fashion in their setting down, some translating 
themselves into English, some remaining in Latin, and some 
going their way in that ghost language which is neither Latin 
nor English. It is difficult to understand why, since Johannes 
is translated as John and not ' Johan,' Galfridus should be 
' Galfrid ' instead of Geoffrey, or why Willelmus should be done 
into English and Alicia his daughter remain Latin. 

All the principal family pictures are reproduced from 
photographs in a series continuing from 1585 to the nineteenth 
century. The student of armory will delight himself with 
the illustrations of the seals of the family of Musters (de Monas- 


teriis). About 1 180 we have a round seal of Walter de Musters 
of Bradbury, bearing the device of the minster church which 
plays on his name. This Walter is conjectured to be a younger 
brother of Robert de Musters of Kirklington. About 1200 
Robert de Musters seals with the same minster upon his shield 
of arms in a most interesting seal. William de Musters, lord 
of Kirklington, seals c. 1325 with a curiously differenced shield, 
to describe which Mr. McCall finds himself at the end of his 
armory. Its bearings are probably the minster with an 
engrailed border and a baston. ' At the fesse point is the 
church or minster,' says Mr. McCall, ' a very unusual position 
for a crest ' ! So unusual as to be impossible, even in this 
instance, a crest being a cognizance borne on a helm. 

This minster of Musters, however, became a crest in due 
time, for the Wandesfordes who bore for arms a lion with a 
forked tail carried the minster on their helms as a memorial 
of their ancestors, the old lords of Kirklyngton. 



THE munificence of the late Sir William Fraser has 
rendered possible the publication of that new and im- 
portant work, the Scots Peerage, the first volume of which 
has recently made its appearance. Its editor, Sir James 
Balfour Paul, ' Lord Lyon King of Arms,' tells us in his 
Preface that a new edition of the well-known ' Wood's 
Douglas ' has long been his ' ardent aspiration,' and that a 
good many years ago he endeavoured to bring it about. 
He further explains the sound principles on which the work 
is being written, namely the apportionment of the different 
families among a staff of specially qualified writers, working 
under his own supervision, and the employment of the best 
sources and of modern methods of research. 

It is gratifying to those who have upheld such principles 
in this Review to find Lyon insisting that ' modern methods 
demand a much more thorough treatment of genealogical 
questions than was desired or even possible a century ago/ 
and that however creditable was the work of Douglas and of 
Wood, ' a more accurate and detailed account ' had long been 
rendered necessary by the abundance of new material now 
made accessible, especially for the earlier centuries. If one 
were to criticize the plan adopted, it would only be in respect 
of the latitude allowed to contributors in following Wood 
or Douglas, though, one hastens to add, it is frankly recog- 
nized that ' so many errors had to be corrected, so many facts 
re-stated in the light of modern research,' that entire re- 
writing of the articles ' has been found better in many cases.' 
Probably the most satisfactory plan would be to place within 
quotation marks or otherwise distinguish all that is repeated 
from the older writers. With this slight exception the prin- 
ciples adopted are such as to raise our expectations high. 

For Englishmen Scottish genealogy is essentially a thing 
apart. Owing to the different character of the records, 
other than monastic, of the two kingdoms, its materials, and, 
therefore, to some extent its methods, are to them strange 


and unfamiliar. It is consequently difficult to form an 
opinion of the success at present attained in this enterprise, 
save in those portions on which an Englishman may feel 
competent to speak. One of these, as I conceive, is the 
origin of the famous Comyns ; and I select that subject the 
more readily because, as that family is dealt with by Lyon 
himself, it is one that is likely to illustrate the application of 
his principles in practice. 

The difficulties by which the origin of the great Scottish 
houses are but too often surrounded are in this case singularly 
lightened. For a confirmation by Henry HI., in 1262, to 
John Comyn of Badenoch of certain lands in Tynedale re- 
cites that they had been granted to his great-grandfather, 
Richard Comyn, and Hextilda his wife, daughter of Huctred 
son of Waldeve, by King David and Henry his son. This 
confirmation, which was printed by Hodgson, the industrious 
historian of Northumberland, is the sheet-anchor of the early 
pedigree ; it is in harmony with the descent put forward by 
John Comyn, when he was a competitor for the crown ; and 
the existence of Huctred, son of Waldeve, is duly proved by 
the Pipe Roll of 1130, which shows that he was at that time 
a man of position in Northumberland. 

It adds not only to the interest of a pedigree, but also to 
our means of tracing the history of a family if we are careful 
to identify the places in which it acquired lands. The four 
places named as acquired by Richard Cumin with Hextilda 
his wife prove to be Walwick in Warden parish, with Carrow 
and Thornton in Newbrough chapelry, all lying close together 
just north-east of Hexham, and Henshaw in Haltwhistle, 
lying just above them on the Tyne. Hodgson, who estab- 
lished these identities, ingeniously conjectured that New- 
brough itself (novus burgus) had its origin in the grant of a 
market at Thornton to William Cumin by Henry III. 20 
June 1 22 1. I should hardly describe these lands as ' the 
heritage of Hextilda's father, Huctred, son of Waldef,' 1 for 
they are styled only the ' maritagium ' of his daughter who 
married Richard Cumin, and I strongly suspect that he left 
a son. For among the Swinburne of Capheaton charters is 
one of Alexander, King of Scots, 4 October 1177, granting 
to Reginald Prath of Tindale, his esquire, land which Ranulf, 

1 Scots Peerage, i. 504. 


son of Huctred, had granted to Reginald in free marriage 
with his daughter, with exemption to Reginald from the 
drengage service due from it. 1 To this charter are witnesses, 
after two bishops, Earl Duncan, Odonel de Umfravill', 
Richard Cumin, Hugh Ridele, etc., the list closing with 
Symon, son of Huctred, and Adam his brother, names worth 
noting. I suggest that Richard Cumin was brother-in-law 
to Reginald the grantee, and that this charter proves him 
to have been living at its date. The Scots Peerage, which 
does not mention it, finds him living no later than 1176, but 
as the Pipe Roll compiled in October 1177 again mentions 
him, it confirms the evidence of the above charter. 2 

The connexion of the Comyns with Tynedale thus estab- 
lished was of long duration ; for the lands continued in the 
Comyns of Badenoch till their extinction in the main line. 
In the charter of Alexander II., IO March 1228-9, which 
gave his sister Margaret, as a marriage portion, the Tynedale 
lands of the Scottish kings, he reserved to himself (therein) 
the homage and service of William Cumin and William de 
Ros. This charter, granted at Edinburgh, was witnessed, 
among others, by William Cumin as Earl of Buchan, and 
by Walter Cumin. 3 

These Tynedale lands in the south-west of Northumber- 
land must be carefully distinguished from Newham other- 
wise Newham Comyn* which David Comyn held ' de 
veteri feoffamento.' B It lay in the north of the county, just to 
the south of Bamburgh, and must have come to him through his 
marriage with a Valoines, it having been held by Geoffrey 
de Valoines, who was enfeoffed there by William de Vesci, 
to hold it by the service of half a knight. 6 

From their Tynedale lands Richard Cumin and Hextilda 
gave Carrow to the neighbouring priory of Hexham. The 

1 This charter was confirmed to John, son of Reginald, by King William, 
William de ' Lindesay ' being a witness. 

2 I do not know why it is doubtfully observed (S.P. i. 504) that ' it may 
have been he who in 1176 was fined fioo for not attending the Justice ayre 
(sic) in Northumberland.' There is no reason for doubting the identity, 
which was asserted by Wood. 

3 Calendar of Charter Rolls, i. 127. 

' Neuham Cumyn ' in Testa, p. 383. 
Ibid. p. 384. 

' Liber Rubtus, p. 428. The name is there given as ' Wall[ibus].' Com- 
pare Dugdale's Baronage, i. 441. 


charter, which is well known, 1 mentions his brother Walter 
' et haeredes meos,' and is witnessed by a Morville, two 
Umfravills, a Sumerville, William de ' Lindeseia,' Walter 
Cumin, and others. This charter is known to Lyon, but not, 
it would seem, that (which is of more genealogical import- 
ance) by which Richard grants to Rievaux Abbey twelve 
bovates in Stonecroft and Thornton ' concessu et bona 
voluntate Hextildis uxoris meae et haeredum meorum Will- 
elmi, Odinelli, et Symonis.' It is witnessed by the convent 
of Hexham Priory and several others, including ' Willelmo 
clerico de Lindesia,' who must have been a clerical member 
of the Lindsay family. 3 Richard's charter to Holyrood 
(mentioned in the Scots Peerage) is similarly granted (in King 
William's time), ' assensu et consilio Hestildae uxoris meae,' 
and has ' Odinello et Simone filiis meis ' among its witnesses, 3 
while its confirmation by David de ' Lyndesey ' speaks of the 
charters of Richard and of William his son.* 

Here then we have the same three sons occurring in the 
Rievaux and the Holyrood evidence, but not the alleged 
youngest son, ' David, who married Isabella daughter and 
heiress of Roger de Valloniis of Easter Kilbride,' of whom 
' descended the Comyns of Kilbride.' 5 I do not here deny 
David's affiliation, but I cannot discover in Lyon's article 
on what evidence it is based." 

It is interesting to find that Henry Revel is a witness to 
Richard's Holyrood charter, for Richard himself and Henry 
Revel were among the prisoners captured with the Scottish 
king at Alnwick (13 July n/4). 7 I do not find in the Scots 
Peerage this incident in Richard's career. 8 He was, with 
William de ' Lindeseie ' and Philip de ' Valuines,' among 
the sureties for the treaty of Falaise (August 1175);" but 
although, as we have seen, his name is found in connexion 
with those of members of the great house of Lindsay, we do 
not know what was the connexion, feudal or other. 

1 It is printed in Hodgson's Northumberland, vol. ii. part 3, p. 396, and in 
Hexham Priory [II.], The Black Book (Surtees Society), pp. 84-5. 

1 Rievaulx Cartulary (Surtees Society). On p. 215 is its confirmation by 
his widow, ' Hextildis comitissa de Eththetala,' then Countess of Athole. 

3 Holyrood Cartulary, pp. 210-21. 

Ibid. pp. 21 1-2. s Scots Peerage, i. 505. 

It is asserted in Mrs. Gumming Bruce's book (on which see below) but is 
ignored in ' Wood's Douglas.' 7 Hoveden, ii. 63. 

8 It is, however, duly mentioned in 'Wood's Douglas.' Hoveden, ii. 81. 


I have still to deal with Richard's charter to the monks 
of Kelso giving them the church of ' Lyntunruderic,' which 
is duly mentioned in the Scots Peerage. This gift is made 
' pro anima Henrici comitis domini mei et pro anima Johannis 
filii mei quorum corpora apud eos tumulantur,' etc., the 
abbot and convent receiving ' Hextild' sponsam meam et 
filios nostros in fraternitatem suam.' Its witnesses are 
' Hextild' sponsa mea, Od' filio meo, Adam de Bonekil, Ber- 
nardo filio Brien, Gaufredo Ridel.' l Here again we have 
the son Od[inel] a Christian name of the Umfravilles but 
no son David. The charter is obviously subsequent to Earl 
Henry's death (1152), and 'Wood's Douglas' supplies the 
evidence for placing it before 1159. 

Richard Cumin and his wife, we have seen, are well- 
known persons, and up to them the pedigree is clear. It is 
on Richard's origin that I must join issue with the Scots 
Peerage and its editor. 

Here again we are fortunate in possessing the evidence 
we want in a definite statement by a chronicler a local man. 
John of Hexham, who continued the chronicle of Symeon of 
Durham, 2 introduces us to Richard Cumin as follows : 

Mediante ergo Willelmo archiepiscopo, Willelmus episcopus et Willelmus 
Cumin convenerunt in foedus pads ut Ricardus Cumin teneret de episcopo 
Alvertun et totum ilium honorem, castera de integro resignerantur in manu 
episcopi. Erat autem iste Ricardus nepos Willelmi Cumin, frater illius Willelmi 

That he is speaking of the Richard Cumin with whom 
we have been dealing is certain on account of the connexion 
in both cases with the Scottish king, David. For this is how 
the chronicler comes to mention him. David's chancellor, 
William Cumin, had been, we read, a clerk of Geoffrey, 
Bishop of Durham, before Geoffrey's accession to that see 
in 1133, a significant date if Scottish antiquaries are right 
in placing William's first appearance as chancellor about 
that time. Now Bishop Geoffrey, who had trained William, 
had been King Henry's chancellor since 1123,* and we thus 
make the interesting discovery that the Scottish king had 
taken his chancellor straight from the English chancery.". 

1 Liber de Catchou, p. 226. He wrote under Henry II. 
* Symeon of Durham (Rolls Series), ii. 316. Feudal England, p. 485. 
B ' Erat enim quidam regis Scotiz cancellarius, videlicet Willelmus Cumin, 
jampridem ejusdem Gaufridi ante episcopatum dericus. Siquidem et ante 


David was accompanied by his chancellor to the disas- 
trous ' Battle of the Standard,' 1138, when the armed might 
of Scotland was shattered by the English levies, and William 
was captured in the rout and kept prisoner at Durham till 
released from captivity as a clerk by the Papal Legate.* 
Before long William found himself at Durham again, seeking 
by his old master's deathbed to secure for himself the suc- 
cession to the see. Bishop Geoffrey died at Rogation-tide 
1141, and William, supported by the Scottish king, obtained 
possession of the castle. With the help of certain barons of 
the see he set himself to obtain the bishopric, and would 
actually have been given the ring and staff by the empress 
on Midsummer Day in London, had not the rising of the 
citizens sent them forth in flight. 2 Then, when the em- 
press fled from Winchester, the peripatetic chancellor was 
again in flight and met his royal master, a fugitive like him- 
self, at Durham. David, on behalf of the empress, installed 
him there as custos, and thenceforth the troubles of the 
times enabled him to hold at least the temporalities of the 
see, not as Lyon states ' for more than three years ' from 1142, 
but from 1141 to 1144. 

It was in 1144 that his violent rule came to an end. A 
young nephew and namesake of his trained to the profession 
of arms, 3 met his death while supporting his uncle, and 
even as King Stephen, some years later, on his heir's untimely 
death, recognized Henry as his successor by a compromise 
which secured the interests of his younger son William so the 
intruder, William Cumin, allowed the lawful bishop to obtain 
possession of his see on St. Luke's Day (18 October) 1144 by 
a compromise which enabled Richard Cumin, a brother of 
his nephew William, to retain the castle of Northallerton 
with its Honor.* 

b annis adolescentiae educaverat ' (Symeon of Durham, i. 143 (compare i. 161). 
I find that this point is duly noted in ' Wood's Douglas.' 

1 ' Willelmus Cumin, David regis Scottiae cancellarius, de supradicto bello 
fugiens captus et incarceratus ibidem detinebatur' (Richard of Hexham, 
De gestis Regis Stephanf). 

1 Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 85-6. 

5 ' Juvenis miles Willelmus, nepos Willelmi Cumin, cum favore multorum 
edoctus res militares disponere, et negotia populi administrare ' (Symeon of 
Durham, ii. 316). 

i.e. its territory ; Lyon oddly renders it ' honours ' ! 'Wood's Douglas ' 
correctly gives ' the honour (sic) and castle.' 



The Durham chronicler is careful to note that William 
did not escape from the scenes of his violence in peace ; 
Richard de Luvetot intercepted and imprisoned him, 1 and 
Robert de ' Mundavilla,' a baron of the bishopric, 3 who had 
married (we are frankly told) Bishop Geoffrey's daughter, 
and who owed him a grudge for his treatment, repaid him by 
slaying Osbert, another of his young nephews, who served 
Henry of Scotland. 3 When we remember that Richard 
Cumin speaks in his charter to Kelso of this Henry as his lord, 
we see how the fortunes of the family were connected with 
David and his son. 

The following pedigree is now clear : 


William Cumin, 
chancellor of 

r T i 

William Cumin Richard Cumin mar. W 
slain 1144 Hextilda dau. of Huc- 
tred son of Waldcvc 

a qua Comyn 
of Badenoch 

I have worked out this pedigree independently for myself, 
but it is only right to add at once that it is identical with 
that in 'Wood's Douglas' (save for the addition, from the 
Hexham charter, of the younger son Walter), which begins 
exactly where I do and which gives the date 1144 correctly. 

1 The subsequent career of William appears to be involved in obscurity. 
Crawfurd (The Lives . . . of the Officers of Crvum and State, 1736) alleges that 
he returned to Scotland, but observes (p. 8) that another chancellor was ap- 
pointed by David and occurs in 1151. A William Cumin appears on the 
English Pipe Roll of 2 Hen. II. (l 156) in a financial position of some importance, 
but the name is not exceptional enough for us to say who he was. 

1 This gives us an important correction to the official edition of the Red 
Book of the Exchequer (p. 417), where the Robert de ' Mandavill ' of the Black 
Book (' Mandevill ' in the Red Book) is classed as one of the Mandeville family 
(p. 1240), instead of being placed under ' Amundeville.' 

8 ' Percussit nepotem ejusdem Willelmi, Osbertum adolescentem militem 
amantissimum omnibus qui in obsequio Henrici comitis filii regis Scotia; 

4 See p. 4 above. 


But on turning to Lyon's genealogy, we first discover with 
bewilderment that he flatly contradicts himself. It is com- 
paratively a trifle that he kills the younger William ' more 
than three years ' after 1142 (p. 503), and on the next page 
enters him as ' killed in 1 142 ... as above-mentioned ' ; 
the serious thing is that he makes the two Williams ' nephew ' 
and ' uncle ' (pp. 503, 504), although his pedigree makes the 
younger William a great-nephew of the elder one. It is the 
pedigree, of course, that is wrong here, and indeed, as we shall 
see, not only wrong, but absolutely baseless from the Conquest. 

For here is Lyon's pedigree : 

Robert Ac Comyo (tit), Earl 
of Northumberland, slain at 
Durham '28 Jan. 1069-70* 

'A daughter and = John 'killed in the wan William, chancellor 

co-heiress of Adam 
Giffard of Fonthill' 

between Queen (lie) of Scotland 

Maud and King Stephen 
after 1135* 

10 ) 

William 'held one-=Maud 'daughter of= William de Hastings 
third of Fonthill in I Thuritan Banaiter married her in 1 140 
Wiltshire* I or Basset' 

William Richard Walter 


We have here a very feast of errors. They are so pro- 
fusely scattered that it becomes difficult to select ; one can 
only take them seriatim. 

Why, in the first place, is Earl Robert made father to the 
chancellor ? And why, in the second, is he styled Robert 
' de Comyn ' ? The two questions have some connexion, 
for the answer to the first appears to be that the alleged 
paternity is but an instance of the reprehensible practice, 
formerly common enough, of seeking a progenitor in any 
one of sufficient eminence whose name was or seemed to be 
that of the family into which he was pitchforked by the 
pedigree-maker in a difficulty. Mr. Freeman, who gives the 
date of Earl Robert's death as January 1068-9 ( not Io ^9~7)^ 
pointed out that Orderic styled him Robert ' de Cuminis,' 


while Symeon of Durham made him Robert ' cognomento 
Cumin.' Why then style him ' de Comyn ' ? l 

As the chancellor, according to Lyon's pedigree, must 
have been seventy-five years old, at the least, when, with 
his youthful nephew, he made himself a terror to his foes, 
we must press for the proof that the earl was his father. 
' Not the least important feature of this work,' Lyon writes 
as its editor, ' is the fact that, wherever possible, references 
have been given to the various authorities for the statements 
made. This is especially the case as regards the older dates ' 
(p. xiii.). But, alas, we are only told that the earl ' is said to 
have had two sons,' John and William. ' Is said ' by whom, 
or where ? Is this among the secrets of the Lyon Office ? 
We turn to Douglas, and from him we get a pedigree less 
elaborate than Lyon's, but even wilder and more wonderful. 
Its gist is this : 

Earl Robert 


n teaif. Alexander I. 
.e. 1107-24] 

Sir William mar- 
ried Hextilda 

William Imp. Malcolm IV. 
and William the Lion [i.e. 

Sir Richard gave the church 
of Linton Roderick before 

Douglas, we see, is not responsible for making the chancellor 
a son of Earl Robert. 

Let us, however, address ourselves to John ; for of Lyon's 
Comyn pedigree John is the crown and flower. That we 
have no reason to suppose that John even existed is a circum- 
stance that need not deter us from studying the record of 
his life. 

1 With the exception of Orderic's name for Earl Robert, the 'de,' I be- 
lieve, is invariably absent, which suggests that we have to do with a nickname 
of the usual Norman type. But, although cummin (cuminum) was much in 
use when the surname makes its appearance, one fails to see the cause of its 


II. John, the elder son, was killed in the wars between Queen Maud and 
King Stephen after 1135. He married a daughter and coheiress of Adam 
Giffard of Fonthill (Dugdale, i. 499). 

I must ask Lyon to take my assurance that the only ' Queen 
Maud ' known to history at the time is Stephen's own wife, 
his loyal and devoted queen ! And if the king's deadly foe, 
the Empress Maud, is meant, I must observe that the ' wars ' 
between her and Stephen began only with her landing in the 
autumn of 1139, when John must have attained the respect- 
able age of more than threescore and ten. 

Yet they not only know at the Lyon Office that John was 
killed in those wars; they can prove his existence by his mar- 
riage. For here at length a reference is vouchsafed. True, 
the reference is vague enough ; for among the notes at the 
foot of this page are ' Dugdale, i. 499 ' and ' Dugdale, v. 289'; 
the one, I conjecture, referring to the Baronage, and the 
other to the Monasticon Anglicanum. But perhaps they are 
much the same to a Scottish King of Arms. We try the 
Baronage, and fail to discover on the page cited the statement 
we seek. But, three pages further on, we do find Fonthill 
mentioned in connexion with a Giffard (who was not ' Adam ') 
and a Comyn (who was not John) at a date considerably later 
than that of which Lyon is speaking ! Is it, can it be possible 
that this is Lyon's authority ? We are forced to conclude 
that it really is ; for he makes John succeeded by William, 
who ' held one third of Fonthill in Wiltshire.' Now Dug- 
dale, under ' Giffard of Brimsfield,' states that on the death 
of Andrew Giffard, ' in King John's time? the Fonthill barony 
passed to three co-heirs, of whom William Cumin was one 
(i. 502). And under 'Comyn' he states that 'in 4 Hen. III. 
(1219-1220) William Cumin was one of the co-heirs to An- 
drew Giffard for the barony of Funtell, in com. Wiltes ' 
(i. 685).* But Lyon's William 'died before 1140,' that is, 
some seventy years before a Cumin became co-heir to Font- 
hill ! 

Now is such treatment as this fair to the great Garter 
King of Arms ? In spite of his painful accuracy and of the 
care with which he gave his reference, he is here vouched to 

1 In each case he refers us, in accordance with his admirable method, to 
the original record ('Claus. 4 Hen. III. m. 2') on which his statements rest. 

1 See my paper on ' Giffard of Fonthill Giffard ' in Ancestor (July 1903), 
vi. 138, and General Wrottesley's monograph on The Giffards. 


warranty for a marriage of which he does not speak, at a date 
which his own statement shows to be out of the question. 

With ' William ' of the next generation our pedigree 
returns to dreamland, the land of Lyonesse. No evidence is 
adduced for the fact that ' he died before 1 140, when his 
widow, Maud, daughter of Thurstan Banaster, or Basset, 
married William de Hastings.' The register of marriages 
for 1140 is unaccountably missing, as are also the files of the 
Morning Post ; and the only roll assigned to 1 140 (' 5 Stephen ') 
has long been known to belong to 1130. Moreover it does 
not mention this marriage. There was, it is true, a widow 
of a William Cumin who married a William de Hastings, but 
her name was Margerie, not Maud, and the document which 
shows her married to William is of I2i6, 1 not of 1140.* 

It should also be observed that if William ' died before 
1140,' he can hardly have survived his venerable father, who 
fell in * wars ' which began in 1 1 39. This, however, is of little 
consequence, for William also must ' walk the plank ' ; he 
must follow John overboard. 

The entire pedigree of three generations, marriages and 
all, crumbles into dust. Whence then can it have been 
derived ? We observe that it suspiciously resembles that 
which is given by Douglas ; indeed the three generations 
are identical, though a fourth, in the person of a second 
William, has been obviously excised as impossible. One is 
reminded of Mr. Freeman's cruel remark that at least there 
is somewhere ' a last pound which breaks the back even of an 
Ulster King of Arms.' ; Have we then here yet another 
example of that fatal system which I denounce on another 
page of this volume, that hybrid mixture of ancient and 
modern which endeavours to combine with modern genea- 
logy the unsupported guesses of a bygone antiquary or 
herald ? As the editor has recently observed in the pages 
of this Review (ix. 233), ' no pedigree, old or new, can be 
treated as presumably accurate unless the collateral evidence 
of records be in its favour.' 

1 See Ancestor, ix. 147. 

'According to Eyton's Shropshire (V. 135) Maud, daughter and co-heir of 
Thurstan Banaster (not Basset) married Will, de Hastings (who died 1182) and 
died circa 1222. He ignores any Cumin marriage. 

3 See his article (on Burke 's Peerage), ' Pedigrees and pedigree-makers ' in 
Contemporary Review, xxx. 38. 


Lyon's attempt to pitchfork into Douglas's pedigree 
evidence relating to Fonthill fails not only on account of the 
dates, but also because, as my articles have shown, the Cumins 
connected with Fonthill were the Snitterfield line, who were 
quite distinct from the Cumins of Tynedale and Badenoch, 
being found in Warwickshire, apparently, at least as far back 
as 1130.' They may, however, of course have been kinsmen 
descended from a common ancestor. The crude idea that 
men bearing the name of Cumin were all of a single line is 
one that requires to be discarded ; in Warwickshire itself a 
separate line appears to have given its name to Newbold 
Comyn,* and Cumins are found also at Bristol 3 and at Rouen * 
in the twelfth century, while another set are discovered in 
Ireland, 5 possibly in consequence of John Comin becoming 
Archbishop of Dublin. We may trace, perhaps, the same 
idea in Lyon's suggestion that the first wife of Richard 
Cumin's son and successor, William, ' may have been a daughter 
of Robert Fitz Hugh, who in 1201-2 is said to have married 
a William Cumin, who paid fines for the marriage ' (p. 505) ; 
for, apart from the fact that, on Lyon's showing, William 
must in that case have married his first wife some fifty-six 
years after his father's marriage, Sara, younger daughter and 
co-heiress of Robert Fitz Hugh, who is the wife referred to, 
died s.p." 

It will, I think, be admitted to be very unfortunate that 
a house which became ' perhaps the most powerful in Scot- 
land ' as early as 1258 (p. 506) should have had assigned to it 
in the Scots Peerage so fictitious an ancestry. The true 
origin of its fortunes in the rise of a churchman, a chancery 
clerk, is of peculiar interest for its contrast with the wild and 
stirring history of a race which comprised at one epoch ' no 
fewer than three earls and thirty-two knights ' (p. 507). 

It is also regrettable that a work intended, as one gathers, 
to represent the fine fleur of Scottish antiquarian erudition 

> Pipe Roll 31 Hen. I., p. 108. 

s Which came by marriage to an ' Elyas Comyn ' (Regist. Malmesb. [Rolls 
Series], i. 258). 

3 Pipe Roll Society, vol. xx. p. 144. 

See my Calendar of documents preserved in France, p. 8. An Odard Comin 
also appears as a witness to a charter of Henry Murdac, Archbishop of York 

5 See, for instance, the cartulary of St. Mary's, Dublin (Rolls Series). 

8 Baker's Northamptonshire, i. 224 (cf. p. 222). 


should be marred by the amazing statement (p. 504) that 
Richard Comyn gave the lands of Slipperfield ' to the Augus- 
tine friars of Holyrood.' When I have to form an opinion 
on an English topographical work, I keep my eyes open for 
that double-barrelled blunder which converts the great order 
of Augustinian (or Austin) canons into ' Augustine friars,' 
and which represents to me the hall-mark of incompetence. 
It is positively startling to find that phrase employed by 
Lyon of a period when there were no friars ' Augustine ' 
or other in the country. And it completes that strange 
catalogue of errors which are here compressed into the space 
of barely two pages. 

The really singular thing is that Wood's account of the 
origin of the Comyns, which the performance of Lyon King 
of Arms is avowedly intended to supplant, is itself absolutely 
accurate, although the older writer, as indeed Lyon reminds 
us, enjoyed fewer advantages than those at our own disposal. 
And yet Wood's modest preface does not raise such expecta- 
tions as that of the Scots Peerage. 

It was only at this point in my investigation of the sub- 
ject that I discovered by a lucky accident the real source of 
that elaborate pedigree of three generations that Lyon has 
here published as the ancestry of Richard Cumin. The dis- 
covery is of so startling, indeed staggering a nature that I 
must invite those who doubt it to verify the fact for them- 

Happening to look at Mrs. Gumming Bruce's Family Re- 
cords of the Bruces and the Cumyns (1870), I there discovered, 
to my amazement, the whole pedigree set forth (pp. 394-5) 
as in the Scots Peerage from Earl Robert (with his two sons) 
down to Richard Cumin. Collation of the two versions 
proved the fact absolutely, while revealing certain changes, 
sometimes for the worse, in Lyon's version. It is, we at length 
discover, in Mrs. Gumming Bruce's book, that Earl Robert 
' is said ' to have left two sons, John and William ; l it is there, 
also, that Richard Cumin is erroneously made ' grand-nephew, 
of the chancellor ' ; 2 there also that the fabled John marries, 
fights, and dies ; and thence that Lyon took that strange and 
tell-tale phrase ' the castle and honours of Northallerton . 

' See p. 9 above. t See p. 8 above. 

3 See p. 6 note 4 above. 


The unfortunate reference to ' Dugdale ' is again a marked 
coin ; for we find Mrs. Gumming Bruce writing : 

Dugdale, in his Baronage, vol. i. 499, says : ' In the Conqueror's time 
Osbert Gifford held ten lordships in Wilts.' He adds, ' there was one Andrew 
Giffard who held the Barony of Fentell (Fonthill), which upon his death (ump. 
John) was with the King's consent resigned to Robert de Mandeville, William 
Cumin,' etc., etc. 

Now the fact that Lyon cites only p. 499 proves that he cannot 
have looked at Dugdale, for, had he done so, he would have 
discovered that it is only on p. 502 that Dugdale ' adds ' the 
passage on Fonthill and Cumin ; he must therefore have 
copied the reference from Mrs. Cumming Bruce. 1 

But the worst of it is that Lyon could not even copy her 
correctly. Of Earl Robert's alleged elder son John she 
writes : 

I. John killed in the wars between the Empress-Queen Matilda and 
King Stephen after 1135. He must have married one of the heirs of Andrew 
Gifford of Fonthill. 

'The Empress-Queen Matilda' is a phrase that may pass 
muster, but the Scots Peerage makes it nonsense by omitting 
' Empress,' the essential word. Again, the authoress only 
held that John Cumin ' must have married one of the heirs 
of Andrew Giffard,' and gives, in the passage she cites, 
her reason for that conclusion. But Lyon (p. 10 above) 
asserts that he actually did marry ' a daughter and co-heiress of 
Adam (sic) Giffard of Fonthill,' a mere blunder, for no such 
person as Adam Giffard is found in possession of Fonthill. 
Nor is the matter much bettered if we substitute Andrew, 
the right name ; for as Andrew appears to have been a 
clerk, he cannot well have left a ' daughter and co-heiress.' 

One need not pursue the comparison by collating Lyon's 
account of William, John's alleged son, with that given by 
Mrs. Cumming Bruce (the '1140' marriage appearing in 
both), but it may be mentioned that Lyon's ' Augustine 
friars ' is a development of the earlier writer's ' Augustines 
of Holy rood ' (p. 396). 

It is but just to Mrs. Cumming Bruce to add that her 
work was avowedly written only to interest her own relatives 

1 The only reference given to Mrs. Cumming Bruce's book for the period 
here discnssed by me is for the career of the chancellor from 1142. It is not 
cited for the pedigree at all. 


in the names she ' felt honoured by bearing,' and that she 
modestly described herself as ' painfully aware of my own 
incompetence.' We need not, therefore, affect surprise to 
find her writing of the origin of the Comyns. 


According to Sir Bernard Burke (see Extinct Peerage on Moreton or De 
Burgo, Earl of Cornwall, A.D. 1068) John, Count de Comyn, and Baron de 
Tonsberg in Normandy, descended from Charlemagne, etc. 

Indeed, I only mention this acceptance of one of the wildest 
of fables in order to illustrate the character of the work to 
which we have traced Lyon's pedigree. It is, he tells us, one 
of the principles adopted in the Scots Peerage that, ' wherever 
possible, references have been given to the various authorities 
for the statements made. 1 Are we to conclude that, for 
obvious reasons, it was not ' possible ' to vouch such a work 
as that of Mrs. Bruce as the ' authority ' for those astounding 
statements with which the history of the Comyns begins ? 

The great Scottish houses are jealous, and rightly jealous, 
of their long and splendid pedigrees, pedigrees closely inter- 
twined with the history of the Scottish nation. They will 
hardly care, one would imagine, to expose them to ridicule and 
to doubt by allowing them to appear side by side with such 
concoctions as the Scots Peerage gives us in the origin of the 

My only feeling in the matter of this work is that so im- 
portant a publication, appearing under such auspices, calls 
for far more searching criticism than one of lesser preten- 
sions. The experts in feudal genealogy are very limited in 
number, and it is, I think, their duty to test its claims to con- 
fidence, a task which is beyond the scope of the ordinary 
reviewer. Personally I have no cause of complaint, for it 
pays me the compliment of adopting wholesale my state- 
ments on the origin of the Stewart kings. 1 Even, however, 
when doing this it displays traces if I may use the term of 
the same amateurishness. For instance, the great abbey of 
St. Florent of Saumur in Anjou is disguised at the top of 
p. 10 as ' St. Saumur (sic) in Brittany.' A few lines further 
on we read of ' the Abbot of Marmoutier in Brittany,' al- 

1 See p. 9 above. 

8 Duly citing my Studies in Peerage and Family History. 


though that important abbey lay on the Loire at Tours. 1 
We then meet with a confirmation to ' the Priory (sic) of 
Marmoutier ' of a gift by Alan Fitz Flaald ' of the title (sic) 
of the lands of Burton,' although the gift was that of the 
tithe, and was made to the monks of Lehon, 1 which was but 
a priory of the abbey of Marmoutier. Lastly, at the foot of 
the same page, we are told that ' Walter, the son of Alan, 
appears in the English Liber Niger Scaccarii about 1154, as 
vassal of William son of Alan,' etc., although the reference, 
if it were given, would be to those returns of knights in I i66, a 
which constitute a sheet-anchor in feudal genealogy. I 
must assure Lyon and his coadjutors that this is among 
' the things that matter.' 

Yet, in order that I may not part thus from the Scots 
Peerage, it is a pleasure to be able to say that on turning, for 
the second marriage of Hextilda, to the Rev. John Anderson's 
article on 'The Celtic Earls of Atholl,'one is struck by the 
care bestowed on it, and can well believe that, as Lyon writes, 
the book is greatly indebted to his learning and ' invaluable 


> Compare my Calendar of documents preserved in France for these houses. 

1 Ibid. No. 1221. 

* Entered in the ' Red Book ' and the ' Small Black Book ' of the Exchequer. 



(Continued from Vol. IX. 136) 

NANTES is besieged by the Earl of Buckingham, and 
defended against him by Messire Jehan le Barrois des 
Barres, Messire Jehan de Chastel Morant and many other 
knights and squires. In a December sally from the town 
two hundred men at arms, led by Messire Amaurry de 
Clichon [Clisson], the cousin german of the constable, and 
by the Sire d'Amboise, come out of the postern gate and fall 
upon the English quarters, carrying the first barrier of the bul- 
wark, and taking prisoner the captain of the watch, a knight 
called Sir William of Quiseton. But Sir William of Winde- 
sore and Sir Hugh of Cavrelee [Calveley], who are resting 
in their tents, rise and ride to the aid of their men, driving the 
French and Bretons back to their gate. 

The two English knights, charging alone upon the French 
host, present excellent illustration of armour cap-d-pie, the 
breast, back, and skirts covered with blue and purple stuff. 
Behind them will be seen the pleated jacket with false sleeves, 
and shoes with piked toes of great length. Of the defenders 
we note the fallen knight, whose blue coat is laced down the 
front. An axeman's basnet shows the survival of the nose- 
guard of the Bayeux Tapestry. 



Here three great ships full of Englishmen come to the port 
of Lisbon. They have no knight with them, but are led by 
three squires, one of whom, called Northbery, lands and 
addresses the King of Portugal, who thinks the English a host 
of the Duke of Lancaster's. But Northbery tells him they 
know naught of the Duke or he of them, they being men of 
all kinds, who ask only for arms and adventures. 

The remarkable feature of the ships entering harbour is 
the great fighting top, which is gay with green and gold. 
As yet no piercings for guns are found. The forked pennons 
of the English arms have their sole origin in the artist's desire 
to identify these ships as English, for St. George's cross would 
have been a more probable bearing. That the painter was a 
Fleming is seen in the collar of the Golden Fleece worn by 
the two leaders on the first ship, a decoration which was not 
wont to come to English squires. The King of Portugal is 
dressed as our artist dresses all his kings, but the lord on either 
hand, with their tall white hats and twisted gold hat-bands, 
are more valuable pictures. There is nothing that calls for 
fresh remark in the armour of the English squire, but his 
whole dress is a good example of fifteenth century half armour, 
the legs being in red hose and unarmed. 



Here the French vanguard of the King of Castile is 
attacked and routed by the men of Portugal and the English. 
' There was the King of Portugal, his banners before him, 
mounted on a great courser all covered with the arms of Por- 

Here the most striking figure is that of the charging knight, 
whom the artist, with his usual recklessness of detail, has armed 
in the arms of Castile and Leon, as though he were the king 
of those lands. Again we have the beautiful lines of the 
horseman's cloak, open at the sides and seemingly longer be- 
hind than before. Note the shield on which the painted bear- 
ings have been accommodated to the large round boss in 
the middle. The two men-at-arms hewing before him show 
below the overlapping plates of their ' tonlets ' a curious 
attachment like to the tail of a crab. The wounded horse, 
struck through with the long English shafts, is saddled with 
a saddle peaked high before and behind. 



Here is shown how the King of Portugal discomfited the 
King of Castile at ' Juberotes.' In this fight was seen the 
quality of the Spaniards, who come fiercely to the assault, 
but having thrown two or three darts and given a stroke or 
two with the sword, they ride for their lives. At this battle 
no one was held to ransom, and many high barons of Castile 
were killed on the field, so many noblemen not having been 
slain in Spain since the Black Prince defeated Don Henry. 

The two horses must be observed for their curious horse 
trappers with the arms of Castile and Leon and of Portugal, 
trappers which end close behind the ears. The crowned rider 
of the Castilian horse covers his plates with the short pleated 
jacket with false sleeves, in no way differing from the one worn 
in civil dress. 

In the front rank of Portugal is swung a long mace with 
a small spindle-shaped head. The knight toppling forward 
beside the macer wears a sallet whose curved brim shows from 
what form arose the fore and aft brim of the morion of the 
next century. 

Note the lance-rest upon the right breast of the figure in 
the foreground. 



Here Oliver de Clisson, the constable of France, sets a 
bastille before the strong castle of Brest in Brittany, of which 
castle the saying goes that he who is not lord of Brest is not 
truly duke of Brittany. 

Of the figures, the crossbowman winding his bow is the 
most interesting, and the Burgundian tendencies of our artist 
are shown by his decorating the quivers with the familiar 
briquet or strike-a-light of Burgundy. The wooden bastille 
appears again in all the elaboration of its towers and bul- 
warks. The two cannon are worthy of study, that in mid- 
distance showing the arrangement of spike and hole for raising 
and lowering the breech. 



Here the burial service of King Ferrant of Portugal is 
made in the church of St. Francis at Lisbon. 

In the midst is the great bier railed in, with candles 
standing about it. The crossed pall bears a shield of the holy 
lamb with four scutcheons of Portugal at the four corners. 
The mourners are in blacks, those seated by the bier having 
the mourning hoods which were worn at state-buryings at 
least until the reign of Elizabeth. The singing clergy are 
noteworthy for their hats, that on the left hand being a tall 
brimless hat of pale blue. 



Here the Duke of Lancaster and his men land and come 
against Brest, before which wooden bastilles had been built 
as though to remain there twenty years. 

The knight falling amongst the horse-hoofs must be re- 
marked as showing the last development of the armour of the 
latter half of the fourteenth century. The basnet has changed 
little, but the camail does not appear to be laced to the edge 
of it. His coat follows on the old lines, but it is not dagged 
at the edge, it is slit open before, and the great belt over the 
hips is gone. The charging knight, clad in dark armour, 
follows the later fashions, and the eye is taken by the assem- 
blage of small plates which allow free movement of the body. 
His shield is heater-shaped, but concave, and with a huge 
boss in the midst. His helm, with caged sights, is decorated 
with a single feather at the top. 


DESTRUCTIVE criticism has not yet done its full 
work amongst our ancient English pedigrees. Gene- 
alogies prolonged to the Conquest and beyond it still abound 
on every side, and share the honours of those few houses whose 
claims rest safely upon credible records. But the work of 
those who clear away the rotten timber of the Elizabethan 
and early Victorian constructions has gained in some measure 
the notice of the public. The long pedigree is suspect, and 
an attack upon it may count beforehand upon the sympathy 
of honest folk. It is time perhaps to point out that such sym- 
pathy may be as ill founded as yesterday's credulity. 

In the Gresleys of Drakelow we have a Derbyshire family 
making the bold assertion that its seat and manor of Drakelow 
has descended to it from the age of Domesday, and in the 
right male line. Such an assertion, we believe, is still made 
by a dozen English families upon evidence which may be 
tossed aside by any prentice antiquary. Were the claim of 
the Gresleys allowed, it may be that but a single English family 
would take the field to maintain the like boast. 

When therefore there comes forward a stout volume whose 
author's earlier archaeological achievements fill fifteen lines 
of the small type following his name upon the title-page, 
when such a volume challenges the claim of Gresley to long 
descent, many will believe that another of our genealogical 
landmarks has been torn up and cast into the limbo which 
holds the stone inscribed by Bill Stumps with his mark. 

Our author's attack upon the Gresley pedigree is with 
no sidelong suggestion of inaccuracy, it is an attack in front 
upon an entrenched position and the newspapers of the last 
month have shown that such an assault may be pressed home. 
He is upon his familiar ground, for in his preface he introduces 
himself as the laborious historian of Derbyshire. The modern 



Gresleys of Drakelowe are under fire as soon as his skirmishing 
line of italicised preface can extend itself. 

A most impudent fraud was attempted in the enlightened age of James I., 
when a good many other impudent impositions were successful. A rich and, 
no doubt, very respectable family, having acquired great wealth, purchased a 
baronetcy when James set them up for sale to replenish his coffers, and bearing 
a very ancient Derbyshire name, that of Gresley, eventually purchased the 
land, and found a congenial herald to fake up a pedigree showing that the nov us 
homo was of the old stock. 

* * * 

In the absence of ' inexorable ' evidence, no opinion can be formed respect- 
ing the origin of the present family of Gresley. The first baronet would seem 
to have acquired an interest in Drakelow, but how, or when, it is not stated. 

Harsh words follow concerning the forged pedigree of 
Gresley, which was based, as it seems, upon the forgery of 
' a few amazing charters.' 

It is not, perhaps, very wonderful that in the age of the sagacious monarch 
the only one of our kings who claimed to be a Solomon that such an imposture 
should pass muster, but it is perfectly astonishing how it should have survived 
in this, so-called, critical age. The art of criticism is conducted very cheaply. 
There is no school for critics ; any one who has impudence enough can pose 
in that character, and editors are generally so ignorant, that they cannot see 
whether their writers are properly equipped or not. All the modern critic 
has to do is to use ' dictionary words.' This terribly confuses ignorant editors. 
He must also be foul-tongued and abusive, sparing no one. . . . One of the 
worst critics of our day, Mr. Horace Round, who spares neither the living nor 
the dead, has exchanged the role of the critic for that of the author, and a good 
deal of this book has been necessarily devoted to exposing his crass ignorance 
and getting rid of the rubbish of the Jamish writer and of his modern ad- 
mirers. _ 

The evidences for the pedigree of Gresley are not to 
seek. Those who would disport themselves with the forged 
pedigree of the first Gresley baronet, the novus homo of our 
Derbyshire historian, have all materials at hand in the ex- 
cellent family history compiled by Mr. Falconer Madan. 
With Mr. Madan's work to aid we turn to the story of Sir 
George Gresley, the first baronet of Drakelowe. The history 
of this person can hardly be said to be wrapped in obscurity. 
His life of more than threescore and ten years is before us in 

1 Being ignorant, and an editor, we were at first ' terribly confused ' by 
this ' dictionary word.' We hazard that Jamish writer may signify a writer 
of the period of King James I. A writer during the next reign would be a 
Charlish writer, and Shakespeare is easily recognizable as an Elizabish poet. 


every detail. He matriculates at Balliol in 1594, goes to an 
Inn of Court and lives at Colton Lodge until his father's 
death. Twenty-eighth on the list of King James's new order 
of baronets in 1611 is Sir George Gresley of Drakelowe in 
Derbyshire. He bears a bannerol at Prince Henry's funeral 
in 1612, is a commissioner of musters, and M.P. for New- 
castle-under-Lyme. In 1642 Sir George Gresley breaks with 
the Derbyshire squires and knights, hot royalists to a man, 
and comes out in arms for the parliament, leaving his lands 
and houses to be spoiled by the cavalier garrisons. He 
married a lady of the noble house of Ferrers, begat five chil- 
dren, and was buried in the Temple church of London in 
February 1650-1. 

And now for the new man's parentage. Mr. Madan, a 
kinsman as well as historian of the house, will doubtless move 
us by specious pleadings, by subtle guesses, to identify George 
Gresley the novus homo with some George who may be safely 
tagged to an older family of the name. But evidences in 
profusion give us as a father for Sir George Gresley one Sir 
Thomas Gresley, knight, of Drakelowe in Derbyshire, whose 
inheritance from his own father, Sir William Gresley, includes 
the manor of Drakelowe, upon which the family is still settled 
in this twentieth century, the manor of Colton, which he and 
his son, the novus homo, sell in 1609, and the manor of Roslis- 
ton, which George sells in 1629. With these is ' the manner 
of Castle Gresley with the appurtenances in Castle Gresley 
. . . holden of the quenes majestic as of her honor of Tut- 
berye.' Our natural respect for the Derbyshire historian 
suffers shock upon shock as we discover that this new man, this 
imposter who by obscure means acquired an interest in 
Drakelowe is manifest as Gresley of Gresley, lord of Drake- 
lowe by inheritance from no mean line. 

We have seen that the baronet's father was a knight living 
upon his heritage, a sheriff of Derbyshire too, and deputy 
lieutenant, who attended Mary of Scots to Fotheringay on 
the last of her journeys. This Sir Thomas was returned heir 
of Drakelowe and Gresley on his father's death in 1573. 
That father, made knight on Queen Mary's coronation in 
1553, was son and heir of Sir George Gresley, Knight of the 
Bath when the Lady Anne Boleyn was crowned, who had in 
Leland's day ' a very fayre manner place and parke at Dray- 
kelo.' Our Derbyshire historian must therefore hark back 


to days long before Sir George the novus homo if he would 
find by what secret chaffering Drakelowe came to that 
' Jamish ' intruder. 

Sir George Gresley, the Knight of the Bath, succeeded at 
Drakelow and Gresley to his elder brother, Sir William, a 
soldier at the day of the Spurs in 1513 and at the sieges of 
Therouanne and Tournay, whose knighthood was given him 
by the king's hand in France. A fine of 1519 reckons seven- 
teen of his manors, and an inquest shows that he was heir of his 
father, Sir Thomas Gresley, by Sir Thomas's wife and cousin, a 
Ferrers of Tamworth. Sir Thomas, twice Sheriff of Stafford- 
shire, was son of Sir John, Sheriff of Derbyshire and Notting- 
hamshire, who was in arms for the White Rose in 1452, and 
for the Red Rose in 1459, who was at the crowning of King 
Richard III., and yet followed the first Tudor King in his 
northern progress. This Sir John was son of Sir John, who 
with his father Sir Thomas, Sheriff of Staffordshire and 
Derbyshire, and master forester of High Peak, was in France 
for the Agincourt campaign at the head of five men-at-arms 
and fifteen archers. 

We are still long in coming to a point where the genealogy 
of Gresley may appear mean or obscure to the historian. 
With Sir Thomas Gresley the point is no nearer, for no doubt 
can be thrown upon his birth. He is son of Sir Nicholas of 
Gresley by Thomasine of Wasteneys, heir of those Colton 
lands alienated by the first baronet and his father in 1609. 
Nicholas was son of a knight Sir John, son of Sir Geoffrey. 

Sir Piers of Gresley, father of Sir Geoffrey, married Joan 
of Stafford. This knight and his wife are sketched for the 
family picture gallery with broad brush strokes in the records 
of their times. His slaying and his robbings, had he lived on 
the northern marches where the ballad-makers were, might 
have been sung up and down the country-side for many a 
long year. That his lady was his worthy mate is vouched 
for by her abetting her two Gresley lads in the murder of her 
late husband's son, Sir William de Montgomery, ' on the 
high road under the park of Seal.' 

The father of Sir Piers, as became one who held under 
Ferrers, was in arms against his king, and lost his lands for a 
time as the king's enemy and rebel. Looking back from 
this point we find that our Derbyshire historian's novus homo, 
Sir George Gresley the baronet, who, as we are to believe, 


crawled into the light under the first Stewart King, and 
gathered lands about him by pounds furtively pushed across 
a table at a place and time undiscoverable, was the successor 
at Drakelowe and Gresley of twelve knights of his name and 
house, for each of whom good proof is forthcoming. Truly 
the Gresleys of Drakelowe will do well to content themselves 
with Mr. Falconer Madan for a chronicler, and relinquish 
any attempt to obtain recognition from the historian of 

Sir Geoffrey, of the barons' war, followed five ancestors 
at Drakelowe, which manor is in Domesday Book as held by 
a great tenant, Neel of Stafford Nigellus de Stafford whom 
a mass of evidence goes to show as the father of William, son 
of Neel of Gresley, who is found holding lands which Neel of 
Stafford held in Domesday Book, and lands in that Derby- 
shire Gresley which henceforward gave its name to the race. 
William and his son Robert held four knight's fees of that house 
of Ferrers from whose arms of vairy gold and gules the Gresleys 
in later days took their shield of vairy ermine and gules. 
Robert's son William held Drakelowe of King John by the 
service of a bow, a quiver and twelve arrows, the Earl of 
Ferrers being the mesne lord. His son Geoffrey was constable 
of the castle of the High Peak, and steward of the household 
to his lord the earl. Geoffrey's grandson was that other 
Geoffrey who rode with Simon of Montfort. 

To the genealogist nothing can be more fascinating than 
the examination of those records which step by step carry the 
line of Sir Robert Gresley of Drakelow, who was one of those 
representing his order at the crowning of King Edward VI., 
to Neel, who held Drakelowe under the Conqueror. With 
such a pedigree content might come, but the ingenious 
pleadings which would derive Neel of Stafford from Roger 
de Toeni, who bore the banner of the Dukes of Normandy 
before the Conquest, have not yet ended. The reasonings 
for this proud beginning to the genealogy of Gresley are 
not fully accepted by antiquaries, but disproof has not yet 
pushed them aside. When the last word has been said it 
may be that the Gresley pedigree will dispute for place with 
the oldest line in England. 

O. B. 



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 awaken- 
ing 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 find 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. 

THE fact that a Duke and Duchess have gone down 
to their riverside residence at Runnymede, where they 
will have a ' party for Ascot,' does not at first suggest ground- 
work for the genealogically - minded paragrapher. But in- 
genuity will find a way or make one. Even the peerages yield 
no Grosvenor who was in arms on this or that side at the seal- 
ing of the charter, but 

The association of the Grosvenors with Runnymede is not an uninteresting 
one ; for the family was already a prominent one, and had been so for a cen- 
tury and a half at least, when on June I5th, 1215, on that long stretch of level 
meadow near Egham, ' inter Windleshoram et Stanes,' took place th= mem- 
orable subscription to the Great Charter which has made Runnymede im- 

Let us put aside the century and a half of prominence 
which had been enjoyed by the Grosvenors before 1215. 
Mr. Bird's article in the first volume of the Ancestor sent into 
the air the myth upon which that boast is founded. When 


we have said at the date of the sealing of the charter the 
earliest Grosvenors have come into the view of the patient 
antiquary curious concerning the lesser Cheshire houses, we 
have said all that may be said of the early prominence of 
the Grosvenors. But that their contemporary existence in 
Cheshire should be held to associate them with the doings of 
that famous June day is nothing less than amazing. By such 
reasoning a citizen, whose ancestor was a known and respected 
member of the Paddington vestry for twenty years before 
1815, might be allowed to describe the association of his 
family with the field of Waterloo as ' not an uninteresting 

* * * 

In the last number of the Ancestor we spoke of the popu- 
larity of the myth which derives Lord Derby's ancient house 
from pre-conquest ancestors in England. Since then the 
legend has made again and again an entry amongst those 
newspaper paragraphs whose applause of ancestry has taken 
the place of the songs of bards. A late version hails Adam 
de Aldithley, who ' came over from Normandy with Duke 
William,' whose grandson William married Joan Stanley, 
a descendant of the Saxon kings. This royal dynasty of Stanley 
we greet as a new development ; but our Danish kings would 
have made a better breeding stock. For it is evident that the 
Stanley pedigree is still growing, and a Stanley of the right 
Canute strain, who would bid the flowing tide of legend 
arrest itself, would do his family a service. 

Of Lord Barnard it is written : 

The trial of Harry Vane's claim in the House of Lords was perhaps one of 
the most remarkable which that august tribunal has adjudicated upon in recent 
years ; but step by step Mr. Vane proved his case from that remote ancestry 
which claimed kinship with Howell ap Vane of Monmouthshire circa William 
the Conqueror, down through Sir Henry Vane, knighted by the Black Prince 
at Poitiers, and ancestor of the Earls of Westmorland, past that later Henry 
described by Milton as ' Vane, young in years, but in sage counsel old," and 
so to the father of the Vane whose eldest son became Earl of Darlington. 

The paragraph leaves a thought uncertain what it was 
that Mr. Harry Vane proved before the august tribunal. 
What he proved was no more remote a fact than that his 
ancestor, Mr. Morgan Vane, who died in 1779, was a second 


son of the second Lord Barnard, and we cannot help believing 
that the august tribunal has had more remarkable cases 
before it than one in which a gentleman produced before it 
the formal evidences of a relationship which was never in 


* * # 

Had an attempt been made to prove before the august 
tribunal the kinship with Howell ap Vane of Monmouthshire, 
or with Sir Henry Vane, knighted by the Black Prince at 
Poitiers, genealogists at least would not have grudged ' most 
remarkable' to the case. We note that the honours of the 
second of these ancestral shadows are still growing. A 
knight at Poitiers was once description enough for him, but 
now he must take knighthood on the field from his prince's 
sword. It is sad to think that an irreverent descendant of 
this hero should have been the first to cast doubt upon his 
fame, and to suggest that Fanes and Vanes, Dukes of Cleve- 
land, Earls of Westmorland and Darlington, Viscounts Fane 
and Vane, and Lords Barnard sprang with greater probability 
from a nest of Kentish yeomen. 

* * * 

Carlton Towers in Yorkshire is happy in having a ' child 
peeress ' for chatelaine, whereby the house is often described 
for us by our newspapers, together with its picture gallery, 
' among whose treasures are the seals and signatures of 
William the Conqueror and Henry the First, as well as the 
regimental colours of the 2Oth Hussars carried in the Penin- 
sular War and at Waterloo.' Antiquarian prejudice makes us 
regard the signatures of the Conqueror and his clerkly sons 
as treasures more remarkable than the embroidered honours 
of the aoth Hussars, for the reason that, outside the picture 
gallery of Carlton Towers no signatures of our ancient kings 
exist of an earlier date than the latter half of the fourteenth 
century. King John, it is true, scowling above his swan 
quill, signs Magna Carta in a thousand historical paintings 
of the great Gandish school, but no signed version of that 
document has been found for us. 

* * # 

The family of Heneage distinguishes itself by allowing 
its claim to long descent to stay at the very threshold of the 
Conquest of England, the pedigree-makers, with a pleasant 


appearance of judiciousness, claiming neither Norman nor 
Saxon origin for the race. But the statement which has 
followed us in various journals that ' the name of Sir Robert 
de Heneage appears as that of a witness to a grant of land to 
the monks of Brucria [sic] in the time of William Rufus,' 
does not carry with it enough to justify the addition of seven 
or eight generations to the pedigree of a family whose descent 
from a fourteenth century John Heneage of Hainton could 
probably be supported by proofs. If Heneage be a place- 
name, it may well have produced a Robert in the eleventh 
century, and that Robert an approving witness of a pious 
gift. Yet Robert need be no ancestor of John, who two 
hundred and fifty years later carried a surname derived 
from the same place, 

* * * 

The heralds have hitherto, and with some reason, re- 
fused to recognize the county as an entity capable of bearing 
arms. But the new County Councils, bodies having com- 
mon seals and power to sue and be sued, cannot be denied 
when they seek for a shield for their seal, their note-paper 
and their lamp-posts. From the Times we borrow this 
curious account of the devising of the new arms for the 
Council of Norfolk. 

30 May 1904. 

The King, in view of his long connexion with and residence in the county 
of Norfolk, both as Prince of Wales and as King, has honoured the county with 
the royal augmentation for a part of the Royal bearing to be embodied in the 
county arms. 

At a meeting of the Norfolk County Council held at Norwich, on Saturday, 
Mr. le Strange announced that His Majesty, through Sir Dighton Probyn, had 
written stating that he gladly acceded to the request that he should confer this 
honour on the county. After communication with the College of Heralds 
it was decided to adopt the arms of one of the earliest Normans associated with 
the county namely, Sir Ralph de Guader, or Wcer, who went to the Cru- 
sades, and whose wife successfully withstood a siege of Norwich Castle for three 
months. The arms are per pale or, and sable with a bend ermine on a chief 
gules, a lion of England between two Prince of Wales's plumes, princely crowned 
or. The Royal augmentation was obtained by warrant, through the Home 
Office, whose fee of 50 was paid by Lord Amherst of Hackney. 

An uncertainty of language is apparent in these para- 
graphs. ' The royal augmentation for a part of the royal 
bearing ' is a phrase difficult to translate. 

How can arms not yet called into existence have an 



augmentation added to them ? The royal beast has been 
adopted by many English towns as a part of their bearings, 
but never before has it been styled an augmentation thereof. 
And if the plumes dostruce of the Prince of Wales's badges 
are not to be assumed without permission, it would seem to 
be the Prince of Wales whose permission should be sought. 
The blazon of the arms is not easily read in the form printed, 
but more sanely punctuated it can be understood. 

* * # 

We may take it then that the first part of the blazon stands 
for the arms of an Earl of Norwich who flourished and fell 
in the days of the Conqueror. The selection of his shield is 
an unfortunate one, and open to sentimental as to archaeo- 
logical objections. Tradition stamps the earl as the only 
traitor in the Norman host at Hastings, and as he lived nigh 
upon a century before armorial bearings had come into use, 
it would be interesting to know upon what authority these 
arms are ascribed to him. Unless indeed those of our heralds 
who hold that nobility has its root in duly registered arms 
have given themselves to the pious work of granting post- 
humous arms without fee or reward to those of our ancient 
lords who would otherwise remain ignoble in their graves. 
Such retrospective piety should persuade the Chinese that 
we are not a wholly barbarous people. 

* * * 

We promised long since that in the present season the 
pre-Conquest ancestor should be in good fashion. Wisdom 
has since been justified of us, and we find ourselves compassed 
about with scores of records of those in whose family 
history the date of 1066 is but a landmark by the way. 
Two examples may be quoted. Our first paragraph is 
dealing with the Rev. the Earl of Chichester. 

Curate and congregation formed a strange contrast, Mr. Pelham tracing 
back a clear descent from the holders of Pelham in Hertfordshire long anterior 
to the Norman Conquest ; his cab-yard flock compacted of the scum of the 
Euston-road cunning, cruel, brutal to the verge of savagery. 

Comment fails, but curiosity remains awake. Domesday 
records no one lord, but several men, French and English, 
as holders in Pelham. Amongst these Lord Chichester may 
pick and choose his ancestor, but our own methods of genea- 


logy are defective, and we are willing to learn by what means 
the selected forefather may be traced to a stock of lords of 
Pelham long anterior to the Norman Conquest. For there 
comes a point when public records fail. It is at this point 
that the inquirer may be recommended in a genealogical 
difficulty to consult the Peerage and the Landed Gentry. 

* * * 

The case of Lord Stafford next intrigues us : 

Lord Stafford, who appeared as a witness in the Law Courts yesterday be- 
fore the new Chancery Judge, Mr. Justice Warrington, is a Jerningham, whose 
name was a noted one in England long prior to the Norman Conquest. The 
family was Danish, and the name originally Jernegan. A Jernegan was settled 
in Suffolk in the time of King Stephen, and a son of his, one Hubert, appears 
in the roll of knights in 1203. A second Sir Hubert figured with the barons 
in their revolt against King John, and only escaped the headsman through the 
clemency of the third Henry. 

As hereditary surnames were not found in England be- 
fore the Norman Conquest, Lord Stafford's family may well 
have been reckoned a noted one in those far-off times, if only 
for the haughty disregard of anachronism which persuaded them 
to adopt such a distinction. It is but reasonable that the 
Jerningham family should know best where their kinsfolk had 
their origin, but the antiquary finds the first ancestor of this 
ancient house at a date in the twelfth century well this side 
of the Conquest, and finds him too amongst a group of 
Bretons, for which reason he might be reckoned a Breton had 
not the family pedigree written him down a Dane. 

* * * 

Of those mushroom houses which are content to prove 
mere descent from the men of the Conquest we have enough 
and to spare. The death of the late Sir W. C. H. Domville 
has been followed in the newspapers by two accounts of his 

Rear-Admiral Sir W. Cecil Domville, Bart., R.N., died yesterday, at Ips- 
wich. He was descended from the Lord Mayor of London who entertained 
the foreign Sovereigns after Waterloo. 

Rear-Admiral Sir Cecil Domville died at his residence, The Chantry, Ips- 
wich, yesterday. Sir Cecil, who retired from the Navy in 1893, traced his 
descent to a certain Hughes [sic ! ] de Domville, who came over from the 
town in Normandy of that name with William the Conqueror. 


One of these two statements seems to us more genealo- 
gically probable than the other. 

* * * 

In recording Lord Donegal's death an archasologically- 
minded journalist thus propounds the question of his an- 
cestry : 

How far back the Chichesters go is a problem which has never been quite 
definitely settled, but there was a John de Chichester in 1433 who was eighth 
in descent from William de Chichester, and whose son married the daughter 
of the first Earl of Bath ; and there was a Chichester in the first William's 
time who was doubtless a progenitor. 

It will be seen that the noble Chichesters at least share 
the common lot, for how far back the pedigree of any one of 
us may go is a problem which has never been quite definitely 
settled by geologists or theologians. That John Chichester 
of 1433 married his son to the daughter of an Earl of 
Bath whose will was proved in 1541 seems also a point 
worthy of definite settlement, but that there was a Chichester 
in the first William's time cannot be doubted. A Colchester, 
a Dorchester, a Winchester existed at the same period accord- 
ing to sound authorities. If we are asked to believe also that 
a gentleman of that date bore Chichester for a heritable 
surname, and founded the ancient West Country family of 
the name, hesitation takes us. 


HELSEA Old Church, as the title of Mr. Randall Davies' 
, new book, says something less than the truth. We have here 
not only a monograph on the old church, but an account 
of the village of Chelsea, of the great houses the Manor 
House, Beaufort House, Gorges House, Danvers House and 
Lindsey House and of the Mores, the Lawrences, and 
other departed Chelsea families. All this is set down for us by 
Mr. Davies, to whom Chelsea is familiar and beloved, being 
son to one who for nearly half a century has been incumbent 
of the old church. 

Of the old church of Chelsea, a London beauty which few 
Londoners have turned out of their way to observe, nothing 
can be said better than in the words of Mr. Herbert P. 
Home, Mr. Davies' fellow-worker, who has given a preface 
to his book. Whilst Putney, Fulham, Hammersmith and 
Chiswick have gone one by one to the church knackers 
Chelsea remains upon the river which it graces with its plea- 
sant patchwork of historical architecture. In 1820 its doom 
compassed it about, but the site was a narrow one, and the 
new church of Chelsea, that grim pile of Georgian Gothic, 
rose in chilly respectability in another place. Old Chelsea 
church remains, as Mr. Home points out to us, a church with 
its history upon it, its history of the fourteenth, sixteenth, and 
seventeenth centuries. It has been the prey of no restoring 
architect of that accursed race which, seizing upon a lancet 
window or a zigzag moulding, declares a church ' Early 
English ' or ' Norman,' and sends all work of other ages pack- 
ing to the rubbish heap. 

This church is rich in undisturbed monuments of the 
dead. The gentle More lies here, and his arms upon a pillar 
show the work done upon his chapel after the designs of Hans 
Holbein, his illustrious guest at Chelsea. Sir Arthur Gorges 
' Alcyon he, the jollie shepheard swaine ' kneels upon a 
brass plate with his wife and ample progeny. That monu- 

1 Chelsea Old Church, by Randall Davies, F.S.A., with a preface by 
Herbert P. Home. London : Duckworth & Co., 1904. 



ment of Lord and Lady Dacre, admired of the young Burtons 
in Henry Kingsley's novel, is spick and span within its railings, 
the city of London having a careful eye for it. Richard 
Jervoise, third son of Richard Jervoise, alderman and mercer 
(for whose story and picture see the third volume of the 
Ancestor), is probably buried under the strange memorial of 
an Elizabethan triumphal arch decorated with his arms, 
Richard the elder having had a lease of the old manor house 
of Chelsea. An old tomb without inscription marks the 
grave of the Brays, lords of Chelsea manor. The Lady Jane 
Cheyne, a daughter of William, Duke of Newcastle, reclines 
easily upon her elbow, under a tall monument of marble, 
dressed and jewelled for the court of the Restoration. Mr. 
Davies has recovered from the Bridgewater MSS. at Walkden 
the whole story of the planning and the working of this mem- 
orial, and little as we may love the cold splendours of the 
Roman taste, we may admire the pains and cost whereby they 
were wrought at Rome and brought to Chelsea on the 

This handsome volume, with its illustrations, its well 
edited parish register extracts, and carefully copied inscrip- 
tions, leads one to hope that as careful hands may soon be at 
work upon more of those parishes about London, which have, 
in too many cases, the useful Lysons for their only historian. 
The editors of such parish histories might be advised in many 
details by the example of Mr. Davies. Rarely have we ex- 
amined a parish history which is so little disfigured by the 
sham archaeology. When documents are cited we find 
abbreviated words reasonably extended to the avoiding of 
the jumbled and misunderstood contractions which vex 
printer and reader. The capital F is here, the ' ff,' beloved 
of the smatterer, being ignored. When dates before 1752 
are cited the ' double date ' is always accurately given. The 
illustrations illustrate the text, and are for the most part 
well reproduced, although we might have begged for a few 
more old landscapes of this waterside parish. The beautiful 
frontispiece of Chelsea Old Church in 1788 must be one of 
many more such pictures of a century which on its own 
assurance was a noisy age, but which gives us here the sudden 
impression of calm days a long while gone by. 



I am credibly informed that that Mystery of Ship-Wrights for some de- 
scents hath been preserved successively in Families, of whom the Petti about 
Chatham are of singular regard ; Good success have they with their skill, and 
carefully keep so precious a pearl, lest otherwise amongst many Friends jome 
Foes attain to it (FULLER'S Worthies of England, 1662). 


PETER PETT of Harwich in Essex, shipwright (son of 
John Pett, son of Thomas Pett of Skipton, as is recited 
in the grant of arms to his son Peter). He made a will 6 
March 1553-4, which was proved . . . [Commissary Court of 
London, Essex and Herts division]. He gave to his wife 
Elizabeth the household stuff, plate and implements which 
he had with her, a cow, 2O/. in money, half the wood in his 
yard, his ' short somer gowne faced with satten,' and his 
' trendyll bed.' He gave his son Peter Pett his dwelling-house 
and yard, with remainder to the heirs of his body, and with 
further remainder to the testator's daughter, Anne Chapman. 
He gave to Sir Richard Paynter, a priest, half a mark, and the 
like to Sir John Goslyn, another priest. He gave to his 
brother-in-law William Paynter, 2os. and his second gown 
furred with fox, and to his nephews, the sons of William and 
John Paynter, zs. each. He gave to his son-in-law, John 
Chapman, 2os. and his best gown furred with fox, and to his 
daughter's children, Christian and Elizabeth Chapman, 40*. 
each. He gave to his sister, Elizabeth Kyngson, if alive, 2OS. 
with remission of her debt, and to Robert Kyngsson's 
daughter, Joan Kynston [sic], $s. ^d. He gave 6s. Sd. to Alice 
Roger, and 31. \d. to her daughter, Anne Roger. The residue 
he gave to his son, Peter Pett, his executor, making the said 
John Chapman his overseer. William Paynter was a witness 
to this will. 



Peter Pett of Harwich left issue : 

i. Peter Pett of Deptford, a master shipwright of the 

navy, of whom hereafter. 
i D . Anne Pett, wife of John Chapman, who was overseer 

of her father's will, by whom she had issue, Christian 

Chapman and Elizabeth Chapman, who are both 

named with her in that will. 


PETER PETT, of Deptford in Kent, one of the master ship- 
wrights of the royal navy. The domestic series of the state 
papers show that he was master shipwright in the reign of 
Edward VI. In 1587 he joined with Matthew Baker, another 
shipwright, in bringing charges against Sir John Hawkins, the 
treasurer of the navy, of malpractices in connection with the 
repairs of the queen's ships, but the charges were not sustained. 
He had a grant of arms in 1583 of which only the docquet 
now remains at Heralds College. The shield was gold a fesse 
gules between three roundels sable with a lion passant gold upon 
the fesse. He died about 6 September, 1589. He made a will 
2 September 1589, which was proved 10 September 1589 
[P.C.C. 69 Leicester], by Elizabeth, the relict and 
executrix. In this will he describes himself as ' one 
of her majesties maister shipwrightes.' He gave to 
his wife Elizabeth ' all such bargaynes undertaken by 
me from her majestic accordinge to suche forme and order 
as is sett downe in the office of the admiralties, viz. one 
greate shipp called a crumpster fynished, twoe greate boates 
nere done and perfected, whereof certayne money is re- 
ceyved,' the workmanship and finishing of these being at 
' the travell and disposition ' of the testator's son Joseph, 
' who hath plattes and order for the same.' His wife was to 
have his dwelling-house for life, and he gave her his house in 
Norwiche [a scribe's error, no doubt, for Harwich], and the 
house at Deptford purchased of his son Richard Pett. To 
his son Joseph he gave land at Frathinge in Essex. To his 
son Peter Pett the elder he gave the lease of his house at 
Chatham yard and his ground at Wapping. To his sons 
Phineas Pett, Noah Pett, and Peter Pett the younger he gave 
loo/, each, to be paid when they should come to twenty-four 


years. To the three children of his son Richard Pett he gave 
61. i$s. ^d. each at marriage or twenty-four years. To the 
upbringing of Lydia, the child of his daughter Lydia, he gave 
61. i^s.^d. To his daughters Rachel, Abigail, Elizabeth, and 
Mary Pett he gave 100 marks each at twenty-four or mar- 
riage. To his wife's unborn child he gave an equal portion 
with the rest. He gave small legacies to his cousin John 
Paynter, Mr. Rockery, William Hedger and his wife, Mr. 
Honingborne and Philip Ellis. To the widow dwelling in 
the almshouses which he had built at Harwich he gave 203. 
To the children of his brothers, Thomas and Nicholas Thome- 
ton, he gave 40*. each. He made his sons, Joseph Pett, Peter 
Pett the elder and Phineas Pett, his overseers. He gave the 
residue of his estate to his wife, making her his executrix. 
Litigation between the executrix on the one hand and Joseph 
Pett, Peter Pett, Richard Pett, and Lydia [blank] alias Pett 
followed, but the will was confirmed by sentence promul- 
gated 4 November 1589. 

This Peter Pett was twice married, and had issue by both 
wives. By his first wife, whose name is unknown, he had 
issue : 

i William Pett of Limehouse, in Middlesex, who died 
in his father's lifetime. He made a will [in 1587 ?] 
wherein he described himself as of Limehouse, ' one 
of her majesty's master shippwrightes.' He gave to 
his wife Elizabeth his houses and leases in Limehouse, 
with his yard and the stuff remaining therein. He 
gave to his two daughters, Elizabeth Pett and Lucy 
Pett, 2OO/. each at marriage or twenty-four years. 
To his three brothers and to his sister Lydia zo/. each. 
To his brother, Joseph Pett, his interest in a purchase 
at Blackwall. To his seven half-brothers and sisters 
[the children of his father's second marriage] he gave 
5/. each. He gave a bay gelding to his brother, 
Richard Mercy or Marcy, who was probably a brother 
of his wife. He gave rings of forty shillings value to 
his brother John Marcy, his brother Pyke, his sister 
Marcy, his mother Elizabeth Pett, his uncle Girdler, 
his cousin John Paynter, his brother Peter's wife, and 
his brother Richard's wife. He gave to his father, 
Peter Pett, a ring of 4/. value, and the like, or a cup 
of the same value, to his father Marcy. He made 


his father, Peter Pett, and his brothers, Richard 
Marcy and Joseph Pett, his overseers. To his wife 
Elizabeth he gave his lands in Chiselhurst, with his 
lease of Hawke's Wood there, and a wood in Essex 
called ' Jackherdes,' in Prittlewell. The witnesses to 
this will were Peter Pett the elder, Joseph Pett, and 
Robert Girdler, who was perhaps the ' uncle Gird- 
ler ' named in the will. The will was proved 3 1 
August 1587 [P.C.C. 48 Spencer] by the relict and 
executrix. By his wife Elizabeth [Marcy] William 
Pett had the two daughters named in his will, Eliza- 
beth and Lucy Pett, of whom we know nothing 

ii. Joseph Pett, of Limehouse in Stepney, who was, 
like his father and elder brother, a master shipwright 
of the navy. He made a will 14 November 1605, 
wherein he released his brother Phineas Pett of all 
debts and accounts between them ' from the be- 
gynninge of the world untill this present day.' He 
recognized a debt of 32/. to his sister Mary Pett, 
which should be paid at his marriage or age of twenty- 
four years, and he gave her 8/. in addition thereto. 
Amongst the witnesses to his will were John and 
William Chapman. This will was proved 26 June 
1606 [P.C.C. 46 Stafford] by Margaret the relict, 
power being reserved etc. to John Humphrey the 
elder, her father. Sentence in favour of the will 
had been pronounced the same day, following liti- 
gation between the relict and Richard Pett the 

Joseph Pett was first married to Margaret Curtis, 
whom he describes in his will as one of the daughters 
of William Curtis, late of Ipswich, deceased. Ad- 
ministration of her goods was granted to him 25 
October 1594 [P.C.C.]. He had issue by her, an 
only daughter, Margaret, to whom he gave by his 
will 2oo/. and the houses in St. Matthew's, Ipswich, 
called the ' Turke,' and a house in St. Clement's, 
Ipswich, which houses he had in her mother's right. 
To this daughter Margaret he gave ' one bed cover- 
ing of tapestrey and six great silver and guilt spoones, 


that were given to her by her grandfather-in-lawe, John 
Chapman, and a goblet of silver parcell guilt that 
was her mother's, and two rings of gold, whereof one 
was her mother's and the other her grandmother 
Chapman's. 1 If the said Margaret died under 
eighteen years of age the legacy of 2OO/. was to go to 
her half brothers, William and Joseph Pett. 

Joseph Pett married as his second wife Margaret 
Humfrey, whom he describes as daughter of John the 
elder of Ipswich, a clothier. She proved her hus- 
band's will, and went to live in Ipswich. Adminis- 
tration of her goods was granted 22 June 1612 
[P.C.C.], to John Humfrey, her brother, she being 
described in the grant as of Ipswich, a widow. 
Joseph Pett had issue by her : two sons, William 
and Joseph Pett. The elder son, William, was 
probably the William Pett who petitioned the 
lords of the admiralty 12 April 1631 [Dom. State 
Papers] for the mastership of the Fortune pink. His 
petition recites that he had two sons cast away in the 
Six Whelp 

iii. Peter Pett of Wapping, of whom hereafter. 

iv. Richard Pett of London, gentleman As Richard 
Pett of London, gentleman, by his deed 29 May 1593 
{Close roll 35 Eliza., fart 5], he sold to his brother 
Peter Pett of Wapping, his portion of a messuage, 
etc., in Deptford )ate of his father Peter Pett. He was 
a litigant in 1606 concerning the will of his brother 
Joseph. The heralds' visitation of Kent in 1619 
describes him as ' unus valettorum regis.' The 
will of his brother William in 1587 speaks of him as 
married, and his father's will of 1589 gives a legacy 
to his three children. 

i. Lydia Pett, the only daughter of Peter Pett of 
Deptford, by his first wife, is named in her brother 
William's will of 1587. She was married before 
1589 to a husband whose name is not yet ascer- 
tained, her father giving a legacy towards the bring- 
ing up of her daughter Lydia. 


Peter Pett of Deptford married as his second wife Eliza- 
beth Thornton, described in the pedigrees as daughter of 
George Thornton. Her brothers, Thomas Thornton and 
Nicholas Thornton, are named in Peter Pett's will of 1589 
with their children. Another brother, called George Thorn- 
ton, is described in the autobiography of her son Phineas Pett 
as an ancient and well-experienced ship captain. Noah 
Pett, brother of Phineas, sailed with this uncle to Ireland 
about March 159!, and was drowned in the river at Cork. 
The autobiography of Phineas Pett relates the miserable 
story of his mother's end. She matched herself with ' a 
most wicked husband,' one Thomas Nunn, a minister, after 
incumbent of Weston in Suffolk, not far from Bury St. 
Edmunds. At this place she died in the beginning of 1597, 
and was buried in the church. Her husband married again, 
and cruelly treated her three daughters, who were left in his 
hands. His barbarity came at last to murder, for in 
1599 he beat the girl Abigail Pett so cruelly with the tongs 
and a firebrand that she died three days after. This wicked 
priest was convicted at Bury Assizes, but, to the scandal of 
justice, was allowed to sue out a pardon, which was 
granted him 28 May 1599 with restoration to the regularity 
which he had forfeited [Dom. State Papers] His parish did not 
enjoy his ministrations much longer, for his will, dated 
21 July 1599, was proved 7 September 1599 (P.C.C. 70 Kid\ 
by his second wife Anne and his brother Walter Nunn. He 
gave his ' clothe gowne lyned with budge ' to his own father, 
Mr. Thomas Nunn, and his ' gowne faced with dammaske ' 
to his wife's father, Mr. Nuce. He also named his sister 
Ezard, his brother Jolly, and his uncle Robert Nunn of Wor- 
tham and his two daughters. The murderer also directed 
that a new English Bible price 6s. 8d. should be bought for 
each of his own brothers and sisters, but the names of his 
surviving stepchildren are not amongst those of his legatees. 

By his second wife, Elizabeth Thornton, Peter Pett of 
Deptford had issue : 

v. Phineas Pett of Chatham, of whom hereafter. 

vi. Noah Pett. The autobiography of his brother Phineas 
relates that, having no help from his unkind brother, 
Joseph the master-shipwright, Noah Pett sailed to 


Ireland with his mother's brother, George Thornton, 
a sea-captain, under whom he was master of the royal 
ship Popinjay. He was drowned about the beginning 
of Lent in March 159*. His body was buried in 
the church of Cork. 

vii. Peter Pett, called Peter Pett the younger, being, after 
the confusing fashion of his day, one of two sons 
with the same Christian name. After his mother's 
death he was for a time in the cruel hands of his 
stepfather, Thomas Nunn, who put him out to a 
gentleman's house in Suffolk as teacher to the chil- 
dren. At the death of Thomas Nunn in 1599 ^ e 
came to his good brother Phineas at Limehouse, 
and was prenticed by him in London. Soon after- 
wards he left his master for an idle life which he was 
not long to lead, for on 21 June 1600 he died of 
small-pox at the Dolphin in Water Lane. On 
23 June he was buried in the churchyard of All- 
hallows, Barking. 

ii. and iii D . Jane and Susanna Pett, children of Peter 
and Elizabeth Pett, were both buried 21 August 
1567 at Deptford. 

iv. Rachel Pett, who was married about two months 
after her father's death in 1589, according to the 
relation of her brother Phineas, to Mr. Newman, 
minister of Canewdon in Essex. He was a man ' of 
dissolute life,' and she died not long after her mar- 
riage, having had by him two children, who died. 

v. Abigail Pett, who was beaten by her stepfather in 
1599 with the tongs and a firebrand, dying three 
days afterwards. 

vi D . Elizabeth Pett, who came to her brother Phineas in 
1599 and was put out as a servant with ' a gentleman 
of good fashion ' in London. Soon afterwards she 
came back to her brother at Limehouse and died of 
what was reckoned to be the plague, but proved to 
be small-pox. 

vii. Mary Pett, who came to Limehouse with her brother 
Peter and sister Elizabeth in 1599. She sickened 


of the small-pox, of which Elizabeth died, but 
would seem to have recovered. 


PHINEAS PETT, of Chatham, master shipwright of the royal 
navy, fifth son of Peter Pett of Deptford, being the eldest son 
of his second marriage, was born in his father's dwelling-house 
in Deptford on the morning of All Saints' Day I November 
1570, and was christened in the parish church on 8 November. 
These and other details of his life we have on the authority 
of his own history of his life and fortunes, of which a copy is 
preserved amongst the Harleian MSS. in the British Museum 
[Harl. MS. 6279]. 

His education began at a free school in Rochester, from 
which he went to a private school at Greenwich to be prepared 
for Cambridge. In 1586 he entered Emmanuel College, but 
his father's death in 1589 forced him to leave the university 
without a degree and to seek a handicraft. The young 
Phineas who had lately enjoyed his father's ample allowance 
of 20 yearly besides books and apparel was forced to serve 
as a covenant servant to Mr. Richard Chapman of Deptford, 
one of the queen's master shipwrights whom old Peter Pett 
had bred up, for a bare 46^. 8^. a year, out of which tools and 
clothing must be found. 

The rise of his half-brother Joseph Pett to be one of the 
master shipwrights brought Phineas no advancement, and he 
was compelled when out of his place to ship himself on ' a 
desperate voyage,' not greatly caring what became of him. 
Peter Pett, another half-brother, had some compassion where 
Joseph had none, and at Peter's house in Wapping Phineas 
had meat and drink until his ship sailed. In the gallion 
Constance of London the adventurer spent twenty miserable 
months, ragged and hungry. He saw the Levant and the 
coasts of Barbary and Spain, and after an unlucky voyage 
left his ship at Cork to visit his uncle George Thornton, with 
whom his brother Noah was master in the Popinjay. ^ 

Kind brother Peter received him again at Wapping, and 
the niggard Joseph parted with forty shillings to clothe this 
ragged man home from sea. Phineas, who loved fine clothes, 
bought himself ' mean attire ' in Burthen Street in London 


and found work in Woolwich dock, where the Defiance was 
being sheathed for Drake's voyage. By God's blessing 
Master Phineas was soon able to cast his mean duds, and he 
relates that before Easter of 1595 he had appareled himself 
' in very good fashion, always endeavouring to keep company 
with men of good rank, far better than myself.' The same 
year saw him, although still an ordinary workman, with a boy 
to work under him, ' the first servant that I ever kept.' 

From this point the prosperity of Phineas grew steadily. 
He worked at home on winter nights at cyphering and drawing 
and the theory of his profession. In 1600 came his first place 
in the Chatham yard, a small one but enough to persuade 
the cautious Joseph that the time had come for Phineas and 
himself to live together ' as loving brethren.' He was made 
assistant master shipwright in March of l6o, and in January 
i6of he was chosen by his good patron the Lord High Admiral 
to build for the young Prince Henry a little ship wherewith 
' to acquaint his grace with shipping.' This little model, on 
the lines of the Ark Royal, was wrought upon day and night, 
and launched on 6 March ' with a noise of trumpets, drums 
and such like ceremonies at such time used.' Pett himself 
sailed her as captain with a crew of boatswains of the navy 
and other choice men. At the Tower they took in ordnance 
and powder, and passing Whitehall saluted the Court with 
small shot and great ordnance. At Paul's Wharf on 22 March 
the young prince came on board with a noble company and 
christened the ship the Disdain ' with a great bowl of wine.' 
Afterwards in the cabin Phineas Pett, whose apparel on this 
famous day was doubtless a radiant sight, was presented by his 
patron to the prince as ' a servant worth the acceptance of the 
greatest prince in the world.' 

When Joseph Pett died in 1605 Phineas was given his place 
of master shipwright, and in this new position wrought so well 
that his majesty the noble King of Denmark was received with 
a fleet in being to the great honour of King James and 
admiration of all strangers. At this time the master ship- 
wright had for his guest in his house his good friend Sir Oliver 
Cromwell, a knight with a little nephew and godson who was 
to make more noise in the world than the great ordnance of 

On the 25 April 1606, Phineas Pett was elected and sworn 
master of the company of shipwrights and kept a feast with 


many friends and good store of venison before them at the 
King's Head in New Fish Street. 

In 1609 a foul wind blew against this great shipwright's 
rising fortunes. He had made friends and enemies, and of the 
latter was the Earl of Northampton, who allowed himself to 
be made a tool by Baker and Bright, Pett's fellow shipwrights 
and old adversaries to his name and family. Charges of gross 
incompetence were pressed against him, and he was tried at 
Woolwich before a tribunal, to preside over which the British 
Solomon came in his coach. For many hours Phineas Pett 
knelt before majesty, ' baited by the great lord and his ban- 
dogs,' and Solomon spake of upper and lower futtocks, of 
midship bends and scantlings, delighting his court now and 
again with the judicial jest which causes reverent laughter. 

In the end all went well with our master shipwright. He 
rose from his cramped knees, the multitude heaved up their 
hats with a loud shout, and Northampton slunk by the back 
way to his coach. For the rest of his life the history of old 
Captain Phineas Pett is the history of the navy. Now and 
again he sailed in the ships he built so skilfully. He carried 
the Lady Elizabeth and the Palsgrave to Flushing, he fought 
the pirates of Sallee. On King Charles' accession he was 
given a chain of gold of 104 value, and two ' blanks for 
baronets ' were amongst his other rewards. He brought the 
young queen to Dover in 1625, and at Portsmouth in 1628 he 
saw Felton knife my lord duke of Buckingham. 

In 1608-10 he built the Prince Royal, the largest ship of 
her day, and in 1632-33 the Charles. In 1637 he launched 
the still greater Sovereign of the Seas, one of the most splendid 
vessels that ever took the water. The Trade's Increase and the 
Peppercorn were great merchantmen of his planning. He 
was now on a height above the malice of his enemies, but 
without good watch kept they would have ' bored holes 
privily ' in the Trade's Increase the night before his Majesty 
came to the launching, and ' a sore gust of rain, thunder and 
lightning ' which came later made Phineas aware that old 
Matthew Baker and his like had called in dreadful help to their 

The son and grandson of shipbuilders, the craft was doubtless 
near to the nature of Phineas Pett, but we must remember 
that he was not bred to the yard, and his father's death kept 
him from inheriting the secrets of the craft. His rare success 


is rather to be attributed to his keen industry and to the Cam- 
bridge training and mathematics, whereby he took up the chisel 
and square as a man with a trained and educated mind. 

Of the manner of his death we know naught, but he was 
buried at Chatham 21 August 1647 as ' Phineas Pett, esquire 
and captain.' No will or administration act has been found. 

He married three times. His first wife was Anne Nicholls, 
daughter of Richard Nicholls, of Highwood Hill in Hendon, 
Middlesex, ' a man of good repute and honest stock.' They 
were married at Stepney church on a Monday forenoon 
15 May 1598. She died suddenly 14 February i62|, and 
was buried 16 February in Chatham church. The second 
wife of Phineas Pitt was Susan Eaglefield, daughter of Chris- 
topher Eaglefield, of Stratford-le-bow, who names her in his 
will dated 12 May 1592. She was married at Chatham 
20 January 159^ to Robert Yardley of Chatham, gent., 
of a Warwickshire family, by whom she had issue two sons 
and three daughters, of whom the youngest daughter, Kather- 
ine Yardley, married John Pett, son of Phineas Pett by his 
first wife. Robert Yardley was buried 26 December 1622 
at Chatham. His widow was married to Phineas Pett at 
St. Margaret's 16 July 1627. On 21 July 1636 she was brought 
sick from Woolwich to Chatham. She died 24 July 1636, 
and was buried 26 July at Chatham. On 7 January 1634 
her husband married at Chatham his third wife, Mildrea 
Byland. On 8 September 1638, being then with child (a 
child which does not seem to have been born), she sickened 
of a fever, and dying on 19 September, she was buried at 
Chatham 20 September 1638. 

Phineas Pett had issue by his first wife only. By her he 
had eleven children, eight sons and three daughters : 

i. John Pett, son and heir, born 23 March l6oj. In 
the summer of 1627 he was captain of a merchant 
ship and served under Sir Sackville Trevor in the 
taking of a French ship called the St. Esprit. On 
\ September 1628 he left England as captain of the 
royal ship the Six Whelp, and was cast away at the 
isle of Rhe on his return from Rochelle. He had 
married at Chatham, 14 July 1625, Katherine Yard- 
ley, third and youngest daughter of Robert Yardley of 
Chatham, gent., by Susan Eaglefield his wife, which 


Susan afterwards married John's father, Phineas Pett, 
as his second wife. By her he had a posthumous 
son : 

Phineas Pett, christened at Chatham 23 Novem- 
ber 1628. He had a grant c March 166?-, of the 
office of master shipwright of Chatham dockyard. 
[Docquet book, p. 98] following his petition, in 
which he recites the services of his father, Cap- 
tain John Pett, and of his grandfather, ' old 
Captain Phineas Pett,' under whom he was 
brought up. His marriage and his issue will be 
given hereafter in detail. 

ii. Henry Pett, who was born 18 March 1603, and chris- 
tened 27 March at Chatham. He died 22 September 
1613, and was buried 28 September 1613 at Chatham. 

iii. Richard Pett, who was born (according to his father's 
account) on 21 July 1606. This is probably an error 
for 21 June, as he was christened 29 June 1606 at 
Chatham. He worked with his father at the ship- 
building trade, and, dying 27 November 1629, was 
buried the next day in the chancel of Woolwich 

iv. Joseph Pett, born 27 April 1608, of whom hereafter. 

v. Peter Pett, of Chatham, born 6 August 1610, of whom 

vi. Phineas Pett, born 9 October 1614. He died 28 
October, 1617, and was buried 10 December at 

vii. Phineas Pett of Chatham, christened there 24 January 
i6if, of whom hereafter. 

viii. Christopher Pett, eleventh and youngest child, born 
14 May, 1620, and christened 25 May at Chatham. 
He was an assistant master shipwright at Woolwich. 
As a master shipwright of the navy he attended the 
Protector's funeral in November 1658. At the 
Restoration he was re-appointed to his office of 


master. Addressing the commissioners of the navy 
16 September 1667 he complains that his salary is 
so mean that, even if paid, it would scarce find his 
family in meat and drink. He has served twenty 
years at Woolwich, had but small fortune with his 
wife, and having a wife and children to maintain, 
is in debt [Dom. State Papers]. He built many 
ships for the royal navy and his friend Samuel 
Pepys relates that the king commanded him to alter 
his moulds upon no man's advice for, says he, ' God 
hath put him in the right assuredly, for no art of his 
own could ever have done it, for it seems he cannot 
give a good account of what he do.' He made a will 
6 March i66j as ' his majesties master shipwright 
of Deptford and Woolwich.' He gave to his wife 
Anne all his estate for life, asking her to distribute 
the same at her discretion amongst his children. 
She proved the will as executrix 4 April 1668 [P.C.C. 
51 Hene]. He died Sunday before 26 March 1668, 
as appears by his widow's letter of that date to 
Samuel Pepys the diarist [Dom. State Papers}. She 
complains that she is left in a mean condition with 
four children and 300^. of debt, her husband having 
' always attended to his Majesty's service and never 
looked after his own concerns.' She herself sur- 
vived until 1679, anc ^ was buried 26 December of 
that year at Woolwich. She made a will 21 Novem- 
ber 1679, being then a widow at Woolwich, giving 
legacies to her three surviving children. Of this 
will her brother, Philip Brace, gent., and her son, 
Peter Pett, were named as executors, and Margaret 
and Deborah Brace were witnesses. We may there- 
fore guess that her own name was Brace. These 
executors proved the will 7 January i6|$ [P.C.C. 
9 Bath]. 

Christopher and Anne Pett had issue a son and 
three daughters : 

1. Peter Pett, who was an executor of his 

mother's will in i6H- 

2. Anne Pett, who is named in her father's will 


in i66|, and is unnamed in that of her 
mother in 1679, at which date she was 
probably dead. She may have been the 
Anne Pett who was married 20 April 1674 
at Greenwich to Daniel Farrer of Woolwich. 

3. Mary Pett, who was married 8 August 1676 

at Greenwich to William Kethridge [sic]. 
Her mother names her as wife of William 
Kildridge in 1679, and gives a legacy to 
Alexander Kildridge their son. 

4. Martha Pett, who was unmarried in 1679. 

Her mother gave a necklace of pearls between 
her and her sister Mary. 

i". Anne Pett, born 15 October 1612, and christened 
26 October at Chatham. She was probably wife of 
William Ackworth, storekeeper of Woolwich. 'He 
knows himself and I know him to be a very 
knave,' records Pepys, who describes Ackworth's 
wife as a very proper, lovely woman. When her 
brother, Peter Pett, was committed to the Tower 
in 1667 his sister, Mrs. Ackworth, had a warrant to 
see him, which warrant wrongly described her as 
Mrs. Pett [Dom. State Papers]. 

ii". Martha Pett, born 15 April 1617 and christened 
22 April at Chatham. She was married 25 April 
1637 at Chatham to John Odierne, her father's ser- 
vant, one of a Kentish family of that name. 

iii". Mary Pett, born 15 April 1617, and christened 
22 April 1617 at Chatham, where she was buried 
17 November 1617. 


PETER PETT of Wapping (third son of Peter Pett of Deptford, 
and grandson of Peter Pett of Harwich). He followed the 
family calling of a shipwright, and was living at Wapping in 
1592, when he gave his half-brother Phineas, then in great 
straits, meat and lodging with him until his ship sailed. He 
was dead before 2 March 163!, when his widow Elizabeth 
petitioned the lords of the admiralty that she might have 


the law against Captain Phineas Pett, his half-brother. This 
Elizabeth was probably a second wife, for an administration 
of the goods of Richard Tusam of Deptford was granted 
9 January 158* [P.C.C.] to Anne Pett, alias Tusam, wife 
of Peter Pett of Deptford, during the minority of Henry 

Peter Pett had issue several children : 

i. Peter Pett of Deptford, esquire, born about 1592, of 

whom presently. 

ii. William Pett, clerk in holy orders. He made a will 
25 April 1651, which was proved 31 December 1651 
[P.C.C. 246 Grey} by Anne, the relict and executrix. 
He described himself therein as of Wilsburrough 
in Kent, where he desired to be buried. Admon. 
d.b.n. was granted 18 July 1666 by Toby Garbrand, 
uncle and guardian to Peter Pett the son (a minor). 
He was twice married. His second wife, Anne 
(Garbrand), made a will 10 September 1652, with 
a nuncupative codicil of 2 January 165^, which 
was proved 7 March 165^, [P.C.C. 342 Aylett] by 
her friend Mr. Herne Thurston of Rochester, the 
executor. She desired to be buried by her late 
husband in the parish of Cuxton. She speaks of 
her husband's five children, naming William, Bea- 
trix, and Peter as her own children. She gives 
legacies to her aunt and uncle Richard, her uncle 
Nicholas, and her brother Tobiah Garbrand. 
William Pett had issue five children. By his first 
wife : 

I D . Mary Pett, who at the date of her father's will 
of 1651 was wife of John Merricke, mariner. 
They are both legatees under the will of her 
stepmother, Anne Pett, in 1652. Her father's 
will speaks of her as sister to Anne Pett, and 
names their aunt Trelawne. She and her 
sister are both named in the will of their 
uncle, Peter Pett, about 1652. Her half- 
brother, William Pett, in his will of 16 
June 1692, speaks of her as wife of John 

2". Anne Pett, who was unmarried in 1652, when 
she was a legatee of her stepmother, Anne Pett. 


By his second wife, Anne (Garbrand), William Pett 
had issue : 

I s . William Pett, a citizen and apothecary, living 
in the parish of Allhallows, Lombard Street. 
Born 1643 being aged twenty - three in the 
allegation for marriage licence. His will, 
dated 16 June 1692, was proved 2 December 
1692 [P.C.C. 230, Fane] by Richard Hoare 
and Richard Edmondson, the executors. He 
recites his settlement made by an indenture 
of 23 April 1669, after his marriage with 
Elizabeth his wife, whereby and by fine and 
recovery he had settled his messuages and lands 
called Hewett House and lands in Willes- 
borough and Ashford in Kent. He desired 
to be buried at Cuxton in Kent, and made 
his cousin, Peter Pett, esquire [afterwards 
knight], his overseer. fie married, at 
Allhallows, Barking, 20 April 1669, Elizabeth 
Marriot daughter of Robert Marriott of 
Mortlake, clerk, who in the allegation for 
marriage licence dated 1669 [V.G.] is aged 
twenty-one. William Pett and Elizabeth his 
wife had issue (i) Marriott Pett, whose 
grandfather, Robert Marriott, gave him a 
legacy of i,ooo/., as is related in his father's 
will of 1692. He married at St. Helen's, 
Bishopsgate Street, 19 February 169!, Jane, 
eldest daughter of Francis Jessop, of Brome- 
hall in Yorkshire, which Jane died before him. 
He made a will 16 November 1706 as of 
Maidstone, gentleman, and admon. with the 
will was granted 22 December 1722 [P.C.C. 
243 Marlborougb] to William Pett, the son, 
the two executors, William Jessop of Brome- 
hall and William Finch of Maidstone, apothe- 
cary, having renounced. He named his 
uncle, Mr. James Marriott, of Hampton 
Court, and Anne his wife. Marriott Pett 
and Jane his wife had issue William Pett, 
Elizabeth and Jane, who are all named in his 
will, (ii) Elizabeth Pett, who married Fran- 


cis Cell of St. George's, Botolph Lane, mer- 
chant, in 1691. Allegation for marriage 
licence dated 15 December 1691 [V.G.], she 
being aged twenty and he thirty. Articles 
of settlement before marriage dated 17 
December 1691. Francis Bell, esquire, is 
named in the will of his brother-in-law, Mar- 
riott Pett, in 1706. 

2*. Peter Pett, who was probably the youngest 
child of this marriage. He made a will I 
April 1 680 as a citizen and mercer of London. 
Therein he names his wife, Jane Pett, his kins- 
woman, Elizabeth Codd, daughter of St. 
Leger Codd, his sister Mary Bettenham, and 
his nephew and niece, Marriott and Eliza- 
beth Pett. His residuary estate he gave to his 
brother William Pett, who proved the will 9 
April, 1680 [P.C.C 50, Bates]. 
3". Beatrix Pett, the youngest daughter. She 
married one . . . Codd, of the Kentish 
family of that name. Her brother William 
Pett, in his will of 1692, speaks of her as 
a widow deceased, and names her children 
James Codd, and Beatrix wife of Robert 

V*. Elizabeth Pett, daughter of Peter Pett of St. Mary's, 
Whitechapel, shipwright (who was probably iden- 
tical with Peter Pett of Wapping), married Thomas 
Barwicke, shipwright. Allegation for marriage 
licence 2 June 1610 [Bp. of Land.]. 
ii. Anne Pett. Peter Pett of Deptford, in his will made 
about 1652, named his sister, Anne, to whom he 
was bound to pay I5/. yearly. 

iii". Mary Pett, who in the pedigrees of the family of 
Johnson of Aldborough (Visitation of London, 
1663), is said to have married Francis Johnson of 
Aldborough in Suffolk (1601-36). Her grandson, 
William Johnson, married Agneta daughter of Hart- 
gill Baron, and sister to Philippa, Baron, wife of 
Phineas Pett. 



PETER PETT of Deptford, esquire (eldest son of Peter Pett of 
Wapping, grandson of Peter Pett of Deptford, and great- 
grandson of Peter Pett of Harwich), was a chief contractor of 
the royal navy. He was born about 1592, as appears by his 
monument at Deptford, which states that he died 31 July 
1652 aged sixty. He made a will (undated) which was proved 
18 August 1652 [P.C.C. 223 Pett] by Elizabeth, his relict and 
executrix. Administration d.b.n. was granted 15 April 1676 
to Peter Pett the son, the executrix being then dead. He 
married at St. Botolph, Aldgate, 23 July 1623, Elizabeth 
Johnson, daughter of Henry Johnson, of Aldborough, co. 
Suffolk, gent. They had issue : 

i. Sir Peter Pett, an author and lawyer, who was chris- 
tened at Deptford 31 October 1630 as son of Peter 
and Elizabeth Pett. He was educated at St. Paul's 
school. Admitted pensioner of Sydney Sussex Col- 
lege, Cambridge, 28 June 1645, where he took a 
degree of B.A. 7 March 164^. He migrated to 
Pembroke College, Oxford, 1647, and was elected a 
Fellow of All Souls in 1648. A bachelor of civil law 14 
January 165$, he was admitted to Gray's Inn 12 
February 165!-. He was knighted at the Restoration 
by the Duke of Ormond, and was M.P. for Askeaton 
in the Irish Parliament 1 66 1-66. A barrister-at- 
law of the Middle Temple 1664. He was one of the 
original Fellows of the Royal Society in 1663. He 
was knighted and appointed Advocate-General for 
Ireland. He made a will 22 July 1685 as ' Sir Peter 
Pett, knight, his majestie's Advocate-Generall for 
Ireland,' giving his brother, Sir Phineas Pett, 
knight, one of the commissioners of the navy, all his 
lands. He gave to his friend George, Marquess of 
Halifax, Lord President of the Privy Council, all his 
MS. books save one endorsed Liber forestarum, which 
he gave to Sir James Hayes, who married the Vis- 
countess Falkland. But his most interesting legacy 
was certainly ' an agate stone ovall with an antique 
figure cutt thereupon, which was given me by the 
late Countess of Nottingham, and which was given 
by the Spanish Admirall in the yeare 1588, then 


prisoner to the English Admirall, afterwards Earl 
of Nottingham.' This famous jewel he gave to no 
less a person than Mr. Samuel Pepys, whose diary, 
aks, does not exist for this period to tell us how 
mightily he was pleased by the gift. Administration 
of his goods was granted 6 June 1699 [P-C.C. 100 
Pett} to Elizabeth Pett, spinster, niece by the bro- 
ther to the testator, who had lived in the parish of 
St. Martin's-in-the-Fields. In the church of St. 
Martin's he was buried 19 April 1699. He died 
ii. Sir Phineas Pett, knight, christened 29 April 1635 at 

Deptford, of whom hereafter, 
iii. John Pett, christened 2 November 1636 at Deptford, 

and buried there 9 December 1636. 
iv. William Pett, to whom his father gave by will his 

lands and tenements in Wapping. 

i*. Elizabeth Pett, christened 20 March 163^ at Dept- 
ford. She married Robert Moulton, captain of a 
man-o'-war, and is named with him in her father's 

ii D . Phebe Pett, named in her father's will. She married 

(i) at Stepney, 20 October 1659, Stephen North, of 

Shadwell, a sea captain. Le Neve says that she 

married (ii) a sea captain named Mason. 

iii p . Mary Pett, named in her father's will, is said by 

Le Neve to have married one How of Deptfora. 

SIR PHINEAS PETT of Chatham, knight, was christened 
29 April 1635, at Deptford, the second son of Peter of 
Deptford and grandson of Peter of Wapping. His father gave 
him by will, after his mother's death, a Bridgehouse lease of lands 
and tenements in Deptford. He was commissioner of the navy 
and made a short will n November 1694, leaving all to his 
wife Dame Margaret, who proved the will 13 December 1694 
[P.C.C. 253 Box]. He was then of Frindsbury in Kent. 
He married at least four times. His first wife is said by Peter 
Le Neve, in his pedigree of the Petts [Harl. MS. 5801-2], to 
have been a daughter of one Hedersey. His second wife was 


Anne Bettenham, of Canterbury, whom he married i July 
1664 at St. Margaret's by Rochester. She was buried at 
Chatham 13 April 1667. His third was Elizabeth Coulson, 
daughter of William Coulson of Greenwich, and co-heir of 
her brother Thomas Coulson, M.P. for Totness, a'director of 
the H.E.I.C. This Elizabeth was first married to John 
Tarleton, citizen and haberdasher of London, who lived in 
St. Mary Magdalene's, Fish Street, where the banns were 
published 24 October, 31 October, and 7 November 1658, 
she being then of Allhallows the less in Thames Street, 
spinster. By him she had issue. After her death Phineas 
Pett married a fourth wife, Margaret Lovell, sister of Thomas 
and Anthony Lovell. She is said by Le Neve to have been 
first married to Arthur Brooker, of Rochester, and to have 
remarried to Wyllen, rector of Boxley. This was John 
Wyvell, prebendary of Rochester, who was presented to 
Boxley in 1690 and died in 1704. He must have been her 
third husband, and was himself a widower, having married 
12 July 1694 at Boxley, Christian Charlton of that place, 
who was buried there 29 April 1698, leaving a daughter, 
Christian Wyvell (christened 3 March 169! at Boxley), 
named in the will of Dame Margaret her stepmother. Dame 
Margaret made a will 2 February 171* as ' Dame Margaret 
Pett l of Boxley.' She gave her farm or parsonage of Hoo to 
her kinsman Thomas Rogers, gent., whom she made her execu- 
tor, with Frances Nash, widow, her niece. She also names her 
daughter-in-law (step-daughter) Elizabeth Pett, Mrs. Chris- 
tian Wyvell (her third husband's daughter), Mrs. Frances and 
Mrs. Elizabeth Gillman, and her nieces Elizabeth Lovell, 
daughter of her brother Thomas Lovell, and Margaret 
Lovell, daughter of her brother Anthony Lovell. This will 
was proved 22 May 1712 and 23 February iji? [P.C.C. 
98 Barnes] by the executors. 

Sir Phineas Pett had issue by his first wife (according to 
Le Neve) Phineas Pett and one daughter, and by his third 
wife Peter, who died young. This is evidently only partly 
true. He would seem to have had by his first wife : 

i. Phineas, of whom hereafter. 

1 In this keeping of the surname, as well as the title acquired by her most 
important marriage, she followed a frequent practice of her period. 


By his third wife, Elizabeth Coulson, he had : 
ii. Peter Pett, christened at Chatham 19 July 1669, and 

buried there 30 December 1672. 

i. Elizabeth Pett, who was admor. of the goods of 
her uncle, Sir Peter Pett, in 1699. She was 
christened at Chatham 13 December 1670. She 
died unmarried, making a will 18 September 1720 
as ' Elizabeth Pett of Carshalton in the county 
of Surrey.' She gave legacies to many of her 
Coulson and Fellowes kinsfolk, through whom she 
was connected with the great Sir Isaac Newton. 
She gave her cousin Peter Pett, the elder, 2O/, and 
to her cousin, Margaret Pett, i,ooo/. She also gave 
legacies to her three cousins Phineas Pett, Peter 
Pett, and Elizabeth Pett, who were minors and 
apparently brothers and sister. The residue of her 
estate she gave to her sister, Mrs. Anne Tarleton 
(her mother's daughter), and made her cousin, 
Coulson Fellowes, her executor, who proved the 
will 9 November 1720 [P.C.C. 238 Skaller]. 


PHINEAS PETT, son of Sir Phineas Pett, knight, by his first 
wife, according to Le Neve's pedigree of his father, was dead 
before the date of his father's will in 1694. He was probably 
the Phineas Pett of Chatham, shipwright and bachelor, who 
married Sarah Harden or Harding of .Ratcliffe, spinster, the 
allegation for their marriage licence being dated 19 October 
1681 [Bp. of Lond.], he being aged twenty-three and she twenty- 
seven, Robert Harding attesting. He was therefore born 
about 1658, and his father married for the second time in 
1664. Admon. of his goods was granted 4 March i68|. 
[Cons. Rochester], he being late of Chatham, to William 
Yardley, the principal creditor. His widow died c. 1693 at 
Chatham, when admon. of her goods was granted 14 November 
1693 [Cons. Rochester] to the same William Yardley, guardian 
to Margaret and Peter Pett, the children. We have thus an 
explanation of the legacies to kinsfolk of her own name given 
by Elizabeth Pett, of Carshalton (daughter of Sir Phineas by 
his third wife) in her will of 1720. Phineas Pett of Chatham 
left issue : 


i. Peter Pett, of whom hereafter. 

ii. Margaret Pett, to whom Elizabeth Pett, her aunt by 
the half blood, gave a legacy of i,ooo/. 


PETER PETT, only son of the above Phineas Pett and Sarah 
Harding, was a minor in 1693. Le Neve describes him as living 
in 1703, and then bound to the master of a ship. He was 
probably the father of the children Peter Pett, Phineas Pett, 
and Elizabeth Pett, to whom Elizabeth Pett of Carshalton gave 
legacies in 1720. Peter Pett, gent., whose identity with him 
may also be assumed, was married at Gillingham 2 January 
1704 to Elizabeth Cole, spinster. Admon. of the goods of 
Peter Pett of Deptford in Kent, who died in the royal service 
on board the Loyal Ellen bayond sea or on the high seas, was 
granted 14 August I722[PC.C.] to Elizabeth the relict. 
This Elizabeth made a will 26 March 1729, which was proved 
i April 1729 [P.C.C. 114 Abboi\ by Catherine Cole, spinster, 
the sister and executrix, to whom the testatrix gave her things 
in the hands of Mr. Roch of Rotherhith. Peter Pett and 
Elizabeth Cole had issue (the order of the children's birth 
being unknown) : 

i. Samuel Pett, residuary legatee in his mother's will, 
ii. Peter Pett, to whom his mother gave a guinea for a 


iii. Phineas Pett, who made a will 27 July 1726 at Mocha, 
aboard the Princess Amelia, giving all to his mother, 
with residue to his brother Samuel Pett. Eliza- 
beth Pett, the mother, proved the will 26 July 
1727 [P.C.C. 177 F arrant], power being reserved 
to Samuel the brother. 

i. Elizabeth Pett, to whom her mother gave in her will 
a guinea for a ring. 


PETER PETT, of Chatham, esquire (son of Phineas Pett of 
Chatham, grandson of Peter Pett of Deptford, and great- 


grandson of Peter Pett of Harwich). He was born 6 August 
1610, according to his father's autobiography. He was 
commissioner of the navy at Chatham from 1648 to 1667, 
when he was superseded, having been made a scapegoat for 
the disasters following the raid of the Dutch fleet into the 
Thames, and the disaster at Chatham. 1 He was committed 
to the Tower 17 June 1667 [Gazette}, and Pepys, quaking for 
his own fate, saw him brought by the Lieutenant before the 
committee of the Council on 19 June ' in his old clothes, and 
looked most sillily.' His house and gardens were famous and 
their rarities were viewed both by Pepys and Evelyn, the former 
admitting that he was more affected by the commissioner's 
strong drink, which made his head ache. He made a will 13 
April 1663, being then of Chatham, esquire. He was lord of 
the manors of Woodbridge Ufford and Kettleborough Ufford 
in Suffolk, of which he had made a settlement before his will. 
He gave to his two sons, in case they should both become 
shipwrights, 'all my modellsand plotts of shipps,' but neither 
son seems to have followed the family calling. This will was 
proved 2 December 1672 [P.C.C. 153 Eure] by Peter Pett, 
the son and executor. He married three times. His first wife 
was Katharine Cole, daughter of Thomas Cole, of Wood- 
bridge, whom he married at Woodbridge 8 September 1633. 
She was buried at Chatham 12 July 1651. He married (ii) 
Mary Smith, daughter of William Smith, of Greenwich, 
serjeant-at-arms to Charles I., by Alice, daughter of Geoffrey 
Duppa, of Greenwich. She was living in 1663, when she is 
named in her husband's will, in which he wills to her ' two 
necklaces of pearles conteyning two hundred seaventy and 
] pearles, one dyamond ring, severall peeces of plate 
either given her or by me bought, one shelfe of bookes, one 
faire great bible, one great rich cabinett, one French rich 
cabinett and lookeing glasse, one Turkey carpett, and all the 
pictures, shells and glasses now standing and being in her own 
clossett as she shall make choyce of.' Le Neve says that she 
died in 1664. The next year her husband married (iii) 

1 All our misfortunes upon PETT must fall 
His name alone sees fit to answer all. 
* * * * 

PETT, the sea-architect, in making ships, 
Was the first cause of all these naval slips. 



Elizabeth Pitt, daughter of George Pitt, of Harrow-on-the- 
hill, esquire. She had married (i) Sir Henry Hatton, of 
Mitcham in Surrey, knight. The allegation for the licence 
to marry with Peter Pett is dated n December 1665 [V.G.], 
she being then aged about forty. 

Peter Pett had issue by his first wife six sons and four 
daughters : 

i. Peter Pett, of St. Margaret's, Westminster, gentle- 
man, to whom his father gave by will his free and 
copyhold lands in Alderton and Hollesley, co. 
Suffolk, after the death of Mary, his second wife, 
who had them for her jointure. He had also 
the inn called the Crown in Woodbridge, bought by 
his father of Mr. William Ackworth. He made a 
will 5 February 170^, and admon. with the will 
was granted 4 March I7o|. [P.C.C. 94 Lane] to 
Elizabeth the relict (who is not named in it), George 
Williamson the nephew, who was named as exe- 
cutor, renouncing execution. He married (i) Alice 
Newman, daughter, according to Le Neve, of John 
Newman, rector of Wythiam, co. Sussex. She 
was buried 16 November 1669 at Chatham. Peter 
Pett and Alice his wife had issue : 

1. A still-born son, buried 20 September 1659 

at Chatham. 

2. Peter Pett, born 5 May and christened 7 May 

1662 at Chatham, and buried there 14 July 

3. John Pett, christened 19 June 1666 at Chat- 

ham, who died young. 

I D . Elizabeth Pett, the only surviving child of 

this marriage, has a provision made for her 

in her father's will, she having been 

' melancholy ' for some years. 

2 D . Mary Pett, buried 23 October 1 668 at Chatham. 

3. Catherine Pett, buried 21 October 1669 at 


ii. Phineas Pett, clerk in holy orders, matriculated 
23 July 1656 at Exeter College, Oxford. B.A. 
28 February i6f. M.A. 1662. Vicar of Totnes 
1669. Vicar of Paignton 1674 to his death. 
Admon. of his goods was granted 8 November 


1684 [P.C.C.] to Sarah the relict. He married 
(i) Hester Rogers, daughter of Robert Rogers, of 
Wappenham, co. Northants, clerk. The allega- 
tion for the marriage licence is dated 13 
August 1669 [Fac. office], he being aged twenty- 
nine and she twenty-six. He married (ii) Sarah 
Lethbridge. She made a will 30 September 
1692. Admon. with the will was granted i 
June 1695 [P.C.C. 102 Irby] to Lewis Burnett, 
Christopher Lethbridge the brother, and Mary 
Saunders, guardians to the children. The will 
was afterwards proved 7 November 1701 by the 
two sons. She named her sisters, Mrs. Mary 
Saunders and Mrs. Hester Rooke, and her 
brother-in-law, Mr. Robert Burscough, of Totnes. 

Phineas Pett and Sarah his wife had issue : 

1. Phineas Pett, who matriculated at Oxford 27 

March 1699, aged eighteen. B.A. Exeter 
College 1702. M.A. 1705, from Oriel College. 
Vicar of Walberton in Sussex 1704. Rector 
of Ford 1715. Vicar of Yapton 1719. 

2. John Pett, whom Le Neve describes as living 

at Exeter in 1703. 

iii. Thomas Pett, named in his father's will of 1663 as a 
minor. He died young. 

iv. Warwick Pett. He was living in 1668, being then 
in the service of the yard at Chatham, as appears 
by a letter to Samuel Pepys from his father 25 June 
1668 [Dom. State Papers]. 

v. Benjamin Pett, son of Peter Pett the commissioner, 
buried at Chatham 4 October 1661. 

vi. and vii. Richard and John Pett are named by Le Neve 
in 1703 as having died young. 

i. Katherine Pett, who was married to Thomas East- 
land, as appears by her father's will. 

; i". Anne or Agnes Pett, who married at St. Leonard's, 
Eastcheap, n December 1660, Rowland Crisp, of 
Chatham, gent, (a younger son of Tobias Crisp, 
rector of Brinkworth in Wilts, third son of Ellis 
Crisp, who died Sheriff of London in 1625). His 
will, dated 27 September 1691, was proved 29 April 


1692 [P.C.C. 63 Fane] by Anne, the relict and 
executrix. They had one son, Rowland Crisp. 
Anne Crisp is named in the will of her brother Peter 
in 1708 in remainder of his Woodbridge land. 
iii D . Margaret Pett, aged under twenty years at the date 
of her father's will. She is said by Le Neve to 
have married Edmund WoodrofTej of the Ex- 
chequer, counsellor at law. 

iv". Avice Pett, who was buried 18 December 1656 at 


JOSEPH PETT of Chatham, who was probably the Joseph Pett, 
son of Phineas Pett, the first of that name, was born 27 
April 1608, according to the relation of the said Phineas. 
He seems to have been a shipwright at Chatham. Admon. 
of his goods was granted 9 May 1653 [P.C.C.] to Elizabeth 
the relict. He was first married at Chatham 13 April 1626 
to Bithia Gardiner, who was buried there 17 March 163^. 
His second wife, Elizabeth, was married to him within the 
year. He had issue by his first wife : 

i. William Pett of Chatham, shipwright, who was chris- 
tened at Chatham 9 December 1627. He made a 
will 21 February 167!, which was proved 3 July 
1679 [P.C.C. 89 King] by Elizabeth, the relict and 
executrix. He gave his brother Mr. Samuel Pett, of 
the Navy Office, ' one guinny peice of gold ' for a 
ring, and made his wife his residuary legatee. He 
married Elizabeth Houghton, who died 17 December 
1711 in her seventy-fifth year [M.I.]. She married 
as her second husband Robert Lee of Chatham, 
gent., who was for eighteen years master shipwright 
there. He died i April 1698, in his sixty-sixth year, 
and was buried at Chatham under a monument 
with his arms gules a cross gold between four uni- 
corns' heads razed gold for LEE, parted with sable 
three bars silver for HOUGHTON. Her will, dated 
i May 1710, she being then of Sayes Court, in 
Deptford, a widow, was proved i October 1711 
[P.C.C. 217 Toung] by her son William Lee, esquire. 


She named her brother-in-law, Mr. Michael Lee, 
and her young kinsman, William Houghton of 
Chatham. Robert Lee and his wife had issue, with 
three sons who died young, 1 a son, William Lee, who 
married Elizabeth Pett, daughter of the wife's 
brother-in-law, Samuel Pett. 

ii. Samuel Pett of Battersea, esquire, who was a brother, 
and probably a younger brother, of the above 
William Pett, being named in his will of 167^. 
He may have been a son by the second marriage. 
In May 1670 Cuthbert Curwen, purser of the Henry, 
petitioned the Navy Commissioners that Phineas 
Pett, brother of Samuel Pett, might act as his deputy 
at Chatham, whilst the petitioner was in London, 
the said Samuel having been lately appointed clerk 
to the surveyor of the navy [Dom. State Papers]. 
He made a will 19 October 1695 as ' one f tne 
commissioners of his majestie's navy royall,' desiring 
to be buried by his late father in the vault in the 
parish church of Chatham. He named his mother, 
Elizabeth Pett, widow, his uncle, Benjamin Middle- 
ton, esquire, and his kinsman, Peter Pett, esquire, 
which last two he made his executors. He 
died before i February 169^, as appears by the 
deposition of one John Houlton. Admon. with the 
will annexed was granted 10 February 169! [P.C.C. 
27 Pett] to Elizabeth Pett, alias Lee, wife of William 
Lee, and Mary Pett, alias Houlton, wife of John 
Houlton, the daughters, the executors renouncing 
Admon. d.b.n. was granted i April 1737 to Hen- 
rietta Maria Otger, alias Pett, wife of Peter Otger, 
the daughter, the former administratrices being dead. 
Samuel Pett, of the Navy Office, was first married 
to Arbella or Arabella, daughter of ... He 
married (ii) Mary Long of Battersea, a widow, the 
allegation for marriage licence being dated 9 June 
1684 [V.G.], he being then aged about forty, and a 

1 These sons were Robert Lee the eldest son of this marriage, who died 
25 April 1685, aged twenty-two years and nine months ; Daniel Lee, who died 
9 December 1 680, aged thirteen years and four months, and Francis Lee, who died 
7 December 1695, aged six years and six months. 



widower. By his first wife he had issue a son and 
four daughters : 

I. Toby or Tobias Pett, christened 28 September 
1675, an d buried 9 October 1675 at All- 
hallows Barking. 

I D . Elizabeth Pett, who married William Lee, 
esquire, son of Robert Lee, of Chatham, 
by her aunt Elizabeth (Houghton), relict 
of William Pett of Chatham, her uncle. 
Allegation for marriage licence dated 17 
April 1694 [V.G.], she being of Battersea, 
spinster, and he of Chatham. She is 
named with her husband in his mother's 
will of 1710, and both were dead in April 

2 D . Rose Pett, christened 4 September 1677 at 
Allhallows, Barking. She was named in her 
father's will of 1695. 

3. Mary Pett, who married 23 July 1696 at 
St. Olave's, Hart Street, John Houlton of 
Bromeham, co. Wilts, as a bachelor. Allega- 
tion for marriage licence dated 20 July 1696 
[Fac. office}, he being aged twenty-four and 
she seventeen. They were both dead in 
April 1737. 

4?. Henrietta Maria Pett, who married Peter 
Otger II February 169! at St. Alphege, 
London Wall. They were both living in 
April 1737. 

5 D . Arabella Pett, the youngest daughter, 
christened II February 169! at Allhallows, 

iii Phineas Pett, who is named in the above petition 
of Christopher Curwen as being at Chatham in 
1670, and a brother of Samuel Pett. He may have 
been a son of the second marriage. He was doubt- 
less the Phineas Pett who petitions the Duke of 
York, June 1671, that he may succeed to a master 
shipwright's place [Dom. State Papers]. He states 
that he was bred under his grandfather, Captain 
Phineas Pett, and was five years in the Highlands 


of Scotland procuring masts and fir timber. He 
was probably buried 2 October 1674, at Chatham. 
Admon. granted 27 November 1674 [Cons. Roches- 
ter] to Anne the relict. He may have been the 
Phineas Pett who married 26 March 1669, at 
Greenwich, Elizabeth Tacklhood. 

iv. Joseph Pett, christened at Chatham 4 April 1630. 
He was probably the Joseph Pett, a young man ' 
buried at Chatham 19 November 1652, and the 
Joseph Pett of whose goods admon. was granted 
2 September 1653 to Eleanor the relict. 

v. Christopher Pett, christened 18 June 1632, of whom 

we know nothing more. 

By his second wife Elizabeth, Joseph Pett of Chatham 
had issue : 

vi. Thomas Pett, christened 16 April 1649 at Chatham. 

i. Rose Pett, christened 8 March i6f at Chatham, 
and buried there 26 November 1640. 

ii. Margaret Pett, christened 19 December 1641 at 

iii. Elizabeth Pett, christened 5 August 1645 at Chat- 


CAPTAIN PHINEAS PETT of Chatham (son of Phineas Pett of 
Chatham, grandson of Peter Pett of Deptford, and great- 
grandson of Peter Pett of Harwich), was christened 24 January 
i6i| at Chatham. When captain of the Tiger he took a 
French prize laden with brandy and wines, and making for 
home with her he met, on I or 2 May 1666, with a Dutch 
man-o'-war of forty guns. The Dutchman engaged with 
two or three broadsides, and sought to board the Tiger, 
guessing from the character of her prize that the crew would 
be drunk and helpless. The Tiger, however, was well de- 
fended, and the Dutchman at length fell off and ran for it. 
Five Englishmen were killed in this affair, and Captain Pett 
was the first to fall. This account is taken from the letters 
of Thomas Waltham and John Lanyon to the navy com- 
missioners [Dom. State Papers]. He married at Chatham 
10 April 1642 Frances Carre of Maidstone, who was probably 
of the family of Robert Carre, who was curate of Maidstone 


1559-1620, his son William, who died in 1618, having T been 
some time his assistant and parish clerk. She is said by Le 
Neve to have remarried one Roche of Ireland. Several peti- 
tions in her name are found amongst the Domestic State Papers. 
On 31 September 1667 Frances Pett, widow of Phineas Pett, 
who was slain in the Tiger, petitions for a gift of one of the 
old vessels late sunk at Woolwich. About the same time she 
addresses Lord Arlington, reciting that her children have lost 
a dear father, and one who whilst he lived had a large share 
of his sovereign's favour, which favour, she hopes, is not lost 
by his dying for his king. 

Phineas Pett had issue by Frances his wife : 
i. Phineas Pett, christened 3 May 1646 at Chatham. 
Le Neve speaks of him as Judge Advocate under 
Sir John Holmes, and says that he died on the Sous- 
dyke yacht in Ireland. Admon. of his goods, he 
being late of Dublin in Ireland, was granted 14 De- 
cember 1694 [P-C.C.] to Philippa Pett the relict. 
Admon. d.b.n. was granted 28 July 1698 to Anne 
Baron, spinster (sister to the said Philippa), the aunt 
and guardian to Samuel Pett, the son of the de- 
ceased. The name of his first wife is uncertain. 
He married as a widower at St. Matthew, Friday 
Street, i April 1687, Philippa ' Barnes.' Le Neve 
describes her as daughter of ... Bacon, of Canter- 
bury. She was really Philippa Baron, daughter of 
the cavalier plotter Hartgill Baron of Windsor, a 
royalist squire who was the first to kiss hands at 
Breda with the news of the restoration of monarchy. 
He was comptroller of Windsor Castle, and at one 
time secretary to Prince Rupert. Philippa Pett, 
the widow, probably followed her mother to Ire- 
land and married as her second husband James 
Weekes of Dublin, gent., to whom admon. of her 
goods was granted 23 November 1702 [P.C.C.]. 
Phineas Pett had issue Samuel Pett, named in the 
grant of administration to Anne Baron in 1698. 
Le Neve says that he had two daughters by Philippa 
Baron, but gives no names or details, 
ii. Richard Pett, buried at Chatham 17 October 1656. 
iii. Richard Pett, buried at Chatham 16 June 1660. 
i. Frances Pett, born 22 December 1649 at Chatham, 


and living in 1663, when she is named in the herald's 
visitation of Kent. 
ii. Jane Pett, born i March 165^ at Chatham, and 

buried there 9 October 1660. 

Hi". Anne Pett, born 8 September 1653 at Chatham, and 
living in 1663, when she is named in the herald's 
visitation pedigree. 

iv. Martha Pett, buried 30 June 1655 at Chatham. 
v. Jane Pett, born 27 and christened 28 December 
1664 at Greenwich. 

PHINEAS PETT, posthumous son of Captain John Pett, who 
was cast away on the return from Rochelle, son of Phineas 
Pett of Chatham, and grandson of Peter Pett II., was chris- 
tened 23 November 1628 at Chatham. He had a grant 
March i66y of the office of master shipwright at Chatham 
dockyard, following his petition in which he recited his father's 
death at sea in the late king's service. He described himself 
as having been brought up to shipbuilding by his grandfather, 
' old Captain Phineas Pett.' Great difficulty has been found 
in distinguishing him from others of his name, a difficulty 
which is increased by the reckless identifications of the editors 
and indexers of that series of Domestic State Papers to which 
we must look for details of the careers of the Petts. He was 
buried 2 March 167^ at Woolwich. He made a will 
1 8 January 167^, being then of Woolwich, naming his four 
daughters Hannah, Katherine, Elizabeth, and Mary, to whom 
he gave 35^. each. He gives all his residuary estate to his wife 
Elizabeth, ' considering the great losses and impoverishing 
my deare faithful!, most loving and most virtuous, my dearly 
beloved wife Elizabeth hath susteyned . . . leaving to her 
charity and wisdom without prejudice to herselfe, if things 
happen better than is expected, to cast an eye upon any of 
my relations that may fall in distress.' This will was proved 
22 March 167! [P.C.C. 27 Reeve]. He was probably 
married three times. His first wife, Mary, was buried 
20 October 1660 at Chatham. His second wife, Rabsey 
Caswell, was daughter of Richard Caswell, of St. Swithin's, 
London, a white baker, by Mary, daughter of Richard Slaynie 


of Shropshire, gent, (married to Richard Caswell 9 February 
i6if at St. Michael's, Cornhill). Her marriage with 
Phineas Pett of Chatham is recorded in the herald's visita- 
tion of London in 1663. His third wife, Elizabeth, was 
probably Elizabeth Taylor of Charlton, who married Phineas 
Pett of Chatham 31 March 1668 at Greenwich. 
Phineas Pett had issue by Mary his first wife : 
i. Hannah Pett, born 1 13 August 1649 at Chatham. 
ii D . Mary Pett, born 19 September 1650 at Chatham. 
iii D . Catherine Pett, born 22 January 165^ at Chat- 

iv. Elizabeth Pett, born 31 January 165! at Chatham. 
v. Mary Pett, born 7 April 1654 at Chatham. 
vi. Anne Pett, born 21 November 1655 at Chatham, 

and buried there 31 January 165^. 
vii". Anna Pett, born 29 October 1657 at Chatham, 

and buried there 7 March i6ff. 

Phineas Pett had issue by Rabsey Caswell, his second 
wife : 

i. James Pett, buried 8 February i66i at Chatham, 
ii. Charles Pett, buried 6 April 1662 at Chatham. 
viii D . Mary Pett, christened 30 May 1662 at Chatham, 

and buried there 10 June 1662. 
By his third wife, Elizabeth Taylor, he had issue : 
iii. Peter Pett, christened 9 July 1669 at Chatham, and 

buried there 30 December 1672. 
iv. (?) William Pett, 'son of Phineas Pett,' buried 

28 July 1672 at Chatham. 

ix. Elizabeth Pett, christened 13 December 1670 at 


1 From this date to the restoration births and not christenings are recorded 
in the parish register of Chatham. 


or Genealogy of the family of y* Frekes for near 200 years 


by Ralph Freke of Hannington esq a gentleman of great 

integrity and learning and who living to his eighty-eighth year 

might be justly deemed a credible witness 


by y* industrious inquiryes of M r John Freke 

Rector of Ockford Fitzpaine in Dorset 
and sometimes a fellow of Wadham College in Oxon. and 

lastly reduced to this forme 

by William Freke of Hinton St. Maryes in y* County of Dorset 

Barrister of y* Mid. Temple 

July y" 14 th 1707 


The generall genius of this family (as he could ever see) has 
been sincere, good natur'd and friendly and if ever it has appear'd 
otherwise t'has been where crook'd thro abuses, so they have 
been generally frugall and judicious w " 1 2 qualityes have raysd 
many members of it at times unexpectedly to become rich, and 
that so y' in y' regard w" 1 an impartiall eye he can scarce see any 
family to exceed it, their good nature has often made some of 
them thot [?] softly and their trust to judgm' is very apt to make 
y sour as ag 8 ' impertinencyes especially in age, their turn to 
sincerity has kept them ever from court dependencyes and their 
judgm' of self-sufficiency has ever kept y m as surly ag 8 ' all other 
dependencyes as litle, and y' as well in themselves or others. 
Y e Upway family has shewn the genius good for souldiery and 
as for estates I have rarely known y' there has been less than 10 
members in't at a time worth 2oo/. p. an. and upwards. 

[This pedigree is edited from a MS. book of Freke genealogies now in the possession of Mr. 
W. A. Willes, of Astrop, to whom it came by descent. It will be completed in the next 
number of the AnaMr. O. B.] 



FREKE It seems ori 
present divinity proi 
of that country being 

Frank Freke now lying buried at 
Crewkern. Nota in 1558 he lent 
I2/. per privy scale to Queen Mary 
to be suppos'd no meane sume when 
H. y e 8 th left his daughters but i o,ooo/. 
apeice fortunes in those dayes 

Robert Freke esq Anno 1532 and y e 34 of 
H y e 8 th was chose by auditor Keynsey 
as y c hopefullest boy represented him in 
y e schoole he hapned to be taught in to be 
his clarke, and in which place he succeeded 
so well that he is computed to have left 
an estate of one hundred thousand pounds 
behind him, he marryed Alice Swaine of 
Gunvile who lies buryed at Shrot. Ap. 1577 
himself being buried there Octob. 1592. 
Note by y e assistance of this Robert Freke 
was raysd y e family of y e Stratt'eildsea 
Pitts in y e person of S r William Pit and 

who married Swaine sister to R. 

Freke' s wife 

John Freke of Shilling 
Ockford married to one 

Christiana and 

who died in August 
1559 w th out issue, 
note this & y e follow- 
ing brother being both 
named John they used 
to call y e one John, 
and y e other Johnie 
for distinction 

1 I 


1 1 

1 1 

S r Thomas Mary 

Frances Margaret 


Freke of w m Freke 

Freke Freke 


y c houses of 




Robert John Freke 


& Hinton 

Freke of whom y* 


house of 

of whom y c 


Irish Frekes 

John Freke who 
farmed y e rectory of 
Shroton, and from 
whom y e Faringdon 
estate is descended 
to his heir male at 
this day he married 
Anne Lanning and 
died there y c 1 5 th of 
May 1581 


1 1 

Anne Robert Freke William Joane Richard Frai 

Freke of whom y e Freke Freke Freke 

houses of 


Faringdon, Margaret Frel 

Wincanton, Freke 


Gillingham Thomas James 


Freke Freke 


John Freke 


a Danish name y* 

and several others 

name at this instant 

Thomas Freke vicar of Mountaguc 
34 H. 8 his brother 

About this time also liv'd 
Edmund Freke Bishop 
first of Rochester and 
after of Norwich but 
whether of this family ? 

Freke of 

Philip Freke of Francis Freke of Crookhorne Somerset 

Joanc Freke mar- 

n he mar- 

Chilthorn Dom- married there to Mary and to be 

rying Will ra Bragg 

i. and 

ner in Somerset- supposd y c elder branch of y c family tho 

of Thomcomb in 

**out issue 

shire and who Robert by a special! providence attained 


ota his will 

left issue y c far greater estate both as inheriting his 

u of his 

father's name and w^all living where his 

to his 

father died, how great his paternall estate 

ma jr* chief 

was is not certainly known but conjectur'd 


to have been about 2 or joo/. per an. 

I of this 

besides y* provision made for younger 

and where- 

brothers and sisters, and indeed it could 

y* rest is 

not be well less considering that John of 

(o his bro- 

Shrowton and all y" other young" brothers 

bert Freke 

left their children in a very gentlemanly 

condition as appears by their estates 

legacyes and matches 

reki Thomas 

RobertFreke Elizabeth William John Freke Joane 
of whom the Freke Frckc of whom the Freke 

Robert W Ilia 

1 1 

m Mary wife to 

John Comini 

houses of house of 

Agnei of Bishop's 

Bruam, Crookhorne 

Orchard Orchard Devon 



Bristoll Robert Freke 

Matthew Richard Anne wife to 

of whom the 

marrying John Beake of 


house of 

y* widow Broadway 





John Frcke [thir 
farmed y* rectory 
y e Faringdon esta 
male at this day h 
died there y e 15'? 



4 S 


Robert Freke 

Anne Freke born 

John Freke born William Freke Thomas Freke 

Francis F 

born Anno 1562. 

March 22. 1563 

July 1567 dying born Oct. 3. 1568 born at Shroton 

born at 

buried Aug. 30 

and married to 

May y e 4* 1582 

Dec. Ill 569 and 

1571 and 

1593 at Faring- 

Tho. Knowles 

in y e Mid Temple 

dying ultra mare 

at Knight 

don marrying 

Chancello* of 



Susanna Polden 

Dorset 1584 

of Durweston 

Jane Freke married to 
Geo. Harvey of Sudden- 
som w^out issue 

Robert Freke born Sept. 
26. 1592 at Durweston. 
mort. 1651 married to 
Eliz. Clavell d r of John 
Clavell in Blandford 
Wooten Justice of y c 



T 1 


John Freke slaine 

William Freke 

Arundell Freke Robert Freke Clavell Freke 

born 1616 and 

born 1618. and killed at Newborn dying 

of y e plagi 

executed for his 

marr'd to Tho. 1649 1640 


Bunten632 dying 



| | 


T T 



Robert Ann Freke 


Elizabeth Priscilla 

Lucy Freke 


born at 

Freke mort. married 



Freke Freke 

married to 



Rob. Freke 

ried to Rich. 

married to 

Tho. Law- 



of Bruam. 


Will 1 " Hunt 
















Frank Freke] who 

on, & from whom 

cended to his heir 

Anne Lanning and 



rce Frekc married 
John Adams of 


James Freke born 
Feb. ^^ 1573 at 


born May 

i 1575 

Richard Freke born 
Feb. 26. 1 576 at 

at S 

Hinton St. George 




at Shrot. 

and mar- 

Shrot. dying rector 



dying w^out 


ried to John Atkins 

y r of and buryed in 



of Sarum 

y e Chancell there 







Tho. Atkins mar- 

Margaret married 

Mary married to 


ried to Hide 

to Tho. Adams 

John Guy rector 


of Hinton S' 

of Came 


George Somerset 


Anthony Freke born 
NOT. 1 5. 

1579 and married to 
Agnet Weech of Came 
Dorchester, of 
1 come the 
familyes of Tutour 
Freke Frank Freke & 
Breadstreet Freke 


Richard Freke 
born 1626 and 
ninrried to Ann 
IMcrvin of Knoyle 

Matilda Freke 
born June 1630 
married to Nathan 

George Freke 
born Oct. 1633 
after living at 

Freke an 
now in 

John Freke 
now living in 

Elizabeth Freke 
born Nov. 1633 
and married to 
William Stout of 

Francet Freke 
born June 163; 
and married to 
Tho. Rogen 

Freke now 
living in 











I I I 













Francis Freke [son of 
Somerset married then 
supposd y e elder branch 
speciall providence attai 
inheriting his father's n 
father died, how great 
certainly known but ci 
2 or 3007 p an. besides 
brothers and sisters, and 
considering that John o 
brothers left their child] 
dition as appears by their 

William Freke married 
to Agnes Brown of Bra- 
poole Dorset 

John Freke married to 
{Catherine d r of M r 
Will" 1 Westover of 

William Freke of 
Eastham married to 
Elizabeth Merefeild of 





y chard 

Richard Freke married 
Barbara Bacon of 
Lanston Hampshire 

Jane Freke married 
John Francklyn of 
Frigglesstreet in Wilts 

Katherine Fre 

married Jo 

Hore of A 

Freke dead 

Edward Freke 
married to bad 
papists and hath 
five children 

John Freke 

Thomas Freke 
marrying Edith 
d' of M r John 
Arding goldsmith 

Mary Freke mar- 
ried to John 
Cousins a malt- 
ster in Crewkern 

Susan Freke mar- 
rying Samuell 
Hasleborough a 
woolen draper in 

William Freke 
a goldsmith in 

Anne Freke 


ik Frcke] of Crookhornc 
Mary and to be 
y e family tho Robert by 
" far greater estate both as 
and w"'all living where his 
>aternall estate was is not 
Cur'd to have been about 
irovision made for younger 
A it could not be well less 
rowton and all y" young" 
n a very gentlemanly con- 
:es legacyes and matches 

Robert Freke marrying 
Ann Ford of Crewkcrn 
first a barrister and after 
rector of Wooton Fitz- 

Joane Frckc marryed to 
Toby Brown of Brapoole 

Ruth Freke went to 
St. Christopher's leav- 
ing a bastard Eliz. 


Freke married 
to Richard 





James Freke 

William Freke of 
Wells married to 

Ann Freke married 
to John Bowdidgc of 

Joane Freke mar- 
ried to Alexander 

Judyth Grey of Chelcot 

"Wooton Fitzpaine 


near Wells 

ed Freke 



Ann Robert 
Freke Freke 



Robert Freke of Shroton esq f 
was chose by auditor ICeynsey as 
in y e schoole he hapncd to be 
which place he succeeded so we 
an estate of one hundred thousa 
Alice Swaine of Gunvile who ly 
self being buried there Octob. 1 5 
Note by y c assistance of this R 
y e Stratfeildsea Pitts in y pei 
married Swaine sister to R 

S r Thomas Freke 
wrote of before 

Mary Freke born at 
Shrowton March 17. 1564 
and after married Sept. 
30. 1 583 to Will 1 " Hodges 
of Ilchester and buried 
after at Shrot. 1605 

buried June 
1616 at 


Elizabeth wife to 

form Bembo 
and] Lord Vis- 
count Mayow 

Frances Freke born at 
Shroton July 28. 1566. 
and after married to John 
Culliford of Encomb 
Dorset Sept. 12. 1585 at 
Shroton. She died in 
y c Isle of Wight 1646. 
her husband buried at 
Shrot. Ap. 23. 1599 

Mary married to 
Will" 1 Collier of 
Piddle Dorset 

Robert Freke born Feb. 
I. 1568 at Shroton and 
buried there w th out issue 
July 30. 1604 

Margaret married 
to Will 1 " Bulkley 
of Burgat Hamp- 
shire, and after to 
Barnaby Leigh of 
y e Isle of Wight 

Margery married 
to Richard White- 
head of Tetherly 


Helton at 

Ann Freke married to Richard 

Elizabeth Freke born at Hel- 
ton married 

John Freke 
y<= Middle 1 
left 7 or 8 


1532 and y 3+ of H. y 8 th 

,opefullest boy represented him 
it in to be his clarke, and in 
at he is computed to have left 
oumls behind him, he marryed 
uryed at Shrot. Ap. 1577 him- 

Freke was raysd y f family of 
of S r William Pit and who 
;ke'd wife. 

a Freke born Jan 4 
att Shroton married 
bell d r of Pysing 

Margaret Freke born at 
Shroton July 22. 1571 
dying at Bristol! 1632 
married to S r Rob. Mellcr 
of Longbriddy in Dorset 

Elizabeth Freke born at 
Shroton Aug. 10 th . 1572 
and after married to 
S r Tho. Neale of Warn- 
ford in Hampshire 


William Freke bapt. at 
Shrot. Ap. 24. 1577. 
Marrying Ann d' of 
Arthur Swaine of Sarcen 
Hampshire and dying ia 

Robert Freke 
orn at Helton 

Dorothy married 
to (i) S r Charles 
Vaughan of Ful- 
sham Wilts, and 
(ii) to S r Robert 
Gorges of Somer- 



Anne married 
to S r Tho. 
Brookes in 

Mary married Frances wife to 
to Paine Fisher S r Fra. Cave 
Hampshire Rotherby 

Elizabeth wife to 
S r Roger Feilding 
brother to y 



Earle of Derby 

dying 1639 

born at 
arried to 
ightly of 

at Helton of 
Le London, he 
to his sister 

William Freke married to 

leaving issue a 

son dying at 18. 

Margaret Freke born at 


S r Thomas Freke born Se 
knighted by King James he 
and lyes buried at Shrot. h 
Taylour citizen haberdasher 
Lond. and widow to Fra. Sn 
at Shrot. Jan. 1 6 164.0 

Freke married 
to S r George 
Horsey of Clif- 
ton Oct. 21 
1616 at Shrot. 
buried Nov. 5 
1638 at Black- 
fryers London 

Robert Freke 
born Ap. 13 
1592 at Cerne, 
and died at 
Upway 1 650. he 
married Kath. 
d r of Matthew 
Ewene of Cad- 
bury Somersett 
and who 
at Upway also 


Alice Freke 
baptizd at 


Arundell d r =John Freke=Jane Rau 
of S r George born at Shirley Shro 


Shrot. Sept. 13. 

baptizd. 1595 



widow to ried 

1594. married 

and buried 

who died at 

June 20 

S r Walter Culp 


July 27 1614 

at Shrot. 


1589 dying 

Covet in K 


to Sir Geo. 



Nov. 12 

and \ 



1641 at 

at I 


buried July 24 




163431 Christ- 




church in 









John of Elizabeth 

Johnstone buried at 
in Pembroke Shroton 

Frances born at 
Shrot. May 21. 
1615 wife to 
John Roy 

Dorothy born 
1616 and mar- 
ried 1st to 
Dodington and 
after to Henry 

Mable born 
1620 mar. 

George born 
1627. mort. 

born 1629 

born 1630 

George Freke born 
at Shrot. July 23 
1615. drownd' at 
Leigh by Worcester 
Feb. 20. 1639. his 
wife Abigal d r of 
John earle of Bristoll 

John Frances John George 
mort. married Freke Freke 
1667 to Rolls died an died an 
Devonshire infant infant 


Jane mort. 


T \ 

Thomas Eliza 
married to wife 
Frances Pile 
d r of S r Bave 
William esq. 

aeth Joane married 
to Tho. to Maurice 
of Buckland of 
rstock Standiinch 
Wilts esq. 


abeth married Joane 
Freke of 
inington esq. 

Thomas George Charles Arundell Lucy 
twin with 

Frances Luc 
twin with M r 
Lucy and 

y married Eliz 
LoweShaston The 
Geo. Pit Har 



f 1563 at Blandford arvi 
att Warnford May 5 1633 
ifc Eliz. daughter of John 
lldcrman of Coleman Street 
born Sept. I 3 1 567 and died 

~r 17 17 


eke baptird at 

Thomas Freke Edmund Freke Jane Freke born William Freke born at Shroton Ap. 

y 23. 1596 mar- 

born at Shroton born Aug. 1 7 1 600 at Lond. 

Ap 20 18. 1605. and married to Frances 

y d r of S r Tho. 

March 21. 1598 at Shrot. buried 1602 

married daughter of S' Tho. Culpeper of 

of Hollingbourn 

dying at Hinton at Forthingbridge John Tregonwell Hollingborn in kent knight w'Njut 

Aug. 1 8. 1636. 

S' Mary May 30. in Hampshire esq. of 

Milton issue he died A 1656. In brotherly 

ied Jan. 6. 1650 

1642 married to Sept. 7 1625 and Abbas Dorset love he lived in inseperate property 

igborn himself 

Mary y* daughter married to Eliza- 

with his brother Rafe till death, being 

nnington Wilts 

of Dodington beth Bartholo- 

joint Lord with his brother Rafe of 

years old, and y e sister to S r mew w th out issue 

the mannour of Hannington while he 

minutes who 

Francis Dorring- 

livd as left by his father S' Thomas, 

died a true 

ton (tic family 

while alive he left that elegant monu- 

his family came 

portion a looo/. 

ment of his beniricence his meddall 

fee. he gave his 

and upwards 

present at y* Schooles in Ozon. and 

poo/, a peice 


dying he waterd' his poor relations as 

with a shower of numerous and great 






1 1 


lell Freke born 

Elizabeth John Thomas Freke married Jane Freke mar- John bora Dec. 7 

15. 1616 at 

Freke born at Freke to Cicely Hussey buried ried to S r Rob. 1625 at Shrot. 

:. wife to John 

Pepperharrow mort. at Shrot. w lk out issue Dillington of y* Dorset and after 

udock of Comp- 

in Surrey 1633 buried at this gentleman gave Isle of Wight, married to Jane 


married to Shrot. away the grand estate bait. d r of Richard Fen 

I beheaded by 

Rich d Brown- of y* family to y c Pitts of Lond. esq. 

iwell for his 


low esq. of Stratfeildsea 

T 1 T 1 

iry marrying Anne mar- S' John S 1 W. 

Robert Mabel! 2<> John 

lusbands(i) ried to Tho. Brownlowe Brownlowe 

mort. wife to mort. 

ingways Chafm of 150001. c,ooo/. />. an 

. Maurice 

. (2) Strode Chetle p. an. 


.(3] Morgan Dorset esq. 

of Stand- 


linch esq. 


Constance Diana Thomas Bampfeild Ann Mary 

Arundell Bridget Rachell George 

mort. mort. 


of f* shire 

of Dorset 


Robert Freke [s. 
Freke of Shroto 
Cerne, and die 

married Kath. d 
Cadbury Somer 
Upway also 

Katherine Freke baptizd at 
Upway 1629 married to 
Simon Sandyes of Petherton 

Robert Fr< 
Katherine I 

Freke Mar 

Mary married 
to John Baker 
of Compton 



Edwin e a pew- 
terer in Lond. 

Robert Freke 




son of Sir Thomas 
rn Ap. 13. 1592 at 

Upway 1650 he 
Matthew Ewene of 
and who died at 

married to 



Freke mort. w lh out 


Raufe Freke 

Thomas Freke 

Elizabeth Freke William Frekc mort. 

Francii Freke 

Jane Freke George Freke Brigadeer Edmund Freke 

married in Ireland. This mort 
gent tho' w th out issue may 
deservedly stand as a new 
father to his father's houie Henry Freke 
he restor*d j* antient mort- 
gagd estate & tho he never 

had aide from it yet by hit 

long military gaines he not [And other child- 
only got himself a g* 1 estate ren unnamed] 
but w th all grandly assisted 
to y support of all his B" & 
S r & their familys left by 
y m by family settlement he 
ot to have been y c p'sent 
heir & pouess'd of y" Shrot. 


Raufe Freke [fourt 
Shroton] baptiz'd a 1 
Cicely d r of S r Th 
Kent Aug. 18. 163! 
Hollingborn himself 
88 years old and frol 
a true father of his . 
his daughters 4OOO/. 

Elizabeth Freke born at 
Westm. Jan. I. 1641 and 
married after to Peircy Freke 
of Ireland esq. 

Cicely Freke born at Lond. 
Feb. 164.2. married to S r 
Geo. Chute of Bethersden 
in Kent 

Raufe Freke 

after made a 

Cicely born 1663. 

S r Geo. born 
1664 bart. 


of Sir Thomas Freke of 
. July 23. 1596 married 
>eper of Hollingbourn in 
who died Jan. 6. 1650 at 
Hannington Wilts. 1684 
minutes who liv'd and died 
amc this Pedigree he gave 

Frances Freke born May 22 
1644 at Oxon. and married 
to S r Geo. Norton of Leigh 
near Bristoll 


Judith Freke bora 1646 at 
Sarum and married to Robert 
Austin esq. of Tenterden in 


Lady Grace Gethin 




William Frcke [eighth 
Shroton] bapt. at Shrol 
Ann d r of Arthur Sw: 
and dying in Ireland 


Aug. I 
y e COL 


Freke born at Judith Fr 
in Hampshire Sept. 21 
3. 1604. marrying Sarcen 
iy d r of S r Peircy Oct. i. 
of Yohall in John H: 
nty of Cork in Woolcorr 

1. 1. 1= 1. 

ekebapt. William Freke Robert Freke Ge 
1605 at born 1606 at born 1609 at bor 
married Sarcen, marry'd Ockford marry'd mor 
1622 to to Hays of to - Feilding 
rding of Scotland mort. Yorkshire mort. 
ib Dorset 

Elizabeth Freke Thomas Frefce An 
born at Ockford born 1610. mort Jan 
1607 mort Cer 

Mary Freke mar- 
rying Fra. Bar- 
nard an Irishman 
by whom 

Peircy Freke Agnes Freke mar- Ann marrying marrying Gib- Mary 
marr d Eliz. ried to Patrick W m Weston of bons minister of 
d r of Ra. Crossby in y c Stalb. Weston Buckland 
Freke esq. county of Kerry esq. 


Arthur Dorothy 

Mary Elizabeth Ann Catherine 


lobcrt Freke of 
j77. Marrying 
ccn Hampshire 

Alice Freke born 
1613 and buried 
at Cerne 1617 





Catherine Deb. 


John Freke born 
June II 1615, 
and marrying y" 
sister of Fra. Bar- 
nard in Ireland 

Margaret Freke 
born Jan. 14.1616 
and married John 
Dennet of Ock- 
ford Fitzpaine 
w* h out issue 

Mary Freke born 
Aug. 13. 1618 it 
Cerne mort. 


borah Anne Freke Elizabeth Freke Alice Freke Margaret Freke 

Mary Freke (Catherine Freke 

Rate Freke 
after S r Raufe 


ROBERT OF DERLEYE and Margaret his wife to 
Nicholas son of Nicholas of Wydmerpol. Grant of ten 
tofts and ten crofts and ten oxgangs of land which Nicholas 
at the town's head, Henry the son of Matthew, Ralph 
Athelin, Walter Elys, Robert son of Margery, William Bulle, 
William Anne, Robert Sparewe, Ralph Hertte and William 
S . . . held in villeinage, together with the said villeins 
and their families, etc., and with two cottages which John 
Bate and Robert Miller held. Witnesses : Walter of Grimm- 
ston, William Plungoun of Stanton, John Julyen of Wydmer- 
pol, Thomas Gerveyse of the same, John son of Geoffrey of 
Willuby, Henry son of Hugh of the same, and Robert the 
spencer of Goltham. Undated. 


John son of Sir John de Heryz, knight, to Nicholas son 
of Nicholas Wydmarpoel. Quitclaim of all right to the 
wardship and marriage of the said Nicholas by reason of the 
lands which the said Nicholas holds or held of Robert de la 
Valeye in Wydmarpoel, which said wardship and marriage 
the said Sir John held in his time on account of the 
minority of William son of Robert de la Valeye, the 
immediate tenant of the said Sir John. Witnesses : Sir 
John of Leke, Roger de St. Andrew, and Piers Pygot, 
knights ; Gervase the Fraunkeleyn of Keworthe, Gervase 
son of Isabel of the same, William Plungun of Staunton, John 
Gylyan of Wydmarpoel. Dated at Wynnefeld, Saturday 
after St. George, 31 Hen. III. [1247]. 


William son of Robert de la Valeye [de Valle] to Nicholas 
son of Nicholas of Widmerpol. Grant of two acres of arable 

sis n 


land in the fields of Widmerpol (one acre of which lies 
between the land of the said Nicholas and the land 
which Marjory, mother of the said William, formerly held 
in dower). Witnesses : William of Schefeud in Wishowe, 
William . . . , Gervase son of Henry of Keworthe, 
John Lake of the same, Gervase son of Gervase of the 
same, William of Houton in Boneie, Robert Pedmor of the 
same, John Gilion of Widmerpol, John son of Robert of the 
same, William son of Thomas of the same, William the Stede- 
man of the same, and others. Dated at Widmerpol on St. 
Matthew's day, n Edw. I. [1283]. 


John called Brag of Wydemerpol, to Nicholas of Wyd- 
merpol and Maude his wife, and the heirs of the said Nicholas. 
Grant of a capital messuage lying near the capital messuage 
of the said Nicholas in Wydemerpol, with release of all rents 
and services which the said Nicholas or his ancestors owed to 
the said John or his ancestors. Witnesses : Walter of Gry- 
mestone, Gervase the Fraunkeleyn of Keworth, William 
Plungun of Staunton, John Julian of Wydmerpol, Thomas 
son of Gervase of the same, and Robert Provost of the same. 
Dated at Wydmerpol, Sunday after St. Leonard, 27 Edw. I. 

For which grant the said Nicholas has given by his 

charter of feoffment to the said John a messuage, 

with its houses in Escambury. 

William son of Henry of Schelford, to Nicholas son of 
Nicholas of Widmerpol and Maude his wife and their heirs. 
Quitclaim of all right in a messuage in Widmerpol which 
John Bragg granted to the said Nicholas and Maude. Wit- 
nesses : Gervase the Frankeleyn, William Plunghun of 
Stanton, John Julian of Widmerpol, Thomas Gervays of the 
same, and Robert the reeve of the same. Dated at Wydmer- 
pol, Sunday after St. Leonard, 27 Edw. I. [1299]. 


Final concord made at Westminster in the quinzaine of 
St. John Baptist, 35 Edw. I. [1307], between William of 


Shefeld, plaintiff, by Durand of Wydemerpol, his attorney, 
and Master Ralph Barrey, deforciant, by Thomas Barrey, his 
attorney, of 10 messuages, 240* land, 6* meadow, and 2OS. 
6d. rent in Wysowe and Wylugbi, which the said William 
recognizes to be of the right of the said Ralph, for which 
recognition the said Ralph grants to the said William 9 
messuages 216* land and 6* meadow of the aforesaid, to 
hold to the said William for life, with remainder to Thomas 
son of Nicholas of Wydemerpol and Elizabeth daughter of 
the said William, and the heirs which the said Thomas shall 
have begotten of the body of the said Elizabeth, with remain- 
der in default of such to the right heirs of the said 


Final concord made at Westminster in the quinzaine of 
Easter, 4 Edw. II. [1311], between Nicholas of Wydmerpulle 
and Roger Burt, plaintiffs, and Master Robert of Wydmer- 
pulle, parson of the church of Swafelde, deforciant, of four 
messuages, one plough land and ten acres of meadow in 
Querendon by Garewe [co. Leic.]. The said messuages and 
lands are to be held by the said Nicholas for life, with remr. 
to the said Roger for life, with remr. to Thomas son of the 
said Nicholas and the heirs of his body, with remr. to the 
right heirs of the said Nicholas. [Paper copy xv. cent.]. 


Indenture of agreement between Nicholas of Wydmer- 
poyl and Elizabeth his wife and William Bolton of Wyshoue 
and Margaret his wife and Sewal their son. The said Nicholas 
and Elizabeth grant to the said William, Margaret and Sewal 
a messuage and an oxgang of land in Wyshowe which Robert 
of the Grene held aforetime, for their lives and for the life 
of the survivor of them, at a yearly rent of I2s. Witnesses : 
John of Haddon, Reynold Bullock, Thomas son of Richard, 
John Johnet and Henry Johnet of Wyshowe. Dated at 
Wyshowe, Friday after St. Valentine, 10 Edw. II. [13 IT]- 


Final concord made in the octave of Trinity, 10 Edw. II. 
[1317], between Nicholas of Wydmerpol and his wife, Alice 


and Robert son of the said Nicholas, plaintiffs, and Durand 
of Wydmerpol, deforciant, of six messuages and eight rods of 
land in Wydmerpol and Staunton by Wydmerpol, to be held 
to the said Nicholas, Alice and Robert for their lives with 
remr. to Thomas, son of the said Nicholas, and the heirs of 
his body, with remr. to the right heirs of the said Nicholas. 


Indenture between Thomas of Wydmerpol and William 
son of Reynold of Wyshou. Grant of a rood of land in 
Wyshou, in a place called Berehou, in exchange for a certain 
part of one messuage in Wyshou. Witnesses : Gervase 
Frankeleyn of Keworth, John his son, John Johnett of Wy- 
shou, William of Bolton of the same, and John son of Reynold 
of the same. Dated at Wyshou, Tuesday the feast of St. 
George, 18 Edw. II. [1325]. 


Nicholas of Wydemarpoll to Robert son of Ralph of 
Sixhull and to Margery his wife. Grant of a piece of land 
in Wydemarpoll and eight acres of arable land for a term of 
years. Witnesses : John Warde of Wydemarpoll, Richard 
Coke, William son of Thomas Robert and Roger Julyan. 
Dated at Wydemarpoll, Monday before St. Peter in 
cathedra, 39 Edw. III. [136!]. 


Richard son of Robert of Rakedale of Wyloughbi, to 
Nicholas of Wydemarpoll. Grant of a messuage in Wyl- 
oughbi with 20* of arable land, and the reversion of four acres 
of arable land after the death of Agnes late wife of Walter 
of Tibshelf of Bonay. Witnesses : Richard of Derlay of 
Wyloughbi, Richard Porchet, Richard Harding, John Warde 
of Wydemarpoll, Roger Julian of the same, and others. 
Dated at Wyloughbi, Wednesday after Palm Sunday, 44 
Edw. III. [1371]. 


Richard son of Lettice of Keworth, chaplain, to John son 
of Robert son of Thomas of Wyloughbi, and to Agnes wife 
of the said John and daughter of John Warde. Grant of the 


moiety of a messuage in Wydemerpoll, with i6i acres of 
land which the said Richard had of the feoffment of John 
Warde. To hold to the said John and Agnes and the heirs 
of their bodies, with remr. in default of such heirs to John 
Warde and Alice his wife and the heirs of the said John Warde. 
Witnesses : Sir Richard of Suthorpe, parson of Wydemerpoll, 
Nicholas of Wydemerpoll, Robert Herdewyn, William Robert, 
Roger Julian, clerk, and others. Dated at Wydemerpoll 
the feast of St. Peter in chains, 46 Edw. III. [1372]. 


Nicholas of Widmerpoll to Sir Thomas Walsh, lord of 
Onlep, Nicholas Ridel of Witering, John Nevile of Wimond- 
wold, and William Eland of Algarthorp. Enfeoffment of all 
lands and tenements in the counties of Nottingham and 
Huntingdon, with all goods and chattels. Witnesses : Hugh 
of Annesley, Thomas of Rempston, Sir John Dene, parson of 
Widmerpoll, Robert Hardwyn, Robert Clerk, and Roger 
Julian of the same. Dated at Widmerpoll, Sunday after 
Candlemas, i Ric. II. [137$]- 


Thomas Walsh, knight, John Nevell, knight, Nicholas 
Rydell and William Eland, to John of Wydmerpole and Fine 
his wife. Grant of all lands, etc., which the grantors had by 
the feoffment of Nicholas of Wydmerpole, father of the said 
John, in the counties of Nottingham and Huntingdon, to the 
said John and Fine and the heirs of their bodies, with remr. 
to the right heirs of the said John. Witnesses : Thomas 
Rempston and Henry Nevell, knights, Thomas of Annesleye, 
esquire, John of Colston, and Ralph Notyngham. Dated at 
Wydmerpole, Monday after Palm Sunday, 16 Ric. II. [1393]. 

Four seals are attached. 

I. A shield of arms : two gimel bars with a baston, S . . . 

II. A shield of arms : a cross paty fitchy between two 
leopards' beads with fteurs de lys coming out of them in the 
chief and a like leopard's head between two crosses paty fitchy 
in the foot, supported by two sitting leopards, and hanging 
from the hands of a savage man. The arms represent a 
shield in which the three leopards' heads should be in a 


field powdered with crosses paty fitchy. s' IEHAN . DE . 


III. and IV. Devices. 


John Widmerpole of Widmerpole, esquire, to Nicholas 
Widmerpole his son and Elizabeth wife of the said Nicholas 
and the heirs of their bodies. Grant of five messuages, five 
rods and one oxgang of land in Wysowe. Witnesses : Thomas 
Poge of Notyngham, Thomas Columbell, Thomas Derley, 
John Melton, and Hugh Armestronge. Dated at Wysowe, 
10 October, 6 Hen. VI. [1427]. 


Robert Hykkyllyng, chaplain to Nicholas Wydemerepole 
and Elizabeth his wife. Grant of five messuages, five rods 
and one oxgang of land in Wysowe which the said Robert, 
with Thomas Poge now deceased, had of the feoffment of 
John Wydmerepole, esquire. Witnesses : Hugh Armestronge 
of Wysowe, Richard Samon of Notyngham, and Thomas 
Alastre of the same. Dated at Wysowe, 18 November, 
22 Hen. VI. [1443]. 


Edward Warde son and heir of Edward Warde of Wyd- 
merpole, to John Draper of Flyntham and Elizabeth his wife. 
Quitclaim of lands, etc., in Wydmerpole, late of Edward 
Wymondham, formerly of Claxton. Witnesses : Nicholas 
Wydmerpole, Nicholas Peny of Wydmerpole, and William 
Martyn of Keworth. Dated 27 September, 31 Hen. VI. 

A broken seal attached. 


Nicholas Wydmerpole, gentleman, John Sapcootes the 
elder, gentleman, and Agnes late wife of Richard Lawe of 
Grantham, deceased, to Alexander Keyser son and heir of 
Nicholas Keyser and of Joan late daughter and heir of the 
said Richard Lawe. Grant of all lands, etc., in Grantham, 
Gunnorby, Hoghton and Belton by Grantham co. Lin- 
coln, which the grantors had by feoffment of the said 
Richard Lawe. Witnesses : John Lane, alderman of Grant- 


ham, John Haryngton, esquire, John Dages, John Brawnse- 
well, and Richard Gudrye of Grantham. Dated at Grant- 
ham 4 November, 13 Edw. IV. [1473]. 


Richard Elmeyden of North Walsham, co. Norfolk, gent., 
and Elizabeth his wife, late wife of Alexander Armestrong, 
gent., deceased, and Thomas Armestrong son and heir of 
the said Alexander and Elizabeth, to Gabriel Armestrong, 
esquire, and John Buxsom, clerk. Grant of all lands, etc., in 
Wysawe, co. Nottingham, to the use of the said Gabriel 
and his heirs and assigns for ever. Dated 20 January, i 
Edw. VI. [i S4 |]. 


Bond wherein John Wharton of Westwicke, yeoman, and 
Thomas Rowlandson of Barnacastell, gent., both in the 
bishoprick of Durham, are bound to Edward Woodmanpoole 
of Alne and William Woodmanpoole of Everton, co. Notts, 
gentlemen, in ioo/. to keep harmless the said Edward and 
William against Anthony Wharton, one of the sons of Robert 
Wharton, late of Everton, as against all other men, by reason 
of an obligation wherein the said John Wharton stands bound 
in the exchequer at York with them, and one Robert Menvell 
for the son's portion of the said Anthony. Dated 29 June, 
3 and 4 Phil, and Mar. [1557]. 


Bill witnessing that Thomas Reaves of Everton, co. 
Nottingham, has received of Edward Wydmerpole 46*. Sd. 
in full payment of forty marks which the said Edward pro- 
mised to give unto the said Thomas and Agnes daughter to 
the said Edward, for the child's portion of the said Agnes. 
Dated u June, 2 Eliza. [1560]. 


Edward Wydmerpole of Everton, co. Notts, gent., to 
William Wydmerpole, his son and heir apparent. Grant of 
messuages and lands in Alne, co. York, in the tenure of Robert 
Clerke and John Ibbson, for the life of the said Edward. 
Witnesses : Leonard Hollyngworth and Thomas Kendall. 
Dated 10 September, 6 Eliz. [1654]. 



Counterpart of articles of agreement made 10 December 
8 Eliza. [1565] between William Wydmerpull of Heyverton, 
co. Notts, gent., and Hugh Cressy of ... well, co., York, 
gent., concerning the farm of the manor or capital messuage 
of Heverton aforesaid, with the lands, etc., appertaining to 
the same. Signed by Hugh Cressy, who seals with a seal of 
arms of a lion with a forked tail. 


Counterpart of indenture made 3 August, 7 Jac. I. [1609] 
between George Widmerpoole of Wysall, co. Notts, esquire, 
and Roger Morrice of Widmerpoole, husbandman. Lease 
of a cottage in Wydmerpoole for twenty-one years. 


Alne cum Tollarton. Copy of court roll. 
Court held 7 October, 10 Elizabeth [1634]. 
Comes Edward Wydmerpole, gent., to be admitted to 
six parcels of meadow in Alne. 


Probate copy of the codicil of the will of George Widmer- 
pole, late of St. Michael Bassishaw, London, but in St. Giles's 
in the fields, deceased. 

Whereas upon 28 May 1689 Jane Clifton, daughter of the 
said George, did of her affection to her sister Anne Home, 
widow, part most of the household goods of the said George 
between her sister and herself against the mind of the said 
George, and something contrary to the express words of the 
will of the said George then signed and sealed, the said George 
now wills that the residue of all his goods not then parted 
between his said daughters he will keep to himself for life, 
with remainder to the said Jane Clifton, his executrix, except 
his part of his plate and his ' Beaugle lookeing glasse,' which 
he had given by his will to his grandson Samuel Home. 
Witnesses : Edward Jenkins and Aaron Hanbury. 

Proved 27 April 1696 by Jane Clifton, wife of Thomas 
Clifton, the extrix. 



I have read with interest your review of that ridiculous 
book which calls itself a history of my family, and with con- 
siderable amusement your ' appreciation ' of my grandfather 
Thomas Attwood. I have often wondered why one so noted 
in his day should have been so forgotten. Perhaps you supply 
the clue ? He was an ' untiring bore ' ! A sad thought 
strikes me Can that be the reason why we are most of us 
forgotten so readily ? But perish the thought ! But for 
the book. It is not a large one, and I should not have believed 
so much vulgarity and so much nonsense could have been 
crammed into its pages. As you kindly and truly admit, I am 
' a genealogist of the modern school ' and a very keen one, so 
you can imagine no one better ! the feelings with which I 
turn over page after page of Mr. Robinson's wonderful pro- 
duction. I am now the male representative of the Attwoods 
of Hawne, and genealogy has been the great interest of my life, 
and yet neither I nor my cousin Mr. Llewellyn C. F. Attwood 
were told that such an outrage on our family, as is this book, 
was even in contemplation. Mr. John Robinson, however, 
whoever he may be, is not really responsible beyond the fact 
that he has lent his name to statements which he can have 
made no attempt to verify. The person who is responsible 
is a certain John Moore, in Beckenham, who has also obtruded 
statements regarding persons of his own name of whom the 
Attwoods have never heard. 

Even you miss some delightful points in the various 
parentage suggested for my earliest authenticated ancestor, 
George Attwood married Mary Foley, in 1678. In the event 
of his having been a son of George Attwood and Winifred 
Petre he was married some five years before his alleged father 
was born, for I have good reason for knowing the latter could 
not have been born earlier than 1683-4 

Another suggested descent is from (Richard) Attwood who 

MI p 


married Eleanor Sutton alias Dudley. But Mr. Sidney 
Grazebrook gives me the date of this marriage as 1675, which 
would make their son (? !) George Attwood marry Mary 
Foley at the somewhat early age of three, and become a father 
I am now speaking from memory at the age of about five. 

A few lines about the Gaunt pedigree. No portion of it 
was ever lost or mislaid on the death of Benjamin Attwood. 
I am very much surprised if he ever had a copy, though it is of 
course possible that, together with the greater part of his 
wealth, he inherited it from his nephew Matthias Wolverley 
Attwood, sometime M.P. for Greenwich. Benjamin Attwood 
was utterly uninterested in in fact hostile towards all 
subjects of the kind. All he cared for was the management 
of his great wealth, and the systematic squandering of it in 

I have what I believe to be the original, and what I believed 
till lately to be the sole copy of the pedigree of the Gaunts of 
Rowley Regis. It is dated June i, 1848. It consists of three 
sheets of parchment, containing (l) a pedigree of the baronial 
family of Gand or Gaunt, (2) a pedigree of the family of Gaunt 
of Rowley Regis, co. Stafford, and (3) a pedigree of the Att- 
woods of Hawne, descended from the marriage of Rachel 
Maria Gaunt and George Attwood in 1742. 

The first sheet is endorsed : 

Pedigree of the Gaunt Family, 

Also of 
Rachel Maria Gaunt, 

who married 
George Attwood, 
And died 3rd March 1798. Aged 82 years. 

Neither inside nor, as you see, in the endorsement is 
any absolute claim whatever made to definite descent from the 
baronial house, and thus this miserable Moore-Robinson pro- 
duction only serves to make ridiculous another family once 
much respected in its own neighbourhood, and with a pedigree 
of considerable length and interest though it has never yet 
been scientifically worked out. 

Pray excuse this long letter, but the publicity you give to 
my family affairs seems to demand it, and I must ask you 
to be so good as to make this equally public. I have a good 
deal of miscellaneous information about the different Wor- 


cestershire families of my name, which is at any time at the 
service of any of your readers. 

To return for a moment to the original subject of my 
letter. I hope shortly to have printed a small sheet of the 
more obvious corrections needed by the unhappy possessors 
of the Moore-Robinson production, and I shall be happy to 
send it to any one who cares to apply to me for it. 
I am, dear Sir, 

Faithfully yours, 



In vol. viii. of the Ancestor there is an article on the 
Angelo family by the Rev. C. Swynnerton, in which statements 
are made regarding one branch of the family at variance with 
the records of the India Office. 

At p. 43 it is said of Anthony Angelo that ' there is at the 
India Office no evidence to show that he sailed in any official 
capacity.' So far from this being the case, there is complete 
evidence that he was appointed a cadet in the ordinary way 
on the nomination of two directors on 12 November 1777, 
and directed to proceed to India by a certain vessel ; the 
evidence for this is contained in the Cadet Books, 1775-98, 
vol. ii, and Bengal Mily. Consultations, 9 December 1778, 
p. 350. Further on in the same page it is stated that he 
received his promotion to lieutenant by ' cumulative act ' ; 
this is not the case ; he was promoted in the ordinary way ; 
the proof of this is Bengal Mily Consultations ; 25 February 
1779, the date on which the promotion was actually made and 
(with several others) ordered to be antedated to 24 October 
1778, to fill vacancies existing from that date, owing to the 
re-organization of the East India Company Forces. 

Much that follows on this page is mere conjecture, or rests 
on the insecure basis of family tradition, a pitfall that Mr. 
Swynnerton would have done well to avoid; but the subject 
is of no interest except to his descendants, and it only derives 
importance from its appearance in the pages of the Ancestor. 

Yours faithfully, 





When William Marshal became a made man, in 1189, by 
securing the hand of the heiress of the Earls of Pembroke, 
' qui fu bone e bele,' he proposed that they should be married 
on her own estates on the Welsh border. His poetical 
biography, however, tells us that his host, a wealthy citizen 
of London, would not hear of it, and insisted on the wedding 
taking place in London and paying the cost himself. When 
the wedding was over, he carried off his bride to Stoke D'Aber- 
non, Surrey ' kindly lent ' (as the Society papers have it) by 
Sir Enguerrand D'Abernon ' a peaceful and delectable spot.' 
All this we learn from L'historie de Guillaume le Marechal 
(lines 9545-50) :- 

Quant les noces bien faites furent, 
E richement, si comme els durent, 
La dame emmena, ce savon, 
Chies sire Angeran d'Abernon, 
A Estokes, en liu paisable 
E aesie e delitable. 

It would be interesting to learn if there can be found 
any earlier mention of an orthodox honeymoon in England. 

One may add that, as M. Paul Meyer points out, the 
trousseau of the heiress appears to figure on the Pipe Roll of 
I Ric. I. at a cost of Q 12s. id. 

J. H. R. 



On a tombstone in the churchyard of Ballinderry, co. 
Antrim, there is the following inscription 

Here lieth the body of Mr. Thomas Johnson of Portmore, who departed this 
life 3Oth July 1800, in the cjoth year of his age. He was descended from Hon. 
and Rev. Thomas Johnston, 3rd son of the Earl of Annandale in Scotland, who 
was Rector of Drumgoolan, and Vicar of Ballynahinch, co. Down, in the reign 
of King Charles ist. 

The Rev. Thomas Johnston above referred to married 
Elizabeth Wrench of Devonshire, and had three sons: (i) James, 
(ii) John,Vicar of Ballynahinch, of whom presently, (iii) William. 

James married and had 


John of Ballinderry, who married Elizabeth Marie, niece of 
the Rev. James Mace, and had with other issue two sons and 
three daughters, viz. : 

i Thomas, lieutenant in army, died in America : mar- 
ried : his descendants held lands in Virginia and 

ii John of Ballinderry, of whom presently. 
i Daughter, married Laird Catherwood, son of Wm. 

Catherwood of Ballyvester, co. Down, 
ii Daughter, married George Watson of Brookhill, near 

in Daughter, married John Kelly of Ballinderry. 

The second son, John Johnston of Ballinderry, married 
Eliza, daughter of Bunting, and had Thomas of 
Portmore, co. Antrim, who married Elizabeth Moore and had 
eight sons and one daughter, viz : 

i John Moore, of Rockvale, Ballynahinch, married 
Charlotte, sister of Mr. Close of Plantation, near 
ii William. 
in Edward, 
iv Arthur, 
v Richard. 

vi Thomas of Lurgan. 
vii James of Loughbeg, near Portmore. 
vin Buntin of Portmore. 

i Elizabeth, married Samuel Johnson. 
The second son of the Rev. Thomas Johnston, John, 
Vicar of Ballynahinch, married Elinor, sister of Dr. William 
Dunkin, and had two sons, viz. : 
i William, of Finglas, co. Dublin. 

ii John, Rector of Clondavock, co. Donegal, married 
Mildred, daughter of James Hamilton, Archdeacon 
of Raphoe, and had two sons and five daughters, 

viz. : 
i William, married Elizabeth, daughter of James Moore, 

of Newport, co. Mayo, 
ii John, Rector of Hollymount, co. Mayo, 
i Catherine, married first Wm. Babington, of Urney, co. 
Donegal ; 2nd Capt. John Pigott, M.P. for Banagher. 
ii Elizabeth, married Richard Archer of Wicklow. 
in Mildred, married Thomas Ball. 


iv Susanna, married Rev. John Gage, Prebendary of 
Aghadoey, Derry. 

v Anne. 

John Moore Johnston's descent is based on his statement 
in a work called Heterogenea, published in 1803, but I have 
seen another pedigree which shows him to be descended from 
Thomas Johnston, Provost of Dundee, said to be the third son 
of John, Vicar of Ballynahinch, and his wife Elinor Dunkin. 

I do not know the actual relationship of Thomas, Vicar of 
Ballynahinch, to the Annandale family. He seems to have 
been born before the peerage was created, as the date of his 
ordination was probably 1618. 

Perhaps some of your subscribers may be possessed of 
information regarding him. If so I should be greatly obliged 
by their making it known to me. 





Is the use of the capital letter in Domesday really con- 
clusive, or may one still cherish a lingering doubt whether 
the lord of those Cornish manors was not called Blohiu, even 
as his descendants were ? The scribe who read Blohin was 
but a man of like infirmities with us after all. If this is 
Domesday beleidigung, I think it would be worth a short 
term of not too hard labour to hear what the great Domes- 
day pundits have to say on such a point ; and therefore feel 
sure that you, Sir, will respect my confidence, and gladly 
take any risk in your own proper person. 

While we are on the spot, would some Cornish scholar 
kindly furnish a note upon the tenant of Deliau and Trefrioc 
T.R.E. ? His name, laul or laulf , seems to be correctly printed, 
to judge from the facsimile, though in the second instance 
his initial is rather like L. But almost exactly opposite, in 
the second column to the left, the eye rests upon a Saulf, 
who held UUavestone before the Conquest. 

I am, Sir, 

Your obedient servant. 




As a descendant of the Sheridans, and as the possessor of 
two of the portraits reproduced in illustration of Mr. Wilfred 
Sheridan's recent article in the Ancestor, I may perhaps be 
allowed to point out one or two inaccuracies into which he 
has fallen. 

In the first place, Dr. Thomas Sheridan was not the son 
of William Sheridan, the non-juring Bishop of Kilmore. I 
know that the statement in the Ancestor is in accordance 
with the pedigree compiled by Francis Harvey in 1875, but 
there is no evidence that I am aware of to support it. 

The Bishop, in his closing days of sickness and penury, 
had no nearer relation than a niece to attend on him. His 
condition, as disclosed in his letter to Archbishop King in 
1709 (appendix to 2nd Report of Historical MSS. Commission, 
p. 244) is inconsistent with the theory that Thomas Sheridan, 
then an undergraduate of Trinity College, Dublin, was his son. 

Some half dozen different accounts have been given of 
Thomas Sheridan's parentage. The only record on the sub- 
ject is that contained in the Trinity College matriculation 
book, which states that he was ' filius Patricii.' The question 
who this Patrick was is a puzzle yet unsolved. The attempt 
which has been made to evade it by translating ' filius patricii ' 
as ' the son of a gentleman ' is ingenious, but not convincing. 
There was a Patrick Sheridan, Bishop of Cloyne, brother of 
William, Bishop of Kilmore, but he died some years before 
Thomas Sheridan was born. 

As regards R. B. Sheridan's brothers and sisters, it is 
perhaps hypercritical to find fault with the term ' undis- 
tinguished ' as applied to his brother Charles the expression 
is of course relative but it is a mistake to attribute Strath- 
allan to his sister Alicia. She only published one comedy. 
The novelist was his niece, Alicia Le Fanu, the daughter of 
his younger sister Betsy. 

Finally, I cannot discover that Dr. Thomas Sheridan ever 
wrote a Life of Swift. The well known biography was 
written by his son. 

Yours faithfully, 



30 May, 1904. 



The abiding interest of the English public in all that 
concerns armory is ministered to by an article which has ap- 
peared at regular intervals in English magazines for the last 
half century. It is not perhaps the same article every time, 
but it has the air of it, and it may be that some industrious 
author has many times gained acceptance for his version of 
it. Internal evidence shows that the article which calls itself 
4 The Romance of Heraldry,' ' Eccentricities of Heraldry,' or 
' The Gentle Science,' is the fruit of an afternoon's work in 
that corner of the museum library which holds the peerages 
and the handbooks of heraldry. A good example is before 
us, enjoying the publicity which the English magazine with 
the largest circulation can give it. 

# * * 

The article begins in the well-approved manner by quot- 
ing the arms ascribed by Morgan to Adam and Eve, and 
Morgan is rated for ' calmly stating that, as Eve was sole 
heiress, Adam quartered her arms with his own, bearing them 
as what is termed an inescutcheon.' Morgan can of course 
make no reply, but if an attorney should appear for him he 
might well be absolved of the offence of describing arms upon 
an ' inescutcheon ' as quartered, an armorial impossibility 
which warns us in advance of the quality of the article- 
monger. For the ' Romance of Heraldry ' the familiar bag 
of oddments is emptied for us. The Keith arms still com- 
memorate the blood streaks drawn upon a Keith shield 
half a dozen generations before armory shows itself in Scot- 
land. The Dalziel arms, the arms of a family whose wildest 
claim to ancestry does not seek to go beyond the Ragman 
Roll of 1296, are ascribed as usual to a deed of an ancestor 
in the tenth century. The Drakes of Nutwell are greeted 
as descendants of the great Sir Francis, who died without 
chick or child, and the Lockharts take the surname which is 
found in the twelfth century from their alleged adventure 
with the heart of the Bruce in the fourteenth. Graeme of 
Inchbrakie bears in his shield a broken wall which com- 


memorates the breaching by an ancestor of the Roman wall 
between Forth and Clyde. Armory without the romance 
would suggest that as the Graemes of Inchbrakie are known 
to be cadets of Montrose, the broken wall recalls nothing 
more romantic than their purchase in the sixteenth century 
of the lands of Inchbrakie. 

* * * 

To give criticism to such an article as this would seem to 
be but as the breaking of a very dingy butterfly upon the 
wheel. But the moral remains, that whilst such poor stuff 
finds a regular and unquestioning market, it is useless to in- 
dulge ourselves with talk of the revival of popular interest in 
armory. The ' Romantic Heraldry ' of our article stands 
for all the armory to which popular interest will ever be 
directed. All the armory worth a reasonable man's study lies 
the other side of the Tudors, and can only be studied by 
those with an intelligent apprehension of archaeology. That 
it should ever become a subject of general interest to the 
public is as unlikely as unnecessary. 

* * * 

We have been taken to task for giving to all Gordons that 
epithet of Cocks of the North, which should properly belong 
to the Huntly Gordons alone. We confess Saxon ignor- 
ance to be at fault, we humble ourselves and offer amends. 
But rising from our knees we point in some justification to 
the ballade by the editor of the House of Gordon, a ballade in 
whose envoy the Cock of the North is addressed as the totem 
of the race. 

Cock of the North.' To you we owe 

The hearts which at your slogan note 

Are fain to prove by veldt and voe, 
The Gordons hoe the guiding o't. 

Good verse cannot abide a gloss, but we venture to 
believe that the homage of these lines is not directed to my 

lord Marquess of Huntly. 

* * * 

A more serious wrong was done the Gordons in the 
omission of the footnote which should have credited that 
history of the Gordons, and especially of the house of Gight, 
upon which we made comment, to its learned editor and be- 


getter, Mr. J. M. Bullock, who for the New Spalding Club 
of Aberdeen had edited this the first volume of the genealogy 
and history of a house and name which have played such a 
great part in the world. 

* # * 

We have before this applauded Mr. Walter Rye's work 
in saving to the city of Norwich, indifferent itself towards such 
matters, much of the ancient buildings which give beauty 
and interest to the town. It would appear that the historic 
town of Berwick-upon-Tweed nourishes no antiquary who 
will rebuke its elders and councillors. For a suggested gain 
of a few yearly pounds Berwick is preparing to level the 
ancient walls which, manned by Scot and Englishman in 
turn, survived the border wars and the assaults of kings, to 
be threatened by a knot of vestrymen. 

But it is a far cry to Berwick, and those who look for 
vandalism will find it planning nearer home than the Scottish 
border. Croydon in Surrey is one of those country places 
which have been caught up and devoured by London, but 
Croydon, unhappily for herself, is governed by her own sons. 
The town, which is hurrying into a state of commonplace 
and dingy suburb, owns a curious treasure in the buildings of 
the Elizabethan hospital which bears the name of Arch- 
bishop Whitgift, its founder and builder. This is no scraped 
and restored fragment, but an ancient and beautiful building, 
in which the intimate life of Shakespeare's day may be recalled 
and wondered at. Within its old red walls a valuable charity 
still fulfils its good work. In truth, this hospital and the 
school and the old palace of the archbishops are the heart of 
Croydon which grew and flourished round them, and which 
without them would have been but a mean village. 

* * * 

We assume but too hastily that the days of ignorant and 
destructive vandalism are over and past. Will it be believed 
that powers are being sought from parliament to enable the 
local authorities of Croydon to widen a road by destroying 
Whitgift's beautiful house ! The road is to swerve from its 
line to do this, for on the other side of the way, in full track 
of the widening road, is a public-house, to spare which these 
muddy-minded folk are prepared to level the most precious 
thing in their town. An effort will be made to stay their 


hands, but it is sad to think that should Whitgift's foundation 
be saved, it must needs remain a pearl cast amongst inhabi- 
tants of Croydon. The fact that the public-house is a new 
one, whilst the hospital is quite an old building, has, we are 
told, influenced the decision of the councillors. Now and 
again we are threatened with the removal of one or other of 
our historic landmarks to America. Here is one such which 
America should acquire from chimney to foundation, and 
remove it from a people for whom we must look round the 
language if we would describe them. ' Brute and beastly ' 
was King Harry the Eighth's bluff phrase for the Lincoln- 
shire folk, and it will serve handsomely for the Croydon 


* * * 

The lot of the historical painter was a pleasanter one 
before the coming of the antiquary. The ' old English 
dress ' of young Arthur pleading with Hubert, of Vortigern 
at the banquet, of the headsman waiting for Mary of Scots, 
was pictured as a stable fashion, unchanging through the 
centuries. Tight breeches and stockings, resetted shoes, 
narrow trunks, a close tunic with a little frill at the neck. 
These, with a wide-brimmed hat stuck with ostrich feathers, 
made up the ' old English dress ' unquestioned and estab- 

* * * 

Nowadays the painter of histories must make unwilling 
search through Stothard's monuments, must thumb M. 
Viollet-le-Duc's too clever Mobilier, and follow a certain 
beaten track in his library before he dare seat Alfred before 
the burning cakes or produce King Edward to the kneeling 
burghers whose shirts must be sought in Racinet or Hotten- 
roth. But the painter still grudges time spent away from 
paint, and it is in our mind that the Ancestor's representative 
should call yearly upon the Royal Academy Exhibition to 
record his criticisms of armour and piked shoon. The idea 
is not an original one, an older established journal has been 
before us, but something remains to be said of painted dress 
after the critic of the Tailor and Cutter has published his 
spirited condemnations of the Academy's trousers, baggily 
inaccurate, and of the Academy's unmodish and provincial 


The knight who bears a sword of state beside Queen 
Margaret might be the first victim of our new departure. 
The coat of arms worn under his pauldrons but a file of the 
Tailor and Cutter must first be studied before the mordant 
style of its May number can be assumed. Let us rather ask 
why King George the Second is making Trooper Tom Brown 
of Eland's regiment a ' knight banneret ' upon the field of 
battle ? A public-house in Yarm keeps Tom's memory 
green, or he would have long since listed in the battalion of 
our forgotten heroes. A big and raw-boned dragoon from 
Kirkleatham, Tom's spirit could not bear the sight of an 
English standard carried away in French hands. Single- 
handed he charged upon it and carried it back to Eland's 
dragoons, with five wounds about his head and neck, two 
balls in his back, and a hat ragged with musket shot. Surely 
a deed of arms in the true Froissart spirit, but there was no 
knighthood in 1743 for a hero who was a common soldier 
man. Eland's dragoons gave him ' three Huzza's ' when he 
rode bleeding into their lines, and he was sent home to Eng- 
land to mend his gashes, yet no knighthood was spoken of. 
In England he did duty with the Horse Guards, until his 
wounds and a certain soldierly weakness for the can took 
him out of the army and home to Yarm, where he lived to 
tell his tale for a short year or two upon a thirty pound 


* # * 

A second index to the Ancestor has been completed, which 
will be sent to any reader who possesses the four volumes 
(v. vi. vii. viii.) with which it deals. A postcard to the pub- 
lishers will secure its despatch. 

Butler & Tanner, The Selwood Printing Works, Frome, and London. 

The Stall Plates of the Knights of 
the Orderofthe Garter i 348-1485 

Consisting of a Series of 91 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 IOJ. net ; or without binding or portfolio, 5 net. 

JTHEN&UM : ' 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.' 




Of the Public Record Office 
4 vols.y 2 is. net 


Price ids. 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 ' 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 HALLAM, 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 j 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 Gardner'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.' 


The first English Translation of Chateaubriand's famous 
Autobiography ' Memoirh d 'Outre tombe* 




Sometime Ambassador 
to England 


With 44 Illustrations from Contemporary Sources 
In 6 vols. Purple cloth, gilt top, price 4 icw. net 

DR. WILLIAM BARRY in the Bookman : ' Mr. dc Mattos has seen a rare 
chance, and has taken it boldly. . . . These "Memoirs from Beyond 
the Tomb " are certainly unploughed land, inviolate as some Greek Temple 
enclosure or, to put the matter more temptingly, if half a dozen books over- 
flowing with incidents, reflections, descriptions of persons and landscapes ; 
picturesque, irritating, curious, and brilliant, equal to these, were flung upon 
the circulating libraries, someone would make his fortune. Let us hope it will 
be Mr. de Mattos.' 

MR. AUGUSTINE BIRRELL, K.C., M.P., in the Wettminiter Gazette : ' This 
excellent translation.' 

Pall Mall Gazette : ' There is reason to congratulate Mr. de Mattos on the 
grace and fluency of his translation, and on the careful accuracy of his 
numerous footnotes.' 

Times : ' Mr. Alexander Teixeira de Mattos's excellent rendering of 
Chateaubriand's Memoiret d' Outre-tombed 

Observer : ' Mr. A. Teixeira de Mattos is to be congratulated upon this 
first instalment of a remarkable achievement. . . . A worthy translation. . . . 
So admirable an English version as is given by the zeal and talent of Mr. de 

Daily Telegraph : ' A valuable and scholarly translation . . . elucidated 
by concise and sufficient footnotes wherever necessary.' 

Tablet : ' Both translator and publisher have performed their task well. . . . 
Mr. de Mattos set himself to make a conscientiously correct and respectful 
translation of a great original, and he has given us so excellent a rendering, so 
adequately and beautifully produced and illustrated by the publishers, that we 
await the remaining volumes with the greatest interest." 


The Old Court Suburb 



Edited, with an Introduction and Notes, by AUSTIN DOBSON 

With very numerous Photogravure and other Illustrations by HERBERT 

2 vols., large square 8vo, price i is. net 

Signed by the Artists, and limited to 150 copies, price 4 4*. net. 

Kensington (the Old Court Suburb) was still, at the beginning of the 
nineteenth century, in the country, and the garden of Wilberforce, who 
occupied Gore House from 1808 to 1825, is described as being 'full of 
lilacs and laburnums, nightingales and swallows.' 

' The way to it (Kensington) is the pleasantest out of town ; you may 
walk in high road, or on grass, as you please ; the fresh air salutes you from 
a healthy soil, and there is not a step of the way, from its commencement at 
Kensington Gore to its termination beyond Holland House, in which you 
are not greeted with the face of some pleasant memory.' 

ATHENAEUM : 'To produce a good old book and make it a new one without offence 
is a great feat. . . . Mr. Austin Dobson was the very man to write the graceful introduction 
and brief notes. . . .' 

Gilbert White's Selborne 


The hitherto unpublished 'Garden Kalendar,' to which the Very 
Rev. DEAN HOLE has written an Introduction, is included 

Price, 2 vols. large 8vo, 2 2s. net. 

COUNTRY LIFE : ' The Edition of " The Natural History and Antiquities of 
Selborne and A Garden [Calendar," issued in two volumes, is a work so modestly beautiful, 
and so precious, that the reviewer approaches it with awe. . . . The topographical pictures 
by Mr. Herbert Railton of the familiar objects at Selborne Norton Farm, the Plestor, 
the Street, the Church, the Yew Tree, and so forth are as good as can be, the very 
perfection of delicate work. Birds and beasts have fallen to the lot of Mr. J. G. Keule- 
mans, and, short of colour, I have never seen anything of the kind nearly as good as they 
are. The birds are, perhaps, a trifle more perfect than the beasts. Of full-page illustrations 
there are fifty ; of minor illustrations a good number. . . . Altogether this is a very com- 
plete and worthy edition, and it is destined to be the family Bible of those who follow the 
cult of Gilbert White, and the number of them increases every day.' 



no. 10 

The Ancestor