Page images

against which were punished by a pillory and a tumbrel (a "turning" pillory -Strutt).

In 1537, a suffragan bishop, appointed by the Bishop of London, took his title from Bedford.*

The fee-farm rent was reduced to half in the year 1504, on a petition, representing the decayed state of the town. One hundred messuages specified in a "heygable" of Edward III. were utterly destroyed, and 180 others not inhabited. A main cause was the building of a new bridge at Barford, which "traxit ultra aquam Usæ,” drew the water of the Ouse farther-a very obscure phrase.

In Leland's time were seven churches and two chapels-St. Loy's and St. Thomas-at-Bridge, which last was endowed, and the chaplain was bridgeward-and three chantries.

Early in the reign of Elizabeth the great Bedford Charity-as it has since proved itself was founded by Sir William Harpur, a native. Letters patent had previously, in the reign of Edward VI., been obtained by the corporation to hold any lands for joint educational and charitable purposes. This point claims attention, as some have thought that the animus of Sir W. Harpur had even then appeared. Of the population at that period no known statement is in existence. It was probably at least 3,000, but it is quite possible that it may in former periods have exceeded the amount at the conclusion of the eighteenth century, about 4,000. Sir William's donation was of "thirteen acres and one rood of meadow land, in the parish of St. Andrew's Holborn," then rather known for "strawberry gardens" (see Rich. III.), and veritable" Saffronhill," than densely situated buildings. At that time the value of this land, situated "towards St. Giles in the Fields," was 40l. per annum. increase in the present day to 13,000l. (full 300 times as much!) is certainly amazing. But when we find that about thirty streets, &c. are comprised, including such business-places as Bedford-row, and such crowded haunts of trade as Red Lion-street,

Rymer's "Foedera."


we feel the less surprised, or that each of these acres in London now averages a thousand pounds per annum of ground rents.

Sir William's year of mayoralty in London was signalised by the occurrence of the first fire at Old St. Paul's, which destroyed the spire, besides damaging the church. In a contemporary account the Lord Mayor's activity is praised, both at the conflagration, and afterwards in raising subscriptions according to her Majesty's wish. But the spire, of timber, leaded (engraved in Dugdale's St. Paul's), 532 feet high to the summit of the vane, and, with a doubtful exception at Cologne, the loftiest in Europe, or the world, was not replaced.

The almshouse provision, according to the late acts, is certainly noble and beneficent, comprehending 65 houses, which, with allowance to single and married persons, clothing and pensions, requires about 2,000l. a year.

The proceedings in the Civil Wars, which were of little moment, can be seen elsewhere.

In 1672 the town was visited by a tremendous hurricane; and, as happily it did little harm beyond "'mazing" and frightening people, we can afford to smile at the wonderful things described in a pamphlet in the British Museum. Trees were blown over rivers and spires, stuck in the ground nolentes volentes, and again displanted,-inn gates whirled about like footballs,coaches driven without horses several poles' distance,-apricot trees carried on an airing a quarter of a mile,-onion and radish beds two miles,-hostlers "constrained to fix themselves to a post to prevent being blown away,”—tanner's men, for ditto, to "grope on their bellies" in passing over the bridge (parapet only 3 feet high),—a woman, sitting by her fire, had her chimney blown away, and she " removed in the middle of the house, without any apparent hurt, save the amazement," (hardly knowing "what's what," we may well suppose, worthy soul, at that particular moment of her existence).

Nothing of importance occurred in the last century, except the building of a tolerably decent Sessions House in 1753; and the Grammar School, with a marble statue of the founder;

and of a decent House of Industry, in


The New Jail, considered an improvement in humanity (like that in Denbighshire), was erected in 1801. In the ensuing year there was a great fire on the north side of the town, which destroyed seventy houses, principally poor cottages; the loss, amounting to 2,000l. was principally compensated by subscription. The principal street was admirably paved with flags. The town had been lighted some time before, early in the present century. In 1803 the Infirmary was erected, towards the building and endowment of which the father of the late Mr. Whitbread gave 8,000l.; and about five years after that, the Lunatic Asylum, a spacious and neat building of brick and stone, which cost 9,500l. A Penitentiary was also afterwards erected, as an auxiliary to the county jail.

In 1814 the New Bridge was built(an excellent temporary wooden one, which only cost 400l., being constructed ad interim)—of Bramley Fell and Portland stone, by Mr. Wing, a native architect, respected in the county. The arches are of the same number-perhaps a trifle too low-but the balustrade is elegant. Its length is 306 feet-24 less than the old; width 30-more than double; span of centre arch, 45. The cost, with approaches, was 15,000%. Several houses have been lately removed between the High Street and St. Paul's Square; but, as no market house has yet been erected, there is a dreary effect. Two thousand pounds have been lately subscribed towards the erection of a Corn Exchange. The bridge was freed from tolls, which must be a very main object to the place, in 1836.

London, February 21, 1849.


THE following curious letter, endorsed "A copy from one addressed by Queen Elizabeth, with her own hand, to the Lord Deputy of Ireland," is in the Carew MSS. in Lambeth Library. It seems written in a strange style, from a soverign to a subject in high place; but I have seen others in the same strain. Perhaps you can explain

* Lysons.

the meaning of the singular address, which may be intended to cover some allusion to deep mysteries of state, or perhaps it may be only a form of royal badinage, belonging to the style of wit in that age. In any event, the letter, if it has not appeared before, may be worth printing as a curiosity.


Yours, &c. A. B. R. Copie of Her Majesties letter to the Lord Mountjoy, Deputie, with her owne hand, 3 Decr. 1600.

"Mistress Kytchenmaid, I had not thought that precedencie had ever beene in question, but among the greater and higher sorte, but now I find by good proof that some of more dignity, and greater calling, may by good desert and faythful care, geue the upper hand to one of your faculty, that with your frying pan, and other kitchen stuffe, have brought to their last more rebells, and passed more brekenecke places, than those that promest more and dyd lesse. Comfort yourself therefore in this, that neither your careful endeavour, nor dangerous travels, nor heedful regardes to our service, without your own by-respects, could ever have beene bestowed upon a prince that more esteems them, considers and regards them, than she for whom chiefly I know all this hath bene done, and who keepes this verditt ever in store for you, that no vayne glory nor popular fawning can ever advance you forward, but trew vieu of duty and service of prince, which two afore your life I see you do prefer, and tho’ you lodg near Papists, and doubt you not for their infection, yet I fear you may fayle* in an heresy which I hereby do conjure you from-that you suppose you be backbyted by some, to make me think you faulty of many oversights and evil defaults in your government. I would have you know for certayne, there is no man can rule so great a charge without some errors, yet you may assure yourself I have never heard of any had fewer, and such is your good luck, that I have not known them, tho' you were warned of them. And learne this of me, that you must make difference between admonitions and charges, and lyke of faythful advices, as your most necessary weapons to save you from blowes of

* Fall.

princes myslike. And so I absolve you a pena et culpa. If this you observe, and so God bless you and prosper you, as if ourself were where

you are.

“Your soverayn that dearly regards you."


May 7.

I HAVE read in your Magazine for May (p. 519), the account of Captain Smyth's letter, read before the Society of Antiquaries on the 11th of January last, upon the etymology of Cold harbour. I am well aware that numerous places in this island bear that name, and I am well acquainted with the one alluded to by him in his letter, near to Leith Hill. It lies about three miles from the town of Dorking, and is on the road from thence to Leith Hill, on very high ground, and close to Hanstiebury Camp, in Dorking parish. This camp is minutely described, and a plan of it is given, in Manning and Bray's History of Surrey. It was undoubtedly a camp or fortress of the most ancient Britons. Its situation, entrenchments, and formation sufficiently declare it to have been so. Arrow-heads of flint have been found near it, which is a strong proof of its remote antiquity. It may be right here to observe that in Manning and Bray's work this camp is said to be on the Roman road; but that is not the fact, the course of that road is half a mile below the camp, and has no connection with it. The line pursued by this road hereabouts was particularly traced by me many years ago; and my account of it is inserted in the Appendix to Manning and Bray's volumes. My opinion is, that the camp is many ages older than the road. But to return to the etymology of Cold harbour. This is a subject which occupied the attention of Sir R. C. Hoare, who gives an opinion on it that I cannot subscribe to, and which is mentioned in a note to Fosbroke's Encyclopædia of Antiquities (p. 520); nor do I believe that Cold harbours have any association with Roman roads, except by accident. My idea is, as I have before hinted, that the places in question are much older than such roads. The etymology of Cold harbour has been a subject of thought to me, and of some investigation for many years; and I long felt

that it was a corruption of some term in the primitive language of this country; and I have concluded that these spots were those marked out by the ancient Britons as the assembling places for their armies or military force; and I have surmised that the name has been formed from the British words GALWAD-AT-ARFAU, which signify "a call to arms." I know that these words only express an act, although they may have been, with some little alteration, applied to the place appropriated to the


I beg it may be understood that I put forth this my supposition of the etymology with diffidence, and should feel obliged by having one pointed out more satisfactory; but I beg also to say that my opinion, such as it is, is not of this moment, but of some few years' standing; and I probably should not now have published it had I not seen the letter of Captain Smyth, to which I have alluded.


Yours, &c. J. P.

YOUR correspondent "L." is entitled to the thanks of the general readers of your Magazine for his Genealogical Tables of the Sixteen Quarters of the sovereigns Elizabeth and James I.; but, although he has given a reason for omitting to "carry his tables a descent higher," he would, in my humble opinion, have illustrated and perhaps established his position more effectually if he had added a few notes to prove the gentle blood (and consequently the right to bear arms by descent) of several of the ancestors of our virgin queen.

Possibly all may have been entitled to bear arms, but the sixteen quarters required on the continent (in this country I believe they were never demanded) were quarters of nobility; and, as it appears from a glance at the table that Elizabeth could not boast of so many quarters of nobility of rank, I presume that the only equivalent here would be nobility of birth, in the sense used by writers on this subject, or, in other words, gentle blood.

Now, the first gentleman of a family is held in heraldry to be the grandson of him who first acquires arms, and it is to this point that I take the liberty of directing my inquiry. It would

not have been sufficient for a Knight of the "Saint Esprit" to have produced, as an ingredient of a quartering, the arms even of a President of a Parliament. The question would have been asked, "Was he noble?" and, as I apprehend, noble by descent. Substitute then the phrase "Was he gentle ?" in the heraldic sense, and try the question by this standard. If such a pedigree is of value, as an illustration of family, the value must proceed from its completeness, and, although I am myself too much of a "general reader," and too little of a herald, to write with decision on the question, I may per haps be allowed to submit with due humility, whether doubts may not be entertained on this subject with regard to the first table exhibited by your correspondent.

The first quarter to which Elizabeth would be entitled would depend (after passing over her more immediate ancestors) on the nobility, or as we may say the gentility, of her paternal grandfather's paternal grandfather: and it would be satisfactory to know on what ground the ascription of gentle blood to this personage may be safely placed. The ancestor in question is the well-known Owen Tudor; and the immediate question to be solved would be, whether his grandfather was entitled to bear arms, so as at the least to afford him the status of being the first gentleman of his family. If such a requisition were held too restrictive and arbitrary, and somewhat inapplicable to the ordinances of his country, we may perhaps modify it by the inquiry whether the family of Owen Tudor ever occupied a position parallel to that of an English country gentleman of ancient descent in society; although, as the sixteen quarterings apply to coat-armour, the first question should in strictness be propounded and solved. The statements of the early rise and occupation of this young soldier or adventurer are too numerous for repetition; but the discrepancies in them may argue doubts of the real state of his ancestry. Pennant affirms that Tudor ap Gronow ap Tudor, the father, was shield-bearer to the Bishop of Bangor, and possibly the tenure of this office may be a proof of gentility.

Sandford, I think, in his Genealogies

begins the male pedigree with Edynfed Fychan, Chief Justice to Lewellyn Prince of all Wales; but I am not aware of any authorities to which he refers, and the family (if ever so distinguished) must have been reduced, if, as it has been said, the future husband of Katharine of Valois "drew a bow at the battle of" Agincourt. Of the art of penmanship he was I believe guiltless, and the fifteenth century was not an age so rude as to preclude such an ordinary accomplishment from the nurture of a gentleman.

I now proceed to the paternal grandfather's maternal grandfather, John Beaufort Duke of Somerset, and it may I think be a question whether in the heraldic sense the grandson even of John of Gaunt, through an illegitimate and adulterous descent, was such a stirps as a rigid master of his art would allow. True it is he bore arms, but the arms of his grandfather he could not bear, and his father, though subsequently raised to honours, was nullius filius at his birth. The duke therefore did not bear arms ab antiquo (noble though he were) in the most limited sense of the term. Again, was the descent of Richard Wodevile, the paternal grandmother's mother's father, such as to allow his arms to form an ingredient of a seventh quartering for Elizabeth?

Pass we, however, to the race of Bullen; and permit me to ask if Sir Geffrey, the Lord Mayor of London, was indebted for his arms, if arms he had, to a new creation, or to ancient descent? This distinguished citizen was I believe the son of a father of the same name, who died seized of Holkham, in Norfolk, 12th Edw. IV. (Inq. post mort.), but his grandfather I have never seen mentioned. Would not the proof of Sir Geffrey's gentle descent have been held a requisite ? Of the families of Hankford, Tilney, and Cheyney the "general reader may perhaps be allowed to plead his ignorance without reproach. With the exception of the last, the names at least are not historic.

Far be it from me to undervalue the memory of this illustrious monarch, by suggesting a possible infusion of plebeian blood in her veins. Her "lionport" and dauntless spirit sufficiently attest her generous descent; and, if


among her ancestors might be traced those of a lower grade, she ennobled the stock by the perseverance, independence, and stability of her character. The ramifications of few genea logies of the noblest houses can sustain this searching test. Even Louis XIV. the personification of regal pretension and family pride, who disdained to give the poor distinction of nobility to the house of Orange, was himself compelled to admit that there existed a "window" in his escutcheon, on account of the mercantile descent of Mary de Medicis, his paternal grand


However inferior the character of James, his pedigree and quarterings appear spotless; but your correspondent has used such forcible expressions in alluding to this subject, that your

"general readers" would doubtless be interested in the statement of the "doubts of his parentage on one side, and the certainty of his dark and sinful origin on the other." I am persuaded that much amusing speculation and many valuable deductions may arise from the subject which this writer has undertaken, and shall, among your other readers, look forward with interest to its renewal in your forthcoming pages. And it is an observation sufficiently obvious that if failures of pure quarterings in a strict genealogical sense should occur in the tables proposed to be published, which in fact I cannot but anticipate, those failures themselves may perhaps become the most interesting points in the family group. WILTONENSIS.

Yours, &c.


Memorials of the Civil War; comprising the Correspondence of the Fairfax Family with the most distinguished personages engaged in that memorable contest. Now published from the original manuscripts. Edited by Robert Bell. 2 vols. 8vo. (Bentley.)

THESE volumes continue and conclude the Fairfax Correspondence, the first and second volumes of which we noticed in our Magazine for December last. We there sketched in outline the history of the Fairfax family down to the breaking out of the civil war, when Ferdinando the second Lord Fairfax was appointed to the command of the Parliament forces in the north, and his son Sir Thomas received a commission as General of Horse under his father. On the 27th September, 1642, "at 8 at night," the Committee of Safety, to whom the Parliament had deputed the perilous task of carrying on the war against their sovereign, appealed to the gentlemen of Yorkshire from Westminster (not "Westmoreland," as it is printed in the work before us, i. 22) to " preserve the peace of their county," by drawing their forces together under Lord Fairfax, and thus defending "his Majesty's subjects in their persons and liberties" against the Earl of Cumberland and Lord Savile, who were raising troops under the King's commissions of array. The zeal of Lord Fairfax

outran the speed of the Committee of Safety. Without waiting for a formal commission he assumed his command at once. In the face of difficulties which might well have appalled a stouthearted man who was acting in the plainest path of duty, Lord Fairfax, apparently without a doubt, raised a standard against that of his master which was floating almost in triumph on every side of him. He summoned to his aid all persons who were willing to struggle for religion and liberty, and so long as danger was at a little distance received glorious promises. The Cleveland men and the Richmondshire men, full a thousand strong, came readily at his call, but no sooner did the Earls of Newcastle and Cumberland bear down upon them with 8,000 men, of whom 2,000 were "horse and dragooners," than Richmond and Cleveland melted away like snow; the thousand returned to their own homes, all save 130 men and a troop of horse. Other bodies of recruits did not at first recognise Lord Fairfax's supreme authority. They were friendly to the cause, but desired to

« PreviousContinue »