Part 11
Thereafter was “a new Society formed, for the Renovation and Restoration of Shakespeare’s Monument and Bust, and of the Chancel.” Mr. John Britton was Hon. Secretary, and sent out a prospectus. In it he states: “A small and comparatively trifling tomb was raised to the memory of Shakespeare, immediately after his death; but it failed to attract anything like critical or literary notice until the time of Malone,” of whom he gives his free opinion, and the anathematizing lines.
The chief ostensible object of the Society was to _repair_ the monument, also, in order to preserve it, to repair the walls and roof of Chancel, to remove all whitewash, and to restore the colours. The subscriptions invited were limited to £1, but many sent more. The King subscribed £50, the Borough of Stratford the same. Many sent their subscriptions “only for the restoration and preservation of the Monument.” “Mr. Lucy, of Charlecote, for the Chancel £10.” One of the subscribers says that he had lately “purchased a very fine bust of Shakespeare at an auction.” Again comes the query--which one was this, was it Gastrell’s one?
“The cost of restoring Shakespeare’s Monument and the Chancel” was £1,210, 12s. on that occasion. A Bazaar was held for further repairs to the church in 1839; other subscriptions came in, and the whole amount expended amounted to £5,000. Yet they did not take off the white paint then. Mr. Britton says of the work: “Had the building been left a few years longer, it would have ranked among the Classical Monuments of Antiquity.” Mr. Britton wrote to Mr. Hunt that: “Your builder is dilatory, inefficient and embarrassing the progress and character of the Shakespeare works.” Many things can be learned from the correspondence with Mr. Hunt, now preserved in a separate volume in the Birthplace.
Again, in 1861, the bust was treated by Mr. Simon Collins, a picture restorer, “who with a bath of some detergent” removed the white paint. He found under it sufficient traces of the restoring colours of John Hall, to reproduce them again on the old lines. The only person whom I have known to have seen it in both conditions was Professor David Masson, and he said that “he had to confess _he_ preferred it _white_.” Halliwell Phillipps said in his fourth edition, 1886, “that the 1793 painting was injudicious, but did not altogether obliterate the semblance of an intellectual human being, which is more than can be said of the miserable travesty which now distresses the eye of the pilgrim.” The only really fresh remarks that have been made on it were by Dr. Keith (see “Morning Post” and “Birmingham Post,” 10th April 1914), when he estimated by anthropometric calculation of the shape and size of the skull, from which branch of the human race the poet was likely to have descended.
This was all that I had been able to find before this postscript went to press. Some hard-working student in future may find more, and give us further reasons for making up our minds.
Fortunately, before I corrected proof, Mr. Dugdale of Merivale returned from abroad, and kindly allowed me to see the volume of Sir William Dugdale’s Diary which contained his own special drawings for the tombs in Warwickshire Churches. Among these are, as I expected, Shakespeare’s Tomb. It teaches us many things. Sir William Dugdale was not an _artist_, but an Antiquary. He did not attempt to carry over the _expression_ of the human countenance, even as represented in Stowe, but he was very careful as to significant details. He works with slow and careful pen-and-ink touches. Many of the “proofs” of his untrustworthiness vanish in the study, and a new element in the question is introduced, the art of the _engraver_. One of the objections brought against his rendering was the spelling of “Judicyo” in the engraving. Dugdale himself, however, renders it “Judicio,” both in his drawing and in his copy of the epitaph by its side. The monument is important, the bust has some of the faults of the engraving. The hands are quite as clumsy, but the cushion on which they rest is not nearly so high or so woolly. The face is older even than that of the engraver, who really improved the _expression_, possibly after a personal visit. The moustache falls naturally down. The face, as Dugdale draws it, is not so far removed from Rowe’s rendering as might have been expected after “ruin and decay” had injured the outlines. And I was surprised to find that what had proved my own stumbling-block, the lines of the cloak, _are drawn by Dugdale as they appear to-day_, and the engraver must have carelessly altered the sartorial effect.
The greatest “_proof_” of Dugdale’s inexactitude, so triumphantly brought forward by my opponents, is utterly extinguished by this volume. The drawing of the Carew Clopton Monument does not appear in the Diary, which means, that _the Clopton family, and not Dugdale, was responsible for its drawing and its inaccuracies_. He only drew those which had not been sent on to him by the families whom he had invited to do so. He evidently thought Shakespeare’s Monument, though not sent on, specially important, and did it carefully himself. The present Mr. Dugdale thinks, from its position in the volume, and from some notes in the Diary, that it therefore was one of the latest of the drawings before the final publication in 1656. I have to thank him warmly for his help, which has satisfied somewhat my hunger for truth. These facts, with due attention to the contemporary letters about the restoration in 1746-9, given in Note XIII, conclude all I have to say concerning the Shakespeare Monument.
FOOTNOTES:
[27] Halliwell-Phillipps knew of the alterations and doubted the exact likeness of the present restoration to the old, but as he says nothing but what Abraham Wivell said before him, and did not notice the difference in Dugdale’s print, I have not brought him into the necessarily contracted space of this article.
[28] Perhaps the most amusing entry is in the bill from Elizabeth Wheeler. “Lost a pigg when the Earl of Essex passed by worth 4/.”
[29] New Place had been bought by Sir Edward Walker and given to his daughter on her marriage with Hugh Clopton. Henry Talbot, her son-in-law, sold it to Rev. Mr. Gastrell.
XIV
SIXTEENTH CENTURY LOCKS AND WEIRS ON THE THAMES
The use of steam, steel, and electricity has changed not only the methods of travelling, but the appearance of the highways of the country. The facilities of transit have enormously multiplied the number of travellers and the quantities of goods consigned. We have been taught to picture the difference between the railroad of to-day and the highway of the sixteenth century--deficient in construction and beset by highwaymen, who lay in wait (as spiders watch for flies) for the saddle horses, pack horses, and lumbering cars and carriages of the time. Sometimes the difficulties of the road were artfully made or increased, so as to bring the prey more easily within reach of the spiders.
But there has been little or no attention paid to the changes on another highway--a Queen’s highway, under Elizabeth as well as Victoria--I mean the royal river of Thames. I started on the subject years ago, because I thought it more than likely that Shakespeare had travelled between Oxford and London by water, and I desired to understand the appearance the river would present in “Shakespeare’s England.” Harrison does not speak of it, nor do novelists romance of it. The passage would not be made in the light skiffs that to-day lend themselves to the picturesque and ideal, in quite dream-like motion through an Arcadian land, apart from the hurry and scurry of everyday life, where all seems peace and joy, and the only modern representative of the old dragon is the snorting steam-yacht that churns the water. Not such a Thames could Shakespeare see, not such a passage could Shakespeare know--but a descent in heavily-laden barges on a busy stream, more cumbered with dangerous locks and weirs than it is to-day, at each of which was a struggle for life and property, and probably a battle with the lock keepers “who sold water.”
From the earliest recorded times there had been a war waged on the waters of the Thames between landed and vested or local interests and travelling or commercial requirements. One of the clauses of Magna Charta determined “that all locks and wears should be utterly pulled down,” a clause expanded and enforced by every succeeding sovereign who confirmed Magna Charta (see M. C. Hen. III, c. 23; 25 Ed. III, st. iii, c. 4; 45 Ed. III, c. 2. In 21 Ric. II, c. 19, there is a recital of the Act of 25 Ed. III, st. iii, c. 4).
The Commons shewing by their petition that the passage of boats in the Rivers, and also Meadows, Pastures, and Arable Lands adjoining the said Rivers be greatly troubled, drowned, wasted, and destroyed by the outrageous inhansing and straitening of Wears, Mills, Stanks, and Kiddles of old Time made, and levied before the time of the said King Edward, son to King Henry, whereof great damages and losses have oftentimes happened to the people of the Realm, and daily shall happen if remedy thereof be not provided: It is accorded and stablished, by the Assent aforesaid, that the said Statutes in all their articles shall be firmly holden and kept, and also duly executed.
The statute also provided that, if any freeholder had an old weir erected before King Edward’s time, and the Commissioners of the Thames desired him to improve it, he should do it at his own cost. No new ones were to be built and no old ones enlarged. This was confirmed 1 Hen. IV, c. 12; enforced 4 Hen. IV, c. 11, with new reference to the destruction of young fish; confirmed in 1 Hen. V, and in 2 Hen. VI, c. 12. “Because of much mischief done in destruction of people, ships, merchandise, fry of fish in the river of Thames without the bounds of London.” In 12 Ed. IV, c. 7, and 14 Ed. IV, the statutes again were confirmed against “Wears, Fishgarths, Kidels, &c., by Thamys,” which were reconfirmed in 11 Hen. VII. But it may be noticed that the statutes did not affect those weirs privileged by ancient rights or by royal possession. For instance, in the “History of Oxford,” by William Henry Turner (p. 54), there is given the Act 17 Hen. VIII (25 Sept.) for the regulating of the flood-gates, etc., of the City Mills; and in the June of 1545 “at a council held 24th June, 37 Hen. VIII., yt ys agreed that a certen lokk, lately erected, and called Ruly Myddell Lokk, shall be stopped upp, so that Mr Doctor Owen and his assignes shall not drawe the same and torne the water from the Kynges Mylle of the Cyty of Oxford; and also that all other sluces and lokks belonging to Ruly shall be stopped at such tymes as nede shall requyer to cause the water to have hys right course to the seid mylls,” p. 177. All the inhabitants were bound to grind their corn at “the Castle Mills,” p. 179. At the putting down of the monasteries, Oseney Abbey was leased to William Stumpe, Clothier, of Malmesbury, and “the Mylles, the Waters, with the fyshyng, apperteyning to Oseney, with the benefits of the water of Ruly, to helpe the mylles of Oseney.”
In the Harleian Manuscript, 2084, f. 165, there is a record of discussions about the mills and weirs of Chester, 1607, and precedents were brought forward showing how divers had been “presented” for obstructing the Thames, and had been acquitted. This shows that in Easter, 3 Hen. IV, John Shelforde, Lord of Gatehampton, held one lock on the Thames and one at Rumford, Berks; and the “Priorissa de Goring” held one weir in the same river. In 5 Hen. IV, Thomas Camoys narrowed the Thames at Chiselhampton, and in 6 Hen. IV, Elizabeth, Prioress of Goring, proved that all her predecessors had a right to a lock on the Thames.
In Stow’s Survey, Book I, p. 30 (ed. 1598, revised by Strype), he says of the Thames, that “it is lamentable to see how it is and hath been choaked of late with lands and shelves by the penning and wresting of the course of the water for commodities’ sake”; and at page 39 he speaks of Bishop’s complaints.
I had found these and several other manuscripts on the subject in the British Museum, before I turned to Stow. They seem to be the same that he referred to; but the originals are so interesting, both to the historian and to the lover of the river, that, as they have never been reproduced, I think it would interest all to read the words themselves. The first “complaint” does not seem to have been preserved, but the “reply” appears in Lansdowne Manuscript, XVIII, 62, endorsed “The Reasons of the Mylls, Locks and Weares to be uppon the River of Thames, 1574.” It runs thus:
A declaration of what is to be said and proved for the maytenance of Mylles, Lockes, and Weares, within the River of Thamys.
Fyrst the said Mylles, Locks, and Weres were erected and made, and so have contynewed for manye hundred yeres beyonde the memorye of anie man nowe livinge, without any challendge or interrupcion. The Lawes and Statutes of this Reallme, whereof the last was made in the XIIth yere of Edward the Fowerth that towcht the Reformacion of Locks and Weares, extends onelie to such as then were erected, to the disturbance of barges and other vessells, whereas at that tyme there was no comon passaige for barges, so farre as Marlowe or Byssham, as it is upon vehement presumpcion thought. And it is further to be moost manyfestlie proved that within the memorye of such as be yet liveinge, there were not above the nomber of fower barges, that passed so ferre into the Ryver of Thamyse as the said Marlowe or Byssham. And that such as then so passed were not above half the burden of such as nowe comonlie passe by the said River, beinge neare abowte the nomber of three score.
Item, it is most certeyne and true that such inconsiderate people, and namelie of the said Bargemen as wishe or desier the decaye or pulling downe of the said Lockes and Weares, desier therein but their owne greate hindrance, or rather undoinge, considering that it is most manifestlie to be proved, that without the said lockes and weares they could not passe. And that many tymes, and specyallie at lowe waters, they are inforced to desier the shuttinge of the said Locks to thende to convey water for the removinge of their barges when they are sett on grownde. And it is also very certeyne that if the said weares should be pulled downe there be such quantities of chalke and other rubbyshe therein, as that by the losinge thereof, such hills would growe in many places within the River of Thamyse, as that a small bote in many places thereof would hardly passe.
Item, that in case the said passaige should be disturbed, yt should not onelie tende to the greate lett and hindraunce of the Queenes Maties. provision and of her Highnes Cyttie of London, but also of divers of her subjects and people.
Item, that the provision for gryndynge of a greate parte of the Inhabitants corne within the counties of Bucks, Berks, and Oxon, resteth upon the mylles, that ben scituate and beinge within the said Ryver, which, without the said Locks and Weares could not be mainteyned, or grynde anye thinge, which, in case they did decaye, shoulde tende to be to the greate losse and hindraunce of the said inhabytaunts, who without the said mylls should be to seeke where to grynde their corne.
Item, in all the commissions of Sewers, that in anye aige or tyme have been awarded, theis Mylls, Locks and Weares were never thought to be within the precyncts of anye Lawes or in anye respecte meete to be reformed.
Item, that the said Mylles, Lockes and Weares are the inherytaunce some of the Queenes Highnes, and others of dyvers personaiges, wherein, if any disorder were, the same is to be reformed by the ordinarye proceedinge of the Queenes Maties. Lawes and not otherwise.
In Lansdowne MS., xxx, 16 and 20, are preserved two petitions which are entered as if in the same year, but which can be seen, from slight differences among general resemblances, not to be exactly contemporary. The one was probably written by John Bishop, the other certainly was so. “To Sir William Burleigh, Lord High Treasurer,” the first complaint is presented of the dangers, and a list is given of “the holders of the locks and wears, and of the Keepers of the same, which sell the Queenes Majesties watter in the same river.”
The number of locks given is twenty-five between Maidenhead and Abingdon, and the paper is indorsed by another hand “Sept. 6, 1580.” The second is addressed to “Sir William Cecill, Lorde High Treasurer,” and more forcibly brings forward the danger and losses of property and life of the Queen’s subjects; being signed by “John Bishop, 1580.” The list varies in number, as there are thirty-six mentioned; and there are several slight variations in facts, and many in detail. The parish of each is given, and the names of the owners have a genealogical interest. Rea Locke belonged to Harry Merrye, a yeoman of the Queen’s Chamber; Hedgeworth Wear to Hugh Cotterell. Marlowe Locke, belonging to Thomas Farmer, gent., is by all reckoned to be the most dangerous.
Temple Locke belonged to John Brinkys, gent., and Newe Locke to Mr. Bowde and Mr. Lovelace; Mr. Scroope’s Locke at Hambledon was “kept by Thomas Bulter, a seller of water”; Fraunces Stonor, gent., at the Marsh, held one locke, and Robert Wolley, yeoman, another; Bowney Weare (Mr. Anthony Elmes), Waregroves Weare, Shiplacke Weare followed; Sunning Locke, belonging to Mr. Richard Blunte, was kept by two sellers of water. Then came Cawsam Locke, Chansey Weare; Mapledurham Locke, said to belong to Mr. William Blunte in one petition, and to Mr. Michael Blunt in the other; Whitchurch, to Harry Knappes in both; Harte Lock, Goringe Lock, and another, owners unnamed. Cleve Locke was the Earl of Derby’s; of South Mill Weare the owner is unnamed; North Stock Weare and Wallingford Lock belonged to Raphe Pollington, another locke and Benson Locke belonging to Robert George (one of the keepers being named Jacob Buishoppe). At Little Witenham, a locke and two weares, one owned by Edmund Fettiplace, the other by Mr. William Dunshe; a weare at Long Witenham, belonging to Widow Sanger; Thomas Trullock’s Lock of Appleforde; an old, ruinous wear belonging to Clement Dabnet; two locks and one weare, called Sutton Weare; Collombe Weare, belonging to Edward Wilmott, gent.; Abingdon Locke, “being Mr. William Blackmanne’s Locke”; three locks, at Newnam, Samford Locke, and “Ifle Lock, being kept by one Mrs. Pitte.” “Every one of these being most perillous for all passengers, and the Kepers of every locke making sale of the water, keping the same severall which ought to be comon to all her Matⁱᵉˢ subjects, and whereunto in truth they have noe right.”
The petitioner then goes on to state, and mentions witnesses ready to prove, that fifteen men had been drowned within four years, and all their goods lost, and begs his lordship’s earnest attention to this serious state of affairs. Neither of these petitions seems to have been very successful. Local interests had outweighed travelling necessities.
But Bishop was not crushed. He designed a more elaborate composition on a larger sheet of paper, and addressed it directly to Queen Elizabeth herself. Believing in her poetic sympathies, he wrote it in verse, which, though nearly as bad as it could be, was full of earnest feeling and a certain original quaintness. He spoke movingly of the “exceeding loss and spoil” of the goods and commodities of poor men, of £300 a year spent by them in buying water, of the “murthers” of Her Majesty’s loving subjects, and of the sorrows of many woeful widows and fatherless children. Twenty men had been drowned during the last seven years. The great wrongs he had seen had moved his heart to write. He had previously complained to many and found no remedy, though good laws had been made by many kings “against the mills, wears, and locks that doe annoy this worthie streame.” Some men neither care for laws nor for drowning men, and have no fear of hell before their eyes. The worst of these is Thomas Farmer, who is as great a persecutor as Pharaoh. To the widow of one drowned at his lock he had given, in lieu of life, the sum of 5s. Another man had been cast into prison by him for complaining, but had been drowned in his lock at last. Farmer’s Lock at Marlow alone has cost the poor bargemen a thousand pounds and more. The water falls so high it often sinks ships and men, and it is a wonder any escape. Four City aldermen had come to view it, and Bishop refers to them in proof of his words. He is willing to die if they be proved false. He had complained four years or more before to the Lord Treasurer in vain, and since then seven men had been drowned. For his interference Farmer had tried to work him mischief, and had complained of him to his captain, whom he loved much, but who had apparently dismissed him. Bishop was well acquainted with the perils of the river. He brings them before the notice of the Queen because he was her faithful subject born; and the murder of her people, and loss of their goods, was her loss. He was sure that if she knew the truth her merciful heart would find means to help, and that she would command the Lords that understood the Laws of Parliament to look into the matter before more blood was spent.
He then gives a list of the men that had been drowned, and another of his witnesses. This is signed by him, and is endorsed 13th October 1585.