« PreviousContinue »
It’m, the Duke of Norff. thereuppon dyd make his precepte to one Wyll'm Wentworth, Serjeante at Armes, to sommon the pyeres by theis words, “tot et t'less d'nos proceres et magnates hujus regni Anglie Edwardi Ducis Buck. pares p" quos rei veritas in hac p’te melius sciri poterit, q'd ip'i personaliter compareant coram prefato senescallo apud Westm. die lune prox. post festum Ascenc'onis D'ni tunc prox. futuro ad faciend. et recipiend. ea que ex p’te D'ni regis tunc ib'm eis injungent". Dated Decimo Maij, Anno xiij. It’m, the same hyghe Steward, by another precepte dated the same daye and yere, and dyrected to the Constable of the Tower of London, or to hys Lieutenante, com'aundyd theim to have the bodye of the seyd Duke of Buck. before him at Westm. the seyd Mondaye after thascenc'on daye. It’m, the same Duke beinge the same day broughte to the barre 4 before the seyd highe Stewarde, the Sergeante at Armes dyd retorne the precepte, not by the usuall words of other precepts, but by theis wordes and forme followinge, videl't pred'cus Serviens ad Arma assersuit (where the com'on word ys retornavit) q’d ip'e om'es et singulos d'nos p'ceres et magnates regni Anglie pred'c'i Edwardi Ducis Buck. pares p' quos, &c. som'oniri fecerit q" p’sonalit' compareant coram prefato Senescallo ad diem et locu' pred'c'm ad faciend. ea que ex p’te D'ni R. tune ib'm eis injungents prout datu' fuit sibi in mandatis. It’m, then proclamac'on was made as followeth, videl'. q" om'es Duces Comites et Barones existen. pares pred’c’i Ducis Buck. qui p' mandat. Senescalli Anglie ac summonitionem prefat. servientis ad Arma eis fact. ad tunc in cur' presentes fu'int compareant et pro eor' noib'z respondeant ad faciend. ea que ex p’te D'ni regis tunc ib'm eis injungent". It’m, after that, followeth qui quidem pares tune ib'm in plena cur. existen. Scilt. Carolus Dux Suff.; Thomas Marchio Dorset; Joh’es Comes Oxon'; Georgius Comes Salop'. : Henricus Comes Essex; Ric'us Comes Kanc.; Thomas Comes Derb. ; Henricus Comes Devon; Carolus Comes Wigorn'; Thomas Dockwray, prior S'c'e Joh’is Jhr'I'm in Anglia; Thomas Mannors, D'nus de Rosse ; Will'us Willoughby, miles, D'nus de Willoughbye; Thomas West, miles, D'nus de la War; Henricus Parker, D'nus Morley; Thomas Fynes, miles, D'nus de Dacre; Thomas Brooke, miles, D'nus de Cobham: Walterus Devereux, miles, D'nus Ferrers; Joh'es Bourchier, miles, D'nus de Fitzwarren ; et Will'mus Blount, miles, D'nus de Mountjoye;" comp'uerunt et p' eoru' no'ra sep’atim responderunt quor' presentia p' prefat, senescallu’ Angl. recordat. fuit. It’m, after that the indytemente was redde to the Duke, and being demaunded what he sayd to the matters conteyned in the inditem', he pleaded that he was not guyltye, et inde de bono et malo ponit se sup' pares suos. It'm, after that the King's Serjeant and Attorney gave theire evydence agenste him," whereunto he was hearde to answere. And the evydence beinge ended, the
3 The number of Peers summoned upon trials of this nature, was anciently 18 or 20, selected at the pleasure of the Crown. Only those summoned sat upon the trial. This practice of course gave the Government, a very improper influence, which was remedied by the statute of 7 Will. III. c. 3, by which it was enacted that upon these occasions all the Peers should be summoned twenty days before the trial. Wide Year Book, 13 H. VIII. ; and Blac. Com. IV. 262, 8vo edit. * The trial took place within Westminster Hall, upon a platform erected for the occasion. * This list of the Peers differs from that given by our Chroniclers in several particulars, and is evidently more correct. Hall is the authority from whom Holinshed and all the others have obtained their information. He omits Lords Rosse, Dacre, Ferrers, and Mountjoy, and converts Sir Thomas Brooke, Lord Cobham, into two Peers, by the titles of Lord Brooke and Lord Cobham. The latter is rather a strange mistake, as I believe there was no Lord Brooke until 1620, a century after this trial. Hall also adds “Lord Herbert.” This Peer was created Earl of Worcester in 1514, and is mentioned by that title, in the list of Peers given above, and also in Hall's list. * This does not mean that the King's Serjeants and Attorney themselves gave testimony, but that they stated the substance of the written depositions which were given in evidence, and, upon the Duke's demand, produced the witnesses, who swore to the truth of their depositions. From the manner in which Hall expresses himself, I imagine that the witnesses were not subjected to any examination in Court, but merely brought to swear to the truth of their depositions, which had been previously prepared, and were then openly read over to them (Hall, 623).
Constable of the Tower beinge threunto com’aunded by the highe Steward, dyd leade the Duke oute of the Courte to some place nighe.7 It’m, in the absence of the prysoner, the piers do c'mon of the matters wherewith he ys charged, and uppon the evidence given agenste him privatelye amongst theimselves. It’m, when they be agreed. The prysoner ys broughte agayne to the barre, and beinge theire, and the peires syttinge in their places accordinge to theire auncienties and degrees, the highe Steward begynnynge at the youngest peire untyll the moste aunciente peire" present in forme as followeth in the Recorde, videl'. sup’ quo pred'c'us Carolus Dux Suff. Thomas Marchio Dorsett, ac ceteri Comites et Barones anted'c'i pred’c’i Duc. Buck. pares instant sup’ eor. fidelitatib's et legianciis d'c'o D'no Regi debit' p' prefatum senescallu’ Anglie de veritate inde dicendo onerati, et postea p' eundem Senescallu’ Angl’ ab inferiore pare us' q'ad supremu' parium illorum sep’atim publice examinati quilib't eor’ sep’atim dicit q’d pred'c'us Dux de prodicionib's pred'c' is sibi sep’atim in forma pred'c'a imposit. est culpabilis prout p’ sep'alia ind' camenta pred'c' a sup’ius supponit". It’m, aft' this, iudgemente was prayed by the Kyng's Serjeants and Attorney, and thereupon judgemente was geven by the highe Stewarde that the same Duke shoulde be caryed to the Tower of London by the seyd Constable, and from thence shoulde be drawen throughe the myddes of the Cyttye of London, unto the gallowes at Tyborne, and there be hanged. And in lyefe to be caste downe to the grounde. And his intrayles shoulde be taken oute of his bellye, and being in lyeffe, shoulde be burned, and his headd to be cutte of and his bodye to be devyded into four partes, and that his hedde and quarters shoulde be putte where the kynge wolde assygne.” This paper contains a pretty clear outline of the course of proceedings before the High Steward. Your bibliographical readers, and they are numerous, will not take it amiss if I add an account of two printed works, which I believe are the only separate treatises upon this subject, and neither of which is noticed in Watts's Bibliotheca Britannica. The first is a 4to pamphlet, containing 36 pages, and entitled, “An authentical account of the Formalities, and Judicial proceedings, upon arraigning at Westminster a peer of the Realm before a Lord High Steward. Funesta Securis Regni Securitas. London, printed for R. H.” It is without date, or name of the author, and is not very often met with, although it has passed through three editions at the least. The circumstances under which it was written, and the time of its publication, appear from the other editions. During the imprisonment of Lord Stafford and the other Catholic peers in the Tower, in the years 1679 and 1680, they submitted, for the opinion of a barrister in the Temple, fourteen queries respecting various points of law connected with the trial of peers. The pamphlet in question contains his reply; but, before noticing the questions, he gives a general outline of the subject, treating of the etymology of the words Steward, and Seneschal; the style and antiquity of the office; by whom it had been held; the extent of its jurisdiction; and the form of proceedings. All these points are briefly, and sometimes rather carelessly treated, chiefly upon the authority of Lord Coke's 4th Institute. He then answers the questions submitted to him, and in conclusion discusses a further question proposed by himself, viz. “Whether in any case it be lawful for subjects to oppose their prince 2'' which he answers negatively in terms far too strong to obtain any countenance at the present day.
7 Hall says, the Duke was led into Paradise, a house so named.
* It is evident from the following sentence, that the inquiry was not made from the youngest Peer in years upwards to the eldest, but from the lowest in title upwards to the highest. The statements in Hall and Holinshed, lead to the inference that the question was put from the Duke of Suffolk downwards.
9 It is well known that the horrors of this fearful judgment were commuted into beheading upon Tower Hill. “Mekely with an axe he toke his death,” says Hall, 624. The Duke was conveyed to the Tower on the 16th April, 1521. The letters patent constituting the Lord High Steward were issued on Friday the 10th of May following. On the same day the Serjeant at Arms was ordered to summon the Peers for the following Monday, and the Constable of the Tower was directed to bring his prisoner to Westminster on that day. On Monday the 13th the trial took place, and on the following Friday, the 17th May, the Duke was beheaded.
Another edition of this pamphlet, with a different title-page, was published Lond. 1680, 4to. It is dated “From my Chamber in the Temple, Jan. 17, 1680;” is couched in the form of a letter; and is signed “Ed. S.” A third edition, similar to the second, except that the concluding query is omitted, was published, Lond. 1746, 8vo. From the similarity of the initials, and the period of the publication, I am of opinion that this pamphlet was written by Sir Edmund Saunders, afterwards Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench; but I do not find it enumerated in any list of his works. As a specimen of its antiquarian information, I will extract his account of the trial of John Holland, Earl of Huntingdon, in the 1st year of Henry IV. respecting which all our chroniclers and historians are strangely mistaken. According to their account, this Earl was put to death by the tenants of the Duke of Gloucester, in revenge of the murder of their Lord. It appears from the following passage, founded upon the excellent authority of the Year Book of 1 Henry IV. that, at any event, the Earl underwent a trial before a legal and competent tribunal. “The Earl of Huntingdon was indicted of High Treason in London, by a Commission before the Mayor and Justices; for that he, with other persons, agreed to go a mumming (which the French call masquerade) on the night of Epiphany, in which they intended to kill the King, then at Windsor. And after, the King granted a Commission to the Earl of Devon, reciting, that whereas J. E. of H. was indicted of High Treason, and that he would that right should be done; and because the office of the Steward of England is now void, he granted it to the said E. of Devon, to do justice to the said E. of Huntingdon, commanding by the same Commission all the Lords to be attendant upon him ; and precept was likewise given by the same to the Constable of the Tower, to be attendant on him, and to bring the prisoner (viz.) the E. of H. before the said E. of D. on the day appointed : whereupon the E. of D. the same day sat in Westminster Hall under a Cloth of Estate by himself, and the E. of Westmoreland, and other Earls and Barons, sat a considerable distance, and all the Justices and Barons of the Exchequer sat round a table, and after three O Yes’s made, and the Commission read, the Justices delivered the Indictment to the Lord Steward, which was delivered to the Clerk of the Crown, who read it to the said E. of H. which he confessed ; whereupon Hill, the King's Serjeant, prayed judgment, which the Lord Steward, after he had rehearsed the whole matter, pronounced in this manner.” Here follows the usual judgment upon Traitors. “The Justices then said, that if the E. of H. had deny'd the Treason, the Lord Steward should have demanded of every Lord in open Court what they thought in their consciences, beginning with the puisny Lord ; and if the greater number said “Guilty,' then the judgment to be given as above.”—p. 8. The account here given is partly corroborated, and that of the Chroniclers contradicted, by some entries in Rymer. On the 5th January, 1400, warrants were directed to the Sheriffs to arrest Thomas Earl of Kent and John Earl of Huntingdon, and, on the 10th January, a warrant was granted to the Constable of the Tower, to receive the body of the Earl of Huntingdon. (Rymer, vol. iii. p. 4, p.175, edit. 1740). On the 25th February, a proclamation was issued, in which he is styled “the late Earl of Huntingdon,” from which we may infer that he had then been executed. (Rymer, ibid. p. 176.) The other treatise upon this subject is entitled “The Lord High Steward of England, or an Historical Dissertation on the Origin, Antiquity, and Functions of that Officer; shewing the difference between him and the King's Chief Justiciar, and the Steward of the King's Household, and explaining the offices of the two latter. London, 1776, 8vo.” I am ignorant of the name of the author of this work. It scarcely answers the expectations raised by its title page, of which I have not quoted more than one half, but there is some useful matter in it, and several passages are worth quoting; but I dare not intrude upon your pages farther than to add that there is an excellent paper upon this subject written by Mr. Amos, and published in the Appendix to Mr. S. M. Philips's Review of the State Trials; and there are also several treatises upon the High Steward's Court in the second volume of Hearne's Curious Discourses, all of them written in the uninteresting manner which seems to have belonged to the antiquaries of that time. The real information to be derived from these latter papers, bears but a very meagre proportion to the 64 pages which hey occupy in the volume. Yours, &c. B.
Nor MAN eccLes IASTICAL Arch ITECTURE.
MR. URBAN,-During last autumn I made a tour in Normandy for the pur}. of investigating some of its architectural antiquities. In the neighbourood of Caen and Rouen, where I resided a few weeks, I took notes of the most interesting churches, and as such subjects are peculiarly adapted to your valuable Repertory, I here with send you an account of one of them, not noticed except incidentally in Mr. Cotman's excellent work. The curious and critical investigator of the architecture of our more ancient English edifices meets occasionally with a peculiar style of building, which on account of its form is not unaptly called by masons Herring-bone work, and, from the similarity of its arrangement to the grains in an ear of corn, sometimes more classically termed “spicata testacea.” This kind of angular masonry is rare in England, where it occurs only in a few courses alternating with horizontal masonry, as in Lincoln City walls, Castleton, Colchester and Guildford Castles, the round tower of Bungay Church, and the walls of Cambridge Castle. Mr. Essex says, “the age of this sort of masonry is not easily ascertained.” It has been attributed to that of the Romans and the Saxons. Morant states, that “the easternmost wall of Colchester Castle is built in the Roman, i. e. the herring-bone fashion.” Others call it Roman, for no better reason than because they sometimes find it forming part of edifices, which, from their containing Roman bricks, have been supposed to be of Roman origin. It is probable, however, that all such buildings were erected by the Saxons, with the old materials of the Roman stations to which many of their towns succeeded. I do not recollect ever to have witnessed any specimen of herring-bone masonry among the Roman ruins of old Rome itself. In the “ opus reticulatum,” which is there so common, the stones are rectangular, equilateral, of equal size, with polished surfaces, and are placed lozengy, that is, at angles of 45°, and only used as a facing to walls commonly backed by uncoursed rubble. The angular work which we sometimes find in old chimneys, and the clinker avement of stables, are always at right angles, whereas, the stones of genuine erring-bone masonry are long rough parallelograms, and are laid upon their edges at acute angles with the horizon. Generally, I believe, this angular position of the stones is continued throughout the whole thickness of the walls, and without any transverse bonding, except at their openings and angles; but in the herring-bone masonry of England, where it is always intermingled with other kinds of masonry, it may be only an occasional facing. I am therefore of opinion that to the Saxons, or to the Normans, who were aboriginally the same people as the Saxons, rather than to the Romans, should be assigned the introduction of this style. Several of the English examples of it above-mentioned were, no doubt, erected since the Norman conquest; but from the following circumstances, we may conclude that one of them, the castle of the Peak in Derbyshire, was constructed antecedent even to the preaching of Christianity in that wild part. It was granted to William Peverel, by his reputed father William the Conqueror, on their hostile arrival in this country; and tradition says, that it was once a royal Saxon palace, and that when taken possession of by Peverel, he found it to contain a small chamber, which had evidently been a Saxon idol chapel, but had its door blocked up in order to prevent contamination from the entering such an unhallowed place. If the Saxons introduced herring-bone masonry here, they also carried it into those parts of Neustria, or ancient Normandy, so often subjected to their irruptions during the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, and thence denominated “Littus Saxonicum,” previous to their final settlement in the district once occupied, as Ptolemy asserts, by the Unelli, which laid between the rivers Dive and Orne, and from these pirates likewise called Otlingua Saxonia, by which name it is mentioned in an ordinance of Charles the Bald in the middle of the ninth century. I have been led to these preliminary observations from visiting last autumn some of the obscure village churches in the neighbourhood of Caen, in many of which herring-bone masonry may be seen, pure and unmixed with other methods of construction, and constituting their entire walls. From among these the subject which I have selected, and shall now proceed to describe, as briefly, but I hope intelligibly, as possible, is the church of Mathieu, which is not only interesting as a specimen of herring-bone work, but also affords examples of an elliptical arch and a primitive font, and moreover has not been noticed, except incidentally, in the very accurate and faithful work of Messrs. Cotman and Dawson Turner, on the Antiquities of Normandy. Mathieu is a small village in the canton of Douvres, about two leagues north from Caen. It was named in early charters Mathomum ; at the end of the thirteenth century Matho and Matheon, in the fourteenth Mathieum, but not till the fifteenth Mathieu. In a register of 1316, it is called Machoen and Machyeu. In 1222, Richard de Mathan, who was Lord of Beuville, the adjoining parish, as well as of Than, not far distant, gave the patronage of Mathieu to the Bishopric of Bayeux. It is probable, therefore, that Mathan was also an ancient name of Mathieu, and that the present Marquis of Mathan, one of the peers of France, and chief of the municipal council of Caen, inherits his title from this little village. Like most edifices of the eleventh century, the latest assignable date of its foundation, Mathieu church is, in its plan, extremely simple, consisting merely of a nave and chancel, without either ailes, transepts, porch, or tower. Its herring-bone work exists only in the side walls; the east end being flat, and therefore probably more recent than the sides, and of large squared stones, as is also the present west end, which is evidently modern. The chancel is, as usual, somewhat narrower than the nave, but they are of equal height. The nave is shorter than it originally was, as appears from a ruined portion of its south wall, yet remaining, which is of herring-bone work, and clearly shows us that in Normandy this style was used not only for a facing, but also, as before observed, throughout the whole substance of the very thick walls, so common in the times when it was prevalent. The materials are rag sand-stones, eight inches long and three in width, and a coarse hard mortar cementing them together, probably made with sea-sand from the neighbouring coast, and constituting about one-sixth part of the aggregate bulk of the walls. Their buttresses, however, their quoins, and the dressings of their various openings, were formed of small roughly squared stones, as also their scaffold holes. These, no doubt, were left unclosed, lest, at any future reparations of the structure which time might render necessary, its solidity should be impaired by breaking in new holes: so little did the architects of those days contemplate the pseudo-restorations, the tasteless improvements, the wanton and avaricious destructions, and useless, jobbing, re-edifications of the present. The north wall is divided into four compartments, (originally there were five, two belonging to the chancel, and three to the nave) by broad, flat, pilasterlike double buttresses, of which the undermost and broadest are peculiar in having small slope-topped pilasters attached against and dying into their own proper east and west sides or returns. These under-buttresses terminate in a parapet supported by a corbel tablet of heads of men and inferior animals, the outer buttresses being continued over the face of this parapet to dripping eaves which run over a chamfered moulding with the hatched ornament. These are the only horizontal tablets or string courses of the edifice. Some of the windows, of which there was one in the upper part of each compartment, have been enlarged. The originals are about five feet high by two in width, and their glazing (diagonal) is nearly flush with the exterior face of the wall. They have plain sloped sides widening considerably inwards, plain semicircular heads, and semicircular drip-stones formed of two small fillets over a billet moulding. In the western compartments of the chancel is a small door-way recently blocked up, plain sided and semicircular headed under a semicircular drip-stone, consisting of a fillet and small chevron moulding, but, although this door-way is of ancient form and members, it appears to have been an old innovation. The cast end is flat, with gabled top, of horizontal masonry, and bearing the