Chapter XXX: Sixteenth Century Women Students 295 (9)

Item to Thomas Collins Scrivener for drawing and ingrossyng an abstract to be delivered for the justices, xˢ.

Item for the search of three wills, iijˢ.

Item for an Almanack, jᵈ.

They seem to have had their almanacks regularly after this.

John Fabyan and Thomas Tickeridge, 1606-1608, were not literary.

Thomas Bond and Christopher Bennet, 1608-1610, paid

Item for an Almanack & paper, iiiᵈ.

To Mr. Burte the preacher for three sermons, xxˢ.

For four bookes of Common Prayer, xixˢ.

Thomas Walker and John Mulys, 1610-1612.

6th week. Item paid for a Spunge Ink & paper, xiᵈ ob.

5th August 1611. Item payd for a paper booke of two quyers redie bownde for the Sexton to register the names of all them that are to be buried under everie pewe, and for other paper to be spent about other businesses and for boathier furthe & backe, iiˢ xᵈ.

Payd for twoe hundred leaves of parchment & for the ruling and binding of the same at iijᵈ the leafe to Registre the Christenings buryings & weddynges therein, lˢ.

Item for three prayer bookes for the Churche, xiiᵈ.

Item paid unto the preacher for a sermon made the Vᵗʰ of August, viˢ viiiᵈ.

This would probably relate to the Gowry conspiracy, keenly remembered by James.

Item for a sermon made the xviiᵗʰ of August, viˢ viiiᵈ.

Item paid to the preacher for a sermon made more, viˢ viiiᵈ.

Item payd to John Roade for wrytynge the names of all such persons as were presented for not receiving of the holy Communion at Eeaster last past 1611, iiijᵈ.

The chapter naturally closes here, completing the changes through the four reigns, with the new edition of the Bible, published 1610-11; since then comparative permanence of creed and custom has prevailed. Each point seems trifling in itself, but helps to piece together the fragments of the past into one connected whole.

_“Athenæum,” 12th June 1897._

XXI

OLD WORKINGS AT TINTERN ABBEY

Among the heterogeneous papers of the Court of Requests are preserved a few which remain of general importance.

A complaint was made on 25th June, 2 James I, by “the Governors, Assistants, and Society of the City of London, of and for the Mineral and Battery Works,” which gives interesting details as to the advance of science, and the progress of manufactures at that time. It is stated that the late Queen Elizabeth had been told by William Humphrey, Saymaster of the Mint in the Tower, that by great efforts he had induced

one Christopher Shutz, now deceased, an Almaine, born at St. Annen Burgh, under the obedience of the Elector of Saxony, a workmaster of great conning, knowledge and experience, as well in the finding of the Calamine Stone, called in Latin _Lapis Calaminaris_, and in the proper use thereof, and in the mollifying and manuring of Iron and Steele and drawing and forging the same into Wyer and plates for the making of armour, and for divers other necessary and profitable uses, to come over with him to this country.

The Queen, through her good hope in the possible success of this enterprise under Shutz, granted letters patent at Westminster, dated 17th September, 7 Eliz., giving full power to the said William Humphrey and Christopher Shutz, their deputies, servants, and workmen,

to search, dig, mine for the Calamine Stone and all kinds of Battery wares, to make cast-worke and wyer of Lattin, Iron, Steel, and Battery, to manure and work into all manner of plate and wyer,

to their own profit for ever. And they were allowed to build any houses suitable for their work, at their own cost and charges, on her royal property or the property of any of her subjects, without any let or hindrance, with various other powers, privileges, and immunities for raising sufficient stock, for building of watercourses, for provision of wood and coal, paying wages and buying tools, and other things necessary. William Humphrey and Christopher Shutz gave concessions of shares to others, and these were, by another royal patent, incorporated into a company by the name of “the Governors, Assistants, and Society of the Mineral and Battery Works.” It seemed to have succeeded. The Right Hon. William, the late Earl of Worcester, owned lands in Tintern and Chapelhill, co. Monmouth, with divers houses built thereon, and in 29 Eliz., in consideration of a large sum of money paid as a fine, he leased them to the Society for twenty-one years by a legal deed, which might be renewed. This included all the edifices in the parish of Chapelhill, in the lordship of Tintern, co. Monmouth, that were erected, or would be erected for their works; also as much as they required of the stream called Angewe Brook, with the waters, watercourses, banks, dams, walls, fences, and enclosures for its necessary course to the houses and buildings. The land extended from the Tryenbridge to the meadow then in the tenure of John Edwyn _alias_ Barbor and Margaret his wife, and so much of the old ditch or watercourse which was digged to convey water out of the brook to the mill that sometime stood within the walls or precincts of Tintern Abbey, and all the banks and enclosures of this old ditch from the beginning of the old issue out of Angewe Brook to where the Barbor’s hedge crossed the ditch, and the new ditch made lately to bring the water back to Angewe Brook, as far as it led to Tryenbridge, with free ingress and egress, liberty to dig, to convey away, and to make water passages for their use. The only rights reserved to the Earl were the woods and mines on the estate; all other rights were transferred to the Company, it paying £4 a year as rent, and rendering certain services to the lord.

* * * * *

They reminded King James that he had renewed the patent on 22nd January last past, and signified his royal pleasure that he would grant a new and more effective patent, and no one should interfere with the Company. They set to work 600 poor people on the spot, and helped 20,000 others of the people. Notwithstanding this, one John Phillipps and Gwenllian his wife, late wife of Thomas Welsh _alias_ Irish, deceased, of Chapelhill,

being riotous and outrageous and evil disposed persons, and intending the let and hindrance of the wire works at Tintern, the utter undoing of the poor people therein working, and the disturbance of the Company in its quiet proceedings, having gotten into their hands the deeds of the lease made by the Earl and other deeds belonging to the Company, have made forcible entry by outrageous means, as by throwing of scalding water, and with spits and other desperate weapons have forced out and kept out the Company’s workmen out of their working places, and houses built upon the ground for them

by the plaintiffs’ predecessors, to their great loss. These defendants also

stop the watercourses which issue from these works and work-houses, so that the wheels of the other houses are so drowned in water they cannot turn. This is to the great impoverishment of the poor workmen and the many thousands who live by working the wire to divers uses, which is first made by these workmen. If these defendants are allowed to continue their oppressions, it will become a general harm to the whole dominion, for many depend on wire to make woolcards and many other things of great necessity, which cannot elsewhere be so plentifully had, except from foreign parts.

In tender consideration of their difficulties, seeing they cannot sue at common law because they have not the lease granted them by the Earl, and do not remember the exact dates, and also for the present necessity of the continuance and daily keeping up of the wire works and poor people at work, and as the action of the defendants is an intolerable offence not only to the plaintiffs, but to the commonwealth, and work may not be stayed or hindered a week without great loss all round; they therefore pray a privy seal to be sent to John Phillipps and Gwenllian his wife to appear immediately, and also an injunction to them to stop all their proceedings until they have answered this complaint.

Unfortunately the rest of the suit is not to hand, and we have no “answer,” “replication,” or “depositions” to supply further details, but they may be found yet. Meanwhile Dr. Owen might turn his researches to a practical use and excavate the site--perhaps even find the Company’s books, with the name of Bacon as a shareholder, a little further up the Wye, where the Anjou Brook enters it.

“_Athenæum,” 24th June 1911._

XXII

“MR. SHAKSPEARE ABOUT MY LORDE’S IMPRESO”

Mr. Stevenson’s discovery among the lately calendared Belvoir MSS. of an apparent reference to the poet stirred the Shakespearean world. It encouraged us in the hope that somehow, somewhere, we might some day discover more important facts; but nevertheless it puzzled us. It did not quite seem to fit into the known facts of the poet’s career. There is an indefiniteness, too, about the wording of this entry which makes it different from the ordinary records of the Steward’s book of payments. It is not “for,” but “_about_ an Impreso.” There is no suggestion of the material on or in which the device was worked, nor whether the idea, complete in some material, or only the design of it, was referred to.

The impresa was a private and personal device, as distinguished from the family coat of arms, and was especially used in tournaments and masques when there was some attempt at concealing one’s identity. A coat of arms told a man’s name as clearly as written or spoken words; an impresa, especially when used for the first time, would be known only to the intimate personal friends of the wearer.

The Belvoir impresa of 1613 was about to be used for the first time. Roger, Earl of Rutland, who, in company with the Earl of Southampton, in 1599 “went not to the Court, but only to see plays every day,” had died, and had been succeeded by his brother Francis, who was now preparing for a Court tournament.

There is nothing surprising in the poet’s being employed by the Earl of Rutland, nor in his being able to design a device, nor even in his using his hands in fashioning it. His association with Burbage seems to strengthen the fact. The players of the day knew about preparations for festivities, and all the Burbages seem to have been handy men. We know that the poet was interested in heraldry through the Sonnets and the plays, as well as through his method of securing arms for himself.

The Steward’s account in which the reference to Shakespeare occurs runs as follows:

Aug., 1612, to Aug., 1613.

Account of Thomas Screven.

Payments in 1612-13.

5 Feb. Paied to Edward Morris, embroderer, in parte for my Lord’s masking suyte, xl_li._ 12 Feb. More to him, xx_li._--lx_li._ ...

29 Martii. Paied to Mrs. Gascard, a French woman in Black Friers, for the plume for my Lords caske, fetheres, &c. ... xxiiij_li._ ...

14 May. Paid for a forest seale of my Lords arms of 4 coats & creast & forest mantlings, the silver 4 oz., xx_s._ Making & graving it, vi_li._ x_s._ In all, vii_li._ 10_s._

21 May. Paied to Morris the embroderer in full for the masking suite, xxiii_li_. ...

14 Dec. Paied to Fisher, bytmaker, for a paire of guilt styrrops, xxiiij_s._ A guilte snaffle, xii_s._ A silvered snaffle, x_s._ A paire of silvered stirrops, xx_s._ Bought in July last for the King and Prince, iii_li._ vi_s._ ...

21 Martii. Paied to Knight that drewe the armes with helmet, crest, and mantlinges in 4 eschocheons upon 2 banners for 2 trumpettes, and making them up, being 20 coates, viii_li._ Ryban, xvi_d._ ... viii_li._ i_s._ iiii_d._

31 Martii. To Mr. Shakspeare _in gold_, about my Lord’s impreso, xliv_s._; To Richard Burbage for paynting & making yt, _in gold_, xliv_s._ ... iiii_li._ viii_s._

The name of Shakespeare does not occur again, but, curiously enough, another entry shows Richard Burbage at similar work, at a time very near the close of the poet’s life:

25 Martii, 1616. Given to Richard Burbidge for my Lorde’s shelde, and for the embleance, iiii_li_. xviii_s._

It seemed quite clear that the above entry referred to the poet, and yet many students have an uneasy sense of dissatisfaction, and I have been tempted to mention two alternative theories. The money that was paid him “about my Lord’s impreso” might have been paid him to convey to some one else; or the entry might refer to another “Mr. Shakspeare” altogether. There was one in London at the time. A John Shakspeare married Mary Gooderidge in St. Clement Danes on 3rd February 1604-5. He was a fashionable bit-maker, was in the royal service, and might well be called “Mr.” by the Belvoir Steward. He was probably master of the Loriners’ Company, though we cannot be sure of this, as the early books of the guild are lost. But we know that in St. Clement Danes he was buried: “John Shackespeare, the King’s Bitmaker, 27 Jan., 1633”; and that the King was indebted to him at his death to the extent of £1,692 11_s._ (See my “Shakespeare’s Family,” p. 147.)

Many entries of payments to him are recorded in the Wardrobe Accounts of Charles as Prince and King, for wares concerning horses, carriages, tournaments, and tiltings--so many that I can only here give limited selections.

In the account of Sir John Villiers, Master of the Wardrobe to Prince Charles---Exchequer Q.R. 434 (4), 1617--there appear:

To John Shakespeare for 18 Bitts, with guilte Bosses at xx_s._ a piece, xviii_li._

More for 18 cavasson irons at x_s._ a piece, ix_li._

To John Shakespeare for a strong removing vice for the sadler’s office, 1_s._

To John Shakespeare for trymming of bittes, for esses, cheynes, bolts, rivets, curbes, and new mouthing, and for all manner of reparacions, as under the hand of the Clarke of His Highness’ stable appeareth, lv_li._ ii_s._

In the second account of the same nobleman--Exchequer Q.R. 434 (9), 1617--there occur:

To John Shakespeare for 10 dozen of hunting snaffles at xl_s._ the dozen, xx_li._

To John Shakespeare for 30 Bitts with caste [_i.e._, chased] and guilte bosses at xxxvi_s._ a piece, liv_li._

To John Shakespeare for two guilte bitts with guilt bosses for his highness’ use at v_li._ a piece, x_li._

To John Shakespeare for 20 Bitts with guilte and graven Bosses for Caroch Horses at xxx_s._ a piece, xxx_li._

In the third account of Viscount Purbeck, Master of the Wardrobe to Prince Charles--Exchequer Q.R. 434 (14), 1618-19--

To John Shakespeare for 4 Bitts, with caste and guilte Bosses at xx_s._ a piece, iiij_li._

More for viii. wattering Bittes at xii_s._ vi_d._, v_li._

To John Shakespeare for 18 Bittes with caste & guilte bosses at xxx_s._ a bitt, xxvii_li._

More to him for Caroche Bittes with engraven & gilt bosses at xxx_s._ a bit, xxii_li._ x_s._

To John Shakespeare for two guilt & silvered Bitts engraven and guilte all over at v_li._ a piece, x_li._

The fourth account of Viscount Purbeck still points to the rich work done--Exchequer Q.R. 435 (6), 1620--

To John Shakespeare for xiiii bittes guilt, silvered, and chast at v_li._ x_s._ a piece, iiiˣˣ xvii_li._

To one payre of bosses richly ornamented, 1_s._

In the account of Lord Compton--Exchequer Q.R. 435, 14, 1622--there are varieties:

Expenses of the Royal Green Velvet Carroache....

To John Shakespeare for v Byttes with guilte bosses at xv_s._ a Bytt, iii_li._ xv_s._ ...

For the Blue Velvett coach sent beyond seas....

To John Shakespeare for sixe coach byttes, with guilt bosses charged with the armes of England at xxiii_s._ vi_d._ a piece comes to vii_li._ vi_s._

At the end of the accounts are “abatements” of many kinds, apparently from overcharging. John Shakespeare’s work has never an “abatement” against it, so he evidently either charged fair prices, or had special Court favour.

In a tilting account of Lord Compton’s--Exchequer Q.R. 435 (16)--we find for one quarter in 1622:

To John Shakespeare for 7 Bittes with caste & guilt bosses for coursers at xx_s._, vii_li._

For 12 Watering Bitts for Coursers at ii_s._ vi_d._, xxx_s._

More to the said John Shakespeare for 8 cavasson irons at v_s._, xl_s._

For esses, chaines, curbes, boults, rivets, rings, and all other reparacions, iv_li._ xv_s._

To John Shakespeare for 4 bittes with caste & guilt bosses for coursers at xx_s._ iv_li._

4 Bittes for the bottle horses [_i.e._, botell, pack, or hay horses] at vi_s._ a piece, xxiv_s._

“The perticulers of the seconde accompte of Spencer, Lord Compton, Master of the Wardrobe and the Robes to the High & Mighty Prince Charles, Prince of Wales,” etc.--(Exchequer Q.R. 435 (20), 1622-3):

To John Shakespeare for one bitt playne guilt with caste and guilte bosses, iii_li._

For 4 Bitts plaine silvered at l_s._ a bitt, x_li._

For 2 Bittes chaste with goulde and silver at iii_li._ a piece, vi_li._

For Silvered Boults, rings, and hooks for curbes and esses, v_li._

For 3 snaffles, hatchte, and gilte at xiii_s._ iiii_d._ a piece, xl_s._

“The Accompt of Lord Compton”--Exchequer 436 (1), 20-21 James I--gives a long list, among which are the items--

Three bottell byttes without bosses at vi_s._ a piece, xviii_s._

For trymming & moutheing 22 byttes for Coursers at iii_s._, iii_li._ [_sic_].

In 1624 there is a little variety in Lord Compton’s bill--Exchequer Q.R. 436 (2):

To John Shakespeare for 8 Bittes for the horses of the crimson carroche [“For the Queen of Bohemia” is the marginal reference] at xv_s._ a bitte, vi_li._

To John Shakespeare for 6 bittes with chased and gilt bosses at xx_s._ a piece, vi_li._

For a dozen of Snaffles, xx_s._

To John Shakespeare for 2 gilt and silvered bitts for the said sadles, v_li._

For 2 watering snaffles, iii_s._ iiii_d._

The Earl of Northampton gives his accounts in a great roll, with the sum total of each bill and the name of the workman, referring to the special books. In this occur the name of John Shakespeare and the amount of his bills; but it seems unnecessary to do more than give the reference--Exchequer Q.R. 436 (3). Collier noted some of the entries.

With all this special work on lines associated with tournaments, it is evidently _possible_ that John Shakespeare might be the person referred to in the Belvoir accounts. As there is more than a possibility that this John is the cousin who disappears from Snitterfield, the association with Burbage may be naturally explained. I have not made up my own mind upon the subject, but so many have asked me to put forward the facts that I thought it wise to do so. If there is nothing more in them, they at least prove that there was another contemporary and well-to-do “Mr. Shakespeare” in Court service, engaged in work which might have suggested employment “about my Lorde’s impreso.”

_“Athenæum,” 16th May 1908._

XXIII

“THE QUEEN’S PLAYERS” IN 1536

Dramatic records of Henry VIII’s reign are very scarce, and therefore it may be of interest to some students to have the text of a little Chancery suit to which I was guided through the studies of Mr. J. S. Young. It is undated by the scribe, but a proximate date may be reckoned. The appeal was addressed to “Sir Thomas Awdley,” who was appointed Chancellor in 1533, and he was made Lord Audley of Walden, 29th November 1538. The complaint states that the company were Queen Jane’s players, “late her servants.” As she was married only in June 1536, and as the cause of the dispute was referred back to “a year and three quarters past,” and she died in 1537, the complaint must have been brought just before the Chancellor was ennobled in 1538.

The document does not tell us much. It only gives the names of the chief members of the company as John Young, John Sly, David Sotherne, and John Mountfield (names that appear in the Lord Chamberlain’s books); and shows that they had been travelling professionally in “the northern parts,” and came to trouble over their packhorse.

The only earlier notice of “the Queen’s company” was in 1532, when it must have been Queen Katherine’s, whose waning power may have accounted for the trifling reward at Oxford “given to her players by the President’s orders,” viz. 12_d._ (E. K. Chambers, ii, 249.)

_Early Chancery Proceedings. Uncalendared_

(Bundle 931, 11, Y., no date given.)

TO SIR THOMAS AWDLEY, LORD CHANCELLOR.

In most humble wise sheweth unto your goode Lordshippe your dayly orator John Yonge mercer, that whereas he with one John Slye, David Sotherne, and John Mounffeld, late servants unto the most gracious Queene Jane, abought a yere and 3 quarters past, to thentent for the further increase of lyvinge to travail into the north partes in exercising theire usuall feates of playinge in interludes, he your said orator, with his other companions aforesaid, hyred a gelding of oon Randolphe Starkey to beare there playing garments, paying for the use of the same gelding twenty pence weekley till there comyng home ageyne, at which time the said Starkey well and truly promysed to your said orator and other his said companions that the said gelding should be goode, and able to performe there journey where of trouthe the same geldinge was defectyve, and skarsly servyed them in there said journey, by the space of four wekes, by occasion whereof your said orator, with other his said companyons, susteyned great damadge, as may evidently appere to all that have experience in such travayles and affayres. Ageynst whom they can attayne small _redress_ onles they shuld leve other their more necessary affayers to be undoon, yet nevertheless the said Starkey, intending to have more for the hyer of the said geldinge then of equitie is due, And also to charge your said orator of the hoolle hyer, where of trought he made his bargayne and receyved ernest for the hyer of the said geldinge, as well of thother thre aforenamed as of your said orator. He late commenced a playnt of det uppon the demande of twenty-four shillings only agaynst your said orator before the Sheriffes of London, who uppon the same caused hym to be arrested, in which accion he declared upon a graunte of payment of forty shillings for the said geldinge to be made by yor said orator sole, whereof he affyrmed hymself to be satisfied of sixteen shillings, wherewith yor said orator, having no lerned councill, pleaded that he owed him nothinge, &c.... In which Accyon your said Orator is nowe lyke to be condempned onles yor goode Lordshippes lefful favour be to hym shewed in this behalf. In consideracion whereof it may please the same to graunte a writ of Cerciorari to be directed unto the Lord Mayor and Sherevez of London commandinge theym by the same to remove the tenor and cause of youre saide orator’s arrest before your Lordship in the King’s Highe Courte of the Chancery at a certaine daye by your gracious Lordship to be lymytted, to thentent the cyrcumstances thereof maye be by your saide Lordeship examined and ordered according to equytie and good conscience. And your said orator shall ever more praye to God for the prosperous preservation of your goode Lordship in Honor.

ATKYNS (attorney).

Further papers concerning this suit do not seem to have been preserved. But it gives the earliest picture yet known of “the glorious vagabonds who erstwhile carried fardels on their backs” under the title of “the Queen’s players.”

_“Athenæum,” 24th January 1914._

XXIV

MARY’S CHAPEL ROYAL AND HER CORONATION PLAY

No previous sovereign had made on his coronation so sudden and complete a change in the Chapel Royal of his predecessor as Mary did. The Bishop of Norwich was the Dean; six priests replaced so many clerks and gentlemen; little boys to bear censers and crosses were introduced; the communion table became the altar once more; the English service was replaced by the Latin; the metrical Psalms were banished, and the old Psalters and Antiphonals took their place. Doubtless to the gentlemen of the Chapel who had taken the oath of fealty this latter change was welcome, from the Psalms sung in unison (for there is no mention of Crowley’s four parts having been used at Court) to the richer harmonies and more “curious” music of the old service. But Mary’s changes marked conservative, not revolutionary, ideas. She never thought her young brother old enough to understand or to judge for himself in matters of such great moment, and she wanted to conform to the customs of her progenitors on their accession in so far as she could.

Therefore, among other things, she ordered a play to be performed at her Coronation, and the “gentlemen of the Chapel Royal,” as was their wont, were to perform it.

Meanwhile her poet, whoever he was, must have taken his cue from a general caution. On 16th August the Privy Council prepared a “Proclamation for reformation of busy medlers in matters of religion, and for redresse of Prechers, printers, players.” This was printed[93] and circulated on 18th August, and treated of “the playing of Interludes and printing of false fond bookes, ballettes, rhymes, and other lewde treatises in the English tongue concerning matters now in Question and controversy.” No one was to play an interlude without the Queen’s licence in writing. Collier, “History of the Stage,” i, 154, says that “a play had been ordered on the occasion of her coronation, which, we may presume, was performed by the gentlemen of the Chapel.” But he says no more. Stowe does not further allude to it, and the name of the play is not known. Others state that it was postponed until Christmas. Therefore it is of some importance that certain definite facts should be recorded and preserved concerning it. Apparently the play _was_ performed by the gentlemen of the Chapel, and their dresses, which had probably been prepared before, were given out to them on 30th September.

Among the papers subsidiary to the Wardrobe Accounts is a Royal Warrant (Excheq. Acc., 427, 5 (9)):

TO OUR TRUSTY AND RIGHT WELBELOVED COUNSAILOR SIR
EDWARD WALGRAUE KNIGHT, Mʳ OF OUR GREAT WARDROBE.

Marye the Quene. By the Quene. We will and comande you furthwith upon the sight hereof, to provide and deliver to the berer hereof, for the gentlemen of oure Chapell for a play to be playde before us for the feaste of oure coronacion, as in tymes past hathe ben accustomed to be don by the gentlemen of the Chapell of oure Progenitors, all suche nessesary stuff and other thinges as hereafter followithe.

Item, _Genus Humanum_, for a gowne purple breges satten, vii yardes (purple)

Item, V Virgins’ Cassockes of white breges satten, and vii. yardes for euery of them, that is to saye xxxv. yardes

Item, Reason, Verytie and Plentie, euery of them vii yardes purple (breges satten), xxi. yardes (purple)

Self-Love, a Cassocke of rede Satten of Breges, vii yardes

Care a Cassocke of grene Satten of Breges, vii yardes

Skarsitie, a woman’s Cassocke of Russett Satten of Breges, vii yardes

Disceate, a Cassocke of rede breges satten 7 yardes

Sickeness, Febleness, Deformitie, three longe gownes, one of Tawny Satten, the other of ashe-colored satten, the other blacke satten, for every of them viii yardes, xxiv yardes

For the Epilogge a Cassocke of blacke Damaske and ix yardes of purple Damaske for a longe gowne for the same, xvi yardes

Item, a shorte gowne of rede damaske for the Ende, vi yardes

Item, thre shorte gownes of purple breges satten for the Ende, vi yardes for euery of them, xviii yardes

The bad angell iii. yardes of Kersey, and winges for the good angel and the bad, three thromde hates and tenn dosson of counters, and what you shall lake for the furniture hereof to provide and se them furnished, and theis shalbe yor warrante in this parte. Yeven at oure Pallace of Westminster the last of Septembre in the firste yere of oure reign.

Summa: Of Damaske xxi yardes, of breges satten vi score xiii yardes, of Kersey thre yardes.

Among the old plays which have come down to us, either in print or in manuscript, I cannot find any which would fit this cast. It could not have been “The Castle of Perseverance,” as Humanum Genus there enters as a child, and except the “good and bad angel,” the characters are all different; nor the other allegory called by Collier “Mankind,” which gives Mercy, New Guise, and Now-a-days, Mischief, Nought, etc. Nor could it have been “Respublica,” said to have been made in the year 1553, 1 Mary, and to have been played before the Queen. The Prologue is spoken by the author himself in the character of the Poet, and the other characters are Respublica (England), Authority, Policy, Oppression, Avarice, Insolence, Adulation, Nemesis, Misericordia, Justitia, Honesty, Pax, People. Nor could it have been the old play of Nature and Reason; nor the Interlude of Youth. So it may be reckoned as an interlude of which neither the name nor the text is as yet known, but it may some day be discovered through this cast. Of its plot we may at least guess that it would be in supposed prophetic relation to the Queen’s reign, and that all the good characters would triumph over the bad. Of its author no clue has as yet been found.

John Heywood was an interlude writer of the time, formerly a singing gentleman in the Chapel, and jester to Queen Mary. Udall had written plays, and various scholars of the universities had tried their hands. It might have been put together by one of these, or by one of the gentlemen of the Chapel: Richard Farrant, afterwards Master of the Children of Windsor, is known to have written interludes, and so is William Hunnis, author of many pieces in “The Paradise of Dainty Devises,” and many religious poems in the following reign, when he was also the Master of the Children of the Chapel Royal, and designer of the great festivities at Kenilworth, 1575. His friend Thomas Newton writes of him that in the prime of youth he had written besides “sonets sweete,” also “interludes and gallant lays,” which have not come down to us.

If we do not know the author, there is a good deal to learn about the actors. From the “Order of the Royal Household of Edward IV” we know their necessary qualifications and duties, not their numbers; for while there were twenty gentlemen and eight children in Henry VIII’s time, in Edward’s they were raised to thirty-two gentlemen and twelve children, a number kept up by Mary. From the royal warrants to the Keeper of the Great Wardrobe we know that they all had new liveries for the Coronation. A further warrant for new surplices includes several other small items for chapel use, and a list of the names of the gentlemen. As there is no list previous to 1561 printed, except that of Hawkins and Burney in their “History of Music,” without date, and with the hazy reference to “A MS. in the British Museum,” which has thus indefinitely been followed by all musical writers and by Rimbault in his “Cheque-Book of the Chapel Royal,” it will be as well to print this duly authenticated list here. One referring to the mourning for Edward VI appeared in “Archaeologia.” I have found three others at the British Museum with definite references and one at the Society of Antiquaries, but none of them agrees exactly with that of Hawkins and Burney, the original of which has yet to be found.

EXCHEQUER ACCOUNTS, 427. 5, (10) BY THE QUENE.

Marye the Quene. We will and commande you furthwith upon the sight hereof to delyver, or cause to be delyuerid, unto our servaunte Robert Bassocke, serieante of our Vestrye, to be by hym employed within our chappell aboute the seruyce of God, these parcells followynge, that is to saie for our Subdeane of the said Chappell two surplices of drawne worke; for 32 gentilmen and yomen, threscore and foure surplices; for 12 children, foure and twentie surplices; for foure children for Sensers and tapers, eight Albes for ravyshmente with Amyttes to them; for three children to carie three crosses in precession, sixe albes with Amyttes to them; for the High Altar prestes, deacon, and subdeacon, for foure sewtes, twelve Albes, and for corporas clothes four elles of fyne clothe; for the two lowe alters foure Albes and foure elles for corporas cloths. For the high aultar foure aulter clothes of five Elles apece, for towelles for the said high aulter foure Ellys, and two Ellys for the Lowe Alters; for sixe Aulter clothes for the Lowe Aulters eighteen elles. Also two payer of Tynne Crewettes, one Lether potte for water and one gyspay of lether for wyne. Also sixe peace of Tape for tucking girdelles. Also twelve dosen of silke poyntes for Copes. Also one hundreth crochettes, and five hundreth hookes, for green clothe to folde stuffe upon three veardes. Also one coffer to trusse in plate. Also two bare hydes to cover the stuffe in cartes, one hammer and one payre of pynsons. Also one small fyre shovell to fyll censers, and a grete shovel to carie coles. And these our lettres shalbe yor suffycient warraunte and dischardge in that behalf. Yeven under our signet at our mannor of St Jeamys, the 17ᵗʰ day of September in the first yere of our reigne.

To the Officers of oure grete Wardrobe for the tyme being and to any of them

THE COURT OFFICERS.... THE CHAPPELL ...

Warraunte for the Chapell Lyueryes against the coronacion, f. 23.

The Bushop of Norwiche, Deane of the Chapell.
Emery Tuckfelde, preste.
Nicholas Archebolde, preste.
William Walker, preste.
Roberte Chamberlain, preste.
William Gravesend, preste.
John Angell, preste.
William Hechons.
Thomas Byrde.
Richarde Bowre.
Robert Perye.
William Barbour.
Robert Richmonte.
Thomas Wayte.
Thomas Tallis.
Nicholas Melawe.
Thomas Wright.
John Bendbowe.
Robert Stone.
John Shepherdes.
William Mauperly.
George Edwardes.
Robert Marecocke.
William Hinnes.
Rice Aleworth.
Thomas Palfreman.
Roger Centon.
Lucas Caustell.
Richarde Farrante.
Edwarde Addams.
Mr. John Singer, gospeller preste.
Robert Bassock, Serjeante of the Vestrey.
Thomas Causton.
Richard Luen.
John Denman.
Walter Thirlbye.
Morres Tedder.
Hugh Williams.
xii Children of the Chappell.

It may be noted that there are only thirty-one instead of thirty-two. It is possible that one has been accidentally omitted, probably John Lucam, yeoman; or some one may have refused even then to take the oath of allegiance. Several other names appear in other lists. Every one of these, in his day, must have been of some note.

The Chapel Royal was the haven of the best musical talent of the day. Every music lover knows of Shepherd, Tallis, Farrant; and Marbeck’s service was harmonized by these in conjunction with some of the minor names above. Thomas Byrde was the father of William Byrde, the pupil and associate of Tallis. Thomas Palfreyman was a well-known writer on moral philosophy, as well as a musician.

We have no clue to the names of the twenty-three performers selected from these, either for their fitness, or as a special mark of honour. Richard Bowyer was the Master of the Children then, William Hunnis and Richard Farrant were Masters of the Children afterwards, so these three would probably have definite histrionic powers. Of their appearance we know little. We only know of one of them, William Hunnis, that he was a very handsome young man, as this is stated in the examinations of the prisoners at the Tower in 1556.

As to the day and hour of the performance, there is no definite information. John Stow mentions that during her progress from the Tower to Westminster on Saturday 30th September

At Fanchurch was a costly pageant made by the Genouwayes, at Grace Church Corner there was another pageant made by the Easterlings. At the upper end of Grace Street there was another pageant very high, made by the Florentines.... One other pageant at the little conduit in Cheape next to Paul’s, made by the Cittie, where the Aldermen stood ... and in Paul’s Churchyard, against the school, one Master Haywood sate in a pageant under a Vine, and made unto her an oration in Latin and English.

It may be remembered that it was _after_ she reached Westminster in the afternoon that she signed the warrant for the dresses. After the Coronation services in the Abbey on Sunday, which are of course well known, came the Coronation feast, the details of which are not so well known, and are worth recording. “She was conveyed in goodly order unto Westmynster Hall to dinner” (Cotton MS., App. xxviii, 24). In MS. 34, 320, f. 97, Brit. Mus., we find the

_Summa Fercularum_ [or number of the dishes] served on Sonday at Westminster ye first of October for ye coronacion off Quene Mary 1553.

First bourd. At ye First Bord sat Regina, ye bishoppe, ye Lady Elizabethe, ye Lady Anne of Cleves, dishes in ye hole 156, with ye kevers 312.

Dukes, Marques, Erles, and all other Lords spirituall and temporall, and ye barons of Thexchequer, to sitt at ye middel bourd, on ye ryght hand off ye hawle, 500 dishes.

Duchesses, Marchionesses, Countesses, and other Ladies of honor at ye middel bourde, on ye left hand of ye hawle, 500 dishes.

Barons of ye V porttes, &c., at ye side bourd upon ye right hand off ye Queene, next ye wall, 450 dishes.

Lord Maior of London &c at ye side board in ye hawle on ye left hand of ye Quene, next the wall 450 dishes.

4900 dishes wast, in all 7112.

The food served at these five boards is most remarkable, and accounts for a considerable part of the levy of £20,000 which Mary made on the City of London. To note it all would take too much space, but the Queen’s dinner is really too interesting to pass. In the same MS. (f. 86) we find:

The Fare at the Royal Table for the Queene, the Bishop, and the Lady Elizabeth, three messe of like fare.

1st course, A warner of the feast. Brewet blanck, viand Sipers. The Wyld Bore’s head. Pheasaunt in Stew. Pestles of red deer powdered. Signets larded with Chawdorne. Capons in hault gr. in brewett. Carpets of Venison in Egerduc. Pikes gr. in Armor. Langetts larded and endored. Herush larded. Doreie or. Friands de Shappord. Custard Royall. Leach solas in Mountaine. Fritters Pomanders. A subtlety made representing a Queene’s Estate, with this Scripture “Vox populi vox Dei. Vivat Regine Marye.”

2nd course. Jelly Blancke in Rocks Pott. Rudge Mange Royal in barrye. Pecock in hackley. Rooe reverste. Bittores larded. Connyes larded. Coungers gr. in soild. Knotts or good Wytts. Brawne or Carpe gr. on soppes in sharpe sawce. Phesaunt larded. Peions. Snights. Venison in paste Royall of fallow and red. Florentyne garnisshed. The Cheste board garnisshed. The tarte melior. Leach Lemoney. Fritters sharp. A Subtlety of ----.

3rd course. Jelly Rubie gilt. Caudelet Royalle. Crane larded. Rayles. Plovers green. Fresh Sturgion. Quailes. Feasaunt in his Royaltye. Larks. A subtletye made of a Castle garnished with armes of England, Fraunce, Ireland, and Spaine. Great Burt in Soile furnishes garnished. Red Deer backt froit. Oranges conserved in paste. Tarte borbonett. Leach Viand. Fritters Roisset. A subtletye made wherein shalbe enclosed with four pillers a device representing vii Cardinal Vertues with their scriptures.

Apparently each of these was reduplicated three times, except the subtleties; and the three “messes” seem to have been one for the Queen, one for the Bishop (_i.e._, of Winchester, who had crowned her that day) and one for the two ladies who sat at her board. That this distinction was carried out may be inferred from the following note:

_Servers._

The Earl of Sussex for the Queen.
Sir Humphrey Ratcliffe for the Bishop.
Sir Anthony Browne for the Ladies.

The most noticeable peculiarity beyond its variety is the apparent setting on of salt and sweet together which is still a custom in Eastern feasts, and the making a second and a third course, as of another complete dinner, also of salt and sweet dishes. The crown of each was the “Subtelty,” a comparatively artistic design in jelly and candied sugar, something like a modern trifle, but always utilized for bearing the motto of the feast, and consequently it was probably the last to be demolished. No wines are mentioned in this manuscript. It must have taken a long time even to eat a morsel of each selection.

And after the feast was over would come into the hall, as was the custom with her progenitors, the gentlemen of her Chapel Royal and perform their play about Humankind and the good and bad angels. The customary prayer for the Queen by the performers, would close the proceedings.

_“Athenæum,” 1st September 1905._

FOOTNOTES:

[93] A copy is preserved by the Society of Antiquaries.

XXV

SIR ANDREW DUDLEY AND LADY MARGARET CLIFFORD, 1553

The Dudley, who with Empson, served Henry VII rather too eagerly in filling the coffers of the State, was sacrificed in the first year of Henry VIII to the resentment of the people. He left three sons, John, Andrew, and Jerome, plain Dudleys. The aspiring ambitions of the eldest were successful beyond his early hopes, and he had worked himself up through all the grades of nobility to the highest place, and greatest power in the land, by the first half of 1553.

The Dudleys were a united family, both through affection and common interests, and John helped his brother Andrew as much as he could, to add to his own strength in Edward’s reign. So plain Andrew Dudley was made Admiral of the Fleet of the North on 27th February 1546-7, and knighted shortly afterwards. He was also made Keeper of Westminster Palace, October 1560, Master of the Robes, and Captain of Guisnes. He did not share in the greater honours the Privy Councillors bestowed on each other on 11th October 1551, when his brother John, then Earl of Warwick, was made Duke of Northumberland. But in 1552-3 Sir Andrew Dudley was made Knight of the Garter, and it became evident that his elder brother meant to shower more honours on him should he himself be successful in his skilfully prepared _coup d’état_. An old Earl of Warwick had been surnamed “the Kingmaker”; this Dudley, Earl of Warwick and Duke of Northumberland, might have been surnamed _the Queenmaker_. By a curious coincidence, all the possible heirs to the throne at that time were women. Northumberland arranged to set aside the will of Henry VIII, in so far as it affected the succession of Mary and Elizabeth, on the ground that their father had determined their illegitimacy in Acts of Parliament which had never been repealed; he followed that will in excluding from succession the Scottish Queen, and he persuaded Edward VI to make a will for himself settling the crown on the heirs of his Aunt Mary, Duchess of Suffolk, younger sister of Henry VIII. Mary had left two daughters, Frances, now Duchess of Suffolk, and Ellinor, late Countess of Cumberland. It has never been explained how Northumberland managed to persuade the Duchess of Suffolk to allow herself to be passed over during her lifetime. But he arranged it somehow, that her eldest daughter, the Lady Jane Grey, should be the chosen heir to Edward’s throne. When he thought he had settled this, he married the Lady Jane to his eldest unmarried son, the Lord Guilford Dudley, and gave her two younger sisters to his friends. The story of the disasters brought thereby on all concerned is universally known.

But it is not so well known that Northumberland’s far-reaching vision had seen and settled with further possible royal successions, and he betrothed his brother Andrew to the sole daughter and heir of Ellinor, Countess of Cumberland. The bare fact is mentioned in the D.N.B., and in some other authorities (not in all). A hitherto unnoted suit has turned up at the Record Office among the uncalendared proceedings of the Court of Requests of Elizabeth, which provides much fuller tragi-romantical details. This is a suit instituted by Sir Robert Dudley, afterwards Earl of Leicester, to secure possession of all his uncle Andrew’s goods, as executor of his will. Ellinor, daughter of Mary, Duchess of Suffolk, had married Henry Clifford, 2nd Earl of Cumberland; and it says much for the power and influence of the Duke of Northumberland in 1553 that he should have made the noble Earl content to give his well-dowered daughter Margaret, great-granddaughter of Henry VII, to a middle-aged landless knight, a widower to boot. The fair young girl, if the D.N.B. is correct in the date of her birth (which it gives as 1540), would be but thirteen years old, though it seems from her examinations later, she was a year or two older. The inclination of the lady is nowhere referred to. It is barely possible there may have been some feelings of affection between the apparently incongruous pair. She may have

Loved him for the dangers he had passed,
And he loved her that she did pity them.

They were duly betrothed, and arrangements proceeded. The earliest preserved reference is in “A Warrant to Sir Andrew Dudley, as Master of the Wardrobe, to take for the Lady Margaret Clifford, daughter to the Earl of Cumberland, and to himself for their wedding apparel, sundry silks and jewels, 8th June, 7 Ed. VI, 1553, M. S. Reg. 18, cxxiv. f. 364.”

On 12th June of the same year a letter was dictated by the Privy Council in favour of Sir Andrew Dudley, concerning a marriage to be concluded “at the King’s request,” but the address is not given in the register. So by the middle of June 1553, Sir Andrew Dudley was gaily preparing for his wedding with the second cousin of the King, a girl who, by the new scheme of the succession, stood next in the line of inheritance of the throne after the Lady Jane Grey and her two sisters.

The Earl of Cumberland had shunned Court life since the death of his wife Ellinor, and had lived with his young daughter at Skipton Castle, in Craven, Yorkshire. He was loth to part with his daughter, even had Sir Andrew had a suitable home to which to take her. Therefore it had been arranged that the bride and bridegroom should reside with the Earl at Skipton, at least for a time. Sir Andrew sent rich gifts of jewels and clothing, collected all his best plate and furniture, and even borrowed some from his friends to adorn the suite of rooms they should dwell in. He seems to have had faithful and capable servants. Oswald Wilkinson, of the city of York, had been gentleman porter at Guisnes when Sir Andrew was in command there; he left when his master left, and followed him to Ireland, where he served him during the last year of Edward VI. And now Sir Andrew sent this trusty servant in charge with sixteen or seventeen others to convey his treasures north to his bride. Among other things there were:

Three cupboards furnished with plate, with a garnish of vessels silver gilt, a Venetian cup with a cover pounced, a salt with certain stones set therein, and one or two pieces of small plate which were thought to be all pure gold.... Also much goodly apparel, both for him and for her, three or more suits apiece, two of them of gold and silver tinsel, the rest of velvet and satin, with buttons and aglets of gold. As for money, none went with them, save a little purse of gold and silver strange coins, in value about £10.

Oswald Wilkinson and Alexander Harrison were present at the unpacking, and thought the things would be worth at least £3,000. Wilkinson made two copies of the inventory, with rough valuation, in the presence of Lady Margaret Clifford, Lady Conyers, Sir Ingram Clifford, James Banks and William Danby, gentleman servants to the Earl, and Mrs. Brograve, gentlewoman to Lady Margaret. Wilkinson signed one of the inventory-books, and gave it to the Lady Margaret, she signed the other, and gave it to him to keep till his master came. The Lady waited for her Lord in the Northern Tower, with the keys of the plate cupboards, the clothes chests, and the jewel coffers in her pocket, while the faithful henchman of her future husband kept the keys of the treasure chamber. They seem to have remained at Skipton nearly three weeks, during the first part of which time Sir Andrew was winding up his affairs, realizing his money, and preparing to follow his wedding gifts to his future home.

But the young King died too soon; too soon for Northumberland, for he had not yet had the Royal Will ratified by his submissive Parliament; too soon for Sir Andrew, for he had not yet wed his lady. Edward’s death was concealed from the outer world for a day or two, while Northumberland and the Council prepared their plans. Then followed an anxious week for the country. But in Skipton Castle there was a special dread. New rulers had sometimes a way of getting rid of collateral connections.

Northumberland and the Council proclaimed the Lady Jane as Queen, and arranged that the Duke of Suffolk should go forth to deal with Mary. But the only Royal action the poor little Queen Jane was ever allowed to do of her own free will, was to insist that her father should stay with her in the Tower, a decision by which she helped to save his life in the first instance. So Northumberland perforce had to go himself, and all his family supported him. He got as far as Cambridge, his forces deserting as he went. The unexpected courage of Mary, the ready response it met, turned the tide of events. The Council he had left behind him in London, bound with an oath to Jane, proclaimed Mary. Northumberland tried to save himself also by proclaiming her in Cambridge. But he was too late. All the Dudley family were arrested, Sir Andrew among them, so he never reached his bride and his treasure waiting for him in Skipton Tower, but was hurried to the Tower of London, in by the Traitor’s Gate.

The Earl of Cumberland had been sitting on the fence. When he heard that Mary had been proclaimed in York, he dropped on the safe side, and to show his love and loyalty took the keys of her treasures from his fair daughter, the keys of the chamber from Dudley’s servants, with both the inventories, and took possession of the property in the name of Queen Mary!

No affronted Sovereign, backed by her people, could afford to pass by treason so determined. Northumberland and some of his chief supporters fell at once. The Baga de Secretis records, under the date of 19th August 1553, the attainder of Sir Ambrose Dudley, Henry Dudley, Esquire, Sir Andrew Dudley, Sir John and Sir Henry Gate, “for levying war against the Queen, and asserting the title of the Lady Jane on the 18th and 19th July, and for taking their way towards Framlingham Castle, to deprive the Queen of her Royal Dignity.” They were all condemned. But Mary was wonderfully merciful. She pardoned the Dudleys, she even released the Duke of Suffolk, father of her rival, because confinement did not agree with his health.

There was an investigation into the traitors’ goods. Oswald Wilkinson was sent to the Tower, on the charge of carrying his master’s goods to Skipton, and he was kept there till the inventories were sent for and gone into. Early in 1554 Sir Andrew Dudley “was created loyal subject, and enabled to take, receive, and enjoy all manner of gifts of land, goods, and household stuff henceforth to him given.” That was cold comfort to a man past his prime, now without place or influence or friends to give him aught. And he wanted his bride. He sent up humble petitions for relief. By-and-by, “the King and Queen, moved with pity, by their letters patent under the Great Seal, granted him all such goods and chattels as had belonged to him on the 22nd July, 1553,” which had afterwards belonged to the King and Queen, and gave him full power and authority “to prosecute all actions or suits or executions concerning the goods, money, debts, against all and every person deteyning them, and in peace quietly to have and enjoy them, as if Sir Andrew Dudley had never been attainted of treason.” But this concession came too late.