Notes and Queries, Number 213, November 26, 1853

THE STATE PRISON IN THE TOWER

A paragraph has lately gone the round of the newspapers, in which, after mentioning the alterations recently made in the Beauchamp Tower and the opening of its "written walls" to public inspection, it is stated that this Tower was formerly the place of confinement for state prisoners, and that "Sir William Wallace and Queen Anne Boleyn" were amongst its inmates.

Now, I believe there is no historical authority for saying that "the Scottish hero" was ever confined in the Tower of London; and it seems certain that the unfortunate queen was a prisoner in the royal apartments, which were in a different part of the fortress. But so many illustrious persons are known to have been confined in the Beauchamp Tower, and its walls preserve so many curious inscriptions—the undoubted autographs of many of its unfortunate tenants—that it must always possess great interest.

Speaking from memory, I cannot say whether the building known as the Beauchamp (or Wakefield) Tower was even in existence in the time of Edward I.; but my impression is, that its architecture is not of so early a time. It is, I believe, supposed to derive its name from the confinement in it of Thomas de Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, in 1397. Of course it was not the only place of durance of state prisoners, but it was the prison of most of the victims of Tudor cruelty who were confined in the Tower of London; and the walls of the principal chamber which is on the first storey, and was, until lately, used as a mess-room for the officers, are covered in some parts with those curious inscriptions by prisoners which were first described in a paper read before the Society of Antiquaries in 1796, by the Rev. J. Brand, and published in the thirteenth volume of The Archæologia.

Mr. P. Cunningham, in his excellent Handbook, says:

"William Wallace was lodged as a prisoner on his first arrival in London in the house of William de Leyre, a citizen, in the parish of All Hallows Staining, at the end of Fenchurch Street."

Mr. Cunningham, in his notice of the Tower, mentions Wallace first among the eminent persons who have been confined there. The popular accounts of the Tower do the like. It was about the Feast of the Assumption (Aug. 15) that Wallace was taken and conducted to London; and it seems clear that he was forthwith imprisoned in the citizen's house:

"He was lodged," says Stow, "in the house of William Delect, a citizen of London, in Fenchurch Street. On the morrow, being the eve of St. Bartholomew (23rd Aug.), he was brought on horseback to Westminster … the mayor, sheriffs, and aldermen of London accompanying him; and in the Great Hall at Westminster … being impeached," &c.

The authorities cited are, Adam Merimuth and Thomas de La More. His arraignment and condemnation on the Vigil of St. Bartholomew are also mentioned by Matthew Westminster, p. 451. Neither these historians, or Stow or Holinshed, afford any farther information. The latter chronicler says that Wallace was "condemned, and thereupon hanged" (Chron., fol., 1586, vol. ii. p. 313.). He was executed at Smithfield; and it is not improbable that, if, after his condemnation, he was taken to any place of safe custody, he was lodged in Newgate. The following entry of the expenses of the sheriffs attending his execution is on the Chancellor's Roll of 33 Edw. I. in the British Museum:

"Et in expens t misis fcis

The day of the trial, August 23, is generally given the date of his execution. It therefore appears that the formidable Scot never was a prisoner in the Tower.

The unfortunate Queen Anne Boleyn occupied the royal apartments while she was a prisoner in the Tower. From Speed's narrative, it appears that she continued to occupy them after she was condemned to death. On May 15 (1536) she was (says Stow)

"Arraigned in the Tower on a scaffold made for the purpose in the King's Hall; and after her condemnation, she was conveyed to ward again, the Lady Kingston, and the Lady Boloigne her aunt, attending on her."

On May 19, the unfortunate queen was led forth to "the green by the White Tower" and beheaded.

In the record of her trial before the Duke of Norfolk, Lord High Steward (see Report of Deputy Keeper of Public Records), she is ordered to be taken back to "the king's prison within the Tower;" but these are words of form. The oral tradition cannot in this case be relied upon, for it pointed out the Martin Tower as the place of her imprisonment because, as I believe, her name was found rudely inscribed upon the wall. The Beauchamp Tower seems to have been named only because it was the ordinary state prison at the time. The narrative quoted by Speed shows, however, that the place of her imprisonment was the queen's lodging, where the fading honours of royalty still surrounded Anne Boleyn.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

INEDITED LETTER FROM HENRY VIII. OF ENGLAND TO JAMES V. OF SCOTLAND

I lately transcribed several very interesting original manuscripts, chiefly of the seventeenth century, but some of an earlier date, and now send you a literal specimen of one evidently belonging to the sixteenth century; although, notwithstanding the day of the month is given, the year is not. If you think it worthy of a place in your very excellent publication, you are quite at liberty to make use of it, and I shall be happy to send you some of the others, if you choose to accept them. They chiefly relate to the period when the Duke of Lauderdale was commissioner for Scotch affairs at the English Court; and one appears to be a letter addressed by the members of the Scottish College at Paris to James I. on the death of his mother.

Right excellent right high and mighty prince, our most dereste brother and nephew, we recommende us unto you in our most hertee and affectuous maner by this berer, your familyar servitor, David Wood. We have not only receyved your most loving and kinde lets declaring how moch ye tendre and regarde the conservation and mayntennance of good amytie betwene us, roted and grounded as well in proximitie of blood as in the good offices, actes, and doyngs shewed in our partie, whiche ye to our greate comforte afferme and confesse to be daylly more and more in your consideration and remembraunce (but also two caste of fair haukes, whiche presented in your name and sent by youe we take in most thankfull parte), and give youe our most hertie thanks for the same, taking greate comforte and consolacion to perceyve and understande by your said letters, and the credence comitted to your said familyar servitor David Wood, which we have redd and considered (and also send unto youe with these our letters answer unto the same) that ye like a good and uertuous prince, have somoche to herte and mynde the god rule and order uppon the borders (with redresse and reformacion of such attemptats as have been comytted and done in the same), not doubting but if ye for your partie as we intende for ours (doe effectually persiste and contynue in so good and uertuose purpose and intente), not only our realmes and subjectts shall lyue quyetly and peasably without occasion of breche, but also we their heddes and gouernors shall so encrease and augment our syncere love and affecōn as shall be to the indissoluble assurammente of good peace and suretie to the inestimable benefit, wealth, and comoditie of us our realmes and subjectts hereafter.

Right excellent right high and mightie prynce, our most derest brother and nephew, the blessed Trynytie have you in his government.

Given under our signet at Yorke place besides Westminster, the 7th day of December.

[This letter, which is not included in the State Papers, "King Henry VIII.," published by the Record Commissioners, was probably written on the 7th December, 1524-25, as in the fourth volume of that collection is a letter from Magnus to Wolsey, in which he says, p. 301.: "Davy Wood came hoome about the same tyme, and sithenne his hider comming hath doone, and continually dooth myche good, making honourable reaport not oonly to the Quenes Grace, but also to all other. He is worthy thankes and gramerces." This David Wod, or Wood, was a servant of the queen, Margaret of Scotland.]

HANDBOOK TO THE LIBRARY OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM

In the Report of the royal commissioners on the British Museum, printed in 1850, we read—

"We are of opinion that, with reference to such a measure as the one now suggested [giving information to persons at a distance as to the existence of works in the library], and to other measures and regulations generally affecting the use of the library, it is desirable to prepare and publish a compendious Guide to the reading-room, as described and suggested by lord Seymour at Q. 9521."

The reference is erroneous. At Q. 9521. there is not a word on the subject! At Q. 9522. we read—

"(Lord Seymour—to Antonio Panizzi, Esq.) You have heard also some witnesses state that it would be a great advantage to those who frequent the reading-room if they had put into their hands some short printed guide to the reading-room, to tell them what books of reference there were, and to tell them how they were to proceed to get books, and other information, from the want of which they state they have been at a great loss? (Mr. Panizzi.) I do not believe that it is often the case that persons are at a loss for want of such a guide, but it might be done," etc.

Now, the suggestion of a short printed guide to the reading-room was evidently considered as of some importance. The principle of SUUM CUIQUE is also of some importance. We observe that lord Seymour the examiner ascribes the suggestion to some witnesses—but lord Seymour the reporter claims the credit of it for himself! It is the after-thought of his lordship of which I have to complain.

If we turn to the evidence, it will appear that Mr. Peter Cunningham suggested a printed "catalogue of the books in the reading-room," Q. 4800.—I must now speak of myself. When summoned before the commissioners as a witness, I took with me the printed Directions respecting the reading-room for the express purpose of pointing out their inconsistency and insufficiency, and of advocating the preparation of a guide-book.

I cannot repeat my arguments. It would occupy too much space. I can only refer to the questions 6106-6116. The substance is this:—I contended that every person admitted to the reading-room should be furnished with instructions how to proceed—instructions as to the catalogues which he should consult—and instructions for asking for the books. On that evidence rests my claim to the credit of having suggested a Guide to the reading-room. Its validity shall be left to the decision of those who venerate the motto of Tom Hearne—Suum cuique.

The trustees of the British Museum seem to have paid no attention to the recommendation of the royal commissioners. They issue the same Directions as before. After you have obtained admission to the reading-room, you are furnished with instructions as to the mode of obtaining it!—but you have no guide to the numerous catalogues.

What Mr. Antonio Panizzi, the keeper of the department of printed books, says might be done, Mr. Richard Sims, of the department of manuscripts, says shall be done. His Handbook to the library of the British Museum is a very comprehensive and instructive volume. It is a triumphant refutation of the opinions of those who, to the vast injury of literature, and serious inconvenience of men of letters, slight common sense and real utility in favour of visionary schemes and pedantic elaboration.

There is no want of precedents for a work of this class, either abroad or at home. As to the public library at Paris—I observe, in my own small collection, an Essai historique sur la bibliothèque du roi, par M. le Prince; a Histoire du cabinet des médailles, par M. Marion du Mersan; a Notice des estampes, par M. Duchesne, &c.

For a precedent at home, I shall refer to the Synopsis of the contents of the British Museum. The first edition of that interesting work, with the valued autograph of G. Shaw, is now before me. It is dated in 1808. I have also the sixtieth edition, printed in this year. I cannot expect to see a sixtieth edition of the Handbook, but it deserves to be placed by the side of the Synopsis, and I venture to predict for it a wide circulation.

FOLK LORE

Derbyshire Folk Lore.—Many years ago I learned the following verses in Derbyshire, with reference to magpies:

The opinion that a swarm of bees settling on a dead tree forebodes a death in the family also prevails in Derbyshire.

In that county also there is an opinion that a dog howling before a house is an indication that some one is dying within the house; and I remember an instance where, as I heard at the time, a dog continued howling in a street in front of a house in which a lady was dying.

It is also a prevalent notion that if the sun shines through the apple-trees on Christmas Day, there will be an abundant crop the following year.

I never heard the croaking of a raven or carrion crow mentioned as an indication of anything, which is very remarkable, as well on account of its ill-omened sound, as because it was so much noticed by the Romans.

Weather Superstitions.—If it rains much during the twelve days after Christmas Day, it will be a wet year. So say the country people.

"If there is anything in this, 1853 will be a wet year, for it has rained every day of the twelve." So wrote I under date January 9.

No one, I think, will deny that for once the shaft has hit the mark.

Kidderminster.

Weather Rhymes, &c.—The following are very common in Northamptonshire:

Burton Hold, or Wold, is near Burton Latimer.

Folk Lore in Cambridgeshire (Vol. viii., p. 382.).—The custom referred to by Mr. Middleton, of ringing the church bell early in the morning for the gleaners to repair to the fields, and again in the evening for their return home, is still kept up not only at Hildersham, but also in most of the villages in this neighbourhood. I have heard this "gleaners' bell" several times during this present autumn; the object of course being to give all parties a fair and equal chance. Upon one occasion, where the villages lie rather close together, I heard four of these bells sounding their recall from different church towers; and as I was upon an eminence from whence I could see the different groups wending their way to their respective villages, it formed one of the most striking pastoral pictures I have ever witnessed, such, perhaps, as England alone can furnish.

Cambridge.

RAPPING NO NOVELTY

It may be interesting to the believers in modern miracles to learn that at all events "rapping" is no new thing. I now send you the account of an incident in the sixteenth century, which bears a strong resemblance to some of those veracious narrations which have enlightened mankind in the nineteenth century.

Rushton Hall, near Kettering in Northamptonshire, was long the residence of the ancient and distinguished family of Treshams. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the mansion was occupied by Sir Thomas Tresham, who was a pedant and a fanatic; but who was an important character in his time by reason of his great wealth and powerful connexions. There is a lodge at Rushton, situate about half a mile from the old hall, now in ruins; but covered all over, within and without, with emblems of the Trinity. This lodge is known to have been built by Sir Thomas Tresham; but his precise motive for selecting this mode of illustrating his favourite doctrine was unknown until it appeared from a letter written by himself about the year 1584, and discovered in a bundle of books and papers inclosed, since 1605, in a wall in the old mansion, and brought to light about twenty years ago. The following relation of a "rapping" or "knocking" is extracted from this letter:

"If it be demanded why I labour so much in the Trinity and Passion of Christ to depaint in this chamber, this is the principal instance thereof; That at my last being hither committed1, and I usually having my servants here allowed me, to read nightly an hour to me after supper, it fortuned that Fulcis, my then servant, reading in the Christian Resolution, in the treatise of Proof that there is a God, &c., there was upon a wainscot table at that instant three loud knocks (as if it had been with an iron hammer) given; to the great amazing of me and my two servants, Fulcis and Nilkton."

GRAMMAR IN RELATION TO LOGIC

Dr. Latham (Outlines of Logic, p. 21., 1847, and English Language, p. 510., 2nd edition) defines the conjunction to be a part of speech that connects propositions, not words. His doctrine is so palpably and demonstrably false, that I am somewhat at a loss to understand how a man of his penetration can be so far deceived by a crotchet as to be blind to the host of examples which point to the direct converse of his doctrine. Let the learned Doctor try to resolve the sentence, All men are either two-legged, one-legged, or no-legged, into three constituent propositions. It cannot be done; either and or are here conjunctions which connect words and not propositions. In the example, John and James carry a basket, it is of course quite plain that the logic of the matter is that John carries one portion of the basket, and James carries the rest. But to identify these two propositions with the first mentioned, is to confound grammar with logic. The former deals with the method of expression, the latter with the method of stating (in thought) and syllogising. To take another example, Charles and Thomas stole all the apples. The fact probably was, that Charles' pockets contained some of the apples, and Thomas' pockets contained all the rest. But the business of grammar in the above sentence is to regulate the form of the expression, not to reason upon the matter expressed. A little thought will soon convince any person accustomed to these subjects that conjunctions always connect words, not propositions. The only work in which I leave seen Dr. Latham's fundamental error exposed, is in Boole's Mathematical Analysis of Logic; the learned author, though he seems unsettled on many matters of logic and metaphysics, has clearly made up his mind on the point now under discussion. He says: