Southern Anthology

Families on the Frontiers of the Old South

Notes


Matches 201 to 250 of 2,398

      «Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 48» Next»

 #   Notes   Linked to 
201 archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/CREEK-SOUTHEAST/1999-01/0915455704 Sizemore, Adeline Eugenia (I6747)
 
202 archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/CREEK-SOUTHEAST/1999-01/0915455704 Renault, Theodore (I6752)
 
203 archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/CREEK-SOUTHEAST/1999-01/0915455704 Renault, Josephine (I6753)
 
204 archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/CREEK-SOUTHEAST/1999-01/0915455704 Renault, Charles (I6754)
 
205 archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/CREEK-SOUTHEAST/1999-01/0915455704 Renault, William (I6755)
 
206 archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/CREEK-SOUTHEAST/1999-01/0915455704 Family F1821
 
207 Biography at Wikipedia. Marbury, Anne (I6809)
 
208 Canons Ashby House at Wikipedia. Canons Ashby House at the National Trust. Dryden, Sir John (I1717)
 
209 Online index of Marriage Records, Columbia County, Florida, Books A-D.  Family F1477
 
210 Online index of Marriage Records of Columbia County, Florida, Books A-D
 
Family F1481
 
211 Online index of Marriage Records of Columbia County, Florida, Books A-D
 
Family F1478
 
212 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)
 
213 WILL OF POLLY BAILEY SIZEMORE

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)
 
214 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)
 
215 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)
 
216 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)
 
217 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)
 
218 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)
 
219 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 
Beaumont-le-Roger, Robert de Count of Leicester and Meulan (I11110)
 
220 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. 
Beaumont, Robert de 2nd Earl of Leicester, Justiciar of England (I11491)
 
221 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. 
Beaumont, Robert de 3rd Earl of Leicester (I11493)
 
222 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)
 
223 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.] 
Neufmarché, Bernard de (I4013)
 
224 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)
 
225 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 http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=S000914

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)
 
226 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."

http://www.navyandmarine.org/ondeck/1862raphaelsemmes.htm
 
Semmes, Adm. Raphael (I1581)
 
227 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)
 
228 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)
 
229 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)
 
230 BIOGRAPHY

http://files.usgwarchives.org/ga/spalding/bios/bs268drewry.txt
Copyright, USGenWeb Archives. All rights reserved.

http://www.usgwarchives.org/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.org/ga/gafiles.htm

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Lynn Cunningham http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00011.html#0002535 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)
 
231 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)
 
232 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)
 
233 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)
 
234 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)
 
235 BOHUN, HUMPHREY VII de, third Earl of Hereford, and second Earl of Essex (d. 1298), constable of England, was bom about the middle of the thirteenth century, the grandson of Humphrey V [q. v.], second earl, and son of Humphrey V I, wno predeceased his father, 27 Aug. 1265, immediately after the battle of Evesham, at which he was made prisoner, fighting on de Montfort's side. Humphrey VII served in 1286 in the army of occupation in Wales. In 1289 he was found levying private war against the Earl of Gloucester, and was peremptorily ordered to keep the peace. In 1292 he was fined and imprisoned. In 1296-7 he was sent as escort to John, the young earl of Holland, who had lately married the English princess, Elizabeth, and was now returning to his own country to claim his inheritance. The princess, who was only in her fourteenth year, was married two years afterwards to Humphrey de Bohun, the earl's son. From this time to the date of his death Hereford played a conspicuous part, in conjunction with Roger Bigod, fifth earl of Norfolk, in opposing Edward I's measures for arbitrary taxation, and in at length obtaining the confirmation of the charters, being, however, chiefly moved by the alarm given to the barons by Edward's reforms. At the assembly of the magnates at Salisbury early in 1297, he, with Bigod, refused to serve in Gascony on the plea that they were not bound to foreign service except in company with the king [see Bigod, Roger, fifth earl of Norfolk]. At a levy of the military forces of the kingdom, the two earls refused to do their duty as constable and marshal, and were both deprived. The list of grievances which their party then presented was only partially inquired into when Edward sailed for Flanders; but the confirmation of the charters was agreed to by Prince Edward acting as regent, and was allowed by the king himself in Flanders. On Edward's return to England in 1298, he was required by the two earls, as the price of their attendance in the invasion of Scotland, to promise a re-confirmation of the charters. After the battle of Falkirk, 22 July, Hereford had leave to return to England; and soon after he died at Pleshy, in Essex, and was buried at Walden. He married Maud, daughter of Ingelram de Fienes, and was succeeded by his son, Humphrey VIII.

[Chronicles of Will. Rishanger, Th. Walsingham, Walt, de Hemingburgh; Dugdale's Baronage, i. 182 ; Stubbs's Constitutional History.]

E. M. T 
Bohun, Humphrey VII de 3rd Earl Hereford and 2nd Essex, Lord High Constable (I11347)
 
236 BOHUN, HUMPHREY VIII de, fourth Earl of Hereford, and third Earl of Essex (1276?1322), constable of England, was son of Humphrey VII, third earl of Hereford. He was born in 1276. In 1291 he appears among the barons who addressed the letter of protest to the pope from the parliament of Lincoln. In 1302 he married Elizabeth, daughter of Edward I, and widow of John, earl of Holland, and on the occasion made surrender to the crown of all his lands and title, receiving them back in tail. In a great tournament held at Fulham in 1305 he took a leading part, and again in 1307 he was present at another passage of arms at Wallingford, held against the king's favourite, Piers Gaveston. In 1308 he was sent north, in company with the Earl of Gloucester, to oppose Robert Bruce. The next year he joined with other barons in a letter of remonstrance addressed to the pope. In 1310 Humphrey de Bohun was one of the twenty-one ordainers appointed on 20 March to reform the government and the king's household. The ordinances which they presented were finally accepted in October 1311; but three months later, January 1312, the king recalled his banished favourite, Gaveston. Immediately Thomas, earl of Lancaster, and the confederate barons, including Hereford, took up arms and besieged Gaveston in Scarborough. On 19 May Gaveston surrendered, and was shortly afterwards beheaded by Lancaster's party at Blacklow Hill. Edward was powerless to punish the rebellious lords; negotiations for a peace were opened, and in October 1313 the earls and their followers were pardoned. In 1314 the war with Scotland was renewed, and the battle of Bannockburn was fought on 24 June. Here Gloucester was slain and Hereford taken prisoner. He was exchanged for the wife of Robert Bruce, who had long been a captive in England.

The jealousy of the barons was now moved by the growing power of the two Despensers, father and son. At a parliament held at York, September 1314, Edward was called upon to confirm the ordinances of 1311, and the elder Despenser was removed from the council. In 1315 Hereford was engaged upon the Welsh border, and was successful in quelling a rising. The factions which now sprang up among the barons threatened to bring about a state of civil war, when the movements of Robert Bruce, who had advanced south and captured Berwick, 2 April 1318, compelled the different parties to submit to a reconciliation. A general pardon was granted to Lancaster and his followers, and a new council was appointed August 1318. Of this council Hereford was a member, and he also took part in the military operations against Scotland, which, however, were hampered by Lancaster's perverse refusal to assist. A truce was concluded in 1319.

The feeling against the Despensers now broke out in open revolt. Bohim and Roger Mortimer, the principal lords on the Welsh border, prepared to attack Hugh le Despenser the younger, who held Glamorgan, in the autumn of 1320. Early in the next year the king issued writs forbidding unlawful assemblies; and a parliament was summoned to meet at Westminster on 15 July 1321. Bohun appeared in London at the head of an armed force, and took the lead in denouncing the favourites, who were sentenced to forfeiture and exile. But in October the king appeared in the field, and with unwonted vigour attacked his enemies in detail. They were driven north, and at the battle of Boroughbridge, in Yorkshire, 10 March 1322, they were totally defeated. Hereford was among the slain, and was buried in the church of the Friars Preachers of York.

By his wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Edward I, Humphrey de Bohun had six sons and four daughters. He was succeeded by his second son, John, who, dying in 1335, was followed by his brother, Humphrey IX, as sixth earl. In 1361 Humphrey X, earl of Northampton, succeeded, being the son of William de Bohun, another son of the fourth earl of Hereford. With Humphrey X the title became extinct in 1372, but was revived as a dukedom in 1397, in the person of Henry Bolingbroke, who married Mary, daughter and coheir of the last earl.

[Chronicles of Thomas Walsingham and Walt. Hemingburgh; Dugdale in Baronage, i. 183; Stubbs's Constitutional History.]

E. M. T. 
Bohun, Humphrey VIII de 4th Earl of Hereford and 3rd Essex (I10993)
 
237 BOHUN, WILLIAM de, Earl of Northampton (d. 1360), was the fifth son of Humphrey de Bohun VIII [q. v.], fourth earl of Hereford, and Elizabeth Plantagenet, daughter of King Edward I, and was a distinguished soldier. He was probably born about 1310. He is said to have taken part with the young king, Edward III, in 1330, in the suppression of Mortimer. In 1337 upon the advancement of Edward, prince of Wales, to the duchy of Cornwall, William de Bohun was created earl of Northampton on 16 March, and received grants of the castle and manor of Stamford and lordship of Grantham, Lincolnshire, and the castles and manors of Fotheringhay, Northamptonshire, and Okeham, Rutlandshire, in male tail. In the same year he was appointed one of the commissioners to treat with Philip of France on Edward's claim to the French crown, and subsequently a commissioner to treat with David Bruce. He took part in Edward's expedition which sailed for Antwerp in July 1388, and in 1340 was present at the naval victory of Sluys on 24 June. In 1342 he was appointed the king's lieutenant and captain-general in Brittany, and defeated the French at Morlaix and took La Roche Qarrien by assault, On the conclusion of a truce for three years he returned to England, and next year accompanied Henry, earl of Lancaster, into Scotland, marching to the relief of Loughmaben Castle, in Dumfriesshire, of which he was governor. He was again in Brittany at the close of the year, and again in 1345 and 1346; and took part in Edward's campaign the latter year, distinguishing himself in a skirmish on the Seine, and being present at the battle of Cressy on 26 August. During the next two years he continued to serve in France, and in 1349 was a commissioner for concluding a truce. In 1350 William de Bohun was appointed warden of the marches towards Scotland, and the next year was appointed to negotiate a peace with that kingdom. In 1352 he was conunissioner of the arrav of troops in Essex and Hertford to oposse the landing of the French. He was again in the north in 1353 and following years, and in 1355 served in the French campaign In 1356 he was commissioned to treat for the ransom of David Bruce, and in 1357-9 was abroad in Gascony. He died 16 Sept. 1360, and was buried at Walden in Essex.

William de Bohun married Elizabeth, daughter of Bartholomew de Badlesmere, and widow of Edmund Mortimer. Hisson, Humphrey, succeeded him, and in 1361, as heir to his uncle Humphrey, earl of Hereford and Essex, united in his person the three earldoms of Hereford, Essex, and Northampton.

[Chronicles of Walt, de Hemingburph and Thos. Walsingham ; Dugdale's Baronage, i. 185.]

E. M. T. 
Bohun, William de 1st Earl of Northampton, KG (I10994)
 
238 BRAOSE, WILLIAM de (d. 1211), rebel baron, was the descendant and heir of William de Braose (alias Braiose, Breause, Brehus, &c.), lord of Braose, near Falaise in Normandy, who had received great estates in England at the Conquest. The family fixed their seat at Bramber in Sussex, and were lords of its appendant rape. Through his grandmother, a daughter of Judhael de Totnes, lord of Totnes and Barnstaple, William had also a claim to one of those fiefs and through his mother, Bertha, second daughter of Miles and sister of Roger, earls of Hereford, he inherited the vast Welsh dominions of her grandfather, Bernard de Neufmarché [q. v.] He has been confused by Dugdale and Foss with his father and namesake; it was, however, as 'William de Braiose, junior,' that he made (as lord of the honour of Brecon) a grant to Walter de Clifford (Reports, xxxv. 2, but there wrongly dated), and that he tested a charter at Gloucester in 1179 (Mon. Angl. vi. 457), so that his father must have been then alive. It was probably, however, he, and not his father, who in 1176 invited the Welshmen to Abergavenny Castle, and there slew them, nominally in revenge for the death of his uncle Henry de Hereford the previous Easter (Matt. Paris, ii. 297), a crime avenged on Braose's grandson by Llewelyn in 1230 (Ann. Marg. 38). Under Richard I, though withstanding the royal officers on his own estates in Wales, he was sheriff of Herefordshire in 1192-9 (Rot. Pip.), and a justice itinerant for Staffordshire in 1196. In 1195 he was with Richard in Normandy, and in 1196 he secured both Barnstaple and Totnes for himself by an agreement with the other coheir. In 1198 he was beleaguered by the Welsh in Castle Maud (alias Colwyn) in Radnorshire, but relieved by the justiciary, Geoffrey Fitz Piers, who defeated the Welsh in Elvael (Roa. Hov. iv. 53; Matt. Paris, ii. 447). According, however, to the Welsh authorities, Castle Maud was taken, and he fell back on Pains Castle, where he had to save himself by a compromise (Brut y Tywysogion). On John's accession, William was foremost in urging that he should be crowned (Ann. Marg. 24). High in the king's favour, he accompanied him into Normandy in the summer of 1200 (Cart. 2 John, m. 31), and there had a grant of all such lands as he should conquer from the Welsh in increase of his barony of Radnor, and was made sheriff of Herefordshire for 1206-7 (Rot. Pip. 2 John). On 12 Jan. 1201 he obtained the honour of Limerick (without the city), as his uncle Philip had received it in 1172 from Henry II (Cart. 2 John, m. 15), for which he agreed to pay 5,000 marks at the rate of 500 a year (Obl. 2 John, m. 15). This was the origin of the misleading statement [see Butler, Theobald] that John sold him all the land of Philip de Worcester and Theobald Walter (Roe. Hov. iv. 152-3; Walt. Cov. ii. 179-80). He next received (23 Oct. 1202) the custody of Glamorgan Castle (Pat. 4 John, m. 8), and four months later (24 Feb. 1203) he had a grant of Gowerland, which he claimed as his inheritance (Plac. Parl. 30 Ed. I, 234). He was in close attendance on John at the time of Arthur's death, being at Rouen on 1 April (Cart. Ant. [Chancery] 20, 26), and at Falaise on 11 April 1203 (Cart. 4 John, m. 1), but he publicly refused to retain charge of the prince, suspecting that his life was in danger (Bouquet, xvii. 192), and it may have been in order to silence him that he received on 8 July 1203 a grant of the city of Limerick at ferm. He was still at the king's court on 18 Nov. (Cart. 5 John, m. 18). Three years later (16 Dec. 1206) he was placed in possession of Grosmont, Llantilio (or White Castle), and Skenfrith Castles (Cart. 7 John, m. 3), but shortly after his fall began. Its causes and details have always been obscure. The chief authority on the subject is an ex-parte statement put forward by John after William's ruin (i.e. circ. 1211), entered in the ' Red Book ' of the exchequer and printed in Rymer's 'F?dera' (i. 162-3). From this it would appear that the quarrel was pecuniary in its origin. Checking the king's assertions by the evidence of the 'Pipe Rolls,' it is clear that in 1207 (i.e. six years after obtaining the honour of Limerick), he had only paid up 700 marks in all (Pip. 8 John, rot. 6), instead of 500 a year. He was also in arrear for the ferm of Limerick itself, and Mr. Pearson (England in the Middle Ages, ii. 49), on the evidence of the Worcester Annals, holds him to have been suspected of conniving at the capture of the town in Geoffrey Marsh's rebellion: but that rebellion did not take place till later. On his becoming five years in arrear, the crown had recourse to distraint on his English estates. He had, however, removed his stock, and the king's bailiff was then ordered to distrain him in Wales. His friends, however, met the king at Gloucester (i.e. in November 1207), and on their intercession William was allowed to come to him at Hereford, and to surrender his castles of Hay, Brecknock, and Radnor in pledge for his arrears. But he still paid nothing further (Pip. 9 John, rot. 4, dors.), and upon the interdict being laid on England on 26 April 1208, his younger son Giles, bishop of Hereford (since 1200), was one of the five bishops who withdrew to France with the primate (Matt. Paris, ii. 522; Ann. Wig. 396). John, suspecting the conduct of the family, sent to demand hostages of William, but his wife (it is said against his advice) refused them (Matt. Paris, ii. 523-524). Thus committed to resistance, he strove to regain his three castles by surprise, and, failing in this, stormed and sacked Leominster. On the approach of the royal forces he fled with his family into Ireland (ib.; Ann. Wav. 261-2; Mon. Angl. i. 557), whereupon his estates were seized into the king's hands.

In Ireland he was harboured by William Marshall and the Lacys, who promised to surrender him within a certain time, but failed to do so till John's invasion of Ireland became imminent, when he was sent over with a safe-conduct to the court. He came, however, no nearer than Wales, where he harried the country till John's arrival at Pembroke in June 1210; he then offered 40,000 marks for peace and the restoration of his lands. But John declared he must treat with his wife, as the principal, in Ireland. William, refusing to accompany him, remained in Wales in rebellion. His wife, besieged by John in Heath (Matt. Paris, ii.530), fled to Scotland, but was captured in Galloway, with her son and his wife, by Duncan of Carrick, and brought back to John at Carrickfergus by the end of July. John extorted from her a confirmation of her husband's offer, and took her with him to England. William met them at Bristol on 20 Sept. 1210, and finally agreed to pay the 40,000 marks; but as neither he nor his wife would pay anything, he was outlawed in default, and fled from his port of Shoreham in disguise (' quasi mendicus ') to France (Ann. Wav. 265; Ann. Osn. 54). He died at Corbeuil the following year (9 Aug. 1211), and was buried the next day in St. Victor's Abbey, Paris (Matt. Paris, ii. 532), by Stephen Langton, the exiled primate (Ann. Marg. 31). His wife, Maud de St. Valerie, or De Haye, to whose arrogance his fall was largely attributed, was imprisoned, with her eldest son, by John in Windsor Castle, where they are said to have been starved to death (Ann. Wav. 265; Ann. Osn. 54). Matthew Paris (ii. 531) states, but erroneously, that the son's wife shared their fate, while Mr. Pearson (England in the Middle Ages, p. 53, n.} denies even the mother's death, on the ground that she appears as living in 1220 (Royal Letters, i. 136); but the Maud there mentioned was clearly her son's wife (as is proved by Coram rege roll Mich. 3 Hen. III, No. 1, m. 2, Sussex), who, with the third son Reginald, had escaped capture.

The second son, the bishop of Hereford, returned to England with the primate on 16 July 1214, and paid a fine of 9,000 marks for his father's lands on 21 Oct. 1215 (Pat. VI John, m. 14). As he died very soon after, John allowed the lands to pass without further fine to the third son Reginald on 26 May 1216 (Pat. 18 John, m. 9), who also, under Henry III, recovered the Irish estates.

William's daughter, Margaret, married Walter de Lacy, and on 10 Oct. 1216 received a license' to found a religious house for the souls of her mother Maud and her brother William, the victims of John's revenge.

[Matthew Paris (ed. Luard); Annales Monastici (Rolls Series); Chronica R. Hovedeni (ib.); Brut y Ty wysogion (ib.); Shirley's Royal Letters (ib.); Pipe Rolls temp. John; Charter and Patent Rolls; Reports of the Deputy-keeper; Rymer's F?dera; Monasticon Anglieanum; Dugdale's Baronage; Genealogist, vol. iv.]

J. H. R. 
de Briouse, William III 4th Lord of Bramber (I11334)
 
239 BRYARS-HADLEY FEUD

DREADFUL TRAGEDY IN BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA

Partial reports of a terrible occurrence near the line of the Mobile and Montgomery Railroad reached us by telegraph from the Junction on Tuesday morning. Yesterday we were called upon by Mr. W.J. VAN KIRK, of Millvue, a surveyor, who was on duty near the scene of the tragedy, but not a witness to its occurrence. He visited the battleground, however, was present at the funeral of the victims, and gave us an intelligent report of the dreadful affair. Greenberry BRYERS and James HADLEY, two men of considerable means and both large owners of stock, had been at feud for some years in consequence of misunderstandings caused by the intermixing of their cattle which "used" in the same range. On Monday, BRYERS, Sr., with his son, Larry, was plowing about 150 yards from the house, when HADLEY, Sr., accompanied by a party of five others comprising his son, "Dink", two other sons, and his sons-in-law, Bud PRICHER and Thomas STEWART, all armed with shotguns, rode up near the fence and said they had "come to settle the matter". BRYERS and his son were unarmed, but the father, after some angry words had been exchanged, caught up a piece of pine root, a foot and a half long, and getting over the fence, his son following him, advanced toward the party. As he approached them he was shot down and instantly killed, and his son who ran to his father as he fell was instantly killed. Joseph BRYERS then came out of the house with a double barrel shotgun, but both barrels missed fire and he was shot dead. Meanwhile Dink HADLEY rode toward the house, sprang from his horse and got behind a pine tree to await the coming of another son, John BRYERS, who advanced from the house under fire with two guns. He dropped one of them and sprang to a post in the road which did not shelter more than a third of his person, and exchanged fires with Dink HADLEY about thirty yards off, the rest of the attacking party meanwhile firing on him from a distance. At his second fire HADLEY fell, and attempted to reload, but seeing BRYERS run back and get his other gun he scrambled upon his horse and rejoined his party and rode away with them, John firing into them as they left and wounding old HADLEY in the shoulder. Dink HADLEY's wound was in the knee. John was wounded in the head, arm and foot, but not dangerously? While the fight was going on near the house, Wylie, the youngest son of the BRYERS family, ran to where his father and brother Larry had fallen and was shot down, the wound being in the thigh and dangerous. The summary of the affair is a father and two sons murdered and two sons wounded, on one side; and on the other, a father and one son wounded. We are told that Mr. BRYERS was much respected being a leading man in religious affairs in the neighborhood, and that HADLEY had always been deemed a respectable person. The dead were buried on Tuesday, a large assemblage being present? Tuesday a posse of men, provided with warrants for the arrest of the murderers, went to the HADLEY settlement but found their residences deserted. The locality of these occurrences is near the Florida line, four miles west of Perdido station, or about midway between the Junction and Tensas Bridge.

-Pensacola Gazette

Source: Birmingham Iron Age, July 29, 1875

* * * *

The details of Green Berry's death are recounted at Hadley v. Alabama, 55 Ala. 31 (Ala. 1876):

Supreme Court of Alabama.
Hadley v. The State.
December Term, 1876.

Indictment for Murder.
FROM the Circuit Court of Baldwin.
Tried before the Hon. H. T. TOULMIN.

*1 The defendants in this case, James Hadley and James M. Hadley, were jointly indicted and tried, together with Jesse Hadley, Thomas Stewart, and Howell Pitcher, for the murder of Green B. Bryars; pleaded not guilty to the indictment; were convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of ten years, while a verdict of not guilty was returned as to the other defendants. The circumstances attending the homicide, as disclosed by the evidence adduced on the trial, are thus stated in the bill of exceptions: "There was evidence tending to show, on the part of the State, that the parties lived about seven miles apart in the northern part of Baldwin county, and were stock-raisers; that on the Saturday before the killing they (that is, James Hadley, James M. Hadley, Jesse Hadley, and Green B. Bryars) were together at the house of said Green B. Bryars, and were friendly, and parted friendly, to meet again on Monday morning, and to go to a fork two or three miles from the house, to drive out some sheep belonging to Hadley, and separate them from the sheep of said Bryars. On Monday morning, all five of the defendants came to the fence of one of Bryars's lots, which was near the road leading from, and about one hundred yards from his house. All of them were mounted except one, and all armed with guns, and were first outside of the fence, opposite said Green B. Bryars, who stood by his plow, just inside of his lot, where he had been plowing before the defendants came up. Larry Bryars, one of his sons, had been to the house for water, and had just returned to his father, whom he had been helping to plow, as the defendants came up, and was standing outside of the fence, a few steps from his father. Wiley J. Bryars, another son, came from the house towards the place where his father and the defendants were; and when he came within about thirty steps of them, the deceased had left his plow, and got over the fence, and walked a few steps in the direction of the house, when he called out, 'Boys, come here.' This call attracted the attention of John and Joseph Bryars, who were at the house, and of his wife and daughter, Mrs. Elizabeth Bryars and Bettie Bryars, who were in the yard, near the gate. Immediately on the deceased calling for his boys, the defendants dismounted from their horses, and James Hadley, being about five steps from the deceased, leveled his gun at the deceased, and shot him with both barrels. The deceased fell instantly; and about the same time, James M. Hadley shot him with one barrel of his gun, and then shot the other barrel at Larry, who stood near his father; from which shot Larry fell. About the same time, all the other defendants pointed their guns in the direction of Larry and Wiley, who were in the same direction from the defendants, and fired; Larry being then down on the ground, and Wiley going towards the house. Wiley was shot in the back of the thigh and head. The deceased, Green B. Bryars, Larry, and Wiley, were dressed in their working clothes, were in their shirtsleeves, and had no arms or weapons of any sort. The evidence tended to show that the deceased, at the time he was shot, had in his left hand a small stick, about two feet long, and an inch and a half in diameter. Very soon after this shooting, Joseph Bryars started from the house, with his gun, and had reached within about fifty yards of the defendants, when he was shot in the head, and killed; and the evidence tended to show that he did not fire his gun. John Bryars was advancing a short distance behind Joseph, with two guns, and he received a shot in the arm. He immediately returned the fire, discharging both barrels of his gun, and turned to get the other gun, which he had put down, when he received a second shot in the foot. Green B. Bryars, Larry Bryars, and Joseph Bryars were all killed, and Wiley and John wounded, in a few moments of time, and within a short time, not exceeding ten minutes, after the defendants arrived there. The defendants remounted their horses, and left in the direction whence they came; and the evidence tended to show that they went towards the house of James Hadley, and from there to the woods. One Renfro testified, on the part of the State, that the defendant Pitcher was in his employ, getting timber, and came by his camp about sunrise on the morning of the killing, and told him 'that he was going to fight a duel with old man Bryars that morning, and would be back to his work about twelve o'clock that day'; that said Pitcher then left his camp, with a gun, and went in the direction of Bryars's house, which was two or three miles distant. The killing took place about eight o'clock in the morning.

*2 There was evidence tending to show, on the part of the defense, that the defendants were at the house of said Bryars on the Saturday before the killing, and, in a conversation between him and James Hadley, reference was made to a dispute previously existing, about a sheep of Hadley's, which Bryars said Hadley had accused him of marking; and Bryars insisted on his retracting the charge, and admitting it to be a falsehood; while Hadley denied that he had said Bryars had stolen his sheep, but only that Bryars had made a mistake in marking one of his sheep. At the solicitation of James M. Hadley, they made friends, and parted as friends, and agreed to come Monday morning, and get Hadley's sheep out of 'the fork'; James Hadley saying that he would send the boys, and, Bryars insisting that he should come too, he then consented to come. Immediately after they had left, Green B. Bryars said, in the presence of one Weakley, 'James Hadley seems like he wanted to compromise and make friends; but he can't make friends with me on any consideration, unless he acknowledges that he told a lie on me. He thinks he is coming here Monday to get them sheep, but he can't do it: he either has to acknowledge he told a lie, or fight.' Larry Bryars said to a friend on Sunday evening, when taking leave of him, 'I don't know that you'll ever see me any more. The Hadleys are coming on Monday to get them sheep; but old Jim will have to take back what he said, and admit he told a lie, or there will be a fight,' or 'a fuss.' Joseph Bryars said, on Sunday, that he could not go to the house of one King, his brother-in-law, 'because the Hadleys were coming to the house on Monday morning, and there would be hell.' There was evidence tending to show on the part of the defendants, by three witnesses, that when they started Monday morning, they were prepared and furnished with provisions for two days and one night in camp; that two of them were to drive home some sheep, and the others were after cattle; that Bryars was in the field when they rode up to the fence, and advanced towards them, with a pine root, about two and a half feet long, and one and a half or two inches in diameter, and jumped on the fence with it, calling towards the house, 'Come on, boys,' or 'Come with your guns, boys,' and attacked James Hadley with the stick; and that at the same time, while Hadley was backing his mule out of the way, several discharges of guns were made to and towards the defendants from persons on the premises of Bryars, and James Hadley and James M. Hadley were shot, and the clothes of the other defendants were a good deal cut by shot; and that Green B. Bryars was not shot, nor either of the others, until after this assault and these discharges from the Bryarses, and that twelve or fifteen shots were fired in two or three minutes. There was evidence on the part of the defendants, also, tending to show that Mrs. Elizabeth Bryars, on the evening after the difficulty and the death of Green B. Bryars, made statements of details of the rencontre different from those made by her as as witness on the trial."

*3 "D. C. Byrne, a justice of the peace in said county, who was examined as a witness for the defense, testified, that he is a native of said county, and had known Hadley all his life, who is also a native of the county, and lives about eight miles from him; that he did not know the reputation of the defendants in the community in which they live, but had never known or heard anything against them, and until this occurrence had never heard his character for peaceableness discussed; that of his own knowledge he knew nothing against them; that James Hadley, so far as he knew, was a peaceable, good man, but he could not say what his reputation for peaceableness was in the neighborhood in which he lived. The court thereupon ruled, on motion of the State, that said witness was not competent to testify as to
the character of said Hadley, and excluded his evidence from the jury; to which ruling the defendants excepted." "When John B. Bryars was offered as a witness on the part of the State, the defendants objected to his competency as a witness, and offered to show that he was a son of the deceased, and a brother of Larry and Joseph Bryars, and had brought an action of attachment in the Circuit Court of said county for $10,000 damages, for an assault and battery on him at the time and place the deceased was killed, against all the defendants, which action was still pending. The court overruled the objection, and allowed the witness to testify; to which ruling the defendants excepted. The defendants offered to prove, on cross- examination of said witness, that he was the plaintiff in a suit against them for an assault and battery committed on him by them, being the same suit mentioned above; but the court sustained an objection to this evidence on the part of the State, and the defendants excepted. The defendants also objected to the examination of Mrs. Elizabeth Bryars, the widow of the deceased, as a witness for the State, on the ground of incompetency, and offered to show that she, as the administratrix of said deceased, had brought an action in said court against all these defendants, for $20,000 damages for the wrongful killing of said deceased, and had also brought another action in said court, as next friend for Wiley Bryars, her son, to recover $10,000 damages for an assault and battery committed on him by them at the same time and place; which said actions are still pending in said court. The court overruled the objection, and allowed the witness to testify; to which the defendants excepted. The defendants also offered to prove these facts on cross-examination of said witness, but the court sustained an objection to said evidence by the State; to which the defendants also excepted." Similar objections were made to the testimony of Wiley J. Bryars, and exceptions duly reserved to the overruling of them. "John Bryars, Wiley J. Bryars, Mrs. Elizabeth Bryars, and Bettie Bryars, were the witnesses for the State who testified as to the facts of the rencontre. After the evidence for the State was closed, the defendants offered to show the same facts as to said pending suits, claiming $70,000 in all, separately, and all together as to each of them, and to produce the full record in each case, and that their attorneys in said suits were also their attorneys in this case. But the court refused to permit the defendants to prove any or all of these facts, and excluded them from the jury; to which ruling of the court the defendants excepted."

*4 "The court charged the jury, among other things, as follows: 'If one man shoot another with a gun, or other deadly weapon, and death ensues, the law implies, or considers, or presumes, that the act was done maliciously, and imposes upon the slayer the burthen of rebutting this presumption, unless the evidence which proves the killing itself shows it to have been done without malice. Hence, if you believe, from the evidence, that the prisoners at the bar shot Green B. Bryars with a shot gun, or other deadly weapon, and thereby caused his death, the law presumes that the act was done maliciously, and imposes upon the prisoners the burthen of rebutting this presumption, unless the evidence which proves the killing itself shows it to have been done without malice. Now, then, if you believe from the evidence that the prisoners took the life of Green B. Bryars with a shot gun, or other deadly weapon, willfully, deliberately, maliciously, and premeditatedly, as tested by what I have said to you, and you find that it was done in this county, and before the finding of this indictment, they would be guilty of murder in the first degree, and it would be your duty so to find them. Should you find them guilty of murder in the first degree,' etc. To this charge the defendants excepted."

ALEX. MCKINSTRY and D. C. ANDERSON, for the defendants, cited the following authorities:

1. As to error in the charge of the court--Wharton's Criminal Law, vol 1, §§ 711, 712; Wharton on Homicide, § 671; Stokes v. People, 53 N. Y. 164; Ogletree v. The State, 28 Ala. 701; Oliver v. The State, 17 Ala. 587; Martin v. The State, 47 Ala. 564; Harrington v. The State, 45 Ala. 82; Maher v. The People, 10
Mich. 212-25; Hurd v. The People, 25 Mich. 416.

2. As to the admissibility of Byrne's testimony as to the character of the deceased--1 Phil. Ev. 468-9, 471; 3 Ib. 482; 22 Ala. 37-41; 31 Ala. 320; 40 Ala. 211; 7 Car. & P. 298.

3. As to the admissibility of the records of the pending civil suits, for the purposes for which they were offered--1 Stew. 399; 9 Porter, 126; 31 Ala. 32; 40 Ala. 204; 43 Ala. 339; 47 Ala. 607; 2 Halst. 220, 234.

JNO. W. A. SANFORD, Attorney-General, for the State.


STONE, J.

Mr. Wharton, the able author of the works on Criminal Law, and on Homicide, has contributed an article to the "Forum," April number, 1875, in which he attempts to show that there has been a revolution in criminal law, in the matter of presumed malice. In his work on Homicide, 2d ed., § 671, he asserts the same doctrine, and says, "If it be said that the use of a weapon, likely to inflict a mortal blow, implies, as a presumption of law, in its technical sense, a deadly design, this is an error; and a fortiori is it so, when it is said the use of such a weapon implies a malicious design."

*5 Malice, design, and motive, are, as a rule, but inferential facts. They are inferred from facts and circumstances, positively proven. If direct, positive proof of them were required, it could rarely be given. Still, we know they exist; and when sufficient facts are in evidence to justify us in drawing such inference, we rest as securely in the conviction, as if it were forced upon us by positive proof. The measure of evidence, however, to justify such abiding conviction, must be very full,--so full as to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis.

That every one must be held to intend the known onsequences of his intentional act, is a recognized canon of moral accountability, and of municipal law. Malice, as an ingredient of murder, is but a formed design, by a sane mind, to take life unlawfully, without such impending danger, to be averted thereby, as will render it excusable, and without such provocation as will repel the imputation of formed design. Hence, when life is taken by the direct use of a deadly weapon, the canon, stated above, comes to its aid; and, if there be nothing else in the transaction--no qualifying or explanatory circumstance--the conclusion is irresistible, that the killing was done pursuant to a formed design; in other words, with malice aforethought; for malice, in such connection, is but the absence of impending peril to life or member, which would excuse the homicide, and of sufficient provocation to repel the imputation of its existence.

In Foster's Crown Law, it is said, "In every charge of murder, the fact of killing being first proved, all the circumstances of accident, necessity, or infirmity, are to be satisfactorily proved by the prisoner, unless they arise out of the evidence produced against him; for the law presumeth the fact to have been founded in malice, until the contrary appeareth; and very right it is that the law should so presume." The same doctrine is affirmed in all the older writers and adjudications on criminal law.

Sir Wm. Blackstone (4 Com. 201) says: "We may take it for a general rule, that all homicide is malicious, and, of course, amounts to murder, unless when justified, excused, or alleviated into manslaughter; and all these circumstances of justification, excuse, or alleviation, it is incumbent on the prisoner to make out to the satisfaction of the court and jury."

In the case of Webster v. Commonwealth, 5 Cush. 206, the case stood on the naked proof of the homicide, without any of the attendant circumstances. Ch. J. Shaw declared the law as above quoted.

The case of People v. Schryver, 42 N. Y. 1, is a very careful and full collection and collation of authorities, English and American, and fully sustains the doctrine above declared. See, also, Tweedy v. State, 5 Iowa, 433; Silvus v. State, 22 Ohio St. 90. The case of Stokes v. The People, 53 N. Y. 164, properly understood, is not materially opposed to this view. The charge of the judge in that case invaded the province of the jury; and, in addition to this, the case was made to turn materially on the statutes of New York. The charge in that case went much beyond the principle above copied from the old authors.

*6 The charge in the present case is precisely that which was given in the case of Murphy v. The State, 37 Ala. 142. In that case, this court held, that the charge was free from error. We are unwilling to depart from that decision, and, in doing so, from an old landmark which has, for centuries, withstood the test of time, and the combined wisdom of jurists on both sides of the Atlantic. There is a lamentable and growing laxity in the administration of the criminal law, which is seen and deplored by all good men. Life is not sufficiently cared for; its destruction not punished with sufficient severity. Until the reckless and rash are taught, by firm judges and stern juries, that the slayer of his brother can invoke the shield of elf-defense, only when, without sufficient provocation from him, his life was in peril, or his body exposed to grievous injury; that homicide by him cannot be mitigated to the lesser offense of manslaughter, unless the jury are convinced that the killing was unpremeditated, and the result of sudden passion, excited by present injury more grievous than words--we fear that the calendar of bloody crimes is destined to know no diminution in its numbers. The terrors of certain punishment are the only sure means of restraining the evil-minded.

2. The evidence offered of the character of the accused was properly rejected. The witness admitted he did not know the general character of the prisoner in the neighborhood in which he lived. Such knowledge is a necessary predicate to the introduction of evidence of character. 1 Brick. Dig. 513, §§ 910, 914. This knowledge of general character may be acquired, and frequently is, without hearing the subject discussed by a majority of the neighbors. Still, the witness must be able to say he knows the general character, before he can be allowed to speak of it.

3. We can perceive no principle, or reason, why the records of the civil suits, offered in evidence, should have been received. They could not have shed any legitimate light on the merits of the renco

 
Bryars, Green Berry (I0674)
 
240 BRYARS-HADLEY FEUD

DREADFUL TRAGEDY IN BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA

Partial reports of a terrible occurrence near the line of the Mobile and Montgomery Railroad reached us by telegraph from the Junction on Tuesday morning. Yesterday we were called upon by Mr. W.J. VAN KIRK, of Millvue, a surveyor, who was on duty near the scene of the tragedy, but not a witness to its occurrence. He visited the battleground, however, was present at the funeral of the victims, and gave us an intelligent report of the dreadful affair. Greenberry BRYERS and James HADLEY, two men of considerable means and both large owners of stock, had been at feud for some years in consequence of misunderstandings caused by the intermixing of their cattle which "used" in the same range. On Monday, BRYERS, Sr., with his son, Larry, was plowing about 150 yards from the house, when HADLEY, Sr., accompanied by a party of five others comprising his son, "Dink", two other sons, and his sons-in-law, Bud PRICHER and Thomas STEWART, all armed with shotguns, rode up near the fence and said they had "come to settle the matter". BRYERS and his son were unarmed, but the father, after some angry words had been exchanged, caught up a piece of pine root, a foot and a half long, and getting over the fence, his son following him, advanced toward the party. As he approached them he was shot down and instantly killed, and his son who ran to his father as he fell was instantly killed. Joseph BRYERS then came out of the house with a double barrel shotgun, but both barrels missed fire and he was shot dead. Meanwhile Dink HADLEY rode toward the house, sprang from his horse and got behind a pine tree to await the coming of another son, John BRYERS, who advanced from the house under fire with two guns. He dropped one of them and sprang to a post in the road which did not shelter more than a third of his person, and exchanged fires with Dink HADLEY about thirty yards off, the rest of the attacking party meanwhile firing on him from a distance. At his second fire HADLEY fell, and attempted to reload, but seeing BRYERS run back and get his other gun he scrambled upon his horse and rejoined his party and rode away with them, John firing into them as they left and wounding old HADLEY in the shoulder. Dink HADLEY's wound was in the knee. John was wounded in the head, arm and foot, but not dangerously? While the fight was going on near the house, Wylie, the youngest son of the BRYERS family, ran to where his father and brother Larry had fallen and was shot down, the wound being in the thigh and dangerous. The summary of the affair is a father and two sons murdered and two sons wounded, on one side; and on the other, a father and one son wounded. We are told that Mr. BRYERS was much respected being a leading man in religious affairs in the neighborhood, and that HADLEY had always been deemed a respectable person. The dead were buried on Tuesday, a large assemblage being present? Tuesday a posse of men, provided with warrants for the arrest of the murderers, went to the HADLEY settlement but found their residences deserted. The locality of these occurrences is near the Florida line, four miles west of Perdido station, or about midway between the Junction and Tensas Bridge.

-Pensacola Gazette

Source: Birmingham Iron Age, July 29, 1875

* * * *

The details of Green Berry's death are recounted at Hadley v. Alabama, 55 Ala. 31 (Ala. 1876):

Supreme Court of Alabama.
Hadley v. The State.
December Term, 1876.

Indictment for Murder.
FROM the Circuit Court of Baldwin.
Tried before the Hon. H. T. TOULMIN.

*1 The defendants in this case, James Hadley and James M. Hadley, were jointly indicted and tried, together with Jesse Hadley, Thomas Stewart, and Howell Pitcher, for the murder of Green B. Bryars; pleaded not guilty to the indictment; were convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of ten years, while a verdict of not guilty was returned as to the other defendants. The circumstances attending the homicide, as disclosed by the evidence adduced on the trial, are thus stated in the bill of exceptions: "There was evidence tending to show, on the part of the State, that the parties lived about seven miles apart in the northern part of Baldwin county, and were stock-raisers; that on the Saturday before the killing they (that is, James Hadley, James M. Hadley, Jesse Hadley, and Green B. Bryars) were together at the house of said Green B. Bryars, and were friendly, and parted friendly, to meet again on Monday morning, and to go to a fork two or three miles from the house, to drive out some sheep belonging to Hadley, and separate them from the sheep of said Bryars. On Monday morning, all five of the defendants came to the fence of one of Bryars's lots, which was near the road leading from, and about one hundred yards from his house. All of them were mounted except one, and all armed with guns, and were first outside of the fence, opposite said Green B. Bryars, who stood by his plow, just inside of his lot, where he had been plowing before the defendants came up. Larry Bryars, one of his sons, had been to the house for water, and had just returned to his father, whom he had been helping to plow, as the defendants came up, and was standing outside of the fence, a few steps from his father. Wiley J. Bryars, another son, came from the house towards the place where his father and the defendants were; and when he came within about thirty steps of them, the deceased had left his plow, and got over the fence, and walked a few steps in the direction of the house, when he called out, 'Boys, come here.' This call attracted the attention of John and Joseph Bryars, who were at the house, and of his wife and daughter, Mrs. Elizabeth Bryars and Bettie Bryars, who were in the yard, near the gate. Immediately on the deceased calling for his boys, the defendants dismounted from their horses, and James Hadley, being about five steps from the deceased, leveled his gun at the deceased, and shot him with both barrels. The deceased fell instantly; and about the same time, James M. Hadley shot him with one barrel of his gun, and then shot the other barrel at Larry, who stood near his father; from which shot Larry fell. About the same time, all the other defendants pointed their guns in the direction of Larry and Wiley, who were in the same direction from the defendants, and fired; Larry being then down on the ground, and Wiley going towards the house. Wiley was shot in the back of the thigh and head. The deceased, Green B. Bryars, Larry, and Wiley, were dressed in their working clothes, were in their shirtsleeves, and had no arms or weapons of any sort. The evidence tended to show that the deceased, at the time he was shot, had in his left hand a small stick, about two feet long, and an inch and a half in diameter. Very soon after this shooting, Joseph Bryars started from the house, with his gun, and had reached within about fifty yards of the defendants, when he was shot in the head, and killed; and the evidence tended to show that he did not fire his gun. John Bryars was advancing a short distance behind Joseph, with two guns, and he received a shot in the arm. He immediately returned the fire, discharging both barrels of his gun, and turned to get the other gun, which he had put down, when he received a second shot in the foot. Green B. Bryars, Larry Bryars, and Joseph Bryars were all killed, and Wiley and John wounded, in a few moments of time, and within a short time, not exceeding ten minutes, after the defendants arrived there. The defendants remounted their horses, and left in the direction whence they came; and the evidence tended to show that they went towards the house of James Hadley, and from there to the woods. One Renfro testified, on the part of the State, that the defendant Pitcher was in his employ, getting timber, and came by his camp about sunrise on the morning of the killing, and told him 'that he was going to fight a duel with old man Bryars that morning, and would be back to his work about twelve o'clock that day'; that said Pitcher then left his camp, with a gun, and went in the direction of Bryars's house, which was two or three miles distant. The killing took place about eight o'clock in the morning.

*2 There was evidence tending to show, on the part of the defense, that the defendants were at the house of said Bryars on the Saturday before the killing, and, in a conversation between him and James Hadley, reference was made to a dispute previously existing, about a sheep of Hadley's, which Bryars said Hadley had accused him of marking; and Bryars insisted on his retracting the charge, and admitting it to be a falsehood; while Hadley denied that he had said Bryars had stolen his sheep, but only that Bryars had made a mistake in marking one of his sheep. At the solicitation of James M. Hadley, they made friends, and parted as friends, and agreed to come Monday morning, and get Hadley's sheep out of 'the fork'; James Hadley saying that he would send the boys, and, Bryars insisting that he should come too, he then consented to come. Immediately after they had left, Green B. Bryars said, in the presence of one Weakley, 'James Hadley seems like he wanted to compromise and make friends; but he can't make friends with me on any consideration, unless he acknowledges that he told a lie on me. He thinks he is coming here Monday to get them sheep, but he can't do it: he either has to acknowledge he told a lie, or fight.' Larry Bryars said to a friend on Sunday evening, when taking leave of him, 'I don't know that you'll ever see me any more. The Hadleys are coming on Monday to get them sheep; but old Jim will have to take back what he said, and admit he told a lie, or there will be a fight,' or 'a fuss.' Joseph Bryars said, on Sunday, that he could not go to the house of one King, his brother-in-law, 'because the Hadleys were coming to the house on Monday morning, and there would be hell.' There was evidence tending to show on the part of the defendants, by three witnesses, that when they started Monday morning, they were prepared and furnished with provisions for two days and one night in camp; that two of them were to drive home some sheep, and the others were after cattle; that Bryars was in the field when they rode up to the fence, and advanced towards them, with a pine root, about two and a half feet long, and one and a half or two inches in diameter, and jumped on the fence with it, calling towards the house, 'Come on, boys,' or 'Come with your guns, boys,' and attacked James Hadley with the stick; and that at the same time, while Hadley was backing his mule out of the way, several discharges of guns were made to and towards the defendants from persons on the premises of Bryars, and James Hadley and James M. Hadley were shot, and the clothes of the other defendants were a good deal cut by shot; and that Green B. Bryars was not shot, nor either of the others, until after this assault and these discharges from the Bryarses, and that twelve or fifteen shots were fired in two or three minutes. There was evidence on the part of the defendants, also, tending to show that Mrs. Elizabeth Bryars, on the evening after the difficulty and the death of Green B. Bryars, made statements of details of the rencontre different from those made by her as as witness on the trial."

*3 "D. C. Byrne, a justice of the peace in said county, who was examined as a witness for the defense, testified, that he is a native of said county, and had known Hadley all his life, who is also a native of the county, and lives about eight miles from him; that he did not know the reputation of the defendants in the community in which they live, but had never known or heard anything against them, and until this occurrence had never heard his character for peaceableness discussed; that of his own knowledge he knew nothing against them; that James Hadley, so far as he knew, was a peaceable, good man, but he could not say what his reputation for peaceableness was in the neighborhood in which he lived. The court thereupon ruled, on motion of the State, that said witness was not competent to testify as to
the character of said Hadley, and excluded his evidence from the jury; to which ruling the defendants excepted." "When John B. Bryars was offered as a witness on the part of the State, the defendants objected to his competency as a witness, and offered to show that he was a son of the deceased, and a brother of Larry and Joseph Bryars, and had brought an action of attachment in the Circuit Court of said county for $10,000 damages, for an assault and battery on him at the time and place the deceased was killed, against all the defendants, which action was still pending. The court overruled the objection, and allowed the witness to testify; to which ruling the defendants excepted. The defendants offered to prove, on cross- examination of said witness, that he was the plaintiff in a suit against them for an assault and battery committed on him by them, being the same suit mentioned above; but the court sustained an objection to this evidence on the part of the State, and the defendants excepted. The defendants also objected to the examination of Mrs. Elizabeth Bryars, the widow of the deceased, as a witness for the State, on the ground of incompetency, and offered to show that she, as the administratrix of said deceased, had brought an action in said court against all these defendants, for $20,000 damages for the wrongful killing of said deceased, and had also brought another action in said court, as next friend for Wiley Bryars, her son, to recover $10,000 damages for an assault and battery committed on him by them at the same time and place; which said actions are still pending in said court. The court overruled the objection, and allowed the witness to testify; to which the defendants excepted. The defendants also offered to prove these facts on cross-examination of said witness, but the court sustained an objection to said evidence by the State; to which the defendants also excepted." Similar objections were made to the testimony of Wiley J. Bryars, and exceptions duly reserved to the overruling of them. "John Bryars, Wiley J. Bryars, Mrs. Elizabeth Bryars, and Bettie Bryars, were the witnesses for the State who testified as to the facts of the rencontre. After the evidence for the State was closed, the defendants offered to show the same facts as to said pending suits, claiming $70,000 in all, separately, and all together as to each of them, and to produce the full record in each case, and that their attorneys in said suits were also their attorneys in this case. But the court refused to permit the defendants to prove any or all of these facts, and excluded them from the jury; to which ruling of the court the defendants excepted."

*4 "The court charged the jury, among other things, as follows: 'If one man shoot another with a gun, or other deadly weapon, and death ensues, the law implies, or considers, or presumes, that the act was done maliciously, and imposes upon the slayer the burthen of rebutting this presumption, unless the evidence which proves the killing itself shows it to have been done without malice. Hence, if you believe, from the evidence, that the prisoners at the bar shot Green B. Bryars with a shot gun, or other deadly weapon, and thereby caused his death, the law presumes that the act was done maliciously, and imposes upon the prisoners the burthen of rebutting this presumption, unless the evidence which proves the killing itself shows it to have been done without malice. Now, then, if you believe from the evidence that the prisoners took the life of Green B. Bryars with a shot gun, or other deadly weapon, willfully, deliberately, maliciously, and premeditatedly, as tested by what I have said to you, and you find that it was done in this county, and before the finding of this indictment, they would be guilty of murder in the first degree, and it would be your duty so to find them. Should you find them guilty of murder in the first degree,' etc. To this charge the defendants excepted."  
Hadley, James (I7570)
 
241 CATHERINE of Arragon (1485-1536), first queen of Henry VIII, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, was born at Alcala de Henares on 15 or 16 Dec. 1485. She was the youngest of a family of one son and four daughters, and at her birth her parents had already done much to consolidate their united kingdoms by victories over the Moors. Henry VII of England, who had obtained possession by conquest of an insecure throne in the very year she was born, naturally sought the alliance of sovereigns whose affairs seemed so prosperous, and his eldest son Arthur, born in September 1486, could hardly have been much more than a year old when he was proposed by his father as a future husband for their youngest daughter. They sent commissioners to England to negotiate as early as 1488. A return embassy sent by Henry VII to Spain met with a magnificent reception at Medina del Campo; but for many years nothing was positively concluded, as it was Ferdinand's object to bind the king of England to make war in his behalf against France without incurring any corresponding obligation himself. In truth, Ferdinand was not well enough assured of the stability of Henry's throne to be willing to commit himself irrevocably.

Catherine was in her fifth year when her sister Isabel was betrothed at Seville to Don Alfonso of Portugal on 18 April 1490. She and her other sisters, Juana and Mary, were present at the ceremony (Bernaldez, i. 279, 280; Mariana, ed. 1780, ii. 587).

In 1492, when the Moors were driven out of Granada, she entered the city with her parents, and it became her home. From Granada came the device of the pomegranate so well known afterwards in England in connection with her. Her education, especially in Latin, was personally superintended by her mother, and in later years Erasmus bore witness to her scholarship. All difficulties as to the match with Arthur had been finally cleared away in 1500, when the bridegroom had completed his fourteenth year. She left Granada on 21 May 1501, and embarked at Corunna on 17 Aug. After many delays from contrary winds she reached Plymouth on 2 Oct.

Great preparations had been made for her reception. Lord Broke, steward of the king's household, was despatched into the west to provide for her retinue; and afterwards the Earl of Surrey and the Duchess of Norfolk were sent to attend her. The king himself on 4 Nov. removed from Richmond to go and meet her, but, owing to bad weather and doubtless equally bad roads, he was compelled the first night to find a lodging at Chertsey. Next day his son, Prince Arthur, met him at Easthampstead, and proceeded in his father's company to meet his bride. The meeting took place at Dogmersfield in Hampshire, where the prince and his father conversed with her through the medium of two Spanish hishops, who interpreted 'the speeches of both countries' by means of Latin. A formal betrothal then took place, and the whole party returned towards London, which Catherine entered on 12 Nov. On Sunday the 14th the marriage was celebrated at St. Paul's, and jousts were held on the Thursday after, at Westminster, in honour of the event.

It was necessary in those days for a prince of Wales to justify his title by keeping court on the Welsh borders. Arthur had already resided at Ludlow, and written thence diplomatic love letters to Catherine in Spain (Mary A. E. Wood, Letters of Royal and Illustrious Ladies, i. 121); and it was decided that he should return thither next month. The king at first hesitated to send his bride along with him. The prince was still so young that cohabitation seems not to have been allowed, and some thought the princess would be less solitary in the king's court than living under her husband's roof in the Welsh marches. The point was referred to herself, but she said she would do as the king thought best; and ultimately, as we learn from a contemporary despatch, both departed together on 21 Dec. to spend their Christmas at a place described as about forty miles from London. In February following the king wrote to Ferdinand and Isabella that he had sent the young couple into Wales, not wishing them to live apart, notwithstanding the objections raised by many on account of his son's tender age, and they must regard it as a great proof of his affection for their daughter that he studied her comfort at some risk even to his own son (Duke of Manchester, Court and Society, i. 59). But that this letter was distinctly intended to convey a false impression is beyond all question; for although it is true that the young couple did go together to reside in the borders of Wales, it is clear from the solemn declarations of Catherine herself long afterwards that Prince Arthur never was her husband except in name. On 2 April following he died at Ludlow, a victim apparently to the sweating sickness, and Catherine was left a virgin widow.

When the news reached Spain, the Spanish sovereigns despatched a new ambassador to England to urge that she should be sent back to her native country, and repayment made of the one instalment of 100,000 scudos of her marriage portion. But the ambassador was further empowered to conclude a new treaty with the king of England for the marriage of Catherine to his second son Henry.

On this subject negotiations appear to have gone on for several months, when Henry VII became a widower by the death of his queen, Elizabeth of York. A suggestion was im; mediutely made of a particularly revolting character, that Catherine might become the wife of her father-in-law. It is scarcely credible that such a thing was seriously intended; but it greatly shocked Queen Isabella, who was more anxious than ever to secure, if it were possible, her daughter's return to Spain, or at least the conclusion of the marriage with the Prince of Wales. The latter at last was agreed upon, and a treaty for it was drawn up and signed by the two Spanish ambassadors on 23 June 1503. Two days later the parties were solemnly betrothed to each other 'in the Bishop of Salisbury's house in Fleet Street' (Speed, 973). The marriage was to be solemnised whenever the prince completed his fourteenth year. In consequence, however, of the close affinity between the parties, a papal dispensation was requisite, which the sovereigns of both countries bound themselves to solicit from the court of Rome. It was obtained next year mainly at the instance of Queen Isabella, for whose comfort a copy was sent into Spain just before she died. But the king of England had no intention of being too strictly bound to fulfil the marriage treaty, and, hoping to gain an advantage over King. Ferdinand in other ways, discovered 'scruples of conscience' about the match.

If the treaty had been strictly fulfilled, the marriage would actually have taken place on 28 June 1505, the day the Prince of Wales completed his fourteenth year. But on the 27th the prince made a formal protest before Fox, bishop of Winchester, that the match was against his will, and the treaty was at once rendered nugatory. It was quite understood, however, that this was only a trick of state, and that the marriage might still take place if King Henry were once satisfied that he could not dispose of his son's hand elsewhere more advantageously. Ferdinand did not keep faith about the marriage portion. He intended, if possible, that the whole burden of his daughter's support should rest upon the king of England, and when King Henry disowned this responsibility, he allowed her to remain for years in debt, even for the very necessaries of life. Her maids had not the means to procure clothes. She herself complained, after she had been four and a half years in England, that she had only had two new dresses.

In the early part of 1506 she had an unexpected opportunity of meeting with her sister Juana and her husband, Philip of Austria, who had been proclaimed king and queen of Castiie. They had embarked in January to take possession of their new kingdom, but had been driven by storms upon the coast of England, and Henry had shown them much politic hospitality at Windsor. Later in the year Catherine fell ill of a fever, and Henry gave up to her use for the time a house at Fulham, which he had intended for an embassy expected from Philip after his arrival in Castile. At this time she seems to have been very miserable. She was aware that her marriage depended upon a heartless game of diplomacy, into which she was drawn herself by her own necessities. For Henry VII having made in 1507 an offer for the hand of her sister Juana, the widowed Queen of Castile (though he must have known her to be a maniac), with the view of taking the government of that kingdom out of Ferdinand's hands, Catherine affected to favour his suit, and wrote to Ferdinand in behalf of her father-in-law, advising him at least to temporise until her own marriage with the Prince of Wales could take effect. Other matches had been talked of for the prince, and Catherine was in serious dread of being abandoned altogether. She was then living in the same house with the Prince of Wales at Richmond, but was permitted to see less of him than before, and in one letter she complains that for four months she had not seen him at all.

Her misery arose from an unpleasant state of relations between King Henry and her father. Subtle and unscrupulous as Ferdinand was in the game of diplomacy, he had found a match in Henry VII, who had not only forced him at last to send to England the second instalment of Catherine's marriage portion, but declined even then to allow the marriage to take effect except upon new conditions by no means agreeable to Ferdinand, so that the latter, checkmated in his aims, wished his ambassador as a last resource to insist on Catherine being sent back to Spain. Henry had arranged a marriage of his daughter Mary with Charles, prince of Castile, which made him very independent of Ferdinand's friendship, and Catherine met with a neglect which almost drove her to despair. But relief was at hand, for just at this time Henry VII died. Her affianced bridegroom, now Henry VIII, apparently desired the union. His council, for the most part, approved the match, and on 11 June 1509, seven weeks after his accession, though he was only eighteen, the marriage was duly celebrated. On the 24th of the same month she was crowned along with him in Westminster Abbey.

There is no reason to doubt that for some years after their marriage Henry felt real affection for her, and she was a thoroughly devoted wife. 'The king, my lord, adores her, and her highness him,' was the opinion of Catherine's confessor in 1510. Ferdinand seems to have relied partly on her influence over him in procuring a league against France; and for two or three years, whether from natural impulse or from policy, Henry was a very firm ally of his father-in-law. Catherine's happiness would have been unalloyed but for some petty annoyances to which recent writers have attached altogether undue importance; but even these belonged much more to the time when she was princess than to her married life. She had a Spanish confessor who, perhaps, was rather young for such a function, and may have been a little indiscreet. The Spanish ambassador thought so, but there is no evidence that even he entertained the strange suspicions that it has pleased some persons in our day to attribute to him. Catherine had been used for years as a political agent by her father, and being a really devout woman, it was natural that she should take frequent counsel with her confessor. It was equally natural that the ambassador, under the circumstances, should find the confessor to be a nuisance, that he should write to Ferdinand to complain of him, and that Catherine should stand firmly by him.

The first three years of Henry's reign went by in feasts and pageants; but then began a succession of cruel disappointments. On 31 Jan. 1510 Catherine was prematurely delivered of a stillborn daughter. On 1 Jan. 1511 she gave birth to a son, who was christened Henry, declared prince of Wales, and had a household assigned him, but died on 22 Feb. following. In 1513 she had another son, who soon died, and in November 1514 she had again a premature delivery. At last, on 18 Feb. 1516, there came one child that lived?the Princess Mary; and in November 1518 another daughter was born, who must have died early. In the interval between the second and third confinements Henry had gone to war with France, greatly at the instigation of his father-in-law. In 1513 he invaded France in person, and James IV invaded England and was killed at Flodden on 9 Sept. 1513. Before crossing the Channel the king had appointed Catherine regent in his absence. She threw herself heartily into the business of arraying a force to oppose the Scotch. 'I am horribly busy,' she wrote, 'making standards, banners, and badges.' She harangued the troops sent forward to the north. The king, too, sent over to her his important prisoner, the Duke of Longueville, whom he had taken at the battle of Spurs, and wished Catherine to keep in her household, a responsibility which she respectfully declined. After the victory she wrote to Henry, sending him 'a piece of the king of Scots' coat,' and regretting she was unable to send the king of Scots himself alive to him as a prisoner. 'Our Englishmen's hearts,' she said,' would not suffer it.'

When the king returned from France in the end of September, he rode in post to his queen at Richmond, 'where,' says the contemporary chronicler, Hall, 'there was such a loving meeting that every creature rejoiced.' But even in the following year a rumour got abroad that Henry, disappointed at her having no children, had begun to think of a divorce, and there is reason to believe that it arose from some very real evidences of a diminution of Henry's love, even at this early period. The main cause appears to have been his continued experience of her father's treachery. Ferdinand had concluded a separate truce with France to the prejudice of his ally at the very moment when Henry's success seemed most completely assured. Henry vented his anger in reproaches of which his own wife had to bear the full bitterness, and it was owing to this, as Peter Martyr was told, that she had her second premature confinement.

The supposition of the late Mr. Rawdon Brown (Cat. State Papers, Venetian, i. pref. pp. xc, cviii) that a vague expression in Sanuto's diary, 'Fanno nuovi pensieri,' points to whispers of a divorce being circulated even in 1510, before Henry and Catherine had been quite a twelvemonth married, seems altogether unwarrantable. The words clearly have quite a different application. A vivid description is given by Hall of the way in which she and the king went a-maying to Shooter's Hill in 1515, and met in the woods Robin Hood and his merry men dressed in green. These were archers of the king's own guard, and the performance was witnessed by a vast multitude of people. Some additional particulars of it are given in letters from the Venetian embassy. The senior ambassador, Pasqualigo, then about to leave for France, had an audience afterwards with the queen, and to her great delight spoke to her in her native Spanish. The secretary of the embassy describes her as 'rather ugly than otherwise' (Rawdon Brown, Four Years at the Court of Henry VIII, i. 79-81, 90). Two years later occurred the 'Evil May day,' when the Londoners sacked the houses of foreigners. The offenders were tried by summary process, and many of them hanged within three days at their own or their masters' doors. Others remained still in prison, till Catherine threw herself on her knees before the king to intercede for them, and induced his sisters Mary and Margaret, queens dowager of France and Scotland, to do the same.

The visit of her nephew Charles V to England in 1520 gave Catherine the most lively satisfaction. She knew, however, that great preparations were then making for another meeting with which she had no great sympathy?that of Henry VIII and Francis I at the Field of the Cloth of Gold. Henry was playing off the two rivals, Charles and Francis, one against the other, and it was unknown whether a French or an imperial alliance would prove the main feature of his policy. It was, in fact, to interrupt the French interview, or, at least, to prevent an Anglo-French alliance, that Charles had been induced to think seriously of visiting England. The friendship of Henry was to him of the utmost importance, and to secure it he had become a suitor for the hand of the Princess Mary, although she had already been affianced to the Dauphin. There is no doubt that the nobles and the people generally were with the queen in preferring greatly an alliance with him to the friendship of France. One day, in anticipation of the French interview, she called to her some of the lords to discuss matters, and set before them such strong arguments against its being held at all, that those present were struck with amazement. During the conference the king made his appearance and asked what it was all about, on which Catherine frankly told him, and declared the line she had taken in the matter. What answer the king made at the moment we are not informed, but the result was that both he and his council held her in higher esteem than they had ever done before (Cat. State Papers, Henry VIII, iii. 256).

The emperor landed at Dover late in the evening of Saturday, 26 May 1520, and next morning Henry conducted him to Canterbury to the queen's presence. There he remained during the few days he spent in England, and on Thursday the 31st he embarked at Sandwich for Flanders. That same day Henry and Catherine also took ship and crossed from Dover to Calais for the long projected interview with Francis. On Sunday, 10 June, each king went to dine with the other's queen, the one from Guisnes to Ardes, and the other by a different route from Ardes to Guisnes, the departure of each being announced to the other by salvoes of artillery. Three weeks were spent in these splendid courtesies, and shortly after they were concluded Henry held another meeting with the emperor at Gravelines, and brought him and his aunt, Margaret of Savoy, to Calais, where the queen received them. Two years later war was declared against France, and the emperor paid a second visit to England, when he was feasted and entertained with great magnificence at Canterbury, London, and Windsor.

In 1521, the year between the emperor's first and second visit to England, occurred the arrest and execution of the Duke of Buckingham, and it is not improbable that Shakespeare followed a true tradition when he represented Catherine as present at the examination of that unfortunate nobleman's surveyor, pleading for something like fair play to the accused. The fact, as regards Catherine, seems to rest on no other authority; but there is distinct evidence that Buckingham's servants were examined by the king himself, before the apprehension of their master, very much in the way that the surveyor is examined by Henry in the play; so that we may not unreasonably believe the whole scene to be substantially true. Sir Thomas More reports in 1524 how Catherine rejoiced to hear of the success of her countrymen the Spaniards in Italy, and Bishop Longland writes to Wolsey at the beginning of the following year how he had explained to her by the king's desire the cardinal's magnificent scheme for setting up a new college at Oxford. The bishop also told her that she was to be specially mentioned in the prayers of the college chapel, for which she desired him to give Wolsey her cordial thanks.

Her constant obedience to her husband had won for her such universal esteem that he himself could not but share that sentiment, though he had now lost all other feeling for her. That he had been untrue to her years before we know, perhaps very early in their married life. Possibly the birth of the Princess Mary did something to restore his lost affection, but only for a time. He was becoming a perfect libertine. On 15 June 1525, much to Catherine's distress, he created his natural son Henry Fitzroy duke of Richmond, and gave him precedence of all the nobility of England, even of the Princess Mary. He was a child of six years, the son of one Elizabeth Blount, whom the king afterwards married to Sir Gilbert Tailbois. The king bestowed much care upon his education, and sent him into Yorkshire as viceroy or president of the north. About the same time his half-sister Mary, whom the king, in default of legitimate male issue, seemed disposed to recognise as Princess of Wales, was sent in like manner to Ludlow, with a household and a council to keep rule upon the Welsh marches. But her household was inferior to that of the duke.
Indications exist that some secret steps had been taken by Henry towards getting his marriage declared invalid as early as 1526. All that was said afterwards officially as to the origin of the king's scruples, and the doubts of Mary's legitimacy said to have been suggested by the Bishop of Tarbes, is unworthy of serious refutation. The bishop's own report of his conferences with Wolsey upon Mary's proposed marriage to Francis I shows clearly that no such objection ever entered his mind. A totally different objection occurred to him?that the king might still have a legitimate son; and Wolsey was taking pains to convince him that this was highly improbable, while he knew quite well that the king was privately seeking to invalidate his marriage and thus make his daughter illegitimate. In May a collusive suit was instituted by Wolsey as legate, who with great secresy summoned the king to appear before him at his house at Westminster for having cohabited with his brother Arthur's wife. A formal complaint, he said, had been preferred to him, and he called upon Henry to say what he could in his defence. The king handed in a written reply, and the cardinal declared that the case was one of considerable difficulty, on which he required to take counsel with some learned theologians?among others with the bishops of Rochester, Lincoln, and London. The proceedings were never resumed probably for a reason which has not hitherto been suggested, though the fact is absolutely certain. The queen and the Spanish ambassador, somehow or other, had got wind of them before they were a day old (Cal. State Papers, Spanish, iii. (pt. ii.) 193).

The king saw that he must take a different course, and on 22 June informed Catherine that he had come to the conclusion that they must separate. He begged her to keep the matter secret meanwhile, as if it was against her interest to divulge it. His strategy was useless. The news got abroad, and became, in the words of the Spanish ambassador, 'as notorious as if it had been proclaimed by the public crier' (ib. 276). Still Catherine had not a friend who could aid her against the king, unless she could inform the emperor how she was situated, and great pains were taken that she should not speak to the Spanish ambassador except in the presence of Wolsey. She dissembled her anxieties; her 'merry visage,' as one observer notes, 'returned, not less than was wont,' and cordiality towards the king appeared to be renewed. Then one of her Spanish servants, Francis Felipe or Philips, desired license of her to go to Spain and see his mother, who, he said, was very ill. Catherine refused the permission, and urged the king not to grant it. Henry, rightly suspecting that there was collusion between them, dissembled also, and persuaded her to let him go. Thus the king won her confidence; but he at the same time sent a message to Wolsey, then in France, to find means to get Philips detained in that country, in spite of any safe-conduct. On his way to France, Wolsey contrived artfully to misrepresent the case to Fisher, bishop of Rochester, Catherine's confessor, whom he induced to believe that the rumours of an intended divorce had been spread abroad by the queen's own indiscretion; for the king only wanted, he said, to test the validity of an objection raised by others. When the bishop offered to remonstrate with her upon her conduct, Wolsey persuaded him to leave the matter to the king. But whatever art might be used to promote the divorce, it was impossible to avoid application to Rome, and equally impossible to do without Wolsey's aid; yet Henry gave the cardinal but half his confidence, and made an abortive effort to obtain a commission from the pope through another agent. At last Cardinal Campeggio arrived in England with a joint commission for himself and Wolsey to try the cause in October 1528, and the king and Anne Boleyn both looked for the realisation of their wish.

They did not know that before he left Rome Campeggio had secretly pledged himself not to give sentence in the cause without communicating first with the pope. He was only authorised to endeavour to dissuade the king from his purpose, or, if he could arrange a compromise, to induce the queen to enter a nunnery. To this latter object he accordingly addressed himself in some conferences that he had with Catherine soon after his arrival; but she insisted on the matter being decided judicially. The king was at first no less anxious to press forward the trial, and on Sunday, 8 Nov., he summoned the lord mayor and aldermen to his palace at Bridewell to explain his scruples of conscience. But meanwhile Catherine had information of the existence in Spain of a brief granted by Julius II for her marriage, more full and satisfactory than the bull of dispensation which Henry was trying to invalidate, and she produced a copy of it given her by the Spanish ambassador. The king insinuated that it was a forgery, and he got the queen's own counsel to inform her that she must send for the original brief to Spain. She actually wrote to the emperor as desired, requesting him to send the brief to England. Thomas Abell [q. v.], by whom she sent the letter, wrote himself to inform the emperor before he delivered it that she had written only under compulsion.

The king and his council sent to Rome to try and collect evidence against the genuineness of the brief, and they made much of the fact that it did not appear entered on the papal registers. But his agents were also instructed to sound the papal lawyers as to whether, if the queen could be induced to retire into a nunnery, without taking the vows, the pope could not, 'by his mere and absolute power,' allow him to proceed to a second marriage. Thus, after protesting the pope's incompetence to legalise marriage with a brother's widow, Henry was prepared to admit without question his competence to legalise bigamy. He was really in despair how to accomplish his object. He had drawn up a paper of advice which was to be pressed upon the queen as if in her own interest, apparently by her own counsel, if not by the legates who were to try her cause, in which they were to warn her that some ill-disposed persons seemed to be conspiring in her behalf against the king and Wolsey, and that she ought to be on her guard against giving them any countenance. If she did not act more discreetly, it was urged, the king might not only feel it right to abandon her company himself, but also to withdraw the princess from her mother's society. All these cruel suggestions, however, were only meant to prepare the way for one more strong appeal to her to solve the difficulty by going into a nunnery. And she need not fear, the speakers were to urge, that by so doing she would enable the king to take another wife, for he could certainly not marry again while she lived. Thus the king indirectly endeavoured to make her take a false step in reliance on the strength of her own cause.

Henry compelled even the most staunch friends of Catherine to reveal their conversations with her. He had allowed her the use of counsel, and among them was the renowned scholar Ludovicus Vives; but Vives was required by the king to relate all that had passed between them. This demand he justly protested against, although, as he said, it could injure no one even if their whole conversations were posted on church doors. Being forced to report them, however, he did so, and said the queen had sought his counsel as her countryman who spoke her language. The main point was that she begged him to ask the imperial ambassador to write to the emperor to secure a fair hearing for her at Rome. 'Who,' Vires adds,'will not admire the queen's moderation? When others would have moved heaven and earth, she merely seeks from her sister's son that he will not let her be condemned unheard.'

It was useless for the king to proceed with the cause before the legates unless the brief in Spain could be discredited, and the most frantic diplomat efforts were made to induce the pope to declare it a forgery, which, of course, he refused to do until he had heard the arguments on both sides. Then there was nothing for it but to proceed. Meanwhile the emperor was doing his utmost to get the cause removed from England that it might be more fairly heard at Rome. Catherine, however, was not aware of this, and appealed for advice to Cardinal Campeggio himself in a private interview. He answered coldly that she might rely upon justice being done to her, but again strongly suggested that she might extricate herself from further annoyance by retiring from the world. But to this she was as firmly opposed as ever, and the trial proceeded. The legatine court formally opened on 31 May 1529 in the great hall of the Black Friars, and the king and queen were cited to appear on 18 June. The former had two proxies to represent him; the latter came in person, but only to protest against the jurisdiction of the court. The court registered her protestation, and appointed both parties to appear in person on Monday, 21 June, to hear its decision. On that day the king and queen both appeared; the former stated his ease to the judges. The latter threw herself at his feet in sight of all the court, and begged him to consider her helpless position as a foreigner, her long and tried obedience as a wife, her own and her daughter's honour, and that of the king himself. Further, as he continually professed he was anxious to find their marriage valid, she appealed to Rome as the only tribunal before which the case could be properly discussed, and thereupon withdrew.

The legates had overruled her objections to jurisdiction of the court; so she was called again, and on her refusal to come back, was pronounced contumacious. The case was continued through different sittings of the court in June and July affidavits were taken as to the circumstances of the marriage with Prince Arthur, and matters were pressed on in a way not at all to Campeggio's taste. Yet even at this time, if Cavendish be right, a further appeal was made to Catherine by the two cardinals who were her judges, They came to her at Bridewell without notice, and found her at work among her maids, with a skein of white thread about her neck. They asked for a private interview, but she replied that whatever they had to say they might speak it before all. Wolsey then addressed her in Latin. 'Nay, good my lord, speak to me in English,' she said, 'for I can, I thank God, both speak and understand English, although I do understand some Latin.' Wolsey told her they had come to know her mind in the matter between the king and her, and give her secret advice, Catherine said she was naturally not prepared to answer them without taking counsel on such a weighty question. And who was there to counsel her? 'What think you, my lords?' she said. 'Will any Englishman counsel me or be friendly to me against the king's pleasure that is his subject? Nay, forsooth.' She was willing, however, to listen to whatever counsel the cardinals had to give her, and led them into her privy chamber to hear what they had to say (Cavendish, Life of Wolsey, ed. 1852, pp. 137-140).

We are not told, for Wolsey's biographer did not know, the precise nature of the advice given by the two cardinals. Meanwhile, the king having expressed a desire to, see his scruples removed, Fisher, bishop of Rochester, came forward and declared his readiness to justify the validity of the marriage. Other things went against the king's purpose. The pope revoked the cause to Rome, and Campeggio, even before he was informed of the fact, had prorogued the court for the holidays according to the custom at Rome. Every one knew that, although it was only prorogued, it was never to meet again. Not many months after this the ambassador, Chapuys, then just newly arrived in England from the emperor, records that on St. Andrew's day, 1529, the queen dined with the king, and complained that he had for a long time so seldom allowed her that privilege. The king excused himself partly by the pressure of business, but as to visiting her in her own apartments, she must know that he was now assured by innumerable doctors and lawyers that he was not her lawful husband, and he could never share her bed again. He was waiting for further opinions, and if the pope did not declare their the court in June and July. Affidavits were marriage void, he would denounce his holiness as a heretic, and marry whom he pleased. Catherine told him in reply that those opinions were not worth a straw, for he himself had owned on more than one occasion that he had found her a virgin when he married her. Moreover, the principal doctors in England had written in her favour. The king left the room not a little disconcerted, and at supper Chapuys was informed Anne Boleyn said to him reproachfully, 'Did I not tell you that whenever you disputed with the queen she was sure to have the upper hand?,'

For a time Henry still treated Catherine as his queen. She went with him to Woodstock, and from that in September to Grafton in Northamptonshire, where Cardinal Campeggio took his leave of him, and where Wolsey was admitted at the same time to his last interview. But in February 1530 Catherine's treatment had become visibly worse. The king absented himself much from her company, and left her at Richmond while he was dallying with Anne Boleyn in London. It was at this time he began consulting the universities, applying first to Cambridge and Oxford, then to Paris and other foreign seats of learning; but still he kept company with Catherine to some extent, and even took her out hunting with him. In August or the beginning of September she fell ill of a fever, probably brought on by alarm at the king's increasing recklessness. She kept Christmas with him at Greenwich; but in January following (1531) she suffered much anxiety lest something should be done to her prejudice in the parliament which then met. Nothing, however, was said, and Henry allowed and even advised her to summon counsel to her aid at Richmond. He did this, as Chapuys believed, in order to discover whether she had not secretly received a brief from Rome in her favour. For it would appear that about this time Henry, or at least his ministers, really thought the game a desperate one. A brief was expected from Rome which would have ordered Henry to dismiss Anne Boleyn from the court, and it was the general belief that he would be obliged to comply. But the brief when it came was feeble and ineffective, so that the king was encouraged to persevere, and the clergy were forced to acknowledge him as supreme head of the church of England. This, of course, involved the consequence that the decision of a Roman tribunal could not be acknowledged in an English matrimonial cause.

Catherine saw that her only hope lay in procuring a speedy sentence from Rome in her favour, and she wrote urgently to that effect to the emperor on 5 April. Henry's conduct towards her varied from day to day. One day when she dined with him he spoke in unwonted terms of the power of the emperor, and afterwards, changing the subject, told her she had not been kind to her daughter Mary, because she had not made her physician reside with her continually. Altogether he showed himself so gracious on this occasion that next day Catherine asked him to allow the princess to see them; but Henry answered with a rude rebuff, telling her she might go and see the princess if she wished, and also stop with her. The queen replied in gentle tone that she would not leave him for her own daughter or any one else in the world. But things now were coming to a climax. The king was using every art to delay the cause at Rome while refusing to put in any appearance, except by allowing an 'excusator' to plead for him that he was not bound to appear there at all. On 31 May upwards of thirty privy councillors, headed by the Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, waited on Catherine by the king's command to remonstrate with her, and urged that she ought to consent to have the matter tried elsewhere than in Rome by judges above suspicion. According to Hall, they actually suggested a tribunal of four prelates and four temporal lords of England, which, of course, was what was wanted; but by the very full report of the interview sent by Chapuys to the emperor it does not appear that they proposed anything so definite. Catherine completely met every one of their jesuitical arguments, and fully justified her resolution to abide entirely by the decision of the pope.

Shortly after this the court removed from Greenwich to Windsor, and there,on 14 July, Henry finally left his wife, never to see her again. He removed to Woodstock without even bidding her adieu, but left orders that she was to remain at Windsor. Deserted by her husband, she complained bitterly of the pope's neglect. But the weakness of the pope inspired Henry with greater boldness. He had got the opinion of the university of Orleans and of some Parisian lawyers also that he could not be compelled to appear at Rome; while Anne Boleyn, who accompanied him wherever he went, spoke confidently of the prospect of being married to him within three or four months at least. In August the king again sent notice to Catherine that he was coming to hunt about Windsor, and that she must dislodge thence and go to the Moor in Hertfordshire. The Princess Mary was ordered at the same time to leave her mother and go to Richmond. Two months later another deputation of the king's council was sent to the queen with the same object as before; but she refused more firmly than ever, saying, now that she knew him to be influenced only by passion, she would not desist from demanding justice where alone it could be obtained.

She was now absolutely without a friend in England who could do anything for her except Chapuys. All her counsel had refused absolutely to have anything more to do with her cause after it was revoked to Rome. Still, she carefully maintained her position as a wife, and sought opportunities of vindicating it quietly and without reproaches. At the beginning of 1532 she sent her husband a gold cup as a New Year's gift, 'with honorable and humble words.' She had been strictly forbidden to write to him or send any messages; and Henry was so far from pleased that he refused it angrily; but fearing that the servant who had presented it would return it to the queen's messenger, and that the latter might take an opportunity of presenting it himself before all the court, he sent for it again, praised its workmanship, and ordered that it should not be returned till the evening.

The people felt much for the queen's wrongs. Even Dr. Benet, the king's agent at Rome, when in England at the end of 1531, sent her a secret message desiring her pardon. He heartily prayed, he said, for the success of her cause. The women even broke out into tumults in her behalf, and insulted Anne Boleyn; shouts were also heard when the king went about, calling upon him to take back his queen; and even in the House of Commons two members made the same suggestion. In answer to a demand for aid to strengthen the frontier against the Scots, they said that the king would protect the realm much more effectively if he would only take back his queen and cultivate the friendship of the emperor. The aid demanded was refused, nor does it seem that Henry ever dared to punish the offenders. On Easter day, 31 March 1632, William Peto, the provincial of the Grey Friars, preached before the king at Greenwich, strongly opposing the divorce. The king dissembled his displeasure, and gave the friar, who desired to go to Toulouse, permission to leave the kingdom; then next Sunday got a chaplain of his own, named Dr. Curwen, to preach in a manner more agreeable to himself. Dr. Curwen fulfilled his task, and replied to Peto's sermon, insinuating that Peto had withdrawn himself for fear, and expressing a wish that he were present to answer him. On this another friar, Elstowe, started up, and offered to confirm by scripture all that Peto had said. The king was intensely irritated, and both friars (for Peto had only reached Canterbury) were soon after called before the council, where one nobleman told them that they deserved to be put into a sack and thrown into the Thames. 'Make these threats to courtiers,' Elstowe replied; 'for as to us, we know right well the way to heaven lies as open by water as by land.'

Bishop Fisher both wrote and preached in the queen's favour, and by a sermon at the beginning of June very nearly subjected himself to that imprisonment which he actually underwent a year later. Abell wrote a book in her behalf; Peto, moreover, was preparing another, and his reason for desiring to go abroad was to arrange for its publication. The pope meanwhile had sent Henry a brief 1 rebuking him for having not only put away his wife, but cohabited with Anne Boleyn. But none of these things produced much effect upon the king. Catherine was removed from the Moor, and sent to reside at Bishop's Hatfield, a place belonging to the Bishop of Ely, and there she remained at the time the king crossed to Calais with Anne Boleyn in October, in great anxiety lest they should marry over there during the interview with Francis I.

This interview was designed mainly to convince the pope that the kings of England and France were so united that he could not offend one without offending both. It was very unpopular in England. The emperor, to counteract the alliance of the two powers, held a meeting with the pope at Bologna at the close of the year. Two French cardinals sent by Francis to Bologna before the meeting was over induced Clement to avoid going further in the affair of Catherine than he had done already. Henry took advantage cf the pope's irresolution, and secretly married Anne Boleyn on 25 Jan. 1533. He also obtained from the pope bulls for Cranmer's promotion to the see of Canterbury. As soon as these were secure, he got his parliament to pass an act that no appeals in ecclesiastical causes should henceforth be carried out of the kingdom to Rome. The new archbishop was made use of to declare the nullity of the king's marriage with Catherine, and the validity of his marriage with Anne Boleyn. Even before this was done, an intimation was sent to Catherine that she must no longer call herself queen, but only princess dowager. At Easter (13 April) the marriage was divulged, and Anne Boleyn openly took upon her the name of queen. Yet it was not till 10 May that Cranmer opened his court at Dunstable to try whether the first marriage was a valid one or not! Catherine, by the advice of Chapuys, took no notice of the proceedings, I and the archbishop pronounced her contumacious. The court was three times adjourned, and sentence was finally pronounced upon the 23rd, declaring the marriage invalid. Yet it appears by a letter which he wrote to Cromwell that during the progress of the suit the archbishop felt some anxiety lest the 'contumacious' woman should change her mind and put in an appearance at the last.

On 3 July Lord Mountjoy, Catherine's chamberlain, accompanied by four other gentlemen of her household, waited on Catherine at Ampthill by the king's command to remonstrate with her on having used the name of queen after having orders to the contrary. They found her lying on a pallet, having hurt her foot with a pin, and troubled with a severe cough. On addressing her as princess dowager and showing their instructions, she at once took exception to the title. They in vain hinted that her obstinacy might even make the king withdraw his favour from her daughter Mary. They came again next day and showed her the report of their interview which they were going to send to the king, and she with her own hand struck out the words 'princess dowager' wherever they occurred. She declared she would accept no decision in her cause except that of the pope, and demanded a copy of the instructions that she might have them translated into Spanish and sent to Rome.

On being told of her reply, as Chapuys's despatches inform us, the king caused a proclamation to be printed and published in London by sound of trumpet. We know from a letter of the Earl of Derby on 10 Aug. following that it must have been to forbid people calling Catherine queen; for it appears that a priest named James Harrison, on hearing it read, declared defiantly 'that Queen Catherine was queen, and that Nan Bullen should not be queen,' for which he was brought before the earl and examined. Soon afterwards Catherine was removed to Buckden in Huntingdonshire, a seat of the Bishop of Lincoln. She was saluted as queen all the way along. The king and his council next took into consideration the reduction of her household, and of the allowance originally assigned for her dower by express treaty with Ferdinand. The severity of her treatment was so much increased that she became anxious for the utmost pressure to be put upon the pope, whose authority, she believed, might still avail to do her justice; but she was so surrounded by spies, that she hardly found it possible to write.

The indignities to which she had to submit were most galling. In July Anne Boleyn, looking forward to her own confinement, was eager to possess a very rich cloth brought by Catherine from Spain, and used by her at the baptism of her children. She was not ashamed to urge Henry to ask Catherine for it, and Henry was not ashamed to comply; but Catherine positively refused to give up her property for a use so scandalous. Aft the birth of Elizabeth, Mary was told that she must give up the name of princess, just as her mother had been warned to give up that of queen. When she refused, the whole of her servants were dismissed, and she herself was compelled to dislodge and become a sort of waiting-woman attached to the train of her infant sister. Then, as it drew near Christmas, it was determined to make Catherine herself dislodge from Buckden and place her with a reduced household at Somersham in the Isle of Ely. The commissioners only failed to satisfy the king because they had not sufficient inhumanity or firmness to overcome Catherine's resistance by force. Buckden was by no means a healthy situation, but Somersham was worse, and it was hardly possible to avoid a suspicion that the king and Anne Boleyn were seeking to hasten her death. The commissioners dismissed a number of Catherine's servants who declined to be sworn to her anew as princess of Wales; but they failed with all the menaces they could use to get her to consent to her own removal. For six days they remained hoping to conquer her obstinacy; but she locked herself up in her own chamber, and told them through a hole in the wall that if they meant to remove her they must break open the doors and carry her off by force. They at length returned to the king with a confession that they had only been able to execute one part of their charge. Henry was very angry at their want of thoroughness!

It seems to have been about the beginning of November 1533 that the king saw fit to imprison Elizabeth Barton [see Barton, Elizabeth], Nothing whatever was found in her evidence to implicate Catherine.

The life which she was then leading at Buckden was passed, as we are informed by Harpsfield, 'in much prayer, great alms, and abstinence. And when she was not in this way occupied then was she and her gentlewomen working with their own hands something wrought in needlework, costly and artificially, which she intended to the honour of God to bestow upon some churches. There was in the said house of Buckden a chamber with a window that had a prospect into the chapel, out of which she might hear divine service. In this chamber she enclosed herself, sequestered from all other company, a great part of the day and night, and upon her knees used to pray at the said window leaning upon the stones of the same. There was some of her gentlewomen that did curiously mark and observe all her doings, who reported that oftentimes they found the said stones so wet after her departure as though it had rained upon them. It was credibly thought that in the time of her prayer she removed the cushions that ordinarily lay in the same window, and that the said stones were imbrued with the tears of her devout eyes' (Pretended Divorce, 200). He adds: 'I have credibly also heard that at a time when one of her gentlewomen began to curse the lady Anne Boleyn she answered, "Hold your peace. Curse her not, but pray for her; for the time will come shortly when you shall have much need to pity and lament her case."'

On 17 Jan. 1534 Chapuys writes that Catherine had never left her own room since that visit of the Duke of Suffolk, just a month before, except to hear mass in a gallery. She was at this time careful not to eat or drink anything placed before her by some new servants who had been assigned to her by Suffolk in place of those dismissed, and the little food she ventured to take was cooked by her chamberwomen in what was now alike her bedroom, her sitting-room, and her kitchen. The king, on the other hand, was anxious that she should not eat or drink anything that was not supplied by him, and her custodians, as Chapuys remarked, seemed anxious to give her an artificial dropsy. Her situation was but little improved when at last judgment was pronounced. On 23 March 1534 sentence waa given by the pope in a secret consistory at Rome that her marriage with Henry was valid. But parliament had not only declared Anne Boleyn queen and Catherine princess dowager, but had passed two separate acts taking away the jointure of the latter and giving it to the former. Some opposition, indeed, was made to this in the commons, the representatives of London and some other cities fearing that as their constituencies had stood pledges for the fulfilment of the terms of the marriage treaty, English merchants might be illtreated in Spain; but they were assured that the obligation had been abolished by a modification of the treaties to which the emperor had given his consent. Moreover the king produced a roll of certain lands, which he intended to give Catherine in exchange for those of her jointure, to the value of three thousand crowns a year, and the commons resisted no longer.

It was probably to announce the passing of this act that we find, by one letter of the period, the Duke of Norfolk and Fitzwilliam left the court on 14 March and rode towards Catherine; and towards the end of the month Chapuys indicates that both she and her daughter Mary had thought it advisable 'to show the king their teeth a little.'
This Mary did by refusing to accompany her infant sister on her removal from one house to another. Two doctors were sent to Catherine to summon her to swear to the new Act of Succession. She replied by intimating to the doctors the sentence given in her favour at Rome. She was forbidden to hold her maundy on Maundy Thursday, and about the end of April or beginning of May she was removed to Kimbolton, a house which had belonged to Sir Richard Wingfield, an English ambassador who had died in Spain some years before, and was still in possession of his heirs. It was a small mansion, but she was better lodged here than she had been at Buckden, for the king, we find, was anxious to contradict the rumours that had got abroad as to her ill-treatment. Here, on 21 May, she was visited by Lee, archbishop of York, and Tunstall, bishop of Durham, sent to her by the king with a message. They were to explain and justify to her what had been done in parliament lest she should plead ignorance of the effect of the Act of Succession. Tunstall was frequently interrupted in his speech by Catherine, who with great anger and bitterness contradicted him on several points, and reminded him that he himself had given her opinions directly at variance with those he then attempted to justify. He replied that the decisions of universities and the proceedings of the legislature had since altered his judgment, and he counselled her to alter hers as well.

These sophistries, however, were but to smooth the way for the dreadful warning that disobedience to the statute involved the penalty of death. When this was intimated to her by the bishops, she became still more firm, and said if any one was ready to carry out the sentence upon her, let him come forward at once. It was clearly hopeless to intimidate her, and the king had to alter his policy. Only certain maids who had refused the oath were removed from her, and shut up in a chamber, while her confessor, physician, and apothecary were forbidden to leave the house. These three were Spaniards who had been long in her service; and Catherine, apparently by Chapuys's advice, sent her steward and gentleman usher to the king requesting that she might have their services again on their simply swearing allegiance to the king and to her as their mistress. She, however, sent another and evidently more important message as well, the exact terms of which we do not know. Her servants returned to her on 4 June bearing an answer from the privy council, which they had been ordered to put into writing and read to her. The king and council first expressed their surprise at her obstinacy in persisting, in spite of all presumptions to the contrary, that she had been a maid when she married him. To this she replied by affirming it all the more strongly, and calling God to witness its truth. Secondly, she was told that her reliance on the sentence given at Rome was a mistake. It was delivered after the king had appealed to a general council; moreover the 'bishop of Rome' had no authority in England. She answered that she would hold by the pope's sentence. Thirdly, as to the request that her Spanish servants should be restored to her on swearing fealty to the king and herself 'and no other woman,' she must express herself more definitely; for the king could by no means allow them to swear to her as queen, though he might possibly consent to let them swear to her as princess dowager.

The strict imprisonment in which both she and her daughter were kept, and the harsh refusal to each of the natural comfort of the other's company, was intended to break down their opposition to the king piecemeal. For the same reason Chapuys, whom Catherine had desired to come to her, remained for weeks soliciting in vain license of the king to go, till he at length went of his own accord, setting out with sixty horses in his company through the whole length of London, and taking care that his object should be known as widely as possible. Even then he was met by messengers who told him that an interview could not be allowed; but he and his company went on and presented themselves before the place, where the queen and her suite, to the great satisfaction of all the country people, spoke to them from the battlements and windows.

Of sympathy there was no lack; several lords expressed their disappointment that the emperor did not send an expedition to England to vindicate the rights of his aunt and cousin. But the emperor was engaged in other matters. Cromwell was not ashamed to hint to the imperial ambassador that it was a pity the friendly relations between Henry and Charles should be in any danger from the regard of the latter for two ladies, who after all were mortal, seeing that if they were removed there could be no obstacle to cordiality. 'You may be sure,' writes Chapuys to Granville, 'they think day and night of getting rid of these good ladies.' In March 1535 the queen again determined to keep a maundy, and messengers were despatched in haste to court to know whether it should be allowed, on which the council determined that she might do so as princess dowager, but not as queen, which of course was to Catherine practical prohibition.

There seemed little wanting to till up the cup of Catherine's misery. And yet the relentless course of the king's tyranny in 1535 inspired her with a new terror. First the Carthusian monks were dragged to execution for denying the king to be supreme head of the church of England; then Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas More suffered the same fate. Till now she had never realised to herself how far her husband would dare to outrage the common feelings of all Christendom, or how he could even do so with impunity. The whole civilised world was shocked, and the pope fulminated a sentence against Henry to deprive him of his kingdom; but no relief came to Catherine.

About the beginning of December 1535 she became seriously unwell, and though she recovered for a time, she had a relapse the day after Christmas. She was believed then to be on the point of death, and the fact being intimated to Chapuys, he obtained the king's permission to visit her. He arrived on the morning of New-year's day, and was at once admitted to her presence; after which she desired him to rest, and thought she could sleep a little herself, for she had not had more than two hours' sleep altogether during the previous six days. On the evening of that same day a devoted countrywoman of her own found means to be admitted to her presence without a passport. It was Lady Willoughby, formerly Maria de Salinas, one of her maids of honour, who came with her from Spain, now mother-in-law to Henry VIII's favourite, the Duke of Suffolk. She appeared before the gates of Kimbolton Castle, saying she had travelled in haste fearing she would be too late to see Catherine again alive. She begged leave at once to come in and warm herself, as she suffered bitterly from the cold, and also from a fall from her horse. It was impossible to disoblige a lady of such high social position. She was admitted to the hall, and even to Catherine's chamber; and once there, she remained with her old mistress to the end. 'We neither saw her again, nor beheld any of her letters,' wrote Bedingfield, who, under the name of steward, was Catherine's custodian (Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials, i. pt. i. 372).

Chapuys stayed four days at Kimbolton, during which time he had an audience of Catherine every day. Her spirits revived, she took better rest and nourishment, and her physician thought her out of immediate danger. Chapuys accordingly took leave of her on Tuesday night, 4 Jan., and left Kimbolton on the Wednesday morning after learning that she had slept well. After midnight, in the early hours of Friday, 7 Jan., she became restless, and asked frequently what o'clock it was, merely, as she explained, that she might hear mass. George Athequa, the Bishop of Llandaff, offered to say it for her at four o'clock, but she objected, giving him reasons and authorities in Latin why it should not be at that hour. At daybreak she received the sacrament. She then desired her servants to pray for her, and also to pray that God might forgive her husband. She caused her physician to write her will, which she dictated to him in the form of a supplication to her husband, because she knew that by the law of England a married woman had no right to make a will of her own. She desired to be buried in a convent of Observant friars, not knowing, in all probability, that the whole order of the Observants had been suppressed and driven but of the kingdom more than a year before. She also desired five hundred masses to be said for her soul, and ordained a few small legacies. At ten o'clock she received extreme unction, repeating devoutly all the responses. At two o'clock in the afternoon she passed away.

These particulars are derived from a despatch of Chapuys written a fortnight later. The will which she dictated is still extant in two forms, French and English. From Polydore Vergil, likewise a contemporary, we learn that she also dictated to one of her maids a last letter to the king, forgiving him all he had done to her, and beseeching him to be a good father to their daughter Mary. 'Lastly,' she concludes, 'I vow that mine eyes desire you above all things.' This brief epistle, of which the text is given in a Latin form by Polydore Vergil, is said by him to have brought tears into Henry's eyes. Unhappily, this does not harmonise with Chapuys's report of the way in which Henry received the news of her death. 'God be praised!' he exclaimed, 'we are now delivered from all fear of war.' The possibility that the emperor might at last lead an expedition against England to avenge the wrongs of his aunt was now at an end. The only cause that could disturb their friendship or interfere with Henry's perfect freedom of action was removed. And the king was at no pains to conceal his satisfaction, appearing next day at a ball attired in yellow from head to foot, with a white feather in his cap.
Perhaps this indecent joy of Henry's affords in itself a reasonable presumption that a certain not unnatural suspicion of Chapuys's was really without foundation. More than two mouths before the king had declared to some of his privy councillors that he really could remain no longer a prey to such anxiety as he had endured on account of Catherine and her daughter, and they must devise some means of relieving him at the coming parliament. The death of Catherine, therefore, furnished precisely the relief which he required; and there was much in the circumstances besides to suggest the idea of poison. Even before her death her physician, in answer to Chapuys's inquiries, owned that he suspected it. She had never been well, he said, since she had drunk a certain Welsh beer. Yet the symptoms were unlike ordinary poison, and he could only suppose that it was something very special. Such an opinion, of course, is of very little weight when we consider the low state of medical science at the time. But after her death steps were at once taken to embalm the body and close it up in lead with a secresy that does seem rather to suggest foul play. Eight hours after she died the chandler of the house with two assistants came to do the work, everybody else being turned out of the room, including even the physician and the Bishop of Llandaff, the deceased lady's confessor. The chandler afterwards informed the bishop, but as a great secret, which would cost him his life if it were revealed, that he had found all the internal organs sound except the heart, which was black and frightful to look at; that he had washed it three times, but it remained of the same colour, then cut it open and found the inside black also; and further, that he had found a certain round black object adhering to the outside of the heart.

The bishop took the physician into his confidence, and the latter was distinctly of opinion that the symptoms indicated poison. But it must be said that (as has been shown by Dr. Norman Moore) the medical science of the present day is quite opposed to this conclusion, and that the symptoms now are known to be those of a disease called by the profession melanotic sarcoma, or more popularly, cancer of the heart (Athenæum, 31 Jan., 1885, p. 152; 14 Feb. p. 215; 28 Feb. p. 281). We may therefore put aside the suspicions of murder. Abroad in the world Henry had not the temerity to express his joy. He gave orders for a stately funeral becoming the person of one whom he recognised as a sister-in-law, besides being daughter of the late King Ferdinand of Arragon (Arch?ol. xvi. 23). The abbey church of Peterborough was appointed to receive her remains, and thither on 27 and 28 Jan., three weeks after her death, they were conveyed with much solemnity and heraldic pomp, accompanied by a numerous train of noblemen, gentlemen, and ladies. At night on the 27th the body rested at Sawtry Abbey, about midway between Kimbolton and Peterborough. The rest of the journey was accomplished next day. The interment itself took place on the 29th. Her own daughter was not allowed to attend the ceremony, and the place of chief mourner was filled by Henry's niece. Eleanor, the daughter of the Duke of Suffolk.

Catherine was of a fair complexion and, to judge by her portraits, the best known of which is by Holbein, somewhat plump. Her constitution must have been naturally strong, but her tastes do not appear to have been such as commonly go with a vigorous habit of body. She seems to have cared little for hunting and field-sports, and loved to occupy herself with her needle. Her piety, which she inherited from her mother, was nursed by misfortune and neglect from her earliest years. She relied mainly for spiritual advice on 
de Castilla y Aragón, Katherine Queen consort of England (I10453)
 
242 Civil War Service

Company I, 13th Regiment
Spalding County
"Stark Volunteers"

Stewart, John D. -- 2nd Lieutenant - July 8, 1861. Resigned, disability, November 2, 1861. Elected Captain of Company D, 10th Regiment Georgia State Troops February 14, 1862. Mustered out May 1862. Elected 1st Lieutenant of Company K, 6th Regiment Georgia State Guards Infantry August 4, 1863; Captain September 19, 1863. Roll for January 31, 1864, last on file, shows him present. No later record.

http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/ga/spalding/military/civilwar/rosters/coi13.txt

GEORGIA 13TH INFANTRY REGIMENT

HISTORICAL NOTES:

Mustered into service, July 8, 1861 at Griffin, GA, served with Floyd's Brigade in West Virginia, reassigned to Lawton's Brigade at Savannah, arriving January 1, 1862, reorganized May 1862. The Lawton-Gordon-Evans Georgia Brigade (so-named for its three principal commanders) was one of the premier brigades of Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, serving with distinction from the Seven Days battles around Richmond (May-June 1862) until its surrender at Appomattox Court House (April 9, 1865). The brigade was initially comprised of six regiments (13th, 26th, 31st, 38th, 60th, and 61st Georgia), which were raised at the call of Governor Joe Brown for the defense of the Georgia coast following the bombardment of Fort Sumter. The 13th Georgia had initially mustered into Confederate service on July 8, 1861 and served briefly with Brig. Gen. John B. Floyd's brigade in West Virginia, seeing minor action at the Battles of Sewell Mountain and Laurel Hill before being returned to Georgia due to sickness and lack of clothing suitable for the harsh winter climate in the West Virginia mountains. While on coastal duty, they engaged in a number of skirmishes, including the capture of a gunboat that afterwards bore their name and a brush-up with the 8th Michigan on Whitemarsh Island, Georgia on April 16, 1862. The six regiments were placed under the command of Brig. Gen. Alexander Lawton, commander of the Georgia Military District, who had proposed formation of an "elite brigade" of Georgia troops to answer Richmond's call for troops to repel the threat posed by McClellan's advance from Williamsburg on the Confederate capital (i.e. the Peninsula Campaign). In May 1862, the six regiments, which mustered between 6,000-7000 men, were moved by train to Lynchburg and the Shenandoah Valley to re-enforce Stonewall Jackson as part of a deception planned by General Lee to mask his planned offensive against McClellan's forces around Richmond.

BATTLES:

Malvern Hill (July 1, 1862); Bristoe Station (August 27, 1862); Groveton (or Brawner's Farm) (August 28, 1862); Second Manassas (or Bull Run) (August 29-30, 1862); Antietam (or Sharpsburg) (September 17,1862); Fredericksburg (December 13, 1862); Chancellorsville (April 29-5, 1863); Wincester (2nd Battle of) (June 13-15, 1863); York & Wrightsville (June 28-29, 1863); Gettysburg (July 1-3, 1863); Mine Run Campaign (Skirmishes of Nov. 26-Dec 2, 1863); Wilderness (May 5-6, 1864); Spotsylvania Court House (May 10-12, 1864); Monocacy (July 9, 1864); Winchester (3rd Battle of)(or Opequon Creek) (Sept. 19, 1864); Fisher's Hill (September 22, 1864); Cedar Creek (October 19, 1864); Hatcher's Run (Feb. 5-7,. 1865); Hares Hill (Fort Steadman) (March 25, 1865); and Appomattox Court House (April 9, 1865)

ROSTERS:


Company A - Confederate Guards (Pike County)
Company B - Meriwether Volunteers (Meriwether and Troup Counties)
Company C - Ringgold Rangers (Ringgold, Georgia and Catoosa County)
Company D - Upson Volunteers (Upson County)
Company E - Randolph Volunteers (Randolph and Terrell Counties)
Company F - Fayette Rangers (Fayette County)
Company G - Early Guards (Early County)
Company H - Panola Rifles (Terrell County)
Company I - Stark Volunteers (Spalding County)
Company K - Evans Guards (Troup County)

http://www.researchonline.net/gacw/unit49.htm

 
Stewart, Hon. John David (I0613)
 
243 CLARE, de, Family of. The powerful and illustrious family of De Clare, 'a house which played so great a part alike in England, Wales, and Ireland' (Freeman, Norm. Conq. v. 212), descended directly from Count Godfrey, the eldest of the illegitimate sons of Richard the Fearless, duke of Normandy (Cont. Will. Jum. viii. 87). To him was given, says Ordericus (iii. 340), Brionne cum toto comitatu, but, according to William of Jumièges and his continuator (iv. 18, viii. 37), the Comté of Eu. His son Gilbert inherited Brionne (Ord. Vit. iii. 340), and tested, as 'Brioncensis comes,' the foundation charter of the abbey of Bee, whose founder, Herluin, was his vassal. William of Jumidges, however, styles him Count of Eu ('comes Ocensis') at his death (vii. 2), the Comté he states, having passed at his father's death to his uncle William, but being eventually recovered by him (iv. 18). On this point Stapleton (i. Ivi) may be consulted, but with caution, for his version is confused. Count Gilbert was one of the guardians (Will. Jum. vii. 2) to whom the young duke was conunitted by his father (1036), but was assassinated in 1039 or 1040 (ib.) Thereupon his two young sons fled, with their guardians, to Baldwin of Flanders (Ord. Vtt. iii. 340). The marriage of the Conaueror with Baldwin's daughter restored the exiles to Normandy, where William took them into high favour, and assigned to Richard Bienfaite and Orbec, and to Baldwin Le Sap and Meules (ib.) Ordericus (ii. 121) mentions the two brothers as among the leading men in Normandy on the eve of the conquest.

Both brothers were in attendance on their kinsman during his conquest of England. The one, as Baldwin de Meules, was left in charge of Exeter on its submission (1068), and made sheriff of Devonshire. Large estates in Devonshire and Somersetshire are entered to him in Domesday as 'Baldwin of Exeter' or 'Baldwin the Sheriff.' His brother Richard [see Clare, Richard de (d. 1090?)] was the founder of the family of De Clare. Their surname, which they derived from their chief lordship, the castle and honour of Clare, was not definitely adopted for some two or three generations, and tnis, with the fact that several members of the family bore the same christian names, has plunged the history of the earlier generations into almost inextricable confusion. Dugdale is perhaps the chief offender, but, as Mr. Planché rightly observed, 'the pedigree of the Clares as set down by the genealogists, both ancient and modern, bristles with errors, contradictions, and unauthorised assertions' (p. 150). His own paper (Journ, Arch. Assoc. xxvi. 150 et seq.), so far as it goes, contains probably the best version, that of Mr. Clark on 'The Lords of Morgan' (Arch. Journ. xxxv. 325) beings though later, more erroneous. Mr. Ormerod also, in his 'Strigulensia,' and Mr. Marsh, in his 'Chepstow Castle,' examined the subject, the latter treating it in great detail.

The leading facts, however, are these : On the death of Richard, the founder of the house, his English estates passed to his son Gilbert (d. 1115?) [q.v.], who acouired by conquest possessions in Wales. Of his children, Richard, the eldest son, was the ancestor of the elder line, the earls of Hertford and Gloucester [see Clare, Richard de, d. 1136 ?] ; while Gilbert, a younger brother, establishing himself in Wales, acquired the earldom of Pembroke, and was father of the famous Strongbow, the conqueror of Ireland [see Clare, Richard de, d. 1176]. With him this line came to an end, his vast Irish and Welsh possessions passing to his daughter Isabel, who left by her husband, William Marshal, five daughters and coheiresses. The elder line obtained (from Stephen probably) the earldom of Hertford, ana were thenceforth known as earls of Hertford or of Clare, just as the yoimger line were known as earls of Pembroke or of Striguil. It is implied, in the 'Lords' Reports' (iii. 124) and elsewhere, that they were styled earls of Clare before they were earls of Hertford, but investigation disproves this. By the death of the other coheirs of William, earl of Gloucester (d. 1173), the succession to that earldom, with the honour of Gloucester and lordship of Glamorgan, opened (1217-20) to Gilbert de Clare, earl of Hertford or Clare (d. 1230) [q. v.], and from that time the heads of the house were earls of Gloucester and Hertford. Gilbert had already inherited, through his grandmother, the honour of St. Hilary, and through his ancestress Rohaise (Giffard) a moiety of the Giffard estates, and both he and his father had been among the barons appointed as guardians of Mugna Carta. The accession ot the Gloucester inheritance now further increased their power, and 'from this time the house of Clare became the acknowledged head of the baronage' (Arch. Journ. xxxv. 337). Their vast possessions were again increased by Gilbert'smarriagewith one of the heiresses of the Marshalls, earls of Pembroke, a granddaughter of his kinsman Strongbow. In his grandson Gilbert, 'the Red Earl' [q. v.], his house attained its highest glory. Almost the arbiter of the barons' war, he became under Edward I the most powerful subject in the kingdom, and married, in 1290, the king's daughter Joan. With the death of his son Gilbert [q. v.], who fell gloriously at Bannockburn (24 June 1314), there passed away this famous house, of which it has been said with much truth that ' for steady hereditary influence, supported on the whole by moderation of conduct, and always by great personal valour, no family at all approached to that of the earls of Gloucester and Hertford' (ib. p. 338).

The vast possessions of the De Clares were divided among the three sisters of the last earl, of whom Elizabeth [q. v.], inheriting Clare, became lady of Clare (' Domina Clarae'), and after losing three husbands became in her widowhood foundress of' Clare College,' Cambridge (1347). Her granddaughter and heiress, by her first husband, Elizabeth de Burgh, was in turn lady of Clare, and married Lionel, son of Edward III (1360), who was hence created (1362) duke of Clarence ('de Clarentia'), the style of whose herald is still preserved in Clarenceux king of arms. Their descendant and heir, the Duke of York, ascended the throne as Edward IV (1461), by which 4 the honour of Clare' became merged in the crown, and formed part, as it still does, of the duchy of Lancaster.

The dukedom of Clarence was conferred on Thomas, son of Henry IV (1411), and on George, brother of Edward IV (1461-2), and was finally revived (1789) for Prince William, afterwards William IV. The title was also conferred, as an earldom, on the late Duke of Albany (1881).

The town, county, and river of Clare in Ireland also derive, through Strongbow, their name from this family. Thus this name ' became, through them, so incorporated in our national history and literature that in one or more of its forms it is familiar wherever the English language is spoken' (Antiquary, v. 60).

Clare as a place-name is of doubtful origin. It was certainly a stronghold of early date, and a seat of power before the Conquest. A description of the castle a century ago will be found in the 'Gentleman's Magazine' for 1787 (lvii. 789), and a curious deed by the lady of Clare in that for 1793 (Ixiii. 30). The latter is of interest as illustrating the quasi-regal position of its lords.

[William of Jumieges and his continuator; Ordericus Vitalis (ed. Soeiete de l'Histoiro de France); Monasticon Anglicanum; Stapleton's Rolls of the Norman Exchequer; Lords' Reports on the Dignity of a Peer t1829), iii. 124-9; Gent. Mag.; Planchi's Earls of Gloucester tJournal of the Archaeological Association, vol. xxvi.); Clark's Lords of Glamorgan (Archaeological Journal, vol. xxxv.); Parkins's Clarence (Antiquary, vol. v.); Notes and Queries, 10th ser., v. 424; Freeman's Norm. Conq.; Ormerod's Strigulensia; Marsh's Chepstow Castle.]

J. H. R. 
Brionne, Geoffrey de Comte d'Eu (I11383)
 
244 CLARE, GILBERT de, called the 'Red,' ninth Earl of Clare, seventh Earl of Hertford, and eighth Earl of Gloucester (1243-1295), the son of Richard, eighth earl of Clare [q. v.], by his wife, Maud, daughter of John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, was born at Christchurch in Hampshire, 2 Sept. 1243 (Teickes. Ann. 130). In the early part of 1253 he was married to Alice of Angouleme, Henry IIFs niece, and, though but nine years old, is said to have taken part in the Paris tournament held in honour of the occasion (matt. Paris, v. 366; Tewkei.Ann. 152; Duodale, Baronage, i. 213). He succeeded to his father's estates in July 1262, and became Earl of Gloucester. Early in 1263 (22 March) he refused to take the oath of allegiance to Prince Edward at Westminster. De Montfort returned to England about 25 April, and with him Gloucester acted in the Oxford parliament (20 May), when the opponents of the provisions were declared public enemies. Shortly afterwards, being dissatisfied with the king's attitude, he helped Be Montfort in his attack on the Bishop of Hereford (Dunst. Ann. 220-2 ; Rymer, i. 426; Wykes, i. 133), but held aloof from politics for a few months afterwards. He was probably among the many nobles who, according to Rishanger (Camd. Soc. 15), went over to the royal side about October (cf. Wykes, 140). But by the early part of April 1264 he must have been in open rebellion against the king, for he seems to have conducted the massacre of the Jews in Canterbury about the same time that de Montfort was slaughtering those of London (c. 10 April). A little later Henry seized his castle of Eangston on his way to the relief of Rochester, and very shortly after this captured the Countess of Gloucester at Tunbridge Castle. The lady, however, being the king's cousin, was set free (Dunst. Ann. 230 ; Rishangeb, Rolls Series, 22). Gloucester was now recognised as the second leader of the baronial party. The negotiations immediately preceding the battle of Lewes were conducted in his name and that of De Montfort, and both were publicly denounced as traitors on 12 May. Just before the engagement (14 May) Smion knighted Gilbert and his brother Thomas (Ann. Wint. 451). In the actual battle the young earl led the centre of the baronial army (Prothero, 277) ; and it was to him that the king surrendered his sword when the day was lost, knowing him to be 'nobiliorem et ceteris potentiorem' (Wav. Ann. 357).

From this moment the Earls of Leicester and Gloucester were supreme. The mise of Lewes contained a special clause exempting them from any punishment for their conduct (Rishanger, Camd. Soc. 38). By the arrangement of 9 June they were empowered to nominate a council of nine, in concert with the Bishop of Chichester ({sc|Rymer}}, 444). On 20 Not. Guido, the papal legate, excommunicated Gloucester along with other rebels (ib. 447). Ten days later (30 Nov.) the first mutterings of disagreement between Leicester and Gloucester may have broken out at the Oxford parliament, which was called to discuss the conduct of the royal partisans who had taken refuge in the marches (Oseney Ann. 154). Gilbert was with the king and Simon at Gloucester when the marcher lords were banished to Ireland for a year. Owing to the quarrel of the two earls the lords neglected to obey the order of exile, and by Gilbert's connivance remained in the kingdom (Lib. de Ant. Leg. 70 ; Wtkes, 159). According to Robert of Gloucester (550) it was owing to Earl Gilbert's opposition to Leicester's measures that the great London parliament (14 Jan. 1265) was summoned. The quarrel was already notorious, and Simon openly charged Gloucester with protecting the marchers. According to one chronicler a reconciliation was now effected ; but at the best it was only momentary (Ann. Wav. 358 ; Wykes, 159 ; Robert of Gloucester, 152). A rumour went abroad that Leicester meditated shutting up Gilbert in prison. The young earl was required to find surety for his future conduct; a tournament that he had made arrangements for holding with young De Montfort at Dunstable was abruptly forbidden (17 Feb.), and Llewellyn was suffered to ravage his Welsh lands (Wykes, 159 ; Rymer, 450 ; Wav. Ann. 358). Indignant at such treatment, the earl fled to the marches.

Besides the general complaint that Simon monopolised too much of the government, Gilbert complained that the forfeited lands were not fairly divided, that the king was led about at the beck of the Earl of Leicester, and that the prisoners made by himself and his men had been taken from them. Two charges against the Earl of Leicester are specially noteworthy : first, that the royal castles were kept in Leicester's hands, and garrisoned by French troops; secondly, that the provisions of Oxford were not properly carried out. These complaints reappear frequently in Gilbert's history, and seem in later years to have inspired his whole political conduct (Rishanger, Rolls Series, 82 ; Trivet, 203 ; Ann. Wig. 453 ; Lib. de Ant. Leg. 73).

From a comparison of texts it would seem that Gilbert ned to the marches between 17 Feb. and 24 Feb. ( Wav. Ann. 358, with which cf. Rtxeb, 450) ; but the feud does not seem to have been recognised till he refused to appear at a tournament to be held at Northampton (13 April or 21 April), immediately after which (25 April) the king, Prince Edward, and Simon started for the marches (Dunstable, 238 ; Wykes, 161-2; Wav. 36l), and entered Gloucester, from which town they held a fifteen days' negotiation with Gilbert, who was then in the Forest of Dean. On 12 May the two earls were nominally once more at peace (Wav. 361-2 ; cf. Rymer, 455). It was probably between May 12 and 20 that Gilbert attempted to seize the king and Simon on their way to Hereford ; but the attempt failed, and there does not appear to have been open warfare till the escape of Prince Edward (26 May). At Ludlow tne prince and the young earl met ; the former took an oath that, if victorious, he would renew the 'old good laws,' and remove the aliens from the royal council and the custody of the royal castles. By 8 June Gilbert and Edward were both proclaimed rebels, and about the same time got possession of Gloucester (Pat. Rolls, 37a; Wav. 361-2 ; Lib. de Ant. Leg. 73 ; Rishanger, Camd. Soc. 43; Rymer, 456-7 ; Wykes, l64-5). In the ensuing campaign, Gloucester?s most brilliant opierations were; the destruction of the Bristol s ips (by which De Montfort had hoped to escape from Newport) and the Severn bridges, a movement which confined Leicester to the west of this river (Wykes, 160; Rishanger, Camd. Soc. 43). According to more than one chronicler Gloucester shared in Prince Edward?s victory at Kenilworth (1 Aug.), and he certainly, led the second division of the army at Evesham. His previous military experience with De Montfort seems to have had much to do with Edward?s method of marshalling his troops (Rishanger, Camd. Soc. 44-5 ; Dunst. Ann. 288). It was the attack of Gloucester that decided the day (John de Oxenedes, 229; Prothero, 342).

A month later Gilbert was present at the Winchester parliament, when the rebel lords were disinherited of their estates (8 Sept.) Rishanger declares that it was mainly owing to the greed of Mortimer and Gloucester, who were ?gaping? after the forfeited lands, that so harsh.; sentence was pronounced, contrary 'to the wish of the king, who was inclined to mercy (Camd. Soc. 49, with which cf. 51). But such a charge is alien from his general character, and is probably merely an expression of the chronicler's personal hostility. The same charge is repeated with details when young Simon presented himself at Northampton (c. Christmas, 1265). Gloucester was then accused of being envious when the king gave his nephew the kiss of peace, and of being the great obstacle to his complete pardon: and all this, according to Rishanger, because he dreaded the vengeance young Simon would take for his father's death (Rishanger, Rolls Series, 32, and Camd. Soc. 51). Gloucester next year accompanied Prince Edward in his expedition against the Cinque Ports-a movement probably induced by the fact that it was to this neighbourhood that De Montfort had escaped-and, at the fall of Pevensey (c. 7 March 1266), saved the life of a rebel knight (whom Edward would have hanged) in the hopes of inducing others to surrender by such an act of mercy (War, 369). It is probable that Gloucester looked upon the younger Montforts as aliens. and demanded their extradition as part of the political programme which he had set himself to work out. Added to which he may have had something of a personal grudge (cf. Lib. de Ant. Leg. 44).

About 24 June Henry laid siege to the disinherited barons at Kenilworth, and three months later Gilbert was appointed one of the twelve commissioners for settling the terms of surrender (Statutes of Realm, i. 12: Dunst. Ann. 242). Their decision was given 31 Oct., and from this moment Gloucester took the side of the vanquished. He probably hoped to secure more favourable terms than were actually given. So great was the enmity of the extreme party against him, that it is said Mortimer conspired to slay him (ib. 532, and before 12 Dec. Gilbert fearing for his life withdrew to his own estates (ib, with which cf. John de Oxen. 232; Walt. Heming. 327).

Henry at once called the great lords to Oxford for Christmas, in the hopes of making peace between the two nobles. Gloucester was summoned to London for 5 Jan., but refused to come, being engaged, it was said, in raising forces on the Welsh borders for a war against Mortimer (Rishanger, Camd. Soc. 59). Before the St. Edmunds Parliament (20 Jan.) he sent to the king's messengers his demands, which ran on the old lines: 1. The removal of the aliens. 2. The fulfilment of the provisions of Oxford and the promises of Evesham. 3. The restitution of their lands to all the disinherited on payment of penalties assessed by jury in proportion to the offence. The earl disclaimed all intention of warring against the king or the prince (Richanger, Camd. Soc. 59; Dunst. Ann. 245). A sudden march from the Welsh borders made Gilbert master of London, to which town he was admitted (8 April) on showing letters patent from the king. Next day he laid siege to the papal legate in the Tower. On 12 April he was joined by D'Eyville and others of the disinherited lords from the north, whom, however, Gilbert would not admit into the city till after Easter (17 April 1267). He allowed no plundering among his followers, but countenanced the deposition of the great men of the city, and the tempprary institution of what a contemporary ndon chronicler calls a ?commune? of the ?homines minuti.? Henry at once came south with his army, rescued the legate, apparently by water, but, being unable to effect an entrance within the walls, encamped at Stratford. After several weeks a peace was concluded between the earl and the king, owing to the mediation of the king of the Romans (16 June). It is to Gilbert's credit that he not only secured liberal terms for himself and the 'disinherited,? but received the royal pardon for those citizens who had taken 'his side (Lib. de Ant. Leg. 90-3; Rishanger; John of Oxenedes, 233, &c.: Wykes, 205, &c.)

Shortly afterwards the earl was reconciled to Prince Edward at Windsor (Lib. de Ant. Leg. 95), and 24 June 1268 they both took the cross at Northampton (Rishanger, Rolls Series. 59 ; Wykes, 218). Towards the end of next year Gloucester refused to attend a parliament) on the plea that Prince Edward was watching an opportunity of imprisoning him ; and the king of the Romans' intervention was once more required. By his decision (17 July 1270) the earl was to take ship for the Holy Land immediately after Prince Edward under in of forfeiting twenty thousand marks. Tlie prince sailed on 20 Aug., but Gloucester seems to have avoided both the expedition and the penalty (Wykes, 229-31, &c. ; Ann, Wint. 109). In January 1271 the earl was mainly instrumental in securing the restoration of all their estates to the 'disinherited' (ib. 110).

On the death of Henry III Gloucester was foremost in declaring his fealty to Edward, in accordance with the oath he made to the dying king (16 Nov.) (Lib. de Ant. Leg. ii. 162, 156 ; Ann, Wint, 112). Next day (17 Nov.), in company with the Archbishop of York, he entered the city and proclaimed peace to all, both Jews and christians, thus securing, for the first time in English history, the acknowledgment of the accession of the eldest son of the king immediately on the death of his father. It is curious to find the earl once more supporting the claims of Walter Hervey, who had been elected mayor of London by the 'communitas,' against those of Philip le Tayllur, the candidate appointed by the city magnates. Here he seems again to be advocating the cause of the weaker citizens, as he had done in 1267, and so helping to sustain a popular movement, which appears to have originated in the times of Simon de Montfort. It was at last decided (18 Nov.) that Walter Hervey should take office after promising that he would not injure any of those who had opposed his election (Lib. de Ant. Leg. 149-63).

It was about this time that Gilbert seems to have first contemplated a divorce from his first wife, Alice, to whom he had been married when a boy. She appears to have leaned rather to the king's party than to her husband's. In the early part of 1267 she sent from London news of her husband's descent on the city to the king (Dunst. Ann. 246). According to John de Oxenedes he was divorced from her at Norwich on 17 July 1271 (p. 239). But the transaction does not seem to have been completed till nearly twenty years later, as documents in Rymer, dated May 1283 and May 1286, speak of a papal dispensation as being still necessary before the second marriage with the Princess Joan can take place (Rymer, ii. 244, 299), and discuss the dowry of the discarded Alice. The second wedding took place on 30 April 1290; but the earl seems not to have been entirely reconciled to his new father-in-law even then, as he at once left Westminster for his castle of Tunbridge (Dunst. Ann. 368 ; Ann. Wig. 602 ; Green, ii. 330, with which cf. the 'abducta uxor' of ^7171. Oseneg, 326). In July he and his wife took the cross at the hands of Archbishop Peckam, and, if we may interpret the chronicler's words literally, actually started for the Holy Land (Cotton, 177-8).

In 1276 Gilbert was summoned against Llewellyn of Wales (Rymer, ii. 73), with whom, though his ally in 1267, he had been engaged in disputes in the Westminster courts some five years previouslv (26 Oct. 1271) about Caerphilly Castle (Pat. Rolls, 43 b; Brut, 366). In 1278 he is found disputing -with the Bishop of Hereford as to the right of hunting in Malvern Hills (Ann. Wig. 476). In December he received a summons to take the field against Llewellyn (Rymer, ii. 76). Four years later he was serving with his soldiery near Lantilowhir, on which occasion (16 June) the king's nephew, William de Valence, was slain (Rishanger, Rolls Series, 100). Next year (1283) he was summoned to Shrewsbury, to assist in the trial of Llewellyn's brother David (Rymer, ii. 200, 247). With Rhys ap Meredith, prince of Ystrad Towy, against whom he led the English baronage, his relations seem to have been more ambiguous; so much so that in 1287 he was suspected of affording a shelter to this prince on his Irish estates, although he had been appointed (July) one of the two leaders of the English expedition against him (Wykes, 311 ; Rymer, ii. 342 ; cf. Rishanger, 144). Eight years later (1294-96) all his Welsh tenants rose up against the Earl of Gloucester, and drove him out of Wales with his wife. Rhys ap Morgan and Maddos appears to have profited by this opportunity ; and when Gilbert took steps for recovering his estates he found that his greater tenants were unwilling to serve under him. Finally the king was forced to come and take the rebellious vassals into his peace against the earl's will (Ann. Dunst, 387 ; Ann. Wig. 626).

Gilbert incurred the king's displeasure by levying private war against the Earl of Norfolk, who in 1276 had got jpossession of Brecknock, which the Earl of Gloucester claimed as his own (Ann, Cambr, 366). About Ascension day 1291 both nobles were consigned to prison, and placed 'in misericordiâ regis' for 1,000l. and 10,000l. respectively (Ann. Dunst, 370 ; Abbrev, Plac, 286). The same year he was present at Norham, where Edward decided the claims to the Scotch crown. He died on 7 Dec. 1296, leaving one son, Gilbert (1291-1314) [q.v.], and three daughters, Eleanor, Marret, and Elizabeth [q. v.] Eleanor mamed (1) Hugh le Deepenser, (2) William le Zouch of Mortimer; Margaret married (1) Piers Gaveston, (2) Hugh d'Audley, afterwards Earl of Gloucester; Elizabeth married (1) John de Burgh, earl of Ulster, (2) Theobald de Verdun, (3) Roger d'Amory (Ann. Wig. 524; Escheat Rolls, i. 271; cf. Knyghton, 2584, and Trokelowe, 86; Green, ii. 360, &c.; see Gilbert De Clare, tenth earl).

Gilbert de Clare was the most powerful English noble of his day. Besides his immense estates in Wales and Ireland, he possessed lands in twenty-two English counties (Escheat Rolls, i. 131). In his early years he appears to have been very fickle in his political attachments, and want of loyalty to his leaders was strikingly exemplified in his conduct towards Simon de Montfort and Prince Edward. There was something chivalrous, however, in his attitude towards the disinherited barons, and in his care to secure the safety of his adherents among the London citizens. His position as leader of the baronage during the later years of his life is best illustrated by the events of 1288, when, on Edward's demand of a subsidy, he refused, as the spokesman of his fellow-magnates, to grant anything till the king's return (Wykes, iv. 316). The ?Chronicon de Lanercost? (p. 168) describes him as ?prudens in consiliis, strenuus in armis, et audacissimus in defensione sui juris;? and ascribes to him the famous story of the rusty sword, which is more commonly assigned to Earl Warenne. He was buried at Tewkesbury, where his picture, painted on glass, is still to be seen (Ann. Wig. 624; Green, ii. 343).

[Annals of Margam, Tewkesbury, Winchester, Waverley, Burton, Dunstable, Wykes, Oseney and Worcester (Wigorn), in Luard's Annales Monastici, i. ii. iii. iv. (Rolls Series); Rishanger, ed. Ryley (Rolls Series) and Halliwell for Camden Society; Matthew Paris, ed. Luard (Rolls Series); John of Oxenedes, ed. Ellis (Rolls Series); Annales Cambriæ and Brut y Tywysogion, ed. Williams ab Ithel (Rolls Series); Liber de Antiquis Legibus, ed. Stapleton (Camd. Soc.); Rymer's F?dera, i. ii. ed. 1704, i. ed. 1816; Statutes of Realm, i. (Patent Rolls); Escheat Rolls; Trivet (Eng. Hist. Soc.); Walter of Hemingford (Eng. Hist. Soc.); Stubbs's Select Charters; Prothero's Simon de Montfort; and authorities cited above.]

T. A. A. 
Clare, Gilbert de 6th Earl of Hertford, 7th Earl of Gloucester (I11022)
 
245 CLARE, GILBERT de, seventh Earl of Clare, fifth Earl of Hertford, and sixth Earl of Gloucester (d. 1230), was the son of Richard, sixth earl of Clare and Hertford (d. 1217?), by his wife Amicia, one of the three coheiresses of William, earl of Gloucester. On the death of his mother and the failure of issue to her two sisters, Mabel and Isabella (the divorced wife of King John, afterwards married to Geoffrey de Mandevil and Hubert de Burgh), he succeeded to the vast Gloucester estates apparently in the year 1217 (Annals of Margam, p. 33). He also inherited the estates of his grandmother, Maud de St. Hilary, and a moiety of the honour of Giffard from his father, who had been confirmed in this possession by Richard I as one of the coheirs of his ancestress, Rohais, daughter of Walter Giffard, earl of Buckingham (Clark, Land of Morgan, p. 332; Marsh, Chepstow Castle, p. 78). According to Dugdale his father died in 1206; but this is evidently a mistake, as both Richard, earl of Clare, and his son Gilbert appear in the patent rolls of 14 John (ed. Hardy, p. 192); while the Earl of Clare and Gilbert de Clare are to be found among the twenty-five barons appointed to carry out the great charter in June 1215, and were both excommunicated by Innocent III in the beginning of 1216 (Matt. Paris, ii. 605, 643). After the death of John he sided with the dauphin, and is said to have been taken prisoner at the battle of Lincoln by William Marshall, the earl of Pembroke, who married him to his daughter Isabella (Walsingham, Ypod. Neust. p. 137) on St. Denis's day, 9 Oct. 1217 (Annals of Margam, p. 33). In February 1225 he was present at the confirmation of the great charter at Westminster (Burton Annals, i. 232). Two years later we find him taking the part of Richard, earl of Cornwall, in his quarrel with the king, demanding a renewal of the forest acts and ascribing all the faults of the government to Hubert de Burgh (Matt. Paris, iii. 124; cf. Walter of Coventry, ii. 261, sub anno 1225). About May 1230 he appears to have attended Henry III abroad on his expedition to Brittany; but died in ipso reditu, at Penros in that duchy, 25 Oct. 1230 (Tewkesbury Annals, p. 76; Waverley Annals, p. 308). He seems to have made his first will before starting on this campaign, 30 April 1230, at Suwik-super-Mare; his second, just before his death, on 23 Oct. His body was conveyed to Plymouth, and thence, by way of Cranborne, to Tewkesbury, where he was buried before the great altar on the Sunday following St. Martin's day, in the presence of an innumerable concourse (Tewkes. Ann. p. 76). To Tewkesbury Abbey he was a great benefactor in his lifetime, and bequeathed it a silver cross and the wood of Mutha (ib. pp. 74, 76). His widow Isabella set up a memorial stone 28 Sept. 1231. In the course of the same year she married Richard, earl of Cornwall (ib. pp. 38, 78). Clare was engaged in many Welsh expeditions. He is found fortifying Builth Castle in 12 John. In 1228 he set out with a great army against the Welsh, on which occasion we read that he found silver, iron, and lead (ib. p. 70). The same year he captured Morgan Cam and sent him prisoner to England (Marg. Ann. i. 36); but a little later released him for hostages. Clare had three sons by his wife Isabella: (1) Richard, [see Clare, Richard de, 1222-1262]; (2) William; and (3) Gilbert; and three daughters: (1) Amicia (b. about 1220), who in October 1226 was betrothed to Baldwin de Redvers (Clark, p. 335); (2) Agnes; and (3) Isabel (b. 2 Nov. 1226), who married Robert de Bruce of Annandale (ib.). His widow, Isabel, died 17 Jan. 1239-40, and was buried at Beaulieu. Her heart, however, was brought to Tewkesbury by the prior in a silver-gilt casket (cuppa) and interred before the great altar (Tewkes. Ann., pp. 113-14).

[The Land of Morgan, by G. T. Clark, in Archæological Journal (1878), xxxv. 332-8; Marsh's Annals of Chepstow Castle; Annals of Margam, Tewkesbury, Burton, and Waverley in vols. i. and ii. of Annales Monastici, ed. Luard (Rolls Series); Matthew Paris, ed. Luard (Rolls Series); Walsingham's Ypodigma Neustriæ, ed. Riley (Rolls Series); Dugdale's Baronage, vol. i.; Patent Rolls (John), ed. Hardy (1835); Close Rolls, ed. Hardy (1833), i. 606; Walter of Coventry, ed. Stubbs (Rolls Series).]

T. A. A. 
Clare, Gilbert de 4th Earl of Hereford, 5th Earl of Gloucester (I11366)
 
246 CLARE, GILBERT de, tenth Earl Of Clare, eighth Earl of Hertford, and ninth Earl of Gloucester (1291?1314), the son of Gilbert, ninth earl of Clare [q. v.], by his wife Joan, daughter of Edward I, was born about 10 May 1291 (Osney Annals, p. 325; Cal. Genealog. i. 530). His father died 7 Dec. 1295, and within a year his mother married Ralph de Monthermer, who was appointed guardian to the young earl, and was summoned to parliament by the title of Earl of Gloucester (WA Lt. Hest. ii. 70; Part. Writs, vol. ii. div. iii. p. 676). As a boy Gilbert de Clare was the companion of Edward II, his uncle (sturrs, ii. 314). In 1306 he is found serving against Scotland, and some six months later was granted seisin of his property in London, 23 June 1307 (Dig. of Peer, ii. 171; Rylri, 371). He was called to the parliament of March 1308 by the title of Earl of Gloucester and Hertford (Purl. Writs, ib.), his mother being now dead. In the same year he was ordered to attend the muster against the Scots at Carlisle, and sent to negotiate a truce with Robert Bruce (ib.; Walt. Hem. p. 274). On 3 Dec. he was made commander of the troops destined for the relief of Rutherglen Castle in Scotland, and next year was required to raise 800 soldiers from his lordship in Glamorgan (Parl. Writs, vol. ii. div. iii. p. 676). In the same autumn (September 1309) he was appointed commander of the English army on both sides of the Forth (ii.) Meanwhile' the Gaveston troubles had been drawing to a head. Gilbert is said to have observed a strict neutrality when the favourite was banished in 1308 (Auct. Malmesb. p. 158). This was perhaps due to the fact that Gaveston had married his sister Margaret. He seems to have at least acquiesced in the important Westminster articles presented by the parliament of April 1309 (Rot. Parl. i. 443): but had been won over to the king's side by July, when the barons met at Stamford, on which occasion his influence secured Gaveston's return. Here he pledged himself for the performance of the ordinances, and a letter is still extant in which he complains to the king of their non-fulfilment, and thus prevents the raising of the promised twentv-nfth (STURRS, ii. 325; Parl. Writs, ib.) In March 1310 he joined in the petition for the appointment of ordainers; and, when it was feared that the partisans of Lancaster would attend the Westminster council in arms, he was appointed to maintain order (Ann. Paul. i. 170; Rymer (ed. 1818), ii. 103; Sturrs, ii. 326). His name appears first of the eight earls among the ordainers, in which body he must to some extent be regarded as representing the king's party. He soon resigned his appointment, after having offered an ineffectual resistance to the extreme measures of his colleagues (Ann. land. p. 172; Auct. Brid. pp. 37, 39; Parl. Writs, p. 676). Later on in this year, when Edward II was so shamefully deserted by the great lords, he was one of the only three earls who attended the summons to Berwick (Auct. Malmsb. pp. 164,165; Ann. Lond. ed. Paul. pp. 174, 269). Next year, on the Earl of Lincoln's death, he was made ?guardian' of England (March 1811). When Gaveston was once more banished (October 1311) by the ordainers, Clare at first affixed his seal to the king's letters of recommendation, but almost immediately revoked his act on the plea that he was still a minor (Auct. Malmesb. p. 174; Parl. Writs, vol. ii. div. iii.) On the favourite's return (January 1312) he was appointed by the barons to defend Kent, London, and the south-eastern parts of England; but he refused to take any active part in the league against Gaveston, though he let it be understood that he was prepared to confirm the acts of Lancaster. When Gaveston was taken from the custody of the Earl of Pembroke, who had pledged his word and lands to the king for his safety, this nobleman appealed to Gloucester to aid him in securing the restoration of his prisoner; but only received the contemptuous advice that if he should forfeit his estates, it would teach him to be a better trader another time (Chr. of Ed. I and II, i. 203, ii. 178). Later in the year (July 1312), when both parties were mustering their forces for war, Clare again came forward as a mediator and persuaded Edward to hear Lancaster?s defence (ib. i. 210, 221, ii. 185-6). By Christmas he had succeeded in making terms (ib.; cf. Trokelowe, p. 74. In May 1313 Gloucester was again appointed regent during the king's absence in France (Chr. of Ed. I and II, ii. 191). Next year he was slain at the battle of Bannockburn. In this expedition he equipped 500 soldiers at his own expense, and was placed at the head of the vanguard in company with the Earl of Hereford. It was contrary to his advice that Edward joined battle on 24 June instead of allowing his troops the festival as a day of rest. For this prudent counsel the king taunted him with treachery and cowardice, to which the earl made answer that he would on that day prove the falsehood of this charge. The battle opened with Douglas's attack on his division, and, according to one chronicler, the weight of the whole combat rested on him. He rushed on the enemy's ranks ?like a wild boar, making his sword drunk with their b1ood.' His horse appears to have stumbled and to have trodden its rider beneath its hoofs. In this predicament he was pierced with many lances and his head battered to pieces. Robert Bruce sent back his dead body to Edward for burial without demanding any ransom (ib. ii. 203-l; Trokelowe, pp. 85, 98; Barbour, p. 263). The vast estates of the house of Clare extending over twenty-three English counties, to say nothing of his immense posseasions in Wales and in Ireland, were divided among his three sisters [see Gilbert de Clarke, ninth earl]. His three earldoms fell into abeyance for a time; later that of Gloucester was renewed (l) in the person of his brother-in-law, Hugh de Spencer; (2) for another brother-in-law, Hugh de Audley (March 1337), on whose death it became once more extinct (1 Ed. III); and thirdly in 21 Rich. II for his sister Eleanor's great-grandson, Thomas de la Spencer (Trokelowe, p. 86; Chr. of Ed. I and II. i. 356, ii.; Dignity of a Peer, iv.; but cf. Nicolas, Hist. Par. p. 214). Clare married Matilda, the daughter of Richard de Burgh, second earl of Ulster, in 1308, but left no children (Trokelowe, p. 86; Ann. Paul. p. 264). He seems to have shared in his father's and grandfather's excessive love for tournaments; but on the whole appears, both intellectually and morally, to have been the noblest member of his great house.

[Osney Annals ap. Luard's Annales Monastici, iv. (Rolls Series); Annals of London and Annals of St. Paul's (in vol. i.); the Malmesbury and Bridlington authors of tha Life of Ed. II in Chronicles and Memorials of Ed. I and II, ad. Stubbs (Rolls Series); Trokelowe, ed. Riley (Rolls Series); Waller of Hemingburgh. ed. Hamilton (English Hist. Soc.); Rolls of Par1iament, vol. i.; Barbour's Bruce. ed. Skeet for Early Eng. Text Society; Lords' Report on the Dignity of a Peer, vol. ii. iv.; Rymer's F?dera, cd. 1818; Chronicle of Lanercost.]

T. A. A. 
Clare, Gilbert de 10th Earl of Clare, 7th of Herford, 8th of Glouchester (I11354)
 
247 CLARE, RICHARD de, or RICHARD STRONGBOW, second Earl of Pembroke and Strigul (d. 1176), was son of GILBERT STRONGBOW, OR DE CLARE, whom Stephen created earl of Pembroke in 1138, and grandson of GILBERT DE CLARE, d. 1115? [q. v.] (Ord. Vit. xiii. 37). His mother was ELIZABETH, DAUGHTER OF ROBERT DE BEAUMONT, earl of Leicester and Mellent (Will. of Jumièges, viii. 37; Dugdale, i. 84). He appears to have succeeded to his fathers estates in 1148 (Marsh, p. 55; Dugdale, i. 208) ; but the name of "Richard, count of Pembroke," first appears among the signatures to the treaty of Westminster (7 Nov. 1153), which recognised Prince Henry as Stephen?s successor (Brompton, 1039n. 60). It appears that he was allowed to retain his title even aft er the accession of Henry II, when so many of Stephen's earldoms were abolished; but according to Giraldus Canibrensis he had either forfeited or lost his estates by 1167-8 (Expugn. Hib. i. cxii). We learn from Ralph de Diceto (i. 330) that he was one of the nobles who accompanied Princess Matilda on her marriage journey to Minden in Germany early in 1168.

According to the Irish historians it was in 1166 that Dermot [see MacMurchada Diarmid], driven from Leinster by the combined forces of Roderic O'Connor, king of Connaught, and Tighernan O?Ruarc, of Breifni, appealed to Henry for aid in the recovery of his Kingdom (Annals of Four Masters, i. 1161). This date, to Giraldus, seems two years too early. Henry gave letters empowering any of his subjects to assist the dethroned monarch, who secured the services of Earl Richard, pilqgiising in return for his assistance to give his eldest daughter in marriage, together with the succession to Leinster (Gib. Camb. v. 227-8; Anglo-Norman Poet, l1. 328, &c.) The earl engaged to cross over with an army in the ensuing spring; but stipulated that he must have express permission from Henry before starting (Gir. v. 228; Anglo-Norman Poet, ll. 356-7). Earlier aid was promised by Robert FitzStephen and Maurice FitzGera1d, who appear to have crossed over to Wexford about 1 May 1169 Gir. 230; A. F. M. i. 1173). If this date correct, the meeting of Dermot and the earl must have taken place about July 1168, to which year Hoveden assigns the invasion of Ireland (i. 269; Gir. 229, with which cf. A.-N. P. pp. 16-19). In the conquest of Wexford and the expeditions against Ossory and Dublin Earl Richard took no part; but according to Giraldus he was represented in this campaign by his nephew, Hervey de Mountmaurice.

It was apparently towards the close of this year that Dermot, despairing of the arrival of the Earl of Strigul, offered his daughter to Robert FitzStephen and Maurice FitzGerald, and on their refusal sent a pressing invitation to the earl: "The swallows have come and gone, yet you are tarrying sti1l." On receiving this letter, Earl Richard, "after much deliberation," crossed over to Henry and received the requisite permission to carve out a heritage for himself in foreign lands; but, according to Giraldus, the king granted his request ironically rather than seriously (246-8). A much later writer, Trivet (c. 1300), has preserved a tradition that the earl had been an exile in Ireland previous to this (Trivet, 66-7). Before crossing to Ireland himself, Earl Richard sent forward a small force under one of his own men, Raymond le Gros, the nephew of FitzStephen and FitzGerald. Landing near Watertford about the beginning of May 1170, he was immediately joined by Herve de Mountmaurice (Gir. 248, &c.; A.-N.P. pp. 67, &c.) According to the Anglo-Norman Poet, Earl Richard crossed very soon alter' (ll. 1500-3); both accounts agree that he apeared before Waterford with from twelve to teen hundred men on St. Bartholomew's eve (23 Aug.) Within two days the city had fallen; but Dermot, accompanied by Maurice and Robert, came up in time to save the lives of the captives. The marriage between Eva and the earl was celebrated at once, and the whole army set out for Dublin, after setting an English guard at Waterford {A.-N.P. 11. 1508-1569; Gib. 265-6). If the Anglo-Norman Poet may be trusted, there were from four to five thousand English who took part in the march to Dublin, before which town they arrived on 21 Sept. (1. 1626). Meanwhile, Koderic of Connaught had mustered thirty thousand men for its relief. While peace negotiations were going on, Milo de Cogan and Raymond le Gros took the city by assault, wimout the consent of either Dermot or the earl (A.N.P. 11. 1680-2 ; Gir. 266-7). Asculf MacTurkill, the Danish ruler, was driven into exile, and his town handed over to Earl Richard, who appears to have resided here till the beginning of October, when he started to attack O'Ruarc in Meath, leaving Dublin in charge of Milo de Cogan (Gib. 257; A.-N.P. 11. 1709-23; A.F.M. 1171). From Meath he seems to have withdrawn to Waterford for the winter; while Dermot took up his abode at Ferns, where he died on 1 May 1171 (Gib. 263 ; A.-N.P. 1724-31).

Meanwhile, Henry II, who had grown jealous of his vassal's success, had forbidden the transport of fresh forces to Ireland, and ordered all who had already crossed to return by Easter 1171 (28 March). To prevent the enforcement of this decree, the earl despatched Raymond le Gros to the king in Aquitane, with instructions to place all his conquests at the king's disposal (Gib. 259).

On the death of Dermot there was a general combination against the English. All the earl's allies, excepting some three or four, (A.-N.P. 11. 1732^3), deserted him, and a force of sixty thousand men was collected under Roderic O'Connor to besiege Dublin about Whitsuntide (16 May) 1171. Earl Richard, to whose assistance Raymond le Gros had already returned, sent for aid to FitzStephen at Wexford, from which place he received a reinforcement of thirty-six men, a step which so weakened the Wexford garrison, that it had to surrender later (P c. 1 July). On hearing of this disaster the earl, fearing starvation, offered to do fealty to Roderic for Leinster. Roderic, however, refused to concede more than the three Norse towns, Waterford , Dublin, and Wexford ; if these tetms were rejected, he would storm the town on the morrow (A.-N.P. pp. 85-9; Gib. 266, &c.^ In this emergency the earl ordered a sudaen sally in three directions, led by Milo, Raymond, and himself. A brilliant success was achieved ; the siege was raised, and the earl was left free to set out to the relief of FitzStephen, whom the Irish had shut up in the island of Becherin. Dublin was once more entrusted to Milo de Cogan. On his march through Idrone he was attacked by O'Ryan, the king of this district; but hearing that the Irish had left Wexford for Becherin, he proceeded to Waterford, whence he sent a summons to his brother-in-law, the king of Limerick, to aid in an attack on MacDonchid, the king of Ossory. The 'Anglo-Norman Poet' (pp. 97-101) says that it was only the chivalrous honour of Maurice de Prendergast that now prevented the earl from acting with the utmost treachery to the latter king. The earl then departed for Ferns, where he stayed eight days before going in pursuit of Murrough O'Brien, who was put to death at Ferns, together with his son. About the same time, acting as the over-king of Leinster, he confirmed Muirchertad ('Murtherdath') in his kingdom of Hv-Kinsellagh (near Wexford), and gave the 'pleis' of Leinster to Donald Kevenath, the faithful son of Dermot (A.-N.P. pp. 103-5).

Probably about the middle of August Hervey de Mountmaurice returned from a second mission to the king, and urged the earl to lose no time in makingpeace witn Henry personally (Gib. 273; A.-N, P. pp. 105). After entrusting Waterford to Gilbert de 6orard, Strongbow crossed over to England with Hervey, found the king at Newnham in Gloucestershire, and, after much trouble, succeeded in pacifying him, by the resignation of all his castles and maritime cities. On 18 Oct. the king reached Waterford, which was at once handed over to Robert FitzBernard (Gib. 273 ; Bened. i. 24, &c.; A.-N. P. 126). From Waterford the king marched through Ossory to Dublin, receiving the homage of the Irish princes as he went. He spent Christmas at Dublin, which on his departure he gave in charge to Hugh de Lacy (A.-N.P. 11. 2713-16). It would seem that during the greater part of the six months Henry spent in Ireland Earl Richard kept his own court at Kildare.

A Dyvelin esteit li reis Henriz
Et à Kildare li quens gentils
(11. 2695-6).

That the king to some extent distrusted the intentions of hb great vassal is evident by the steps he took to weaken the earl's party and power (Gib. 284).

Towards the beginning of Lent (c. 1 March 1172) Henry reached Wexford. Three or four weeks later came the news of the threatened rebellion of his sons; but his passage to England was delayed till Easter Monday (17 April). Before leaving Ireland he had made Hugh de Lacy lord of Meath, and entrusted Wexford to William FitzAldhelm. Meanwhile, Earl Richard withdrew to Ferns, where he married his sister Basilia to Robert de Quenci, who was given the constableship of Leinster (Bened. i. 25; Gir. 287; A.-N.P. ll. 2741-50).
For the next two years Kildare seems to have been Earl Richard?s headquarters (ll. 2760-72), whence he appears to have made forays on the district of Offaly. On one of these expeditions Robert de Quenci was slain, upon which Raymond le Gros demanded the widow in marriage. This request, which implied a claim to the constableship of Leinster and the guardianship of Basilia's infant daughter, was refused, allthough the refusal seems to have cost the earl ?the services of Raymond and his followers, who at once retumed to Wales (A.-N.P. pp. 133-6 ; but cf. (Gir. 310).

On the breaking out of the rebellion of 1178 (c. 15 April 1173) Henry summoned the earl to his assistance in Normandy, where, according to the ?Anglo-Norman Poet,? he was given the castle of Gisors to guard. From Ralph de Diceto we know that he was present at the relief of Verneuil (9 Aug.) (cf. Eyton, 172, l76). 1[e was apparently dismissed before the close of the first year of war, and as a reward of his fidelity received the restoration of Wexford, Waterford, and Dublin. On reaching Ireland he atonce despatched Robert Fitzllernard, FitzStephen, and others tn aid against. the rebels in llngland, where, if we may trust, the Anglo-Norman Poet, the Irish forces were present at the overthrow of the Earl of Leicester (17 Uct.) at- Bury St.. Edmunds (A.-N.P. pp. 130-4l; Diceto, i. 375, 377; Gir. 298, but cf. remarks in list of authorities at end of article).

On Raymond's departure Earl Richard gave the eoustableship to llervey de Mountmaurice (Gir. 308). Dissatisfied with his generalship, the troops clamoured for the reappointment of Raymond, whom Henry had sent back to Ireland with the earl, and their request was granted (ib. 298). About the latter part. of 1174 the earl led his army into Munster, against Ronald of Limerick, and met with the great disaster that forced him back to Waterford, where he was closely besieged by the Irish, while Roderic O'Connor advanced to the very walls of Dublin. In this emergency the earl sent over a messenger begging that Raymond would come to his aid, and promising him his sister's hand. The two nobles met in an island near Waterford. Earl Richard was brought back to Wexford, where the marriage was celebrated. On the next day Raymond started to drive the of Counaught out of Meath (A.F.M. ii. 15-19, with which cf. Gib. 310-12; A.-N.P. pp. 142-4). It was now that, at Raymond?s suggestion, the earl gave his elder daughter Alina to William Fitzmaurice. To Maurice himself he Wicklow Castle; Carbury to Meiler FitzHenry, and other estates to various other knights. Dublin was handed over to the brothers from Hereford. With his sister Earl Richard granted Raymond Fothord, Idrone, and Glaskarrig (Gir. 314; for full list, see A.-N.P. pp. 144-8). It appears that the earl was now supreme in Leinster, having hostages of all the great Irish princes (ll. 3208, &c.)
It was robably in 1175 that Earl Richard was called) upon to relieve Hug; de Lacy?s newly built castle of Trim. After this success he withdrew to Dublin, having determined to send his army under Raymond against Donald O?Brien of Limerick. He does not seem to have taken any personal share in the latter expedition (c. 1 Oct. 1175), and indeed may possibl have been in England in this very month (Eyton, 196). After the fall of Limerick Hervey persuaded the king to recall his rival Ra ond, whom, however, the peril of the English garrison detained in Ireland long after the receipt of the summons, since the earl's men refused to advance under any other leader. On Tuesday, 6 April 1176, Raymond once more entered Limerick, from which town he soon started for Cork, to relieve Dermot Macarthy, rince of Desmond. While thus engaged he received a letter from his wife, Basilia, informing him that "that huge grinder which had caused him so much pain had fallen out." By this phrase be understood that Earl Richard was dead (c. 1 June according to Giraldus; but 5 April according to Diceto). After Raymond`s arrival the earl was buried in the church of the Holy Trinity, where his tomb is still shown. Other accounts make him buried at Gloucester (A.-N.P. 11. 3208, &c.; Giraldus; Diceto, i. 407).

Earl Richard seems to have left an only daughter, Isabella by name. At the age of three she became the heiress to her father's vast estates, and was married by King Richard to William Marshall in 1189. (Hoveden, iii. 7; Dicento, i. 407). The question as to whether he had other issue has been fiercely contested by genealogists; but there seems to be no reason for doubting that he was married before espousing Dermot's daughter. The earl's daughter, Alina, mention above, cannot well have been his child by Eva. In the Irish Annals we read (a.d. 1171) of a predatory expition led into Kildare by the ear1's son (A.F.M. 1185). A Tintern charter granted by the younger William Marshall, and dated Strigul 22 March 1206, makes mention of "Walter, filius Ricardi, filii Gilberti Strongbowe, avi mei" (Dugdale, v. 267). But even this evidence can hardly be considered to confirm the current story as to how the earl met his son fleeing before the enemy and, enraged at such cowardice, clave him asunder with his sword. A tomb is still shown in Christ Church, Dublin, which passes for that of Richard Strongbow. This monument, which is described as displaying "the cross-legged effigy of a knight," is said to have been restored by Sir Henry Sidney in 1570. On the left lies a half-figure "of uncertain sex," which is popularly supposed to represent the earl's son. On it are inscribed the lines: Nate in te mihi pugnanti terga dedisti:Non mihi sed genti, regno quoque terga dedisti." [O son, you have given me to fight back: It is not me, but to the nation, the kingdom of his back, too, you have given.]

But there is no evidence as to the original state of this monument or the extent of Sir Henry's 'restorations.' The whole legend was well known to Stanihurst in 1584; but it may date much further back than the sixteenth century (Marsh, 62).

According to Giraldus's rhetorical phrase, Richard de Clare was "vir plus nomims hactenus habens quam ominis, plus genii quam ingenii, plus successionis quam possessionis [The man has had more names than luck, more genius than genius, more than that of succession]." More trustworthy, perhaps, is Giraldus's personal descritption o the earl: "A man of a somewhat orid complexion and freckled; with grey eyes, feminine features, a thin voice and short neck, but otherwise of a 'good stature." He was rather suited, continues the same historian, for the council chamber than the field, and better fitted to obey than to command. He repaired to be urged on to enterprise by his followers; but when once in the press of the fight his resolution was as the standard or the rallying-point of his side. No disaster could shake discourage, and he showed no undue exhilaration when things went well. In the pages of Giraldus the earl appears as a mere foil to the brilliant characters of the Fitzgeralds, and is never credited with any very remarkable military achievement. On the other hand, in the pages of the ?Anglo-Norman Poet? he fills a much more prominent position; he leads great expeditions, and is specially distinguighread at the siege of Dublin. But even in the verse of this writer his special epithets are, "li entils quens," "le bon contur." It is more rarely that we find him styled "li quens vailland."

[The two principal authorities for the career of Richard Strongbow are Giraldus Cambrensis and a poet who, towards the close of the twelfth century, wrote an account of the conquest of Ireland in Norman-French verse. The narrative of the latter, according to its author?s statement, is largely based on theinformationderived from Dermot?s interpreter or clerk, Maurice Regan. In many points these two writers are not in absolute accord, and the chronology is rendered still more obscure by the fact that the Anglo-Norman Poet gives no yearly dates at all, while Giraldus is not entirely consistent with himself. Each author supplies much that is peculiar to himself; at other times, when they seem to differ it may be that they refer to different occasions. The latter view has been taken in the article in the case of Raymond?s return to England. Giraldus Cambrensis, Expugnatio Hibernica, ed. Dimock (Rolls Series), v.; Anglo-Norman Poet, ed. Wright and Michel (London, 1837); Eyton?s Itinerary of Henry II; Green?s English Princesses, i.; Benedict of Peterborough and Ralph de Diceto, ed. Stubbs (Rolls Series); Trivet, ed. Hog (Engl. Hist. Soc.) ; Dugdale?s Baronage, i., and Monasticon (ed. 1817-1846); William of Jumieges, ap. Migne, cxxxix. col. 906; Brompton?s Chronicon, ap. Twysden?s Decem Scriptores; Annals of the Four Masters, ed. Donovan; Marsh?s Chepstow Castle; Urleric Vitalis (Bohn), iv. 203 ; Journal of Archæological Association, x. 265.]
 
Clare, Richard FitzGilbert de 2nd Earl of Pembroke (I11104)
 
248 COURTENAY, PETER (d. 1492), bishop successively of Exeter and Winchester, was the third son of Sir Philip Courtenay of Powderham, and his wife Elizabeth, daughter of Walter, lord Hungerford. Sir Philip (d. 1463) was the heir of his uncle, Richard Courtenay, bishop of Norwich [q. v.], and, though representing a younger branch of his illustrious family, a man of considerable wealth (see the list of his manors in Cal. Inquis. post mortem, 3 Edw. IV, iv. 322). Peter prosecuted his studies at Oxford and in Italy, where it is said he became a doctor of both laws at Padua. At Oxford he became a member of the local foundation of Exeter College (Wood, Colleges and Halls, p. 109). In 1457, being then a student of civil law, he obtained a dispensation from the university, relieving him from some of the statutable residence and exercises required before admission to read 'in the institutes' (Anstey, Munimenta Academica, Rolls Ser., pp. 744?5). He had already resided three years in the faculty of arts, and the same time in that of civil law. On his admission as bachelor of laws he 'kept great entertainment for the academicians and burgher' (Wood, Hist. and Antiq. of Oxford, i. 66, ed. Gutch; cf. Mun. Ac. p. 745). He afterwards became a doctor. His rank secured him rapid preferment. In 1453 he was made rector of Moreton Hampstead and archdeacon of Exeter (Le Neve, i. 395). In 1463 he became prebendary of Lincoln (ib. ii. 124, 221). In 1464 he was also appointed archdeacon of Wiltshire (ib. ii. 630). He was master of St. Anthony's Hospital, London (Godwin, De Præsulibus (1743), p. 414). In 1476?7 he was made dean of Windsor, and in 1477 dean of Exeter. On 5 Sept. 1478 he was appointed by papal provision bishop of Exeter; on 3 Nov. his temporalities were restored (F?dera, xii. 945), and on 8 Nov. he was consecrated, by license from the archbishop, by Bishop Kemp of London, at St. Stephen's Chapel, Westminster (Le Neve, i. 376). As bishop he showed a good deal of activity in building. He completed the north tower of his cathedral at his own cost, and put in it a great bell, still called Peter's bell, and a curious clock showing the state of the moon and the day of the month. He also built the tower of Honiton church, besides largely assisting in the erection of the church itself. Courtenay also took considerable part in politics. Of a Yorkist family and in the service of Edward IV, he even acquiesced in the revolution which made Richard III king, and was present at the house of the Duchess of York when Richard gave the great seal to John, bishop of Lincoln (F?dera, xii. 189). He joined, however, the party of Buckingham, and in conjunction with his kinsmen, Edward Courtenay of Boconnock and Walter Courtenay of Exeter, and many others of the western gentry, endeavoured in vain to excite a rising in Devonshire and Cornwall (Polydore Vergil, p. 551, ed. 1570, and Hall, p. 393, ed. 1809, erroneously call Edward the bishop's brother). On their failure they escaped to Brittany to share the exile of Henry of Richmond. Spared his life with Bishops Morton and Wydville out of consideration for their office, Courtenay was condemned in Richard III's parliament to lose his temporalities and estates (Rot. Parl. vi. 250). He returned to England with Henry VII, and received from that monarch great favours to compensate for his sufferings in his cause. Edward Courtenay was made Earl of Devon. Peter was put on the commission which was to perform the duties of seneschal at Henry's coronation (F?dera, xii. 277); received the custody of the temporalities and the disposal of the preferment of the Yorkist bishop of Salisbury (Campbell, i. 81), and on 8 Sept. was appointed keeper of the privy seal with a salary of twenty shillings a day (ib. i. 151). He was present at the first parliament of Henry VII, where the sentences of Richard's time against him and his confederates were reversed (Rot. Parl. vi. 273), and where he served as a trier of petitions of Gascony and other places beyond sea (ib. 268 a). In 1486 he was appointed a commissioner of the royal mines and placed with the Earl of Devon and others on a commission to inquire into the seizure of certain Hanse ships by the men of Fowey, contrary to the existing amity (Campbell, i. 315, 316). On the death of William of Waynfleet he received the grant of the temporalities of Winchester (F?dera, xii. 322), and on 29 Jan. 1487 was translated to that important see by papal bull (Le Neve, iii. 15?16). He now ceased to be privy seal, but was still a good deal engaged on state affairs. In 1488 he was one of the commissioners appointed to muster archers in Hampshire for the expedition to Brittany (Campbell, ii. 385), and in 1489 was put on a special commission of the peace for Surrey (ib. ii. 478). He received as a gift from the king ?a robe made of sanguine cloth in grain, furred with pure menever, gross menever, and byse? (ib. ii. 497). He was a witness to the creation of Arthur as prince of Wales in 1490 (ib. ii. 542), and was present at the ratification of the treaty with Spain in the same year (F?dera, xii. 428). An unsuccessful attempt was made in 1487 to appoint him chancellor of Oxford, against John Russell, bishop of Lincoln (Wood, Fasti Oxonienses, ed. Gutch, p. 65). He died on 23 Sept. 1492, and was probably buried at Winchester, though the exact spot is uncertain, and local writers have conjectured his tomb to be at Powderham.

[F?dera, vol. xii. original edition; Rolls of Parliament, vol. vi.; Campbell's Materials for the History of Henry VII, Rolls Series; Wood's History and Antiquities of Oxford, ed. Gutch; Boase's Register of Exeter College, Oxford; Collins's Peerage, vi. 255 (ed. 1779); Le Neve's Fasti Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ, ed. Hardy; Cleaveland's Genealogical History of the Family of Courtenay (1735). The biographies in Prince's Worthies of Devon, p. 166, and Cassan's Lives of the Bishops of Winchester, i. 314?16, contain practically no additional information.]
 
Courtenay, Bishop Peter (I11222)
 
249 COURTENAY, WILLIAM (1342?-1396), archbishop of Canterbury, fourth son of Hugh Courtenay, earl of Devon, and Margaret Bohun, daughter of Humphrey Bohun, earl of Hereford, by his wife Elizabeth, daughter of Edward I, was born in the parish of St. Martin's, a suburb of Exeter, in or about 1342. After receiving his early education in his father's house, he was sent to Stapledon Hall, Oxford, where he graduated in law, being described both as Doctor Decretorum and D.C.L. (Fasciculi Zizaniorum, pp. 288, 498). In 1367 he was chosen chancellor, and the university having successfully resisted the claim of the Bishop of Lincoln to control its right of election, he was admitted without the episcopal confirmation. He obtained a bull of confirmation from Urban V, declaring that the election of a chancellor by the university was valid without the interference of the diocesan (Munimenta Academica, i. 229). His election displeased the friars; for he had taken part with the university in its struggle to enforce upon them obedience to its rules; and in spite of an agreement into which they had lately entered, they cited the chancellor to Rome. This, however, was an infringement of the rights of the crown, and the citation was quashed (ib. 226; Wood, Antiquities of Oxford, i. 480). Courtenay held prebends in the churches of Exeter and Wells, and on 24 March 1369?70 was made a prebendary of York. In this year also he was elected bishop of Hereford, and his defect in age having been made up by a papal bull dated 17 Aug., he was consecrated on 17 March 1370, and enthroned on 5 Sept. following. As bishop he allied himself with the party of the Prince of Wales and William of Wykeham, bishop of Winchester, who opposed the attacks made on the clergy by John of Gaunt, and he vigorously upheld the rights of the national church against the twofold oppression of the pope and of the crown, to which it was exposed. Neither at this, nor indeed at any other period of his career, does his conduct appear to warrant the assertion that he was ?influenced by party, not principle? (Hook, Lives, iv. 322). The welfare of the church of England and good government in church and state seem to have been the ends for which he laboured; and though, judged by the light of after days, some parts of his policy, such as his opposition to Lollardism, may fail to command sympathy, they certainly were not held to be contrary to the principles that became a loyal churchman or a constitutional statesman. He took a prominent part in vindicating the rights of the church in the convocation of 1373. When the king's demand for a subsidy was laid before the clergy, they declared that they were utterly undone by the exactions, not merely of the crown, but of the papacy, which were repeated nearly every year, and that they could help the king better ?if the intolerable yoke of the pope were taken from their necks,? and on this condition only they promised a tenth. Then Courtenay rose in anger, and loudly declared that neither he nor any of the clergy of his diocese would give anything until the king found a remedy for the evils from which the church suffered (Wilkins, Concilia, iii. 97; Wake, State of the Church, p. 303). The course of action seems to have been settled by agreement between him and Sudbury, bishop of London, who belonged to the Duke of Lancaster's party.

On the promotion of Sudbury to Canterbury in 1375, Courtenay was translated to the see of London on 12 Sept., and received the temporalities on 2 Dec. following. The struggle between the constitutional party and the court came to a climax on the meeting of the ?Good parliament? in the next year, and Courtenay was appointed a member of the committee of magnates associated with the commons to assist them in their deliberations (Rot. Parl. ii. 322; Stubbs, Constitutional History, ii. 428). The dispersion of the parliament was followed by the failure of its work. In the course of this year Courtenay served on a commission to settle a dispute that had arisen at Oxford between the faculty of law and the rest of the university (Wood, History and Antiquities, i. 488). About this time a bull of Gregory XI against the Florentines, with whom the pope was then at war, was brought into England. Wherever they were, the Florentines were to be pronounced excommunicate, and their effects were to be forfeited. Courtenay published this bull at Paul's Cross. He was always ready to obey the pope when the interests of the national church were not at stake. As a constitutional politician, he probably was glad to forward the downfall of the Italian merchants, from whom the king had long derived the money he wasted in extravagance, and as bishop of London he was no doubt willing to gratify the citizens, who were jealous of foreign traders. The Londoners pillaged the houses of the Florentines, and made a riot. This caused the interference of the city magistrates, and they sided with the king, who took the foreigners under his protection. The bishop was summoned before the chancellor to answer for his conduct. He was reminded that he had acted in defiance of the laws of the realm in publishing the bull, and was ordered to revoke certain words he had used at Paul's Cross. With some difficulty he obtained leave to do this by one of his officials, who declared from the pulpit that the people had misunderstood the words complained of (Chronicon Anglae, p. 109; Foedera, viii. 103, 135; Hook). At the meeting of convocation, on 8 Feb. 1377, Courtenay made a vigorous protest against the conduct of the archbishop in withholding the summons that should have been sent to the Bishop of Winchester. He pointed out the injustice with which the bishop had been treated by the government, and urged the clergy to make no grant to the crown until he had received his summons. His opposition was successful. Wykeham took his seat, and John of Gaunt, in whose interest the archbishop had acted, was foiled. The quarrel between the two parties was carried on by the prosecution of Wycliffe, who was allied with the duke in the attempt to bring humiliation on the churchmen. Courtenay virtually attacked Lancaster when he cited Wycliffe to appear before the archbishop at St. Paul's on 23 Feb. The bishops sat in the lady chapel, and many nobles were with them. The church was crowded with the Londoners. Wycliffe appeared attended by the duke and Lord Percy, the earl marshal. They could scarcely pass through the crowd, and the earl ordered his men to clear the way. His order was obeyed with some roughness, and Courtenay, indignant at his conduct, declared that had he known he would have so acted he should not have entered the church if he could have prevented it. Hearing this, the duke declared that he would exercise his authority there whether the bishop would or no. When they came to the lady chapel, the marshal with a sneer called for a seat for Wycliffe. Courtenay objected to this, saying that it was contrary to law and reason that an accused clerk should be seated when before his judges. The duke grew red with anger, for he saw that the bishop had the better in the dispute. He shouted that he would pull down the pride of all the bishops in England, and, addressing Courtenay, added: ?Thou trustest in thy parents, who can profit thee nothing; for they shall have enough to do to defend themselves.? Coutenay answered with some dignity that he trusted in God alone. Still more enraged, the duke muttered that, rather than bear such things, he would drag the bishop out of the church by the hair. The Londoners heard the threat, and cried out angrily that they would not have their bishop insulted, and that they would sooner lose their lives than that he should be dishonoured in his own church, or dragged from it by violence. The court broke up in confusion. Later in the day the citizens rose against the duke, and proposed to slay him and burn his residence of the Savoy; but Courtenay interfered, reminding them that it was Lent, and no season for such doings. At his bidding the riot ceased, though not before many insults had been heaped upon Lancaster (Chron. Angliæ, p. 119, from which Foxe, Acts and Monuments, ii. 801, and the writer of the early translation in Arcaeologia, xxii. 257, took their accounts; Walsingham, i. 325).

Although Courtenay was appointed a member of the council of government formed on the accession of Richard II, he appears for a while to have absented himself from it, on account of a fresh offence committed by the duke. Robert Hale, a squire with whom Lancaster had a quarrel, escaped from the Tower, where he was confined, and took refuge in Westminster Abbey. In defiance of the privilege of sanctuary, an attempt was made to drag him from the church, and when he resisted, both he and a servant of the abbey were slain. The archbishop excommunicated the offenders, and Courtenay published the sentence, with full solemnity, at St. Paul's every Sunday, Wednesday, and Friday. The duke, to whom the outrage was generally attributed, persuaded the council to order him to desist. To this order, however, Courtenay paid no attention, and Lancaster declared that he was ready, if he received permission, to go to London and drag the bishop to the council, in spite of the ?ribalds? of the city. Meanwhile the archbishop and Courtenay received bulls from Gregory XI urging them to take measures against Wycliffe, and accordingly they cited him to appear before them at St. Paul's on 18 Dec., though a later date was afterwards named, and Lambeth was appointed for the place of hearing. Wycliffe, however, at this date had considerable influence at court (Fasciculi Zizaniorum, p. 258), and a strong party among the Londoners, headed by John of Northampton, was favourable to him. The Princess of Wales sent a peremptory message forbidding the prelates to proceed against him, and the prosecution came to nought. In the course of this year (1378) Courtenay, it is said, was offered the cardinalate. A large body of cardinals withdrew their obedience from Urban VI at a meeting held at Anagni on 9 Aug. The pope hastily appointed twenty-six others, and wished to strengthen his party by gaining the most powerful of the English churchmen. If the story of the offer is true, and there seems no reason to doubt it, Courtenay was too sincerely devoted to the national interest to be dazzled by it (Walsingham, i. 382; Godwin, De Præsulibus, 794 n.) On the suppression of the peasants' insurrection, in 1381, he obtained a respite of two days for John Ball (d. 1381) [q. v.], who was sentenced to death on 13 July; for he was anxious about the state of the rebel's soul (Walsingham, ii. 32).

On 30 July Courtenay was elected to the see of Canterbury, vacant by the murder of Simon Sudbury. The royal confirmation was given on 5 Aug., the translation was made by a papal bull dated 9 Sept., and the temporalities were granted on 23 Oct. The archiepiscopal cross was presented by the prior and convent of Christ Church on 12 Jan. following; on the 14th Courtenay, though he had not yet received the pall, married Anne of Bohemia [q. v.] to the king, and on the 22nd crowned the new queen. He received the pall on 6 May. The great seal was committed to him on 10 Aug., and accordingly he opened parliament on 9 Nov., delivering the sermon in English (Rot. Parl. iii. 98). In this parliament the charters granted to the villeins were annulled. Courtenay resigned the chancellorship on the 18th, and it has been suggested that his retirement, which was completed by the surrender of the seal on the 30th, may have been connected with a desire to see some amelioration effected in the condition of the villeins (Stubbs). Early in 1382 Courtenay received a formal complaint from parliament against Wycliffe, dwelling, as it seems, not merely on his heretical opinions, but on the disturbance of the peace of the realm occasioned by his preachers, demanding that the archbishop and his suffragans should take decisive measures against him, and promising them the support of the crown. Accordingly, on the close of the parliament, Courtenay nominated a committee of bishops, doctors, friars, and others to pronounce on the opinions of the reformers. This council, as it was called, held its first session for business on 21 May, in the monastery of the Black Friars, at London, in the presence of the archbishop. Its proceedings were disturbed by the shock of an earthquake; and from this circumstance, to which each party gave a different meaning, it was called the ?Synod of the Earthquake.? Wycliffe's opinions were condemned, and on the following Whitsuntide a solemn ?procession? or litany was performed in London, at which Courtenay appointed Dr. John Kynyngham to preach against them. The archbishop further attacked the whole Lollard party at Oxford. While proceeding against a prominent member of it named John Aston [q. v.] at the Black Friars, on 20 June, he was interrupted by the Londoners, who broke into the room where he and his council were sitting. At Oxford his commissioner, Dr. Peter Stokys, was so terrified that he believed his life to be in danger. Courtenay recalled him, and compelled Dr. Rygge, the chancellor, who favoured the Lollards, to beg pardon on his knees. On Rygge's return to Oxford he again acted with the Wycliffites. The archbishop now appealed to the council, and after a short struggle brought the whole party to submission. On 18 Nov. he held a convocation of the clergy at St. Frideswide's, and received the recantation of the leading men of the party. It is asserted that Wycliffe appeared before him. This is highly doubtful. It is certain that if he did so he did not, as his enemies pretended, make any recantation, and that he was allowed to depart unmolested (Knyghton, col. 2649). In this year Courtenay obtained a statute commanding the sheriffs and other officers of the king, on the certification of a bishop, to arrest and imprison all preachers of heresy. This statute did not receive the assent of the commons, and on their petition it was repealed in the next parliament, as an infringement of their right of legislation. Courtenay, however, held royal letters empowering the bishops to imprison persons accused of heresy in their own prisons, and to keep them there until the council should determine what should be done with them. In 1388 the king, at the demand of parliament, issued letters calling on the archbishops and bishops to seize heretical books, and to imprison teachers of heresy. Accordingly the next year Courtenay made an attack on the Leicestershire Lollards, in virtue of the letters of 1382. He laid the town of Leicester under an interdict until the offenders were discovered, and having found them received their recantations on 17 Nov., imposing slight penances on them. In 1392, while the king was sitting in council at Stamford, the archbishop held a council of bishops and clergy at the house of the Carmelites in that town, and received the abjuration of a heretic. The failure of the attempt at legislation in 1382 had, however, left the churchmen no other means of enforcing submission than that which belonged to their old spiritual jurisdiction (Stubbs, Constitutional History, ii. 488, iii. 356).

In 1382 Courtenay began a visitation of his province, and after he had visited Rochester, Chichester, Bath and Wells, and Worcester, he proceeded to hold a visitation of Exeter. Here he met with resistance; for after he had, according to custom, ordered the ordinary jurisdiction of the bishops to be suspended, he delayed his visitation so long that the period during which such suspension could lawfully be continued had elapsed, both in this and in other dioceses. The bishop, Thomas Brentingham, therefore warned the clergy and people of his diocese to pay no heed to the archbishop's visitation, and finally appealed to Rome on the matter. Nevertheless Courtenay proceeded with his visitation, and excommunicated all who disobeyed him, the bishop himself among them. The bishop's men caught one of his officials near Topsham as he was carrying a citation directed to their master, ordering him to appear before the metropolitan, and this they forced the man to eat, wax seal and all. The king was so enraged at this, that the bishop was glad to make his peace with the archbishop and to drop his suit at Rome. The Bishop of Salisbury tried to secure himself by pleading that the right of visitation had lapsed with the death of Pope Urban VI, who had granted bulls empowering the archbishop to hold it, and by procuring an exemption for himself and his diocese from Boniface IX. Courtenay, however, was a better canonist than his suffragan. He knew that though he had obtained these bulls as a cautionary measure, his right did not depend on the papal permission, and he declared that he would make a visitation of the diocese in spite of the exemption. Accordingly, he dealt so sharply with the bishop that he soon brought him to submission. In 1389 he gave notice of his intention to visit the Benedictines of Oxford, who resided in Gloucester College. This announcement created great excitement, both in the university and among the order throughout England. An elaborate scheme was devised by the abbot of Westminster for defeating his claim, and the abbot of St. Albans sent a monk with an urgent letter, begging him not to prosecute it. The archbishop asked the messenger to dinner in a kindly fashion, and afterwards tried to prove to him that the house was really a college. He went to Oxford, and met the monks in the church of St. Frideswide's. Although they refused to admit his claim, they treated him with respect. Courtenay, though quick-tempered and jealous of any attempt to slight his authority, was at the same time generous and good-natured, and when the monks appealed to his kindness, he freely abandoned his design (Walsingham, ii. 190?2; Vita Ricardi, ii. 115; Wood, History and Antiquities, i. 522. For another illustration of Courtenay's character see the Chron. of a Monk of Evesham, p. 58). He gave considerable offence by his attempt to levy procurations at the uniform rate of 4d. in 20s. throughout the province, to defray the expenses of his visitation. This demand was resisted, especially in the diocese of Lincoln, and the question remained unsettled at his death.
In the part taken by Courtenay in the limitations placed on the exercise of papal authority in England during the reign of Richard II there is no proof of the assertion that his ?principles and character had changed? from what they were in his earlier years (for the contrary view see Hook, iv. 383). When the statute of provisors was confirmed and enlarged (13 Ric. II, st. 2, c. 2) in 1390, he joined with the Archbishop of York in entering ?a formal protest against it, as tending to the restriction of apostolic power and the subversion of ecclesiastical liberty.? Three years later, when the conduct of the pope called forth the statute of præmunire (16 Ric. II, c. 5), the sharpest check placed on the interference of Rome until the time of Henry VIII, Courtenay had a hand in carrying the measure, and drew up a protest, not against the allegation contained in the preamble, but guarding the lawful and canonical exercise of papal authority, by words which are embodied in the statute itself (Stubbs, Constitutional History, ii. 598, iii. 330). In both these cases his conduct was consistent with the most jealous regard for national rights, and any apparent inconsistency is to be explained by his sense of what was demanded of him by his office. And though in 1389 he took some measures to collect a subsidy in obedience to the pope's orders, his action in the matter in no way proves his approval of the tax?it was simply what he was bound to do, unless he wished to embroil himself in a personal quarrel with the pope. The king ordered that the subsidy should not be levied, and the archbishop obeyed the command, which he may possibly have instigated, and which he probably approved. He regarded the king's extravagance and bad government with sorrow, and while he successfully resisted the attempt of the commons in 1385 to seize on the temporalities of the clergy, he faithfully adhered to the party opposed to the luxury of the court, and so upheld the cause with which the commons were led to identify themselves (ib. ii. 468, 470). In this year he was instigated by the lords of his party to reprove the king for his evil conduct, and he fearlessly told him that unless he ruled differently he would soon bring ruin on himself and on the kingdom. Richard fell into a rage, and would have struck the archbishop had he not been restrained by his uncle, Thomas of Woodstock. He abused him violently, and declared that he would take away the temporalities of his see. Courtenay was forced to take refuge in Devonshire. According to one account, the king pursued him on the Thames, and he was forced to flee in the habit of a monk (Walsingham; {sc|Mon. Evesham}}; Adam of Usk). He was one of the eleven commissioners appointed by parliament towards the end of the next year to regulate the household and the general administration of the kingdom. Richard took active steps to overthrow the authority of these commissioners, and war became imminent. The archbishop acted as mediator between the two parties. He persuaded the king not to resist the lords, and on 17 Nov. 1387 brought them into Richard's presence in Westminster Hall, and prevailed on him to give them audience (Chron. Angliæ p. 387). Courtenay died at Maidstone, Kent, on 31 July 1396. He left directions that he should be buried there, and a flat stone, part of an altar-tomb, in Maidstone church is said to have been placed there in memory of him. It was probably intended that he should lie there; but his body was taken to Canterbury, and buried, in the presence of the king and of a great number of bishops, earls, and barons, at the feet of the Black Prince, near the shrine of St. Thomas (Thorn, col. 2197; Hook). Courtenay founded the college of St. Mary and All Saints in the parish church of the archiepiscopal manor of Maidstone, leaving the residue of his property for the erection of the college, and joining with it the hospital established by Archbishop Boniface of Savoy [q. v.] He repaired the church at Meopham, Kent, and founded five scholarships in Canterbury College, Oxford.

[Munimenta Academica, ed. Anstey, i. 229 (Rolls Ser.); Fasciculi Zizaniorum, ed. Shirley, (Rolls Ser.); Wood's Antiquities of Oxford (Gutch), i. 480, 488; Wake's State of the Church, 303; Wilkins's Concilia, p. 111; Chronicon Angliæ, ed. E. M. Thompson (Rolls Ser.); T. Walsingham, Historia Anglicana (Rolls Ser.); Knyghton ap. Decem Scriptt. (Twysden); Chron. Mon. de Evesham, ed. Hearne; Vita Ricardi II, ed. Hearne; Chron. Adæ de Usk, ed. E. M. Thompson (Royal Soc. of Literature); Rolls of Parliament, ii. 322, iii. 98, 141; Rymer's F?dera, viii. 103, 135; Foxe's Acts and Monuments, ii. 801 (ed. 1843); Archæologia, xxii. 257; Le Neve's Fasti (Hardy), ii. 292; Godwin, De Præsulibus, 120, 186, 489, 497; Dugdale's Monasticon, vi. 1394; Chron. W. Thorn ap. Decem Scriptt.; Stubbs's Constitutional History, ii. 428?38, 460?488, 598, iii. 330, 356; Hook's Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, iv. 315?98.]
 
de Courtenay, William Archbishop of Canterbury (I11042)
 
250 Critton J. Smith, farmer, Draneville, Marion Co., Ga, son of Tennyson and Frankie (Thomas) Smith, was born in Marion co. in 1852. Paternal gparents, George L & Gillie (Peddie) Smith, were born in North Carolina & migrated thence to Alabama, whence a few years later he removed to Marion co. He owned a great deal of land and many slaves, was a member and a preacher of the Christian church. Mr. Smith's father was born in Alabama, but early in life removed to Marion county and settled where he now lives. At the time he made his settlement the woods were full of Indians. He was a soldier in the Indian war of 1836. He has made a life pursuit of farming, at which he has been satisfactorily successful and enjoyed prosperity. He has been a justice of the peace many years. Mr. Smith's maternal grandparents, George & Polly Thomas, were natives of North Carolina where they lived all their lives. He was a farmer and very wealthy. Mr. Smith was reared on a farm, and received only limited education. His principal occupation has been farmer, but he was in a general merchandise business about eight years. He has been successful in his undertakings, is recognized as a progressive, prosperous farmer, and as one of Marion county's substantial citizens. He now owns about 1800 acres of good farm land, including a well-improved farm. Mr. Smith was married in 1877 to Miss Willie A. Bell, born in Stewart county in 1859, a daughter of Charles and Susan (Singer) Bell. Mr. Bell was a native Georgian and a teacher by profession. He was a soldier in the Indian War of 1836, and died in Marion county. The offspring of this union were 8 children: Eurela, Lena, Alberta, Arthur, Rubbie, Mary, Lillie & Willie A. Mr. and Mrs. Smith are prominent and exemplary members of the Methodist Church. Smith, Crittenton J (I3353)
 

      «Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 48» Next»