County of Middlesex. Calendar To the Sessions Records: New Series, Volume 1, 1612-14. Originally published by Clerk of the Peace, London, 1935.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
As the growth of the population began to extend beyond the City walls, about the middle of the XVth Century, and to overflow into the surrounding districts, this area became loosely called "London," the City of London in later years being distinguished as "The City." This unorthodox nomenclature continued until the passing of the Local Government Act in 1888, which brought all the parishes surrounding the City together into an orthodox "County of London." So accustomed have people now become to this comparatively new state of affairs, that few realize how much of the control of the greatest area of the new County of London, up to the passing of that Act, had been in the hands of the Justices of the County of Middlesex. When one appreciates that the boroughs of Bethnal Green, Chelsea, Finsbury, Fulham, Hackney, Hammersmith, Hampstead, Holborn, Islington, Kensington, Paddington, Poplar, St. Marylebone, St. Pancras, Shoreditch, Stoke Newington and Stepney were formerly situated in the County of Middlesex, it is not difficult to realize how vastly interesting to Londoners generally the old records of Middlesex are, or ought to be.
The question naturally arises—why were the records of so populated an area not handed over to the County of London on its formation? The answer is that a difference of opinion having arisen between the Courts of Quarter Sessions of London and Middlesex as to the effect of the Local Government Act of 1888, a decision of the High Court was sought, and by a judgment of Mr. Justice Bingham in the Queen's Bench in 1900 (The Duke of Westminster as Custos Rotulorum of the County of London v. the Duke of Bedford as Custos Rotulorum of the County of Middlesex) it was held that all records of the ancient County of Middlesex should continue to be in the custody of the Custos Rotulorum of the County of Middlesex.
It will be agreed, I think, that the manner in which the parent County has performed the trust thus imposed on it has been ample, and the production of the present Calendar, the first to be printed since 1905, is a proof of the interest which it continues to take not only in its own history but also in that of its severed portion, removed from its immediate control forty-six years ago.
Before the Local Government Act was passed, Middlesex had already taken an interest in its Sessions Records, and, as early as 1882, a special Committee of Justices was appointed to "consider and report to the Court whether any, and if any, what better accommodation can be provided for the old records of the County; and as to the best means of sorting them with a view to the preparation of an index and calendar."
At that date, some records were stored at Westminster and other at the Old Sessions House at Clerkenwell, and the first step which the Committee took was to see that all records were brought together to Clerkenwell. The records were in no sort of order, having been sadly neglected, and had little chance to recover from such misspent energy as that which Mr. Harcourt, a Clerk of the Peace in the reign of William III, bestowed on them when he removed most of the records "to his Country House in Holborn."
The work of sorting, labelling and cataloguing was entrusted to the care of the late Mr. A. T. Watson, and the late Mr. Cordy Jeaffreson, F.S.A., was appointed editor of the Calendar which it was intended to publish.
To those who know the collection of ancient documents now at the Guildhall, it is almost impossible to believe that this prodigious task could have been completed in 21 months, but in 1884 the Justices were informed that "the Archives of the County were in perfect order," and that a new muniment room had been completed at Clerkenwell.
Shortly after this, the "Middlesex County Record Society" was formed, with the primary object of "exhibiting in a series of printed calendars, the purport and chief particulars of the more noteworthy manuscripts of the collection," and in 1886 the first volume, dealing with the records from the third year of the reign of King Edward VI down to the end of the reign of Elizabeth, was published. The second volume, covering the period down to the twenty-second year of the reign of King James I, followed in 1887, and two further volumes were published, bringing the Calendar down to the year 1688, one in 1888, and one in 1892 after the passing of the Act whereby so large a part of Middlesex went to form the new County of London.
Under this Act it was arranged that Middlesex should retain the Guildhall at Westminster, and that the Sessions House at Clerkenwell should be handed over to the new County of London. This arrangement necessitated the transference of all the County Records from Clerkenwell to Westminster and this, together with the general upheaval caused by the new Act, made the work of dealing efficiently with archives, one of difficulty. However, in 1900, my late father, Mr. W. J. Hardy, F.S.A., was commissioned by the Standing Joint Committee to continue the work where Mr. Cordy Jeaffreson's calendars had ended, and in 1905 a Calendar to the Sessions Order Books only, covering the period from 1689–1709, was published. After that date the work was continued, but the Calendars were not printed. Instead, they were typewritten and indexed, and copies were presented to the Public Record Office and the British Museum for the use of students.
When that work had been accomplished, it was considered by the Committee that more useful purpose could be served if a fresh and fuller calendar of all records from 1607 onwards were begun. That date was selected because in that year both the Sessions Register and Gaol Delivery Register were preserved, for formerly only the Sessions Rolls had been kept for record.
Consequently, Calendars covering the period from 1607 to 1612 were typed and indexed in a manner similar to that adopted for the later Sessions Order Books, and the information they contained was made available to students.
The object of dealing with a period already reviewed by Mr. Jeaffreson was not to cast any reflection on that author's most scholarly work, but because, with the increase in historical research, it was realized that no editor could fairly be asked to bear the burden of selecting items of "interest," and that unless all subjects, persons and place names appeared in the Calendar of the Court, the appetite of all students could not be fully satisfied.
The new Calendars compiled from 1607 fulfil these conditions, and the student, whatever his subject, may rest assured that, unless he finds the object of his interest mentioned in the Index, no mention of that subject occurs in any record preserved at the Middlesex Guildhall of the period covered by the Calendar.
In 1933 it was decided that recourse should again be made to printing this Calendar, and the present volume is the result. It covers the nineteen months from December 1612 to June 1614, and embraces (a) the Process Register Book of Indictments, which begins in 1612, and is in addition to (b) the Sessions Rolls, (c) the Sessions Register and (d) the Gaol Delivery Register. In proof that many items are included in the Calendar, which were omitted by Mr. Cordy Jeaffreson, it will be noted that this new Calendar is contained in 462 pages, covering a period of nineteen months, while Mr. Jeaffreson's Calendar, embracing upwards of twenty-two years (including the period of the present Calendar) was contained in 187 pages. In other words, a year's business on an average occupied 8½ pages in Mr. Jeaffreson's Calendar, while in the present Calendar 24⅓ pages are given to each month.
The result of making mention of every record preserved, will no doubt make this volume difficult for continuous reading; however, it is hoped that the Index which has been compiled will direct readers to the particular point of their interest.
It is not my object, nor, I believe, is it the object of the Custodians of the Records, to make searches among the original records superfluous, and a student, having discovered from the Calendar that some reference is contained to the object of his interest, is invited to visit the Guildhall and there to study the original documents, which will be produced, under supervision, to properly accredited persons.
The method adopted in compiling the Calendar is to make the indictment, where one exists, the main entry, and to add to this all other references to it. Where there are no Sessions Rolls, or imperfect Sessions Rolls only exist, it is obvious that information from the three Register Books can only be given. The entries from these appear in the order in which they are found in the original books, and the method in which the case was disposed of always appears above the entry, in italics. The page or folio numbers, also given in italics in the left hand margin, refer to the page or folio of the original.
The entries have been compiled as the information from various sources comes to light, and it may seem to be out of sequence for an entry to read "Not guilty, led to gaol." This is explained by the fact that the "Not guilty" would be entered on the original indictment, while the fact that the prisoner had been led to gaol on his arrest would not be recorded until the Gaol Delivery Roll had been reached, which was invariably the last document, and used as a wrapper to bind up the completed roll. Readers, therefore, must reasonably work out the chronology of events, which is generally fairly obvious.
The date at which this Calendar opens is perhaps a fitting one, for the first proceedings at a Sessions of the Peace to be recorded is the last of those Sessions to be held at the Old Castle Tavern in St. John Street, and in the records of that Sessions appears the resolution that "the Sessions house now standing in St. John Street, and being there built by Sir Baptist Hicks and given to the Justices of the county of Middlesex for a Sessions house should for ever hereafter be called by the name of Hicks Hall" (p. 11).
Sir Baptist Hicks was a wealthy mercer of London, and his portrait now hangs in the Guildhall at Westminster. A full biography compiled by Mr. B. Woodd Smith, F.S.A., is to be found in Volume IV. of the Calendars published by the Middlesex Record Society. It appears that he was not only the King's Mercer, but also his financial agent, and is known to have advanced large sums of money to the monarch. In 1625 he was created Baron Hicks of Ilmington and Viscount Campden, and died in 1629.
Grace, the wife of Peter Watson, an apothecary of St. John Street, made "reviling speeches against Sir Baptist Hicks touching the building of the Sessions house" (p. 9); James Ewer, an innholder in St. John Street, was committed for "not carrying away his dung from his door at Hicks Hall gate" and for insulting speeches (p. 69); and Richard Weste of Golding Lane, a.scrivener, remarked that "he wold build a cage and a paire of stockes before Hicks Hall in disgrace of ye house" (p. 153).
The General Sessions, e.g., those held in April and at Michaelmas 1613 and in May 1614, were held at Westminster—probably, though the records do not say so, at the Old Gate House. The Gaol Delivery was always held in the Justice Hall in the Old Bailey of the City of London.
It must be remembered that all the Sessions Rolls, until quite a late date, have now been ironed flat, repaired, numbered and bound into volumes, so that I have been unable to deduce anything from the order in which the rolls were originally bound up, but I have found nothing which makes me disagree with what Mr. Jeaffreson wrote in the preface to his first volume (pp. xxvii to xxx).
In the Calendar now before you, the recognizances belonging to the Rolls of the Sessions of the Peace will usually be found placed first, then the recognizances for the Gaol Delivery, followed by the Indictments, Coroners' inquests, Lists of jurors, Jury writs, Gaol Delivery roll, and, lastly, extracts from the three registers of entries which have not already been incorporated in the Calendar to the Sessions Rolls.
It is not surprising that during the course of centuries many documents became detached from the rolls to which they originally belonged, and a number of sacks of these are now being assiduously sorted out by Miss Cameron at the Guildhall, and are being arranged in dates and dealt with as the other Sessions Rolls have been. One such bundle is included in the present Calendar (Sessions Roll 518).
Mr. Cordy Jeaffreson has dealt so fully with the procedure by which the various cases passed to judgment, with the various punishments awarded and with the duties of the Court officials, that I can do no more than refer my readers to the prefaces to the first and second volumes of his Calendar, but, in order to assist those who have not the opportunity of examining his works, I will deal shortly with one or two points which will, I trust, make entries apparently obscure to become a little better understood.
Every indictment, and the major part of every recognizance is written in Latin, with English translations interposed of any obscure words which it was unlikely that the Justices would understand. The Clerk of the Peace wrote the punishments upon the top of the indictments, and his remarks on the bottom of the recognizances. In cases where he omitted to include the judgment, this generally appears either in the Gaol Delivery Roll or in one of the other Registers, and it will be observed that few indictments are eventually left without any punishment being recorded.
In view of the horrible torture which resulted from standing mute, it is somewhat remarkable that, in the brief period which is covered by this Calendar, five persons should have chosen this death rather than face the gallows.
The first case noted of a prisoner standing mute is that of George Fisher, who was charged with breaking into the houses of Robert Beeston, a yeoman of St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, and of William Sybson of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, and stealing goods to the total value of £6 15s. One woman aided him, and another was accused of being a receiver of the goods stolen. Perhaps it may be stretching the imagination too far to say that he chivalrously faced this death by torture in order to save the women. Be this so or not, both women were discharged "because the principal stands mute" (p. 145).
John Legg alias Pilkington, yeoman, of Paddington, and several others, were accused of breaking into the houses of Matthew Smale and of the above-mentioned William Sybson, and stealing a Bible and some money. By standing mute he appears to have saved many of the other prisoners from punishment (p. 165).
Anthony Kirlie of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, yeoman, was accused with many others, of breaking into various houses and stealing plate and clothes of some value. Kirlie by standing mute appears to have saved the other prisoners, except one, who was respited to prison after he had been condemned to death (p. 390).
The peine forte et dure, which was the invariable punishment for standing mute, consisted of the prisoner being taken to a dark room, stretched naked on a stone floor, with weights placed on his back, "as many as he can bear and more." He was given three morsels of sour bread on alternate days and the "worst water" on the other days, until he died. By enduring this torture he avoided the forfeiture of his lands but not of his chattels. (See Jacob's Law Dictionary, under "Mute").
If a prisoner pleaded guilty of a major crime, he was hanged, or claimed the benefit of clergy. In the latter case, he asked for the "book" (i.e., the Bible), and was then ordered to read a passage out of it. If he succeeded, his left thumb was branded with the letter T (signifying that he had missed the gallows at Tyburn) and he was discharged. It is clear evidence of the progress of education which had been so greatly aided by the establishment of grammar schools in the reign of Edward VI and subsequently, that while during the twelve months ending December 1613 sixty-nine prisoners went to the gallows (of whom twelve women successfully pleaded pregnancy and after the birth of the child presumably suffered death by hanging), as many as sixty-one prisoners successfully pleaded their clergy. Twelve prisoners could not pass the test and were therefore hanged, and four were found to have been branded before, and so had forfeited the benefit.
In proof of the justice which could be expected at the hands of the Middlesex Justices during the same year, a hundred and three prisoners were found not guilty, and seven were respited after the judgment had been given. Many persons accused of grand larceny or other serious crimes were found guilty of petty larceny or of some minor offence, and got off with a whipping. This punishment also served for prostitutes, brothel-keepers, or those who had burdened the rates with bastard children. The punishment was sometimes performed in the House of Correction, sometimes along the street where the victim lived, and sometimes in a market-place. It was such a common occurrence that the particular procedure was seldom recorded in the records. In the case of Joan Lea, however, the Clerk recorded that she was "to be openly whipped at a cart's tail in St. John Street upon Saturday next until her body be all bloody" (p. 188).
On the other hand if the value of the goods stolen fell below a shilling the charge was altered to petty larceny, and there can, I think, be little doubt that where the Justices thought the penalty of death or branding rather too severe, an arithmetical juggle took place, whereby the value of the goods was reduced so as to bring the offence within the bounds of the lesser crime. An obvious instance of this is when Jane Baylie, a spinster of Golding Lane, who was charged with taking goods to the value of at least 48s. from Lady Elizabeth Welche, was found guilty of stealing goods to the value of only 4½d. and was discharged with a whipping (p. 167).
On the other hand two yeomen, who together were responsible for the theft of a pair of scissors worth 6d. and a handkerchief worth 9d., were both hanged because the offence was classified as highway robbery (p. 74); and Anthony Walter, a tailor of Westminster, who assaulted Susan Lyle in Westminster Abbey and stole 3s. from her, suffered a similar punishment (p. 162). Two other men who assaulted Robert Morris and George Mosson "at a place called lee Mantles" in Islington and stole goods to the value of is., were condemned to the gallows, though one was afterwards reprieved (p. 210).
A person accused of manslaughter, who proved that he killed his adversary in self-defence, was found "Guilty of defending himself" and was handed over in bail until his pardon was obtained (e.g., pp. 13, 107).
In some cases, the Justices meted out a punishment which they no doubt thought would fit the crime, as, for instance, when Thomas Hall of Teddington [Tuddington] was ordered to confess before "the vestry of the parish of Tuddington on Sunday next" that he had said of the Justices "it is but in vayne to make complaynte of anythinge before them" [i.e, the Justices] (p. 115).
This Calendar is noteworthy for providing the earliest reference which exists, so far as I know, to the punishment of transportation. This punishment, so freely awarded fifty years later and practised down almost to recent times, was used instead of capital punishment, and was looked upon with favour as it provided persons, almost in the nature of slaves, for our new colonies. The first Act dealing with transportation was that passed in 1597 (39 Elizabeth, cap. 4), entitled "An Act for the punishment of rogues, vagabonds and sturdy beggars," under which Justices were empowered to send persons convicted to the then newly-formed Colonies.
Greenland had been discovered in 1576 by Frobisher, in the search for the North-West Passage, though he mistook it for the fictitious Frisland, and for some centuries great confusion existed as to its exact location. At this date it cannot have been colonized to any extent, and Englishmen who ventured to its shores did not stay long. Littgold's story, had it been told, would have made adventurous reading.
John West and his wife, who had committed "cozenage," were ordered to be "carted" on two market days in Cheapside and "there to stand on the pillory, and then to be carted to Fulham to the place where the offence was done, and there to be set in the stocks with a paper on their heads showing their offence" (p. 14). Ann Rowe was condemned to sit in the stocks at Harefield for saying that her mistress had ordered her to steal a turkey (p. 23). Humphrey Mountaigue, a Smithfield butcher, was ordered "to be set in the stocks two several days, one in Cheapside and another day in East Smithfield," with a paper on his head showing that he had assaulted Edward Rotheram, a Sheriff of Middlesex (p. 60). Roger Williams and Margaret his wife, of St. Andrew's, Holborn, who were charged with being common barrators and disturbers of the peace, and for keeping a bawdy house, were ordered to be carted from the Gaol to their own house, "the said Margaret in a blue mantle like a bawd, and there to be openly set in the stocks" (p. 162). Richard Darry of Hillingdon and Nathaniel Ford of Uxbridge were ordered to be set in the stocks at Uxbridge on market-day, for the space of two hours, for poaching fish at night (p. 219). Charles Browne of Whitechapel, and Jane his wife, were put in the stocks in Artillery Lane "for emptying a great quantity of night-work into the common sewer, to the general annoyance of all the inhabitants" (p. 190), and from the records of the next Sessions we learn that they had broken "out of the stocks in Artillery Lane" (p. 218), but the punishment for the latter offence is not recorded. William Neeles of Cowley also effected escape from the stocks at Uxbridge (p. 235), and William Dawtrey of St. Dunstan's-in-the-West, gentleman, allowed a felon to escape from the stocks (p. 83).
Three "wandering rogues" were to be set in the stocks by the constable of Golding Lane, and then whipped and sent away (p. 457), and two other men were set in the stocks in St. John Street on two several days, for stealing lead belonging to Sir Michael Stanhope (p. 461), a son, no doubt, of the famous Elizabethan politician.
A curious expression is used when Sarah Woolridge, who picked the pocket of Peter Wraxall, claimed to be pregnant and was "respited to prison without judgment because [she] claims the benefit of the stomach" (p. 289).
Peter Fenton and Edward Somner were accused of breaking open the cages at Clerkenwell and Kensington respectively and allowing prisoners to escape (pp. 126, 311), and John Battye of "breaking the stocks in Aldersgate and carrying away the locks and hinges" (p. 177).
It must not be supposed that all records of Coroners' inquests were enrolled in the Sessions files, but only those, I imagine, which had, or might have had, some bearing on the work of the Justicess. We find, in all, ten inquisitions enrolled, seven of which are held on prisoners dying in Newgate of the "pining sickness" (pp. 112, 113, 302–3, 366–7). The other inquisitions were held on the death of Adam Ersbie, who was killed accidentally when "a birdingpiece worth 5s. charged with hailshot" was fired in an affray at Chelsea (pp. 150–151); on Robert Kilpatrick of St. Martin's who was killed by his assailant after an argument in the Prince's Arms in St. Martin's Lane (p. 416); and on a female child of Agnes Robinson, who was found guilty of murdering it at Whetstone, and was hanged (p. 398). In all these cases the inquisition has been used as an indictment.
In drawing an inference from these records as to the moral condition of London in these Jacobean days, one must remember that the parish constables, who were responsible for bringing offenders before the Justices, were mere laymen elected from year to year. Consequently, their individuality must be taken into account, and while one might be over-officious in carrying out his duties, another might err in the other direction. Enormous powers were put into their hands, and it is probable that many usurped their privileges. To quote one instance which helps one to understand the many references found in the Calendar to what appears to be unwarranted interference into domestic matters, a constable had the right to enter any house where he suspected that adultery or fornication was being committed, and to carry the offenders before a Justice without first having obtained a warrant.
Such powers must have given an over-zealous constable opportunities for abusing his authority. He would, of course, be faced with no difficulties in dealing with well-known women such as Margery Gardiner, "a noted and common whore commonly called Scotche Mage," who called a minister a "knave" (p. 225), but in other cases more tact must have been required, as, for example, when Mary Apple, a widow, and Thomas Attawell, a gentleman of Westminster, were found "lodging together in a chamber by the watche, and she is charged by the officers to be a common whore" (p. 192); when Thomas West and Margery Gibson "were taken in a chamber together alone at eleven of the clock in the night by the officers" (p. 385); or when William Sowth of Cow Cross and Isabel his wife were had up for allowing misrule in their house, the wife being charged "for using the sinful lust carnally on the Sabbath day" with one John Shercoe, who confessed that he had the "use of the said Isabel's body on the Sabbath day at divine service time" (p. 20); when Thomas Lane of Turnmill Street was accused of living incontinently with Joan Carter, knowing her husband to be alive (p. 281); or when Susan Browne, a spinster of Holborn, was "taken in bed with a Scotsman in a common bawdy house" kept by Christopher Thwaytes, described as a "gentleman," in Holborn (p. 263).
The offence of Joan Baker of Shoreditch, who was seen by the wife of Thomas Wraye "in carnal copulation in the street with a strange man," somewhat naturally led to her being reported by the officers "to be a common whore" (p. 308).
Two cases of unnatural offences are noted when Alban Cooke of Hoxton assaulted "a boy of not more than twenty years" and committed "sodomy called buggery" with him (p. 110), and when Gabriel Pennell of Islington was bound over for the same offence (p. 115).
William Hyecocks was found not guilty for a rape on Joan Wyatt (p. 2), but Robert Murkye, a gentleman of the City of Westminster, (having been charged with rape, effected his escape from justice (p. 2) Alexander Myles, a tailor of Harrow-on-the-Hill, was accused or assaulting and ravishing a girl "aged fourteen years and more, contrary to her will," but was acquitted (p. 62); and Robert Thacker committed "a ravishment upon the body of Finnett, wife of Roger, Long" (p. 182).
Brawling between women was frequent enough, but in some cases feminine cruelty appears to have outstretched the bounds of common humanity, as, for instance, when Joan Best attacked Elizabeth Hide, who was "quick with child," but since the assault she alleges that "she has not felt it stir" (p. 226).
John Taylor, a servant to Sir Gervase Helwys, who was Lieutenant of the Tower of London, and Richard Dale of Chancery Lane, were accused of publishing a libel against Sir Robert Leighe (pp. 7, 11 6). Sir Gervase conducted the torture of Edmond Peacham and was subsequently hanged for complicity in the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury (vide D.N.B.).
Alice Edwards of Charterhouse Lane was accused of "speaking divers scandalous speeches against the late Queen" (p. 193); two women were charged with being common barrators (pp. 5, 203), and two others with being common scolds (pp. 375, 419). Of two cases of perjury reported, in one a woman was the culprit (p. 27).
Many persons were summoned for insulting the Justices, also the constables and other parish officers, and a number of private insults was made the subject for the Justices' consideration. Several persons were accused of insulting "Mr. Holt," the headborough of Stepney and one of them for turning to him and saying "I charge you in the Kinges name to kisse my tayle." For this, he was put in the stocks (p. 371).
During the period covered by the Calendar, eleven women and forty-seven men were tried for homicide, murder, manslaughter or fatally wounding. Of these, nine were condemned to death, six were branded and twenty acquitted, while for eighteen the punishment is not recorded or they were respited further. One of the women prisoners successfully pleaded pregnancy. Seven were cases of child murder, and thirteen were affrays with weapons (pp. 2, 3, 12, 13, 15, 45, 58, 63, 65, 69, 107, 118, 145, 150, etc.). William Hollis was ordered "to be hung in irons at Hounslow Heath at a place called the two Bakers in the parish of Heston for the murder of William Pavin" (p. 12).
The entry relating to five women who were committed to prison without bail for "goinge a pilgrimage to Tyburne" seems obscure, unless it was an action on the part of the Justices to put a stop to such morbid curiosity (p. 70).
A gentleman assaulted Richard Parker of Smithfield with his rapier and wounded him in his left breast, whereby he died (p. 58). Henry Maynard, gentleman, of Harefield, was bound over for beating and wounding John Mathew (p. 131). Henry Thomas, a gentleman of Barbourne in Worcestershire, was accused of shooting his pistol at William Coward and wounding him in the face (p. 95).
Edward Ayleworth of Aylworth in Gloucestershire, esquire, was bound over for wounding Samuel Bray in Holborn, to which affair Oliver Braye, a Master of Arts of Christ Church, Oxford, was a witness (p. 101).
Robert Brunskill of Westminster and Edward Southill of St. Clement Danes, assaulted a bailiff at Cow Cross and wounded him in the head, of which wound he "still remains languishing" (p. 418); while William Penson and Elizabeth his wife, of St. Clement Danes, assaulted Richard Clarke and caused "a great quantity of blood to flow from divers parts of his body" (p. 418); and Thomas Davies of Grandborough in Warwickshire, gentleman, was charged with " breaking the leg of Bennett Jones" (p. 6).
Edmund Anderson of Gray's Inn, gentleman, was accused of assaulting Thomas Bayford with his sword. His sureties were Francis Nevell of Gray's Inn and Henry Grindon, gentleman, "servant to Lady Anderson" (p. 138). There are certain indications that the prisoner in this case was a son of the famous Chief Justice of Common Pleas, who bore the same christian name. The judge had died in 1605.
The groom of the famous judge, Lord Coke, was attacked by Thomas Rawlins of Fleet Bridge in the parish of St. Bride's (p. 135). It may be observed that the name is spelt "Cooke" in the original document, as it is pronounced to-day.
Justices did not look with favour upon the Playhouse, and, although these places of entertainment were patronized by many persons of high social standing, they were ever watchful for any disturbance of the peace. In the present Calendar we find two such incidents arising at the "Fortune" in Golden (or Golding) Lane in Cripplegate, and two at the "Curtain" in Holywell Street.
The Fortune was built for Philip Henslowe and William Alleyn and opened in 1601. It was burnt down in 1621, but was rebuilt, and in the year 1649 the interior was again burnt out. After this, no attempt appears to have been made to rebuild it. The profits arising from the theatre helped to provide the funds by which Alleyn was able to found Dulwich College. The incidents referred to in the Calendar occurred in June 1613, when Richard Bradley of Clerkenwell assaulted Nicholas Bestney, a gentleman, and stabbed him in the "right pap" and near the navel "so that he was in danger of death" (p. 141); and in February 1613–4, when Christopher Blether was bound over "for making an affray and tumult at the Fortune Playhouse" (p. 376).
The date at which the Curtain was first opened has not been definitely fixed, but it was built on land called the Curtain, which had formed part of the Priory of Holywell. It closely adjoined " The Theatre" which had been pulled down in 1599, at the time when the Burbages had built their new theatre—the Globe—in Southwark. It was also owned by Henslowe and Alleyn. It is known that Shakespeare took a keen interest in the Curtain, and it was here that "Henry V." was first produced. It is also probable that "Rare" Ben Johnson's "Everyman in his Humour" was first seen here.
Edmund Chambers, who is described in the records as being "of Hollywell Street" and of St. Olave's, Southwark, assaulted Martin Slater of All Hallows the Great "at the Curtayne Dore" on 27 July 1613 (p. 156), and William Holdaye of St. George's, Southwark, was charged with picking a purse "out of the pocket of William George att the Curten" on 13 August 1613 (p. 195). Cuthbert Burbage of Shoreditch was sworn on the jury in March and September 1613, and in January 1614 (pp. 67, 211, 332.)
Two serious riots by apprentices occurred—the first on Shrove Tuesday 1613, when a number of them attempted to make a disturbance in the house of Mistress Joan Leake at Shoreditch Church; and the second a year later, when apprentices were brought up for "pulling down" the same house. It is unfortunate that we learn so few details of these occurrences from the records (pp. 31–32,371,389), as it is well known to have been the custom for apprentices to riot on Shrove Tuesday, though the significance of Mrs. Leake's house is quite unknown to me.
Several persons of Stepney found themselves in a riotous assembly in Petticoat Lane, and assaulted the headborough of Artillery Lane in the hamlet of Mile End when attempting to serve a warrant. The crowd appear to have been a desperate lot, for one was charged with committing foul outrages against his wife, and another with attempting to rape a servant girl (p. 287). Another riot in Thames Street is briefly mentioned (p. 308).
Highway robberies were frequently reported. Richard Westall, Robert Spencer and William Blackwell, aided by William Fortescue, a gentleman, all of South Mimms, assaulted some carriers of Warwickshire in the highway at South Mimms and stole over £70 worth of goods. All but Robert Spencer were found guilty and hanged (pp. 35–36). John Ireland "was taken uppon the high way wher robberies had bene latelie before committed in a suspiciouse manner with a great greene batt in his hand" (p. 47).
Two yeomen of St. James', Clerkenwell, obviously notorious highwaymen, were hanged for assaulting John Knight, John Hownsell and Anthony Bate, servant to Sir Henry Bartlett, all described as gentlemen, in the highway at Clerkenwell, and for robbing them of valuable clothing and jewelry, including "a gold ring with a stone called a moonstone," worth £3 (p. 108).
Between August 1613 and March 1614, the King's Palace at Whitehall was broken into on five occasions. By far the most important of these was when Thomas Mundaye and Thomas Mason, who was more familiarly known as "Humming Tom" or "Bacon Tom," broke into Whitehall and stole four curtains of crimson velvet laced with gold lace worth £40, five curtains of checked velvet lined with taffeta worth £20, "the whole toppe and vallance of a bedd of clothe and silver" worth £20, five curtains of carnation and white damask silk worth £15, and many other curtains, cushions, and sheets, all belonging to the King. No wonder that Humming Tom went to Tyburn; but his accomplice had fled before capture could be effected. One of the sureties for Thomas Williamson, who was suspected to be privy to the burglary, was William Ryley of St. George's, South wark, described as a "mapmaker" (p. 296).
Richard Cowper, a merchant-tailor of Long Lane, stole five yards of green velvet out of "His Majesty's Wardrobe at Whitehall" (p. 313). Robert Dennye of St. Martin's was hanged for "breaking into the household of the Lord the King called Whitehall" (p. 361) and stealing £80 worth of plate belonging to Edward, Lord Wotton, who was comptroller of the household to both Queen Elizabeth and James I, having been created Baron Wotton of Marley in 1603. Three other men of St. Martin's were hanged for breaking into " the house of the most Serene Lord the now King James at Whitehall" and stealing a collar of gold set with pearls and diamonds worth £300, a silver warming-pan worth £5, and other plate and linen belonging to Lewis, Duke of Lennox (p. 393). Lewis, or Ludovic, as he is more correctly called, was the second Duke. He was a great favourite of King James in Scotland and held many important posts in that country. He came to England with the King, and was made Gentleman of the Bedchamber. Dudley Goodridge, a surgeon of St. Clement Danes, was charged with stealing a "sumpter clothe" out of the King's Wardrobe (p. 272)—presumably for use on a saddle.
Others whose property was stolen or whose houses were burgled include Edward Somerset, Earl of Worcester, a Commissioner of the Treasury at the time (p. 43); Robert, Earl of Sussex, who had a house in Charterhouse Lane (p. 168); William, Lord Petre of Writtle, at Hadley (p. 297); Lady Walsingham (fn. 1) (p. 312); Thomas Viscount Fentoun, an intimate associate of King James and Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard (p. 327); Sir Horace Vere, subsequently created Lord Vere of Tilbury (p. 330); Charles, Earl of Nottingham (fn. 2) (p. 362); Robert Burleigh, Earl of Salisbury (p. 257); and Gilbert, Earl of Shrewsbury (p. 386).
Thomas Chappell of Cow Cross was acquitted of a charge of receiving goods stolen from Lord Chandos (fn. 3) (p. 14); George Houne was branded for stealing silver goods belonging to Lord Clanrickard (fn. 4) (p. 208).
Nine ewe sheep, each worth 13s. 4d., belonging to Sir Thomas Pope Blount of Tittenhanger Park, near St. Albans (grandfather of the famous politician and essayist of the same name), were stolen at Islington, and the culprit, a butcher, was hanged (p. 366).
The value of the goods stolen, which is set out in the indictment, gives the economist some, though not very reliable, insight into the value of articles at that date, but in most cases the description of the property is too meagre to allow accurate conclusions to be based. The student interested in dress and ornaments of the period fares better, and should obtain some important data from the entries in the Calendar.
The description of some of the items stolen from the house of Sir Thomas Vachell, Knight, in St. Martin's is interesting, e.g., a petticoat of crimson velvet laced with silver laces worth £40, a pair of silk stockings worth 30s., a pair of velvet mittens laced with gold worth 50s., a dress with buttons of goldsmith's work, diamonds, rubies and pearls, worth £50, and a "rebatoe" [= rebato, i.e., a kind of stiff collar], set with pearls, worth 20s. (pp. 328–9).
A gold ring with a diamond and five rubies, worth £10, a coral worth 10s., a "taffetay kirtle" worth 6s., two "bezar" [beyour] (fn. 5) stones worth £5, four pieces of gold, called "spurryalls" [a coin worth 15s.] were all stolen together (pp. 32–3); and eleven pieces called "King James Unites" worth £11 were alleged to have been stolen from the house of John Beard in St. Clement Danes (p. 38). Three round silver basins worth £40, ten silver salts worth £60 14s., two silver trencher plates worth £4, three silver candlesticks worth £45 10s. and much other valuable plate, were stolen from Thomas, Earl of Suffolk (fn. 6) (pp. 295–6). Six pieces of gold called Rose Nobles worth £10 16s., forty pieces of gold called Angels, worth £22, ten pieces of gold called double sovereigns worth £11, and a gold ring with a Death's Head worth 20s., were alleged to have been taken from the house of Walter Allaley at Hackney (pp. 396, 413); while a gold-finch and a cage valued at 2s. were included in the "bag" taken at a chandler's house in Ratcliffe (p. 59).
Jasper Lynson and John Forebeeste, both described as strangers, were bound over to give evidence against Philip Halce, for "robbing their ship of £500 in coin," and one wishes that further details of this piratical adventure were available (p. 124).
Deer stolen from Marylebone Park and Hyde Park, partridges from Hendon and Hampstead, and pigeons from Marylebone (pp. 7, 8, 24, 25, 130), show the sporting possibilities of the county— but only for those owning land to the value of £100 who were allowed to possess guns. This accounted for William Crane of Acton getting into trouble for killing three pigeons with a handgun charged with gunpowder and hailshot, which he was not entitled to possess (p. 104).
A curious accusation is made against Thomas Grenewood, of " taking away the ymbassadors dogge." He was ordered to return it, which he did, "to the ambassadors man," but we do not learn which Ambassador it was (p. 457). Whether this had any connection with the case against Ann Straunge for robbing the Spanish Ambassador, I do not know. In this case, Ascanias Lawrenzey of the Spittle, "a stranger," gave evidence (p. 448).
Lead being scarce was then a valuable commodity, which was, no doubt, what Henry Brookes of Rose Alley in St. James', Clerkenwell, feltmaker, and Roger Beton of Blue Anchor Alley in Turnmill Street, had in mind when they were taken by night near the White Lion in Islington "digging near the lead pipes leading from the old conduit heads to London, with intent to carry the same lead pipes away" (p. 342). It will be remembered that the New River had just been completed, and the leaden pipes of the old conduit would probably have been superseded.
John Butterworth was accused of stealing a "green velvet pulpit cloth worth 20s., a Bible worth 5s., and ten yards of green fringe worth 13s. 4d., belonging to the parishioners of St. Faith's under the Cathedral Church of St. Paul." He was sent for trial to London, "because it was sacrilege there," but he was allowed the benefit of clergy for the stolen goods which he had brought into Middlesex (p. 329).
An unusual case came before the Justices when a yeoman of Enfield was charged with taking out letters of administration of the estate of Thomas Brewtye with the intent to defraud the children of the deceased. As there was danger that the children might become chargeable to the rates, the Justices naturally took an interest in the case, which was, of course, really a matter for the Ecclesiastical Courts (p. 398).
Owners of savage dogs were brought up to answer for the misdeeds of their animals, as in the cases of a shipwright of Wapping, because "his savage dog bit a boy" (p. 115), and of Ann Fisher of Saffron Hill, who was accused "for not reforming a Curste Mastie Dogge wch hath thrice bitten one Thomas Dallyn in the bodye and in other places aboute him, and whoe goeth still in greete danger of the said Mastie dogge" (p. 185).
The Justices, like those of to-day, took pains to prevent road accidents. A carman of Baynards Castle, for instance, had to answer for "negligently letting his horse go at large whereby a young child of Robert Story was hurt with the cart," while a porter was brought up for flinging a pulley into the cart "so negligently that he hit the cart-horse, which thereupon ran away and hurt the said child somewhat dangerously" (p. 100). Another carman, of Whitechapel, was bound over for leading "his cart over the neck of a young woman child about the age of eight years, so that the said child is thought to be in danger of death" (p. 198), and two others " for hurting and maiming" Nicholas Aveley and Mary Powell with their carts (pp. 272, 438). A servant of Henry Bannester of Hackney, esquire, and a gentleman from Worcestershire were fined 6s. 8d. and 2s. respectively for "riding over" Walter Kidd with a horse (p. 454).
Joy-riding is no new fashion, as we learn from the entry relating to John Davys, who took the horse belonging to Humphrey Thomas of Westminster, esquire, from a door where it was tied, "rideinge him abroade the streetes" (p. 279); and parking regulations were apparently in existence, for William Wright of St. Martin's, a "tombmaker," had to appear for "annoying the street near Charing Cross with loading carts and turning the Judges and all other passengers into the channel" (p. 266).
The number of persons brought up for not attending church is significant as showing how many inhabitants of Middlesex refused to accept the Established Church. Many of these, no doubt, abstained because they favoured the Church of Rome, while others had more puritanical leanings. The names of those appearing in the various lists indicate that most of the defaulters were persons of some social standing. Some of the offenders (e.g., George Jerningham) were members of families who throughout postreformation history have remained true adherents to Rome, and many of them were women (pp. 4, 68, 84, 85, 86, 106, 143, 246, 451–2).
John Parrishe of Stepney, who had not been to church for three years, and persuaded "divers of the King's subjects to deny, withstand and impugn the power and authority of the King in causes ecclesiastical," was required by the Court to accept the Oath of Abjuration, but refused to do so, and the Lord Chief Justice ordered that one of the Justices should offer the oath again; but we hear no more of the case in this Calendar (p. 291).
John Haynes (fn. 7) and William Surbye were sent to the gaol at Hertford as "Brownistes" (p. 213), and William Atterbury of Grub Street was bound over "for an obstinate browniste" (p. 85). These references to members of the sect of separatist puritans founded by Robert Browne are particularly interesting, as it is known that by the end of 1591 Browne, driven by persecution, had accepted episcopal ordination and cure of souls at a parish in Northamptonshire. The fact that the persons named above were charged before the magistrates show that the followers of this founder of Congregationalism remained steadfast, in spite of their leader adopting more orthodox methods.
William Hunte of Hampstead and Joan his wife were indicted, but proved their innocence, "for practising evil and diabolic arts called witchcraft, enchantments, charms and sorceries" on Alice James so that she "has been wasting away in her whole body" and "scarcely now can live." Joan was also accused of practising her arts on Robert Hill so that he died. In this case, the Coroner's inquest had brought a verdict of murder against her, and it is therefore the more surprising that the Justices of Middlesex, in their levelmindedness, acquitted her. They were further charged with killing a bay gelding and were acquitted on similar charges at a later Sessions (pp. 365, 409).
Dorothy Magick, well-named apparently, and Mistress Susan Poole, wife of Thomas Poole, a gentleman, were charged with "practising" to destroy Susan's husband and mother-in-law by witchcraft, but the case was not proved (pp. 376–7).
John Wheeler of Grub Street, an apothecary, was bound over "for seducing the Kings subiects by making them beleeve that by erecting a figure he cann helpe them to find stolne goods." He was ordered to "bring his book of Ephemerides" (p. 199), and was afterwards accused of being "a wissard, and tells where stollen goods are" (p. 372).
Mary Wood appeared for cozening Elizabeth Barnes to give her money "for a little powder in a paper," which she undertook would give her "her purpose of musicon" if she carried the powder about with her (p. 264).
Cheating at cards or at other unlawful games was fairly common and in many cases the victim was a man up from the country. One may imagine that such persons would, of necessity, be carrying a certain amount of money on them, and not being versed in the methods of the more cunning cockney, were easy prey. Henry Jefferys, for example, was charged with "cheating a Derbyshire gentleman with counters instead of silver" (p. 268), and Edward Maze and Robert Hodnoll for "cheating and cozening" William Hollasse of Great Marlow at cards (p. 267). On the other hand, Robert Fuller of the Strand, described as a gentleman, was accused of cozening an apprentice "at dice with false dice" (pp. 102–3); William Dodge, a gentleman of Stockport in Cheshire, cozened John Barnett of £5 (p. 454); and Philip Strachey, a gentleman of Fenchurch Street, was accused of being a common decoyer (p. 428).
When Cornelius Vanderberge of Whitechapel was charged with stealing some clothing, it was ordered that the bill should "be verified by a jury of the middle tongue." I can only imagine that this can mean a jury who understood the language of the accused, or one that had the aid of an interpreter (pp. 294, 304).
Selling flesh during Lent (pp. 49, 399, 418, 426), or on a Sunday (pp. 222, 322), engrossing the market (p. 386), by buying up a quantity of one commodity for re-sale—the precursor of "cornering,"— selling pork at unreasonable seasons (p. 199), selling "old muttons for lambe" (p. 241), selling poultry during Lent (pp. 424, 437), selling beer and ale at excessive prices (pp. 203, 319, 375, 420), and selling bread of inferior quality (p.203) were all matters with which the Justices had to deal. In most cases an informer reported the offence, and, for so doing, was entitled to have the fine imposed.
A common informer must have been an unpleasant sort of fellow, and blackmailing was one of the temptations open to him. It was easy for him, where he discovered an irregularity or a supposed one, to go to the offender and demand money from him to prevent an information being laid. The case of John Harper is one example of this, for he went to two butchers of Chobham, co. Surrey, who were appropriately named Pigge, and obtained 25s. from them as the price of his silence (pp. 246–7).
Although tobacco had only been introduced into this country fifty years before the date of the Calendar, and the smoking of it was only started in 1584, the popularity of the habit must now have become general, if we are to judge from the number of persons who, lawfully or unlawfully, sold it. The constables of Holborn, in September 1613, presented nine persons in that parish alone (pp. 29, 202, 203, 215).
Another task with which the Justices were burdened was the control of masters and apprentices, and we find many disputes being brought before them. In the case of Benjamin Capps, a sailmaker who refused to serve his master, the Court decided that he must be discharged from his apprenticeship, as "a sailmaker cannot have an apprentice by the statute" (p. 23). Thomas Norton, a gentleman of Drury Lane, was brought up "for his uncivil behaviour in drawing one Anne his servant out of a barn and putting her into a cellar of water whereby she is in great danger of death, she being delivered of a child and the child dead" (pp. 333–4). Apparently Norton was acquitted, for we hear no more of the case. A Harrow man was bound over for "enticing away another man's apprentice" (p. 273). Informers were active in presenting persons who carried on trades other than those to which they had been apprenticed, or who had not been apprenticed at all (pp. 55, 86, 118, 197, etc.).
Sanitation, such as it was, required the control of the Court, though to aid them in this respect a special commission, known as the Commission for Annoyances, had been set up to deal with a variety of petty offences. It is quite clear from the information contained in the Calendar that this Commission was not generally popular with the inhabitants of Middlesex. This body apparently was inaugurated under a private Act (37 Elizabeth, cap. 17), entitled "An Act for the good government of the city and borough of Westminster in Middlesex." Its object was to prevent any annoyances in the City, while its powers appear to have been wide and to have included the prevention of undesirable buildings or the turning of houses into tenements, the closing of brothels, and the cleaning of the streets (pp. 5–6, 25, 103, 199, 245, 398, 432, etc.). Although I can find nothing which extends the province of this Act, there can be no doubt that Commissions were established in other parts of the County, e.g., one for Holborn (p. 439).
The "horrible smell" in the yard of two butchers of St. Clement Danes, who kept a slaughter house and yard "lying towards a messuage called Lincoln's Inn Grange," near the boundaries of the City of London and Westminster, was considered to be harmful to "the inhabitants and residents" and to "all those coming thereto and conversing in the garden," and it was ordered to be removed by the Commissioners (p. 57).
Several troublesome liabilities were placed on the inhabitants of the County, and perhaps the most irksome of these was the repair of the highways, for which every freeholder had to provide men or wagons for so many days, according to the proportion laid down by the Justices. Those failing or refusing to provide the necessary quota were naturally brought before the Court, and either bound over or fined. The lists of defaulters include members of the nobility, knights, esquires and gentlemen, and as many as twenty-five of them appear at one sitting (pp. 5, 140, 183, 215, 261).
When a road was in an unusually bad state of preservation, anyone was entitled to report the matter to the parish constable, who made a presentment to the Sessions, e.g., when "the highway in Fulham leading from the same up to and through the vill of Hammersmith and up to the town of Brentford" was presented as being in great decay, "to the danger of all the King's liege people" (p. 138).
Paving, though not generally used, was a task which was imposed upon the inhabitants of some parishes, and in 1614 six persons, including Katharine, Lady Cornwallis, were bound over for neglect of this duty in Holborn (p. 451).
When the constables of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields complained that "divers knights and gentlemen, being inhabitants there, do refuse to watch and ward according to the law," it was ordered that the constables should repair to the houses of the offenders and require them to do so or to answer the Justices (p. 306–7).
The lists of Coroners, Bailiffs, Chief Constables and Sub Constables, appear in the Michaelmas Sessions (pp. 247–252), and the May Sessions (pp. 441–6), and lists of licensed Badgers, Kidders and Drovers appear on pages 81–2, 255–7 and 449.
No reference is made to a plague, but we find that the City of London had a Pesthouse in the parish of St. Giles'-without-Cripplegate, over which the Justices of Middlesex appear to have had no control (p. 254).
An expression, common in the XVIth and XVIIth Centuries, for a victualling house, i.e., an "ordinary," is found in regard to a place in St. Martin's-in-the-Fields (p. 382). At such hostelries, a meal at a fixed price was provided, and many of the most fashionable eating houses were thus described. In these days, one would be regarded askance if one was to refer to such a place otherwise than as a table d'hote restaurant, but presumably an "ordinary" was very similar to it.
A large proportion of the County came within the "Verge," that is to say the area within twelve miles of a Royal residence, e.g., Whitehall, the inhabitants of which had to provide carts for baggage and provisions for the royal household. This duty was exceedingly unpopular, and it would appear that the purveyors appointed by the Board of Green Cloth who controlled the Verge were not always too punctilious in the methods they adopted or the prices they paid. Complaints were made by the Board to the Justices in regard to Mr. Gawen, one of the purveyors, and another purveyor was ordered to be appointed (pp. 254–255). A servant to Sir John Lea, who was responsible for the provision of carts, corrupted a warrant and then took bribes from persons for freeing them from the duty of providing carts. Mention is here made of Mr. Evans, "the Prince's Cart taker" (p. 458).
We may judge from the number of foreigners who are mentioned that London was becoming cosmopolitan in character. Scipio de Rozanna, a gilder of St. Giles'-without-Cripplegate (p. 8), Anthono Cristian, a "foreigner," and Charles de Villiers, a Frenchman (p. 174) Elias de Buke and Francis Barroult, two Frenchmen (p. 267), are names chosen at random. Outricke Parkinson, a servant to Lord Veere accused John Percifall, a Cheshire gentleman, of "conveying away an Italian boy from him" (pp. 235–6).
Some people followed unusual trades—for instance, a "tierwoman" [a milliner] (p. 28), a birdcatcher (p. 202), a "horsquorser" (p. 427), a minstrel from Wiltshire (p. 5), and two minstrels or musicians of Clerkenwell (p. 18); an aquavitae-stiller (pp. 160, 347), a picture-maker (pp. 213, 268), a picture-drawer (p. 225), and a trumpeter (pp. 51, 426).
A house called "Cockefosters" in the parish of Enfield is mentioned when Edward Kendall of Lincoln's Inn had goods belonging to him stolen out of it (p. 172). If Londoners had no knowledge of this place a few years ago, travellers by tube to-day cannot fail to know the name.
Shacklewell, a manor house in Hackney, reputed to have been once the house of Giles Heron and Cecilia his wife, a daughter of Sir Thomas Moore, is mentioned when Stephen Thergoe, a gentleman, was charged with drawing his sword upon an officer who attempted to serve him with a Justice's warrant (p. 318).
A disorderly house in "Britaynes Burse" was suppressed by order of the Justices. Britain's Burse in the Strand, near Durham House, was erected by Robert, Earl of Salisbury, in 1608, and opened by James I in 1609, who gave it its name (p. 277).
In drawing my preface to a close, I must proffer my apologies for extending it to such a length, and yet omitting so much. It has been my endeavour to lay before my readers the type of information which they are likely to obtain on the heterogeneous subjects which came before the Justices. I trust that the Index will lead students quickly to the information they seek.
(1) The date given before each entry on the Sessions Roll is the date when the action leading to the document occurred. That is to say, in the indictments it is the date when the offence was committed; in the recognizances, the date when the bond was entered into; in the writs, the date when the sheriff issued his writ: and so on.
(2) All place names have been given in modern spelling where there is no doubt about identification. Where any doubt exists, or where the spelling, as given in the original, is considered interesting, the original spelling has been copied. In the Index modern spelling is given.
This work could only have been accomplished with the sympathetic aid and assistance of members of the Standing Joint Committee which has always been at my disposal, and I wish to record my deep gratitude for the help which they have so readily given.
Especially are my thanks due to Sir Montagu Sharpe, K.C., for his never failing encouragement, and to the Clerk of the Peace, Sir Ernest Hart, for the patient manner in which he has always dealt with my troubles. To his son, Mr. E. E. Hart, my thanks are also due.
I would also like to record my appreciation of the great help I
have received from Miss Cicely Baker, who has not only undertaken
most of the "spade" work in the compilation of the Calendar, but
has also assisted me considerably in compiling the Index. And last,
but not least, I have to thank the Staff at the Guildhall, especially
Miss McEwen and Miss Cameron, for all the assistance they have
WILLIAM LE HARDY.