« PreviousContinue »
trath, and a great part of Maryborough ; the lordships of Gallen, Rushall, Timahoe, the parish of Cloneagh, Cashel, and various other estates. Of all these, the only inheritance remaining from her is Timahoe, which, being held in right of her, entitles the possessor of it to bear the Sidney arms, and has been the reason of the frequency of the name of Sidney in our family.”
This is remarkable, as not a word is said of her being an heiress. If she was not an heiress, the Peerage of 1769 is in error. Were Sir John and others mentioned in Gentleman's Magazine 1832, p. 215, her brothers ? The patents granting her lands are extant, and bear date 22nd November, 1570; 28th November, 1590; 18th September, 1593; 6th August, 1593. To proceed,
“It will hereafter be related under the head of Richard Cosby, her son, how the family lost most of the above estates; but the town of Ballynakil and lordship of Gallin she sold for 100l., which she received in silver shillings, of so little value did she reckon lands which her husband and sons were constantly obliged to defend with the sword.”
However, she kept her mother but shabbily; for among the MSS. lately on sale by Mr.Thorpe, I saw a receipt signed Alice Sidney (see Gentleman's Magazine for March 1832, p. 214), dated about 1601, acknowledging the payment of 20t., an annual bounty allowed her by the goodness of Sir R. Sidney, afterwards Earl of Leicester. How is the name of Alice here, and on her tombstone, reconcileable with the Abbot pedigree, that makes her name Elizabeth
“It is remarkable that in all grants, and even in private writings, this lady constantly used the name of Sidney, and never assumed that of her husband, which was probably owing to the great share of family pride the Sidneys were always remarkable for. Alexander Cosby and his wife, for many years, made frequent visits to their relations at Penshurst, in Kent; and in ancient writing, under Dorcas Sidney's own hand, there is a memorandum, that she lay in of her second daughter, Rose Cosby, at the Queen's house at Oatford, Kent, on the 20th November 1582. She bore to Alexander Cosby, her husband, fifteen children, and they lived together in great credit and reputation, inhabiting the Abbey of Stradbally, till the year 1596; but that year Anthony Oathouse, the head of the rebellious clan that bore his name, sent a serf to demand of Alexander Cosby a passage over Stradbally-bridge, which being looked upon as a formal challenge was accordingly refused, and preparation made to oppose him. On the 19th of May Alexander, hearing the O'Mores were on the march, headed his kerne, and set himself to defend the bridge, taking with him his eldest son Francis Cosby, who was born on the 1st of January 1571, and christened with much ceremony in St. Patrick's Church, the Lord Deputy standing godfather. He had been married about a year before to Helena Harpole, of Shrule, and had a son William Cosby, born but nine weeks before this fatal day. Dorcas Sidney and Helena Harpole placed themselves at a window of the Abbey to see the fight, and for some time beheld their husbands violently fighting according to their constant custom; but at length Alexander Cosby, as he was pressing forward, was shot, and dropped dead, upon which his kerne, with melancholy and mournful outcries, began to give way; and Francis Cosby, the son, being in danger of being abandoned, leaped over the bridge endeavouring to make his escape into the abbey; but in the instant that he leaped over the battlements was shot and fell dead into the river. This, one would have imagined, must have been horribly shocking to the widowed ladies who beheld it from the Abbey; nevertheless it is recorded that Helena Harpole, with the coolest presence of mind, addressed herself to Dorcas Sidney, saying, “Remember, mother, that my father was shot before my husband, and that thereupon the latter was the legal possessor of the estate, and consequently I am entitled to my thirds and dower.’”
This story is completely corroborated by an Inq. p. m. 17 Aug. 1596, Com. Regina. Hiberniae, which enumerates the immense domains of Francis Cosby: p’d. Francis' occisus fuit p. rebellis et obiit post patre suu Alex. similiter interfect. apud Stradbally, 19 Maii 1596. Wil. Cosbye est fil. et her. dict. Francis' et p’d. Wil. fuit etat. 9 hebdomad. tempore mortis p’d. Francis' et non maritat. Dorcas Cosbye al. Sydney nup. ux. dict. Alex. Cosbye patris p’d. Francis' dotabil. existit de terc. p’te Öiii ter' et ten. p’d. Helen Hartpoole al. Cosbye nup. ux. dict. Francisci Cosbye est etiam dotabil. de terc' p'te resid'. ter'. p’d'. On the 12th September, 38th Elizabeth, a patent was granted to Dorcas and Helena of the wardship of William Cosby, who soon after died.
But these were not all the calamities with which the Cosbys were punished. Their property had been gained by the plunder of the O’Mores, hereditary princes of Leix. These endeavoured to regain their possessions from Richard Cosby, who, as fourth but eldest surviving son of Dorcas Sidney, had succeeded her grandson William Cosby. They sailed; seventeen of the family of the O’Mores were slain, and their cause ruined. Richard Cosby was conveyed dangerously wounded to Dysart House, the seat of Sir Robert Pigot. Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Robert, being his nurse, captivated the wounded warrior's heart. He married, however, without his mother's consent, and thus lost her princely fortune. Dorcas, through dislike to the Pigots, married Sir Thomas Zouch, or Cooch, who died in 1625. She left little of her estates to the Cosbys ; the Patent rolls contain many licenses of alienation to Sir Thomas and Dorcas.— 2nd September 1605; 5th, 6th, and 14th July 1607, pp. 106-110 of the Calendar.
As a supplement, I will add one or two more facts concerning the stray members of the Sidney family. Pat. 2 James I. p. 55 of Calendar, xvii. 36, is a grant to Captain Walter (a mistake for William) Sidney of a daily pension of 4 s. for life, 24th September. It appears in an inquisition at Lifford, 16th April, 19th Jac I. 1621, that this William Sidney had purchased lands from Sir H. Docwra under whom he had served (Gent. Mag. March 1832, p.215), and sold them to Cahir O’Doghertee. Sir H. Docwra mentions Captain Sir J. Sidney with honour in a history which he wrote of his wars in Londonderry, and in which he gives a detail of operations he himself directed."
I should rather imagine that Francis Sidney (Gent. Mag. March 1832, p.215), great-uncle to the Earl of Leicester, died without male issue; as it appears from the Prerogative Court, that about 1561 Ann Sidney, widow, of Ash, county of Kent, died, and a daughter of the name of Dorothy Middleton administered to her effects.
A GENEALogical lnquireR.
PRECEDENCE OF THE LORD MAYOR OF LONDON.
MR. URBAN, -It appearing, by the newspaper reports of the evidence given by the City officers before the Commissioners appointed to make inquiry touching the Corporation of London, that a misunderstanding exists relative to the precise nature and extent of the privilege allowed or conceded by the royal warrant, which was issued on occasion of the funeral of Lord Nelson, during the mayoralty of Sir James Shaw ; I send you a copy of that instrument, which I believe has not hitherto been printed, although frequent reference has been made to it. “ GEORGE R. “Whereas doubts having arisen concerning the place of our Lord Mayor of the City of London in the procession from Temple-bar to Our cathedral church of St. Paul, on occasion of the approaching interment of Horatio late Wiscount Nelson ; and whereas it has been humbly represented to us on the part of the Lord Mayor of Our City of London, that in all ceremonies and processions whereat we are present within the City of London, it appears to have been the custom for the Lord Mayor, bearing the city sword, to take his station in the procession next to Ourselves; and whereas it hath been moreover humbly represented to Us on the part of the Lord Mayor, that in all commissions of gaol delivery for the City of London and County of Middlesex he
* Of this many MS. copies are extant; one being in Cotton's MSS. Titus B.x. p. 307. This history would be a good accompaniment to Fynes Moryson's History of Ireland from January 21, 1599, to April 21, 1603, and gives the author a just claim to admittance into the Catalogue of Noble Authors. Sir H. Docwra was appointed Governor of Loughfoyle by Privy Seal March 22, 1603; and by Patent June 4, 1604, he obtained a fee of 20s. a-day for life. Having been ennobled by the title of Lord Docwra, Baron of Culmore, county of Derry, May 15, 1621, he was appointed a Keeper of the Signet 1627. Neither Clutterbuck in his History of Herts, nor Parry in his account of Woburn, have been able to deduce the noble lord's pedigree from the Hert's family of that name. If the pedigree be hereafter sought, it may be found in Addit. MSS. 5819, p. 109.
is named first by Us, and before Our Chancellor, Judges, and all other persons named therein; and whereas Our officers of Arms having, in obedience to the directions of Our Earl Marshal, made search for precedents on the subject of the claim of the Lord Mayor of London to precedency above all subjects whatever, in Our absence, in processions within the City of London; and that, upon the examination hitherto made by them of the records in Our college, they have not found any precedent to justify the said claim; and whereas the time will not admit of so complete an investigation of the Lord Mayor's claim of precedency as might lead to a final adjudication on the same; it is Our royal will and pleasure that Our Garter Principal King of Arms do, on the present occasion, marshal and place the Lord Mayor of London in the same station where he would have been placed if We had been present, bearing the city sword; provided, nevertheless, that this declaration of Our pleasure be for this especial occasion only, and not construed into a precedent for the future, to the prejudice of the rights and precedency of any person or persons whatsoeuer. Given at Our Court at Saint James's, the sixth day of January 1806, in the fifty-sixth year of Our reign. “By His Majesty's Command, “HAwkEsBURY.” In virtue of the above authority, upon the arrival of the procession within Temple-bar, the Lord Mayor was placed above the Prince of Wales, namely, between His Royal Highness and the herald who preceded the great banner, upon a condition that his lordship should carry the city sword unattended by any of his officers. But although this concession was at the time often alluded to, in votes of thanks, toasts, and otherwise, as an important privilege obtained for the City, the publication of the grant itself would have shown that it had been made upon the pressure of the moment, and was to be in force for that occasion only, and not to be considered as a precedent for the future. The Lord Mayor takes rank above all citizens of London; but, when mixed with other classes of his fellow subjects, within or without the city, his precedency is governed by certain rules or by custom ; and it would be absurd to suppose that he would be entitled, in right of his office, to place himself anywhere above all other subjects of the realm. His accidental station in public processions of the King in the city, has arisen in the following manner. The presence of the Sovereign within the city may be deemed to supersede all authority for the time being of the Lord Mayor. That high officer, therefore, goes to the gate of the city to meet the King, and to resign into his hands the City Sword, being the emblem of that authority. This sword must be carried before his Majesty by some person, and in a situation as near to the Sovereign as possible, without interfering with the superior rank of the sword of state, the ensign of the government of the kingdom at large. The King returns the city sword with some complimentary speech to the Lord Mayor, desiring him to continue to carry it; and he thus obtains a temporary high rank in the procession, which would appear to be rather that of the sword than of the individual. In the records of several processions of this kind a note occurs to prevent the circumstance from being drawn into a precedent for the rank of the Lord Mayor on similar occasions. It was never supposed that the case could arise in any procession of the great officers of state and the nobility through the city, the king not being present; nor was any attempt made to support the claim in question upon any other authority than the commissions of gaol delivery, in which the Lord Mayor is stated to be mentioned before the Judges. There are, on the other hand, not wanting instances more applicable to the immediate occasion. At the funeral of Sir Philip Sydney, who was slain at the battle of Zutphen, in 1586, and whose remains were conveyed for interment to England, landed at the Tower, and conducted with great pomp to St. Paul’s, no pretensions were offered by the Lord Mayor to rank, within the walls of the city, above the noble ersonages who attended to do honour to the memory of the deceased. His ordship and the rest of the city officers, followed by the city guard, closed the whole procession. At the funeral of the Earl of Sandwich, who perished in “the Solebay fight” in 1672, and which was solemnized in Westminster Abbey on the 3d July in
that year, the Lord Mayor attended the procession by water only, and the place of his barge upon that occasion (which, according to the statement in the London Gazette, followed the barges of their Majesties, of the Lord High Admiral, and divers of the nobility), corresponds with the arrangement in the land procession at the funeral of Sir Philip Sydney.
Jan. 13. G. F. B. L.
THE DANCE or DEATH,
Exhibited in elegant Engravings on Wood; with a Dissertation on the several representations of that subject, but more particularly on those ascribed to Macaber and Hans Holbein. By Francis Douce, Esq. F. A. S. &c., 8vo.
The author of this volume has long been distinguished for his great erudition in English antiquities, for his intimate acquaintance with the archaeology of literature and the arts, for his extensive and valuable collections, and for the liberality and urbanity with which he has ever communicated from his stores of knowledge to other inquirers in the same pursuits. By his interesting “Illustrations of Shakspeare and his Times," his name is yet more widely honoured; for it is one of the few antiquarian works which have been at once recondite and popular.
The present dissertation was originally published forty years ago, in illustration of the republication, by Mr. Edwards of Pall Mall, of Hollar's etchings, from the same designs which have now been engraved on wood." It is here very considerably enlarged, and it is not a little remarkable into how many branches the inquiry divides itself.
In order to investigate the subject from its origin, Mr. Douce discusses, in the first place, the figures under which Death was personified by the ancients. These were various, and the learned are not accordant on the subject; but it would appear that a skeleton was only one of their emblems, and not the most frequent. The emblem of the butterfly, by which, whilst death was implied, a resurrection was more immediat...y typified, is one which from its simplicity and propriety finds a welcome in every elegant mind. The more clumsy device by which the artists of the middle ages represented the departing soul, was by a small naked figure, like an infant, issuing from the prostrate corpse;—an idea which some modern artists have varied only by representing the soul nearly as large as the body, which has been sculptured in marble so recently as in the monument of the Princess Charlotte at Windsor. To this performance Mr. Douce does not allude; but although the historian, it may be said, of skeletons and anatomies, he expresses his disapprobation of sepulchral monuments being adorned with skulls and cross-bones, as follows:–
* These engravings, forty-nine in number, “have been executed,” remarks Mr. Douce, “with consummate skill and fidelity by Messrs. Bonner and Byfield, two of our best artists in the line of wood engraving. They may very justly be regarded as scarcely distinguishable from their fine originals.” Four of them, by way of specimen, we have borrowed for the present article (see Plate II):— THE KING. Seated at a well-covered table, Death, as a cupbearer, presents him with his last draught. . The King's countenance resembles that of Francis I., and the canopy is powdered with a flower resembling a fleur-de-lis. THE ABBAT. Death having despoiled him of his mitre and crozier, drags him by his robes away. . The Abbat resists with all his might, and is about to throw his breviary at his adversary. THE JUDGE. He is deciding a cause between a rich and a poor man; and is about to receive a bribe from the former. Death comes behind him to snatch away his rod of office. THE NEW-MARRIED LADY. In all the splendour of the female costume of the age, she is accompanied by her husband, who endeavours to divert her attention from Death, which is insidiously crossing their path, beating vigorously on a tambour.