accomplished noblemen of the age. In Henry's first parliament, Thomas, Lord Morley, had charged Salisbury in very coarse terms, with the crime of treason to both the late and the present king, and especially with having instigated Richard to some of his most unpopular measures; Salisbury indignantly repelled the accusation, but narrowly escaped a traitor's doom, with the loss only of those honours with which his services had been rewarded in the preceding reign. Lingard remarks it as a singular circumstance, that although the earl was called upon for his defence, in common with the other lords who had advised and framed the appeal of treason against the duke of Gloucester, yet he was unnoticed in the judgment of the lords: this may have resulted from Henry's strong personal dislike to Salisbury, who had early rendered himself peculiarly offensive to him, by his undertaking the mission which Richard despatched to Charles VI., with the view of breaking off the match betwixt Henry and the daughter of the duke of Berri. It was he, too, who had headed the levies which opposed a feeble resistance to Henry's march to the throne; and he continued to exhibit an attachment to his deposed master, more grateful than prudent, even after Henry had fairly seated himself on the throne. On the imprisonment of Richard, the lords who had appealed Gloucester of treason, entered into a conspiracy for his restoration; but the plot was revealed by the earl of Rutland, to whom they had incautiously communicated their secret, and the conspirators found themselves compelled hastily to raise the standard of rebellion. Having been joined by Lord Lumley, the earls of Kent and Salisbury imprudently took up their quarters in the town of Cirencester, apart from their troops, whom they posted in the adjacent fields. The inhabitants of that town were well affected to Henry, and suddenly invested the quarters of the nobles in the night with a large force. The earls defended themselves for the space of three hours; but were at last obliged to surrender, and conducted as prisoners to the abbey. On the following evening a fire took place in the city, and the populace, supposing that it was designed to draw off their attention from their prisoners, and attempt their rescue, rushed in a body to the place of their confinement, dragged them forth into the street, and instantly beheaded them. Thus fell the earl of Salisbury, Richard's favourite minister, one of the most learned and accomplished nobles of his age, a patron of literature and himself a poet. His poems have unfortunately perished; but, from the testimony of Christina of Pisa, a lady celebrated in the annals of French literature, they appear to have been worthy of his rank and accomplishments She used to call the earl, “ Grâcieux chevalier, aiment dictier, et luimême grâcieux dicteur." Walsingham, narrating the circumstances of his death, says, "He who throughout his life had been a favourer of Lollards, a despiser of images, a contemner of the canons, and a derider of sacraments, ended his days, as is reported, without the sacrament of confession." The earl perhaps enjoyed something more consoling than the sacraments of the church in his last moments. He had always been a steady supporter of the reformed doctrines, had caused the idols and symbols of superstitious worship to be removed from his private chapel, and had never shrunk from the most open and public declaration of his religious sentiments.

2

1 Vol. III. p. 277.

P. 363.

Sir William Walworth.

FLOR, CIRC. A. D. 1380.

THE name of Sir William Walworth, to whose bold heart and ready hand Richard II. probably owed not his crown only but his life, first appears upon record as one of the merchants of London whom the commons appointed treasurers to receive the monies arising from the new aid granted by Richard's first parliament. In the year of Wat Tyler's rebellion, he held the office of mayor of the city, and on the approach of the arch-rebel to Smithfield, at the head of twenty thousand men, he accompanied the young prince while endeavouring to make terms in person with the insurgents. The king's party consisted of only sixty persons, and the Kentish leader, on perceiving their approach, made a sign to his followers to halt, and boldly rode up to the king whom he addressed with his usual confidence. The extravagance of the rebel's demands, prompted by the consciousness of power, and the conciliatory proposals made to him, occasioned some hesitation; and while Richard held a brief consultation with his friends as to what was best to be done in existing circumstances, the Tyler affected to play with his dagger, tossing it from hand to hand, and at last laid his hand on the bridle of the king's horse.1 The insult, with whatever view it was offered, roused the indignation of the loyal and stout-hearted mayor, who, with a rashness infinitely more dangerous to his sovereign than the Tyler's presumption, sprung forward, and plunged his short sword into the rebel's throat, who, on receiving the wound, spurred his horse, and rode about a dozen yards before he fell to the ground, when he was instantly despatched by Robert Standish one of the king's esquires. The insurgents, who witnessed the transaction, drew their bows, and were about to pour a shower of arrows upon the king's party, when Richard rescued himself and his attendants from their imminent peril, by an act of uncommon bravery and presence of mind. Galloping up to the archers, he exclaimed, "What are ye doing, my lieges? Tyler was a traitor! follow me, I will be your leader." The disconcerted host moved on mechanically at the bidding of their new chief, until they reached the fields at Islington, where Walworth again appeared for the protection of his sovereign, but at the head of an efficient force of one thousand men-at-arms. For these good services, Richard knighted the redoubtable mayor, and bestowed upon him a pension of one hundred pounds per annum.

Sir John Philpot.

FLOR. CIRC. A. D. 1380.

CONTEMPORARY with Sir William Walworth was John Philpot, alderman and citizen of London, whose heroic exploits deserve more ample and frequent commemoration in the pages of our historians than

Knyht, 2637.-Froiss. lvii-lxii.

they have yet obtained. In the early part of Richard's reign, the French were allowed to land on various parts of the English coast, and commit great devastations on the unprotected towns and villages. Encouraged by his knowledge of the defenceless state of the place, one Mercer, a Scottish adventurer, entered the port of Scarborough, and carried away the merchant vessels that lay there, and soon made himself so formidable on the English coast, that the king and council were petitioned to adopt instant measures for his capture. But the government regarded the application with indifference, and Mercer was allowed to continue his ravages with impunity, until Philpot undertook to do at his own expense and risk what the ministry would not do in the public service. He fitted out some ships, and placing on board of them an armament of one thousand men, boldly sailed in quest of the daring pirate, whom he soon encountered, and, after a smart action, captured with his whole fleet, consisting of the ships which he had taken at Scarborough, and fifteen Spanish vessels laden with spoil. He then sailed triumphantly to London with his prizes, and received an enthusiastic welcome from his brother-citizens and the populace. But the council of regency beheld his success and his reception with a jealous eye; and the earl of Stafford even went so far as to charge this loyal and gallant subject of the crown with the commission of an illegal act, in presuming to levy forces, and pursue war within the king's dominions without the sovereign's permission. But Philpot repelled the unworthy accusation with so much spirit and firmness, that the prosecution was abandoned, and he received an honourable acquittal. "Few memorials," says the fair historian of the wars of York and Lancaster, "remain to perpetuate the remembrance of Philpot's glorious action. A narrow lane in the city of London which bears his name, we are told by Stow, has derived its appellation from the residence of this distinguished ornament of the aldermanic body; but the tongue of fame has not blazoned its origin, and it is daily pronounced without any reminiscence of the hero who so justly deserves the admiration and esteem of all posterity."

Sir Richard Whittington.

FLOR. CIRC. A. D. 1390.

OUR juvenile readers at least would never forgive us were we to pass over in silence so eminent a name as that of Sir Richard Whittington, 'thrice lord-mayor of London,' while enumerating those of a Walworth and a Philpot. That Sir Richard Whittington was really lord-mayor of London for three successive periods, is matter of record, but we are not so satisfactorily informed of the circumstances of his rise and progress to the civic chair, and least of all do we possess any credible monuments from which we can illustrate the life and adventures of his far-famed cat. Sir Richard, at his death, founded a college, on which he bestowed his own name, and from the ordinances of this foundation we learn that he was the son of Sir William Whittington, knight. A descent such as this strips our lord-mayor's history of much of its romantic character, and compels us, unwillingly, to cast discredit upon

'the pretty and useful fable of the cat,' for it can hardly be supposed that a knight's son could be indebted to so humble a coadjutor for his first advancement in the world. It is probable that family influence, or the venality of Richard's court, laid the foundations of Whittington's wealth and honours. In the charter of Whittington college, the members are directed to remember in their prayers for ever, Richard II. and Thomas of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester, special lords and promoters of the said Richard Whittington.' This circumstance, taken in connexion with some others to be mentioned presently, has suggested to Miss Roberts the following ingenious piece of conjectural biography: "The family of Whittington was settled in the north of England, that is, in the vicinity of the pit-coal counties and sea-ports. At the date when we may suppose Whittington a boy, the burning of pit-coal in London was esteemed so great a nuisance, that those who ventured to consume the prohibited fuel were rendered punishable under the statute with the penalty of death; and that the actual enforcement of this statute took place, is evinced by the record of the execution of individuals for this offence, still preserved among the archives of the tower of London. But notwithstanding the severity of such a law, and the proof that at one period at least, all its severity was rigorously executed, we come down as low as the year 1419, before which time Whittington had served all his three several mayoralties, without finding that a repeal of the statute had taken place. The importation of pitcoal formed a considerable branch of the commerce of the Thames. 'As early,' says the author of the history of Newcastle, as 1421, it appears that it was a trade of great importance, and that a duty of twopence per chaldron had been imposed upon it for some time.' Now, to account for this professed and public sanction of a trade which was still prohibited by law, it is only needful to advert to that dispensory power which the English crown so notoriously assumed in this and other periods of its early history, and by means of which the operation of the law was arbitrarily suspended, abrogated, or qualified." Miss Roberts proceeds to argue ingeniously enough, that such especial dispensation may have been granted to Sir Richard by his special lords and promoters,' and that a monopoly of the London coal trade with Newcastle was the real source of his splendid civic fortunes.1 As to the story of the cat, it seems sufficiently safe to the fair historian-whose guidance we have adopted in this article-to follow a distinguished antiquary, in the belief that the story of Whittington and his Cat' is no more than a London version of a Persian story mentioned by Sir William Ousely.

Henry IV.

6

BORN A. D. 1367.-DIED A. D. 1413.

THE Conqueror of Richard ascended the throne amid the accla nations of the people, in the first ardours of a popularity too violent to be otherwise than dangerous. The weak and reckless character of

1 Memoirs of York and Lancaster, vol. i. p. 160.

the late king had excited an indignation little less than universal. and the able and enterprizing Bolingbroke availed himself to the utmost of the advantages afforded him by the misgovernment of his predecessor. His title to the crown was indirect, or rather it was entirely superseded by the existence of a superior claim in the person of Mortimer, earl of March, lineally descended from Lionel, the elder brother of Henry's father. In his address to parliament, challenging the crown, after the public declaration of Richard's forfeiture, he blended with his artfully expressed assertion of hereditary succession, an obscure but significant reference to the right of conquest. At his coronation, too, he seems to have intended an allusion to this double claim, by the sword of Lancaster,' which was borne naked on his left hand by the earl of Northumberland, and by the holy oil, preserved from the time of Becket, and given-so ran the legend-to that prelate by the Virgin Mary. The meeting of the new parliament afforded no favourable omen; the debate among the peers was stormy; accusations fiercely made, and as fiercely recriminated; the lie given and thrown back; no fewer than forty gauntlets, gages of personal defiance, flung down and taken up. Such were the lordly courtesies which distinguished this memorable sitting. Conspiracies, as might have been anticipated, were soon in agitation, and a formidable attempt was made to surprise Henry at the castle of Windsor. Failing in this coup-de-main, the noblemen, who were concerned in the plot, endeavoured to rouse the people of the kingdom to arm for the liberation of Richard; but the popular feeling was, as yet, on the usurper's side, and the insurgents were seized by the municipal authorities, and executed by summary process. This ill-advised and disastrous scheme sealed the fate of the abdicated monarch, and, in the month of January, 1400, his death was announced as having taken place in the castle of Pontefract. Considerable doubt exists concerning the manner of his taking off.' It was reported that from the hour in which he was apprized of the execution of his two brothers, who had taken part in the insurrection, he refused all food. This rumour, however, gained small credence, and it was more commonly believed that the abstinence was not voluntary, but forced. Another account gives the details of a more violent murder, and ascribes the death of Richard, after a strenuous defence, to the hand of Sir Piers d'Exton; but if there be no error in the statement of facts connected with the opening of his tomb some years back, this cannot be true, as the skull, where the disabling blow is said to have been struck, was found without sign of injury.2

In the same year, Henry invaded Scotland, but the Scotch army retired before his armament, and he failed to take the castle of Edinburgh. If, however, he obtained no military honours on this occasion, he gained the noble fame, rare in those days, of humanity and maintenance of discipline in war: no ravages, no violations, no fires, nor massacres, marked the line of his march, and protection was uniformly afforded to the quiet and submissive. In the following seasons, however, the old system of foray was resumed by the commanders on either side, until, in September, 1402, the battle of Homildon-hill, fought by the Scots, under Douglas, against the English, under the

Rot. Parl. iv. 18.

Archæol. vol. vi.