Page images
PDF

to be placed in the niches of St. George's Chapel. This the troubles of the times rendered useless ; and many of his friends who remembered his former political writings, particularly in the bill which he offered to the Parliament at Coventry, urged him to pursue the subject of the grievances of the people, especially in the pillage and destruction of country towns. From these motives he threw his former materials into his new work, in the modest hope that “its frequent perusal by the nobles might incite their hearts to the glory of God and the great profit of the commonwealth.” The book is addressed to King Henry the Seventh, the birth of whose son Prince Arthur it concludes with noticing. Leland had a high opinion of the historical labours of John Rous. He admitted that he was not to be compared with Polydore Vergil for eloquence of style, but at the same time thought that he far exceeded him in research. It may be concluded, however, that this judgment proceeded as much from dislike of Polydore as from admiration of Rous. Those who wish to know the weaknesses of Rous's history, will find them pointed out in Walpole's Historic Doubts. His History of the Earls of Warwick, in the form of a pictorial roll, is a work of high curiosity, not so much for its apocryphal and frequently erroneous contents, as for the singular series of drawings with which it is illustrated. One original copy of it is in the College of Arms. Rous appears to have kept it by him, and to have inserted additions from time to time. His own portrait, which is now published, occurs at the back of a representation of Edward the Confessor, with which, it is probable, the roll at one time commenced. A minute and careful description of this roll is desirable. According to present appearances its parts are somewhat disarranged, but that may have arisen from Rous's own contrivances when making insertions, in consequence of the pedigrees, &c. written on the back. Unfortunately it has been considerably injured by the application of galls. The drawing of Richard III. surrounded by his badges, was engraved

[ocr errors]

for Dallaway’s Heraldic Researches, as are ten other figures in two plates," one of which contains, Henry Duke of Warwick, Anne Countess of Warwick, Richard Earl of Warwick, Isabel Duchess of Clarence, and George Duke of Clarence, and the other, Edward Earl of Warwick, Margaret Countess of Salisbury, Queen Anne, Richard III. and Edward Prince of Wales. More recently, two other figures, namely, Saint Dobricius, and Thomas Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, have been engraved for Mr. Spicer's History of Warwick Castle, a portion of that splendid work, the Vitruvius Britannicus. Another copy of this roll has been discovered among a nobleman’s muniments, and Mr. Pickering is now preparing to publish it in fac-simile. We are informed that the drawings are more highly finished, or in better preservation, than those in the Roll at the College at Arms. The inscriptions are in English instead of Latin, and the following remarkable inscription under the figure of Richard III. shows it to have been made during the reign of that monarch. “The moost myghty prymce, Rycharde, by the grace of God kynge of Ynglond and of Fraunce and lord of Irelond, by verrey matrimony w! owt dyscontynewans or any defylynge yn the lawe by eyre male lineally dyscendyng from kynge Harre the Second. All avarice set a-syde, rewled hys subjettys in hys realme ful comendabylly, poneschynge offenders of hys lawes, specyally extorcioners and oppressers of hys comyns, and chereshynge them that were wertueus, by the whyche dyscrete guydynge he gat gret thank of God and love of all hys subjettys ryche and pore, and gret laud of the people of all othyr landys abowt hym.” Whereas in the Heralds’ College roll King Richard is dismissed much more summarily, and with a very different epithet. “Ricardus tercius Rex Anglie, Anne Regime, filie secunde Ricardi Nevil comitis Warwici et Anne comitisse uxoris sue, infelix maritus.” A third copy of this roll, made probably in the reign of Elizabeth, occurs

* We are not aware for what purpose, or when, these two plates were engraved. Though not modern, they are not mentioned in the last edition of Granger's Biographical History,

in an heraldic manuscript now the MS. Lansdowne 882, and which was in 1729 in the possession of Thomas Ward, esq. of Warwick. Its inscriptions, which are in English, were then printed by Hearne attached to his “Historia Ricardi II.” pp. 217– 239; but the original was not the same as that last mentioned, as it did not include Richard III. or Anne Neville, nor some other curious passages. There was also in Sir William Dugdale's time, in the possession of Robert Arden, esq. of Park Hall, Warwickshire, a Roll by Rous with painted figures of the British and English Kings, and of the nobility of the county of Warwick." Rous's Life of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, is in the volume now the Cottonian MS. Julius E. Iv. Its drawings, representing the various incidents of the Earl's adventures, consist of fifty-three subjects beautifully sketched with a pen, (evidently in preparation for subsequent illumination,) followed by two pages of pedigree ornamented with half-length figures of the parties mentioned. The whole series of designs is engraved in the second volume of Strutt's Manners and Customs, &c. of the English, and in the third volume of that work, Plate XLVIII. is a portion of the pedigree, where the author absurdly criticises the heads of Richard III. and his son

as portraits. The accompanying descriptions are also printed in that work. They had been previously published by Hearne affixed to his “Historia Richardi Il.” 1729, pp. 359—371, from the copy made by Dugdale, in his M.S. G. 2. We have now only a few words to add in description of the portrait. Rous is represented writing the roll, upon which however nothing is figured, but it is blank as in the engraving. His costume appears to be that of a canon ;t his gown red, his under vestment, of which the skirt and sleeves are seen, blue, his cap and shoes a reddish brown. The shield on the chair handle, and which is repeated beneath the chair, is Argent, a rose gules, seeded or, charged with a V of the second. The rose, and its colour also, allude, it is presumed, to his name, and the V probably stands for Warvicensis, for, though he retained his paternal name, he might at the same time maintain the usual practice of ecclesiastics to be called by the name of their birth-place. The charges of the shield at the head of the chair are more inexplicable. A manuscript in the College of Arms assigns the first quartering to “Rous, of Guy's Cliffe,” but that was probably only taken from this drawing itself. The second quartering is unknown. Appended to the drawing are the following verses:

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

had been buried in the body of that church.

“Johannes Rous, capellanus Cantariae de Guy-Cliffe, qui superporticum australem librariam construxit, et libris ornavit. Obiit 24 Jan. 1491. This Rous was well learned in those days in Mathesi, and was a great historiographer: borne (as it is supposed) of the house of the Rouses, of Ragley, by Aulcester.”

According to this the learned chaplain of Guy’s Cliff not only gave the books, but built the room to contain

them. Possibly he made it his winter study, when the winds had bared the groves of his usual retreat. An old view of the church of Warwick, taken before the great fire which destroyed that town in 1694, shows the South Porch surmounted with Rous's library as then standing; and, by the kindness of an old Correspondent, we shall shortly be able to present to our readers a plate of this view, which has never yet been engraved. J. G. N.

FEMALE BIOGRAPHIES OF ENGLISH HISTORY.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

at Paris, returned to England with
the Duke of Norfolk.” The latter had
been in France as ambassador, and ar-
rived in London on the 7th of Sep-
tember 1553, just in time to be present
at the christening of the Princess Eli-
zabeth, afterwards Queen, who was
his great-niece, her mother Anne Bo.
leyne being the daughter of Thomas
Earl of Wiltshire and Ormond by the
Lady Elizabeth Howard the Duke's
sister.
Whilst the Howards were thus brought
into intermediate connection with the
blood royal, an alliance was con-
tracted between the King's natural
son, who already enjoyed the dignities
of Duke of Richmond and Somerset,
Earl of Nottingham, and High Ad-
miral of England, and the Lady Mary

* In Nott's Life of Surrey, preface, p. xi. (with extracts in the Appendix, p. iii.) is

an account of a Household-book of Thomas Earl of Surrey, extending from 1513 until his accession to the dignity of Duke in 1514, which shows that his constant summer residence was at Tendring Hall, in Stoke by Nayland, Suffolk, and in winter at Hunsdon in Hertfordshire, whither the household moved regularly on the 29th of October. This book proves that the poet Earl of Surrey was in his youth always at home, with the other children.

* The following is an extract from the Rev. Alfred Suckling’s “Memorials of the Antiquities of Essex,” recently published in Weale’s “Quarterly Papers on Architecture.” At Blackmore, near Margareting, “adjoining the north side of the churchyard, a respectable mansion, belonging to the family of Preston, occupies the site of an ancient house of pleasure, possessed by Henry the Eighth. It is still distinguished by its former name of JERicho, which the courtiers of that gallant monarch are said to have invented to disguise the object of their master's visits, who, when his absence from court was observed, was said to be ‘gone to Jericho.” It is a very remarkable situation to have chosen for the purposes of debauchery, as it not only abuts upon the churchyard, but is actually within a stone's cast of the residence of the monks. Here was born Henry's natural son, Henry FitzRoy, on the 18th of June, 1519.”

* Herbert, p. 387; apparently from Du Bellay,+" Le Roi manda incontinent au dit Duc de Northfolk de prendre congé du Roi de France, et de se retirer. Aussi revoqua-t-il le Duc de Richmond, son fils naturel, etant lors à la Cour de Roi de France.” Memoires, vol. xviii. p. 230.

Howard the Duke's only surviving
daughter.
The parties were considered as being
related within the sorbidden degrees of
consanguinity." It was necessary,
therefore, to obtain a dispensation for
the marriage, which bore date the
28th of Nov. 1533.
In his Life of the Earl of Surrey,
the lady's brother, Dr. Nott has re-
marked: “We have been told that
this marriage grew out of the friend-
ship that had long subsisted between
Surrey and the Duke of Richmond, in
consequence of their having been edu-
cated together as children at Windsor.
The ground of this assertion has been
clearly disproved.” The probability is,
that the marriage did not originate so
much in any previous friendship be-
tween these noble youths, as in the
good offices of Anne Boleyne, who
used her influence with Henry to in-
crease the credit and power of the
Duke of Norfolk's family," to whom
she was nearly related : though it
should seem that the King himself
claimed the merit of having made the
match.”7
“Owing to the tender age of both
the Duke of Richmond and the Lady

Mary, the marriage was not formally
celebrated. The youthful Duchess
continued to live with her own friends,
and Richmond, it is probable, went to
reside at Windsor Castle.” It is to
this period that Dr. Nott, with great
reason, proceeds to assign the associa-
tion between Surrey and the “King's
son.”
The Duke of Richmond died, at
about the age of seventeen, on the
22nd of July 1536; and the Duchess,
though not older, but it is believed
rather younger, afterwards remained a
widow. She had some trouble before
she could obtain a settlement of her
dowry, as appears by the following
letter written to her father.
[MS. Cotton. Vespasian, F. xIII. f. 75.]
“Though I am in dowt. how your graces
shall take it, that I shulde thus dally *
troble you wythe my besy letres, yet I
trust yowr graces will consider how thes
mater towcheth me most of any other,
and myne es the part boothe to speke and
sue, if I had not siche a good intercesser
to the kynges mageste en my behalfe as
yowr graces es, where of as yet prosedeth
no effect but wordes, whyches maketh me
thenke the kynges hyegthnes is not assar-
tayned of my holl windowtfwll ryght theren,
for ef he were he is so just a prynce, so

* “Sed quia quarto Consanguinitatis gradu invicem conjuncti estis, vestrum in

hac parte desiderium non potestis adimplere, Canonică dispensatione desuper non obtenta. Henricus Dux Richmondiae et Somerset, Com. de Nottingham, Magnus Admirallus Angl. et praeclara femina Maria Howard, praepotentis viri Tho. Ducis de Norfolcia filia.-Richard Gwent, deputatus pro Petro de Vannes, 26 Nov. 1533, 11° Pontif. Clem. VII.” Nott's Life of Surrey, vol. i. p. xxviii. from Frere's MS. Collections. * The common story is, that the Duke of Richmond and the Earl of Surrey were educated together : but the researches of Dr. Nott could not discover that it rested on any other authority than the conjectural assertion of Lord Herbert of Cherbury, founded on a single passage of Surrey's poem, written when a prisoner in Windsor Castle— So cruel prison how could betide, alas ! As proud Windsor; where I in lust and joy With a King's son my childish years did pass In greater feast than Priam's sons of Troy. From various expressions in the poem Dr. Nott shews (p. 348) that the period alluded to was not that we now understand as childhood, but when both were just entering manhood, in fact after the marriage of the Duke of Richmond and the Lady Mary Howard. * See the Duchess of Norfolk's assertion hereafter. This view is not however supported by the Duke's own statement in the expostulation to the Lords of the Council at his disgrace: in which he says, “What malice both my nesys that it plesed the kynges highnes to marry dyd bere unto me is not unknowen to such lades as kept them in this howse, as my lady Sendler [St. Leger], my lady Tirwit, my lady Kyngston, and others, which herd what the[y] seid of me.” 7 See the Duchess of Richmond's own letter hereafter—“ considering that he himself alone made the marriage," - * Daily.

[ocr errors]

gracyous, and of sych eqyte, that I am sure he wolde not suffer the justyce of his laws to be denyed to me, the winwoorthé desolat widow of his late son, that newer yet was denyed to the poorest jentylwoman in thes realme, and if yt wolld pleas ye, as oftymes I have humblé desyred yowr grace, to gyve me lewe” to come up and sue myne owne cawes, being now hit to good to be in parson an humble suter to his may geste, and do not dowt bowt uppon the sygthe therof his hyegthnes shuld be mowed to hawe compasyon on me, consyderenge that he hemselfe alone mayd the marvage, and to thenke that it shalbe myche hys majesty's honore to graun'e me that that his laws gewe' me, to mayntayn me, the desolat wydowe of his late son, in the degre that his mayjesty hath kalled me to. Yet, never the lesse, puttynge my hole mater en to your graces handes, and my lorde prevye seals, who as ye wrytt hathe promesed to be good lorde theryn, most humblé desyereng yowr blessenge, I bede your graces farwal.

“Frome Kengengal [Kenninghall] thes wadenesday.

“by yowr humble dowther “MARY Rych EMio ND.”

Directed, “To my were [very] good lord and father the Dewke of Norfolke, thes be delyvered.”

“My Lord Privy Seal” was Cromwell, to whom the letters of the Duchess of Norfolk introduced to the reader on the former occasion were addressed. In her letter of 24 Oct. 1537, the Duchess writes to him thus:

“I here sey my do;ter Rechemonde hathe not hyr Jointre yet. And yt wold plese yow, my lorde, to move the kynges grace that he schuld not graunte my doster off Rechemond her Jointre, tylle I be sure of myne Jointre, by the meynes of yow a word off the kynges moth my lorde my husbonde darre not say may.”

Again,

“I thyncke by the law I schuld have my Jointre as welle as my do;ter of Rechemonde, for the kynges grace had never a peyny 2 for my lorde of Rechemond, for qwyne Anne * gatt the maryage dere for my lorde my husbond, when sche dyd

* Leave. * i. e. received no consideration.

[ocr errors][merged small]

“Cum chariss, consanguineus noster Henricus nuper Dux Richmondiae et Somerset et Comes Nott. jam defunctus in tenera aetate sua dominam Mariam filiam charissimi consanguinei nostri Tho. Ducis Norf. cepit in uxorem, qui quidem nuper Dux Rich. et Som. ante carnal. cop. inter ipsum et dominam Mariam habitam viam universae carnis ingressus fuerit; et quia eadem domina Maria contra mentem ejusdem Ducis non habet ut asseritur de sua propria unde juxta nobilitatem suam decenter vivere possit, nec (ut accepimus) dotem suam contingentem de libero tenemento quod fuit ejusdem nuper Ducis facile recuperare possit. Nos, &c." See more of the document, but not entire, in Nott, Appx. p. xcvi. with other grants to the Duchess.

After the lapse of nearly ten years, it appears from her father's own statement, that in 1546 he endeavoured to conciliate the family of Seymour by offering her in marriage to the younger of the two brothers, at the same time proposing other cross alliances between the two families.

“Upon the tuysday in Whitsonweke last past I brake to his Majesté most humblé besechyng hym to help that a mariage myght be had betwene my doghter and Sir Thomas Seimour ; and wheras my son of Surrey hath a son and dyvers doghters, that with his favour a crossemariage myght have be made betuene my lord gret chamberlayne" and them; and also wheras my son Thomas hath a son that shall by his mother" spend a thowsand markes a yere, that he myght be in like wise maried to one of my seid lordes doghters. I report me to your lordships whether myn intent was honest in this mocion or not.”"

* Give.

So before in the same letter, “my father had

boxth (i.e. bought) my lorde of Westmereland for me.”

* Queen Anne Boleyne. * Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford. * Lord Thomas Howard, aft

erwards Viscount Bindon, had - daughter and coheir of John Lord Marney. , had married the younger

* Expostulation addressed to the Privy Council, MS. Cotton, Titus B, II,

« PreviousContinue »