Bygone Berkshire

The Norman Conquest has left us more certain and dependable records. From the survey of Domesday we ascertain that Comenore in 1086 contained thirty hides of land, having been rated tempore Regis Edwardi, at fifty hides. It will be remembered the early English Charters gave twenty hides as its extent, so that the Manor had by this time been either added to, or the hidation varied, possibly both. The Manor maintained sixty villani, sixty-nine bordarii or freemen, with four servi or bondsmen; the Church is mentioned, as also two fisheries of the value of forty shillings yearly. Sevacoord, or Seacourt, and Winteham probably Wytham, were a portion of Cumnor which is the first manor mentioned in Domesday Book, belonging to the Abbey of Abingdon, and in evidence of ancient right it is expressly written there: – "Semper fuit de Abbatia." Cumnor Church is again alluded to in a Papal Bull dated 1152, but there are now no visible traces of this edifice. The present church which underwent thorough restoration some forty years ago, having previously suffered by injudicious alterations at various times, is of the Transition period, the most ancient portion being the tower, according to the dicta of ecclesiastical architects, not erected before the year 1250. Many objects of great interest to the Archæologist are yet preserved in and about the church, despite the more recent restorations. Among others, are two stone coffins, enclosing the remains of former Abbots of Abingdon, two piscinæ, and of yet more recent date the tomb of Anthony Forster, of whom I shall have something to say presently. Some of the stone carvings within the church, are of great delicacy, being remarkably fine examples of fourteenth century work, in the shape of two corbels, the capitals of three columns, a window, and the portion of an arch.

In the chancel are some poppy heads, carved upon both sides; on one is the sacred monogram I.H. S. upon a shield, upon another the five stigmata, i. e., the pierced feet, the hands, and heart of the Saviour, also a cross; upon the reverses are also carved the crucifixial emblems, – the ladder, spear, and reed or staff, to which is affixed a sponge; there are also the hammer, pincers, and three nails. Upon the upper shield are the Vestments, the crown of thorns, and bag of money.

A letter referring to Cumnor Church during the Civil Wars, written by a member of the Pecock or Peacock family is printed in Mercurius Academicus. This family held the Manor at that period, Richard Pecock compounding for his estate by paying the considerable sum of £140. Many of the family lie buried in Cumnor Church, and the school is mainly supported by the legacy of a Mrs. Peacock.

The letter refers principally to the conduct of certain soldiers, who, finding nothing worth removing, took down the weathercock, "that might have been left alone to turn round," and did much other damage. The letter is dated Thursday, February 26th, 1644, and is as follows: – "To present you with as honest men as those of Evesham and honeste you will not deeme them to be when you heare they came from Abingdon, to a place called Cumner in no smaller a number than 500; where the chieftains view the church, goe up into the steeple and overlook the country as if they meant to garrison there, but finding it not answerable to their hopes and desires they descend, but are loathe to depart without leaving a mark of their iniquitie and impiety behind them. Some they employ to take down the weather cock (that might have been left alone to turn round), others take down a cross from off an isle of the church (and this you must not blame them for they are enemies to the cross), others to plunder the countrymens' houses of bread, beare, and bacon, and whatsoever else was fit for sustentation."

There is also copied in a late seventeenth century MS. volume in the British Museum, (Harl. 6365, 53 b.), an epitaph, which, I believe, may yet be seen in the church, and is rather quaint and curious.

From the same MS.,2 I copied a description of Anthony Forsters monument. "In ye chancell against ye north wall, a great marble monument with pillars of marble. On a plate of brass faced to it ye picture of a man in armour, kneeling before a table upon a book. At the foot thereof, his helmett, at ye sides his gauntletts, over against him his wife kneeling, as her husband. Behind her three children, between them this coat; 3 Bugles, Q, 3 phœons, points upwards, with mantling and crest, which is a stag, lodged, and regardant. Gu. charged on ye shoulder, with a martlett, or, and pierced thro' ye neck with an arrow, ar. Behind the man this coat; 3 Bugles, Q., 3 phœons, points upwards, impaling 2 organ pipes in saltere between 4 crosses, paty. Then follow the quarterings. Behind ye woman is this coat: Williams. Az. 2 organ pipes in saltere between 4 crosses, paty. Quarterings as before described. Under them both a great brass plate, on ye part of it under him the following verses – ." These need not now be recorded; they will be found in Ashmole, and also translated in most editions of Scott's Kenilworth. They record his many accomplishments and virtues, and relate he was wise, eloquent, just, charitable, learned in the classics, in literature, music, architecture, and in botany. The date of his death is not mentioned, his burial however is recorded as taking place Nov. 10th, 1572, by the parish register, which cannot err.

He is therein mentioned as A.F., gentleman, the last word being written over an erasure, and it has been thought by some, that an epithet not so complimentary had previously been placed there, but erased, and "gentleman" substituted. I see no reason for such a suggestion; possibly some latin term may originally have been written, e. g., "miles," and the English word "gentleman" was thought more appropriate. At any rate, Anthony Forster was buried at Cumnor, Nov. 10th, 1572. Cumnor Place, Forster's residence, was an early fourteenth century house, used as a residence by the Abbots of Abingdon, and also as a place of removal or sanitorium by the monks, particularly during the plague, or black death, which decimated England under Edward III. At this period, it served both as rectory and manse house, where tithe and rents were paid, and Manorial Courts held, and where tenants were bound to attend to do suit and service for their lands to their superior lords. Such was Cumnor Place, until the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII. In 1538, it was granted for life by the Crown to Thomas Pentecost or Rowland, last Abbot of Abingdon, in consideration of his having willingly surrendered the Abbey and its possessions to the King. Rowland either died the following year or ceded Cumnor Place to the King, who seems to have retained possession for seven years, when, by patent, dated Windsor, Oct. 8th, 1546, the Lordship, Manor, and rectorial tithes of Cumnor, with all its rights and appurtenances, particularly the Capital Messuage, Cumnor Place, and the close adjoining, called the Park, and three closes called Saffron Plottye, etc., were granted to George Owen, Esq., the King's physician, and to John Bridges, doctor in physic, in consideration of two closes in St. Thomas' parish, Oxford, the site of Rowley Abbey, and the sum of £310 12s. 9d., cash. William Owen, son of Dr. Owen, married, April 24th, 1558, Ursula, daughter of Alexander Fettiplace, the estate being then settled upon him. Shortly afterwards, Cumnor Place was leased to Anthony Forster, and it was in his occupation when occurred the tragic incident which forms the concluding scene in Sir Walter Scott's Kenilworth, the death of Amy Robsart, wife of Sir Robert Dudley, afterwards Earl of Leicester.

In the following year, Anthony Forster purchased the property from Owen, and seems to have greatly enlarged and otherwise improved the mansion. Dying in November, 1572, he devised the estate to Dudley, subject to a payment of £1,200 to Forster's heirs. These conditions, its seems the Earl accepted, but retained possession for a single year only, as is proved by a document among the Longleat papers purporting to be a record of the sale of Cumnor by the Earl of Leicester, to Harry le Norris, ancestor of the Earls of Abingdon, which bears date 15th February, 16th Elizabeth, 1575.

From this time Cumnor seems to have gradually fallen into decay. Possibly the sad end of Lady Dudley may have contributed to this; at all events, rumours were spread among the villagers that her ghost haunted the locality, and a tradition is even yet received by them that her spirit was so unquiet that it required nine parsons from Oxford to lay the ghost, which they at last effectually did, in a pond hard by, the water in which does not freeze it is said, even in the most severe winter. This pond is still shown by the villagers, although they are quite unable to assign any reason for the peculiar conduct of the ghost.

Neglected for nearly a hundred years, a portion of the ruined mansion was then converted into a malthouse, afterwards into labourer's dwellings, and finally demolished in 1810, for the purpose of rebuilding Wytham Church. Among other mementoes of its former owner was an arch bearing upon the label the inscription "Janua Vitæ Verbum Domini. Anthonius Forster, 1575." This, with some handsome tracery windows, was removed to Wytham, the arch being built into the entrance wall of the churchyard. The date and name were for some reason destroyed, possibly to evade an apparent anachronism, for Anthony Forster had been dead two years in 1575. These windows and other objects of interest were engraved in the Gentleman's Magazine for 1821.

It is said and I believe truly, that so great interest was excited in Cumnor Place, by Sir W. Scott's novel, that the Earl of Abingdon was induced to drive some visitors from Wytham to see the ruins, forgetting that some years previously he had given order for their demolition. The disappointment of the party on arriving upon the ground was great, as may be imagined, and not less so that of the Earl, who too late realized his mistake. The disappointment was felt by everybody, for it is said all the world hastened to the site of the tragedy so graphically described by Scott, only to find they were too late. The public was not then aware that its sympathies had been aroused by the vivid imagination and marvellous genius of the novelist, and that while there was just a substratum of fact the greater portion of this historical novel had no foundation other than the great constructive power of the Author. While thousands deplored the untimely fate of Amy Robsart, their sympathies were in truth tributes to the dramatic powers of the novelist, not to the unfortunate heroine; the novel may be said to bristle with chronological inaccuracies, and utter disregard for historic fact.

It has been repeatedly reasoned that novelists should be permitted a certain licence, and in actual fiction this may possibly be; but if the subject and characters chosen are both historical, misconceptions may easily arise, and erroneous statements be indelibly impressed upon the mind of the reader. Let us recall to our memories the outline of Kenilworth, and then notice some of Scott's most glaring historical inaccuracies and anachronisms, and while I have no intention of attempting a defence for Robert Dudley and his followers, for the crime here alleged to have been committed, I believe I shall be able to show that he was, in this instance at any rate, greatly maligned.

The plot in brief is as follows: – Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, son of the Duke of Northumberland, who had been executed for endeavouring to place Lady Jane Grey upon the throne, having secretly married Amy Robsart, desires to be free, and confides his wishes to his retainers, Richard Varney and Anthony Forster. The Countess, who was living in retirement at Cumnor Place, hearing of the festivities given by her husband at Kenilworth, goes secretly there, and has a most affecting interview with Queen Elizabeth, in the course of which the Queen bitterly reproaches Leicester. At length, by specious promises, he prevails upon Amy to return to Cumnor, arranging to come to her as soon as liberated from his attendance upon the Queen. She complies, and is assigned by Forster a portion of the building approached only by a drawbridge in which is concealed a trap-door. At night Varney, riding hastily into the courtyard, gives the Earl's private signal – a peculiar whistle – on hearing which Amy rushes out to meet her husband; but Forster having meanwhile withdrawn the bolts, she falls through the trap. "A faint groan and all is over." Immediate punishment overtakes the criminals. Varney is arrested, but poisons himself in his cell, while Forster, in his hasty endeavour to escape, closes behind him a secret door, and dies a lingering death.

Scott tells us in later editions of Kenilworth (the first was published in 1821), that he based his story upon a beautiful ballad by W.J. Mickle, the translator of Camoens Lusiad, which had deeply impressed him; and Ashmole's Antiquities of Berkshire is cited at length by him as the principal authority upon which the novel was based. But Ashmole was in this instance only a copyist, and his antiquities were not published until 1717, nearly 160 years after Lady Dudley's death. He copied almost verbatim from a most scurrillous work called "Leicester's Commonwealth," published in 1584 for political purposes, known subsequently as "Father Parson's Green Coat," from the colour of the wrapper in which it was introduced from abroad by its author the celebrated Jesuit, Robert Parsons, although the authorship has been attributed to Cecil, Lord Burleigh. It was issued at first in MSS., and eight MS. copies are preserved in the British Museum, and two in the Bodleian. Sir Philip Sidney immediately issued a hasty answer to these charges against his relative, but this was not actually printed until 1746, and had but little effect at the time.

"Leicester's Commonwealth" was no sooner in circulation than the attention of Government was directed to it, and it was stigmatised by the Queen and Privy Council as "most malicious, false, and scandalous, and such as none but an incarnate devil could dream to be true." Without attempting a defence of Leicester, the character of his defamer may assist in forming a judgement how far any of his statements may be received, bearing in mind that both in religion and politics he was antagonistic to the Earl.

Of obscure, if not questionable birth, Parsons was educated in the reformed religion at Balliol College, Oxford, at the expense of his putative father. There he quickly rose to the position of dean and bursar, but was compelled to resign these appointments in order to avoid expulsion for incontinence and embezzlement of college funds. Quitting England for Rome, he then adopted the Romish faith and became a member of the Society of Jesus. Next, visiting Spain, he was most active in urging the Spanish King to despatch the Invincible Armada, and, after its destruction, used all his influence to promote a second invasion. A bold, clever, intriguing, and unscrupulous traitor, he is known to have even contemplated the assassination of Queen Elizabeth, and by his writings to have supported the claims of the Spanish Infanta against King James to the English throne. Such was the man, who did not hesitate to hurl broadcast accusations of the most atrocious character against his opponents, sheltering himself meanwhile abroad from the prosecution his many infamies deserved. To this man principally are traced the calumnies upon Leicester, Varney, and Forster, which have been so unfortunately perpetuated in "Kenilworth."

Much of the interest in the novel centres in the alleged secret marriage of Amy Robsart (who is described as daughter of Sir Hugh Robsart of Devonshire), and Dudley. Amy is made to say, "I am but a disguised Countess, and will not take dignity on me until authorised by him whom I derive it from." Again she is described as "the Countess Amy, for to that rank she was exalted by her private but solemn union with England's proudest Earl," Leicester, as I must here call him, further on saying "She is as surely Countess of Leicester as I am belted Earl."

Now for the facts. Amy was only daughter of Sir John Robsart, a Knight of ancient lineage, belonging to Norfolk, born at Stansfield Hall in that County, afterwards notorious as the scene of the murder of Mr. Isaac Jermy and his son by Rush. She had an illegitimate brother named Arthur, and an elder half-brother by her mother's previous marriage named Appleyard. Among the Longleat papers is a settlement on the husband's side, dated 24th May, 1550, in contemplation of the marriage. On the lady's part a deed executed by her father, Sir John Robsart, is preserved in P.R.O., London, and dated 15th May, 1520. The marriage itself could scarcely have been more public than it was. It must certainly have been well known to the Queen, who not improbably may have been present; her brother, Edward VI., certainly was. I had occasion to examine an autograph diary of this youthful King, now preserved in the British Museum (Cott MS. New Edit. 10), usually described as a "little diary." As a matter of fact the diary is of full quarto size; its first page having the Royal Arms and monogram E.R. in gold and colours. Each leaf has now been placed separately between folio pages for preservation. Bound up with it are many letters from the King, carefully written and principally in latin. In one writing from Hatfield he explains in most affectionate terms that he had delayed writing "Non negligentia sed studium." In this diary is recorded in King Edward's own handwriting that the Court being at Sheen, the old name for Richmond, upon June 4th, 1550.

"S. Robert dudeley, third sonne to th erle of warwic maried S. Jon. Robsartes daughter after wich mariage ther were certain Gentlemen that did strive to who shuld first take away a goses heade wich was hanged alive on tow crose postes. Ther was tilting and tourney on foot on the 5th, and on the 6th he removed to Greenwich."

Canon Jackson found at Longleat many documents dated after the marriage, one a grant of the Manor of Hemsby, Norfolk, by John, then Duke of Northumberland, to his son Lord Robert Dudley, and the lady Amye his wife, 7th Edward VI., 1553; another 30th Jan., 3 & 4 Philip and Mary, 1557, dated Sydisterne, after Sir John Robsart's death; there is also a license of alienation to Sir Robert Dudley and Amye his wife, 24th March, 4 & 5 Philip and Mary, 1558. The marriage therefore was very generally known, and there was neither abduction nor secrecy. I will now show that Amye was never Countess of Leicester, nor was she ever at Kenilworth, and for this reason. Kenilworth was not granted to Sir Robert, otherwise called Lord Robert Dudley, until June 20th, 1563, and he was not created Earl of Leicester until the 29th September following, three years after Amy Dudley's death. Queen Elizabeth did not pay her celebrated visit to Kenilworth until 1575, or fifteen years after Amy's death. It is therefore an absolute impossibility for the latter to have ever known the title of Countess of Leicester, to have been present at Kenilworth during the Queen's visit, or to have had the interview with her described with so much pathos. Endeavours to correct these and similar historical errors have been frequently made, but the attempt appears hopeless. Not long ago, the most influential of our London newspapers reiterated the statement that Amy Dudley was "the wife of Lord Leicester;" but not content with this, the writer further blundered by describing Lucy Robsart, wife of Mr. Edward Walpole, of Houghton Hall, as her elder sister. It is almost needless to say Amy Robsart had no sister, and but one brother, Arthur, who was illegitimate. Lucy Robsart was her aunt, daughter of Sir Terry, or Theodoric Robsart.

Canon Jackson appears to have satisfactorily identified the villain Varney, and rescued him from the unmerited opprobrium cast upon him. Longleat documents point him out as Richard Verney, of Compton Verney, Warwickshire, ancestor of the Lords Willoughby de Broke. This Varney was a knight anterior to 1559, and then apparently a stranger to Lord Dudley; for in that year, Sir Ambrose Cave writes to Dudley, recommending Sir Richard Verney as a fitting person to hold certain office in Warwickshire. In 1561, a year after Amy Dudley's death, he was High-Sheriff of his county, and he did not die until seven years after, viz., 1567, and eight years before Elizabeth's visit to Kenilworth. An anonymous writer in Macmillan, some two years ago, brought forward another Verney. He said, the Willoughbys and Verneys of Compton Merdac, not Compton Verney, did not intermarry till the next century; and co-temporary with the Richard Verney above mentioned was another Richard, belonging to a Buckinghamshire family, connected with the Dudleys both by marriage and misfortunes. Sir Ralph Verney had three sons, Edmund, Francis, and Richard. Edmund and Richard were implicated in the Conspiracy of Lady Jane Grey. Francis had been Elizabeth's servant when in confinement at Woodstock, and had been charged with tampering with a letter, and, we are told, had about as bad a name as any young gentleman of his day. Of Richard nothing is known with certainty, but in 1572, that is five years after the death of Canon Jackson's Knight, a Richard Varney was appointed to the Marshalship of the Bench for life, dying three years after, and on Nov. 15th, the same year, Leicester wrote begging Lord Shrewsbury not to fill up the place vacant by the death of Mr. Varney.

We have remarked that Anthony Forster's epitaph was most eulogistic. This may perhaps be exaggerated, as is undoubtedly Scott's description of him. He makes him out to be the son of the Abbot of Abingdon's Reeve, a widower with one child, Janet; a miserly curmudgeon, bordering on deformity, with no redeeming point save affection for this child. Michael Lamborne speaks to him thus familiarly: —

"Here, you Tony Fire-the-Fagot, papist, puritan, hypocrite, miser, profligate, devil, compounded of all men's sins, bow down and reverence him who has brought into thy house the very mammon thou worshippest."

The Forster of fact, was a totally different person. He was of an ancient Shropshire family, and had married Ann, niece of Lord Williams of Thame, Lord Chamberlain under Philip and Mary. His three children, represented on his memorial brass, predeceased him. He was, towards the close of his life, Member of Parliament for the borough of Abingdon, and chosen, upon at least one occasion, by the University of Oxford to settle a noisy controversy. He was a personal friend of Lord Dudley, and controller of his enormous expenditure. All Dudley's accounts passed through Forster's hands. All payments had to be sanctioned by him. Bundles of such accounts showing careful examination are now at Longleat, filed, says Canon Jackson, as left by Anthony Forster. They all bear his signature or initials, and the date 1566, six years after Tony Foster had been starved to death in his secret chamber.

I would now mention some of the minor circumstances and persons mentioned in the novel, respecting whom chronological errors are noticeable.

We have seen that Varney, to whatever family he belonged, died before the great Kenilworth festivities in honour of the Royal Visit, and that Amy had died fifteen years before that event. Sir W. Raleigh, who in the novel is introduced strewing his cloak before the Queen and subsequently knighted by her with Varney at Kenilworth, was not knighted until 1584, nine years after her visit, twenty-four years after Amy's death; and as he was born in 1552, was actually eight years old when that occurred.

On her journey from Cumnor Place to Kenilworth, accompanied by Wayland Smith, Amy passes through Donnington. They overtake the Hock Tide revellers from this village, also upon the road to Kenilworth. Donnington Castle is also mentioned earlier in the story. To pass through this hamlet, en route for Kenilworth, would be equivalent to travelling from say Reading to Birmingham in order to reach London. It is probable Sir Walter intended to write Deddington, which is in Oxfordshire, and on the direct road Amy would have had to travel, but it is strange the error has never been corrected. The revellers really came from Coventry, an entirely opposite route to that Lady Dudley would have had to pursue.

I have only given a few of the most evident anachronisms which permeate the novel, and many others might be mentioned. Many extracts from the story might be quoted, which show the carelessness of the great novelist as regards chronology; yet dates ought to have met with every consideration from him: he was professedly, at any rate, an antiquary, professionally a writer to the Signet or lawyer, where accuracy is all in all.