Part 13

It appears that Buckingham, during his stay in Spain, behaved with great insolence to the Earl of Bristol, the English ambassador at that court. In a letter, written by the Earl to king James, we have the following particulars:—“Let your Majesty call some certain men unto you, and sift out of them the opinion of the more moderate parliament-men; and enquire of those that come out of Spain, who did give the first cause of falling out? Whether the Duke of Buckingham did not many things against the authority and reverence due to the Prince? Whether he was not wont to be sitting, whilst the Prince stood, and was in presence; and also to have his feet resting upon another seat, after an indecent manner? Whether, when the Prince was uncovered whilst the Queen and Infanta looked out at the window, he uncovered his head or not? Whether, sitting; at table with the prince, he did not behave himself unreverently? Whether he were not wont to come into the prince’s chamber, with his clothes half on, so that the doors could not be opened to them that came to visit the prince from the king of Spain, the door-keepers refusing to go in for modesty sake? Whether he did not call the prince by ridiculous names? Whether he did not dishonour and profane the king’s palace with base and contemptible women? Whether he did not divers obscene things, and used not immodest gesticulations, and wanton tricks with players in the presence of the prince? Whether he did not violate his faith to the Duke d’Olivarez, the Spanish prime minister? Whether he did not presently communicate his discontents, offences, and complaints, to the ambassadors of other princes? Whether in doing of his business, he did not use frequent threatenings unto the catholic king’s ministers, and to apostolical nuncios? Whether he did not affect to sit at plays presented in the king’s palace, after the manner and example of the king and prince, being not contented with the honour that is ordinarily given to the high steward or major-domo of the king’s house?”

There is sufficient reason for believing, that most of these queries may be answered in the affirmative.

KING ARTHUR.

In a century (A.D. 400 to A.D. 500) of perpetual, or at least implacable war, much courage, and some skill, must have been exerted for the defence of Britain, on the departure of the Roman legions, against the Saxon invaders. Yet if the memory of its champions is almost buried in oblivion, we need not repine; since every age, however destitute of science or virtue, sufficiently abounds with acts of blood and military renown. The tomb of Vortimer, the son of Vortigern, was erected on the margin of the sea-shore, as a landmark formidable to the Saxons, whom he had thrice vanquished in the fields of Kent. Ambrosius Aurelian was descended from a noble family of Romans, his modesty was equal to his valour, and his valour, till the last fatal action, was crowned with splendid success. But every British name is effaced by the illustrious name of ARTHUR, the hereditary prince of the Silures, who inhabited South Wales, and the elective king or general of the nation. According to the most rational accounts, he defeated, in twelve successive battles, the Angles of the North, and the Saxons of the West; but the declining age of the hero was embittered by popular ingratitude and domestic misfortunes. The events of his life are less interesting, than the singular revolutions of his fame. During a period of five hundred years the tradition of his exploits was preserved, and rudely embellished, by the obscure bards of Wales and Armorica, who were odious to the Saxons, and unknown to the rest of mankind. The pride and curiosity of the Norman conquerors, prompted them to enquire into the ancient history of Britain; they listened with fond credulity to the tale of Arthur, and eagerly applauded the merit of a prince, who had triumphed over the Saxons, their common enemies. His romance, transcribed in the latin of Geoffrey of Monmouth, and afterwards translated into the fashionable idiom of the times, was enriched with the various, though incoherent ornaments, which were familiar to the experience, the learning, or the fancy of the twelfth century. The progress of a Phrygian colony from the Tyber to the Thames, was easily engrafted on the fable of the Æneid; and the royal ancestors of Arthur derived their origin from Troy, and claimed their alliance with the Cæsars, His trophies were decorated with captive provinces and imperial titles; and his Danish victories avenged the recent injuries of his country. The gallantry and superstition of the British hero, his feasts and tournaments, and the memorable institution of his knights of the _round table_, were faithfully copied from the reigning manners of chivalry, and the fabulous exploits of Uther’s son, appear less incredible than the adventures which were achieved by the enterprising valour of the Normans. Pilgrimage and the holy wars, introduced into Europe the specious miracles of Arabian magic. Fairies and giants, flying dragons, and enchanted palaces, were blended with the more simple fictions of the west; and the fate of Britain depended on the art, or the predictions of Merlin. Every nation embraced and adorned the popular romance of Arthur and the knights of the round table: their names were celebrated in Greece and Italy; and the voluminous tales of Sir Lancelot and Sir Tristram were devoutly studied by the princes and nobles, who disregarded the genuine heroes and historians of antiquity. At length the light of science and reason was rekindled; the talisman was broken; the visionary fabric melted into air, and by a natural, though unjust reverse of the public opinion, the severity of the present age is inclined to question even the _existence_ of Arthur.

ALCHEMY.

About the year 296, the Emperor Diocletian published a very remarkable edict which instead of being condemned as the effect of jealous tyranny, deserves to be applauded as an act of prudence and humanity. He caused a diligent enquiry to be made for all the ancient books which treated of the art of making gold and silver, and without pity committed them to the flames; apprehensive, it is remarked, lest the opulence of the Egyptians should inspire them with confidence to rebel against the empire. But if Diocletian had been convinced of the reality of that valuable art, far from extinguishing the memoirs, he would have converted the operation of it to the benefit of the public revenue. It is much more likely, that his good sense discovered to him the folly of such magnificent pretensions, and that he was desirous of preserving the reason and fortunes of his subjects from the mischievous pursuit. It may be remarked that these ancient books, so liberally ascribed to Pythagoras, to Solomon, or to Hermes, were the pious frauds of more recent adepts. The Greeks were inattentive either to the use or to the abuse of chemistry. In that immense register, where Pliny has deposited the discoveries, the arts, and the errors of mankind, there is not the least mention of the transmutation of metals, and the persecution of Diocletian is the first authentic event in the history of Alchemy. The conquest of Egypt by the Arabs diffused that vain science over the globe. Congenial to the avarice of the human heart, it was studied in China as in Europe, with equal eagerness, and with equal success. The darkness of the middle ages ensured a favourable reception to every tale of wonder, and the revival of learning gave new vigour to hope, and suggested more specious arts of deception. Philosophy, with the aid of experience, has at length banished the study of alchemy; and the present age, however desirous of riches, is content to seek them by the humbler means of commerce and industry.

ACCOUNT OF SEVERAL NOBLE FAMILIES IN ENGLAND WHO OWE THEIR ELEVATION TO THE PEERAGE TO THEIR ANCESTORS HAVING BEEN ENGAGED IN TRADE.

It is a striking and peculiar feature in the constitution of England, that men who render themselves eminent in the liberal sciences, in the arts, or in commerce, frequently find their pursuits conduct them to a high degree of rank and estimation in the state; and the sovereign has, in numerous instances, conferred the honour of the Peerage on certain individuals, who have contributed by their abilities to enlarge and promote the manufactures and commerce of the nation. Among the families whose ancestors have deserved well of their country, and who owe their elevation to the Peerage to their forefathers having been engaged in trade, the following are honourable instances.

The EARLS OF COVENTRY are descended from John Coventry, son of William Coventry, of the city of that name. The former was an opulent mercer, and resided in London, of which city he was Lord Mayor in 1425, and one of the executors of the celebrated Whittington. He was a resolute and determined magistrate, and was highly commended for his spirited interference in the dreadful quarrel between Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, and the insolent Cardinal Beaufort, which he successfully quelled.

The family of RICH, Earls of Warwick and Holland, arose from Richard Rich, an opulent mercer, sheriff of London in the year 1441. His descendant, Richard, was distinguished by his knowledge of the law; became Solicitor General in the reign of king Henry the eighth, and treacherously effected the ruin of Sir Thomas More; was created a baron of the realm in the reign of Edward the sixth, and became Lord Chancellor by the favour of the same monarch.

The HOLLES’S, Earls of Clare, and afterwards Dukes of Newcastle, sprung from Sir William Holles, Lord Mayor of London in 1540, son of William Holles, citizen and baker. His great-grandson was the first who was called to the House of Peers, in the reign of James the first, by the title of Lord Haughton, and soon after was advanced to the dignity of Earl of Clare. The fourth peer of that title was created by king William, Duke of Newcastle; but the title became extinct in his name in 1711.

Sir THOMAS LEIGH, Lord Mayor of London, in 1558, furnished the Peerage with the addition of two. He was the son of Roger Leigh, of Wellington, in Shropshire. Sir Thomas’s grandson, Francis, was created by Charles the first, Lord Dunsmore, and afterwards Earl of Chichester; and Sir Thomas’s second son, Sir Thomas Leigh, of Stoneleigh, had the honour of being called to the House of Peers by the title of Lord Leigh, of Stoneleigh.

The PLEYDELL-BOUVERIES, Earls of Radnor, descend from Edward De Bouverie, an opulent Turkey merchant, who died in 1694.

DUCIE, Lord Ducie, is descended from Sir Robert Ducie, who belonged to the company of merchant tailors, and was sheriff of London in 1621, and Lord Mayor in 1631. He was immensely rich, and was made banker to king Charles the first, and on the breaking out of the rebellion, lost £80,000, owing to him by his Majesty. Nevertheless he is said to have left at the time of his death, property in land, money, &c. to his four sons, to the amount of £400,000.

PAUL BAYNING, sheriff of London in 1593, had a son of the same name, who was first created a baronet, and in the third of Charles the first, a baron of the realm, by the title of Baron Bayning, and soon after a viscount, by the title of Viscount Bayning of Sudbury. He was buried in the paternal tomb, in the church of St. Olave’s. His house was in Mark-lane. After the fire of London, the business of the custom house was transacted in that which went under the name of Lord Bayning’s.

The CRANFIELDS, Earls of Middlesex, rose from Lionel Cranfield, a citizen of London, bred up in the custom house. He became, in 1620, Lord Treasurer of England. The Duke of Dorset is descended from Frances, sister and heir of the third Earl of Middlesex, married to Richard, Earl of Dorset.

The noble family of INGRAM, Viscount Irwin, was raised in the reign of queen Elizabeth, by Hugh Irwin, citizen, merchant, and tallow-chandler, who died in 1612. He left a large fortune between two sons; of whom Sir Arthur, the younger, settled in Yorkshire, and purchased a considerable estate, the foundation of the good fortune afterwards enjoyed by the family. The present Marchioness of Hertford is the representative of the Ingrams, being the daughter and co-heir of the last Viscount Irwin.

Sir STEPHEN BROWN, son of John Brown, of Newcastle, Lord Mayor of London, in 1438, and again in 1448, was a grocer, and added another peer, in the person of Sir Anthony Brown, created Viscount Montagu, by Philip and Mary, in 1554.

The LEGGES rose to be Earls of Dartmouth.—The first who was raised to the peerage was that loyal and gallant naval officer, George Legge, created Baron of Dartmouth in 1682. He was descended from an ancestor who filled the Pretorian Chair of London in the years 1347 and 1354, having by his industry in the trade of a skinner, attained great wealth.

Sir GEOFFREY BULLEN, Lord Mayor in 1458, was grandfather of Thomas, Earl of Wiltshire, father of Anna Bullen, and grandfather of queen Elizabeth, the highest genealogical honour the city of London ever possessed.

Sir BAPTIST HICKS was a great mercer at the accession of James the first, and made a large fortune, by supplying the court with silks. He was first knighted, and afterwards created Viscount Campden. It is said he left his two daughters one hundred thousand pounds each. He built a large house in St. John’s street, for the justices of Middlesex to hold their sessions in, which (till its demolition a few years ago, upon the erection of a new sessions house on Clerkenwell Green,) retained the name of Hicks’ Hall.

The CAPELS, Earls of Essex, are descended from Sir William Capel, draper, Lord Mayor in 1503. He first set up a cage in every ward of London, for the punishment of idle people. It is probable that he had his mansion on the site of the present Stock Exchange, in Capel Court, so called after him.

MICHAEL DORMER, mercer, Mayor in 1542, was the ancestor of the Lords Dormer.

EDWARD OSBORNE, was apprentice to Sir William Hewet, clothworker. About the year 1536, when his master lived in one of those tremendous houses on London bridge, a servant maid was playing with his only daughter in her arms, in a window over the water, and accidentally dropped the child. Young Osborne, who was witness to the misfortune, instantly sprung into the river, and beyond all expectations brought her safe to her terrified family. When she was marriageable, several persons of rank paid their addresses to her, and among others the Earl of Shrewsbury; but Sir William gratefully declined in favour of Osborne.—“OSBORNE _saved her_,” said he, “_and_ OSBORNE _shall enjoy her_.” In her right he possessed a most ample fortune. He became sheriff of London in 1575, and Lord Mayor in 1583, and from his loins sprung the Dukes of Leeds.

From Sir WILLIAM CRAVEN, merchant tailor, Mayor in 1611, sprung the gallant Earl Craven, who was his eldest son, and was greatly distinguished by his actions in the service of the unfortunate Elector Palatine, by his attachment to the Dowager, and his marriage with that illustrious Princess.

Lord Viscount DUDLEY AND WARD is descended from William Ward, a wealthy goldsmith in London, and jeweller to Henrietta Maria, queen of Charles the first. His son Humble Ward, married Frances, grand-daughter of Edward Sutton, Lord Dudley; who, on the death of her grand-father, became Baroness Dudley; and he himself was created in 1643, Lord Ward of Birmingham.

LAST MOMENTS OF QUEEN CAROLINE.

A little before the Queen died she asked the physician who was in attendance, “How long can this last?” And on his answering “Your majesty will soon be eased of your pains;” she replied “The sooner the better!” The queen then repeated a prayer of her own composing, in which there was such a flow of natural eloquence, as demonstrated the vigour of a great and good mind. When her speech began to falter, and she seemed expiring, she desired to be raised up in her bed, and fearing that nature would not hold out long enough without artificial support she called to have water sprinkled upon her, and a little after desired it might be repeated. She then with the greatest composure and presence of mind, requested her weeping relations to kneel down and pray for her. Whilst they were reading some prayers, she exclaimed “Pray aloud, that I may hear,” and after the Lord’s prayer was concluded, in which she joined as well as she was able, said “So,” and waving her hand, lay down and expired.

THE BRITONS, ACCORDING TO THE GREEK AND LATIN CLASSICS.

Strabo observes in his Geography, that “the woods are their towns; for having fenced round a wide circular space with trees hewn down, they there place their huts, and fix stalls for their cattle; but not of long duration. They have dwellings of a round form, constructed of poles and wattled work, with very high pointed coverings of beams united at a point.”

Diodorus Siculus asserts, that “they inhabit very wretched dwellings, composed for the most part of reeds (or straw) and wood.”

Cæsar thus describes, not Londinium, but the capital of Cassivellaunus: “The Britons call a place, a town, when they have fortified thick impassable woods, by means of a _vallum_ and fosse, or a high bank and a ditch; in which sort of a place they are accustomed to assemble together, to avoid the invasion of enemies.”

Tacitus describing the strong holds, to which Caractacus resorted, observes: “They then fortified themselves on steep mountains; and, where-ever there was any possibility of access in any part, he constructed a great bank of stones, like a _vallum_.”

The curious reader is referred to the first volume of King’s Munimenta Antiqua, for prints and plans, both of the Welsh houses and fortresses, _of which some are yet entire_ and others in ruins, in every part of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. No book, either in our tongue, or in any of the European languages, is so complete and satisfactory on this interesting and domestic subject: the prints are excellent.

Diodorus Siculus also notices that the Britons laid up their corn in subterranean repositories, whence they used to take a portion every day; and having bruised and dried the grain, made a kind of food from it of immediate use. Martin in his description of the Western Isles, (p. 204.) describes this sort of diet, and the quick mode of preparing it, as yet continued. King, in the 48th and following pages of his first volume, _has detected, and delineated these rude monuments of our ancestors_.

It is highly curious to trace the appearance of the persons of our forefathers and their manners. Cæsar remarks that they painted themselves with vitrum, or woad; and Herodian, that some of them on the sea-coast punctured or _tattooed_[48] their bodies with figures resembling various kinds of animals; in consequence of which they also went without garments, that they might not cover, nor conceal, these marks. The other natives were, in _general_, clad with skins. They had long lank hair, but were shorn in every part of the body, except the head and upper lip.

A wretched substitute for salt was obtained merely by pouring sea-water on the embers of burning wood.

The Irish drank the blood of animals and even of their enemies.

King, in the latter half of the first volume, (_Munim. Ant._) gives prints of the altars, or _Cromlechs_, yet entire, in many situations in Ireland, the Highlands, and England, on which human victims were cruelly murdered.

The Druids were richly clad; some of them even wore golden chains, or collars, about their necks and arms; and had their garments dyed with various colours, and adorned with gold. Chains also both of iron and gold, were worn by some of the chieftains and nobler ranks. These facts will appear so incredible, that the reader must be informed, that in most of the tumuli, or old British graves, described by King, these ornaments are found in our days. It is a remarkable omission in Mr. King, that he did not quote the three verses from the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah so descriptive of the Babylonian regal tumuli, similar to the British: “All the kings of the nations lie down in glory, each in his own sepulchre: To meet thee, O Sennacherib, Hades rouseth his mighty dead: he maketh them rise up from their thrones. All of them shall accost thee, and shall say unto thee, Art thou become weak as we? Art thou made like unto us? Is then thy pride brought down to the grave? Is the vermin become thy couch, and the earth-worm thy covering?”

Strabo, at the end of his third book, says, that “the Cassiterides, or Islands of Tin, were inhabited by men dressed in black garments, in tunics descending to the feet, a girdle around their breast; walking erect with a staff in their hand; and permitting the beard to grow like that of a goat. They subsist on their cattle, in general spending an erratic pastoral life.”

Some of the common order of Britons wore, instead of the skins of beasts, very thick coarse wrappers made of wool; a sort of blanket or rug, fastened about the neck with a piece of sharp pointed stick. They used also a coarse, slit, short vest, with sleeves; it barely reached down to the knees.

As armour, the Britons had a long two-handed sword, hanging by a chain on the right hand side; a great long wooden shield as tall as a man; long spears; and a sort of missile wooden instrument, like a javelin, longer than an arrow, which they darted merely by the hand: modern writers call these two last mentioned, _Celts_, fixed on the end of staves and sticks. Some of them used slings for stones, others had breast plates, made of plates of iron, with hooks, or with wreathed chains: some had helmets of different forms. Many went to battle nearly naked, and some wound chains of iron around their necks and loins.

They generally lay and reposed themselves on the bare ground, yet most of them ate their food sitting on seats. A very beautiful print is given by Mr. King of their various dresses. The plaid seems to be derived from them. The coins of the old British, which are engraven in Speed, in Borlase’s Cornwall, in Gough’s edition of Camden’s Britannia, and in Plot’s History of Oxfordshire, will explain these descriptions of the classics. Even Julius Cæsar had noticed that the Britons used either brass money, or iron circular coins reduced to a standard weight. In the scale of civilization, therefore, the ancient Britons were as advanced in the era of Cæsar, as the Romans themselves at the expulsion of their kings; as the Grecians in the age of Homer; as the Mexicans at the Spanish conquest; and as the modern Tartars.[49]

Footnote 48:

The practice of tattooing is of great antiquity, and has been common to numerous nations in Turkey, Asia, the Southern parts of Europe, and perhaps to a great portion of the inhabitants of the earth. It is still retained among some of the Moorish tribes, who are, probably, descendants of those who, formerly, were subjected to the Christians of Africa, and who to avoid paying taxes, like the Moors, thus imprinted crosses upon their skins, that they might pass for Christians. This custom, which originally might serve to distinguish tribes by their religion, or from each other, became afterwards a mode of decoration that was habitually retained, when all remembrance of its origin was effaced.

It may be inferred that the Canaanites and the other nations of the East, were in the habit of tattooing their skins, because Moses, (Levit. xix, 28.) expressly enjoins the Israelites not to imprint any marks upon their bodies, in imitation of the heathens.