Born: John Ford,
dramatist (baptized), 1586, Islington; Bishop Edward
Stillingfleet, 1635, Cranbourn, Dorset.
Died: Marino Falieri,
doge of Venice, executed, 1355; Joachim Camerarius,
German Protestant scholar, 1574, Leipsic; George
Villiers, second Duke of Buckingham, 1687, Kirby Moorside; Bishop Benjamin
Headley, 1761, Winchester;
Dr. Benjamin Franklin, 1790,
Philadelphia; James Thom,
'The Ayrshire sculptor, 1850, New York.
Feast Day: St. Anicetus,
Pope and martyr, 173. St. Simeon, Bishop of Ctesiphon,
341. St. Stephen, abbot of Citeaux, 1134.
GEORGE VILLIERS, SECOND
DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM
This nobleman, whose miserable
end is described by Pope, was about six or seven years
old when, on his father's murder, he succeeded to his
titles and estates. During his long minority, which he
passed chiefly on the Continent, his property so
greatly accumulated as to have become, it is said,
fifty thousand a year, equal to at least four times
that sum at the present day.
At the battle of Worcester, he
was General of the king's horse, and, after the loss
of that contest, he escaped with much difficulty.
Travelling on foot through bye lanes, obtaining
refreshment at cottages, and changing his dress with a
woodman, he was enabled to elude the vigilance of his
pursuers. At the
restoration of Charles
II, he was
appointed to several offices of trust and honour; but
such were his restless disposition and dissolute
habits, that he soon lost the confidence of the king,
and made a wreck of his property. 'He gave himself
up,' says Burnet, 'to a monstrous course of studied
immoralities.' His natural abilities, however, were
considerable, and his wit and humour made him the life
and admiration of the court of Charles. 'He was,' says
Granger, 'the alchymist and the philosopher; the
fiddler and the poet; the mimic and the statesman.'
His capricious spirit and
licentious habits unfitted him for the permanent
leadership of any political party, nor did he
generally take much interest in politics, but
occasionally he devoted himself to some special
measure, and would then become its principal advocate;
though even on such occasions his captious, ungoverned
temper often led him to give personal offence, and to
infringe the rules of the House, for which he was more
than once committed to the Tower. Lord Clarendon
relates an amusing anecdote of him on one of these
occasions, which is also a curious illustration of the
manner of conducting public business at that period.
'It happened,' says the Chancellor, 'that upon the
debate of the same affair, the Irish Bill, there was a
conference appointed with the House of Commons, in
which the Duke of Buckingham was a manager, and as
they were sitting down in the Painted Chamber, which
is seldom done in good order, it chanced that the
Marquis of Dorchester sate next the Duke of
Buckingham, between whom there was no good
correspondence. The one changing his posture for his
own ease, which made the station of the other more
uneasy, they first endeavoured by justling to recover
what they had dispossessed each other of, and
afterwards fell to direct blows.
In the scuffle, the Marquis,
who was the lower of the two in stature, and was less
active in his limbs, was deprived of his periwig, and
received some rudeness, which nobody imputed to his
want of courage. Indeed, he was considered as
beforehand with the Duke, for he had plucked off much
of his hair to compensate for the loss of his own
periwig.' For this misdemeanour they were both sent to
the Tower, but were liberated in a few days.
The Duke of Buckingham began
to build a magnificent mansion at
Chiefden, in
Buckingham-shire, on a lofty eminence commanding a
lovely view on the banks of the Thames, where he is
said to have carried on his gallantries with the
notorious Countess of Shrewsbury, whose husband he
killed in a duel,
an account of which has already been given in this
volume (page 129).
Large as was his income, his
profligate habits reduced him to poverty, and he died
in wretchedness at Kirby Moorside, in Yorkshire, in
1687. The circumstances of his death have thus been,
somewhat satirically, described by Pope in his third
Epistle to Lord Bathurst:
'Behold what blessings
wealth to life can lend,
And see, what comfort it affords our end!
In the worst inn's worst room, with mat half-hung,
The floors of plaster, and the walls of clung,
On once a flock-bed, but repaired with straw,
With tape-tied curtains, never meant to draw,
The George and Garter dangling from that bed
Where tawdry yellow strove with dirty red,
Great Villiers lies�alas how changed from him,
That life of pleasure, and that soul of whim,
Gallant and gay, in Cliefden's proud alcove,
The bower of wanton Shrewsbury and Love;
Or just as gay at council, in a ring
Of mimick'd statesmen and their merry king.
No wit to flatter, left of all his store!
No fool to laugh at, which he valued more.
There, victor of his health, of fortune, friends,
And fame, this lord of useless thousands ends.'
The house in which the Duke
died is still in existence. There is no tradition of
its ever having been an inn, and it is far from being
a mean habitation. It is built in the Elizabethan
style, with two projecting wings; and at the time of
the Duke's decease, must have been, with but one
exception, the best house in the town. The room in
which he expired is the best sleeping room in the
house, and had then, as now, a good boarded floor. His
Yorkshire place of residence was Helmsley Castle,
which is about six miles from Kirby Moorside, and now
a mere ruin. While hunting in the neighbourhood of
Kirby, the manor of which belonged to him, he was
seized with hernia and inflammation, which caused his
detention and death at the above-mentioned house, then
occupied, probably, by one of his tenants.
So little did the house in
which the Duke died really resemble Pope's
description, for was his death-bed altogether without
proper attendants. It so happened that just about the
time of his seizure, the Earl of Arran, his kinsman,
was passing through York, and hearing of the Duke's
illness he hastened to him, and, on finding the
condition he was in, immediately sent for a physician
from York, who, with other medical men, attended on
the Duke till his death. Lord Arran also sent for a
Mr. Gibson, a neighbour and acquaintance of the
Duke's, and apprized his family and connexions of the
circumstances of his case; so that Lord Fairfax, Mr.
Brian Fairfax, Mr. Gibson,
and Colonel Liston, were speedily in attendance. Lord
Arran also informed the Duke of his immediate danger,
and, supposing him to be a Roman Catholic, proposed to
send for a priest of that persuasion, but the Duke
declared himself to be a member of the Church of
England, and after some hesitation agreed to receive
the clergyman of the parish, who offered up prayers
for him, 'in which he freely joined;' and afterwards
administered to him the Holy Communion.
Shortly after this he became
speechless, and died at eleven o'clock on the night of
the 16th of April. Lord Arran ordered the body to be
carried to Helmsley Castle, and, after being
disbowelled and embalmed, to remain there till orders
were received from the Duchess. It was subsequently
taken to London, and interred in Westminster Abbey.
This circumstantial account of the Duke's death is
given, because Pope's has been received as historical,
instead of a poetic exaggeration of the real facts of
the case.
Of the Duke's dissolute
habits, of his unprincipled character, of his
self-sacrificed health, and his ruined fortune, it is
scarcely possible to speak too strongly. His
possession of Helmsley Castle at his death was only
nominal. In reference to his funeral, Lord Arran says:
'There is not so much as one farthing towards
defraying the least expense.' Soon after his death all
his property, which had long been deeply mortgaged,
was sold, and did not realize sufficient to pay his
debts; and dying issueless, his titles, which had been
undeservedly conferred on his father and only
disgraced by himself, became extinct. Indeed all the
titles, nine in number, conferred by James on his
favourite George Villiers and his brothers, became
extinct in the next generation. Strange to say, this
profligate Duke married Mary, daughter and heir of the
puritan Lord Fairfax, the Parliamentary General, whom
he deserted while living and left without a memento at
his death.
Many years after the Duke's
decease, a steel seal, with his crest on it, was found
in a crevice in the room wherein he died, and is still
possessed by the present owner of the house; and an
old parish register at Kirby contains the following
curious entry:
�Burials; 1687, April 17th,
Georges Viluas Lord dooke of bookingham.'
W. H. K.
GREYSTEIL
The books of the Lord
Treasurer of Scotland indicate that, when James IV was
at Stirling on the 17th April 1497, there was a
payment 'to twa fithalaris [fiddlers] that sang
Greysteil to the king, ixs.' Greysteil is the title of
a metrical tale which originated at a very early
period in Scotland, being a detail of the adventures
of a chivalrous knight of that name. It was a favourite little book in the north
throughout the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, sold commonly at
sixpence; yet, though there was an edition so late as
1711, so entirely had it lost favour during the
eighteenth century, that Mr. David Laing, of
Edinburgh, could find but one copy, from which to
reprint the poem for the gratification of modern
curiosity. We find a proof of its early popularity,
not merely in its being sung to King James IV, but in
another entry in the Lord Treasurer's books, as
follows: 'Jan. 22, 1508, to Gray Steill, lutar,
vs.;' from which it can only be inferred that one of
the royal lute-players, of whom there appear to have
been four or five, bore the nickname of Greysteil, in
consequence of his proficiency in singing this old
minstrel poem.
It appears to have been
deemed, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,
as
high a compliment as could well be paid to a gallant
warrior, to call him Greysteil. For example, James V.
in boyhood bestowed this pet name upon Archibald
Douglas, of Kilspindie; and even when the Douglas was
under banishment, and approaching the king in a kind
of disguise for forgiveness, 'Yonder is surely my
Greysteil,' exclaimed the monarch, pleased to recall
the association of his early clays. Another personage
on whom the appellation was bestowed was Alexander,
sixth Earl of Eglintoun, direct ancestor of the
present Earl. A break in the succession (for Earl
Alexander was, paternally, a Seton, not a Montgomery)
had introduced a difficulty about the descent of both
the titles and estates of the family, and the lordship
of Kilwinning was actually given away to another by
Act of Parliament, in 1612.
In a family memoir we are
told, Alexander was not a man tamely to submit to such
injustice, and the mode which he adopted to procure
redress was characteristic. He had repeatedly
remonstrated, but in vain. Irritated by the delay on
the part of the crown to recognise his right to the
earldom, and feeling further aggrieved by the more
material interference with his barony of Kilwinning,
he waited personally on the Earl of Somerset, the
King's favourite, with whom he supposed the matter
mainly rested. He gave the favourite to understand
that, as a peer of the realm, he was entitled to have
his claims heard and justice done him, and that though
but little skilled in the subtleties of law and the
niceties of court etiquette, he knew the use of his
sword. From his conduct in this affair, and his
general readiness with his sword, the Earl acquired
the sobriquet of Greysteil, by which he is still known
in family tradition.'
It will probably be a surprise
to most of our readers that the
tune of old called Greysteil, and
probably the same which was sung to
James IV of Scotland in 1497, still exists, and can
now be forthcoming. The piece of music we refer to is
included, under the name Grey-steil, in Ane Playing
Booke for the Lute, noted and collected at Aberdeen by
Robert Gordon in 1627,' a manuscript which some years
ago was in the possession of George Chalmers, the
historian. The airs in this book being in tablature, a
form of notation long out of use, it was not till
about 1840 that the tune of Greysteil was with some
difficulty read off from it, and put into modern
notation, and so communicated to the writer of this
notice by his valued friend Mr.
William Dauney,
advocate, editor of the ancient Scottish melodies just
quoted.
Mr. Dauney, in sending it, said, �I have no
doubt that it is in substance the air referred to in
the Lord Treasurer's accounts. The ballad or poem to
which it had been chanted, was most probably the
popular romance of that name, which you will find in
Mr. Laing's Early Metrical Tales, and of which he says
in the preface that, "along with the poems of Sir
David Lyndsey, and the histories of Robert Bruce and
of Sir William Wallace, it
formed the standard
production of the vernacular literature of the
country." .... The tune,' Mr. Dauney goes on to say,
is not Scottish in its structure or character; but it
bears a resemblance to the somewhat monotonous species
of chant to which some of the old Spanish and even
English historical ballads were sung.
In this respect
it is suitable to the subject of the old romance,
which is not Scottish. There is a serviceable piece
of evidence for the presumed antiquity of the air, in
the fact that a satirical Scotch poem on the
unfortunate Earl of Argyle, dated 1686, bears on it,
appointed to be sung to the tune of old Greysteil.' We
must, however, acknowledge that, but for this proof of
poetry being actually sung to Old Greysteil, we
should have been disposed to think that the tune here
printed was only presented by the luters as a sort of
prelude or refrain to their chanting of the metrical
romance in question. The abruptness of the end is very
remarkable.
The tune of Greysteil, for
certain as old as 1627, and presumed to be traditional
from at least 1497, is as follows:

When on the subject of so
early a piece of Scotch music, it may not be
inappropriate to advert to another specimen, which we
can set forth as originally printed in 1588, being the
oldest piece in print as far as we know. It is only a
simple little lilt, designed for a homely dance, but
still, from its comparative certain antiquity, is well
worthy of preservation. Mr. Douce has transferred it
into his Illustrations of Shalespeare, from the book
in which it originally appeared, a volume styled
Orehesograpitie, professedly by Thionot Arbeau (in
reality by a monk named Jean Tabouret), printed at
Lengres in the year above mentioned. He calls it a
branle or brawl, 'which was performed by several
persons uniting hands in a circle and giving each
other continual shakes, the steps changing with the
tune. It usually consisted of three pas and a pied:
joint to the time of four strokes of the bow; which
being repeated, was termed a double brawl. With this
dance balls were usually opened.'
The copy given in the original
work being in notation scarcely intelligible to a
modern musician, we have had it read off and
harmonised as follows:
BRING THEM
IN AND KEEP THEM AWAKE
On the 17th April 1725,
John Rudge bequeathed to the parish of Trysull, in
Stafford-shire, twenty shillings a year, that a poor
man might be employed to go about the church during
sermon and keep the people awake; also to keep dogs
out of church. A bequest by Richard Dovey, of Farmcote,
dated in 1659, had in view the payment of eight
shillings annually to a poor man, for the performance
of the same duties in the church of Claverley,
Shropshire. In the parishes of Chislet, Kent, and
Peterchurch, Herefordshire, there are similar
provisions for the exclusion of dogs from church, and
at Wolverhampton there is one of five shillings for
keeping boys quiet in time of service.
We do not find any very early
regulations made to secure the observance of festivals
among Christians. A solicitude on the subject becomes
apparent in the middle ages. Early in the thirteenth
century, we meet with a document of a curious nature,
the principal object of which is to awaken a reverence
for the Lord's day. It professes to be 'a mandate
which fell from heaven, and was found on the altar of
St. Simon, on Mount Golgotha, in Jerusalem,' and
humbly taken by the patriarch, and the Archbishop
Akarias, after that for three days and three nights
the people, with their pastors, had lain prostrate on
the ground, imploring the mercy of God.' A copy of it
was brought to England by Eustachius, abbot of Hay;
who, on his return from the Holy Land, preached from
city to city against the custom of buying and selling
on the Sunday. 'If you do not obey this command,' says
this celestial message, 'verily, I say unto you, that
I will not send you any other commands by another
letter, but I will open the heavens, and instead of
rain I will pour down upon you stones and wood, and
hot water by night; so that ye shall not be able to
guard against it, but I will destroy all the wicked
men. This I say unto you; ye shall die the death, on
account of the holy day of the Lord; and of the other
festivals of my saints which ye do not keep, I will
send upon you wild beasts to devour you,' &c.
Yet the sacredness of the day
had been attested by extraordinary interpositions of
divine power. At Beverley, a carpenter who was making
a peg, and a weaver who continued to work at his web
after three o'clock on the Saturday, were severally
struck with palsy. In Nasurta, a village which
belonged to one Roger Arundel, a man who had baked a
cake in the ashes after the same hour, found it bleed
when he tried to eat it on Sunday, and a miller who
continued to work his mill was arrested by the blood
which flowed from between the stones, in such quantity
as to prevent their working; while in some places, not
named, in Lincolnshire, bread put by a woman into a
hot oven after the forbidden hour, remained unbaked on
the Monday; when another piece, which by the advice of
her husband she put away in a cloth, because the ninth
hour was past, she found baked on the morrow.�(Notes
to Feasts and Fasts, by E. V. Neale.)
Leland presents evidence of the same kind of
feeling in a story told of Richard de Clare, Earl of
Gloucester, by annalists, to this effect. In the year
1260, a Jew of Tewkesbury fell into a sink on the
Sabbath, and out of reverence for the day, would not
suffer himself to be drawn out; the earl, out of
reverence for the Sunday, would not permit him to be
drawn out the next day, and between the two he died.
By the 5th and 6th Edward VI, and by 1st
Elizabeth,
it was provided, that every inhabitant of the realm
or dominion shall diligently and faithfully, having no
lawful or reasonable excuse to be absent, endeavour
themselves to their parish church or chapel
accustomed; or, upon reasonable let, to some usual
place where common prayer shall be used,�on Sundays
and holidays, �upon penalty of forfeiting for every
non-attendance twelve pence, to be levied by the
churchwardens to the use of the poor. But the
application of these provisions to the attendance upon
other holidays than Sundays, seems to have been soon
dropped. The statute of James I, re-enacting the
penalty of one shilling for default in attendance at
church, is limited to Sundays; and the latter day
alone is mentioned in the Acts of William and Mary,
and George III, by which exceptions in favour of
dissenters from the Church of England were introduced.
As the statute of James applied solely to Sundays,
there was no civil punishment left for this neglect;
though it remained punishable, under the 5th and 6th
of Edward VI, by ecclesiastical censures. Mr. Vansittart Neale, in his Feasts and
Fasts, however,
cites several cases which appear to settle that the
ecclesiastical courts had not the power to compel any
person to attend his parish church, because they have
no right to decide the bounds of parishes.
There were, however, from time to time, suits
commenced against individuals for this neglect of
attendance at church; these actions being generally
instigated by personal motives rather than with
religious feeling. Professor Amos, in his Treatise on
Sir Matthew Hale's History of the Pleas of the Crown,
states the following cases:
In the year 1817, at the Spring Assizes for
Bedford, Sir Montague Burgoyne was prosecuted for
having been absent from his parish church for several
months; when the action was defeated by proof of the
defendant having been indisposed. And in the Report of
Prison Inspectors to the House of Lords, in 1841, it
appeared, that in1830, ten persons were in prison for recusancy in not attending
their parish churches. A
mother was prosecuted by her own son.' These
enactments remained in our Statute-book, until, in
common with many other penal and disabling laws in
regard to religious opinions, they were swept away by
the statute 9th and 10th Viet., c. 59.
It also appears that in old times many individuals
considered it their duty to set aside part of their
worldly wealth for keeping the congregation awake.
Some curious provisions were made for this purpose. At
Acton church in Cheshire, about five and twenty years
ago, one of the churchwardens or the apparitor used to
go round the church during service, with a long wand
in his hand; and if any of the congregation were
asleep, they were instantly awoke by a tap on the
head. At Dunchurch, a similar custom existed: a person
bearing a stout wand, shaped liked a hay fork at the
end, stepped stealthily up and down the nave and
aisle, and, whenever he saw an individual asleep, he
touched him so effectually that the spell was broken;
this being sometimes done by fitting the fork to the
nape of the neck.
We read of the beadle in another church, going
round the edifice during service, carrying a long
staff, at one end of which was a fox's brush, and at
the other a knob; with the former he gently tickled
the faces of the female sleepers, while on the heads
of their male compeers he bestowed with the knob a
sensible rap.
In some parishes, persons were regularly appointed
to whip dogs out of church; and 'dog-whipping' is a
charge in some sexton's accounts to the present day.