This page is for the facts that I found from others or books on the Taylor family of Carlisle, Cumberland, England, Orange and Carolina Counties of Virginia.
This is for the information I have found on DR. Rowland Taylor the Protestant Martyr
NOTE: AS TO ROWLAND BEING THE FOUNDING FATHER OF THE TAYLORS OF VIRGINIA THERE IS DIFFERENCE OPINION. I will list what I was told and have found the net. Please make a note each find
From what I can tell what do know is TAYLOR FAMILY IS FROM ENGLAND BUT TO WHICH PERSON WE DESCEND FROM IS THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION. THE SEARCH GOES ON AND ON."
"On date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 21:28:47 -0500 Nathaniel Taylor posts the following:
Ms. Bass said in one post that "The ancestry of James [Taylor, ancestor of President Zachary] has 3 possible lines (sets of parents) - Rowland Taylor is one." The second, she said, is "through Matthew Taylor"--essentially the Shadockhurst line, which goes back, allegedly, to the minstrel "Taillefer." While Ms. Bass didn't specify the third possibility (what is it?), these two each need to be addressed separately, not least because they've each been postulated for more than one American Taylor line.
I. "Taillefer" and Shadockhurst line
A descent of some modern Taylors from "Taillefer" (fictionalized Norman minstrel/knight placed at the Battle of Hastings in the Norman poet Wace's fictionalized epic _Roman de Rou_) appears in the 1838 edition of Burke's _Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland_ (4:237-241) detailing a Taylor family originally from Shadockhurst, Kent, whose representative, Major Joseph Pringle Taylor of Pennington, Hampshire, had received a grant of arms from the College of Heralds in 1823, registering that descent to himself (see Thomas Woodcock and John Martin Robinson, _The Oxford Guide to Heraldry_ [Oxford, 1988], 108).
The lineage deriving the Kentish Taylors (who are attested in late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century visitation pedigrees) from the Norman 'Taillefer' and an intervening landholder named 'Talefer' certainly predated Burke. One distant relative of mine noted that she copied this Kentish Taylor lineage out of a manuscript in the British Museum by Kentish antiquarian Edward Hasted (1732-1812). It is probably BL MS Add. 5520, a folio volume "of pedigrees of diverse families within the county of Kent" (to quote the handwritten 19th-century MS catalogue) owned by (and partially in the hand of) Mr. Hasted, in which is found "a pedigree of Taylor of Shadoxhurst and Maidstone (including Hall) from one in the possession of the late Rev. Joseph Milner of Preston Hall, Aylesford," at f. 96. I was not able to see this MS when I was in London in July, because it had been sent out for reproduction. I would not be surprised if the "Taillefer" link to the Kent pedigree can be traced back through Hasted's source, Rev. Joseph Milner (1744-1797). Any Londoner reading this would do me a great favor by looking it up sometime!
Major Joseph Pringle Taylor was noted by Woodcock and Robinson as being one of the few men to receive British grants of arms in the nineteenth century which recognized descent through Americans. His paternal line derived from Edward Taylor of Middletown, New Jersey, allegedly a member of the Shadockhurst Taylor family. The Kent / "Taillefer" lineage, plus the American descendants of the New Jersey family, are treated in Elisha Taylor, _Genealogy of Judge John Taylor and his Descendants_ (Detroit, 1886) (as well as the book Cris Nash refers to, Christina Taylor Bass and Frank Nelson Bass, _Genealogy Taylor-Snow_ , which I haven't seen). Despite the recognition of Major Joseph Pringle Taylor's pedigree by the College of Arms in 1823, the link between the New Jersey Taylors and the armigerous Kent family of the sixteenth-century Visitation pedigrees is, Cris Nash reminds us, apparently false.
As for links of any of the Virginia Taylor families to the Shadockhurst line, I can only say that no shred of evidence for it has ever come to my attention. Ms. Bass' account of the Kent theory of the ancestry of James Taylor shows "Matthew, the 2nd son [of John and Elizabeth (Chute) Taylor of Shadockhurst], b abt 1555, and if Burke be correct the ancestor of the family which settled in America." However there seems no room to infer Virginians in Burke's account of this man and his family (op. cit. 4:239-40). Perhaps there is another 'Burke' which does support this alleged Virginia connection?.
II. Dr. Rowland Taylor, Protestant Martyr
I first found the descent of many different Virginia Taylor families from the Protestant Rowland Taylor, rector of Hadleigh, Suffolk (+1555) in print in _From Log Cabins to the White House: a History of the Taylor Family_ by Mary Taylor Brewer (Wooton, Kentucky, 1985). Brewer cites as sources John Foxe's _Book of Martyrs_ (a.k.a. Acts and Monuments, first pub. in English 1563; for the best ed. of which the 8-vol. version, 4th rev. ed.  of the Religious Tract Society serves well: Taylor's martyrdom is reprinted in full [with some notes], 6:676-703) and William James Brown, _The Life of Rowland Taylor_ (London: Epworth Press, 1959: Brown was Dr. Taylor's distant successor as rector of Hadleigh at that time). I have examined both works and neither gives much useful information on Taylor's family. Brown was interested in descendants of Rowland Taylor, but knew little. He did speculate about the relationship between Rowland and Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667), Bishop of Down, Conner and Dromore, but doubted the veracity of the link and notes that documents supporting it (including a pedigree) had been in the possession of Jeremy's Irish descendants but had been burned in the early nineteenth century.
And although Brown knew the statement of the botanist William Turner, Dean of Wells (+1568) that Rowland Taylor had been born at Rothbury, Northumberland, Brown was not aware of any specific parentage or baptismal record for him; nor of the idea that Rowland's wife was a Tyndale; nor does he provide any baptismal or marriage dates for Rowland's son Thomas Taylor (the young son mentioned dramatically in Foxe's tale of his execution) who allegedly, according to data posted here and also included (without reference) in Brewer's book, had a family at Hadleigh (and perhaps another family at Cambridge, resulting in the alleged descent to Bishop Jeremy Taylor).
It looks, from what's been circulated, as if there has since been some fruitful research into Rowland Taylor's origins and descendants using parish registers at Rothbury and Hadleigh (even though I find it odd that the rector of Hadleigh himself should not have made use of his own registers if they contained information on Rowland's son Thomas and his family). If so, who did this original research and where has this data been published? I have not seen it in any form in which it can be thoroughly assessed.
Whatever may become known about Rowland Taylor's ancestors and descendants will no doubt be fascinating, but does it connect definitively to any of the early Virginia Taylors? I will repeat that I've not seen a single element of a compelling argument for any specific identity between a Virginia Taylor and a specific English Taylor family. The data supplied in recent posts suggests a breakdown in specificity of vital data (baptisms, etc.) in the crucial generations linking immigrants with specific English families. In the absence of such data, it is the reponsibility of those who put forward such a hypothesis to faithfully reproduce any argument for the identity that may be found: it is not the responsibility of others to 'disprove' the filiations.
Addendum: on the assumption of interrelationship among various Virginia Taylors
I should just add a final note of concern about the book by Ms. Brewer, from which some data seems to have made it into some of the recent posts (for example Kenneth Harper Finton's post). It alleges that many different Virginia Taylor lines can be traced to the John Taylor whose estate was probated in 1654 in Lancaster County, Virginia (the Northern Neck). There is no evidence to support the idea that all the individuals Brewer lists (and Finton after her) are his children. The estate records name as his heirs only the son Richard (who died, childless, before 22 May 1669) and the daughter Elizabeth Sallard. The temptation to clump the various other Virginia Taylor families together with this one, or under any other single-family umbrella, has to be avoided. The mortality rate in the Chesepeake and Virginia colonies was so much higher than in New England in these crucial decades that the likelihood that persons of the same name in subsequent generations were related is relatively much smaller than in New England. See on this subject Henry Gemmerey, "Emigration from the British Isles to the New World, 1630-1700: Inferences from Colonial Populations," _Research in Economic History_ 5 (1980), 179-232; and also James P. Horn, "Moving on in the New World: migration and out-migration in the seventeenth-century Chesepeake", in _Migration and Society in Early Modern England_, ed. Peter Clark & David Souden (London, 1987), 172-212.
Date: 19 Nov 1998 21:24:40 -0800 From: Josephine Lindsay Bass She states this:
I am descendant of James Taylor & Mary Gregory. I have been working on this quite awhile, and finding conflicting data - would appreciate anything that anyone can provide.
The ancestry of James has 3 possible lines (sets of parents) - Rowland Taylor is one.
Another is thru Mathew Taylor whose ancestor possibly is
Baron Taillefer, Norman Minstral of Wm the Conqueror, led the charge at Hastings, going into the Battle singing the Old War Songs; For his great services, he was given large landed possessions in the county of Kent, which descended to his posterity during the Reigns of Henry III, Richard II, Henry IV and Henry V. His descendants became the Earls of Pennington, who bear the same arms as those brought to VA by James Taylor, the immigrant, and now in possession of the family - From E. C. Meade, Genealogist.
Hanzer Taylefer (Taylor) lived in the time of Henry II. Continued the line with the family of Taytown in the county of Kent.
John Taylor of Shadockhurst of Kent during the reign of Henry VII. d. 1551. wife: Thomasine, the dau of John Isaac of Sevington. Children: William, John, Joan, Margaret, Alice and Elizabeth.
William Taylor was living in the Reign of Richard II, and from him came John Taylor of Shadockhurst in Kent, during the Reign of Henry VII. He died in 1551 and by his wife, Thomasine, the daughter of John Isaac of Sevington, he had six children: William, John, Joan, Margaret, Alice and Elizabeth.
John, 2nd son of John and Thomasine Isaac Taylor was Lord of the Manor of Shadockhurst. m. Elizabeth, dau of Philip Chute, Esq of Brothersden. Children: George, Matthw, Susan b 1560, Phillipa and Eve. and 2nd. m. Bridgit, dau of Richard Buck of RYE. Children: John, Thomas, Mary and Elizabeth.
John, second son of John and Thomasine (Isaac) Taylor was Lord of the Manor of Shadockhurst and married two wives;
Matthew, the 2nd son, b abt 1555, and if Burke be correct the ancestor of the family which settled in America.
He was prob. the grandfather of James Taylor, the immigrant from Carlisle. (James is referred to as the Knights of the Golden Horseshoe VA Taylor line)
"The LIFE OF ROWLAND TAYLOR" BY Rev William James Brown came be found on WFT 10-1071. I am not sure if LDS church has it but would worth to try find it. To read all of what he wrote.
"Taylor name was not common in England in the time of Dr Rowland Taylor. It has been established by many sources that Taylors were in England from the time of William the Conqueror 1066, being descendants of Baron William Taillfer, who accompanied the King of England and died in the Battle of Hastings. For his heroic deeds in battle William Tailerfer and his brother, Foulqust, also in the battle, received large lands and estates in County Kent, England. The Tailerfer changed over the years so by the 1400's is was Tailor or Taylor"
Ecclesiastical and Civil Law and received L.L.D. in 1530. In 1531 he was appointed Principal of Borden Hostel in Cambridge where he trained students in civil and cannon law. In March 1538, Dr Rowland Taylor was appointed Rector of Hanbury Worsecestor Diocese. On Nov 3, 1539 he was admitted as Adovcated in Law and the same year was ordained a deacon and became Chaplain to Thomas Crammer who had become Archbishop of Canterbury, Mar 30,1533. By 1542 Dr Taylor was ordained a Priest and by Apr 16,1544 appointed Rector of Hadleigh in the Deaner ob Bocking by Archbishop Crammer. Dr Taylor was first arrested in July 25,1553 when he was accused of being involved in the case of Lady Jane Gray and was released on Nov 9. In Mar.1554 was arrested again for his objections to the Catholic Mass in church. John Bedford, who was already in prison, became Dr Taylor's cellmate. They were both tried and sentenced to death Jan. 22.1555. Archbishop Crammer and more then 800 others were also sentenced soon afterward and died at the stake.
On Feb 5,1555 at 11:00 P.M.(I wonder how Dr Barnes knew the time was 11:00p.m when he wrote his book?) Dr Rowland's wife Margaret was there with her children and ran to him to say Goodbye. Dr Rowland Taylor. Martyr, was beaten and burned at the stake in Hadleigh, England, Feb 9,1555 for his religious beliefs so says WFT 18.
Quote Rev Barnes: "Also Rev John Taylor, Dean of London, later Bishop, was, along with Dr Rowland Taylor, one of the compilers of the Prayer Book and was probably s/o of John and Susan. ON Oct 5 1551, Rev John Taylor and Dr Rowland Taylor were among the 32 men appointed to reform the CANON Laws, still in use today.
When persecution began in England soon after the death Henry VIII, many Protestants fled to other countries. It is believed that Edmond and Nathaniel went to Ireland when Dr Rowland was martyred.
Taylors were certainly in Ireland by 1610 when King James I authorized an English settlement of Merchant Tailors at Macosquin after the overthrow of the Earl of Tyronne in Ireland 1609. The Irish Taylors had the same Coat of Arms as the English Taylors, granted by Dublin 1668.
An ancient LEGEND: carries the Taliaferro family back to Julius Caesar and his campaign in GAUL. Just a Legend. But it would be nice if it were true
When did Mottoes first come into use with the Normans? When did Mottoes first come into use in England after the invasion of the Normans in 1066 (or before)? Many of your are familiar with the Norman Knight/Baron/Minstrel Taillefer who apparently lead the charge of the Normans at the Battle of Hastings (1066).
A book about the Taylor family of Virginia entitled "From Log Cabins to the White House", by Mary Taylor Brewer (1985) describes an old poem (English/Norman?) entitled "Taillerfer" which discusses Taillefer's exploits in the Battle of Hastings. Taillefer apparently was killed in the Battle of Hastings. The poem allegedly says that when William the Conqueror learned of Taillefer's death in the Battle of Hastings he posed the following toast: ""Drink to Taillefer all; his heirs shall have a whole country fee, simple deeded and a motto: Consequitur Quod Cunque Petit". Is anyone familiar with this poem called "Taillerfer" or "Taillefer"? When was it written? Who wrote it? Where can a copy be found (hard copy or on the internet)? Is there any possibility that the story in the poem about the motto could be true as on 1066?
Found this on another site:
James Taylor who died in King & Queen Co., VA in 1698. The family rumor is that he possessed and wore a ring which had the Taylor Crest (a naked dexter arm, embowed, couped at the shoulder, holding an arrow proper) and the Taylor Motto ("consequitur, quodcunque petit"). The ring which he was alleged to have worn is mentioned in Crozier. The ring which he was alleged to have worn still exists today. It is currently possessed by Helen Marie Taylor, widow of Jaquelin Erasmus Taylor, both direct descendants of said James Taylor. Helen Marie Taylor lives on property which was formerly owned by James Taylor, Jr., (son of said James Taylor) and Martha Thompson, in Orange, VA. If there is a possibility that the account of the Motto of Taillefer granted by William the Conqueror in 1066 is true, maybe there is a grain of truth in the story that my James Taylor and the Pringle Taylor discussed in "A Genealogical and Heraldic History of The Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland, by John Burke, Esq., Vol. IV., pages 237-245 descended from this Taillefer.
“I certainly agree that the claimed line of descent mentioned in the linage of Pringle Taylor alone is not sufficent evidence of such a connection on its own. If I can find this poem called "Taillerfer" and it turns out to have been written by a Taylor descendant or by somebody after the existence of the Pringle Taylor Coat of Arms grant (and claimed lineage back to Taillefer), I think that the poem can be safely disregarded as total speculation and based upon the falacy of the Pringle Taylor claim. If on the other hand, the poem has its origin prior Pringle Taylor's grant of arms, particularly if the poet was not a Taylor descendant, it seems to me that the the story in the poem about the motto gives some credibility to a connection with the Taylor family. The evidence I have found which suggests to me that Taillefer is more than a fictional character comes from a variety of early historical accounts of the Battle of Hastings. The one which I have actually read is "Roman de Rou", by Robert Wace, a Norman poet, who wrote his book in about 1160 according to experts. The source for his work (according to his own words) was his father. This book is not available on line as far as I can determine. It is available by interlibrary loan in French or English. The English version was tanslated by Edgar Taylor, Esq., and printed in London by William Pickering in 1837. There are several more recent reprints. Quoting from Chapter XX of the translated poem:
"Then Taillefer who sang right well, rode mounted on a swift horse before the duke, singing of Karlemaine, and of Rollant, of Oliver and the vassals who died in Renchevals. And when they drew nigh to the English, 'A boon, sire!' cried Taillefer; 'have long served you and you owe me for all such service. To-day, so please you. you shall repay it. I ask as my guerdon, and beseech you for it earnestly, that you will allow me to strike the first blow in the battle!' And the duke answered, "I grant it." Then Taillefer put his horse to a gallop, charging before all the rest, and struck an Englishman dead, driving his lance below the breast into his body, and stretching him upon the ground. Then he drew his sword, and struck another, crying out 'Come on! come on! What do ye, sirs? lay on! lay on!' At the second blow he struck, the English pushed forward and surrounded him. Forthwith arose the noise and cry of war, and on either side the people put themselves in motion. The Normans moved on to the assault, and the English defended themselves well...." Also, the "Sussex Archaeological Collections, Vol. VI, published by the Sussex Archaeological Society (1853), in an article entitled "On The Battle of Hastings", by Mark Antony Lower (1852) pages 23-25, gives credibility to Taillefer as follows:
"...But first, there comes upon the stage of this eventful drama a character to whom the old historians, Guy, Benoit, Gaimar and Wace allude with peculiar gusto. Among the Norman knights was one who, from his prowess and agility, had acquired according to the usage of the times, to sobriquet of Taillefer or 'cut-iron.' He is usually designated a jonglere or a minstrel but whatever his accomplishments might have led others to call him, (25) it is evident from what follows, that he was also a personage of equestrain rank, a noble or a knight. He asked and obtained the duke's permission to strike the first blow, but previously, he commenced in lofty strain the composition known as Cantilena Rolandi, and which Wace describes as the song of 'Karlemaine, and of Rollant, of Oliver, and the vassals who died in Renchevals.' He then begain a series of exploits, which Gaimar graphically enumerates:--
'forth from the French, with gallant haste,
The juggler Taillefer then pressed,
Armed and on a fiery horse,
And placed him 'fore the nOrman force;
Where wonders in the English sight
He played with all a master's sleight;
First, to incite them to advance,
High in the air he hurled his lance,
And caught it by the point -- and then
As nimbly threw it up again.
This daring feat he thrice did shrew,
Then launched his weapon 'midst the foe,
A luckless weight of whom it struck,
So skillfully his aim he took;
Then drawing forth the sword he wore,
Thrice drew and caught it as before,
With an address so magical,
It seemed enchantment to them all,
These tricks performed, he urged his steed,
And galloping with utmost speed,
Forced through the foe an opening wide,
And death his blows on every side.'
Thus begin the battle of Hastings ....
25. The Carmen styles him 'Incisor ferri," 'mimus,' 'histrio.' " The appendix of a book entitled "Invasion 1066", by Rupert Furneaux ( ? ) describes the dates of the sources used in his book. The relevant 12th century sources described above are: " 'Roman de Rou et des Ducs de Normandie' (The Romance of Rollo and the dukes of Normandy). By Robert Wace, written about 1160."
"De bello Hastingensis Carmen (The song about the Battle of Hastings) attributed to Buy, Bishop of Amiens and written before 1070" (this could be a type which meant 1170)
"Chronique des Ducs de Normandie (Chronicle of the dukes of Normandy) by Benoit de St. More, written about 1190."
Some think that Taillefer was a nickname. I do not see how that can be proven or disproven. I have not studied the Norman system of naming children. Did families carry the same last name in the 11th century? If a person was given a nickname such as Taillefer that he valued, might his children's last name turn out to be Taillefer?
At this point, I am more interested in finding the poem called "Taillerfer" because of its reference to the motto "consequitur quod cunque petit" than for its reference to Taillefer/Tailerfer. Sure, it would be nice if my Taylor connected to Taillefer. Regardless of the circumstantial evidence which might suggest this connection, there is a lot of hard work to prove the more immediate ancestors of my James Taylor who died in 1698. Even if he connects to Taillefer, there is no evidence of how this connection goes, whether from Tailefer forward or from my James Taylor back.
There are proven individuals in Normandy and England whose name was Taillefer/Taylefer in the 1200s and before. As far as sources for the existence of Taillefer:
Four respected sources of history of the Battle of Hastings are:
1. "Roman de Rou et des Ducs de Normandie" (The Romance of Rollo and of the dukes of Normandy) by Robert Wace, written about 1160.
2. " De Bello Hastingensis Carmen" (The Song about the Battle of Hastings) attributed to Guy, Bishop of Amiens and written before 1070.
3. "Chronique des Ducs de Normandie" (Chronicle of the dukes of Normandy), by Benoit de St. More, written about 1190. [Source: "Invasion 1066", by Rupert Furneaux ( ? ), appendix C, page 201]
4. "Gaimar's History of the English", a very long Norman-French poem, which appears to have been written about the middle of the twelfth century." [Source: "Sussex Archaeological Collections Relating to the History and Antiquities of the County", published by The Sussex Archaeological Society, Vol. VI (1853) in a article entitled "On the Battle of Hastings", by Mark Antony Lower (1852)]
The Lower article says: "But first, there comes upon the stage of this eventful drama, a character to whom the old historians, Guy, Benoit, Gaimar, and Wace, allude with peculiar gusto. Among the Norman knights was one who, from his prowess and agility, had acquired according to the usage of the times, the sobriquet of Taillefer or "cut-iron" He is usually designated a jonglere or a minstrel but whatever his accomplishments might have led others to call him, (25) it is evident from what follows, that he was also a personage of equestrian rank, a noble or a knight. He asked and obtained the duke's permission to strike the first blow, (26) but previously, he commenced in lofty strain the composition known as Cantilena Rolandi, and which Wace describes as the song of 'Karlemaine and of Rollant, of Oliver, and the vassals who died in Renchevals."
25. The Carmen styles him 'incisor ferri', 'minus, 'histrio'. and 26. Rom. de Rou, p. 190"
Note: a "sobriquet" is defined as an "assumed name" or "nickname". The Lower article also quotes from the Gaimar poem:
"Forth from the French, with gallant haste,
The juggler Taillefer then pressed,..."
It goes on the describe Taillefer's exploits.
"Roman de Rou", by Wace, (translated in by Edgar Taylor, published by William Pickering of London in 1827), Chapter XX, describes the exploits of Taillefer. It begins: "Then Taillefer (1) who sang right well, rode mounted on a swift house the duke, signing of Karlemaine, and of Rollant, of Oliver and the vassals who died in Renchevals....
(1) Bishop Guy, in his "Carmen de bello Hastingensi, thus described Taillefer, 'Incisor ferri mimus cognomine dictus.' He is there also called 'histrio,' but his singing is not mentioned...."
the poem called "Taillerfer" which allegedly has a line where William the Conqueror, upon learning of Taillefer's/Taillerfer's death granted his heirs land the the motto "consequitur quod cunque petit" which happens to be the motto of my James Taylor and other Taylors of arms in the English heraldry records. I reserve my conclusion as to the relationship, if any, between Taillefer's heirs possibly being granted the motto and the Taylors later being found to have assumed the motto until I gather more evidence.
The Popular History of England of Society and Government from the Earliest Period to Our Own Times, Volume III
The act of 1555, for the renewing of the statutes for the punishment of heretics, which statutes had been repealed in 1547, was not to sleep. Gardiner and Bonner were not to play the part of "fond fathers," who had "bound up the threatening twigs of birch," only to stick the rod "in their children's sight for terror, not to use. "With exquisite candor we are told, "One knows perfectly, and is tired of being told over and over again, that the law for burning heretics was a very bad law, and ought never to have existed. But, in fact, it did exist, and it was the law of the country."† On the 19th of January, 1555, that law was not in force. On the 20th of January it came into full operation. On the 4th of February John Rogers was burned in Smithfield under the act for the renewal of the statutes "concerning punishment and reformation of heretics and Lollards. "On the 8th of February Laurence Saunders was burned at Coventry. On the 9th John Hooper was burned at Gloucester. On the same day Rowland Taylor was burned at Hadleigh. Previous to the enactment which came into force on the 20th of January, the Ordinaries had "wanted authority to proceed" against those who were infected with "errors and heresies which of late have arisen, grown, and much increased within this realm;"‡ and thus these four of the first Protestant martyrs could not have been burned until a new law was passed. The meaning of the law was made perfectly intelligible to all England from the 4th of February, 1555, to the 10th of November,1558, that crowning offering of five heretics at Canterbury, of whom two were women, having taken place one week before the death of Queen Mary. These executions were not sharp and passionate outbursts of ecclesiastical power, exasperated by popular fury; or of regal tyranny, hurried into extremities by dread of rebellion. They were the calm and deliberate exposition of the principles by which England was to be governed under its Roman Catholic church and sovereigns. The appetite for blood was to be sustained in healthful energy, and not sickened by inordinate meals. In 1555,seventy-one heretics were executed; in 1556, eighty-three;§ in 1557,eighty-eight; in 1558, forty. There was also a nice adjustment of the number of victims to the local demand. We are accustomed to talk of "the fires of Smithfield," as if London had a very undue proportion of the instruction of such sights. But in these four years, during which London and Middlesex saw fifty-eight executions, Kent had fifty-four, Essex fifty-one, Sussex forty-one, Suffolk and Norfolk thirty-one, Gloucester nine, Warwick six, while thirty-two were distributed over thirteen other districts. Nor was the lesson of the fagot confined to bishops and priests. Strype makes a total of the burnings to be 288; Speed, 277; and he classifies them as five bishops, twenty-one divines, eight gentlemen, eighty-four artificers, a hundred husbandmen, servants, and laborers, twenty-six wives, twenty widows, nine unmarried women, two boys, and two infants. No selection could have been more impartial.
The Popular History of England of Society and Government from the Earlisest Period to Our Own Times, Volume III
They sat again on the 29th and 30th. On these occasions there were no long scholastic disputations, as in the cases of Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley, at Oxford. The mode of proceeding with Dr. Rowland Taylor, which he has himself recorded, was probably nearly the same with all. "First, my lord chancellor said, 'You among others are at this present time sent for, to enjoy the king's and queen's majesties' favor and mercy, if you will now rise again with us from the fall which we, generally, have received in this realm; from the which, God be thanked, we are now clearly delivered miraculously. If you will not rise with us now, and receive mercy now offered, you shall have judgment according to your demerit.’ To this I answered, that so to rise should be the greatest fall that ever I could receive; for I should so fall from my dear Savior Christ to Antichrist." There were then exhortations to submit, assuming various forms of reproach or solicitation, which were refused in no very measured terms. The colloquy between Gardiner and Rogers offers a characteristic example. "Gardiner said it was vainglory in him to stand out against the whole church. He protested it was his conscience, and not vain-glory, that swayed him; for his part, he would have nothing to do with the antichristian Church of Rome. Gardiner said by that he condemned the queen, and the whole realm, to be of the church of Antichrist. Rogers said the queen would have done well enough if it had not been for his counsel. Gardiner said the queen went before them in those counsels, which proceeded of her own motion. Rogers said he would never believe that. The bishop of Carlisle said they could all bear him witness to it. Rogers said they would all witness for one another."*On the first day of these scenes at St. Mary Overies, the proceedings were public, and a great crowd filled the church. On the other days the doors were shut. The boldness of such resolved men was a dangerous example. The commissioners abruptly terminated their immediate work in the condemnation of Hooper, Rogers, Taylor, Saunders, and Bradford, who at the same time were excommunicated. The sentence upon Bradford was not executed till July. The fate of the other four was more quickly decided.
The Popular History of England of Society and Government from the Earliest Period to Our Own Times, Volume III
Of all the heroes of the Reformation, Rowland Taylor is, to our minds, the most interesting, because the most natural. Of a hearty, bluff English nature, full of kindliness and pleasantry, he is perfectly unconscious of playing a great part in this terrible drama, and goes to his death as gayly as to a marriage-feast. Fuller says that those "who admire the temper of Sir Thomas More jesting with the axe of the executioner, will excuse our Taylor making himself merry with the stake." He has been compared to Socrates in his simplicity and jocularity, his affection for his friends, and his resolution to shrink from no danger rather than compromise the goodness of his cause.*The account which Fox has given of Rowland Taylor is held to be only inferior to the eloquence and dignity of the Phædon of Plato.†It is difficult to give the spirit of such a narrative without impairing its force; but we may select one or two of its more remarkable points. Taylor had been chaplain to archbishop Cranmer; but having been appointed rector of Hadleigh, in Suffolk, he devoted himself most zealously to the duties of his parish. He was married, and had nine children. Soon after the accession of Mary some zealous papists took forcible possession of his church, and brought a priest to perform mass. Taylor remonstrated, with more wrath than worldly prudence, against what he called popish idolatry; and he was cited to appear in London before the chancellor. He was strongly urged to fly; and his faithful servant, John Hull, who rode with him to London, entreated him to shun the impending danger, and declared that he would follow him in all perils. He came before Gardiner, with whom his long conference ended by the overpowering argument,” Carry him to prison." He remained in confinement for about a year and three quarters, when he was brought before the commissioners and condemned as a heretic. His degradation was performed by Bonner; the usual mode being to put the garments of a Roman Catholic priest on the clerk-convict, and then to strip them off. Taylor refused to put them on, and was forcibly robed by another.” And when he was thoroughly furnished therewith, he set his hands to his sides, and said, 'How say you, my lord, am I not a goodly fool? How say you, my masters, if I were in Cheap should I not have boys enough to laugh at these apish toys?'" The final ceremony was for the bishop to give the heretic a blow on his breast with his crosier-staff. "The bishop's chaplain said, 'My lord, strike him not, for he will sure strike again.' 'Yes, by St. Peter, will I,' quota Dr. Taylor, 'the cause is Christ's, and I were no good Christian if I would not fight in my Master's quarrel.' So the bishop laid his curse on him, and struck him not." When he went back to his fellow prisoner, Bradford, he told him the chaplain had said he would strike again; "and by my troth," said he, rubbing his hands, "I made him believe I would do so indeed." We give the scene as we find it, as an exhibition of character and of manners. What Heber calls "the coarse vigor of his pleasantry" may justly appear to some as foolish irreverence. But under this rough contempt of an authority which he despised there was in this parish priest a tenderness and love most truly Christian. At two o'clock on a February morning one of the sheriffs of London led Taylor out of his prison, to deliver him to the sheriff of Essex, in Aldgate, "Now when the sheriff and his company came against St. Boto??h Church, Elizabeth, his daughter, cried, saying, 'O my dear father! Mother, mother, here is my father led away.' Then cried his wife, 'Rowland, Rowland, where art thou?' for it was a very dark morning, that the one could not see the other. Dr. Taylor answered, 'Dear wife, I am here,' and stayed. The sheriff's men would have led him forth, but the sheriff said, 'Stay a little, masters, I pray you, and let him speak to his wife;' and so they stayed. Then came she to him; and he took his daughter Mary in his arms, and he, his wife, and Elizabeth kneeled down and said the Lord's Prayer: at which sight the sheriff wept apace, and so did divers other of the company. After they had prayed, he rose up and kissed his wife, and shook her by the hand, and said, 'Farewell, my dear wife, be of good comfort, for I am quiet in my conscience. God shall stir up a father for my children.' And then he kissed his daughter Mary, and said, 'God bless thee, and make thee his servant:' and kissing Elizabeth, he said, 'God bless thee, I pray you all stand strong and stedfast unto Christ, and his words, and keep you from idolatry.' Then said his wife, 'God be with thee, dear Rowland. I will with God's grace meet thee at Hadleigh.' And so he was led forth to the Woolsack [an inn], and at his coming out, John Hull, before spoken of,stood at the rails with Dr. Taylor's son. When Dr. Taylor saw them, he called them, saying, 'Come hither, my son Thomas;' and John Hull lifted up the child and set him on the horse, before his father. Then lifted he up his eyes towards heaven, and prayed for his son; laid his hand on the child's head, and blessed him; and so delivered the child to John Hull, whom he took by the hand and said, 'Farewell, John Hull, the faith fullest servant that ever man had.' And so they rode forth; the sheriff of Essex, with four yeomen of the guard, and the sheriff's men leading him." The narrative of Fox conducts the condemned man by slow steps to his beloved Hadleigh. He is placid and even merry to the last. He jests upon his burly and corpulent frame, and holds that the worms in Hadleigh churchyard will be deceived, for the carcass that should have been theirs will be burned to ashes. He asks to be taken through Hadleigh. The streets are lined with his old parishioners. He could see them, but they could not look upon his face, which had been covered through his journey with a hood, having holes for the eyes and mouth. In Hadleigh there still stand some almshouses, built by William Pykeham, the rector, at the end of the fifteenth century. Taylor, "stopping by the almshouses, cast out of a glove to the inmates of them such money as remained of what charitable persons had given for his support in prison, his benefices being sequestrated; and missing two of them he asked, 'Is the blind man and the blind woman that dwelt here alive?' He was answered, 'Yea, they are there within.' Then threw the glove and all into the window, and so rode forth." When he came to Aldham Common, where he was to suffer, he said, "Thanked be God, I am even at home;" and lighting from his horse he tore the hood from his head. "When the people saw his reverend and ancient face, and long white beard they burst out with weeping tears, and cried, saying, 'God save thee, good Dr. Taylor.'" He would have spoken to them; but a guard thrust a tipstaff into his mouth. As they were piling the fagots a brutal man cast a fagot at him, which wounded him so that the blood ran down his face. "O friend," said he, "I have harm enough; what needed that?" Let us draw a veil over his sufferings, and see only the poor woman who knelt at the stake to join in his prayers, and would not be driven away.
The Popular History of England of Society and Government from the Earliest Period to Our Own Times, Volume III
In the persecution of the Protestant divines there was one distinct evidence of their secession from the principles of the Church of Rome, which marked them out as victims. The greater number of them were married. Rogers, when he requested that his wife might be with him after his condemnation, was told that she was not his wife, and Gardiner and Bonner refused him this consolation. As he went to the stake at Smithfield, the faithful woman met him on his way with her ten children. Laurence Saunders was allowed to see his infant, when his wife was denied admittance to him at the Marshalsea. Taking the child in his arms, he exclaimed, "Yea, if there were no other cause for which a man of my estate should lose his life, yet who would not give it, to avouch this child to be legitimate, and his marriage to be lawful and holy!" He wrote to that wife to prepare him a shirt, "which you know whereunto it is consecrated. Let it be sewed down on both sides, and not open.” When Hooper was brought before Gardiner, the crafty prelate asked him whether he was married. "Yea, my lord," was the answer;"and will not be unmarried till death unmarry me." Rowland Taylor, kneeling with his wife and daughters on the dark February morning in the porch of St. Botolph, is the crowning example of the holiness of the family affections. Of such men it has been touchingly said that "during this persecution the married clergy were observed to suffer with most alacrity. They were bearing testimony to the validity and sanctity of their marriage, against the foul and unchristian aspersions of the Romish persecutors. The honor of their wives and children was at stake. The desire of leaving them an unsullied name and a virtuous example combined with the sense of religious duty; and thus the heart derived strength from the very ties which, in other circumstances, might have weakened it."*
Gardiner, according to our Protestant historians, "having broken the ice of burning heretics, and taken off the heads and captains,” left the work to be carried on by Bonner. On the day on which Taylor and Hooper suffered, six persons were arraigned and condemned before the bishop of London, the lord mayor and sheriffs, and members of the council. They were of various callings--a butcher, a barber, a weaver, a gentleman, a priest, and an apprentice to a silk-weaver. On the 10th, being Sunday, Alfonso de Castro, a Spanish friar, the confessor of King Philip, preached before the king; "and in his sermon inveighed against the bishops for burning of men, saying that they learned it not in Scripture to put any to death for conscience, but on the contrary, rather to let them live and be converted."† It was the desire of Philip to make himself acceptable to the English; and probably, at this time, the severe bigotry which led him four years later to be present at an auto-da-fé in Valladolidmight have been kept down by kindlier feelings. There was a suspension of these cruel exhibitions for about five weeks after this remarkable sermon. But on the 17th of March Thomas Tomkins, the weaver, condemned on the 9th of February, was burned at Smithfield; on the 26th William Hunter, the silk-weaver's apprentice, was burned at Braintree; on the 28th William Pigot, the butcher, was also burned at Braintree, and Stephen Knight, the barber, at Maldon, John Laurence, the priest, was burned at Colchester on the 29th. Thomas Hawkes, the gentleman, was reserved to suffer at Coggeshall on the 10th of June.
The Popular History of England of Society and Government from the Earlisest Period to Our Own Times, Volume IV
For more than three months have these serious differences between parliament and army gone on. There is a pause of nearly another month, in which the kingdom does seem approaching to a settlement. We have lost sight of the monarch during the busy two months in which London lies under the shadow of that eagle's wing. Is he a guest or a prisoner amid that army, so differently composed from his own roystering cavaliers? He is certainly not an ill-used prisoner. “His majesty," says Clarendon, "sat still, or removed to such places as were most convenient for the march of the army; being in all places as well provided for and accommodated as he had used to be in any progress." All persons were allowed to resort to him--"the best gentlemen of the several counties through which he passed." His own chaplains had leave to attend upon him for his devotions, and "performed their function at the ordinary hours, in their accustomed formalities." Royalists of rank visited him without restraint; "and many good officers who had served his majesty faithfully were civilly received by the officers of the army, and lived quietly in their quarters." The king lodged at great houses in the neighborhood of the army--at the Earl of Salisbury's at Hatfield, when the troops were at St. Alban's; at Caversham, the Earl of Craven’s, when the army had moved farther from London. Sir Philip Warwick has a curious passage, implying that there was some general belief that the king's disgust at the harsher treatment he had received from the Presbyterians would moderate his own desire for Episcopal uniformity, and lead him to look with approbation upon that liberty of conscience which the Independents professed and demanded:† "At Causham [Caversham] I had the honor to come into his presence, though I staid not there; but, by all I could perceive either from himself or any other, he was very apprehensive in what hands he was, but was not to let it be discerned. Nor had he given that countenance to Dr. Taylor's 'Liberty of Prophesying' which some believed he had."* The prejudices of his education and the principles of his government were too exclusive to allow Charles to admit the doctrine of toleration, although proclaimed by his own favorite chaplain. When Jeremy Taylor from his lowly retreat in Wales sent forth this plea for religious liberty into an unquiet world, he said, "I thought it might not misbecome my duty and endeavors to plead for peace, and charity, and forgiveness, and permissions mutual; although I had reason to believe that such is the iniquity of men, and they so indisposed to receive such impresses, that I had as good plough the sands or till the air as persuade such doctrines."†It was reserved for a happier age to understand and act upon these principles. Taylor had been favored by Laud, but he had broken away from Laud's narrow estimate of what was necessary for the security of an established Church. The problem that its power and dignity and usefulness might be upheld in connection with the most absolute spiritual freedom beyond its pale, required to be practically worked out for two centuries before it could be held to be solved. The reasoners in steel, who were as impatient of the domination of "New Presbyter" as of "Old Priest,"‡ were dealing more practically with this question of toleration than any previous set of men who had so advocated the rights of conscience. Few had advocated those rights, having strong religious convictions of their own. Cromwell was the great expositor of their principle, and he probably went as far as the spirit of Protestantism would then permit. Charles hated the Presbyterians, but he gave no confidence to the Independents. The king and his conqueror now sometimes met. The king had been allowed by Fairfax, with an instant attention to his request, to have an interview with his children, the dukes of York and Gloucester, and the Princess Elizabeth. Sir John Berkeley, who came over from the queen when Charles had informed her of his reception by the army, had many conferences with Cromwell, who, although "wishing that the king was more frank, and would not tie himself so strictly to narrow maxims," told Berkeley "that he had lately seen the tenderest sight that ever his eyes beheld, which was the interview between the king and his children; and wept plentifully at the remembrance of it, saying that never man was so abused as he in his sinister opinions of the king, who, he thought, was the uprightest and most conscientious man of his three kingdoms." And yet Berkeley, while he records this trait of Cromwell's character, which, after the accustomed fashion, we must call hypocrisy, writes:” I was of his majesty's sense, that men whose hands were yet hot with the blood of his most faithful subjects ought not entirely to be trusted; but thought they ought absolutely to be well dissembled with, whilst his majesty was in their hands at least, that he might the better get out of them."§
The Popular History of England of Society and Government from the Earliest Period to Our Own Times, Volume IV
Whatever might be the contrarieties of doctrine and discipline among the great body of Puritans, the time of scoffing and reviling them was entirely passed. There might be secret mutterings against fanatics among the old cavaliers, but the great religious body was too powerful, their influence was too universal, to meet with violent resistance or open contempt. The more extreme sectaries necessarily provoked much suppressed ridicule; but the great body of the Puritan clergy were too orderly in their lives, too active in their zeal for godliness and sobriety, and in many cases had established so great a reputation for sound learning that the most devoted Episcopalians and staunchest royalists could not pretend to despise them, as in the times of Laud. The toleration which was imperfectly carried out by the republican Independents, but which Cromwell made the ruling principle of his ecclesiastical policy, had a tendency to mitigate some of the old feuds of the surplice and the Geneva gown. Evelyn, the most devoted of men to the past system of government, spiritual and temporal, is naturally disgusted when, on the 4th of December, 1653,"going this day to our church, I was surprised to see a tradesman, a mechanic, step up; I was resolved yet to stay and see what he would make of it." The mechanic inferred from his text that "now the saints were called to destroy temporal governments;" and Evelyn remarks that "with such feculent stuff, so dangerous a crisis were things grown to." Cromwell rather averted the danger of the crisis, as we have seen. Evelyn is severe upon "the usuper" being feasted at the lord mayor's, on Ash Wednesday; though he expresses no grateful sense of the change which permitted him "to hear the famous Dr. Jeremy Taylor at St. Gregory's." This true English gentleman has unconsciously given his testimony that the kingdom was not in a very wretched condition when "the usurper" began openly to take the regulation of affairs. He saw indeed, at Caversham, in 1654, Lord Craven's woods being felled "by the rebels"--the confiscation of this property having been an expiring act of the despotism of the Rump Parliament of which Oliver complained. But in this summer tour he enjoys "the idle diversions" of Bath;” trifling and bathing with the company who frequent the place for health." He goes to Bristol, "a city emulating London, not for its large extent, but manner of building--shops, bridge, traffic, exchange, market-place"--standing "commodiously for Ireland and the Western world." He was welcomed with old hospitality at Oxford, and heard the famous Independent, Dr. Owen, preach, "perstringing [glancing upon] Episcopacy." Cromwell was chancellor of Oxford, and Dr. Owen vice-chancellor; yet Evelyn heard excellent orations; and was delighted at All Souls with "music, voices and theorbos, performed by some ingenious scholars." Some of the roaring habits of the cavaliers were not yet banished by Puritanism; for his party's coachmen, at Spie Park, the seat of Sir Edward Baynton, were made "exceeding drunk" by that "humorous old knight,” who ordered all gentlemen's servants to be so treated. At Wilton House, the Earl of Pembroke's, he beholds the mansion and gardens in the most beautiful order. He finds at Coventry "the streets full of great shops, clean and well-paved." In Rutlandshire he meets an exception to the general neatness of English villages: "Most of the rural parishes are built of mud, and the people living as wretchedly as in the most impoverished parts of France, which they much resemble, being idle and sluttish." In Leicestershire the gentry are "free drinkers." With these exceptions, wherever he travels he finds stately houses, fair gardens, ample parks, orderly and contented people. He sees very few evidences of the ravages of war. The country seems quiet and prosperous--not altogether a bad country to live in, though "an usurper" does rule it. And so Mr. Evelync ompletes his purchase of Sayes Court; and sets out his oval garden; and trims his holly hedge, afterward so famous; and is not wanting for amusements even in this strict age; for "my Lady Gerrard treated us at Mulberry Garden, now the only place of refreshment about town for persons of the best quality to be exceedingly cheated at." There are indications that some of the levities are creeping in that preceded the coming age of licentiousness: "I now observed how the women began to paint themselves."
The Popular History of England of Society and Government from the Earliest Period to Our Own Times, Volume IV
The measures of the king became day by day more clearly directed to the gradual advancement and ultimate supremacy of his own creed. The popular discontent was growing serious. When the first Roman Catholic chapel was opened in the city, the train-bands hesitated to disperse the mob that insulted the priests. When mass was first celebrated at University College, Oxford, in a chapel opened by Obadiah Walker, the dangers of the Church were proclaimed from pulpits in which it had been recently proclaimed that there was no danger and no sin to be compared to that of resistance to the divine authority of kings. The formation of a great camp on Hounslow Heath was naturally considered to be for the purpose of coercing a sinful generation, that obstinately refused to accept the gracious invitation to come back to the creed of Gardiner and Bonner. The ponderous folio of "Acts and Monuments" was again brought out, and mothers gathered their children around their knees to hear the sad stories of Rowland Taylor and Anne Askew. The camp at Hounslow was supposed to be the evidence that another time of fiery trial was at hand. "There were many jealousies and discourses of what was the meaning of this encampment," writes Evelyn. The Reverend Samuel Johnson chose to interpret its meaning in his own incautious fashion. He had been in prison since his conviction in 1683 for writing "Julian the Apostate."* A restless and dangerous man, Hugh Speke, was his fellow-prisoner; and in the spirit of mischief he excited Johnson to write an address to the troops encamped at Hounslow, which Speke undertook to get circulated. It was entitled "An humble and hearty address to all the Protestants in King James' army;" and, says the biographer of Mr. Johnson, "he exhorted the Protestant officers and soldiers not to serve as instruments to enslave their country, and to ruin the religion they professed."†Johnson was discovered as the author. He had the generosity not to implicate Speke, and he alone suffered. He was convicted, on the 16th of November, of a libellous publication, and was sentenced to stand three times in the pillory, and to be publicly whipped. According to one account, when sentence was pronounced he said,” You whip, upon my back, acts of parliament and the Church of England."‡ According to another account, when told by the judge to be grateful to the attorney-general that he was not tried for high treason, he exclaimed, "Am I, when my only crime is that I have defended the Church and the laws, to be grateful for being scourged like a dog, while popish scribblers are suffered daily to insult the Church, and violate the laws with impunity?" He was scourged like a dog; but previous to his punishment he was stripped of his gown, by the Bishops of Durham, Rochester, and Peterborough, commissioners appointed for the diocese of London, during the suspension of Compton, the bishop. Johnson's cruel sentence was inflicted on the 1st of December, though strenuous endeavors were made to obtain a remission of the whipping. "The king was deaf to all entreaties: the answer was, that since Mr. Johnson had the spirit of martyrdom, 'tis fit he should suffer."§ His biographer says of the courageous endurance of the suffering, "He observed afterward to one of his most intimate friends, that this text of Scripture, which came suddenly into his mind, 'He endured the cross, and despised the shame,' so much animated and supported him in his bitter journey, that had he not thought it would have looked like vainglory, he could have sung a psalm while the executioner was doing his office, with as much composure and cheerfulness as ever he had done in the church; though at the same time he had a quick sense of every stripe which was given him, with a whip of nine cords knotted, to the number of three hundred and seventeen."
The Popular History of England of Society and Government from the Earliest Period to Our Own Times, Volume VI
We have traced* the progress of architecture from Wren down to Kent and Burlington. From the era of churches and mansions we have arrived at that of public and commercial buildings. Sir Robert Taylor was the leading architect when George III. ascended the throne. He was a man of taste and industry, but not of much original power: the wings he added to the bank, an adaptation of a design by Bramante, were much admired at the time, but were ruthlessly swept away by his successor as bank architect, Sir John Soane. Contemporary with Taylor was Dance, the architect of the Mansion House and of Newgate--the latter a work of most prison like character. The Woods (father and son), of Bath, and the brothers Adam, of Edinburgh and London, call for honorable notice for their efforts to raise the character of our street architecture. Bath," that beautiful city which charms even eyes familiar with the masterpieces of Bramante and Palladio,"† may be said to have been created by the Woods; the taste of Robert and James Adam is fairly shown in the Adelphi--though they erected a large number of other buildings. But the greatest architect of the time was Sir William Chambers, whose fame--his Chinese fantasies being forgotten--now rests secure, on his one grand work, Somerset House--by far the noblest English building of its time, and, with all its faults, still one of the noblest buildings in the capital. Unfortunately it was never completed on its original plan; and the erection of King's College in an anomalous style--itself about to be rendered still more anomalous by the perversion of the semi-Greek chapel into semi-Gothic--will forever prevent the completion of its eastern side, a misfortune rendered the more obvious by Mr. Pennethorne's recent admirable completion of the western portion. Somerset House was the last crowning triumph of the Italian style, introduced by Inigo Jones, and carried on with very unequal success by succeeding architects. The investigations of two painters, James Stuart and Nicholas Revett, as made known in their "Antiquities of Athens" (1762-94), by calling the attention of professional men and the public to the architecture of ancient Greece, effected an entire change in the received notions of architectural beauty. It was of course some time before the change became apparent in our public edifices, but, from the publication of the "Antiquities" there was a constantly growing approximation to Greek forms, however much the Greek spirit might be absent, until in our own day it culminated in the works of Sir Robert Smirke, and was followed by the inevitable reaction. Stuart himself, after the publication of the first volume of his great work, adopted the profession of an architect, and found considerable employment; his best known building is the Chapel of Greenwich Hospital--an elegant structure, but alone sufficient to show that he was by no means a purist in the application of Greek principles. Revett also practised as an architect, but without any marked success. It remains only to notice James Wyatt, who suddenly became famous by the erection of the Pantheon, Oxford Street (1772), and during the rest of the century secured a large share of public favor. His ambition in the first instance was to produce an Italianized Greek style; but later he unhappily turned his attention to Gothic, and to him is due the destruction of much, and the disfigurement of more, of the most precious of our mediæval remains. His tasteless additions are now for the most part removed, or in process of removal, but the injury to the originals is irreparable
But many other ingenious devices were resorted to for the supply of the wants of the crown beyond its large hereditary revenues. There had been proclamations by James and Charles against the increase of buildings in London. The chaplain of the Venetian ambassador, in 1617, thought that the proclamation of James was for the intent of extorting fines, rather than with the hope of preventing the extension of the capital when there was abundant space for its enlargement.* There could be no doubt of the intention of Charles, when in 1633 a commission was harassing every owner of a new house from St. Martin's in the Fields to Blackwall, by levying enormous fines, or commanding the houses to be pulled down. Garrardis very minute in his relation of these proceedings. Refusal to the arbitrary command was dangerous. "Writs are gone forth from the Star Chamber to the sheriff to pull down the houses of Mr. Moor, and to levy £2000 fine for not having pulled them down by Easter.” These were forty-two houses near St. Martin's Church; and they were "pulled down to the ground." The interference with the supply of house room was not more arbitrary than the interference with the supply of food. "The taverns," writes Garrard, "begin to victual again; some have got leave. 'Tis said that the vintners within the city will give £6000 to the king to dress meat as they did before."†Proclamations were issued minutely regulating the price of all provisions.There were examples enough of such folly in former times which are held to be necessarily unenlightened; but in the days when the intellect of England was in the fullest activity, the rating of all catables appears the merest freak of individual idiocy. "The proclamations," says Garrard, "have done little good. They will not bring them [the provisions] in; so that housekeeping in London is grown much more chargeable than it was before these proclamations were published." Some of the proclamations of Charles appear to have had no other object than that of a wanton interference with the convenience of the people. It was the age of hackneycoaches. Garrard says that there were one thousand nine hundred in London and Westminster. At the beginning of 1635 he writes: "There is a proclamation coming forth to prohibit all hackney coaches to pass up and down in London streets; out of town they may go at pleasure as heretofore." It is true that the narrow streets were somewhat overcrowded with the coaches. The great enemy of these vehicles, John Taylor the water-poet, who saw the demand for the Thames wherries grievously reduced, tells us that "butchers cannot pass with their cattle for them; market-folks, which bring provision of victuals to the city, are stopped, stayed, and hindered. "The streets were kept narrow by the absurd proclamations through which the natural extension of the town was impeded. It is clear enough that no interference of the government could put down the coaches; but the limitation of their use had the effect of encouraging the system which was introduced in 1634, by a speculating traveller, of "carrying people up and down in close chairs," called sedans.
There is no more curious record of the outward life of London in these fearful times than "The Diary of Henry Machyn, Citizen and Merchant Taylor." Let us glance at the jottings-down of the sights beheld, and the events gossiped about, by this dweller near Queenhithe, for a few months of 1555, to obtain a notion of the strange scenes which were then exhibited. On the 30th of April tidings came that the queen was delivered of a prince; and the bells were rung in every steeple, and Te Deum sung in every choir. The intense desire of the queen for an heir to the throne was the repeated source of ridiculous rumors, not confined to the gaping Londoners, but solemnly transmitted to the emperor, as the crowning joy of the marriage of his son. On the 5th of May the ambassador to CharlesV. writes home that the emperor had sent for him at four o'clock in the morning, to know if the news were true.* Machyn's record tells of the disappointed hope in few words. "The morrow after, it was turned otherwise." The Whitsun season brings various amusements. Master Cardmaker, the vicar of St. Bride's, with an upholsterer and his wife, are burned at Smithfield. The clerks go in procession, and a goodly mass is performed, and the waits are playing round Cheap, and the host is borne about by torchlight. There are May games at St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, and at Westminster, with giants and morris-dancers, and the hobby-horse, and the lord and lady of the May riding gorgeously. In a day or two after seven men are taken out of Newgate, to be carried to Essex and Suffolk, to burn; and on the 1st of July Master Bradford and a tallow-chandler's apprentice are burned in Smithfield, with a great company of people. With an occasional burning to keep the multitude in remembrance of their blessings, the summer passes; and on the 15th of September the pope's jubilee and pardon are declared at St. Paul's, "and as many as will receive his pardon, to be shrived and fast three days in one week, and to receive the blessed sacrament the next Sunday after, and then clean remission of all their sins." In November the Romish ceremonies burst forth in unusual splendor, upon the occasion of the death of Gardiner, chancellor and bishop of Winchester; when there are dirges in every parish, and the mass of requiem, "and so prayed for after the old custom." The great burnings at Oxford have preceded the death of the chancellor, and Bonner does not immediately honor his memory by any exhibitions in Smithfield. But "a stripling" is whipped about Paul's Cross, "for speaking against the bishop that preached the Sunday before;" and "an old man, a shepherd," who spoke certain things before the sermon at the Cross, is taken to the Counter. There was a delay of three months before Gardiner was carried to his final resting-place at Winchester; and while his embalmed body lay in a hearse at St. Mary's Overies, five men and two women went into Smithfield to burn; and there was a commandment through London over night that "no young folk should come there." The Christian duty of putting men and women to a cruel death for their opinions was too subtle to be properly impressed upon tender minds, by the bonfire lighting up the gabled roofs on a dark January morning.
Janet at email@example.com