Part 4
"Among the Welsh nobility who formed a part of her Majesty's household, were Sir Richard Bulkeley, Bart., and Mrs. Blanche Parry, both of whom seem to have been brought up in the court from their infancy, and, consequently, in great esteem with her Majesty; so much so, that the Earl of Leicester, the Queen's favourite, began to be jealous of Sir Richard: and with a view of having him removed from court, he made an attempt to have him accused, upon false evidence, of treason. With this wicked design, the Earl of Leicester informed her Majesty that the council had been examining Sir Richard Bulkeley, and that they found him a dangerous person; that he dwelt in a suspicious corner of the world, and should be committed to the Tower. 'What! Sir Richard Bulkeley!' said the Queen; 'he never intended us any harm. We have brought him up from a boy, and have had special trial of his fidelity; ye shall not commit him.' 'We have the care of your Majesty's person,' said the Earl, 'and see more and hear more of the man than you do: he is of an aspiring mind, and lives in a remote place.' 'Before God!' replied the Queen; 'we will be sworn upon the Holy Evangelists, he never intended any harm.' And then her Majesty ran to the Bible, and kissing it, said: 'You shall not commit him; we have brought him up from a boy.' Sir Richard, however, was too high-minded to suffer such an imputation to be laid to his character. He insisted on an inquiry; during which it appeared, that Lord Dudley, Earl of Leicester, had been appointed a ranger of the Royal Forest of Snowdon, which, in the Queen's time, included some portion of Merioneth and Anglesey. This nobleman's insolence to the inhabitants of the forest was more than could be brooked. He tried to bring many freeholders' estates within the boundary; juries were empannelled, but the commissioners rejected their returns as unfavourable to the Earl. Those honest jurors, however, persisted, and found a verdict for the country. But in the year 1538, he succeeded by a packed jury, who appeared in his livery, blue, with ragged staves on the sleeves; men who, after this nefarious act, were stigmatised with the title of 'The Black Jury who sold their country.' Sir Richard Bulkeley, who, with Sir William Herbert and others, superseded a prior commission, resisted this oppression with great firmness, and laid those odious grievances before the Queen, whose regard for her loyal subjects in Wales was evinced by the recalling of the first commission, by proclamation at Westminster, in 1579. The Earl being worsted, sought the life of Sir Richard by having him charged as above. But this generous and patriotic nobleman, by his excellent and manly conduct, overthrew every malevolent design of his enemy; and came out of this fiery trial as clear as the pellucid crystal of Snowdon."
R. E. G. C.
* * * * *
INMAN FAMILY.
(Vol. ix., p. 198.)
A SUBSCRIBER having challenged me by name to assist him in resolving his "historic doubts," I hasten to afford him what information I possess, conscious at the same time that I can add little or nothing that will materially aid him in his investigation.
First, then, as to Owen Gam. This name savours strongly of the leek, both Christian and surname being unequivocally British. _Gam_, in Welsh, signifies the "one-eyed;" we may conclude, therefore, that this gentleman, or one of his progenitors, had lost an eye in one of the frays common in bygone days, and so acquired the appellation of _Gam_. A SUBSCRIBER has omitted to give dates with his Queries, and thus leaves us in the dark as to the precise period he refers to; still, it may interest him to know that David Gam, a landed proprietor of some importance in Herefordshire, temp. Henry IV. and V., who had married the sister of Owen Glyndwr, was discovered in an attempt to assassinate his brother-in-law, the royal chieftain; and was, in consequence, arrested {354} and confined ten years in Owen's prison at Llansaintffraid. He was afterwards released; and distinguished himself, together with some near relatives, as Pennant relates, at the battle of Agincourt, where he fell, pierced with wounds, while assisting in the rescue of his royal master King Henry. Possibly, Owen Gam may have been a descendant of this half-hero, half-assassin.
Llewellyn Clifford, again, is a name strongly suggestive of its owner's connexion with Cambria. If A SUBSCRIBER has exhausted the resources of the Clifford pedigrees, it were, I suppose, useless to refer him to the ancestry of the defunct Earls of Cumberland; and especially to that part of it represented by Sir Roger de Clifford, of Clifford, co. Hereford, a famous soldier in the days of Henry III. and Edward I. He accompanied the latter monarch in his inroads into Wales, and fell in battle there, not far from Bangor, circa 1282-3, leaving several children; one of the younger of whom I conjecture to have been the father of the before-named Llewellyn Clifford. After having subjugated the country, we can easily fancy the conquerors perpetuating the event by naming certain of their posterity after the fallen prince Llewellyn.
As for Sir William de Roas (or Ros), A SUBSCRIBER is wrong in supposing his name to have been Ingman; for although he resided at Ingmanthorpe, co. York, his surname, in common with that of a long line of ancestry and descendants, was De Ros only. He was the grandson of Robert de Ros, the founder of the two castles, Werke and Hamlake, and one of the leaders of the baronial forces in their armed opposition to the tyrant King John.
Before closing this communication, I would suggest to A SUBSCRIBER, and to all others propounding genealogical Queries, the absolute necessity of affixing _dates_ to their inquiries in every possible instance; as nothing is easier than to go astray, sometimes for half-a-dozen generations, in fixing the identity of a solitary individual.
T. HUGHES.
Chester.
* * * * *
ROBERT DUDLEY, EARL OF LEICESTER.
(Vol. ix., pp. 105. 160.)
That this infamous man _did_ die of poison, is, I believe, the general opinion. The late Dr. Cooke Taylor has the following passage upon the subject, in his _Romantic Biography of the Age of Elizabeth_, vol. i. p. 115.:
"Nearly all the cotemporary writers assert that Leicester fell a victim to poison; Naunton declares that he, by mistake, swallowed the potion he had prepared for another person; and, as there can be no doubt that the Earl was a poisoner of great eminence and success, the story is far from being improbable. The Privy Council must have believed that his death was not natural, for they minutely investigated a report that he had been poisoned by the son of Sir James Crofts, in revenge for the imprisonment of his father. Some suspicious circumstances were elicited during the examination; but the matter was suddenly dropped, probably because an inquiry into any one of the complicated intrigues of Elizabeth's court would have involved too many persons of honour and consequence."
Drummond of Hawthornden, in his _Notes of Conversations with Ben Jonson_, has the following curious note:
"The Earl of Leicester gave a bottle of liquor to his lady, which he willed her to use in any faintness; which she, after his returne from Court, not knowing it was poison, gave him, and so he died."
This is a strong confirmation of the statement given by Sir Robert Naunton.
In one of the many valuable notes appended by Dr. Bliss to the _Athenæ Oxonienses_, is the following cotemporary narrative, copied from a MS. memoranda on a copy of _Leicester's Ghost_:
"The author (of the poem) hath omitted the end of the Earle, the which may thus and truely be supplied. The Countesse Lettice fell in love with Christopher Blunt, gent., of the Earle's horse; and they had many secret meetings, and much wanton familiarity; the which being discovered by the Earle, to prevent the pursuit thereof, when Generall of the Low Countreys, hee tooke Blunt with him, and theire purposed to have him made away: and for this plot there was a ruffian of Burgundy suborned, who, watching him in one night going to his lodging at the Hage, followed him and struck at his head with a halbert or battle-axe, intending to cleave his head. But the axe glaunced, and withall pared off a great piece of Blunt's skull, which was very dangerous and longe in healinge: but he recovered, and after married the Countesse; who took this soe ill, as that she, with Blunt, deliberated and resolved to dispatch the Earle. The Earle, not patient of this soe greate wrong of his wife, purposed to carry her to Kenilworth; and to leave here there untill her death by naturall or by violent means, but rather by the last. The Countesse also having a suspicion, or some secret intelligence of this treachery against her, provided artificial meanes to prevent the Earle; which was by a cordiall, the which she had no fit opportunity to offer him till he came to Cornebury Hall, in Oxfordshire; where the Earle, after his gluttonous manner, surfeiting with excessive eating and drinking, fell soe ill that he was forced to stay there. Then the deadly cordiall was propounded unto him by the Countesse; as Mr. William Haynes, sometimes the Earle's page, and then gentleman of his bed-chamber, told me, who protested hee saw her give that fatall cup to the Earle, which was his last draught, and an end of his plott against the Countesse, and of his journey, and of himselfe; and soe--_Fraudis fraude sua prenditur artifex._"--_Athenæ Oxon._, vol. ii. col. 74, 75. note.
EDWARD F. RIMBAULT.
* * * * *
{355}
HARDMAN'S ACCOUNT OF WATERLOO.
(Vol. viii., p. 199.; Vol. ix., p. 176.)
I perfectly recollect reading, when a boy, a critique on this poem, and being much amused thereby. The critique appeared in the _Literary Gazette_ or _Athenæum_, as well as I remember. I never saw the poem, but I recollect some of the lines quoted, which went nearly as follows:--
"The following morning, at break of day, An orderly dragoon did come this way: 'Holloa! holloa! I say, give ear, Is Adjutant Hardman quartered here? Holloa! halloa! I am not wrong, Is Adjutant Hardman here at home?'"
I merely quote from memory and hope, therefore, that any deviations from the original may be pardoned.
Lieutenant (Brevet Captain) Hardman, if not a first-rate poet, is a gallant soldier, and I rejoice to see his name in the _Army List_ for March, 1854. I cannot ascertain at what period he joined the army, but he was present at the cavalry engagements of Sahagun and Benevente, on December 20th and 27th, 1808, on the retreat of Sir John Moore's army to Coruña, for which he is decorated with a Peninsula medal. For his bravery as a non-commissioned officer he was promoted, May 19, 1813, to a cornetcy in the royal wagon train; and was transferred, August 12 following, to the 23rd Light Dragoons, and was same day appointed Regimental Adjutant of that corps. On the almost total change of officers that took place in the 10th Hussars, owing to the quarrels of Colonels Quentin and Palmer, Lieutenant Hardman succeeded Captain Bromley, on December 15, 1814, as Lieutenant and Adjutant in the corps in which he had commenced his military career; a sufficient proof of his having been a zealous, active, and efficient non-commissioned officer, when serving as such in the regiment. He embarked at Ramsgate with the service squadrons of his regiment in April, 1815, and landed at Ostend, whence the 10th regiment proceeded to Brussels: it was present at Quatre Bras, although not engaged with the enemy: and at Waterloo it behaved with the greatest gallantry, and lost two officers, nineteen soldiers, and fifty-one horses killed, in addition to six officers and twenty-six men wounded. Lieutenant Hardman's position as adjutant necessarily kept him in the vicinity of his commanding officers, Col. Quentin and Major Howard; therefore he was an eye-witness of poor Howard's death. Lieutenant Hardman received the Waterloo medal. The 10th Hussars landed at Ramsgate, from Boulogne, in January, 1816, and marched to Brighton, where Lieutenant Hardman resigned the adjutantcy, February 8, 1816, and exchanged to half-pay of the regiment, June 6, same year, since which period he has not served upon full pay.
G. L. S.
* * * * *
CHURCHES IN "DOMESDAY BOOK."
(Vol. viii., p. 151.)
A. W. H. says, "In the case of many parishes it is stated [in _Domesday Book_], that there was a church there: is it considered _conclusive_ authority that there was not one, if it is not mentioned in _Domesday Book_?" This question has, I doubt not, often engaged the attention of antiquaries; and I am somewhat surprised that the Query has elicited no reply. The conclusion has often been drawn that, no church being mentioned, none existed before the survey. It would appear this conclusion has been an erroneous one. In the last volume issued by the Chetham Society (_Documents relating to the Priory of Penwortham, and other Possessions in Lancashire of the Abbey of Evesham_, edited by W. A. Hulton, Esq.) that point is ably discussed; and as Mr. Hulton's views on a subject of so much interest cannot but be valuable, I venture to extract them, as worthy of a place in "N. & Q." He says:
"Donations of churches with tithes are made directly after the survey of _Domesday_ was taken. And yet that survey is entirely silent as to their existence. Similar omissions have given rise to doubts, whether the institution of our parochial economy had been carried out to its full extent previous to the Conquest, and whether we are not indebted to the Normans for its full perfection. Such doubts are unfounded.... There is nothing in _Domesday_ to justify the doubts alluded to. A consideration of the objects of that survey will dissipate them: the purpose was principally financial. It was directed so as to obtain a correct account of the taxable property within the kingdom. And it was immaterial whether the proceeds were paid altogether to the owner, or a definite portion was diverted into other channels. Therefore those churches which were endowed only with tithes of the surrounding districts, as Eccleston and Croston, Penwortham and Leyland, in Leyland Hundred, and Rochdale and Eccles, in Salford Hundred, were unnoticed, although the two first-named churches were granted by Roger de Poictou, with their tithes and other appurtenances, to the Priory of Lancaster; and the pages of the _Coucher Book of Whalley_ prove the two latter churches to have existed at a date perhaps anterior to the Conquest. But the case was different when a church was endowed with glebe-land. Such a church appeared in the light of a landowner, and in that character is its existence notified. Thus, in modern Lancashire, south of the Ribble, the churches of Wigan and Winwick, Childwall, Walton, Warrington, Manchester, Blackburn, and Whalley are expressly named in _Domesday_, but invariably in connexion with the ownership of land. It seems clear, therefore, that the silence of _Domesday_ cannot be urged as a proof of the {356} non-existence of a church, or of the subsequent grant of those rights and privileges by which its due efficiency is maintained."--_Introd._, p. xxiii.
WM. DOBSON.
Preston.
* * * * *
MEMOIRS OF GRAMMONT.
(Vol. viii., pp. 461. 549.; Vol. ix., pp. 3. 204.)
"Ceste noble race de Grantmont."--_Brantôme._
The following are some of the principal events in the life of the Chevalier de Grammont.
He was born in the year 1621, probably at the family seat of Bidache, in Gascony.
He was sent to the college at Pau in Béarn, the nearest university to the family residence. His studies here did not much benefit him; and although intended for the church, we find him at a later period actually highly commending the Lord's Prayer, and seriously inquiring by whom it was written. On his declining a clerical life, he was sent to the French army in Piedmont in 1643. He served under his brother, the Marshal, and the Prince de Condé; and was present at the three battles of Fribourg on the 3rd, 5th, and 9th Aug. 1644; and at that of Nordlinguen on the 3rd Aug. 1645. It was at the battle of Fribourg that the Prince de Condé, having failed in his first attack on the enemy, got off horseback, and placed himself at the head of the regiment of Conti, whilst all the officers and volunteers alighted also, amongst whom is mentioned the Chevalier de Grammont; and this reassuring the soldiers, they charged the enemy, who fled into a wood under favour of the approaching night. At Nordlinguen, the Marshal de Grammont was taken prisoner, and nearly murdered by the Germans, to revenge the death of their General, the great Mercy, who was slain in the battle. The Marshal was subsequently exchanged against Gen. Gleen.
In 1647 Grammont served again under his brother and the Prince de Condé in Spain: and in 1648 he was present with them at the battle of Lens on the 20th Aug., where the Archduke Leopold and General Beck were totally defeated in Flanders.
The troubles of the Fronde now commenced; and in the first instance Grammont zealously attached himself to the prince. In Dec. 1649, he tested the accuracy of the report that it was intended to assassinate the prince by sending his own coach with the prince's liveries over the Pont Neuf, to see what would occur. The result was, the coach was fired at; but, as no one was in it, the would-be assassins did no harm. During the imprisonment of the princes, Grammont, with others, joined the Spanish army which had advanced into Picardy, in consequence of the treaty the Duchesse de Longueville and Turenne had made with the King of Spain.
We do not find when Grammont left the prince's party; the prince himself admitted it was with honour. He seems to have connected himself with Gaston, Duke of Orleans; and is styled about this time by "la Grande Mademoiselle" as one of her father's gentlemen. She also relates that when the royal forces threatened Orleans, the inhabitants sent to the duke for succour, and he sent the Count de Fiesque and Mons. de Grammont, who appeased their fears. The duke also advised his daughter to take the opinion of Fiesque and Grammont in all matters, as they had been in Orleans long enough to know what ought to be done. When Mademoiselle was trying to effect an entrance into the city, Grammont incited the inhabitants to assist in breaking open a gate, which the authorities, under fear of the royal displeasure, were afraid to direct. The gate was broken open, and she was borne in triumph along the streets.
It was probably at this period that Grammont sighed for the Countess de Fiesque (about whom he, and his nephew the Count de Guiche, quarrelled); as Mademoiselle, in her _Memoirs_, relates that, in the year 1656, on her interview with Christina, Queen of Sweden, she presented to her, amongst others, the Countess de Fiesque, one of her ladies of honour. The Queen observed: "The Countess de Fiesque is not so beautiful as to have made so much noise; is the Chevalier de Grammont still in love with her?"
In 1654 Grammont accompanied the Court to Peronne; where they anxiously awaited Turenne's attempt to force the Prince de Condé's lines at Arras, as related in the _Memoirs_.
On the 25th Nov. 1655, Madame de Sevigné writes to Bussi-Rabutin, relating an anecdote in which Grammont was a party.
Madame de Motteville relates that Queen Christina rallied the Chevalier de Grammont on the passion he had then for the Duchesse de Mercoeur, one of Cardinal Mazarin's nieces; and spared him only on account of the utter hopelessness of it.
It is about this period we are inclined to place Grammont's first visit to England; where curiosity, Hamilton informs us, drew him to see so remarkable a character as Cromwell; but this visit will be a good starting-place for the next Number.
W. H. LAMMIN.
Fulham.
* * * * *
CELTIC AND LATIN LANGUAGES.
(Vol. viii., pp. 174. 280. 353.; Vol. ix., p. 14.)
"Professor F. W. Newman, in his little work entitled _Regal Rome_, maintains that the old languages of Italy, especially the Umbrian and Sabine, contained a striking predominance of Celtic ingredients, and he wishes to show that this is still evident even in the Latin of Cicero. His proof rests on vocabularies (pp. 19--26.), especially in regard to the military, political, and {357} religious words which he supposes the Romans derived from the Sabines (p. 61.). With regard to these lists, I have to observe, that while all that is valid in the comparison merely gives the Indo-Germanic of the Celtic languages--a fact beyond dispute--Mr. Newman takes no pains to discriminate between the marks of an original identity of root, and those words which the Celts of Britain derived from their Roman conquerors."--Donaldson's _Varronianus_, p. 64.