Southern Anthology

Families on the Frontiers of the Old South


Matches 151 to 200 of 2,228

      «Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 45» Next»

 #   Notes   Linked to 
151 21st year of Edward I. de Harcourt, Sir Richard (I11490)
152 25 slaves enumerated on schedule McDonald, Andrew Jackson (I6138)
153 25th April 1795. RICHARD HAMLIN of Hancock County to JOEL DICKINSON of the same place for the sum of one hundred and fourteen pounds for a tract of land containing one hundred and eighty two and a half acres in Greene County on the waters of the Beaverdam of Ogeechee and adjoining WILLIAMSON's line and by IGNATIUS FEW's line. Wit: Hen. Graybill, J.P., and B. Rutland. Reg: 1st October 1801.

Abstract at Helen and Tim Marsh, compilers, Land Deed Genealogy of Hancock County, Georgia (Greenville, South Carolina: Southern Historical Press 1997), p. 269. Deed Book E, p. 273.

Dickinson, Joel Putnam (I0075)
154 3 children: Bertrand II; Guillaume II; and Alix. Family F3484
155 3 children: Guillem Ramon; Bernat Berenguer; FNU de Barcelona. Family F5668
156 4 children were born of this union, only one of whom was alive in 1900. Family F0287
157 4 children who did not survive into adulthood. Family F2617
158 43 slaves Hanson, Thomas Kendrick (I0978)
159 50 acres real property improved and 70 acres unimproved, valued at $300.00; Farming implements valued at $100.00; no horses; 3 asses and mules; 5 milk cows; no oxen; 9 other cattle; 11 sheep; 20 swine; stock valued at $305.00; no bushels of wheat; no bushels of rye; 350 bushels of indian corn; no bushels of oats; no pounds of rice; and no pounds of tobacco. Reeves, Richard (I18233)
160 7th March 1798. ZACHARIAH LAMAR of Jefferson County to THOMAS COOPER of Hancock County for the sum of one hundred and seventy five dollars for a tract of land on the waters of the Shoulderbone containing forty five acres adjoining lands MOSES POWELL and OBADIAH RICHARDSON, and by JOEL DICKINSON. Wit: Richard Bonner, J.P. and Abram Borland and John Lucas. Reg: 9th July 1800.

Abstract at Helen and Tim Marsh, compilers, Land Deed Genealogy of Hancock County, Georgia (Greenville, South Carolina: Southern Historical Press 1997), p. 212. Deed Book D, pp. 392.

Dickinson, Joel Putnam (I0075)
161 8 children. Family F5679
162 8 household members: 1 male and 1 female, under 5 years of age; 1 male and 1 female, 5 to under 10 years of age; 1 female, 10 to under 15 years of age; 1 female, 20 to under 30 years of age; 1 male, 30 to under 40 years of age; and 1 female, 70 years to under 80 years of age. Hanson, Thomas Kendrick (I0978)
163 8th Crusade Lusignan, Huges XIII de Count of La Marche and Angoulême (I11058)
164 9 children. Isabella's marriages were troublesome for England's kings. She had originally been betrothed to Huges' father when John wed her. With that, the Angevin empire of John's father began to come apart in earnest. Then Isabella's brood by the second marriage found a willing home at the court of her son, Henry II- a circumstance that caused him untold grief. The Lusignans, along with their rivals, the queen's Savoyards, were resented by England's magnates; they were the foreigners on whom the king wasted his patronage and became the focus of rebellion.  Family F3105
165 9 children; 5 living. Weatherford, Mary Ella (I5739)
166 Sizemore, Adeline Eugenia (I6747)
167 Sizemore, Adeline Eugenia (I6747)
168 Renault, Theodore (I6752)
169 Renault, Josephine (I6753)
170 Renault, Charles (I6754)
171 Renault, William (I6755)
172 Family F1821
173 Biography at Wikipedia. Marbury, Anne (I6809)
174 Canons Ashby House at Wikipedia. Canons Ashby House at the National Trust. Dryden, Sir John (I1717)
175 Online index of Marriage Records, Columbia County, Florida, Books A-D.  Family F1477
176 Online index of Marriage Records of Columbia County, Florida, Books A-D
Family F1481
177 Online index of Marriage Records of Columbia County, Florida, Books A-D
Family F1478
178 Among the Creeks offers the claim that James Miles was the son of John Miles and Polly Hale of Monroe County, Alabama, and the grandson of Hannah Hale and Hopoithle Haujo (Far Off Warrior). This note explores that question.

U.S. Indian agent Benjamin Hawkins met Hanah Hale at the Fish Ponds during his 1799 tour of the Creek Nation. Hawkins writes:

She was taken a prisoner from Georgia, when about eleven or twelve years old, and married the head man of this town, by whom she has five children. This woman spins and weaves, and has taught two of her daughters to spin; she has labored under many difficulties; yet by her industry has acquired some property. She has one negro boy, a horse or two, sixty cattle, and some hogs; she received the friendly attention of the agent for Indian affairs, as soon as he came in the nation. He furnished her with a wheel, loom, and cards; she has an orchard of peach and apple trees. Having made her election at the national council, in 1799, to reside in the nation, the agent appointed Hopoithle Haujo to look out for a suitable place for her, to help her to remove to it with her stock, and take care that she receives no insults from the Indians.

This appears to be the most frequently cited, and the only original source describing the events; thus, the only sure references are Hawkins' entry, 1799, and (perhaps, less so) James' birth, 1797-1798. Hannah's birth is commonly given by other researchers as 1765, an extrapolation from the date of the raid (1777). No attribution has been seen for 1777 date. Ethridge says that Hale had been in the nation "almost twenty years" at the time of Hawkins' visit.

The date of her removal to the Tensaw (Monroe County did not exist until 1815) is unknown although it is clear that the intention to do so existed in 1799. With free range livestock, Hale likely encountered the same hostility that kept Richard and Polly Bailey in and out of Otassee/Atasi town. The proposed removal also suggests that her husband was dead. It seems unlikely that removal would have been broached if a husband of influence had been alive. The passage is certainly awkwardly constructed if her husband was Hopoithle Haujo.

Taking 1765 for granted, and assuming that Hannah bore Polly between 1780 and 1785 (age 15-20), Polly would have been 14-19 years of age if she bore a child in 1798. This timeline raises as many doubts as it dispels. (Other extant records provide no dates with which to extrapolate: Polly Miles does appear as the head of a household in the 1832 Creek census of Au Tauga town. Her brothers, Samuel and David Hale, are there as well.) It seems more likely that Polly was married after her mother's removal to the Tensaw/Little River settlement.

John Miles does appear in the Tensaw record as early as 1811, where he is included in the ubiquitous tax rolls. He also appears in the Mississippi Territory census of 1815-1817 for newly-established Monroe County. Significantly, Miles (with a family of 5, 2 being males under 21 years of age) was a neighbor of Thomas Franklin (over 21 years of age, with a family of 7, 4 being girls under 21). Other neighbors included well-known Tensaw metis: David Tate, William Hollinger, and Peter Randon. In keeping with the general propensity of metis to marry within a network of allied families, Franklin's youngest daughter married a Hollinger, and his oldest son married a Dees. Thus, it is not outside the realm of possibility that Nellie Franklin followed suit, marrying the boy next door.

As was the case with so many neighbors, John E. "Myles" made a claim under the Treaty of Ft. Jackson. It coincidentally contains an attestation by Samuel and David Hale, who say that Myles had "upwards of 9 years past an Indian wife of the half blood." Samuel Smith also provided an attestation to the petition that claimed that Myles had been in the nation for "10 or 12 years and has an Indian family...." (These claims square with the conclusion that Polly married after her mother removed to the Tensaw.) Myles filed an affidavit, dated 22 July 1818, stating that he was "a long time before the late war an inhabitant of the Creek Nation and was employed sometime in the town of Hillibee as a schoolmaster, and married a Creek woman of the half-blood who still lives with me on the Alabama river." Additionally, Myles appears as a "guardian of the heirs of Hannah Hale, and Polly Jones" in a petition for reparations for property damaged or lost in the Redstick War (along with Zachariah McGirth, James Cornells, Arthur Sizemoor [Sizemore], Nancy Bailey, Margaret Bailey, and David Edinfield).

In terms of family lore, however, no Miles claimed native descent through James at the time of the Eastern Cherokee congressional settlement. Rather, family members claimed through the Franklins. This seems to be a rather glaring omission given the unusual and dramatic details surrounding the life of Hannah Hale. (See the letter of Lucretia Miles Bryars to Guion Miller. Bryars knew her Franklin grandparents and almost certainly would have known something about her father's origins.)

Miles, James (I0514)

Baldwin County, Alabama
Will Book A 1809-1881 Pages #172 & #173

In the name of God, Amen, I Mary Sizemore of the County of Baldwin and State of Alabama, being of sound and disposing mind and memory, and knowing the uncertainty of human life, do make and order this my last will and Testament, herein and hereby revoking and making void any and all wills heretofore made by me.

In the first place it is my will and desire upon my death that my body shall be decently interred according to the rites of Christian burial, and that all my just debts shall be paid by my executor herunafter named, and for the purpose of raising money to pay said debts, said Executor shall have the power and authority to keep my Estate together till the profits and produce of the same shall produce money sufficient to pay said debts.

Item 2: It is my will and desire and I do hereby bequeath unto my daughter, Cynthia Padget, the following negro slaves namely, Peggy, Martha, Frank, Lucinda, and Lavinia, and for their increase, froom the date of this will, to be held by the said Cynthia Padget for and during her natural life and upon death of the said Cynthia Padget, it is my will, and I do hereby bequeath the above negro slaves unto my Grand-son Elijah Padget, for and during his natural life, and upon his death, then unto the lawful heirs of his body begotten, and I do further give unto said Grand-son Elijah Padget, one bed furniture being the same which I now have use.

Item 3: I do hereby give and bequeath unto my daughter Amelia Stiggins negro slave man Sam, for and during her natural life, and upon death of the said Amelia Stiggins, I give said Slave Sam unto the lawful heirs of the body of the said Amelia Stiggins.

Item 4: I do hereby give and bequeath unto my daughter Celia Colbert the sum of five Hundred dollars in money, to be paid to the said Celia Colbert from and out of the first monies which may come from the hands of my Executor from my Estate, or its produce and profits.

Item 5: I give and bequeath unto the lawful heirs of my son William Sizemore the sum of five dollars, to be paid them by my Executor.

Item 6: I give and bequeath unto the lawful heirs of my son Absolom Sizemore the sum of five dollars, to be paid them by my Executor.

Item 7: I give and bequeath unto the lawful heirs of my daughter Nancy Moniac, the sum of five dollars, to be paid them by my Executor.

Item 8: I give and bequeath unto the lawful heirs of my son Samuel Sizemore, the sum of five dollars, to be paid them by my Executor.

Item 9: I give and bequeath unto my daughter Betsy Tarvin the sum of five dollars, to be paid them by my Executor.

Lastly, I do hereby nominate and appoint my Grand-son Elijah Padget the Executor of this my will.

And it is my further wish and desire, and I do hereby bequeath the Sam hereunbefore given to my daughter Amelia Stiggins, for and during her natural life, from and after her death, unto my Grand-son James Grey Stiggins for and during his natural life only, meaning hereby to limit the use of said slave to my Grand-son, and upon his death said slave is hereby bequeathed to the lawful heirs of the body begotten of said James Grey Stiggins.

In witness whereof I do hereunto set my hand and seal this fifteenth day of August in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty seven.

Mary (her mark X) Sizemore (seal)

Signed, sealed, published and declared by the said Mary Sizemore, as and for her last will and Testament in presence of us, who signed the same as witnesses in the presence of said Mary Sizemore Testarix, and in presence of each other.

Francis Earle
John Earle Witnesses

Whereas my Grand-son Elijah Padget has departed this live -- Therefore I give all that was intended bt the written will for him, to his children share and share alike, and I hereby appoint David A. Moniac my Executor of this my last will and Testament in the staed of my said Grand-son deceased, and this is a Codicil to my said last will and Testament.

Signed and sealed this 4th day of August 1860.

In presence of Mary (her mark X) Sizemore (seal)

J. W. Shomo
B. F. Earle

State of Alabama
Baldwin County Probate Court of Said County

In the matter of the Probate of the last will and Testament of Mary Sizemore, deceased,

Before me C. W. Wilkins, Judge of Said Court, personally appeared in Open Court, Francis Earle and John Earle, who having been by me, first sworne and examined, did and do depose, and say on oath, that they are each Subscribing witnesses, to the instrument of writing now shown to them and which purports to be the last will and Testament of Mary Sizemore, deceased, late an inhabitant of this County, that said Mary Sizemore, since deceased, signed and executed said instrument on the day the same bears date and declared the same to be her last will and Testament, and that affiants set their signatures thereto, on the day the same bears date, as subscribing witnesses to the same, in the presence of said Testatrix, that said Testatrix was of sound mind and disposing memory, and in the opinion of deponents fully capable of making her will, at the time the same was so made as aforesaid, affiants further state that said Testatrix was, on the day of the said date of said will of the full agew of twenty-one years and upwards.

Sworn and Subscribed to before me this 19th day April A. D. 1862

C. W. Wilkins Judge Probate

John Earle
Francis Earle

And on the same day, appeared personally before me, the said Judge, Benjamin F. Earle who being by me first duly sworn, deposeth and says, that the Codicil to the last will and Testamnet of Mary Sizemore, deceased, was signed, and executed by the said Testatrix on the day of the date thereof, and in the presence of this affiant signed his name J. W. Shomo, the other subscribing witness to said Codicil in the presence of said Testatrix, that said Testatrix was of sound mind and disposing memory, and in the opinion of deponent, fully capable of making her will, at the time the same was so made aforesaid.

Affiant further that said Testatrix was, on the day of said date of said Codocil, of the full age of twenty-one years and upwards.

Sworn and subscribed to this 19th April 1862

C. W. Wilkins
Judge Probate

Benjamin F. Earle

State of Alabama
Baldwin County

I, C. W. Wilkins, Judge of the Court of Probate, in and for said County and State do hereby certify that the foregoing instrument of writing, has this day, in said Court and before me, as the Judge thereof been duly proven, by the oaths of John Earle, Francis Earle, and Benjamin F. Earle to be the genuine last will, together with said proof, have been recorded in my office, in Book A of wills, pages 216, 217, 218, 219, 110, and 221, this 19th April A. D. 1862.

C. W. Wilkins
Judge Probate 
Bailey, Mary (I5714)
180 A History of Evansville or Miles Crossing

From A History of Escambia County, Alabama, Annie C. Waters (Huntsville, Alabama: The Strode Publishers), 185. The Holden Evans mentioned in this excerpt is most likely Holden B. Evans' uncle.

On the Mobile and Great Northern Railroad, two miles east of Wawbeek was a crossing, called "Miles' Crossing," named for an early settler. In 1868 Holden Evans came from Butler County, Alabama and built a sawmill here. Soon there was a town of 200 residents, a post office, telegraph office and a fine spring. Dr. James Wilkerson was a bookkeeper for the mill and R. W. Brooks was a clerk in a store. The name of the town was changed to Evansville.

In 1886 the South Carolina earthquake rattled windows in the town and the next day the spring was dry. The mill had burned and was not rebuilt, so the residents gradually moved away, and today only the Bowman Cemetery remains to locate the area where Evansville stood.

At one time, Evansville was a more thriving town than Atmore was at that period.

Evans, Holden Bascom (I0520)
181 Alexander Speer...was born in 1790, and was a man of broad culture, great eloquence and extensive influence. He was secretary of state or comptroller-general of South Carolina in 1826, and on December 1 of that year Eustace was born in Columbia. With Pettigra and a few others, Alexander Speer resisted the nullification theories of the Calhoun party. He was put forward as the protagonist of the Union party and the opponent in public discussions of such men as McDuffie. The late Benjamin C. Yancey, of Athens, often declared to the writer that Alexander Speer was in public discussion more than a match for that great nullifier. About the year 1833 he removed to Georgia and settled at Culloden, a village noted for the multitude of distinguished men it has sent forth. In the meantime while desperately ill, he had declared that if his life was spared he would devote it to the Christian ministry. He kept his vow and in this work he became even more famous than he had been as a lawyer and politician. He was one of the founders of Wesleyan female college at Macon, and it is believed preached the first commencement sermon at Emory college. The last commencement address made there by the late Associate Justice L. Q. C. Lamar was largely composed of passages quoted from memory from that sermon, from another by Bishop Soule and a commencement oration by George F., afterwards Bishop Pierce. Alexander Speer, after filling many of the principal appointments in the Methodist churches in Georgia and South Carolina, died at Lagrange, Ga., in 1856, and a young lawyer who watched by the bedside of the noble old patriot and gently closed his eyes in death, was afterwards to become Lieut.-Gen. John B. Gordon.  Speer, Rev. Alexander (I18738)
182 ATHELSTAN or ÆTHELSTAN (895-940), king of the West-Saxons and Mercians, and afterwards of all the English, was the son of Eadward the Elder, and of a noble lady Ecgwyn, according to Florence of Worcester; but another and later story represents his mother as a shepherd's daughter, and not the lawful wife of Eadward. In all probability he was illegitimate, but by a recognised mistress of noble birth. Born during the lifetime of his grandfather Ælfred, Æthelstan was a favourite of the great West-Saxon king, who gave him as a boy a purple cloak, a jewelled belt, and a sword with a golden scabbard, no doubt to mark him out, in spite of his illegitimacy, as a right ætheling. When the young prince was six years old, Ælfred died, and during the stormy years when Eadward was slowly recovering the overlordship of Mercia and Northumbria from the Danish hosts, Æthelstan was sent to be brought up by his aunt Æthelflæd, the Lady of the Mercians, and her husband the ealdorman Æthelred. Probably he took part in the great series of campaigns by which Æthelflæd and Eadward gradually extended the power of the West-Saxon dynasty over the whole of northern England. His education seems to have been sound and literary; the catalogue of his later library (among the Cottonian MSS.) included several good Latin works. In 925, when Æthelstan was aged thirty, Eadward the Elder died, and the ætheling was at once chosen to succeed him. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle specially mentions that he was elected by the Mercians, who still retained their separate national gemót. The West-Saxon election apparently came later. Æthelstan was crowned at Kingston in Surrey (perhaps as being near the borders of Mercia and Wessex), as were most succeeding kings till the building of Eadward the Confessor's abbey at Westminster. Doubts, however, were cast upon the election, on the ground of Æthelstan's dubious legitimacy; and an ætheling named Ælfred (whose exact relationship to the kingly house is unknown) endeavoured to upset the arrangement. A legendary tale in William of Malmesbury states that Ælfred, being accused of conspiracy against the king, went to Rome to clear himself, and there, having sworn a false oath, at once fell down in the pope's presence, and died three days later at the English college. The materials for Æthelstan's personal and regnal history are somewhat deficient. The 'Anglo-Saxon Chronicle' and Florence of Worcester (translating from a lost copy of the 'Chronicle') are here very meagre, while William of Malmesbury, who is very full on this reign, is uncritical, and evidently derives much of his information from ballads and other legendary sources. It is quite clear, however, that 'glorious Æthelstan' was a personally vigorous and able king, a worthy successor of Ælfred and Eadward, and a precursor of Edward I, definitely pursuing an imperial policy, by which he hoped to unite all Great Britain under the overlordship of a single West-Saxon king. In the year following his accession he had a conference at Tamworth (the royal burgh of Mercia) with Sihtric, Danish king of Northumbria, to whom he gave his sister in marriage, and whom he apparently compelled to acknowledge his suzerainty. A year later Sihtric died, whereupon Æthelstan drove out his son Guthfrith, and annexed Northumbria to his own immediate dominions. A coalition of the minor kings was then formed to resist Æthelstan's imperial policy, and was joined by Howel, king of the West-Welsh (perhaps the Cornish, but more probably Howel Dda of Dyved), Owen, king of Gwent (Monmouthshire), Constantine, king of the Scots, and Ealdred, lord of Bamborough, and leader of the English remnant in the modern county of Northumberland. Æthelstan crushed this coalition, and compelled all the underkings to acknowledge his supremacy 'with pledge and with oaths,' at a congress held at Emmet in 926. He thus perhaps deserves the title of first king of all the English far more fully than Ecgberht or any other prince before Eadgar. At the same time his overlordship was of a loose character; he did not attempt to govern the whole kingdom directly, but left the native princes everywhere as his vassals (to use the language of later feudalism), it being one of his favourite sayings that it was more glorious 'regem facere quam regem esse.' Still he expelled Ealdred of Bamborough altogether, as well as Guthfrith, so that he became direct king of all English and Danish Britain, leaving only the Celtic princes of the west and north as underkings. Towards the Welsh his policy was one of mixed firmness and conciliation. He made the princes of Wales proper do homage to him at Hereford, paying him a stipulated tribute of coin and cattle; and he fixed the Wye as the political boundary between the two races. In West Wales or Damnonia he also pushed forward the West-Saxon boundary, subjugating the Welsh in the northern half of Exeter city, which they had previously held as their own, while the English held the southern half, and fortifying the town as a border fortress with stone fortifications?the earliest mentioned in Anglo-Saxon history. He then conquered the western half of Devonshire, and restricted the Cornish princes to the country beyond the Tamar. At the same time he adopted a conciliatory tone to the conquered Welsh in Wessex itself, dedicating churches and colleges in Dorset and Devon to Welsh saints, and holding his gemót at Exeter, whence some of his laws are dated. As a legislator his enactments are mainly of the nature of amendments of custom, and do not (like those of Ælfred and Cnut) aspire to the character of a code. In 933, according to the 'Chronicle,' or in 934, according to Simeon of Durham (a safer guide on northern matters), Constantine, king of Scots, rebelled (William of Malmesbury says by receiving the banished Guthfrith), and Æthelstan then invaded Scotland 'with land host and ship host, and overharried much of it.' On his way he destroyed the Danish tower at York, which Guthfrith had endeavoured to occupy. In 937 occurred the final grand victory of Æthelstan's life, the campaign and battle of Brunanburh. A dangerous rebellion and coalition of the subject princes with the Danish pirate kings then took place, and threatened seriously to overthrow the newly founded West-Saxon supremacy. One Anlaf, of whom nothing certain is known, came from Ireland with a fleet of long-ships, and stirred up Constantine of Scotland, Owain, Celtic king of Cumberland, and all the Northumbrian Danes and Welshkind to a great revolt. Æthelstan and his brother the ætheling Eadmund led a hasty levy against the combined host, and defeated them with great slaughter at a place called Brunanburh, the exact locality of which is uncertain, but it is probably somewhere in Northumbria. This battle practically established for the time the unity of England and the supremacy of the West-Saxon house. It is commemorated by a fine alliterative ballad, inserted in the 'Chronicle,' and frequently translated into modern English. The battle is there described as the greatest of English victories over the native Welshkind since the first invasion of Britain. The great personal popularity of Æthelstan is shown, not only by the tone of this fine war-song, but also by the numerous ballads and legends implied in William of Malmesbury's narrative. Three years later, on 27 Oct. 940, Æthelstan died at Gloucester, after a reign of fourteen years and ten weeks. We have no record that Æthelstan was ever married or had any children. But the splendour of his family alliances on the continent, unexampled in the case of any other English king before the Norman conquest, specially marks the unusual dignity of his position. Five of his sisters married continental princes, including Charles the Simple, king of the West Franks, Louis, king of Arles, and Hugh the Great, duke of the French; while Henry, king of the East Franks, actually sent ambassadors to ask of Æthelstan one of his sisters in marriage for his son Otto, afterwards the Emperor Otto the Great. Æthelstan royally sent a selection of two, one of whom Otto kept, and passed on the other to a nameless German princeling. After the murder of Charles the Simple, his widow and her son Louis (d'Outremer) took refuge with Æthelstan, at whose court Louis was brought up. Later on his uncle Hugh sent for Louis to return, and he acquired his familiar surname (Ultramarinus) from this sojourn beyond the sea with his English relations. Æthelstan was buried in Malmesbury Abbey, to which (as to other Celtic shrines) he had been a great benefactor, and where a later mediæval tomb (perhaps remade) is still shown as his. He was succeeded by his brother Eadmund, the hero of Brunanburh. Another brother, the ætheling Eadwine, is said by Simeon of Durham (a late authority) to have been drowned at sea by Æthelstan's orders. William of Malmesbury expands this story, by obviously legendary additions, into an ugly romance; but the 'Chronicle' merely mentions briefly that Eadwine was drowned in 933, an entry which Henry of Huntingdon amplifies by adding (after his usual groundless fashion) that it was much to Æthelstan's sorrow. We may probably acquit the king's memory of the doubtful fratricide.

[The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (here contemporary, but slight); Florence of Worcester (translating a contemporary, but almost equally meagre); William of Malmesbury (full but untrustworthy); Simeon of Durham; Henry of Huntingdon?all under dates 924?940; Kemble's Codex Diplomaticus Ævi Saxonici has many of Æthelstan's charters; Thorpe's Ancient Laws and Institutes of the Anglo-Saxons contains Æthelstan's Laws; Freeman's Old-English History (the chief modern critical authority), p. 145; Freeman's Norman Conquest, vol. i.; Palgrave's History of the Anglo-Saxons, p. 165; Sharon Turner's History of the Anglo-Saxons, ii. 177; Lappenberg; Thomas Kerslake, The Welsh in Dorset, and other pamphlets (Bristol, 1870 and onward).]

G. A. 
Æthelstan King of Wessex (I11243)
183 BEAUCHAMP, RICHARD de, Earl of Warwick (1382-1439), a brave and chivalrous warrior in an age of chivalry, of an ancient family, whose ancestry was traced to the legendary Guy of Warwick, was the son of Thomas, earl of Warwick [see Beauchamp, Thomas de], by Margaret his wife, daughter of William, Lord Ferrers of Groby. He was born at Salwarp, in Worcestershire, on 28 Jan. 1382. His godfathers at baptism were King Richard II and Richard Scrope, afterwards archbishop of York, who was esteemed a saint by the people after he was beheaded for rebellion against Henry IV. Earl Richard's first biographer, Rous ? who speaks of Scrope 'then bishop of Lichfield' ? has been followed by later writers hitherto, though a reference to Le Neve shows that he was not a bishop till 1386. We have no record of Beauchamp's boyhood, but in his eighteenth year he was made a knight of the Bath at the coronation of Henry IV. He succeeded his father as earl of Warwick in 1401, from whom he received as a bequest, in addition to his inheritance, 'a bed of silk, embroidered with bears, and his arms' (Dugdale, i. 238). On 26 Jan. 1403, when within two days of attaining his majority, he jousted at the coronation of Henry IV's queen, Joan of Navarre. On 13 Feb. following he had livery of his lands after performing homage. That same year he was retained to serve the king with 100 men-at-arms and 300 archers, John Lord Audley being then of his retinue, and was put in commission for arraying the men of Warwickshire. He put Owen Glendower to flight and captured his banner. He fought against the Percys at the battle of Shrewsbury (1403), and is said to have been made knight of the Garter not long after. Some, however, have questioned this date upon internal evidence, thinking his admission to the order must have been about 1420; but if the accounts of the Wardrobe have been correctly enrolled, it was at least not later than 1416 (Rymer, ix. 335).

In 1408 he obtained leave of the king to visit the Holy Sepulchre. He crossed the Channel and first visited his kinsman, the Duke of Bar, with whom he spent eight days; then went on to Paris, where at Whitsuntide he was the guest of Charles VI, who, wearing his crown at the feast, caused him to sit at his own table, and afterwards gave him a herald to conduct him through his realm to Lombardy. Here he was presently met by another herald, despatched by Sir Pandolph Malatete or Malet, to challenge him to certain feats of arms at Verona before Sir Galeot of Mantua. He accepted, and after performing a pilgrimage to Rome, the combat took place, in which he gained the victory. Indeed, he was on the point of killing his opponent outright, when Sir Galeot cried 'Peace,' and put an end to the combat. He went on to Venice, where the doge received him in state, and in course of time reached Jerusalem. He performed his vows, and set up his arms on the north side of the temple. While in the Holy City, he is said to have received a visit from the sultan's lieutenant, who said that he was familiar with the story of his ancestor, Guy of Warwick, which 'they had in books of their own language.' As remarked by Warton (Hist, of Engl. Poetry, section iii.), the thing is by no means incredible; but it may be observed that it is an error to talk of Rous, on whose authority it rests, as a contemporary writer. It is added that the sultan's lieutenant declared to the earl privately his belief in Christianity, and repeated the Creed to him, but said he dared not profess himself a christian openly.

From Jerusalem he returned to Venice, and after travelling in Russia, Lithuania, Poland, Prussia, Westphalia, and other parts of Germany, he returned to England in 1410. The king immediately retained him by indenture to serve with his son Henry, Prince of Wales, he receiving a pension of 250 marks a year out of the prince s exchequer at Carmarthen. That same year he was also joined with the bishop of Durham and others to treat with the Scots. In 1413 he was lord high steward at the coronation of Henry V, and was soon afterwards appointed a commissioner, both for an alliance with Burgundy and for a truce with France (Rymer, ix. 34-38). In the beginning of the year 1414 he was very instrumental in suppressing the Lollard rising; and about this time we find him first mentioned as deputy of Calais (ib. 111). On 20 Oct. in the same year he was commissioned to go with certain bishops to represent England at the council of Constance, and on 16 Nov. Sir William Lisle, jun., was appointed his lieutenant to supply his place at Calais during his absence. The splendour of the English embassy at the council is said to have excited general admiration and astonishment. The earl appears, however, to have returned to England pretty early next year, as we find him at the Blackfriars in London on 21 May (Rymer, ix. 319). In August he accompanied the king in the invasion of France; but after the siege of Harfleur the king sent him home again, along with his brother Clarence, in charge of a number of prisoners and a quantity of the spoils of war (Monstrelet, i. 226).

It is said that when he was appointed deputy of Calais the French were expected to besiege the place; but that when he found their forces were bent in a different direction he caused some new feats of chivalry to be instituted, of which a curious description may be seen in Dugdale. In 1416 he received the Emperor Sigismund at Calais on his way to England, and also conducted the Duke of Burgundy to Calais to a conference with Henry V. Next year he was appointed to receive the surrender of Caen Castle. So great was Henry's confidence in his military skill that he divided the chief commands in Normandy between himself, his brother Clarence, and the Earl of Warwick. In 1418 he won Domfront from the French, and joined the king at the siege of Rouen. Dugdale's statement, that he was sent to besiege Nully Levesque, is clearly an error, owing to a misreading of Walsingham's words, who really says that the Earl of Kyme was despatched on that mission. While the English army lay before Rouen the Dauphin made overtures for peace, and Warwick, along with other commissioners, was appointed to discuss matters with his deputies (Rymer, ix. 626). But these negotiations took no effect. In January 1419 Warwick was the principal commissioner to receive the capitulation of Rouen; after which he was again employed in frequent negotiations, not now with the dauphin's party, but with the Burgundian faction, who had charge of the imbecile king (Rymer, ix, 717, 750-1, 774-5, 782, 813). He arranged the truce preparatory to the treaty of Troyes and the marriage of Henry V to Katharine of France. It was presumably on the capture of Aumarle, or Aumale, in Normandy, this year, that the king granted him the additional title of earl of Aumarle, which he bore in his later years. In 1420 he besieged and took Melun. He returned to England with the king in 1421, and acted as deputy to the Duke of Clarence, steward of England at Queen Katharine's coronation. In 1422 he was one of the commissioners appointed to receive the surrender of Meaux, and assisted in the rescue of the Duke of Burgundy's city of Cosne when it was besieged by the dauphin.

That same year Henry V died. So great had been the confidence he reposed in Warwick that he bequeathed to him the care of the education of his infant son, Henry VI, and his wishes were complied with by the council a few years later. On 10 July 1423 his commission as captain of Calais was renewed for two years dating from 4 Feb. preceding. Yet he appears to have resided chiefly in England for several years as member of the council during the king's minority. On 1 June 1428 the council gave him a formal commission under the great seal to take charge of Henry's education ? a task in which four years later he demanded special authority to chastise his pupil when necessary, and to remove from his presence any associate whose influence might not tend to improve him. In 1429, at Henry's coronation at Westminster, he bore the king to church. In 1430 he went to Edinburgh, and arranged a truce with Scotland. Next year he was again in Normandy, and took a notable prisoner named Poton de Xaintrailles beside Beauvais. But we find him at Westminster again in August 1433 (Rymer, x. 555). He made his will at Caversham, in Oxfordshire, 8 Aug. 1435. Next year he crossed the Channel to protect Calais from a threatened siege by the Duke of Burgundy; and in 1437 (having meanwhile returned to England) he was again sent over sea, being appointed on 16 July lieutenant of France and Normandy, and discharged by the council of the care of the king's person. It was the most serious responsibility he had yet undertaken; for the English dominion in France was even then manifestly giving way, and though his predecessor, the Duke of York ? who was now to be withdrawn ? had achieved some marked success, he had been very ill supported. Warwick accordingly took care to make special conditions touching his appointment, and particularly stipulated that if those conditions were not fulfilled he might return without blame (Stevenson, Wars of the English in France, ii. lxvi-lxx). He set sail from Portsmouth on 29 Aug., and remained in France till his death, which occurred at Rouen on 30 April 1439, hastened, in all probability, by the grave anxieties of his position. His body was brought home and buried at Warwick, where his magnificent tomb and efiigy are still to be seen in a chapel attached to the collegiate church of Our Lady, which was built by his executors under his will.

We have not related all the deeds of this hero of chivalry. The most characteristic were collected a generation later by John Rous, chaplain of the chantry founded by this earl at Guy's Cliff in Warwickshire, and illustrated by pencil drawings of high artistic merit. The manuscript containing them is still preserved in the Cottonian Library; the drawings have been engraved by Strutt (Manners and Customs vol. ii. pl. vii-lix), and the narrative they illustrate has been embodied in Dugdale's notice of this earl. It is to be regretted that the drawings and the narrative have never been published together. They are certainly a most interesting product of the art and literature of the middle ages, exhibiting our earl as the mirror of courtesy and refinement in many things of which we have not taken notice; among others, his declining to be the bearer of the Emperor Sigismund's precious gift to Henry V ? the heart of St. George ? when he knew that the emperor intended to come to England himself, suggesting that it would be more acceptable to his master if presented by the emperor in person.

Besides the manuscript just referred to and the chapel built by his executors, there is one other memorial of this earl still abiding in the curious stone image of Guy of Warwick exhibited to visitors to Guy's Cliff. It was executed and placed there by his orders. It certainly does not suggest that he was a very discriminating patron of art: of which, indeed, there is little appearance otherwise; for it was his father that built Guy's Tower in Warwick Castle, and his executors that built the chapel at Warwick in which his bones repose.

The earl was twice married. His first wife was Elizabeth, daughter and heir of Thomas, Lord Berkley, by whom he had three daughters. His second, whom he married by papal dispensation, was Isabella, widow of his cousin, Richard Beauchamp, earl of Worcester, who was slain at Meaux in 1422. It was by this second marriage that he had his son and heir, Henry [see Beauchamp, Henry de].

[Dugdale's Baronage; Dugdale's Warwickshire, i. 408-11; Cotton MS. Julius, E iv.; Walsingham's Historia Anglicana and Ypodigma Neustriæ; Fabyan; Hall; Gregory, in Gairdner's Historical Collections of a London Citizen; Leland's Itinerary, vi. 89; Paston Letters, No. 18; Rymer, ix.-x.]

J. G.
Beauchamp, Richard de 13th Earl of Warwick, Count of Aumale, KG (I11442)
184 BEAUFORT, HENRY (d. 1447), bishop of Winchester and cardinal, was the second and illegitimate son of John of Gaunt by Catherine, widow of Sir Hugh Swynford. His parents having been married in 1396, their children were the next year declared legitimate by Richard II, and the king's patent of legitimation was confirmed by parliament. In common with his brother John, earl of Somerset, and Thomas, duke of Exeter, Henry took his name from Beaufort Castle, in Anjou, the place of his birth. He is said to have studied at Oxford, but he spent the greater part of his youth at Aachen, where he read the civil and the canon law. He was made prebendary of Thame 1389, and of Sutton 1391, both in the diocese of Lincoln. He held the deanery of Wells in 1397, and, having been appointed bishop of Lincoln by papal provision, was consecrated 14 July 1398, after the death of John Bokyngham [see Bokyngham, John]. The next year he became chancellor of the university of Oxford. The election of his half-brother, Henry of Lancaster, to the throne, gave the Bishop of Lincoln a prominent place in the kingdom. Forming a kind of constitutional court party, he and his brother steadily upheld the Lancastrian dynasty, while at the same time they were opposed to the masterful policy of Archbishop Arundel [q. v.]. Bishop Beaufort was made chancellor in 1403, and in the same year was named as a member of the king's 'great and continual council.' On the death of William of Wykeham, in 1404, he was nominated to the bishopric of Winchester by papal provision, and in the spring of the next year received the spiritualities of the see. He resigned the chancellorship on his translation to Winchester. He is said to have been the tutor of the Prince of Wales. He certainly exercised considerable influence over him. While the king was in a great measure guided by Arundel, the prince attached himself to the younger and more popular party, of which the Bishop of Winchester was the head. In 1407 the archbishop, who was then chancellor, gained a triumph over the Beauforts; for when in that year the king exemplified and confirmed the patent of their legitimation granted by Richard, he inserted in it words ('excepta regali dignitate') which expressly excluded them from the succession. As, however, these words do not occur in the document confirmed by parliament in the preceding reign, they have no legal value, though probably this fact was not recognised at the time. The strength of Bishop Beaufort and the weakness of the archbishop alike lay in the parliament. Arundel felt himself unable to continue in office, and in 1410 Thomas Beaufort was made chancellor. As the new chancellor was not installed when the parliament met, his brother the bishop declared the cause of summons. Taking as the text of his discourse 'It becometh us to fulfil all righteousness,' he dwelt on the relations of England with France and Scotland, and on the duty of loyalty to the crown. Dr. Stubbs, who in his 'Constitutional History' (iii. c. 18) has given a masterly sketch of the career of Bishop Beaufort as an English politician, has pointed out the probability that during the administration of Thomas Beaufort the Prince of Wales ruled in the name of his father; for during this period the illness of Henry IV seems to have rendered him incapable of performing the duties of kingship. The rule of the prince involved the predominance of the Bishop of Winchester in the council. The divergence of the parties of Beaufort and Arundel came to a climax in 1411. A family quarrel probably hastened the issue of the struggle. On the death of John Beaufort, earl of Somerset, the bishop's brother, in 1410, Thomas of Lancaster, the earl's nephew, married his widow, and demanded that Bishop Beaufort should give up to him part of a sum of 30,000 marks, which he had received as the earl's executor. The bishop refused the demand, and in the quarrel which ensued the Prince of Wales upheld his uncle against his brother. Prince Henry and the bishop were alike anxious to secure the continuance of their power. With the assent of the numerous lords of their party they tried to prevail on the king to resign the crown, and to allow the prince to reign in his stead. The king was much angered at this request, and dismissed the prince from the council. Bishop Beaufort and his whole party seem to have shared the disgrace of the prince; for in November the commons prayed the king to thank the Prince of Wales, the Bishop of Winchester, and other lords for their labour and diligence during the time that they were of the council, the archbishop succeeded Thomas Beaufort as chancellor in 1412. The change in the administration brought with it a change in foreign politics. The Bishop of Winchester agreed with the prince in upholding the cause of the Duke of Burgundy, and in 1411 the united forces of the English and Burgundians gained a brilliant victory over the Armagnacs at St. Cloud. On the accession of Arundel to power the alliance with Burgundy was suddenly broken, and an expedition was sent to help the Armagnacs.

When, in 1413, the prince succeeded his father as Henry V, he at once gave the chancellorship to Bishop Beaufort, who accordingly, on 15 May 1413, opened the first parliament of the reign. On 23 Sept. he sat as one of the assessors of the archbishop on the trial of Sir John Oldcastle. In opening the parliament held at Leicester in the April of the next year he referred at some length to the dangerous rising which followed Oldcastle's escape. Preaching on the words 'He hath applied his heart to understand the laws,' he described how the christian faith was in danger of being brought to naught by the Lollard confederacy, and the peace of the realm by riots, and called on the estates to aid the crown in the work of government by their good advice. The bishop was this year sent to France, along with other ambassadors, to propose terms which were too hard to be accepted even in the distracted state of that kingdom. In opening parliament on 4 Nov. 1415 the chancellor embarked on the noble exploits of the king in the war with France, and made an appeal to the gratitude of the people, which was answered by a liberal grant. The war, however, placed the king in constant need of money, and Henry found his uncle the chancellor always ready to lend. As Beaufort cannot have inherited any great estates, and as the income of his see, considerable as it was, was by no means large enough to supply him with the vast sums which he lent the crown from time to time, as well as to provide him with the means of indulging his taste for magnificence, it is probable that his constant power of finding ready money was the result of singular financial ability, combined with a high character for integrity. Knowing how to use money, and using it with boldness, careful to maintain his credit, and not afraid of making his credit serve him, Beaufort gained immense wealth. While he guarded this wealth carefully, he never refused to lend it for the support of the crown. In 1416 he lent the king 14,000l., secured on the customs, and received a certain gold crown to be kept as a pledge of repayment. Having been relieved of his office in the July of 1417, the bishop left England, nominally on a pilgrimage. The real object of his journey was to attend the council then sitting at Constance. His arrival at the council was coincident, and can scarcely have been unconnected, with an important change in the position of parties. Up to that time the English and the Germans worked together in endeavouring to force the council to undertake the reformation of the church. In alliance with the Emperor Sigismund, Henry, by the English representatives, opposed the election of a pope until measures had been taken to bring about this reformation. On the other hand, the Latin nations sided with the cardinals in demanding that the council should at once proceed to the election of a pope, and should leave the work of reformation to be accomplished by him. Henry had, however, suffered from reformers in his own kingdom. Whatever the reasons of the king may have been for changing his policy, there can be no doubt that the Bishop of Winchester carried out this change. He effected a compromise, to which the emperor was forced to agree. At his suggestion the council pledged itself to a reformation to be effected after the election of a pope. The conclave was formed. It was believed in England that the Bishop of Winchester was, among many others, suggested as the future pope. The choice of the conclave fell on the Cardinal Colonna, who took the title of Martin V. The new pope was not unmindful of the good service rendered him by Beaufort, and on 28 Dec. nominated him cardinal, without specifying any title. Claiming a universal right of presentation, and intent on bringing the English church into subservience to the see of Rome, Martin hoped to find in Beaufort an instrument for carrying out his schemes of aggression. He intended to apply to the king to allow the bishop to hold the see of Winchester in commnendam, and to accept him as legate a latere holding office for life. He mistook the king with whom he had to deal. When Archbishop Chichele, who had succeeded Arundel in 1414, heard of the plan, he wrote to Henry, who was then in France, and remonstrated against such an outrage on the liberties of the kingdom and on the rights of his own see. Henry refused to allow the bishop to accept the office of cardinal, saying, if we may trust the account of the matter given in 1440 by the Duke of Gloucester, that 'he had as lief sette his coroune besyde hym as to see him were a cardinal's hatte, he being a cardinal.' Great as must have been the bishop's disappointment, the refusal of the king did not alienate him from his attachment to the crown; for when in 1421 Henry returned to England to raise money for a fresh expedition, Beaufort, who had as yet only received in repayment part of his former loan, lent him a further sum of 14,000l., making a total debt of 22,306l. 18s. 8d., and again received from the hands of the treasurer a gold crown as security for repayment. In the December of the same year he stood godfather to the king's son, Henry of Winchester. And the next year the king, when on his deathbed, showed his confidence in him by naming him one of the guardians of the infant prince.

In the debates on the regency which followed the death of Henry V, Beaufort opposed the ambitious claims of the Duke of Gloucester, the late king's youngest brother. During the long and bitter quarrel which ensued between the uncle and nephew, Beaufort's wise and loyal policy stands in strong contrast to the wild schemes by which Gloucester, as protector in the absence of his brother Bedford, sought his own aggrandisement at home and abroad. In December 1422 Beaufort was named a member of the council, and powers were granted to that body which strictly limited the authority of the protector. When, in 1424, Gloucester was about to leave England on his futile expedition against Hainault, the bishop was again appointed chancellor. In the absence of both Bedford and Gloucester the whole burden of the government rested on him, and in consideration of his extra work he received an addition of 2,000l. to his salary. His administration was unpopular in London, where the citizens were attached to the Duke of Gloucester. The favour which the chancellor showed to the Flemings angered the merchants, and some ordinances restraining the employment of labourers, which were made by the mayor and aldermen, and were approved by the council, set the working classes against the government. Threatening bills were posted on the gates of the bishop's palace, and a tumultuous meeting of men of 'low estate' was held 'at the Crane of the Vintry,' in which some loudly wished that they had the bishop there, that they might throw him into the Thames. Beaufort took the precaution of placing in the Tower a garrison composed of men from the duchy of Lancaster. While affairs were in this uneasy state, the Duke of Gloucester returned to England. The strictures of the council on his foolish expedition doubtless helped to fan the discord between him and the chancellor. On 30 Oct. 1425. the duke persuaded the mayor to keep London Bridge against the bishop, and so prevent him from entering the city. The men of the bishop and of the duke well nigh came to blows. All the shops in London were shut, the citizens crowded down to the bridge to uphold their mayor, and had it not been for the interference of the archbishop and the Duke of Coimbra, a dangerous riot would have taken place. The chancellor wrote urgently to Bedford begging him, as he valued the welfare of the king, his safety, and the safety of the kingdom, to return to England with haste. On the return of Bedford the council tried to arrange the dispute. Matters were, however, still unsettled when the parliament, called the Parliament of Bats, met at Leicester on 18 Feb. 1426. At the petition of the commons Bedford and the lords undertook an arbitration. Gloucester charged the chancellor with refusing to admit him into the Tower, with purposing to slay him at London Bridge, and with designing to seize the person of the king. He also declared that he had plotted against the life of Henry V when prince of Wales, and had counselled him to take the crown from his father. Beaufort made answer to these accusations. The lords decreed that he should make a distinct denial of the truth of the charges of treason against Henry IV, Henry V, and Henry VI, that Bedford should thereupon declare him a 'true man to the king, his father, and his grandfather,' and that he and Gloucester should take each other by the hand. The bishop must have felt the pacification, which was effected on 12 March, a distinct defeat. He resigned the chancellorship, and applied for license to perform a vow of pilgrimage by which he was bound. He does not, however, seem to have left England, and his name appears twice in the proceedings of the council during the remainder of the year.

Encouraged by the condition of the government in England, the pope renewed his plan of making the Bishop of Winchester a cardinal, which had been defeated by the vigorous policy of Henry V. His special object in conferring this office on Beaufort at this time was to gain his help against the Hussites. The bishop was nominated cardinal-priest of St. Eusebius on 24 May 1426. He left England in company with the Duke of Bedford in March of the next year, and on Lady day received the cardinal's hat from the hands of the duke in St. Mary's church at Calais. In accepting the cardinalate Beaufort made a false step, which brought him into much trouble. The legatine commission which accompanied his new dignity lessened his popularity, and gave occasion to his enemies to attack him. His energies were to some extent diverted from the service of his country, and men naturally looked on him as identified with the papal policy which, under Martin V, was antagonistic to the ecclesiastical liberties of England. The new cardinal lost no time in obeying the papal call for help in the Hussite war. With the full approval of the emperor he accepted the office of legate in Germany, Hungary, and Bohemia. At the moment of his entrance into Bohemia a combined attack was made by three armies of the crusaders upon the Hussites at Mies. The attack failed, and at Tachau the cardinal met the German host in full flight. He bade them turn against their pursuers, and, planting a cross before them, succeeded for a moment in his attempt to rally the panic-stricken multitude. At the sight of the advancing army of the Bohemians the Germans again turned and fled. The cardinal vainly called on them to halt and make a stand against their enemies. In his indication he tore the flag of the empire and cast it before the feet of the German princes. His efforts were fruitless, and the close approach of the Bohemian army forced him to share the flight of the Germans. The pope wrote him a letter encouraging him to persevere in the crusade. He exhorted him to restore ecclesiastical discipline in Germany, and to put an end to the quarrel between the archbishops of Coln and Maintz, that the German churchmen might be more earnest in the crusade.

The cardinal returned to England to raise money for the prosecution of the war, and on entering London 1 Sept. 1428 was received with great state by the mayor and aldermen. When, however, he opened his legatine commission, the Duke of Gloucester refused to recognise it, as contrary to the customs of the kingdom, and Richard Caudray, the king's proctor, argued the case against him. Beaufort promised not to exercise his legatine functions without the king's leave, and the matter was dropped for the time. In Februarv 1429 the cardinal went to Scotland on civil as well as ecclesiastical business, and had an interview near Berwick with James and with his niece, Joan the queen. On his return Gloucester made an effort to deprive him of his see by bringing before the council the question whether he, as a cardinal, might lawfully officiate at the chapter of the order of the Garter on St. George's day, a right which pertained to him as bishop of Winchester. The question was left undecided; but the council requested him not to attend the service. In after years he officiated on these occasions without any objection being made. In spite of the somewhat doubtful attitude of the council he obtained leave to raise a body of troops for the Bohemian war, and to publish the crusade. On 22 June he again set out for Bohemia. Disasters in France, however, caused the council to press on him the necessity of allowing his troops to serve six months with the regent. Beaufort agreed to this, and stayed himself with the regent in France. He excused his conduct to the pope by declaring that he was forced to obey the king's command, and that his troops would have refused to follow him had he not done so. The death of Martin V, in February 1431, put an end to Beaufort's legation and to his part in the Bohemian war.

At the close of 1429 Beaufort received 1,000l. to defray the expenses of a mission which he was about to undertake to the court of Philip, duke of Burgundy, who had just married his niece, Isabella of Portugal. His compliance in lending the troops which he had raised for the crusade evidently strengthened his position at home; for an attempt made by Gloucester in the December following to shut him out from the council, on the ground of his beings a cardinal, was answered by a vote that his attendance was lawful, and was to be required on all occasions except when questions between the king and the papacy were in debate. Alarmed at his increasing power, Gloucester persuaded him to accompany the king to France in April 1430, and during 1430-1 he was constantly employed in the affairs of that kingdom. In November 1430 he lent the king 2,815l. 13s., and an order was made in council the following year for the repayment of this and of other sums which were owing to him. On 17 Dec. 1431 he crowned Henry VI king of France at Paris. Meanwhile, Gloucester took advantage of his absence to make another attempt to deprive him of his see. This attack seems to have been made in the name of the crown; for in a general council, held 6 Nov., the king's serjeants and attorney argued that he could not, as cardinal, continue to hold an English bishopric. At this council the Bishop of Worcester, in answer to a question from Gloucester, asserted that he had heard the Bishop of Lichfield, who acted as Beaufort's proctor, say that the cardinal had bought an exemption from the jurisdiction of Canterbury for himself and his see. The Bishop of Lichfield, who was present, seems neither to have denied nor confirmed this statement. The council was not disposed to proceed in haste in a matter of such importance, and made an order that documents should be searched, and the question was put off until the return of the king. Three weeks afterwards, however, Gloucester was more successful in the privy council, where the number of bishops was larger in proportion to the lay councillors than in the general council. This preponderance of the clerical element was contrary to Beaufort's interest; for Archbishop Chichele naturally bore him no good will, and the chance of a vacancy of the see of Winchester excited the hopes of the other bishops. Accordingly, in this council writs were sealed of præmunire and attachment upon the statute against the cardinal. Some valuable jewels also belonging to him were seized at Sandwich. The cardinal boldly faced the danger. He returned to England and attended the parliament which met in May 1432. There, in the presence of the king and of the Duke of Gloucester, he demanded to hear what accusations were brought against him. He had come back, he said, because the defence of his name and fame and honour was more to him than earthly riches. Gloucester was foiled by this appeal to the estates, and in answer to his demand the cardinal was assured that the king held him loyal. He further demanded that this answer should be delivered under the great seal, which was accordingly done. The parliament then proceeded to consider the seizure of his jewels. In order to get them at once into his possession the cardinal deposited the sum of 6,000l.; and as in 1434 an order was made that this money should be repaid, it is evident that on inquiry the seizure was shown to have been made unlawfully. He also lent the crown another sum of 6,000l., and further respited a debt of 13,000 marks. Beaufort owed his victory in this, which was the greatest crisis of his life, to the support of the parliament; and on the petition of the commons a statute was framed exonerating him from the penalties of any offences which he might have committed against the Statute of Provisors, or in the execution of any papal bulls.

On 16 Feb. 1433 the cardinal obtained leave to attend the council of Basel. As he received license to take with him the large sum of 20,000l., it seems probable that he desired to make interest for himself in the hope that he might at some future time be chosen pope. Although he did not take advantage of this permission to attend the council, he did not abandon his intention of doing so, and in the June of the next year he presented a series of 'demands' to the king, in which, after asking. for securities for his loans, he stated that he was bound by certain vows, and that since it would be to his jeopardy if the time or end of his journey should be known, he desired license to go when and whither he pleased and to take with him such money as he might choose. In answer to this request he was told that he might attend the council and take with him the sum allowed in the previous year. Meanwhile, on the return of Bedford in 1433, the cardinal upheld him against Gloucester, and, in common with other lords, agreed with the request made by the commons that the duke should remain in England, and help to carry on the government. The change in the administration was followed by a vigorous attempt to introduce economy into the disordered finances of the kingdom, and the cardinal, together with some other members of the council, following the example set by Bedford, agreed to give up their wages as councillors, provided that their attendance was not enforced in vacation.

In 1435 the cardinal was present at the famous European congress, held at Arras, for the purpose, if possible, of making peace. In common with the other ambassadors from England, he had power to treat for a marriage between the king and the eldest or other daughter of his adversary of France. He joined his colleagues on 19 Aug. Failing in their preliminary negotiations with the French, and convinced that the Duke of Burgundy was about to desert their alliance, the English ambassadors returned on 6 Sept. The death of the Duke of Bedford, which took place a few days afterwards, had a considerable effect on the position of the cardinal. With Bedford the Lancastrian house lost almost all that remained of the strength of the days of Henry V. From this time the house of York began to occupy a prominent place, and in doing so it naturally entered into a rivalry with the Beauforts, who had no other hope than in the fortunes of the reigning house. When Bedford was dead, the cardinal was the only Englishman 'who had any pretension to be called a politician.' His policy was now plainly marked out, and from this time he began to labour earnestly for peace (Stubbs, Constit. Hist. iii. c. 18). Gloucester, who had of late made his brother Bedford the chief object of his opposition, now turned all his strength to thwart the policy of his uncle, even, as it seems, trying to use against him the hostile family interest of the house of York.

Although by the decision of the council in 1429 the attendance of the cardinal was not required when questions between the king and the papacy were in debate, he took part in the settlement of a dispute which arose from an attempt made by the council in 1434 to put an end to the claim of the pope to nominate to English bishoprics. The immediate question, which concerned the appointment to the see of Worcester, was settled by a compromise proposed in a letter from the council to Eugenius IV to which the name of the cardinal is subscribed. The jealousy of papal interference which was aroused by this dispute may probably be discerned when, in April 1437, the cardinal having requested license to go to Rome, the council recommended the king not to allow him to leave the kingdom, alleging as their reasons for this advice their fear lest evil should befall him by the way, and the importance of his presence at the negotiations for peace which were then on foot. The following year they further advised the king not to allow him to attend the council of Basel, a determination which Sir Harris Nicolas considers (Ordinances of the Privy Council, v. pref. xxx) to have arisen from 'the fear of his intriguing with the cardinals and other influential ecclesiastics at the council for the tiara at the sacrifice of the interests of his country.' In this year Beaufort obtained from the king a full pardon for all offences 'from the beginning of the world up to that time.' This pardon evidently had reference to his dealings with securities. Taken, however, in connection with the refusal of his journey, it seems to indicate that his influence was shaken. If this was so, it was not long before his importance as financier fully restored him to power. The futile campaign of Gloucester in Flanders, and the continued demands for money from France, having exhausted the treasury, the cardinal lent the king 10,000 marks, extended the time of repayment of another sum of 14,000 marks, and gave him possession of some jewels which had been pledged to him. Each year the hopelessness of the war became more apparent. In January 1439 the cardinal had a conference with the Duchess of Burgundy at Calais, and it was agreed that ambassadors should be sent thither to treat of peace. During the negotiations which ensued, the cardinal had full and secret powers from the king, and in conjunction with the duchess acted as mediator between the ambassadors of the two parties. He landed at Calais on 26 June. As he was the advocate of peace, and hoped to secure it by means of the intervention of the captive Duke of Orleans, while, on the other hand, Gloucester was set on prosecuting the war and on keeping the duke prisoner, the discretionary powers entrusted to the cardinal and the part taken by Orleans in the negotiations show that Beaufort had by this time fully regained his influence in the council. In his absence, however, the Duke of Gloucester was left without control, and the council accordingly sent instructions to the ambassadors to refuse the French demands, which were indeed of such a nature as to make the failure of the negotiations certain. On 2 Oct. the cardinal and the ambassadors returned to England. Another attempt to arrange a peace was made by the cardinal and the Duchess of Burgundy in January 1440. Ambassadors were again appointed, and the council decided on the release of the Duke of Orleans. Against this decision Gloucester made a violent remonstrance to the king. He embodied in a long document all his causes of complaint against Beaufort. He began with his acceptance of the cardinal's hat and his retention of the see of Winchester. He accused him of defrauding the crown, of forwarding the interests of his family to the hurt of the king, alleging divers instances, and among them the fact that while Beaufort was chancellor part of the ransom of James of Scotland was remitted on his marriage with his niece. He further declared that he had been guilty of extravagance and mismanagement at the congress of Arras and at the late meeting of ambassadors at Calais, and that he now intended to destroy the king's realm of France by the release of the Duke of Orleans. To this manifesto, which is full of bitterness and mischievous intent, the council returned a moderately worded answer. Powerful as Gloucester was to do evil by slandering those who were striving for peace and by setting men's minds against them, he had, in comparison with the cardinal, little real weight in the conduct of affairs. His weakness was manifested in the following year by the trial of his wife, Eleanor Cobham, who was accused of witchcraft before the archbishops and the cardinal.

Although Beaufort was eagerly desirous of peace, he never discouraged any efforts which were made to prosecute the war with vigour. In a debate in the council on 6 Feb. 1443, when the question was proposed whether an army should be sent to the relief of Normandy or of Guienne, since there seemed little hope of sending troops to both, the cardinal, after others had spoken, some for the one plan and some for the other, declared that 'him seemeth both to be entended were right necessary,' and suggested that the treasurer should declare what funds he had available for 'the setting of the said armies' (Ordinances, v. 224). And when his nephew, the Duke of Somerset, was persuaded to take the command of the expedition which was fitted out in that year, the cardinal promised to lend 20,000l. towards its equipment, insisting, however, at the same time that the patent securing the repayment of this sum should be drawn out in the exact words he chose; 'else he would lend no money.' When, therefore, the form was being read before the lords of the council, the Duke of Gloucester said that such reading was needless, since his uncle had passed it, and would have that and no other (Ord. v. 280). Bitterly as the words were spoken, they were true enough, for without the help of the cardinal the whole expedition must have come to naught. In this year Beaufort obtained another general pardon and release from all fines and penalties for anything which he had done. In the marriage of the king with Margaret of Anjou, in 1445, the cardinal must have believed that he saw the promise of that peace for which he had sought so earnestly, and it is therefore interesting to find (Ord. v. 323) that the queen's wedding-ring was made out of a ring with 'a fair ruby' which the cardinal had presented to the king on the day of his coronation. In the mysterious death of the Duke of Gloucester, which took place 23 Feb. 1447, Cardinal Beaufort certainly could have had no part. Bitter as was the duke's enmity against him, Beaufort would never have done a deed which was so contrary to the interests of the Lancastrian dynasty, and which opened the way for the ambitious schemes of the rival house. A few weeks later, on 11 April, the great cardinal died. The scene in which Shakespeare portrays (Second Part Hen. VI, act iii. sc. 3) 'the black despair' of his death has no historical basis. Hall records some words of complaint and repentance which, he says, Dr. John Baker, the cardinal's chaplain, told him that his master uttered on his death-bed. In spite, however, of this authority, there is good reason for doubting the truth of the story. A short account of the cardinal's last days has been given us by an eye-witness (Cont. Croyland). As he lay dying in the Wolvesey palace at Winchester, he had many men, monks and clergy and laymen, gathered in the great chamber where he was, and there he caused the funeral service and the requiem mass to be sung. During the last few days of his life he was busied with his will, and added the second of its two codicils on 9 April. In the evening before he died the will was read over to him before all who were in the chamber, and as it was read he made such corrections and additions as he thought needful. On the morning of the next day he confirmed it with an audible voice. Then he took leave of all, and so died. He was buried, according to his directions, in his cathedral church of Winchester. A large part of his great wealth was left for charitable purposes. When his executors offered the king 2,000l. from the residue of his estate, Henry refused it, saying, 'My uncle was very dear to me, and did me much kindness while he lived; may the Lord reward him! Do with his goods as ye are bound to do; I will not have them' (Blakman, De Virtutibus Hen. VI). At Winchester Beaufort finished the rebuilding of the cathedral, and re-founded and enlarged the hospital of St. Cross, near that city, giving it the name of Nova Domus Eleemosynaria Nobilis Paupertatis. Busied in the affairs of the world, he lived a secular life. In his early years he was the lover of Lady Alice Fitzalan, daughter of Richard, Earl of Arundel, and by her had a daughter named Joan, who married Sir Edward Stradling, knight, of St. Donat's, in the county of Glamorgan. Beaufort was ambitious, haughty, and impetuous. Rich and heaping up riches, he has continually been charged with avarice. He certainly seems to have clung unduly to his office as trustee of the family estates of the house of Lancaster, which must have given him command of a considerable sum of money. Trading in money, he was not to blame if he took care that he should as far as possible be defended from loss, and if he loved it too well he at least made his country a gainer by his wealth. His speeches in parliament are marked by a constitutional desire to uphold the crown by the advice and support of the estates of the realm. He was unwearied in the business of the state and farsighted and patriotic in his counsels. Family relationships with foreign courts, as well as his position as cardinal, gave him a place in Europe such as was held by no other statesman, and made him the fittest representative of his country abroad. The events which followed his death are the best proofs of the wisdom of his policy and of his loyalty both to the crown and to the truest interests of England.

[Ordinances of the Privy Council, ii.-v. ed. Sir H. Nicolas; Rolls of Parliament, iii. iv.; Rymer's F?dera, ix. x.; Gesta Henrici V. ed. Williams, Eng. Hist. Soc.; Thomas Otterbourne's Chron. ed. Hearne; Thomas do Elmham's Vita, &c. ed. Hearne; Letters illustrative of the Wars in France, ed. Stevenson, Rolls Ser.; Historical Collections of a Citizen of London, ed. Gairdner, Camden Soc.; Walsingham's Historia, John Amundesham's Annales, Chron. Monast. Sancti Albani, ed. Riley, Rolls Ser.; Hardyng's Chron.; Hall's Chron.; Cont. Croyland, Gale's Scriptores, i.; Raynaldus, Eccl. Annales; Æneas Sylvius, Historia Bohemica; Andrew of Ratisbon, Höfler, Geschichtschreiber der Hussitischen Bewegung, ii.; Duck's Life of H. Chichele, Abp. of Cant. 1699; Godwin de Præsulibus; Le Neve's Fasti, ed. Hardy; Wharton's Anglia Sacra, i.; Nichols's Royal Wills; Stubbs's Const. Hist. iii. c. 18; Excerpta Historica, ed. Bentley; Creighton's History of the Papacy during the Reformation]

W. H 
Beaufort, Cardinal Henry (I10772)
185 BEAUMONT, ROBERT de (d. 1118), count of Meulan, feudal statesman, was son of Roger de Beaumont ('de Bellomonte' in the latinized form) and grandson of Humfrey de Vielles, who had added to his paternal fief of Pont Audemer, by the gift of his brother, that of Beaumont, afterwards 'Beaumont-le-Roger' (including Vielles), from which his descendants took their name. Roger de Beaumont had married Adeline, the daughter of Waleran, count of Meulan ('de Mellente') in France, and was allied paternally to the ducal house of Normandy, of which he was a trusted counsellor. Being advanced in years at the time of the invasion of England, he remained in Normandy at the head of the council, and sent his sons with William. Of these, Robert fought at Senlac (14 Oct. 1066), though confused with his father by Wace (Roman de Rou, 1. 13462):?

Rogier Ii Veil, cil de Belmont,
Assalt Engleis el primier front.

He distinguished himself early in the day by a charge on the right wing, in which he was the first to break down the English palisade (Will. Poitou, 134). On William's march into the midlands in 1068, he was rewarded with large grants in Warwickshire (Domesday, 239 b) and Warwick Castle was entrusted to his brother Henry [see Newburgh, Henry de]. He then practically disappears for more than twenty years. He is said to have striven in 1079 to reconcile Robert with his father, the Conqueror (Ord. Vit.), and shortly afterwards he succeeded, in right of his mother, to his uncle, Hugh, count of Meulan. On the death of the Conqueror (1089) he and his brother espoused the cause of Rufus, and were thenceforth high in his favour. Presuming on his power, the count of Meulan is said to have haughtily demanded from Robert, then duke of Normandy, the castellanship of Ivry, which his father had consented to exchange for that of Brionne. The duke, repenting the request, arrested him, and handed over Brionne to Robert de Meules. At the intercession of the count's aged father he was released on payment of a heavy fine, and restored to the castellanship of Brionne. But he was compelled to recover the castle by a desperate siege (Ord. Vit. viii. 13). His father, Roger, not long after entered the abbey of St. Peter of Préaux (founded by his father and himself), and the count, succeeding to the family fiefs of Beaumont and Pont Audemer, was now a powerful vassal in England, in Normandy, and in France (ib. viii. 25). He and Robert de Belesme, according to Mr. Freeman, though 'of secondary importance in the tale of the conquest and of the reign of the first William, became the most prominent laymen of the reign of the second' (Will. Ruf.) In the struggle between Robert and William Rufus (1096) he sided actively in Normandy with the latter (Ord. Vit. ix. 3), and on William invading France to recover the Vexin (1097) he threw in his lot with his English lord, and by admitting him to his castle of Meulan opened the way for him to Paris (ib. x. 5). He was now the king's chief adviser, and when Hé1ias of Maine offered to come over to him, dissuaded him from accepting the offer (ib. x. 7). He and his brother were present at William's death (2 Aug. 1100), and they both accompanied Henry in his hasty ride to London (ib. x. 14, 15). The count, adhering strenuously to Henry in the general rising which followed (ib. x. 18 bis; W. Malm. v. § 394), became his 'specially trusted counsellor' (Will. Ruf.), and persuaded him in the Whitsun gémot of 1101 to temporise discreetly with his opponents by promising them all that they asked for (Ord. Vit. x. 16, 18). Ivo de Grantmesnil, who had been a leading rebel, was tried and sentenced the following year (1102), and sought the influence of the powerful count, 'qui præcipuus erat inter consiliarios regis,' for the mitigation of his penalty. The cunning minister agreed to intervene, and to advance him the means for a pilgrimage, on receiving in pledge his Leicestershire fiefs, with the town of Leicester, all which he eventually refused to return (ib. xi. 3). Having thus added to his already large possessions, he attained the height of wealth and prosperity, and is distinctly stated by Orderic (ib.) to have been created earl of Leicester ('inde consul in Angliâ factus'). But of this the Lords' committee 'found no evidence' (3rd Report on the Dignity of a Peer, p. 133). Nor does he appear to have been so styled, though he possessed the tertius denarius, and though that dignity devolved upon his son. He was now (1103) despatched by Henry on a mission to Normandy, where from his seat of Beaumont he intrigued in Henry's interest (ib. xi. 6). On Henry coming over in 1104 he headed his party among the Norman nobles (ib. xi. 10), and was again in close attendance on him during his visit of 1105 (ib. xi. 11 ), and at the great battle of Tenchebrai (28 Sept. 1106), in which he commanded the second line of the king's army (ib. xi. 20). He was again in Normandy with the king 3 Feb. 1113, persuading him to confirm the monks of St. Evreul in their possessions (ib. xi. 43). The close of his life, according to Henry of Huntingdon, was embittered by the infidelity of his wife, but the details of the story are obscure. He is also said by Henry to have been urged on his death-bed to restore the lands he had unjustly acquired, but to have characteristically replied that he would leave them to his sons that they might provide for his salvation (Hen. Hunt. 240, 306-7; W. Malm. v. § 407). He died 5 June 1118, and was buried with his fathers in the chapter-house of Préaux (Ord. Vit. xii. 1). 'On the whole,' says Mr. Freeman, 'his character stands fair' (Will. Ruf.) Almost the last survivor of the conquest generation, he strangely impressed the imagination of his contemporaries by his unbroken prosperity under successive Kings, by his steady advance in wealth and power, while those around him were being ruined (Ord. Vit. xi. 2), but above all by his unerring sagacity. 'A cold and crafty statesman.... the Achitophel of his time,' he was deemed, says Henry of Huntingdon (p. 306), 'sapientissimus omnium hinc usque in Jerusalem,' and, according to William of Malmesbury, was appealed to 'as the Oracle of God' (v. § 407). In the contest with Anselm he took the same line as his son in the contest with Becket, intervening to save him from the vengeance of Rufus, and in the council of Rockingham (1095) opposing his deposition, yet steadily supporting the right of the crown in the question of investitures (ib. v. § 417). For this, indeed he was excommunicated (Anselmi Epist. iv. 99; Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 82). Eadmer (94) complains that he disliked the English and prevented their promotion in the church. He is said to have introduced, after Alexios Comnenos, the fashion of a single meal a day in the place of the Saxon profuseness. His benefactions to the church were small, but at Leicester he rebuilt St. Mary's as a foundation for secular canons (Mon. Ang. vi. 467). The charter by which he confirmed to his 'merchants' of Leicester their guild and customs will be found in Mr. Thompson's 'Essay on Municipal History,' but the story of his abolishing trial by duel is, though accepted, probably unfounded. He had married, late in life (1096-7), Elizabeth (or Ysabel), daughter of Hugh the Great of Vermandois (or of Crépy) and niece of Philip of France (Ord. Vit. ix. 4). She married, at his death, William de Warrenne, having had by him, with five daughters, three sons (Ord. Vit. xi. 2), Robert and Waleran [see Beaumont, Robert de, 1104-1168; and Beaumont, Waleran de, 1104-1166], and Hugh, 'cognomento Pauper,' who received the earldom of Bedford from Stephen(Gest. Steph. p. 74).

[Ordericus Vitalis, lib. viii.; Henry of Huntingdon (Rolls series); William of Malmesbury; Monasticon Anglicanum; Nichols's History of Leicester (1797), pp. 22-3; Thompson's History of Leicester (pp. 27-31), and Essay on Municipal History (pp. 38-40); Third Report on the Dignity of a Peer (p. 133); Planché's The Conqueror and his Companions (i. 203-16); Freeman's Norman Conquest (v. 151, 828), and William Rufas.]
J. H. R 
de Beaumont-le-Roger, Robert Count of Leicester and Meulan (I11110)
186 BEAUMONT, ROBERT de, Earl of Leicester (1104-1168), justiciary of England, was son of the preceding, and a twin with his brother Waleran [see Beaumont, Waleran de]. He seems, however, to have been deemed the younger, and is spoken of as postnatus in the 'Testa de Nevill.' He is stated to have been born in 1104 (Ord. Vit. xi. 6) when his father was advanced in years, a date fatal to the story in the 'Abingdon Chronicle' (ii. 229), that he had been at the Benedictine monastery there as a boy, 'regis Willelmi tempore' (i.e. ante 1099). At his father's death (1118) he succeeded to his English fiefs (Ord. Vit. xii. 33), being apparently considered the younger of the twins, and Henry, in gratitude for his father's services, brought him up, with his brother, in the royal household, and gave him to wife Amicia, daughter of Ralph (de Wader), earl of Norfolk, by Emma, daughter of William (Fitz-Osbern), earl of Hereford, with the fief of Bréteuil for her dower (ib.) The twins accompanied Henry to Normandy, and to his interview with Pope Calixtus at Gisors (November 1119), where they are said to have astounded the cardinals by their learning. They were also present at his death-bed, 1 Dec. 1135 (ib. xiii. 19). In the anarchy that followed, war broke out between Robert and his hereditary foe, Roger de Toesny (ib. xiii. 22), whom he eventually captured by his brother's assistance. In December 1137 the twins returned to England with Stephen, as his chief advisers, and Robert began preparing for his great foundation, his Norman possessions being overrun (ib. xiii. 36) in his absence (1138), till he came to terms with Roger de Toesny (ib. xiii. 38). In June 1139 he took, with his brother, the lead in seizing the bishops of Salisbury and Lincoln at Oxford (ib. xiii. 40), and on the outbreak of civil war was despatched with him, by Stephen, to escort the empress to Bristol (October 1139), and is said (but this is doubtful) to have received a grant of Hereford. He secured his interests with the Angevin party (ib. xiii. 43) after Stephen's defeat (2 Feb. 1141), and then devoted himself to raising, in the outskirts of Leicester, the noble abbey of St. Mary de Pré ('de Pratis') for canons regular of the Austin order. Having bestowed on it rich endowments, including those of his father's foundation, he had it consecrated in 1143 by the bishop of Lincoln, whom he had contrived to reconcile. In 1152 he was still in Stephen's confidence, and exerted his influence to save his brother (Gervase, i. 148), but on Henry landing in 1163 he supplied him freely with means for his struggle (ib. i. 152), and attending him, shortly after his coronation (December 1154) was rewarded with his lasting confidence, and with the post of chief justiciar, in which capacity ('capitalis justicia') he first appears 13 Jan. 1155 (Cart. Ant. W.), and again in 1156 (Rot. Pip. 2 Hen. II). He was now in the closest attendance on the court, and on the queen joining the king in Normandy (December 1158) he was left in charge of the kingdom, in a vice-regal capacity, till the king's return 25 Jan. 1163, Richard de Luci [q. v.], when in England, being associated with him in the government. He was present at the famous council of Clarendon (13-28 Jan. 1164), and his name heads the list of lay signatures to the 'constitutions' (MS. Cott. Claud. B. fo. 26), to which he is said, by his friendly influence, to have procured Becket's assent (Gervase, i. 177). As with his father, in the question of investitures he loyally upheld the claims of the crown, while maintaining to the church and churchmen devotion even greater than his father's. In the great crisis at the council of Northampton (October 1164) he strove, with the Earl of Cornwall, to reconcile the primate with the king, pleading hard with Becket when they visited him (12 Oct.) at his house. The following day they were commissioned to pronounce to him the sentence of the court; but when Leicester, as chief justiciary, commenced his address, he was at once cut short by the primate, who rejected his jurisdiction (Gervase, i. 185; Rog. Hov. i. 222, 228; Materials, ii. 393, &c.) Early the next year (1165) he was again, on the king's departure, left in charge of the kingdom, and, on the Archbishop of Cologne arriving as an envoy from the emperor, refused to greet him on the ground that he was a schismatic (R. Dic. i. 318). He appears to have accompanied Henry to Normandy in the spring of 1166, but leaving him, returned to his post before October, and retained it till his death, which took place in 1168 (Rog. Hov. i. 269; Ann. Wav.; Chron. Mailros.). It is said, in a chronicle of St. Mary de Pré (Mon. Ang. ut infra), that he himself became a canon regular of that abbey, and resided there fifteen years, till his death, when he was buried on the south side of the choir; but it is obvious that he cannot thus have entered the abbey. This earl was known as le Bossu (to distinguish him from his successors), and also, possibly, as le Goczen (Mon. Ang. 1830, vi. 467). He founded, in addition to St. Mary de Pré, the abbey of Garendon (Ann. Wav. 233), the monastery of Nuneaton, the priory of Lusfield, and the hospital of Brackley (wrongly attributed by Dugdale to his father), and was a liberal benefactor to many other houses (see Dugdale). His charter confirming to his burgesses of Leicester their merchant-gild and customs is preserved at Leicester, and printed on p. 404 of the Appendix to the eighth report on Historical MSS., and copies of his charters of wood and pasture are printed in Mr. Thompson's essay (pp. 42-84). He is also said to have remitted the 'gavel-pence' impost, but the story, though accepted by Mr. Thompson (p. 60) and Mr. Jeaffreson (Appendix to 8th Report, ut supra, pp. 404, 406-7), is probably false.

[Ordericus Vitalis, lib. xii.,xiii.; Roger Hoveden (Rolls Series); Gervase of Canterbury (ib.) R. Diceto (ib.); Materials for History of Thomas à Becket (ib.); Monasticon Anglicanum, ii. 308 (ed. 1830, vi. 462-69); Dugdale's Baronage, i. 85-87; Lyttelton's Henry II (1767); Nichols's History of Leicester (1795), pp. 24-68, app. viii. p. 15; Thompson's History of Leicester (chap. vi.), and Essay on Municipal History (1867); Foss's Judges of England (1848), i. 190; Eyton's Court and Itinerary of Henry II.]

J. H. R. 
de Beaumont, Robert "le Bossu" 2nd Earl of Leicester, Justiciar of England (I11491)
187 BEAUMONT, ROBERT de, Earl of Leicester (d. 1190), baronial leader, was son of Robert de Beaumont, earl of Leicester [q. v.], who died in 1168. He joined the rebellion against Henry II in favour of Prince Henry, which broke out in April 1173 (Ben. Abb. i. 45), and having obtained permission to visit Normandy, shut himself up in his castle of Bréteuil (R. Dic.) His English fiefs were confiscated in consequence, and an army sent against his town of Leicester, which was taken and burnt (28 July), with the exception of the castle, after a siege of three weeks (ib.) Henry II himself marched on Bréteuil, 8 Aug., and (the earl having fled before him) captured and burnt the place on 25-6 Sept. 1173. The earl is said to have been present at Gisors during the fruitless negotiations between the two kings, and to have upbraided Henry with his grievous losses. But this seems incompatible with the fact that he landed from Flanders, at Walton, Suffolk, 29 Sept. 1173, at the head of a force of Flemings (R. Dic.), and having been joined by Hugh (Bigod), earl of Norfolk, plundered Norwich, and besieged and took the castle of Hagenet on 13 Oct. Setting out for Leicester, he was intercepted at Fornham, near Bury St. Edmunds, by Richard de Luci and other supporters of the king (17 Oct.), and taken prisoner, with his wife (Rog. Hov. ii. 54-5). They were sent over to Henry (Rot. Pip.) and imprisoned by him at Falaise, till his return to England, 8 July 1174, when he brought them with him (Rog. Hov. ii. 54-5). Meanwhile the earl's castellan had broken forth from Leichester, and ravaged the country round, and Henry now (31 July 1174) extorted the surrender of his castles, Leicester, Mountsorrel, and Groby (ib. ii. 65). The king took his prisoners back with him to Normandy on 8 August, but by the treaty with Louis on 30 Sept. 1174 the earl's liberation was provided for (ib.) His castle of Leicester was, however, demolished (R. Dic. i. 404), and it was not till January 1177 that in the council of Northampton he was restored in blood and honours (ib. ii. 118), and his castles (except Mountsorrel) returned to him. He accompanied the king to Normandy in the summer, but is not again heard of till the spring of 1183, when, with the earl of Gloucester, he was arrested and imprisoned. He was, however, in attendance on the king at Christmas 1186, when he kept his court at Guildford, and on the accession of Richard (July 1189) he was completely reinstated (ib. iii. 5) and appointed at the coronation, 3 Sept. 1189, to carry one of the swords of state (ib. iii. 9). He appears as attesting a charter to the monks of Canterbury, 1 Dec. 1189 (Gervase, i. 503), but then went on pilgrimage to Palestine, and died in Greece, on his way back, 1190 (ib. iii. 88). This earl was known as Robert (ès) Blanchesmains. Copies of his charters to his burgesses of Leicester will be found on pp. 36 and 44 of Mr. Thompson's 'Essay on Municipal History.' He married Petronilla ('Parnel'), heiress of the house of Grantmesnil, who is said to have brought him the honour of Hinckley (Leicester), but it is possible that he may have inherited it from his grandfather. His son and heir Robert (Fitz-Parnel) was invested with the earldom of Leicester by Richard at Messina, early in 1191 (Rog. Hov.), and having distinguished himself in the crusade and been subsequently captured by the king of France in 1193, while defending Rouen for Richard, and liberated in 1196, died childless in 1204. Of this Robert's two younger brothers, Roger was made bishop of St. Andrew's in Scotland, 1189, and William (founder of St. Leonard's at Leicester) was a leper. The great inheritance of the earls of Leicester consequently passed, through his two sisters, to the houses of de Montfort and de Quenci.

[Roger Hoveden (Rolls series); R. Diceto (ib.); Dugdale's Baronage, i. 87; Nichols's History of Leicester, pp. 69-90; Thompson's History of Leicester (chap, vii.) and Essay on Municipal History; Eyton's Court and Itinerary of Henry II.]

J. H. R. 
de Beaumont, Robert 3rd Earl of Leicester (I11493)
188 BERKELEY, Family of. The first tenant of Berkeley after the conquest was Roger, who in 1086 held lands in Gloucestershire and Wiltshire (Domesday, i. 73, 162, 168; Monasticon, i. 549). He bequeathed his lands to his nephew William (Pipe Roll 31 Hen. I, p. 133), founder of the abbey of Kingswood (Monast. v. 425). By this time probably a Norman castle had been built at Berkeley; for Henry spent Easter there in 1121 (Anglo-Saxon Chron.) and Roger, the son and successor of William, having fallen into the hands of Walter, the brother of Miles, earl of Hereford, in the time of the anarchy, was cruelly tortured to make him give up his castle (Gesta Stephani). His son Roger lost some of his lands, and in 12 Hen. II part of Berkeley was held by Robert FitzHarding. As at that date Roger held certain fees of the honour of Berkeley, for which he did no service to Robert, it may be supposed that he had forfeited some part of his estate by opposition to Henry FitzEmpress; that of these forfeited lands part had been granted by the crown to Robert FitzHarding; and that the honour, with the castle of Berkeley, was perhaps still in the king's hand (Liber Niger Scacc. i. 165, 171). An alliance was made between the rival families; for Roger married his daughter Alicia to Maurice, the eldest son of Robert FitzHarding, giving Slimbridge as her marriage portion. In spite of these losses, Roger of Berkeley, as he was still called, retained large estates, and his house was represented in the elder line by the Berkeleys of Dursley (Testa de Nevill, 77), extinct in 1382, and in the younger by the Berkeleys of Cubberley, extinct in 1404 (Fosbroke, Smyth).

The house of Robert FitzHarding, which has held the castle of Berkeley for seven hundred years, descends in the male line from Eadnoth, the 'staller' of Edward the Confessor and of Harold, the son of Godwine (Codex Dipl. iv. 204; Freeman, Norman Conquest, iv. 757), who fell in battle against the sons of Harold in 1067. Of his son Harding (Codex Dipl. iv. 234) William of Malmesbury, speaking of him as then alive, tells us (Gest. Reg. iii. 254) that he was 'better used to whet his tongue in strife than to wield his arms in war.' This Harding may probably be identified with the Harding who, in 1062, subscribed the confessor's Waltham charter as 'reginæ pincerna' (Codex Dipl. iv. 159), and continued after the Conquest in the household of Eadgyth, appearing as a witness to the sale of Combe to Bishop Gisa, transacted in Eadgyth's presence at Wilton in 1072 (Liber Albus, ii. 254 fo. Chapter Records, Wells). In 1086 he held lands in Gloucestershire in pledge of a certain Brihtric, who held them in the time of Edward the Confessor (Domesday, i. 170 b, and Freeman, as above). It is safe to assume that Robert FitzHarding was his son. It is possible that Harding had an elder son, Nicolas, the ancestor of the family of Meriet (Smyth's Lives, p. 19, n. A, ed. Maclean). If this was so, the younger son soon outstripped the elder in wealth. Whether the honour of Berkeley was in the king's hands in 12 Hen. II, or had already passed to the new family, it is certain that before long it was granted to the house of Eadnoth; and on the accession of Richard I Maurice, the son of Robert and the husband of Alicia, procured a charter from the king granting him the lordship of Berkeley Hernesse, to be held by him and his heirs in barony (Lords' Committee, 1829). This charter does not imply that a new grant was made. Like many others of the same date, it probably confirmed a former grant, and Robert FitzHarding is to be held the first lord of Berkeley of the new line. This Robert founded St. Augustine's, in Bristol, as a priory of black canons (Monast. vi. 363). His grandson, Robert [q. v.], the son of Maurice, having joined the baronial party against John, was excommunicated and his castle was seized by the king (Wendover, iii. 297, where, by a confusion arising from the headquarters of the barons being at Brackley, Robert is called De Brackele; but the connection of the name with that of his kinsman, Maurice de Gant, marks the lord of Berkeley; see also p. 356 and Close Rolls 18 John, p. 276). Robert, dying without issue in 1219, was succeeded by his brother Thomas, who obtained seisin of his lands on 5 March 1220 (Close Rolls 4 Hen. III). His grandson, also named (1) Thomas, took an active part in the wars of Edward I against the Welsh, the Scots, and the French. As he received a writ of summons to the parliament of 1295, the date fixed by lawyers as a period of limitation, he is reckoned as the first baron of Berkeley who held and transmitted an hereditary peerage (Lords' Report, App. i. 67). His name is also to be found among the barons who, on 12 Feb. 1301, wrote to Pope Boniface VIII on the subject of his claim to the lordship of Scotland (F?d. i. 926, 927; Hemingb. ii. 209). As the lords of Berkeley held Bedminster and Redcliff, they were brought into conflict with the burghers of Bristol, who sought to add these estates to their town, and were very jealous of the jurisdiction which the lords exercised in them. This jealousy led to open violence in 1303, and a long struggle ensued between the burghers and the Lord Thomas and his son Maurice (Parl. and Close Rolls 33 Ed. I; Seyer, Hist. of Bristol, ii. 77; Smyth, Lives, 195?200). Shortly before the death of Edward I, Thomas was sent on an embassy to Rome. In the next reign he was taken prisoner at the battle of Bannockburn. He died in 1321, and was succeeded by his son (2) Maurice. A writ of summons was sent to Maurice in 1308 during the lifetime of his father, and thus a dignity was created independent of that which was derived from tne writ of 1295 (Nicolas). During the famous insurrection at Bristol Maurice had the satisfaction of being employed against his old enemies, and was made the keeper of the castle and of the town. Having married Margaret, daughter of Roger Mortimer of Wigmore, earl of March, and widow of the Earl of Oxford, he joined the confederacy of the barons against the Despensers, and took part with Hugh of Audley in ravaging their Welsh lands. The Mortimers, however, were forced to submit to the king in January 1322, and Maurice followed their example. He was imprisoned at Wallingford until his death m 1326 (Adam Mur. 33, 36, 40). Queen Isabella released his son (3) Thomas from prison, and gave back the Berkeley estates, for which he paid a relief, 'ut pro baronia' (Lords Comm.) The story told by Froissart (bk. i. c. 162) of the gallantry and capture, at the battle of Poitiers, of a young knight who announced himself as Thomas, lord of Berkeley, has usually (Dugdale) been attributed to this lord. As, however, the chronicler states that this was the first time the young knight unfurled his banner, it is more likely that he was Maurice, the eldest son of Lord Thomas (Smith). In 23 Ed. III this lord levied a fine of his estates at Berkeley and other places, and in 26 Ed. III of the manor of Portbury, by which he settled them on his son Maurice and the heirs male of his body, with remainder to the heirs male of his own body by his second wife Catherine, with remainder to his right heirs. He died in 1361. From his youngest son John descended the Berkeleys of Beyerston Castle, a family of considerable wealth and importance during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, which fell into decay early in the seventeenth century (Smyth).

From Sir Maurice (d. at Calais 1346-7), the second son of (2) Lord Maurice, came the Berkeleys of Stoke Gifford, Gloucestershire, of Bruton and of Pylle, Somerset (now represented by Edward Berkeley-Portman, Baron, 1837, and Viscount Portman, 1873), and of Boycourt, Kent. His son Maurice (d. 1385) married Catherine, daughter of John, Lord Bottetourt. From him came the three brothers. Sir Charles Berkeley (d. 1688), Sir William Berkeley, governor of Virginia [q. v.], and John, first Lord Berkeley of Stratton [q. v.] This title became extinct in 1773. Sir Charles second son Charles was created by Charles II baron Berkeley of Rathdown, and Viscount Fitzhardinge (Irish honours), and in 1664 Baron Bottetourt of Langport and Earl of Falmouth in England. The earldom became Extinct on his death, 3 June 1665. In 1763 Norborne Berkeley claimed a summons as Baron Bottetourt, he being a lineal descendant of Sir Maurice Berkeley and his wife Catherine. He received a summons in 1764. On his death in 1776 the Bottetourt title again fell into abeyance, until it was revived in 1803 in favour of Henry Somerset, fifth duke of Beaufort. Sir William Berkeley, brother of Charles, earl of Falmouth, who died in battle with the Dutch in June 1665, is noticed below.

Lord Thomas (5), grandson of the Lord Thomas who died m 1361, was one of the commissioners appointed by parliament to renounce sentence of deposition on Richard I (Knighton, ii. 2760; Traison et Mort, 219). He was a warden of the Welsh Marches, and did good service by sea against Owen Glendower and his French allies (Walsingham, ii. 272). He married Margaret, daughter and heiress of Warine, lord l'Isle, and covenanted for himself and his heirs to bear the arms of l'Isle (Nicolas, L'Isle Peerage), He died 1417, leaving his nephew James, son of his brother James, his heir male ; but the heir of his body was his only daughter Elizabeth, married to Richard Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, by whom she had three daughters, of whom the eldest, Margaret, mamed John, earl of Shrewsbury. On the death of Lord Thomas the Earl and Countess of Warwick took possession of Berkeley Castle, and did not surrender it until (6) James was found the right heir on a writ of diem clausit supremum. The barony of Berkeley then passed to James, summoned to parliament 1421-61, while the Countess of Warwick took the lands of her mother and such lands of her father as were not settled in tail male. The countess died in 1423 and the earl in 1439. As this Lord James was summoned as seised of Berkeley while the Countess of Warwick was her father's heir, it appears that the tenure of Berkeley Castle did at that time constitute a right and confer a dignity. If, however, claim by tenure is set aside, the summons to Lord James must be regarded as the origin of the present barony, while the baronies created by writ of 25 Ea. I and 2 Ed. II are now in abeyance (Nicolas). Lord James (d. 1462) married Isabel, daughter and coheiress of Thomas Mowbray, duke of Norfolk. Among the minor troubles of the reign of Henry VI must be reckoned the strife between Lord James and his cousin, the Countess of Warwick, supported by her son, Lord l'Isle, in the course of which the Earl of Shrewsbury seized Isabel, Lord James's wife, at Gloucester, and kept her in prison until her death. The sole heir of the Countess Margaret in 1829 appears to have been Sir Thomas Shelley Sidney (Nicolas). From Thomas, youngest son of Lord James, was descended Chief-Baron Sir Robert Berkeley, d. 1666 [q. v.], of Spetchley, from whom in the male line is descended Robert Berkeley, Esq., of Spetchley (b. 1823). William (7), the eldest son of James, summoned as baron 1467, was created viscount by Edward IV by patent 12 April 1481, Earl of Nottingham by Richard III 28 June 1483, Earl Alarshal 1485, and Marquis of Berkeley 1488, with remainder to the heirs of his body. In order to spite his brother (8) Maurice, who was his heir presumptive, he suffered a recovery of the castle and lands of Berkeley, and so gained the fee simple, convening the same to be held to his own use in tail general, with remainder to the king (Henry VII) in tail male, with remainder to his own heirs. Accordingly, on his death without issue, the castle passed for a while from the house of Berkeley, and his brother Maurice, not being seised of it, received no summons to parliament, and was described as a commoner (Lords' Comm. No. 31, 32). It has, however, been proved that his son (9) Maurice received a summons (14 Hen. VIII) ; for a letter is extant addressed to him while governor of Calais by Lord Chief-Baron John FitzJames and others, and dated 6 May 1523, in which the writers advise him to obey the summons, though he had not the rome in the parlement chamber that the lordds of Berkeley have hadde of olde time.' By which it appears that this writ of 14 Hen. VIII created a new barony, the old barony by tenure (claimed in 1829) being suspended while the Berkeleys were disseised of the castle. On the other hand, (10) Lord Thomas, son of this Maurice, though disseised of the castle, took his seat in the precedence of the barony of 1295 Nicolas, L'Isle Peerage). Although the Berkeleys lost the lordship of the castle bv the settlement made bv the Marquis "William, they appear to have enjoyed the building as constables of the king until, on the death of Edward VI, the castle reverted to (12) Henry, the grandson of (10) Thomas, special livery being made of the estates in 1 Philip and Mary, he being a minor. It is to be noted that this lord, though seised of the castle, yet had a lower place in parliament than his grandfather, being below the Lords Abergavenny, Audley, and Strange, who would not have been entitled to sit above him had it been held that his barony had been conferred by writ of 23 Ed. I. This lord was a mighty hunter. Queen Elizabeth visited Berkeley in 1663, when, as it happened, Lord Henry was absent from the castle. As was often the case, the royal visit caused great havoc in the deer park. In great wrath Lord Henry had the land disparked. When the queen heard it, she sent to bid him beware of his words and actions ; for the Earl of Leicester greatly desired the castle for himself (Smyth). Lord Henry died in 1613. His first wife was Catherine, daughter of Henry Howard, earl of Surrey. He was succeeded by his grandson, (13) George [q. v.], who died 1668. The next lord, (14) also named George, who died 1698 [q. v.], petitioned in May 1661 for a higher place in the House of Lords than that assigned to him, claiming precedence of the Lords la Warr, Abergavenny, and Audley, on the ground that the seisin of the castle of Berkeley conferred a barony precedent to the writ of 1295, and alleging tnat (9) Maurice, not being seised of the castle, received a summons only as a puisne baron. The claim remained undecided as late as 1673, at which date it disappears. Lord Berkeley was created Viseount Dursley and Earl of Berkeley by patent 11 Sept. 1679. His fifth daughter, the Lady Henrietta, was notorious for her elopement with her brother-in-law, Ford, Lord Grey of Werke (Trial of Ford, Lord Grey of Werke ; A New Vision of Lady G?'s, 1682 ; Luttrell, Diary, i. 229, 234, 239 ; Macaulay, i. 530). She died unmarried in 1710. Charles (15), second earl, was in July 1689 called to the House of Lords as Baron Berkeley of Berkeley, his father being then alive. From that year till 1695 he was envoy extraordinary and plenipotentiary to the States of Holland. He died in 1710, and was succeeded bv his second son, (16) James, third earl [q. v.], who married Lady Louisa Lennox, and died in 1736. His only son was (17) Augustus, fourth earl, who was a general in the army, held a command against the rebels in 1745, and died 9 Jan. 1755. The second surviving son of this earl was George Cranfield Berkeley, the admiral [q. v.] The fifth earl, (18) Frederick Augustus, was a minor at his father's death, and took his seat 8 June 1766. He married Mary, daughter of William Cole, at Lambeth, 16 May 1796, a previous marriage having, it was alleged, been celebrated between them at Berkeley by the vicar of the parish 30 March 1785. This alleged ceremony was, however, kept secret until after the Lambeth marriage, the lady being known between the two dates as Miss Tudor. By this lady Earl Berkeley had his eldest son, William Fitzhardinge, born 1786, his second son, Maurice Frederick Fitzhardinge, his fifth son, Thomas Moreton Fitzhardinge, born 19 Oct. 1796, his sixth son, Charles Grantley Fitzhardinge [q. v.], and other children. After the Lambeth marriage a certificate of the Berkeley ceremony was produced, having been recovered, it was alleged, binder very strange circumstances. The earl having announced his former marriage, his eldest son William, commonly called Viscount Dursley, and at that time M.P. for the county of Gloucester, obtained leave in 1799 to lay his pedigree before the lords committee of privileges, and in 1801, in a suit to perpetuate testimony, the earl made a deposition giving full 5art iculars concerning the Berkeley ceremony, the earl died in 1810, and his son William applied to be summoned as next earl. In March 1811 the committee of privileges decided that the Berkeley marriage was not then proved, and that the petitioner's claim was not made out. Colonel William Berkeley received the castle of Berkeley and the other estates of the late earl by will, and on 2 July, after the adverse decision of the lords' committee, claimed a writ of summons as baron, pleading his right as seised of the castle. The claim was fully laid before the committee of privileges 1828-9. It was based on points to which reference has been made above, viz. (to mention the chief arguments) that the barony described in the charter of 1 Ric. I was precedent to the writ of 23 Ed. I ; that in 6 Hen. V the baronial dignity did not descend to the heir-general of Lord Thomas, but followed the seisin of the castle, which was then in (6) James, his nephew and heir male; that (8) Maurice, the heir-at-law of the Earl of Nottingham, was not summoned, being disseised of the castle, and that his son did not sit as a peer. But besides other difficulties, which may be fathered from the above, it had been declared by the king in council in 1669 that barony by tenure was 'not in being, and so not fit to be revived. The lords pronounced no judgment on this case. In 1831, however, Colonel Berkeley was created Baron Segrave of Berkeley, and in 1841 Earl Fitzhardinge. He died unmarried 10 Oct. 1857, and his titles thus became extinct. His next brother and heir, the Right Hon. Maurice F. Fitzhardinge Berkeley [q. v.], was in 1861 created Baron Fitzhardinge, and on his death, in 1867, was succeeded by his son, F. W. Fitzhardinge, Baron Fitzhardinge, born 1826, living 1885. On the failure of Colonel Berkeley to prove the alleged Berkeley marriage of his mother, the right to the earldom of Berkeley vested in (19) Thomas Moreton Fitzhardinge Berkeley, tne eldest of the sons born after the Lambeth marriage. But although earl de jure he refused to claim his right. He died unmarried 27 Aug. 1882. On his death the earldom of Berkeley descended to George Lennox Rawdon Berkeley, seventh earl (born 1827, living 1885), the son of Sir G. H. F. Berkeley, K.C.B.. eldest son of Admiral Sir G. Cranfield Berkeley, brother of Frederick Augustus, fifth earl. The barony descended to Louisa Mary, daughter of Craven Fitzhardinge Berkeley [q. v.]

[Smyth's Lives of the Berkeleys, ed. Sir J. Maclean, 1 vol. privately printed, 1883; Fosbroke's Berkeley MSS.; Sir H. Nicolas's L'Isle Peerage Claim and Historic Peerage; Minutes of Lords' Committee of Privileges, No. 12, 1829; Address to the Peers by Mary, Countess of Berkeley, 1811; Lords' Reports on Dignity of a Peer; Dugdale's Baronage; Banks' Extinct and Dormant Peerages.]

Berkeley, Joan (I1973)
189 BERNARD (fl. 1093), of Neufmarché (de Novo-mercatii), often called in English of Newmarch, was the son of Geoffrey, son of Thureytel, lord of Neufmarché by the forest of Lions, and of Ada, daughter of Richard of Hughville, famous for his faithfulness to his duke, William, in the war of Arques, and a grandson of Richard the Good by his danghter Papia. Bernard came over to England with the Conqueror, and his name appears aa a witness to two charters granted by William to his abbey of Battle. He married the daughter of Osbern, son of Richard Fitz Scrob, the Norman lord who built his castle in Herefordshire before the Conquest. This marriage led him to settle in Herefordshire. During the general rebellion of the Norman lords against William Rufus in 1088 he joined with Roger of Lacy, and Ralph of Mortimer , with the men of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, and the confederate lords at the head of the forces of Herefordshore and Shropshire, and with a large number of Welsh allies harried Worcestershire and threatened to burn the city of Worcester, to plunder the minster and take the king's castle. Encouraged, however, by the exhortations of their bishop, Wulfstan, the men of Worcester attacked and routed the rebel army. Later in the reign Bernard invaded and settled in Brecheining, building his castle on the hill of Aberhonwy on the site where now stand the ruins of Brecknock Ciistle. In 1093 Rhys ap Tewdwr, king of Deheuburth, who attacked the intruders, was slain, and Bernard conquered and occupied the three 'contreys' of Brecheining. He married, probably as his second wife, Nest, the daughter of another Nest, daughter of Gruffydd ap Llewelyn and his English wife Ealdgyth, though it is possible that the elder Nest was the wife of Oshern, and that her daughter was the only wife of Bernard. The English called ber Anneis, and hence her name sometimes appears as Agnes. In the reign of Henry I Bernand founded and liberally endowed the priory of St. John at Brecknock, without the walls of the castle, granting to it lands and tithes in Herefordshire, Staffordshire, and Somerset, as well as in Wales. He made his new foundation subordinate to Battle Abbey. His wife and his principal tenants joined him in this work. The date of his death is not known. He was a benefactor to St. Peter's, Glouceeter, and Leland saw a stone in the chapter-house of that abbey purporting to mark his tomb. The monks of Brecknock, however, claimed, to have the body of their founder. In spite of the pious benefaction made by Nest to her husband's priory, her wickedness caused her son Mabel the loss of his father's estates. Mabel caught her lover coming from her, and beat and mutilated him. la revenge Nest went to King Henry and swore that her son was not the son of her husband Bernard. The king, we are told, allowed himself to be swayed by his wishes rather than his judgment. He made Nest's daughter, Sibyl, whom she declared to be her husband's child, the heiress of all her fathers wealth, and gave her in marriage to Miles Fitz Walter, constable of Gloucester, afterwards made earl of Hereford by the Empress Matilda.

[Giraldus Cambrensis, Itin. Kambriæ, i. 12; Orderic, 606; Florence, 1088; Anglo-Sax. Chron. 1088; Brut y Tywywsogion, 1091; Chron. de Bello, 31, 35; Monasticon, i. 545, iii. 264, 245; Freeman's Norman Conquest, iii. 132, v. 109. and William Rufus, i. 34, ii. 89-91.] 
de Neufmarché, Bernard (I4013)
190 BIGOD, ROGER (d. 1221), second Earl of Norfolk, was son of Hugh, first earl [q. v.] On the death of his father in 1176, he and his stepmother, Gundreda, appealed to the king on a dispute touching the inheritance, the countess pressing the claims of her own son. Henry thereupon seized the treasures of Earl Hugh into his own hands, and it seems that during the remainder of this reign Roger had small power, even if his succession was allowed. His position, however, was not entirely overlooked. He appears as a witness to Henry's award between the kings of Navarre and Castile on 16 March 1177, and in 1186 he did his feudal service as steward in the court held at Guildford.

On Richard's succession to the throne, 3 Sept. 1189, Bigod was taken into favour. By charter of 27 Nov. the new king confirmed him in all his honours, in the earldom of Norfolk, and in the stewardship of the royal household, as freely as Roger, his grandfather, and Hugh, his father, had held it. He was next appointed one of the ambassadors to Philip of France to arrange for the crusade, and during Richard's absence from England on that expedition he supported the king's authority against the designs of Prince John. On the pacification of the quarrel between the prince and the chancellor, William Longchamp, bishop of Ely, on 28 July 1191, Bigod was put into possession of the castle of Hereford, one of the strongholds surrendered by John, and was one of the chancellor's sureties in the agreement. In April 1193 he was summoned with certain other barons and prelates to attend the chancellor into Germany, where negotiations were being carried on to effect Richard's release from captivity; and in 1194, after the surrender of Nottingham to the king, he was present in that city at the great council held on 30 March. At Richard's re-coronation, 17 April, he assisted in bearing the canopy. In July or August of the same year he appears as one of the commissioners sent to York to settle a quarrel between the archbishop and the canons.

After Richard's return home, Bigod's name is found on the records as a justiciar, fines being levied before him in the fifth year of that king's reign, and from the seventh onwards. He also appears as a justice itinerant in Norfolk. After Richard's death, Bigod succeeded in gaining John's favour, and in the first years of his reign continued to act as a judge. In October 1200 he was one of the envoys sent to summon William of Scotland to do homage at Lincoln, and was a witness at the ceremony on 22 Nov. following; but at a later period he appears to have fallen into disgrace, and was imprisoned in 1213. In the course of the same year, however, he was released and apparently restored to favour, as he accompanied the king to Poitou in February 1214, and about the same time compounded by a fine of 2,000 marks for the service of 120 knights and all arrears off scutages. Next year he joined the confederate barons in the movement which resulted in the grant of Magna Charta on 15 June 1215, and was one of the twenty-five executors, or trustees, of its provisions. He was consequently included in the sentence of excommunication which Innocent III soon afterwards declared against the king's opponents, and his lands were cruelly harried by John's troops in their incursions into the eastern counties.

After the accession of Henry III, Bigod returned to his allegiance, and his hereditary right to the stewardship of the royal household was finally recognised at the council of Oxford on 1 May 1221. But before the following August he died. He was succeeded by his eldest son, Hugh, as third earl, who, however, survived him only four years.

[Chronicles of R. de Hoveden, Bened. of Peterborough, and Matthew Paris (Rolls Ser.); Dugdale's Baronage, i. 132; Foss's Judges of England, ii. 4C; Stubbs's Constitutional History; Eyton's Itinerary of Henry II.]
Bigod, Roger Earl of Norfolk (I13088)
191 Biographies

Excerpt from History of the Georgia Baptist Denomination in Georgia, Samuel Boykin (Paris, Arkansas: The Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc., 2001) Vol. 2, 500-501.

George and Elizabeth Stewart, Primitive Baptists, and noted for strict integrity, emigrated from North Carolina to Georgia, where the subject of this sketch was born, in Fayettte county, three miles south of Jonesboro, August 2d, 1833.

Rev. J. D. Stewart was educated in country schools, except one years attendance on Marshall College, Griffin, Georgia. But from early youth he has been a close student, devoting all his leisure time to the perusal of instructive books by the best authors, and thus amassing a large amount of most useful information. In youth he was noted for sobriety and temperate habits, never in his life becoming intoxicated or using tobacco in any form. Since attaining manhood, the dominant qualities manifested by him have been a perfect strictness of integrity and an indomitable will and purpose in a just cause. The guiding maxim which has controlled all his actions is, that integrity, energy and honesty in the affairs of life will inevitably lead to success; and with him such has been the case. He has been twice elected Mayor of Griffin; he has been twice a Representative from Spalding county in the legislature, and for one session being chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and for eight years he was Judge of the Court of Ordinary for Spalding county. A lawyer by profession, as well as a minister of the Gospel, Mr. Stewart is a zealous, ardent and successful advocate for the rights and interests of his clients. He has always been a strong supporter of the cause of education, and is an active member of the Board of Trustees for the Griffin Female College, and for the Sam Bailey Male Institute. He served on the committee appointed by the Georgia Baptist Convention to select a new site for Mercer University, when that institution was removed from Penfield, and many recollect with pleasure his thrilling speech on the subject before the Convention at Newnan. For four years in succession he served as Moderator of the Flint River Association, much to the satisfaction of his brethren.

He was converted and baptized in August, 1852, and united with the Hebron church, three miles south of Jonesboro. He was ordained at Griffin, of which town he had been long a resident, in October, 1871, and has had the care of one or two churches in Spalding county ever since. So zealous, faithful and successful have been his labors, that membership of one increased from thirteen to ninety-eight in five years, and more than sixty were added to the other in less than three years. As a preacher, he speaks extemporaneously, and with the greatest ease and fluency. His style is very earnest, and at times vehement and eloquent. The habits of the bar tincture but do not detract from his pulpit delivery, while they give it refreshing force and vigor. In temperament he is ardent and sanguine, with feelings as soft, tender and delicate as a woman's, and his emotions quickly excite the sympathies of his audience, and enable him to reach and affect their hearts as well as their understandings.

In person he is six feet tall, with blue eyes and a ruddy complexion, and is disposed to corpulency. In manners, he is easy and deliberate, cordial and friendly. Truly a self-made man, he has acquired an enviable reputation by laborious study, close attention to business, and by dispensing a Christian influence over all with whom he comes in contact. He was married to Miss Susan A. Dickinson, on the 19th of December, 1855, and five children are the fruits of the union.

Excerpt from the congressional biography at

STEWART, John David, a Representative from Georgia; born near Fayetteville, Fayette County, Ga., August 2, 1833; attended the common schools and Marshall College, Griffin, Ga.; taught school two years in Griffin, Spalding County, Ga.; studied law; was admitted to the bar in 1856 and commenced practice in Griffin, Ga.; probate judge of Spalding County 1858-1860; lieutenant and captain in the Thirteenth Georgia Regiment during the Civil War; member of the State house of representatives 1865-1867; studied theology; was ordained as a minister of the Baptist Church in 1871; mayor of Griffin in 1875 and 1876; judge of the superior court from November 7, 1879, to January 1, 1886, when he resigned to become a candidate for Congress; elected as a Democrat to the Fiftieth and Fifty-first Congresses (March 4, 1887-March 3, 1891); unsuccessful candidate for renomination in 1890; engaged in the practice of his profession until his death in Griffin, Ga., January 28, 1894; interment in Oak Hill Cemetery.

Stewart, Hon. John David (I0613)
192 Biography

Admiral Raphael Semmes

A Monograph by His Son, Captain S. Spencer Semmes, Osceola, Arkansas

From: Southern Historical Society Papers, Vol. XXXVIII, Richmond, Va., 1910, pages 28-40.

Admiral Raphael Semmes was born in Charles County, Md., on September 27, 1809, of Catholic ancestry. His father was Richard Thompson Semmes, fifth in descent from the first American ancestor, Benedict Joseph Semmes, of Normandy, France, who came over with Lord Baltimore in 1640; and his mother was Catherine Hooe Middleton, a descendant of Arthur Middleton, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. There was only one other child, Samuel Middleton Semmes, later a well-known lawyer of Cumberland, Md. The mother died during the infancy of the boys, and when Raphael was about ten years old his father died, leaving them almost penniless. The two boys were taken into the family of Raphael Semmes, of Georgetown, D. C., an uncle, and when Raphael was about fifteen years old, he was appointed a midshipman in the United States Navy by another uncle, Dr. Joseph Benedict Semmes, who, at the time, was a member of Congress from Piscataway, who, at the time, no United States Naval Academy, Md. young Semmes was placed on board the seventy-four-gun training ship North Carolina. His first position, on leaving the training ship, was with Commodore Wilkes, at his quarters on Capitol Hill Washington, D. C. Then followed a three years' cruise on the Mediterranean; one in the South Sea with Commodore Wilkes' Exploring Expedition and then a cruise off the west coast of Africa and around the Cape to the East Indies.

All through these years of his boyhood and early manhood, whether on shore or in active service, he assiduously studied languages, literature and law, especially international and marine law, which prepared him for the trying experiences of later years in the Confederate service.

On May 5, 1837, Raphael Semmes, then a lieutenant in the United States Navy, married Anne Elizabeth Spencer, the only daughter of Oliver Marlborough Spencer and Electra Ogden. Mrs. Semmes' grandfather, Oliver Spencer, a Revolutionary Colonel, moved from New Jersey to Cincinnati, when the latter was nothing more than a military post, and her father was the first mayor of the town.

During the Mexican War, Lieutenant Semmes was in command of the brig Somers, doing blockade duty off Vera Cruz. Whilst thus engaged his vessel was suddenly struck by a violent gale, was capsized, and the greater portion of the crew drowned, Semmes himself having been rescued by a boat's crew from the English ship Endymion. After losing his vessel, Lieutenant Semmes was ordered by the Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Marcy, to proceed to the City of Mexico under flag of truce, to intercede with the Mexican Government in behalf of some of the members of his crew who had been captured, and whom the government was threatening to execute as spies. Being forbidden by General Scott, in command of the United States Army, from proceeding in a command of the army, Lieutenant Semmes, at the invitation of General Worth, became a member of that General's staff and accompanied the army throughout the entire campaign.

In 1849 Lieutenant Semmes moved from his old home, on the Perdido River, near Pensacola, Fla., to Mobile, Ala., which place he ever afterwards considered his domicile. Having seen considerably more sea duty than any other officer of his date, he was engaged in no active service until 1856, when he was appointed lighthouse inspector on the Gulf of Mexico, from which position he went, two years afterwards, to Washington, as secretary of the Lighthouse Board, a place much sought after by naval officers, and which he filled until his resignation from the United States Navy, in 1860, upon the breaking out of the war. At the time of his resignation he was a commander in the navy.

Upon resigning, he offered his service to Jefferson Davis, then Provisional President of the Confederacy, and was immediately sent North as a special agent for the purpose of purchasing machinery, guns and munitions of war, in which undertaking he was eminently successful.

Returning to Montgomery, Ala. - the provisional Capital of the Confederacy - Semmes, now a commander in the Confederate States Navy, was placed at the head of the Lighthouse Bureau, and longing for the smell of "salt-water" and the old "sea-life," where he might be able to strike some effective blows for the new-born government to which he had given his allegiance, he applied for and obtained permission to undertake the fitting out of a vessel with the view of preying upon the enemy's commerce. As the most likely point for his enterprise, he proceeded to New Orleans, and, after a diligent search, he ran across a small sea-going packet of about 400 tons, named the Havana, which had been plying between New Orleans and the West Indies, as the most suitable material for his purpose. As his own naval constructor, he at once commenced converting the little merchantman into the best war vessel practicable, and in the face of many difficulties, causing much vexation and considerable delay, he finally completed his task, renaming his miniature cruiser the Sumter. When finally ready for her mission, with as gallant a set of officers as ever trod a ship's deck and sturdy a crew as ever reefed a sail, the Sumter was dropped down to the mouth of the Mississippi River to await an opportunity to run the gauntlet of the Federal blockade. After a few days, perceiving that the Brooklyn, then on duty, had left her anchorage, and was no longer in sight, Semmes immediately shipped his pilot, got up a full head of steam, and made the dash for the open sea. The Brooklyn, which had merely changed her position and was hidden by the shore line, discovering the Sumter's escape, at once gave chase, and although the swifter of the two vessels, after a short time, abandoned the pursuit, leaving the little Sumter free to continue her voyage, as the first sea-rover of the Confederacy. This was on the 30th day of June, 1861.

No sooner did the Sumter find herself free upon the bounding waves than she commenced her work of destruction to the enemy's commerce - some eighteen merchantmen, with their valuable cargoes, becoming her prey within the few months of her Confederate career, from the time of her running the blockade, at the mouth of the Mississippi River, up to the date of her abandonment at Gibraltar.

One of the cleverest feats of the Sumter was her escape from the Iroquois, at the Island of Martinque. Here the Iroquois had kept the Sumter under close vigilance for several days, determined upon her capture whenever she should attempt to put to sea. But Captain Semmes was too shrewd for the Iroquois' commander. Realizing that he must make his exit as soon as possible, or be absolutely cut off from escape by reinforcements of the enemy's vessels, Captain Semmes having in the meantime obtained information that Yankee schooner had been employed to watch the movements of the Sumter and give warning to the Iroquois, took advantage of the first dark night for his dash for liberty. Accordingly, at gun-fire (8 o'clock), after which time the Iroquois was in the habit of drawing within short distance of the port, the Sumter, with all steam on, sped south. When she reached the Yankee schooner the schooner gave the signals, as agreed upon, which Semmes, with his nautical intuition, at once read as saying: "The Sumter is fleeing south." Semmes thereupon extinguished every light aboard, and, Reynard-like, doubled upon his tracks, rushing north, and, as the Iroquois was racing after him to the south, by morning the two vessels were 150 miles apart.

Captain Semmes having taken the Sumter into Cadiz, Spain, for repairs - she being in a very leaky condition from having run upon a rock at Maranham, Brazil - he was received very politely by the commander of the port and at once permitted to go into dock at the naval station. His repairs made, he returned with the Sumter to Cadiz, but being harassed by the commander, who had, in the meantime, been influenced by the Federal Consul, Semmes, in disgust, sailed for Gibraltar - capturing a vessel within sight of the harbor. Being unable to obtain coal at Gibraltar, through the machinations of the ever-vigilant Federal Consul, and being without funds, as soon as they could be procured from our Commissioner in England, which took about a month, the paymaster of the Sumter - Henry Myers - was dispatched to Tangiers, Africa, to purchase and forward a cargo of coal. Upon his arrival in Tangiers, Myers was arrested, through the agency of the Federal Consul, handcuffed, thrown in jail, where he was robbed of his personal effects, maltreated and finally transported to the United States. The Sumter being thus prevented from coaling, and being watched on the outside by Federal cruisers, she was abandoned by her commander and singular to relate, sank a few years afterwards, almost in the same spot where reposed the remains of her successor - the Alabama - and the sword of her former gallant commander.

In no ways daunted, Semmes, now a captain in the Confederate States Navy, proceeded to England, where he found that the Lairds had nearly completed a vessel for the Confederate Government, numbered the "290," and he was assigned to her command when ready for service.

To avoid a violation of the neutrality laws, the "290" left England without armament, and ostensibly as a merchantman, but, in fact, she proceeded to Terceira, one of the group of the Azores Islands, where she was joined by her commander and his officers the crew taking her out volunteering to remain - and her armament and supplies were placed on board from the transports which had previously arrived. As soon as ready for sea, her commander had the Confederate flag run up, read his commission from the Confederate Government, announced the object of his mission, called for volunteers from among the crew - nearly all of whom enlisted - and named the new Confederate cruiser the Alabama. Thus was the Alabama, destined to become famous the world over, launched upon her career of destruction to American commerce and to teach New England shipbuilders and ship owners some of the costs of war.

For nearly two years the Alabama became the terror and the scourge of the seas, in so far as Federal interests were concerned, capturing sixty-two merchantmen, most of which, with their cargoes, were burned, and completely paralyzing or destroying the enemy's commerce. And this, too, although a vessel of not over 200 tons and a speed not exceeding thirteen knots an hour under the combined forces of steam and sail, not only prevented from entering "home ports" for the purposes of coaling, refitting and supplies, by reason of the rigid blockade of the entire Southern coast, but prevented, as well, from putting into neutral ports by the numbers and vigilance of the enemy's cruisers and gunboats, more on the watch to catch her, at disadvantage, and overcome her by force of numbers and weight of metal than in protecting their merchant-marine by seeking an equal encounter. So that the Alabama's work was done almost entirely under sail and upon such supplies as she could draw upon from her captures.

Being in had condition from her long and laborious cruise, with the copper stripped from her bottom, which was foul from barnacles, the Alabama entered the harbor of Cherbourg, France, for much needed repairs, re-fitting and supplies. Three days afterwards the Kearsarge, in command of Captain Winslow, in perfect condition, came from Flushing England. As soon as she put in her appearance, Captain Semmes, realizing that he was to be blockade with the probabilities of speedy reinforcements by the enemy's cruisers, although at great disadvantage, made up his mind to fight and sent word to the captain of the Kearsarge to that effect. After patching up a little and taking on a small supply of coal, on Sunday morning, June 19, 1864, the Alabama steamed out of Cherbourg, to engage her enemy, and, proceeding about seven miles from the French coast, the battle commenced. When the captain of the Alabama concluded to fight the Kearsarge, although he knew that she was considerably the Alabama's superior in speed and somewhat her superior in size, staunchness of construction and armament, he considered the two vessels to be so nearly matched as not to be acting rashly in offering battle, but to justify him in entertaining a hope that he might be able to beat his adversary in a fair fight. But he did not have a fair fight. He thought, as he had every reason to believe, that he was engaging a wooden vessel, when, as it afterwards turned out, the Kearsarge was practically an iron-clad - heavy chain cables having been strung vertically from the top of her deck to the water's edge, which had been cleverly disguised by a covering of deal boards, thus completely protecting her sides, and, at the same time, giving her the appearance of a wooden vessel. This deception, added to the damage condition of the Alabama's ammunition, no doubt lost her the battle, as it was shown by the ripped and torn boards, shattered cables and indentations made by the same upon the sides of the Kearsarge that the Alabama's shot and shell failed to make any penetration into the Kearsarge's hull. In a little over an hour Captain Semmes, finding that the Alabama was sinking, hauled down his broadsides were afterwards fired but the enemy - and turned to the saving by hurrying them off in his few remaining boats; then, throwing his sword into the sea, he commanded his crew to assemble upon the edge of the Alabama's deck, and just before she made her final plunge he gave the order and every should leaped into the whirling waters.

Captain Semmes and about forty of his crew were picked up by the English yacht Deerhound, owned by Mr. Lancaster, and, thus escaped capture by being taken to England.

Most of the remaining officers and crew were rescued by a couple of French fishing boats and the boats of the Kearsarge, which, after a tardy wait, finally came to their succor. Thus did the brave, good, old ship find a hero's grave instead of falling into the hands of the enemy. Her sacred bones lie buried at the bottom of that vast ocean, over the surface of which she once careered so gracefully, the scourge and terror of her foe's merchant-marine, where her requiem will forever be sung by the embracing waves, an example to all nations and all generations to come, of what one little craft, commanded by genius, probity and bravery, can accomplish, when pitted even against a powerful nation.

One of the most valuable and, at the same time, dramatic captures of the Alabama was that of the Vanderbilt "Liner," plying between New York and Aspinwall. The Alabama was lying in wait for a homeward bound vessel of the same "Line," in hopes, by her seizure, of being able to replenish her exhausted treasury from the gold bullion which usually constituted a portion of the cargo, and it was a disappointment, when, instead of meeting up with a homeward bound vessel, the Ariel, outward bound, came in sight. This "Leviathan of the deep" presented a beautiful picture as she "lay to" upon the placid waters, under the guns of the Alabama, with flags flying and the gay apparel of passengers which crowded her decks, fluttering - had been very aggressive and active in the effort to capture or destroy the Alabama, fitting out, at his own expense, a cruiser for that express purpose. And Captain Semmes was therefore itching to burn her, and was only prevented from doing so because of the fact that the Ariel had on board upwards of a thousand passengers, of whom he could make no disposition. Reluctantly, therefore, the Ariel was bonded and permitted to go rejoicing upon her voyage.

When the Ariel was "hove to," her passengers believing that they had verily fallen into the hands of the "Pirate," commenced hiding their valuables, and were in a great state of alarm. But, upon the handsome young Confederate officer, who boarded the Ariel, assuring the passengers that the Alabama was not making war upon women and children and private property, and that, therefore, none of their effects would be molested, they soon became pacified and even friendly, resulting in the young officer returning to the Alabama, shorn of all the brass buttons and gold lace from his uniform, which had been appropriated by the ladies as souvenirs of the meeting.

One of the most troublesome foes Captain Semmes had to contend with was the irrepressible Federal Consul, to be met with at every point, constantly on the alert and active in throwing every obstacle in the way of his coaling and provisioning his vessels, when entering neutral ports. Most of these fellows were men of small mental calibre, whose only code of principle and honor was Yankee cunning and zeal in truckling to their "Big Boss," and who, often, did not hesitate to stoop to underhanded and unscrupulous means in carrying out their incessant warfare.

As an instance of their malignant and petty persecution, nothing was more contemptible than the enticing away of Captain Semmes' cabin-boy. When ready to leave New Orleans with the Sumter, Captain Semmes' relative - the Hon. Thomas J. Semmes - insisted upon his taking with him as his cabin-boy his Negro dining room servant - Ned - who had been raised in the family. Whilst lying in one of the Brazilian ports, Ned was in the habit of going to market every morning for the furnishing of the Captain's table. One morning the basket, with its contents, came on board, but without Ned. It was afterwards ascertained that the Consul, by making the most dazzling promises, had persuaded Ned not to return. As soon as Captain Semmes left port this poor, illiterate Negro was abandoned by his rascally friend - the Consul - and left among utter strangers and thousands of miles away from home, penniless and to his own resources. The duped boy finally worked his way back to the United States and to Georgetown, D. C., where he was raised, and shortly afterwards died in a hovel from disease brought about by absolute want.

After the loss of the Alabama, Captain Semmes, having first taken a much-needed vacation and rest, returned home - running the blockade in a little New England schooner, which landed him at the mouth of the Rio Grande River, in a little town called Bagdad. From there he worked his way overland to Mobile, Ala. Here he spent a few days with his family, whom he had not seen in four years, and then proceeded to Richmond, where, upon reporting to Mr. Mallory, the Secretary of the Navy, he was placed in command of the James River Fleet, with the rank of Vice-Admiral. In the hurry of evacuating Richmond, no orders were given to Admiral Semmes and no provision made for his leaving. But when he discovered that he had been left behind he blew up his fleet, organized his officers and crews into a brigade, marched them to the railroad depot in Richmond, Va., where he found an old, dismantled engine which he soon had sufficiently repaired to pull a train of cars, upon which he loaded his men, and was thus enabled to leave the city. He joined General Joseph E. Johnston's army in North Carolina with the conferred rank of Brigadier-General in the Confederate States Army. And, shortly afterwards, was surrendered to General Sherman, as part of that army, he having taken the precaution of having his parole describe him, both as an Admiral in the Confederate States Navy and a Brigadier-General in the Confederate States Army.

In his career with the Sumter and Alabama, not only did Admiral Semmes demonstrate his ability to do the enemy the greatest damage possible in the least time, wholly within the requirements and rules of legitimate warfare, but he showed himself the true, chivalrous naval officer, the unexcelled disciplinarian, the learned international lawyer, the man of the most scrupulous probity and the modest, unassuming gentleman. He was ever kind and courteous to his officers, upon whom he looked as members of his family, and, although dealing with crews made up of almost every nationality except Americans -many of whom were tough subjects - he kept them under thorough the magnetism of his force of character, and doing everything possible for the promotion of their health and comfort, so that harmony and mutual confidence prevailed between officers and men.

In the condemnation and destruction of his prizes, he never made a single mistake, although many of them had endeavored to disguise their nationally by sailing under false papers, which described them as neutrals.

He never permitted the molestation of the private effects of any of the officers, crews or passengers of his captive vessels nor treated them otherwise than with kindness and respect. And he prohibited the appropriation by his officers and men of even as much as a box of cigars or pair of gloves from the cargoes of his prizes. Whatever was suitable and necessary for the supplying of his vessels was turned over to the purser, issued out by him, as Confederate property, and as such accounted for to the government. His care for those under his control was unbounded. First and last he had as many as 500 men under his command of the two vessels - the Sumter and Alabama - and as many as 2,000 prisoners were confined for shorter or longer periods on board of the two ships, and yet he never lost a single man by disease.

After the war Admiral Semmes returned to Mobile, Ala., which place he ever afterwards made his home, and entered upon the practice of law, but early in December, 1865, at the instigation of the Secretary of the Navy, the Hon. Gideon H. Wells, the Admiral was arrested by a sergeant and file of marines and taken, a prisoner, to Washington, where he was incarcerated four months, although at the time he had a regular parole from General Sherman, as one of the prisoners of war surrendered by General Joseph E. Johnston. During Admiral Semmes' captivity, every effort was made to obtain sufficient incriminating evidence against him of cruelty to warrant bringing him to trial before a military commission. But in every instance in which letters had been written to ship owners and ship captains, in the endeavor to obtain this evidence, the reply, substantially, was that, "whilst Admiral Semmes had destroyed their property, yet never had he committed a single act of cruelty or exceeded the strict rules of war in any of his captures."

After being released, Admiral Semmes returned to Mobile, where he was unanimously elected to the office of judge of the Probate Court - the most lucrative position in the State, which he was prevented from filling by United States Military rule, as an unamnestied "Rebel." He was then invited to become the editor of the Bulletin, a daily paper published in Memphis, Tenn. After he had filled this position a few months, Andrew Johnson, then President, caused a controlling interest in the paper to be purchased by partisans, who ousted the Admiral from position of editor.

After this venture, the Admiral again returned to Mobile and renewed the practice of law in connection with his second son -John Oliver Semmes - which he pursued until his death.

Whilst entertaining the strongest convictions of the righteousness of the cause of the South and having done his whole duty in behalf of that cause, when the catastrophe came he accepted the result with the utmost philosophy and went to work to do everything in his power to bring about good feeling and harmony, and this notwithstanding the animosity with which he was pursued and hounded down by Mr. Johnston and Gideon H. Wells and their satellites and every obstacle thrown in the way of his efforts to make a quiet and comfortable support for his family.

Whilst Admiral Semmes was stern and unyielding in the performance of duty, he was, in his family and among his friends, gentleness itself. No one could better express that side of his character than to give the following words of a kinsman - the late B. J. Semmes, of Memphis, Tennessee, who knew him through his entire life: "The dearest love of my boyhood, the highest esteem of my manhood belong to this great and good man, made truly after the image and likeness of his God."

But Admiral Semmes was not only a good sailor - he was a learned scholar of distinguished attainments; he was historian and statesman; more than this, he was a profound lawyer, as an expounder of international law, in controversy with dignitaries and premiers of every nationality. He measured up to that intricate branch of jurisprudence, as familiar with it as Vattel himself, while, as a learned constitutional lawyer, in his exhaustive argument in justification of the South, he ranked by the side of Alexander H. Stephens; with Dr. Bledsone, in his great work, entitled "Is Davis a Traitor?"; with Jefferson Davis himself, and with the great Carolinian, John C. Calhoun. He was a patriot, he lived, fought and suffered for his county, and, above all, he was a Christian gentleman.

Admiral Semmes' private life was as pure and spotless as his public life was heroic. No one meeting, on our thoroughfares or in the forum of our courts, the blithe, erect, but modest, form of the practicing attorney would for one moment have suspected that there stood before him the renowned and redoubtable "Sea King," whose daring deed are written in imperishable letters upon every known continent.

It would be doing injustice to his memory to omit mentioning that, besides his deep legal lore, and those attainments which make him the peer of the most distinguished and scientific men of our country, Admiral Semmes ranks high as a writer, and that his last work, "Memoirs of Service Afloat and Ashore," published a few years after the war, is as brilliant in style as it is profound in thought; the introduction, purporting to be a synopsis of the causes which led to the late Civil War, being one of the most remarkable constitutional arguments that ever emanated from a statesman's pen.

His death was a fitting close of his well-spent and glorious life. A few days' disease having admonished him that death was inevitable, he calmly prepared to meet it as he had met other overpowering foes. His worldly goods being few, demanded but little of his it me; to a noble, loving, devoted wife; to children whom he so dearly loved, the had no other inheritance to bestow but his own proud name, the souvenir of his virtues, the example of his patriotism. This done, he turned his thoughts to that higher kingdom, to which all aspire who have performed on earth their duty to God and man. A dutiful, obedient child of the Holy Catholic Church, he received at the hands of her worthy ministers all the sacraments with which she tenderly speeds the soul to the eternal abode. And it was, surrounded by a desolate family, and his hand clasped in the hands of a fatherly priest, that he gave up to his maker that great and noble soul which never knew any other fear than that of doing wrong.

To-day, in the narrow confines of an humble grave, on the green banks of a little tranquil book, to which Bienville's brother gave his own name, in the retired and calm retreat of the Mobile Catholic graveyard, the remains of one so much loved by his country, so much feared by her enemies, now gently rests with nothing more than a simple monument to mark his last place of repose.

When Attila's soldiers were incising their eyes with their swords that they might weep over him with men's blood and not with women's tears; when Napoleon's soldiers were hiding his grave, "Sur un rocher battu par la vague plaintive"; when

"Kings in dusky darkness hid Have left a nameless pyramid,"

the memory of Raphael Semmes will find in the pages of history and in the hearts of his countrymen "a monument more durable than iron or marble ever raised on the summit of the highest mountain."
Semmes, Adm. Raphael (I1581)
193 Biography

Excerpt from Baptist Biography, Balus Joseph Winzer Graham, editor,(Atlanta, Georgia: Index Printing Company, 1920), vol. 2, 317-320.

In 1788 Robert and Sarah Dickinson Simms emigrated from North Carolina to Hancock county, Georgia. The name of John was given to one of their sons, who in young manhood was united in marriage to Comfort Grace, a daughter of Joshua Grace. John Dickinson Simms, son of the elder John Simms, was born in Coweta county, Georgia, December 19, 1830. His parents had moved to Coweta county from Hancock county, Georgia, two years prior to his birth, 1828. They settled in a virgin forest of the county, in which they cleared a place for their home and converted a large area of the forest into a fertile farm. They among other pioneer settler endured hardships and suffered many inconveniences, but with it all developed strong appetites, active minds and untarnished characters. They reared a family of thirteen children, five girls and eight boys. All the children were members of a Baptist church.

John Dickinson Simms, the subject of this sketch, the only surviving child, obtained his education under many disadvantages in the old log school house of the early days. It might be said that he learned more in the school of honest toil than he did from the old blue back speller and Davies' arithmetic. The high ideals of his father and mother were inherited by the sterling son, and from early youth he bore the marks of the making of a man.

From young manhood Mr. Simms was recognized as a leader among his fellows and as being a man of honesty and integrity. Accordingly, his fellow citizens elected him justice of the peace of his district, and his commission had just been received at outbreak of the War between the States. The excellent qualities of Mr. Simms were recognized beyond the limits of the rural district in which he lived. At the beginning of the ear Governor Joseph E. Brown commissioned him as Captain of Militia, which would have kept him out of active service. The position offered did not suit the ardent temperament of Mr. Simms, an so, in 1862, he enlisted in Company F, Sixteenth Georgia Battalion of Cavalry. This company he organized and went out as its captain, serving in this position through the war. His first service was with General John A. Morgan, in Kentucky. Later he was with General Early through Virginia to Washington City. Under General Early he performed a great deal of detached duty. No company ever had a braver or more considerate captain, and no general a more efficient officer.

After the war, Captain Simms returned to Coweta county and engaged in farming, which he has successfully carried on ever since.

In 1877 he was elected to the legislature, it being the first legislature convening after the Constitutional Convention, and served for a term of three years. Captain Simms has also served his country in many other capacities and has held many positions of trust by the suffrage of his people. And now, in the eighty-eighth year of his age, his form is erect, his spirit is buoyant, and he is greeted everywhere by his acquaintances as "Uncle John."

In 1848, Captain Simms married Miss Louisa Posey Hanson, of Heard county, Georgia, the daughter of Thomas K. and Gracie Moseley Hanson. Three children have blessed their home: Ella A., wife of Asbury H. Arnold; Fannie L., wife of H. M. Arnold and John H. Simms. Captain Simms was bereft of his beloved wife, January 8, 1913, in the eighty-second year of her age. The fortitude with which he bore his sorrow is an evidence of his strength of character.

Captain Simms united with the Bethel Baptist church, Heard county, Georgia, on August 13, 1844. The same church elected him a deacon in August, 1882, and the ordination service was preached by the lamented Dr. J. H. Hall, so long pastor in Newnan. After removing to Newnan, Captain Simms united with the First Baptist church, of which he is a substantial and influential member. Though considerate of the feelings and opinion of others, Captain Simms is every whit a Baptist. In matter of religion, the church of which he is a member has first consideration. Beyond that he is interested in his association and in all the enterprises which it represents. During his whole church life he has been loyal both to his church and to his pastor. They have found in him a never-failing friend.

Captain Simms has always been an ardent friend of education. He educated his daughters at Cox College, LaGrange, Georgia, and his son at Mercer University, Macon, Georgia. In the rural district in which he lived he made liberal gifts of land and money for the establishment and maintenance of the best possible schools for his neighborhood. His interest in primary education has not ceased, though his own children have long since enjoyed the finishing touches of a collegiate education.

Captain John Simms is a man of striking personal appearance. He stands a little better than six feet tall, and though the weight of eight-eight years rests upon him, he is straight as an arrow, and though his face bears the marks of age it is often wreathed in smiles, indicative of a happy heart and a contented life. Captain Simms is a rare type of Christian gentleman, and though by his frugality he has amassed a competency to sustain him in his declining years, his greatest fortune consists of his accumulated influence for good, which will live for generations after his transition to the other world.

The country home of Captain Simms, in Coweta county, was a favorite resort for his friends and brethren, and especially Baptist ministers. While his dislikes are very pronounced, his love for friends and brethren is exceptionally strong and abiding. To be host to his friends is one of his greatest pleasures. He knows how to entertain with old fashioned Southern hospitality. It is impossible to be his guest without going away with higher ideals of friendship and Christian manhood. He impresses his associates as being the soul of honor as a gentleman, and no one dares to put a question mark after his honesty and integrity. He belongs to a distinct school of Christian manhood that stands four-square for civic righteousness and for the best in Christianity. As an evidence of the high esteem in which Captain Simms is held by the First Baptist church, of Newnan, Georgia, upon the decease of Judge Alvin D. Freeman, he was made chairman of the board of deacons, which is composed of twenty-four men. In this capacity, as in all others, he is serving with distinction.

Simms, John Dickinson (I0714)
194 Biography

Excerpt from Memoirs of Georgia, Southern Historical Association, (Atlanta, Georgia: Southern Historical Press, 1975).

CAPT. JOHN D. SIMMS, one of the pioneers of Coweta county, was born in December, 1830. His parents, John and Comfort M. (Grace) Simms, were natives of North Carolina. His father was born in 1780, coming in 1788 to Hancock county with his parents, Robert and Sarah (Dickinson) Simms, both natives of North Carolina. The mother of John D. Simms was a daughter of Joshua Grace. The family came to Coweta county in 1828, settling in the midst of the forest and clearing up a farm, suffering meanwhile the many trials and hardships common to the lot of pioneers. His education was obtained under many disadvantages in the old log schoolhouse. On reaching manhood he showed himself worthy of the esteem in which he has constantly been held. He had been elected justice of the peace and his commission had just been received at the outbreak of the war, and at the same time he received a commission from Gov. Brown as captain of the militia, which would have kept him out of the service. But this did not suit his ardent temperament, and in 1862 he enlisted in Company F, Sixteenth Georgia battalion of cavalry. He himself organized his company and went out as its captain, serving in this position throughout the war. His first service was thirty days under Gen. John A. Morgan in Kentucky, and after this under Gen. Early, through Virginia to Washington City, in which service he performed a great deal of detached duty. After the war Capt. Simms returned to Coweta county and engaged in farming, which he has carried on ever since. In 1877 he was elected to the legislature, it being the first legislature convened after the constitutional convention, and served three years. He has served also as county commissioner four years. His wife, a native of Heard county, Ga., was Miss Louisa Hanson, daughter of Thomas K. and Gracie (Mosely) Hanson. Her father was the son of Thomas and Sarah (Boswell) Hanson, and was born in Morgan county, Ga., in 1799. The marriage of Captain and Mrs. Simms was solemnized in 1848, and the union has been blessed with three children: Ellen A., wife of Asbury H. Arnold; Fannie L., wife of H. M. Arnold, and John H. Capt. Simms and wife are honored members of the Baptist church, and the family is among the best and most respected in the county of Coweta, where they have the regard of all who know them.

Simms, John Dickinson (I0714)
195 Biography

From Mamiya Medical Heritage Center, Hawaii Medical Library:

"Arthur Flournoy Jackson was born at West Point, Troup County, Georgia, on October 28, 1878. He was the son of Arthur Ophelius and Alice (Zachry) Jackson. His grandfather was Major Wyche Sanford Jackson of Revolutionary War fame.

He was educated in the schools of West Point and received his B.S. from Alabama Polytechnic Institute in 1901. From 1905 to 1907 he attended the University of North Carolina as a medical student. He then entered the University of Pennsylvania from which he received his M.D. in 1909. Dr. Jackson interned at Philadelphia General Hospital from October, 1909, to April, 1911. The following year he was granted a certificate in tropical medicine and hygiene from the University of Pennsylvania. Later he became a resident physician at the Pennsylvania State Tuberculosis Sanitarium.

Coming to Honolulu in July, 1912, Dr. Jackson served as resident physician at Queen's Hospital until January, 1914. On the completion of his residency, he entered private practice in Honolulu. He was on the staff at Queen's Hospital as visiting physician and surgeon and was physician at Palama Settlement, Mid-Pacific Institute, Castle Home, and Lanakila Hale.

On November 20, 1914, Dr. Jackson married Margaret Christy Tupper in Honolulu. Three daughters were born to the Jacksons: Alice Rebecca (Mrs. Louis B. Wagner), Margaret Christy (Mrs. William R. Scott), and Nancy Lee (Mrs. Clark F. Spencer).

Dr. Jackson began his service in World War I as medical examiner of draftees, and, after sending many men into active service, he felt that he should volunteer and that, being a doctor, the logical place for him to serve would be in the Red Cross. Commissioned as captain, Dr. Jackson went to Siberia with the Hawaiian Red Cross unit which left Honolulu in November, 1918. Arriving in Vladivostok, he was sent to Nikolsk to inspect a typhus hospital. While he was there the infamous "Death Train" filled with Bolsheviks arrived from Samara. Hundreds of people had been crowded into box cars which they were not allowed to leave, half-fed and with no sanitary precautions, sickness and death were rife. The train was unloaded, the well put into new cars, and the 550 sick taken to the Russian Military Hospital, which had a 250 to 300 bed capacity.

The doctor's next assignment was to a hospital for tubercular Czech patients in Buchedu, Manchuria. These patients had been driven out of Czechoslovakia by the Bolsheviks and when the hospital closed they were returned to their homeland via San Francisco, completing their circle of the globe. While at Buchedu, Dr. Jackson was asked to be medical director of the anti-typhus train which the Red Cross operated all over Siberia. The purpose of this expedition was to go to all areas infected with typhus and, by working with the officials and the population, try to eradicate the disease. Eventually, so many of the personnel aboard the train became ill that the work had to come to an end.

Following this, Dr. Jackson received orders to become superintendent of the Red Cross Hospital at Omsk, which was the largest and finest in Siberia. Along with this position he was made medical director of Western Siberia. In the winter of 1919-1920, failing health compelled Dr. Jackson to return to Hawaii. In recognition of his services to the Russian people the Russian government decorated him with the order of St. Anne, third degree.

He returned to Honolulu and private practice in February, 1920. On January 1, 1921, Dr. Jackson joined with Drs. George Straub, Guy C. Milnor, Eric A. Fennel, and Howard Clarke to establish The Clinic, now the Straub Clinic. By that spring he was in very poor health, and in September he left for Philadelphia where he died on October 5, 1921, following surgery. He was within a few days of his 43rd birthday.

Dr. Jackson was a member of the American Medical Association, the Hawaii Medical Association (president in 1920), Honolulu Medical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Honolulu Chamber of Commerce, Ad Club, Public Questions Club, a director of the Y.M.C.A., director of the Pan Pacific Union, a member of Central Union Church, and a Mason.

An editorial in the "Star-Bulletin" had this to say of Dr. Jackson: "Much of his professional life was given over to unremunerative work among obscure, impoverished people. When he received a call to go into Red Cross work in Siberia, he answered it at a serious financial loss to himself, and those who were associated with him there testify to his fidelity to duty and to the unselfish and humane spirit in which he carried on his arduous activities. He served his country well, and his death is a loss to his profession in Hawaii and to the people of Hawaii." Dr. Straub remembered Dr. Jackson as the most Christlike man he ever knew, and the late Dr. Fennel, who also knew him intimately, used to say that Dr. Jackson was the greatest practicing Christian that he had ever known."

Jackson, Dr. Arthur Flournoy (I4461)
Copyright, USGenWeb Archives. All rights reserved.

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Lynn Cunningham December 30, 2004, 2:45 pm

Author: Unknown

Drewry, Nicholas Butt, M.D., has been engaged in active practice as a physician and surgeon of Griffin, Spalding county, for the past forty years and is one of the leading members of his profession in this part of the state. He was also engaged in the drug business in Griffin for many years, and during the Civil war was able to render valuable service to the Confederacy through his faithful labors as a surgeon in field and hospital. Dr. Drewry was born in that portion of Pike county, Ga., which is now included in Spalding county, Dec. 15, 1834, a son of Edwin and Eliza Jones (Williams) Drewry, the former born at Drewryville, Southampton county, Va., April 6, 1798, and the latter in Hancock county, Georgia. The father of Edwin Drewry was a valiant soldier of the Continental forces during the war of the Revolution, and was a man of influence in his community, the town of Drewryville, Va., having been named in honor of the family. Doctor Drewry secured his early education in the common schools of his native county, and in October, 1854, was matriculated in Jefferson medical college, of Philadelphia, Pa., later entering the Atlanta medical college, in which he was graduated as a member of the class of 1855. Thereafter he was engaged in the practice of his profession in Fayette county, Ga., until December, 1859, when he removed to Jonesboro, Clayton county. In December, 1860, he entered Charity hospital and the New Orleans medical college, where he was engaged in post-graduate work until March, 1861. In September of that year he enlisted as a private in Company E, Thirtieth Georgia volunteer infantry,and soon afterward was appointed surgeon, entering service in the field. He was commissioned surgeon, with rank of assistant surgeon, in January, 1863, and was then assigned to hospital duty, in which capacity he served until after the close of the war, at the Medical college hospital, in Atlanta, until June, 1864, and then to February, 1865, was in charge of the distributing hospital at Columbus, Miss. He then returned to the Atlanta medical college hospital where he remained in charge of the wards to care for the soldiery returning from the war until May, 1865, having thus been detained for some time after the final surrender of Generals Lee and Johnson.

After the close of the war, in 1865, Doctor Drewry opened a drug store in Griffin, where he entered actively upon the practice of his profession, conducting his drug store until Sept. 1, 1899, when he disposed of the business, and has since devoted his attention entirely to the work of his profession, controlling a large and representative practice.

He has served continuously as president of the board of education since 1880;and was a member of the city council in 1869-70; was again a member in 1875,and served also as mayor pro tem. He represented Spalding county in the state legislature in 1882-3. In 1902 he was appointed a member of the board of directors of the Georgia experimental station by Gov. Allen D. Candler, and on Dec. 6, 1904, he was elected Mayor Griffin, in which he gave a most progressive and satisfactory administration. In 1849, Doctor Drewry became a member of the Baptist church at Whitewater, Fayette county, and in 1857 he was ordained a deacon in the same church. In 1891 he was elected moderator of the Flint River Baptist association and served in this office seven years in terms of two years at the two first incumbencies as that was the limit of a member?s service by the rule of the association, but in 1902 was again elected to the position as moderator and at the end of the term of two years, the association abandoned the rule of limiting the term of service to two years and was again elected and is at this time filing the position.

The Doctor has been a Mason since 1856; is identified with the lodge, chapter and council of this time-honored fraternity, and is past worshipful master of Meridian Sun Lodge, No. 26, of Griffin.

He is a member of the Spalding county medical association and the Georgia medical aassociation, and the United Confederate Veterans.

On Sept. 10, 1857, Doctor Drewry was united in marriage to Miss Marie Louise Ellis, daughter of Dr. James T. and Nancy (Dunn) Ellis, of Spalding county, and her death occurred on Aug. 4, 1864. Following is a brief record concerning the children of their union: Blanche graduated in Richmond college, Richmond, Va., and is now the wife of Charles H. Westbrook, of Griffin; Dr. T. Ellis Drewry likewise attended Richmond college, after which he was graduated in medicine in the Atlanta medical college and Jefferson medical college, now being engaged in practice in Griffin; Nicholas B., Jr., died, at the parental home, Oct. 6, 1881, having been at the time a student in the University of Georgia.

On Jan. 8, 1868, Doctor Drewry contracted a second marriage, being then united to Miss Mary Minor Herndon, daughter of Reuben Herndon, and the only child of this union is Joseph Herndon, who was graduated in Mercer university in 1889 in the law department of the University of Georgia in 1890, and is now engaged in the mercantile business in Atlanta, Ga. Mrs. Mary M. Drewry was summoned to the life eternal on July 23, 1891, and on Oct. 5, 1893, Doctor Drewry married his present wife, whose maiden name was Julia McGown McWilliams and who is a daughter of Robert Patrick McWilliams, of Griffin.

Dr. Drewry is buried at Oak Hill Cemetery, Griffin, Spalding County, Georgia. His first wife, Mary Louise (b. 10 Sept 1839, d. 4 Aug 1864) died shortly after giving birth to a son (b. 17 July 1864, d. Nov. 1864). She and the infant are also buried there. Second wife, Minor Herndon Drewry (b. 11 Apr. 1845, d. 23 July 1891), and their son Joseph Herndon Drewry (b. 3 Apr 1869, d. 7 May 1937) are buried there as well other family members.

Additional Comments:
Copy obtained from Old Jail Museum and Archives, Barnesville, Georgia. Compiled by Shanna English

Drewry, Nicholas Butt M.D. (I3124)
197 Biography

John Dickinson (b. 1787, Hancock County; d. 1861) was one of Walton's earliest Settlers, and his name appears as a local family head on the 1920 census. He married Frances Tompson in 1818, and together they set up housekeeping three miles west of Monroe on the Monroe-Walnutgrove Road, one-half mile west of the Alcovy River. Both are buried there in a family plot.

As a resident of Davis's district, John drew land in the 1821 Lottery. In 1827, as a soldier, he was also fortunate, again receiving property. His last lottery parcel was obtained in the 1832 Cherokee Gold Lottery. A man of initiative and substance, Mr. Dickinson owned 1,279 acres by 1852, carrying on farming operations with 22 slaves. By 1860, just before his death, he owned 32 slaves.

Sams, id. 783.

Dickinson, John (I3446)
198 BOHUN, HENRY de, first Earl of Hereford (1176-1220), constable of England, was the grandson of Humphrey III de Bohun [q. v.] and Margaret, daughter of Milo of Gloucester, earl of Hereford and constable, through whom the hereditary right to the office of constable passed to the family of de Bohun. He was born in 1176, and on the accession of John was created earl of Hereford by charter 28 April 1199. In 1200 he was sent with other nobles to summon his uncle, William the Lion of Scotland, to appear at Lincoln to do homage. In 1215 he joined the confederate barons who obtained the concession of Magna Charta, and was one of the twenty-five appointed to insure its observance. On John's death he still adhered to the party of Louis of France, and was taken prisoner in the battle of Lincoln 20 May 1217. He died on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land 1 June 1220. His wife was Maud, daughter of Geoffrey Fitz-Piers, earl of Essex, by whom he had a son Humphrey V [q. v.], who succeeded him.

[Chronicles of Bog. Hoveden, Gervase of Canterbury, and Matt. Paris; Dugdale's Baronage, i. 180.]

Bohun, Henry de 1st Earl of Hereford, Lord High Constable of England (I1878)
199 BOHUN, HUMPHREY III de (d. 1187), baronial supporter of Henry II, was the third of his name in the family settled in England after the Norman conquest. The founder of the house, Humphrey de Bohun, surnamed with the beard, was succeeded by his son Humphrey II, who married, at some date between 1087 and 1100, Maud, daughter of Edward de Saresburie. Humphrey III was probably born about the end of the first decade of the twelfth century, and in some point he seems to have been confounded with his father. For example, to the father was probably due the foundation of the priory of Farleigh in Wiltshire, which is attributed to the son. The latter is also said to have served as steward or sewer to Henry I. Empress Matilda landed, he joined her standard, and by the advice of Milo of Gloucester, earl of Hereford, his father-in-law, he fortified his stronghold of Trowbridge against the king. Yet in the next year he appears as sewer to Stephen, an office which he also held in the empress's household. He was taken prisoner at Winchester in 1141, fighting on Matilda's side.

After the accession of Henry II Humphrey de Bohun scarcely appears at all in the history of the early years of the reign. He was, however, one of the barons summoned to the council held at Clarendon in January 1164, in which were framed the celebrated constitutions, and nine years later, 1173, he stood firm by the king in the rebellion of Prince Henry, and with Richard de Lucy, the justiciar, and other loyal barons invaded Scotland to check William the Lion, who supported the prince. But the landing of Robert de Beaumont, earl of Leicester, compelled them hastily to conclude a truce and to march against the earl's forces, which they totally defeated at Fornham St. Genevieve in Suffolk, 16 or 17 Oct. In 1176 Bohun was present at the convention of Falaise, when the Scottish king recognised the supremacy of the English crown. He died 6 April 1187, and was buried at Lanthony, Gloucestershire; having married Margaret, eldest daughter of Milo of Gloucester, earl of Hereford, and constable of England (d. 1140), on the failure of whose male line those honours were carried over through the same Margaret to the house of Bohun. Humphrey's son, Humphrey IV, sometimes styled earl of Hereford and constable, predeceased him in 1182, having married Margaret, daughter of Henry, earl of Huntingdon (son of David, king of Scotland), and widow of Conan-le-Petit, earl of Brittany and Richmond (d. 1171), and leaving a son Henry [q. v.], created earl of Hereford in 1199.

[Chronicles of Benedict of Peterboroagh and Roger of Hovedcn ; Dugdale's Baronage, i. 179 ; Fosb's Judges of England, i. 125 ; Upton's Itinerary of Henry II ; Add. MS. 31939. f. 182.]
Bohun, Humphrey III de (I2449)
200 BOHUN, HUMPHREY V de, second Earl of Hereford and first Earl of Essex (d. 1274), constable of England, succeeded his father Henry, first earl [q. v.], in 1220, and at some date after the death of William de Mandeville, his mother's brother, which took place in 1227, he was created earl of Essex. In the last-named year he joined Richard of Cornwall at Stamford, to support him in his quarrel with the king. He served the office of marshal of the household at the coronation of Queen Eleanor in 1286, and at the christening of Prince Edward in 1289 he was one of the sponsors. He was sheriff of Kent in 1289 and the two following years. He took part in Henry's French expedition of 1242, but is said to have retired with other nobles in disgust at the kind's partiality to the aliens. In 1244 he aided in the repression of a Welsh rising on the marches; but in the same year he was defeated by them in a second out break, one of the chief causes of insurrection being, it was declared, his retention of part of the inheritance of his sister-in-law Isabel, wife of David, son of Llewellyn, prince of Wales. In 1246 he joined in the letter of remonstrance finom the English peers to Pope Innocent IV. He was present in the parliament of 1248, and two years later he took the cross and went to the Holy Land. Humphrey de Bohun appears as one of those who spoke in defence of Simon de Montfort in 1252, and next year he was present at the renewal of the charters and the solemn excommunication of their transgressors. In 1254 he was with the king in Gascony, but received offence from slights put upon him when performing his duties as constable. In 1257 he had the custody of part of the marches of Wales, and was employed in the Welsh war which then broke out.

When the barons formed the confederation for redress of grievances in 1268, the Earl of Hereford was of their number, and had a share in the settlement of the government under the Provisions of Oxford, being one of the original commissioners, and subsequently one of the council of fifteen. In 1260 he appears as a justice itinerant for the counties of Gloucester, Worcester, and Hereford. In the divisions which soon split up the barons' confederation Humphrey de Bohun separated himself from Simon de Montfort's party, and is found in 1263 supporting the king, while his son Humphrey VI is ranged on the opposite side. In the battle of Lewes, 14 May 1264, he was taken prisoner. In the narrative of events of the ensuing year the movements of Humphrey de Bohun have been evidently confused with those of his son. It is stated that at the battle of Evesham, 4 Aug. 1266, he fought on the side of Simon de Montfort, and was taken prisoner. But this account applies only to the younger Humphrey, for immediately after that victory Hereford stood high in the king's favour, and was employed as one of the arbitrators to bring to reason the remnant of de Montfort's party by the dictum of Kenilworth. Humphrey de Bohun died 24 Sept. 1274, and was buried at Lanthony, Gloucestershire. He married twice: first, Maud, daughter of the Comte d'Eu, by whom he had his son Humphrey VI, who died before him, and four daughters; and secondly, Maud deAvenebury, by whom he had a son John, lord of Haresfield.

[Chronicles of Gerv. of Canterbury, Matt. Paris, WUl. Rishanger; Dogdale's Baronage, i. 180; Foss's Judges, ii. 245; Stubbs's Const. Hist.]
Bohun, Humphrey V de 2nd Earl Hereford and 1st Essex, Lord High Constable (I1770)

      «Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 45» Next»