THE LATE REIGNS
During the late reigns there is little that calls for record in the
history of the Tower: happy is the land that has no history. But for
the fire in 1841, which destroyed the ugly old Armoury of William
III.’s time, and the dastardly attempt made in 1885 to blow up the
White Tower, no events of much interest have happened. The old
fortress, however, has undergone much structural alterations and needed
restoration, in which, although great mistakes have been made, as must
inevitably be the case when such a group of old buildings as those in
the Tower are touched, the result, on the whole, has benefited the
appearance of the fortress, and above all, aided the preservation for
future ages of the noblest and most historical group of buildings that
exists in our land. May they endure: may they be venerated by future
generations of our race as they deserve to be.
The following narratives concern the two events just named.
THE FIRE OF 1841
On the night of Saturday, the 30th of October 1841, the great Armoury,
or storehouse, to the east of St Peter’s Chapel, was completely gutted.
The fire broke out in the Bowyer Tower, which abutted on the Armoury;
an overheated flue in a stove is supposed to have been the cause. The
Armoury had been commenced in the reign of James II. and completed
in the reign of William and Mary, to whom, when it was finished, a
banquet had been given in the great hall of the building. This hall,
which occupied the whole length of the first floor, was afterwards used
as a storehouse for small arms, 150,000 stands of which were destroyed
by the fire; besides these, were numbers of cannon and trophies taken
in the field. The loss caused by the conflagration was estimated at
£200,000. The Regalia was saved from the Martin Tower by one of the
superintendents of the Metropolitan police, named Pierce, an incident
of bravery which Cruikshank perpetuated in one of his finest etchings.
Accompanied by the Keeper of the Jewels and his wife, Pierce, with
some other officials, broke the bars of the cage behind which the
Royal jewels were kept, with crowbars, and then at great personal risk
he managed to squeeze himself through the narrow opening thus made,
handing out the crown, orb, and sceptre to those outside. The silver
font was too large to pass through the opening, and it was necessary to
break away another bar of the grating. Repeated cries from the outside
now warned the party to leave the Jewel Room, as the fire was rapidly
gaining upon the tower, but Pierce remained until he had secured the
whole of the Regalia. The heat inside was so intense that some of the
cloth upon which the Crown jewels rested was charred. “Some public
reward to Mr Pierce,” writes Chamber, in his “Book of Days,” “who had
so gallantly imperilled himself to save the Regalia of the United
Kingdom, would have been a fitting tribute to his bravery. But no such
recompense was ever bestowed.”
[Illustration: _Sketch of the Fire at the Tower in 1841._]
A contemporary account of the disaster in George Cruikshank’s
_Omnibus_, edited by Laman Blanchard, gives the following description
of the destruction of the Armoury:—“There stood the keeper himself,
his wife at his side, partaking the peril; and the warders whom he had
summoned to the rescue. We must, however, pourtray the stifling heat
and smoke; the clamour of the soldiers outside the closed portal,
which the fires of the Armoury were striving to reach; nor the roar
of the still excluded flames, the clang of the pumps, the hissing
of the water-pipes, the gathering feet and voices of the multitude.
They are beyond the pencil. The pressure from without increased.
Again the clamours rose high, and the furnace heat rose higher. But
the keeper abided his time—the crowbars were raised in a dozen hands
awaiting his word. It was given! The first blow since the days of King
Charles descended on the iron fence; and Queen Victoria’s crown safely
deposited in its case, and sheltered therein from smoke and flame, and
the common gaze, was removed to the Governor’s house. Orbs, diadems,
and sceptres—dishes, flagons, and chalices—the services of court and of
church, of altar and of banquet, were sent forth in the care of many a
sturdy warder, gallant John Lund being the leader. The huge baptismal
font, soon to be called into use for the Prince of Wales, was last
removed. The Jewel Room was as bare as if Blood the First had left
nought behind him for Blood the Second. How must the spectators have
gazed on the bright procession, as from window, and roof, and turret,
the Armoury blazed out upon it!... Next in sublimity to the spectacle
of the blazing pile, was the scene afterwards presented, when, as
the fire lessened, and the smoke cleared off, the whole space of the
enormous armoury was opened to the straining eye—a sight of awe and
wonder. Above was the sky of a November morn, and below, covering the
immense sweep of the floor, heaps of fused metal, of dimensions scarce
to be credited, with bayonet points bristling up everywhere, close-set
and countless, like long blades of grass.”
The buildings destroyed in the fire were the Armoury, a hideous William
III. building, the upper part of the Bowyer or Chevener Tower, which
was also hideous and modern. The only relic of much interest destroyed
in the Armoury was the wheel of Nelson’s ship _Victory_; the arms
destroyed were modern, and were all soon replaced.
[Illustration: _Bragg & Ash 231 Strand_ _Printed by Kohler Denmark Sᵗ_
_The Conflagration as seen from Tower Hill before the destruction of
the Roof of the Armoury._
DESTRUCTION of the ARMOURY in the TOWER of LONDON.
_by fire on Saturday night October 30ᵗʰ. 1841._
Published by W. Spooner 377, Strand.]
The present Gothic barracks were built upon the site of the Armoury,
and were opened in some state in 1845 by the great Duke of Wellington,
who was then Constable of the Tower. These barracks, which were
completed in 1849, were named after the Duke; they are loopholed
for musketry, and will hold 1000 men. North-east of the White Tower
is a modern castellated building which is used by the officers of
the garrison; further to the south-east are the Ordnance Office and
Storehouses. The area of the Tower within the walls is twelve acres and
a few poles, and the circuit outside the moat is one thousand and fifty
yards.
THE FENIAN ATTEMPT TO BLOW UP THE WHITE TOWER ON
THE 24TH OF JANUARY 1885
Three explosions took place in London on Saturday, the 24th of January
1885, during what the Irish Fenians called the “Dynamite War.” Two of
these occurred in the Houses of Parliament, the third in the White
Tower.
The mine, or rather, infernal machine, was laid in the Armoury, and was
placed between the stands of arms in the Banqueting Room, both that
chamber and the Council Room being injured by the explosion.
Saturday being one of the days upon which the Tower is free to
visitors, the old building was full of people, the Banqueting Room
being well filled with women and children when the explosion took
place, at two o’clock—the same time as that at which the explosion
at the House of Parliament occurred. The cries of the people in the
room were most distressing, and immediately the charge exploded, the
Banqueting Room was ablaze, the flames communicating themselves to the
floor above. Since the fire in the Tower in 1841, a fire brigade had
been stationed in the building, and numerous fire extinguishers, such
as small manuals and hydrants, were kept in readiness, and although
two of the London fire brigades were telephoned for, the military, with
the aid of hoses and hydrants, had already checked the spreading of the
flames. The actual amount of damage done, happily, fell far short of
what might have been expected, considering the force of the explosion,
and the great age of the building attacked. The windows and casements
were nearly all blown out, the flagstaff at the top of the White Tower
was blown away, the floor was burnt, and the face of the clock was
damaged; and this was the extent of the hurt caused by the dastardly
attempt to wreck the White Tower. The report of the explosion is
described as being like the firing of a heavy piece of artillery, being
followed by a flame of fire that rose up through the open well that
communicates between the second and third floors in the centre of the
two halls. This flame was immediately succeeded by a shivering of all
the glass in the windows, the crashing of the woodwork, and the falling
of hundreds of rifles from the armoury racks, while a dense cloud of
dust darkened the interior of the building, and made it impossible for
the visitors or officials to discover where the explosion had occurred.
A wild panic ensued, and as the dust gradually cleared away, the people
rushed in a wild helter-skelter down the staircase, and poured out of
the Tower. Meanwhile, the warders and police arrived to the succour
of the injured, whom they had to draw out from beneath the wreckage.
Directly after the explosion the bugles sounded the assembly, and the
Grenadiers, who formed the garrison, turned out. Lord Chelmsford, the
Lieutenant of the Tower, and General Milman, its Major, caused flying
sentries to be posted at every avenue and point of egress admitting to
the Tower. Orders were given to close the gates, and no one was to be
allowed to leave the fortress under any pretext. The perpetrator of
the outrage was a scoundrel, who, two years before, had been concerned
in the outrage of a similar nature on the Underground Railway, when
bombs had been placed at Charing Cross and Praed Street stations. He
was sentenced to fourteen years’ penal servitude with hard labour, and
was released in the month of March 1899. That the White Tower escaped,
and the people in it, with so little injury, was a miracle, for the
charge of dynamite was a strong one.
[Illustration: George Cruikshanke
_Breaking into the Strong room in the “Jewel Tower” and Removal of
the Regalia, on the night of the Fire, Octʳ 30 1841_]
Crime, like history, repeats itself. Amongst the manuscripts kept at
Hatfield House is the following declaration:—
“1593–4 Feb. 6. John Danyell, Irishman, came to me, Richard Young,
the 6th day of February 1593, and gave me to understand of a plot
that is pretended for the firing of the Tower—viz. that there is a
vault wherein brimstone doth lie, and there is gunpowder under it. And
he says that there is a trap door that doth stand much open, and is
purposed that two men like labourers shall come in as though they were
workmen in the Tower, and shall cast certain balls into the vault where
the brimstone lieth, and in a short time it will take fire and consume
all.”
From this it will be seen that the intention of one criminal in the
reign of Queen Elizabeth was carried out by another nearly three
hundred years later, in the reign of Queen Victoria.
THE END.
=APPENDICES=
[Illustration: THE GREAT COURT OF THE TOWER.]
APPENDIX I
DISPUTES BETWEEN THE CITY OF LONDON AND THE OFFICIALS OF THE TOWER
AS TO THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF THE TOWER
“This dispute as to the Liberties and Privileges of the Tower began as
early as 1465–66, the fifth of Edward IV. Early in Queen Elizabeth’s
reign it was renewed; the points of controversy are referred to in the
above letter (a letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lords of the Council
complaining of the conduct of Sir William George, Porter of the Tower
of London, regarding his usurpation of the Liberties and Franchises of
the City by ‘compelling poor victuallers strangers, coming to London
by ship or boat with fish, fruit, or such victuals, to give him such
a quantity as pleased him to take, as two or three cod-fish from each
boat, etc., without payment. Such as refused he caused to be imprisoned
in the Tower, whereby the victuallers were discouraged to come to the
City, and their number decreased, to the great hurt of the markets
and the victualling of the City, especially at this present time of
Lent’). The Council referred the question to the consideration of the
Lord Chief-Justice of the Queen’s Bench (Sir Christopher Wray), the
Lord Chief of the Common Pleas (Sir Edward Anderson), and the Master
of the Rolls (Sir Gilbert Gerard), who gave their opinion upon some of
the privileges claimed by the Lieutenant, but not upon the question of
boundaries. They reported with respect to the claims of freedom from
arrest by action in the City, and protections granted by the Lieutenant
to officers and attendants in the Tower, and not obeying writs of
_habeas corpus_; that in their opinion, persons daily attendant in
the Tower, and serving the Queen there, should be privileged, and not
arrested on any plaint in London, but this should not apply to writs
of execution or _capias utlagatum_; that the Lieutenant ought to
return every _habeas corpus_ out of any court at Westminster, so that
the justices before whom it should be returned might either remand it
with the body, or retain the matter before them, and deliver the body.
They further gave their opinion that the claim of the Lieutenant,
that if a person privileged in the Tower were arrested in London, he
might detain any citizen found within the Tower until the other was
delivered, was altogether against the laws of the realm. The Lords of
the Council made an order settling these controversies, which was
dated from Nonsuch, October 3rd, 1585. The question of boundaries
still remained in dispute. Stowe quotes documents, which he says he
had seen among the Records in the Tower, from which it would appear
that the bounds in controversy were at Little Tower Hill, the Postern,
and East Smithfield on one side, and on the other the extent of Tower
Hill, and towards Barking Church. The City claimed the Postern Gate
in the end of the London Wall by the Tower, and houses built near to
the Wall and Postern; all the void ground within the Postern Gate—viz.
the whole hill and ground where the scaffold for the execution of
traitors stood, and where the Sheriffs of London received prisoners
from the Tower to be executed (from which place the boundary stone had
been removed), with the Watergate and the gardens under the London
Wall. The City also claimed that the whole ground and soil called
Tower Hill without the Postern Gate, being parcel of East Smithfield,
was theirs. They likewise objected to the Lieutenant holding pleas
in the court of the Tower, that being only a Court Baron, and not a
Court of Record; also to the exactions taken in the name of prizage of
victuallers bringing victuals, fuel, and other things by water. The
Lieutenant disputed the original position of the Postern in question,
and asserted that the City’s proofs brought from their own manuscripts,
etc., were insufficient to dispossess any subject, much less the King.
He also submitted the presentment made by an inquest held anno 27
Henry VIII., before Sir Anthony (William) Kingston, High Constable of
the Tower, which stated that the bounds began ‘at the Watergate next
the Ramshead, in Petty Wales; and so streyched North unto a Mudwall
called Pykes Garden, on this side of Crutched Friars; and so strait
East unto the Wall of London, with nine gardens above the Postern,
and above the _Broken Tower_, right unto the midst of Hog Lane End,
and so strait unto the Thames, and so six foot without the Stairs at
the East-gate of the Tower towards St Katherine’s.’ In the reign of
King James the Second the subject was again before the Privy Council,
who on the 12th May 1686, directed the boundaries to be ascertained,
which was done, and the broad arrow in iron, with the date, set on
the houses. On the 13th October in the same year a warrant was issued
by King James the Second, for a charter to be prepared for confirming
the same. This Charter, dated 10th June 1687, exempted the limits
defined in the schedule (and which were practically those claimed by
the Lieutenant) from the jurisdiction of the City, and of the Justices,
etc., of Middlesex; directed that the Governor of the Tower, or his
deputies, should execute and return all writs, processes, etc., within
the limits; that a Session of the Peace should be held four times a
year within the Liberty of the Tower, and that the Justices of the
Peace should have power to commit traitors, felons, etc., to Newgate.
It also established a Court of Record within the Liberties, the Steward
of the Court being the Coroner, the Governor of the Tower having the
appointment of the officers. Whilst the duties of the Justices of the
Peace, as defined by the charter, have been from time to time added to
by the Acts 13 George II. cap. 19. sec. 7, 37 George II. cap. 25, sec.
13–16, and by sundry licensing Acts, their powers have been limited by
the Police Act (10 George IV. cap. 44) and supplementary Police Acts.
The Central Criminal Court Act, 4 and 5 William IV. cap. 36, included
the Liberty of the Tower within the jurisdiction of that Court, and
took away the power of its Justices to try at their Sessions offences
under the Act. This, however, has been somewhat modified by subsequent
Acts.”
APPENDIX II
The
Behaviour _and_ Character
of
_Samuel M‘Pherson_, }
_Malcolm M‘Pherson_ } and { _Farquar Shaw_,
the
Three Highland Deserters;
who were
_Shot at the_ Tower, July _the 18th_, 1743.
with
Some Observations on the _Conduct_ of a certain _Stranger_, who advised
the Prisoners to wave any Defence they had, and to plead guilty.
Also
_A plain_ Narrative _of the Original Institution of the Regiment, now commanded
by my Lord S——. Containing an Impartial Account of the Rise and Progress of
the late Mutiny in that Regiment_.
To which is added,
The two Petitions which they sent to the Lords of the _Regency_,
and to the Dutchess of _Richmond_.
By the Clergyman of the Church of _Scotland_, who conversed with them
in their own Language from the Time of their Sentence till their
Execution.
_Nil turpe commitas neque coramalias neque tecum maxime
omnium reverere teipsum._
London
Printed for M. Cooper in _Pater-Noster-Row_, 1743
Price Six-pence.
The
Behaviour and Character
of the
Three Highlanders,
Who were Shot, on July 18th, 1743.
The many inconsistent and scandalous Reports that are spread about
Town, both in Print and Conversation, concerning the Characters and
Behaviour of the three unhappy young Men who suffer’d in the Tower of
_London_ on _Monday_ the 18th of _July_, make it necessary as well for
Information of the Public, as out of Charity to their Memories, to
publish the following Sheets.
The Author of this Tract thinks it necessary to premise, that he means
not in the Relation he intends to make of this Affair, either to
justify the Crime for which these Men suffer’d; or, in the least, to
arraign the Justice of the Court-Martial in their Proceedings; or tax
the Sentence with Severity; but, from a Motive of Christian Charity and
Love for Truth, means to remove from the Character of the Deceased,
such false Aspersions as are cast upon them, either by the Malice or
Ignorance of some, who think it not only necessary for the Vindication
of public Justice, to represent these unhappy Men as Mutineers and
Deserters, but must paint them as Men void of every other Virtue, and
addicted to the grossest Vices.
In order to give the Reader a just Idea of this Corps of Men, it will
not be improper to go back as far as their original Institution, by
which we shall be the better enabled to form a just Notion of their
Character.
Few that are in the least acquainted with the History or Constitution
of _Scotland_ but know, that anciently all the Lands in that Kingdom
were held of the Crown by Military Tenures, or Knights Service; and
that the Vassals of these great Men held their Lands of them by the
same kind of Tenures.
By this Means, the Nobility of that Kingdom had always a Number of Men
ready to bring into the Field, either in defence of their _Sovereign_,
or to decide their own private Quarrels with one another, at which the
Crown always conniv’d (for political Reasons) until both Parties were
reduced to an equal and moderate Share of Power.
This Practice of Subjects deciding their private Quarrels by the Sword,
obtained anciently all over _Britain_ and most other Countries, until
Civil Polity and more wholesome Laws prevailed: and still remained in
the _South_ parts, and towards the Borders of _Scotland_, till near
the Time of the Union of the Crowns in the Person of King _James_ the
First, when the chief Men in those Parts were diverted from their
private Animosities, by their necessary Attendance on the Court, now
removed at a greater Distance from them.
However, this Spirit of Family Feuds still prevailed in the
_Highlands_, and more remote Parts of _Scotland_, who, by their
Distance from the Court, were unacquainted with the Manners of the
civiliz’d Part of the Nation.
The inferior Chieftains in these Parts still determined their mutual
Quarrels as usual: and in revenge of any Affront, made Incursions and
Depredations into the Estates of one another, or connived at their
Followers doing so, to the great Discouragement of Industry, and
Disturbance of the public Peace.
In this Situation were Things in that Part of the Country about the
Time of the Union of the Kingdoms, when the Government very wisely,
by the Act called the _Clan-Act_, abolished these Tenures, and
for preventing these Depredations last mentioned, raised several
Independent Companies in the _Highlands_, the command of which were
given to some of the most considerable Gentlemen in that Corner,
such as Lord _Loveat_, Laird of _Grant_, _Lochnell_, _Farah_, etc.,
all men of Distinction and Weight, who were willing to engage their
Personal and Family Influence, as well as that of their Companies, for
suppressing those Quarrels, and settling a Civil Polity in the Country.
When this Levy was made, the Officers took a special Care that none
should be enlisted into that Service, but the Sons of the wealthiest
and most reputable Farmers in the Country; and the second and younger
Sons of some of the lesser Vassals were not asham’d to enlist in a
service calculated for restoring of Peace, and establishing Liberty and
Property in their Country. And as they were allowed to occupy their own
Farms or follow any other Occupation, except upon Muster-Days, or when
they were actually employed in pursuit of Robbers, or Disturbers of the
public Peace; they, instead of receiving Bounty-Money, made Interest
with the Officer to be admitted.
In this Shape they continued till they were Regimented, under the
Command of the Honourable the Earl of _Crawford_, a Nobleman, whose
Character was every way agreeable to them, and made little or no
Alteration in their Circumstances.
When we have taken this View of their Original and History, down to the
Period of their being Regimented, it will be no Matter of Surprize to
find the private Men of that Regiment differing much in their Manners
from those of other Corps, if we consider that when they entered the
Service it was impossible for them to have the least Apprehensions of
ever being obliged to leave their own Country where most of them had
Farms or other Concerns, and looked upon themselves, and I believe were
esteemed by the Country, only as a regulated Militia, at least till
such Time as they were Regimented, which was only a few Years ago.
The Earl of _Crawford_ enjoyed that Regiment but a short time, when it
was given to their present Colonel the Honourable Lord _Semple_.
They were quartered last year, the one half of them at _Inverness_, and
the other at _Perth_; some Time in Spring the Regiment was informed
by their officers that they were to be reviewed at _Musselburgh_, a
village within four miles of _Edinburgh_, and afterwards to return to
their quarters.
Accordingly they had a Rout given them to that place, and arrived
there; but were told they were not to be reviewed there, but at
_Berwick_ upon _Tweed_; when they came to this place, they were told
that his Majesty designed to review them in Person at _London_, and
that then they would all return to their Families.
When they arrived at _London_, and found that his Majesty was gone, the
Regiment were universally dissatisfied, that after so long a March they
were disappointed of the Honour of being reviewed by his Majesty.
Some Time after their coming here a Report was currently spread that
the Regiment was to be sent to some Parts of the _West-Indies_, and
broke or divided amongst the Colonies; which raised in the private
Men, who believed this Report, a very great Animosity against their
Officers, whom they groundlessly blamed for not informing them truly
where they were to go before they carried them from their own Country;
and not allowing them Time to settle their Concerns, of which some had
very considerable, which they were obliged to leave in great Disorder,
they thought the Interest of the Government did no ways require that
they, more than any other Regiment in _Britain_ should be left ignorant
of the Rout they were to take, and by that means be disappointed of an
Opportunity of settling their private affairs in a manner suitable to
so long an Absence; that they had been so long settled in that Country
without any View of being so suddenly called from it, that it amounted
to as great a Hardship on them (comparatively speaking) as it would be
to the Militia of the City of _London_ to be shipped for the _Indies_
on an Hour’s Warning.
The Officers took pains to allay this flame, by assuring the Men that
so soon as the Review was over they would be allowed to return Home.
But when the Report of their Embarkation prevailed, they were out of
all Patience, and looked upon the Design of sending them to _Flanders_
only as a Blind to get them on board, in order to ship them really for
the _West-Indies_.
Tho’ their Officers attempted to undeceive them, yet they had been
disappointed so often, and filled so long with Hopes of going Home,
that they had no Credit with them.
Add to this, that there was another Complaint pretended for the
Ground of their Discontent, that some small Arrears were due to them,
that they had all been obliged to use their own Swords, and that
their Cloathing, especially their Shoes and Plaids, were remarkably
deficient, these last not being worth Six-pence _per_ Yard; whereas
they used to be allowed Plaids of more than double that Value.
This Spirit continued after the Review, when the Discontented agreed
upon _Tuesday_ Night after to meet at _Finchley Common_, where a great
Number of them convened and waited till their Number increased. In
this interval some of their Officers came up, and by their persuasions
a great Number returned; However, about a 100 of them continued their
first Resolution of returning to their own Country.
Here it is remarkable that the Night was so dark that they scarce
could distinguish Faces, or make any Computation of their Number, and
that _Malcolm M‘Pherson_, one of the Deceased had never hitherto given
any Consent to go away, but came within some Distance of the Place
where the Men were assembled, and with another in Company, continued
irresolute what Course to take until the coming up of the Officers had
raised some Ferment, upon which he came into the Crowd, and allowed
himself to be hurried along without knowing where he was going.
Next Morning when by Day-Light they could discern their Number, and not
finding the Desertion so general as they expected, _Samuel M‘Pherson_,
another of the Deceased, advised the whole Body strenuously to return
to their Duty, which Advice he continued to inculcate during their
March to _Lady Wood_; and in a short Time after they came there, he
applied to a Justice of the Peace to propose terms of surrender; and
during all their Stay there, used his utmost Endeavours to prevent
Things coming to the last Extremity.
At last being in some Hopes of a Pardon by the Intervention of his
Grace the Duke of _Montague_, to whom Application was made in their
behalf, they surrendered on Discretion, in which _Samuel M‘Pherson_ was
the most instrumental, as will be acknowledged by the Officers to whom
he surrendered.
They were brought soon after to the Tower, and a Court Martial
appointed to try them.
The first Day the Court Martial sat, a Person, a Stranger to all the
Prisoners, came to the Grate, and pretending a great deal of Concern
for their Misfortunes, advised them not to mention on their Trial any
complaint they might have against their Officers, intimating, that he
was certain such a Plea would not avail them, and without serving them
would expose their Officers.
That the wisest Course they could follow for their own Safety, would
be to acknowledge their Guilt, and plead mercy of the Court Martial,
which he assured them would effectually work their Deliverance that no
Punishment would be inflicted on them, and at the same Time presented
them with a Petition which he had already drawn, addressed to the
Court Martial in these terms, and they very frankly relying on these
assurances signed and delivered the same to that honourable Court.
One of their Officers came next day to the Tower, and inculcated the
same Doctrine into the Prisoners that the Stranger had done before,
assuring them that they would all be liberate in a short time, when all
Justice should be done them.
The Prisoners were examined before the Court Martial one by one; the
Questions asked them were to this Purpose, Was you enlisted? Have you
taken the Oaths? Have you received your Pay? Had you your Cloathing
regularly? To all which they answered in the Affirmative: They were
asked if they had any Complaints against their Officers, they all
answered in the Negative, and in general pleaded nothing in Alleviation
of their Crime before the Court Martial, but Inadvertency, and that
they were moved to it by a Report which prevailed of their being sent
to the _West-Indies_, and into a Climate destructive of their Health.
I cannot help in this Place to take notice of the remarkable
Officiousness of this Stranger. He takes upon him without being asked,
or the least apparent Interest in the Prisoners, to advise them in
Matters of the last Consequence to them, their Lives and Reputation;
has the Rashness to prejudge the Opinion of the Honourable the Court
Martial in a Point of Law, which is at least a moot Point amongst the
Lawyers themselves.
How unreasonable was it for any Man to pretend to determine what Weight
any Plea would have before a Court of Judicature determining in a Case
of Life and Death; and how unjust to the Prisoners, to advise them to
conceal any Circumstance in their Case that might have the smallest
Tendency towards alleviating their Crimes, or raising the smallest
Motions of Compassion towards them in the Breasts of their Judges!
Suppose there had been but little Weight in the Plea of their Want
of Pay, yet still it was a Circumstance closely connected with their
Crime, without which it was impossible to form a just Judgment of the
Heinousness of that Action. For it must be granted on the one hand,
that a Soldier who deserts and cannot plead Want of Pay, etc., is less
excusable, and consequently deserves a greater Degree of Punishment
than he who has such a Pretence; this must be granted, tho’ it should
be admitted on the other hand, that there is not so much in this Plea,
as to skreen the Criminals totally from Punishment; But how much, or
little is in it, is a Case few wise Men will determine dogmatically,
especially against the Prisoner, since History, either antient or
modern, does not afford any one Instance of Capital Punishments
inflicted on Soldiers who mutinied for Want of Pay.
It is true, the Pay they want is but small; by their own Account ten or
twelve shillings, some less, some a trifle more, which I mention out
of Justice to the Officers, because it was currently reported in Town
that the Deficiency was much more considerable. But however trifling
this and their other Complaints may seem to Men not concerned, yet I
cannot but reckon it barbarous to have advised them to conceal these
Circumstances, the Relation of which could not be supposed to have been
capable of making the Court Martial less merciful to the Prisoners, if
it had not the contrary effect.
But however that Plea was waved, and did not fall under the cognizance
of the Court Martial who made their Report, the Consequence of which
was, that on _Tuesday_ the 12th, a Warrant was directed by their
Excellencies the Lords of the Regency to the Governor of the Tower,
for the Execution of _Samuel M‘Pherson_, _Malcolm M‘Pherson_, both
Corporals, and _Farquar Shaw_, a private Centinel, all three of the
Number of the Deserters, upon _Monday_ the 18th of _July_ last.
Having thus impartially traced this Meeting from its Rise to this
Period, it remains that we give some Account of the Character and
Behaviour of these three unfortunate Criminals from the Intimation of
their Sentence to their Execution.
_Samuel M‘Pherson_, aged about twenty-nine Years, unmarried, was born
in the Parish of _Laggan_ in _Badenuck_ and Shire of _Inverness_;
his Father still living, is Brother to _M‘Pherson_ of _Breachie_, a
Gentleman of a considerable Estate in that County, and is himself a Man
of unblemished Reputation, and a plentiful Fortune.
_Samuel_ was the only Son of a first Marriage, and received a genteel
Education, having made some Progress in the Languages, and studied for
some Time at _Edinburgh_ with a Writer (that is, an Attorney), until
about six Years ago he enlisted as a Volunteer in Major _Grant’s_
Company, where he was much respected both by the Officers and private
men, and was in a short Time made a Corporal.
_Malcolm M‘Pherson_, aged about 30 Years, and unmarried, was likewise
born in the same Parish of _Laggan_, was Son of Angus _M‘Pherson_
of _Driminard_, a Gentleman of Credit and Repute, who bestowed upon
_Malcolm_ such Education as that Part of the Country would afford. He
enlisted about seven Years ago in my Lord _Loveat’s_ Company, where his
Behaviour recommended him to the Esteem of his Officers, and was soon
made a Corporal.
_Farquar Shaw_, aged about 35 Years, unmarried, was born in the Parish
of _Rothmurchius_ in _Strathspey_, and Shire of _Inverness_. His
Father, _Alexander Shaw_, was an honest Farmer, but gave his Son no
Education, as living at a Distance from Schools, and not in a Condition
to maintain him elsewhere; _Farquar_ lived some time by droving, but
meeting with Misfortunes in that Business, was reduced, and obliged,
for Subsistance, to enlist in this regiment, where he has lived till
now without any Reproach.
The Sentence was intimated to them upon _Tuesday_ before their
Execution. This unexpected Change of their Fortunes, from hopes of Life
and Liberty, to that of a short Preparation for a violent Death, very
much shock’d their Resolution; but _Samuel_ less than any of them:
When the Warder went to acquaint _Samuel_ of this melancholy News, he
carry’d with him two Centinels, for fear any Accident might happen; and
after expressing his Concern for being the Messenger of such unhappy
News, acquainted him, he must die. He started with Surprize; and asked,
with some Emotion, _How must I die? You are to be shot, Sir._—Then he
reply’d, pretty composedly, _God’s Will be done; I have brought this
upon myself_. He then asked, If he might be allowed Pen and Ink; and
when the Post went for _Scotland_? The Warder told him the Night; but
that he could not live to receive any Return: He said, he did not want
any. He very pleasantly gave the Warder what Weapons he had, which
were only a small Penknife and a Razor: and before the Warder parted
with him seem’d to have assumed his ordinary Calmness of Mind; and he
and the other two, after some Reflection, and the Conversation of the
Clergy (who from this time attended them) were reconciled so much to
their Circumstances, as to be able to bear the thoughts of Death with
great Decency, and Christian Resignation to the Will of God.
_Samuel_ owned he had been active at the Beginning of the Sedition;
but he could not help sometimes thinking, that the great Pains he took
to influence the Men to return to their Duty afterwards, in a great
Measure, alleviated his first Crime.
_Malcolm_, to the last declared that he never advised any Person to go
away; on the contrary, that he never was resolved himself, till the
moment he joined the Men in their March from _Finchley Common_, and
then his Reflection was so short, that he scarce knew what he did.
_Farquar Shaw_, in the same manner, declared, That he was no way active
in raising the Meeting: That he never advis’d any Man to desert; deny’d
that he presented his Piece to any of the Officers, as it was reported.
He owned, that he might have utter’d some very passionate and indecent
Expressions to some of the Officers who commanded him to return; but
that these expressions did not import a threatening to strike any of
them.
But notwithstanding that they all three imagin’d themselves no more
guilty than the rest of the Prisoners, yet they never once utter’d
the least Reflection against the Sentence, the Court Martial, or the
Lords of the Regency; in short, they did not Attribute their Death
to anything else but the divine Providence of God, to which they
chearfully submitted, and acquitted all Mankind of their unhappy End;
of which _Farquar Shaw_ gave a lively Instance: It being reported to
him, that one Serjeant _Mc.Bean_ had deposed before the Court Martial,
that he (_Shaw_) had presented his Piece to him, when he commanded him
to return to his Duty; and that this Deposition had determined the
Court Martial to fix upon him in particular; he sent for the Serjeant,
and very calmly questioned him concerning this Fact; Who told him that
he had never been an Evidence against him, but own’d, that he told some
of his Officers, that he (_Shaw_) had threaten’d to strike an officer
who commanded him to return to his Duty; and that it was probable, the
Colonel might receive this Intelligence from the Officers, and that by
this means it might come to the Knowledge of the Court Martial: The
Serjeant express’d his Regret, that he should be any way instrumental
to his misfortunes. But _Shaw_, in an affable Manner, desir’d him to
give himself no Uneasiness on that Head: That he had neither Spite nor
Ill-will at him for what he had said, but would die in perfect Love
and Friendship with him, and all Mankind: That he had sent for him on
purpose to make his Mind easy and not to trouble himself with needless
Reflections, since he heartily forgave him; and accordingly parted
with him in the most friendly and amicable manner and frequently after
express’d to me his Concern for the Serjeant, lest his Reflections on
himself should prejudice him, or make him uneasy. This behaviour of
his, to the Man whom he was convinc’d had been the principal Cause of
his Death, must argue a most charitable, forgiving, and generous Temper
and Disposition of Mind, very seldom to be met with in Men of more
elevated Stations in Life.
They all three were Men of strong natural Parts, and religiously
disposed both from Habit and Principle, the natural Result of a
good Example and early Instruction in the Doctrine and Precepts
of Christianity; for I received from all of them a great deal of
Satisfaction when I examined them on the Grounds of our holy Religion;
and even _Shaw_, who was perfectly illiterate and could neither
read nor write, was ignorant of no Christian Doctrine necessary
to Salvation, or from whence he could draw Comfort in his present
Circumstance. They were educated, and died Members of the Church of
_Scotland_, tho’ they chearfully embraced the Opportunity of receiving
the Sacrament from the Hands of the Reverend Mr _Paterson_, who
officiated for the Chaplain of the Tower, after the Form of the Church
(_sic_) _England_, on the _Sunday_ preceding their Execution.
As their Notions of Religion were sincere, so they expressed the
greatest Regard for Honesty and Integrity, and thanked God, tho’ they
were great Sinners, that his restraining Grace had enabled them to
avoid all vicious and prophane Courses or the offering any Injury to
their Neighbours in their Persons or Properties; that they hoped they
had not only the Approbation of (_sic_) of a good Conscience, but the
Testimony of their Officers, Friends and Acquaintance, that they have
lived all their Life-time without Scandal to themselves, or Reproach to
their Friends, until this unhappy Period, when Rashness, without any
Mixture of Malice, Cowardice, or Disaffection to his Majesty’s Person
or Government, had brought their Lives to this miserable Catastrophe.
They applied themselves diligently to the Duty of Prayer and reading
the Scripture, from the Time of their Sentence, which they said they
had but too much and too long neglected.
When they were all three brought to one Ward near the Place of
Execution, about four o’Clock that Morning, they expressed the greatest
Affection and Sympathy for one another, each regretting the case of the
other two more than his own; at the same time encouraged one another to
Constancy of Mind, and a dutiful Resignation to the Hand of God.
_Samuel M‘Pherson_ ordered three Coffins to be made of fifteen
Shillings Value each, for which he paid; and _Malcolm_ made a Will,
which he deposited in the Hands of three of his own Name among the
_Highland_ Prisoners, some Days before their Execution.
These three were admitted to visit the Prisoners, who told them that
they thanked God that they had got the better of the Fears of Death,
and were prepared to embrace it chearfully; that they thought their
Case better than that of their Fellows, as they were leaving this World
in Hopes of Eternal Peace and Happiness, whilst they were to remain
here exposed to new Temptations and new Troubles in distant and unknown
Countries, where they would not enjoy Life, but a lingering Death. They
applied by Petition to several Persons of Quality, of which the two
following are true Copies.
_To their Excellencies the Lords Justices._
The humble Petition of _Samuel M‘Pherson_, _Malcolm M‘Pherson_,
and _Farquar Shaw_.
_May it please your Lordships_,
That, whereas your poor Petitioners lie under Sentence of Death
for Mutiny and Desertion, and have nothing to hope (under the
Almighty) but from your Lordships’ Favour on our Behalf, which we
do most humbly intreat. And as we are sincerely sorry for our base
Conduct and Misbehaviour, and it being our first Crime, we hope for
your Lordships’ kind Indulgence, which should we be so happy as to
obtain, we do sincerely promise to retrieve this our Misconduct by
a steady Attachment to our most gracious Sovereign King _George_,
by defending him and his Royal House with all our Power, where and
in whatever manner we shall be directed.
_Samuel M‘Pherson._
_Malcolm M‘Pherson._
_Farquar Shaw._
_To her Grace the Dutchess of_ Richmond,
The humble Petition of _Samuel M‘Pherson_, _Malcolm M‘Pherson_,
and _Farquar Shaw_.
_May it please your Grace_,
That, whereas your poor Petitioners lie under Sentence of Death
for Mutiny and Desertion, and have nothing to hope (under the
Almighty) but from your Grace’s charitable Intercession to the
Lords Justices on our Behalf, we do most humbly intreat your
Grace’s good Offices. And as we are sincerely sorry for our base
Conduct and Misbehaviour, and it being our first Crime, we hope for
your Grace’s kind Indulgence, which, should we be so happy as to
obtain, we do sincerely promise to retrieve this our Misconduct by
a steady Attachment to our most gracious Sovereign King _George_,
by defending him and his Royal House with all our Power, where and
in whatever manner we shall be directed.
_Samuel M‘Pherson._
_Malcolm M‘Pherson._
_Farquar Shaw._
Upon the _Monday_ Morning the Governor ordered them to put on their
Shrouds below their Cloaths, which when done, they immediately began to
pray, and continued in that Exercise very devoutly and fervently till
six o’Clock, when they were called out to Execution. They walked to
the Place close up to the Chapel in the Tower without expressing the
least Horror or Despondency in their Gaite or Countenance, but with a
Christian Composure and Resignation of Mind. Here _Samuel M‘Pherson_
standing on the Plank which was appointed for them to kneel on, with
an assured Countenance and in an audible Voice, in his own Language,
addressed his Fellow-Prisoners that were drawn up round the Place of
Execution, in this Manner:
_My Friends and Countrymen_,
You are not Strangers to the Cause of my Sufferings with these
my Companions; I hope the Anguish you must feel at the Sight of
this shocking Scene, will be the last of your Punishment; for I
am convinced you must think it a Punishment to see us bleed: But
my Blood, I hope, will contribute to your Liberty; That Thought
affords me as much Satisfaction as a Soul prepared to take a Flight
to Eternity can receive from any Earthly Concerns.—Take Example
from our unfortunate Ends, and endeavour to conduct yourselves so,
both before God and Man, as your Lives may be long, and your Deaths
natural. Next to your Duty to God, discharge what you owe your King
and Country; wipe off this Reproach by a steady Loyalty to his
Sacred Majesty, and a respectful and obedient Conduct towards your
Officers.
Having uttered this Speech, he, with his Cousin _M‘Pherson_ and _Shaw_,
kneeled down, whilst the Reverend Mr _Paterson_ and myself joined in
Prayer, kneeling before them on a Plank: When Prayers were over, their
Faces were cover’d; when Eighteen Soldiers, in three Ranks, (Twelve
of whom were appointed to do the Execution, and the other Six for a
Reserve, had been kept out of Sight for fear of shocking the Prisoners)
advanced on their Tiptoes, and with the least Noise possible, their
Pieces ready cock’d for fear of the Click disturbing the Prisoners,
Serjeant-Major _Ellisson_, (who deserv’d the greatest Commendation for
this Precaution) waved a Handkerchief as a Signal _to present_; and,
after a very short Pause, waved it a second time as a Signal _to fire_;
when they all three fell instantly backwards as dead; but _Shaw_ being
observed to move his Hand, one of the Six in Reserve advanc’d, and
shot him thro’ the Head, as another did _Samuel M‘Pherson_. After the
Execution, an Officer order’d three of the Prisoners, Name-sakes of the
Deceased, to advance and bury them; whom they presently stripp’d to
their Shrouds, put them in their Coffins, and buried them in one Grave,
near the Place they were shot, with great Decency. The Officers on Duty
appeared greatly affected, and three Hundred of the Third Regiment of
_Scotch_ Guards, who were drawn up in three Lines in the Shape of a
half Moon, attended the Execution, many of whom, of the harden’d Sort,
were observed to shed Tears.
Thus ended this melancholy Scene, which raised Compassion from all, and
drew Tears from many of the Spectators. They had by their courteous
Behaviour, gained so much upon the Affections of their Warders, the
Inhabitants of the Tower, and others that conversed with them, that
none were so hard-hearted as to deny them their Pity, nay, nor hardly
had any Resolution to see them executed.
What made this Spectacle still more moving was, that Mixture of
Devotion, Agony, and Despair that was seen in the Faces and Actions of
the remaining _Highland_ Prisoners, who were ranged within side the
Guards. When Prayers began, they all fell on their Knees and Elbows,
hanging their Heads and covering their Faces with their Bonnets, and
might easily be observed that they could not refrain from the loudest
Lamentations. Such a number of young Men, in so suppliant a Posture,
offering their Prayers so fervently to Heaven, with such Marks of
Sorrow for the Fate of the unhappy Criminals, had a prodigious effect
upon the Spectators, and I am hopeful will influence the Practice and
Conversation of all that saw them; and to the Praise of these poor Men,
(take from them the Account (_sic_) their heinous transgression of
Mutiny and Desertion) I believe their courteous and modest Behaviour,
their virtuous and pious Principles, and religious Disposition, would
be no bad Pattern for Men above the Rank of private Centinels, and
ought to be a severer Reproof to many who live here, and have all
the Advantages of a liberal Education, and the Example of a polite
Court; that Men they esteem barbarous, inhabiting a distant and
barren Country, should outdo them in real politeness, that is, in the
Knowledge and Practice of the Doctrines of Christianity.
From hence we may remark, that those who published or propagated so
many scandalous Reports of these unhappy young Men, must either have
taken little Pains to inform themselves of the Truth, or must be
possessed of little Charity, when they load their Memory with so many
Assertions no way connected with their Crime. But, as this Relation
is published from the Prisoners’ own Mouths, and attested by a Person
whose Profession and Character ought to screen him from the Imputations
of Partiality or Falsehood, it is hoped these Impressions will wear off
of the minds of the Public, and give place to sentiments of Charity for
their Crimes, and Compassion for their Sufferings.
_Magna est Veritas, et prævalebit._
FINIS
APPENDIX III
DATES OF RESTORATIONS CARRIED ON BY H.M. OFFICE OF WORKS AT THE
TOWER OF LONDON TO THE PRESENT TIME. FOR DETAILS SEE APPENDICES
IV.–V.
Under whose
direction works
executed.
Salvin. Beauchamp Tower, restored 1852
Do. Salt Tower „ 1856
Taylor. Chapel Royal „ 1876
Do. Restoration of wall on River Front together
with the Cradle and Well Towers 1878
Do. Broad Arrow Tower 1881–2
Do. Restoration of Lanthorn Tower 1882–3
Do. Do. Ballium Wall 1886
Do. Well Tower 1887
Do. Restoration of Ballium wall between Wakefield
and Lanthorn Tower 1888
Do. Restoration of S.W. Turret of White Tower 1895
Do. Restoration of S.E. Turret and base of White
Tower, S. and E.; also Stone Stairs on
the S. 1896
J. R. Westcott. North Wing of King’s Tower lifted 15 in. on
E. front; restored 1898–9
Do. Bloody Tower 1899–1900
_Note._—Certain new buildings have also lately been erected by the War
Office, including a new Main Guard, which is a permanent eyesore to the
Tower; this ugly building was completed in the year 1900, and stands on
the site of the old Main Guard.
[Illustration: DESCRIPTION
1. Kentish rag & flint with shell mortar splendid quality this work
is NORMAN
2. These foundations are from 5 to 6 feet below Dungeon floor & are
composed of Kentish Rag chalk and a small quantity of Flints. The
mortar is a kind of Clunck & not so good as Nᵒ 1
3. Similar to Nᵒ 2 & within 6 inches of surface 6 feet in depth.
Chalk & Kentish rag chalk predominating rufus very inferior
4. This wall consists of Kentish rag Gatton stone fragments of Roman
brick & Tile & shell mortar.
5. Similar to Nᵒ 2 one of the walls of Coldharbour Tower & is now
incorporated in the New Main Guard. The bottom is level with Nᵒ 2
6. Under the S.W. angle of the batter of the White Tower is the
Oubliette & into which the subway enters
7. A fine specimen of Norman masonry. In 1899 it was 56 feet deep &
contained 42 feet of water it is lined sith Gatton stone Ashler
8. An aperture discovered in 1899 leading into the subway & was
probably broken through in the 16ᵗʰ century. Through this aperture
a large number of stone, iron & lead cannon balls were lodged in
the subway believed to be relics of Flamanks or Wyatts rebellion.
The arch was made good in 1899
PLAN SHOWING RECENT DISCOVERIES AT THE TOWER.]
APPENDIX IV
RECENT DISCOVERIES AT THE TOWER
Since the time when the late Prince Consort interested himself in
the restoration and preservation of the Tower, the Commissioners of
Works and Public Buildings have cleared away, from time to time, all
useless and modern portions which obscured certain parts of the ancient
fabric. This work was actually begun in the lifetime of the Prince
Consort, under the superintendence of Mr Salvin, who still continues
to be consulted on all the more important restorations. The works are
now under the superintendence of Mr John Taylor, the Surveyor to the
Commissioners, who is aided by Major-General Milman, Major of the
Tower and the resident military commander, all designs being submitted
to the Sovereign before being carried into execution. The various
restorations, especially those of the Beauchamp Tower and St Peter’s
Chapel, have been described in the body of this work.
During the year, a range of buildings which stood against the east side
of the White Tower, and believed to have been built in the fourteenth
or fifteenth century, were pulled down, and it was found that the outer
walls were of the period generally assigned to the building, but that
the inner or west wall was of brick. This building, which extended
on the south side from the south-east turret of the White Tower to
what was formerly the Wardrobe Tower, and thence in a north-westerly
direction with a return wall to the north-east turret of the White
Tower,—had been so altered and patched that it no longer possessed any
architectural or antiquarian interest, and was entirely removed, except
those portions of the south walls and the ruins of the Wardrobe Tower,
which form the north wall of the Tower Armoury, erected in 1826.
Whilst this work of demolishing was being carried out, an interesting
discovery was made, Roman tiles and mortar being found, worked up
into the materials of which these walls were built. At the south-east
corner, and adjoining the remains of the Wardrobe Tower, a portion of
Roman wall was disclosed, having three courses of bonded tiles showing
above the surface of the _débris_. This piece of wall is in a direct
westerly line with the old city wall, shown in a plan of the Tower made
in 1597, the demolished buildings likewise appearing on this plan,
which can be seen in the office of the Commissioners of Works. Two
inferences are possible from the discovery of this Roman work; either
it is part of the old city wall or the remains of a Roman building, and
if it is satisfactorily proved to be Roman, it will practically settle
the contested point as to whether there was ever a Roman fortress on
the site of the White Tower or not. Holinshed, in the third Book of his
history of England, quoting both Leyland and Fabyan, says, that Belins,
who began to reign conjointly with Brennus as King of Britain, which
was “about the seventh year of Artaxerxes, the seventh king of the
Persians, builded a haven with a gate within the city of Troinovant,
now called London. This gate was long after called Belins gate, and
at length, by corruption of language, Billingsgate. He builded also a
castle westward from this gate (as some have written) which was long
time likewise called Belins Castell, and is the same which we now call
the Tower of London.” It was pointed out in the first volume of this
work that Fitzstephen declared the White Tower to have been built by
Julius Cæsar, and that the mortar used in the building was “tempered
with the blood of beasts,” but the Roman habit of mixing powdered tiles
with their mortar, may have given rise to this theory. Stowe, in his
survey of London about 1076, says, that William the Conqueror caused
the present White Tower to be erected at the south-east angle of the
city wall, which would be the actual spot where the fragment of the
recently discovered Roman wall now stands.
On removing the southern wall of this building, it was found that it
was built up to, and not bonded into the south-east turret of the White
Tower, which forms the apse of St John’s Chapel. When it was taken
down, the original stone-work of the White Tower was laid bare. It is
quite honeycombed by age, Sir Christopher Wren having, of course, been
unable to reface it as he did the exposed portions of the Tower.
The Cradle Tower, which is the third tower on the southern side of
the outer Ballium wall, the others being the Develin and the Well
Towers, was opened out and restored in the year 1878. Before its
restoration, the southern wall was closed up, the only apertures being
two loopholes. There was nothing to indicate that it ever had any
connection with the moat, and the only access to the interior was on
the north side, within the Ballium wall. It was used as a gunpowder
store, and was only one storey in height, no trace remaining of the
second storey which originally existed. The first step taken was to
remove the whole of the masonry which had been built up against the
Tower; this disclosed the old front as well as an arch on the south
side. The return walls extended ten feet, and were built with their
southern face in the moat, having two half arches turned against the
moat wall, and when the masonry blocking up the arch in the south wall
and these two half arches was removed, it at once became evident that
formerly the water in the moat had flowed through the half arches and
across the centre arch. By clearing away this masonry the wall of the
moat itself was disclosed, and was found to be of an earlier date than
the architecture of the Tower itself. On the ground floor there is a
chamber with a finely groined roof of the late thirteenth or early
fourteenth century. The following is the actual restoration done to the
Cradle Tower. The wall built up in the moat under the centre arch and
under the two half-turned arches has been cleared away, and the outer
walls have all been restored to their original condition. An additional
storey and turret have been erected on the same plan as the old
building. The corbels in the groined roof of the ground floor chamber,
which were broken off, have been replaced by new ones copied from a
single corbel that remained. A wooden grating, after the pattern of an
old doorway in the Byward Tower, has been fitted to the central arch,
whilst the space between that arch and the moat has been boarded over.
[Illustration: _The White Tower, showing the Exterior of St. John’s
Chapel and remains of the Roman Wall_]
A further discovery was made during the restoration of this tower. In
the space between the bridge over the moat to the east of the Cradle
Tower and the Well Tower, stood a modern building used as a storehouse
by the Ordnance Department, and this being pulled down, excavations in
its foundations, made by the Board of Works, have disclosed a brick
paving and some loopholes in the outer Ballium wall, which has helped
to identify this space as the site of the garden belonging to the
Queen’s apartments, when the royal palace stood within the Tower walls.
This palace occupied the space bounded by a line running exactly from
the south angle of the White Tower to the Broad Arrow Tower, thence
south along the inner Ballium wall to the Salt Tower, thence west to
the Wakefield Tower, and north to the south-west angle of the White
Tower. A portion of this space is now occupied by the Ordnance Stores
and the Control Office. Nearly opposite to, and to the west of the
Cradle Tower, and on the south side of the royal Palace, stood the
Lanthorn Tower (now rebuilt). The Queen’s apartments extended from
the Lanthorn Tower to the south-east angle of the White Tower, and
the space recently cleared, formed the Queen’s private garden, the
loopholes in the Ballium wall bounding the garden on the south side
giving a view of the river.
From these discoveries it would appear that the Cradle Tower was the
entrance to the Queen’s apartments from the river, and the opinion is
confirmed by the fact that the inner faces of the walls on which the
centre arch stands, are worked and pointed as outside facing, probably
to withstand the action of the water as they would be covered when
the moat was full. There is space above the arch for a portcullis and
grooves in the jambs, but it is not large enough for portcullis slides.
In the entrance on the north or land side, however, both the space and
grooves show that there was a portcullis there, and the chamber on the
east side has no outlet, except into the centre chamber or gateway—from
which it would seem that it was a guard-room for the use of a warder
while on duty at the gate. And the name of the Tower strengthens this
idea, “Cradle” being the old Saxon word “cradel,” meaning a movable
bed. The hypothesis is that there was a hoist or lift by which a boat,
after passing through the archway, was lifted on to the floor of the
gateway. On comparing the groining of the chamber with the groined
chamber in the Well Tower, the greater beauty of that in the Cradle
Tower is at once apparent, which would point to its being part of a
royal dwelling. It is also nearly opposite the site of the Lanthorn
Tower, which was the entrance to the Queen’s apartments. The access to
and from the Thames and the Queen’s apartments of the Palace, would be
from the Cradle Tower to the moat, under St Thomas’s Tower and through
Traitor’s Gate, and would be the only communication with the river. In
1641 the Cradle Tower appears to have been used as a prison, according
to “A particular of the Names of the Towers and Prison Lodgings in his
Majesty’s Tower of London, taken out of a paper of Mr William Franklyn,
sometime Yeoman Warder, dated March 1641,” in which appears, “Cradle
Tower—A prison lodging, with low gardens where the drawbridge was in
former times.”
The War Office have determined to build stores on the Queen’s gardens,
and consequently the loopholes in the old Ballium wall will be blocked
up. The site will thus be lost for further investigation, and as the
Office of Works has no power to prevent these works being carried out,
all that has been exposed of one of the most interesting portions of
the older part of the Tower will be lost.
[Illustration: _View of Sᵗ. Peter’s Chapel in 1817._]
APPENDIX V
THE BLOODY TOWER
Owing to serious signs of weakness in the upper portions of the walls
of the Bloody Tower, it was considered an absolute necessity to
carefully renew the Kentish Rag facing in various places. The work has
been thoroughly well executed stone by stone, all the old stones that
were sound being re-used, and the whole of the walls have been greatly
strengthened by what is technically known as “tying in.” It was found
that the Tower had been repaired in this same manner about the time
of Henry VIII., and probably on more than one occasion. The heart of
the walling is in excellent preservation, and is the original Norman
Transitional masonry with a liberal proportion of chalk. The parapet
has been restored to its original embattlemented character. A brick
wall, which had closed the historical entrance to Raleigh’s Walk for
the last hundred years, has been cleared away, leaving the passage open
as in the days of Cranmer and Raleigh; this wall was built to prevent
the south-west angle of the Tower falling down, and was an economical
vandalism on the part of the authorities of the time. Another act of
vandalism was committed by some former occupant of the Tower, who
had cut out a cupboard for blacking brushes in the solid masonry
immediately behind the springing of the large arch over the portcullis,
thereby seriously jeopardising the stability of the arch; happily this
has been remedied by the recent restoration. A fine arch over the
northern portcullis that had completely disappeared, has been replaced,
and early English Gothic windows of stone with lead lights have been
fixed throughout the Tower, in the room of the Georgian windows with
common double-hung deal sashes. Stone chimney-stacks have also taken
the place of the incongruous chimney-stacks of brick, and a very
interesting octagonal stone turret, which had been patched with brick,
has been restored to its original condition. This turret is circular
inside, and is about five feet in diameter; a curious internal window
was found about a foot higher than Raleigh’s Walk, and as it answers no
purpose, it is supposed that it was used for supervising the prisoners.
In a jamb of the recess immediately over the northern portcullis
several inscriptions were brought to light, but of these only the
letters R. D. were legible, which, seeing the acquaintance that both
Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, or Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester,
had with the Tower, has not unnaturally led to the conclusion that the
initials belong to one or other of these royal favourites.
The Bloody Tower is of the Norman Transitional period, but the groining
as well as the gates on the south side—those on the north side have
been removed—are Tudor. The massive bottom rails of these gates were
destroyed to allow of an injudicious raising of the road surface many
years ago. It is said that the road was raised from two to three feet,
probably to overcome some difficulty of draining, but whatever the
reason, the fine gates suffered both in effect and materially. On the
west front of the Tower there is an early English doorway which has
been “Tudorised,” its outer arch being modern Norman Transitional.
The original freestone used in the building of the Bloody Tower was
procured from the neighbourhood of Red Hill, and in the old records is
called “Rygate” stone. It is known at the present time as Gatton, but
the quarries are no longer worked. The fine old arches over the main
entrance are still in this “Rygate” stone, an interesting survival,
since the whole of the external stone dressings in this material on the
Tower were superseded by Caen stone from Normandy in the reign of Henry
VIII. This was a deplorable error of judgment, for notwithstanding the
enormous amount of Caen stone used throughout the Tower in this reign,
scarcely a trace of it now remains. The modern restorations to the
interior have been carried out in the “pinny bed of Chilmark,” a stone
closely resembling the Rygate or Gatton stone, but much more durable,
whilst Kelton stone from the neighbourhood of Rutland has been employed
for the battlements and other external dressings. All the main walling
was carried out in Kentish Rag stone, which was procured from the
contractor who built the new guard buildings for the War Department. In
the records of Henry VIII.’s time, this Kentish Rag is called the “hard
stone of Kent.” The stone used in those days was undoubtedly superior
to that used by Salvin over fifty years ago, as is shown by the
comparison between the restored Beauchamp Tower and the White Tower.
Soft stones, such as Caen or Bath, absorb a great deal of moisture, and
their injudicious use consequently hastens the decay of any building
in which they are used. Much of the mischief in the Bloody Tower was
doubtless caused by the decay of the Caen stone, and also the neglect
in pointing the joints. It is generally thought amongst those most
concerned, that the restoration of the Bloody Tower is the most careful
and complete of any of the works of preservation carried out in the old
fortress, and it is now judged to be safe from all fear of collapse.
APPENDIX VI
STAINED GLASS IN THE TOWER
A quantity of stained glass panels were found in the crypt of St John’s
Chapel, in which some interesting and valuable fragments, mostly
incomplete in themselves, of heraldic glass of the sixteenth century
and of small pictorial subjects, were mixed with modern and valueless
glass of subordinate design. The whole was carefully examined by Messrs
John Hardman, who separated the ancient from the modern glass, and
using delicate leads to repair the numerous fractures of the former,
and setting the various fragments in lozenges of plain glass, filled
the eight windows of the Chapel with the following subjects:—
The first window in the south front, entering from the west.—A coat of
arms with the words “Honi soit qui mal y pense” around it on the upper
portion; a sepia painting in the centre representing the Deity and two
angels appearing to a priest, with flames rising from an altar. In the
lower portion is another sepia painting with the Deity depicted with
outstretched arms, one hand on the sun, the other on the moon, and the
earth rolling in clouds at the feet. This is generally supposed to be
emblematical of the Creation, but has been suggested as representative
of the Saviour as the Light of the World.
The second window has a head and bust near the top, with a peculiar cap
and crown. The centre is a sepia representing the expulsion of Adam
and Eve from the Garden of Eden, and the guardian angel. At the bottom
there is another sepia depicting a village upon a hill, probably a
distant view of Harrow.
The third window has at the top a figure of Charles I. in sepia; in the
centre a knight in armour, skirmishing, and at the bottom what appears
to be a holly bush with the letters H. R.
The fourth window has a negro’s head with a turban in the upper
portion; in the centre a sepia of Esau returning from the hunt to seek
Isaac’s blessing, Rebecca and Jacob being in the background. Near the
bottom is another sepia of the exterior of a church, probably Dutch.
The fifth window, and the last of the series facing south, has a coat
of arms and motto like those in the first window; in the centre, a
sepia of the anointing of David by Samuel; and near the bottom, Jehovah
in clouds, with the earth and shrubs bursting forth. This is probably
emblematical of the Creation.
The south-east apsidal window has the coat of arms and royal motto as
before, with two smaller coats of arms and the same motto below, a
royal crown and large Tudor rose being near the bottom.
The eastern window (in the centre of the apse) has a crown with
fleur-de-lys and leopards at the top, and in the centre the small
portcullis of John of Gaunt and the wheatsheaf of Chester. These are by
far the best heraldic devices in the whole series of windows.
The north-east window has a very imperfect coat of arms with
fleur-de-lys and leopard, as well as two other coats with the royal
motto. There is also a device which might be taken to represent the
letter M, but which is probably the inverted water bottles of the
Hastings family. Daggers are quartered upon the other coats of arms.
At the bottom of this window is a Tudor rose and several fragments of
glass much confused.
The glass has been placed in the windows with great care, the subjects
being made as complete as the broken fragments permitted. Each of the
eight windows is ornamented with leaded borders.
APPENDIX VII
LIST OF THE CONSTABLES OF THE TOWER
Geoffrey de Mandeville
William de Mandeville
Geoffrey de Mandeville[8] 1140
Richard de Lacy 1153
Garnerius de Isenei
William Longchamp, Bishop of Ely 1189
Walter de Coutances, Archbishop of Rouen 1192
Roger Fitz Renfred
Roger de la Dane }
Geoffrey de Mandeville } During the reign of
Eustace de Greinville } John.
Archbishop of Canterbury }
Walter de Verdun }
Stephen de Segrave }
Hugh de Wyndlesore }
Randulph, Bishop of Norwich }
John de Boville }
Thomas de Blunvil }
Thomas Fitz Archer }
Ralph de Gatel }
Hubert de Burgh 1232 }
W. de St Edmund }
Geoffrey de Crancumb } During the reign of
Hugh Giffard } Henry III.
Archbishop of York } jointly }
Bertram de Crioyl } }
Peter de Vallibus }
John de Plessitus }
Peter de Blund }
Aymor Thorimbergh }
Inbert Puglys }
Richard de Culworth }
Richarde de Tilbury }
Hugh le Bigod 1258 }
John Mansel }
Hugh le Despenser }
Roger de Leyburn 1265 }
Hugh Fitz Otho }
John Walerand } jointly } During the reign of
John de la Lind } } Henry III.
Alan la Touch }
Thomas de Ippegrave }
Stephen de Eddeville }
Hugh Fitz Otho }
Walter, Archbishop of York }
John de Burgh }
Anthony Bek }
Ranulph de Dacre }
Ralph de Sandwich }
Ralph de Berners } During the reign of
Ralph de Sandwich } Edward I.
John de Crumwell }
Roger de Swynneston }
Stephen Segrave }
Bishop of Exeter }
John de Gisors }
Thomas de Wake }
John de Crumwell }
William de Monte Acuto }
Nicholas de la Beche }
Robert de Dalton } During the reign of
John Darcy } father and son } Edward III.
John Darcy } }
Bartholomew de Burghersh }
Robert de Morley }
Richard de la Vache }
Alan Buxhill }
Sir Thomas Murrieuse }
Edward, Earl of Rutland }
Ralph de Nevill } During the reign of
Edward, Duke of Albemarle } Richard II.
Thomas de Rempston }
Edward, Duke of York }
Robert de Morley }
John Dabrichcourt } During the reign of
William Bourghchier } Henry V.
Roger Aston }
John, Duke of Exeter } During the reign of
James Fienes, Lord Say } Henry VI.
John Lord Taploft, Earl of Worcester }
John, Lord Dudley } During the reign of
Richard, Lord Dacre } Edward IV.
John Howard, Lord Howard }
Marquis of Dorset }
Sir Robert Brackenbury
Earl of Oxford
Sir Thomas Lovel } During reigns of
Sir William Kingston } Henry VIII. and
Sir John Gage } Edward VI.
Lord Clinton[9]
Sir Edward Bray
Lord Howard of Walden
Lord Coltington 1640
General Sir Thomas Fairfax 1647
Sir John Robinson 1660
James, Earl of Northampton 1678
Lord Allington 1680
George, Lord Dartmouth 1684
Lord Lucas 1688
Charles, Earl of Carlisle 1715
Henry, Earl of Lincoln 1724
Charles, Duke of Bolton 1724
Henry, Viscount Lonsdale 1726
Montague, Earl of Abingdon
Algernon, Earl of Essex
Richard, Earl of Rivers
George, Earl of Northampton
John, Earl of Leicester 1731
Charles, Lord Cornwallis 1741
Lord George Lennox
Marquis Cornwallis 1785
Francis, Marquis of Hastings 1806
Arthur, Duke of Wellington 1826
Viscount Combermere 1852
Sir John Fox Burgoyne 1865
Sir George Pollock 1871
Sir William Gomm 1872
Sir Charles Yorke 1875
Sir F. Fenwick Williams 1881
General Sir R. C. Dacres 1881
Lord Napier of Magdala 1886
General Sir Daniel Lysons 1890
Sir Frederick C. Stephenson 1898
INDEX
Abel, Dr, execution of, i. 159
Abergavenny, Lord, i. 131
Albert, Prince, i. 58, 59, 60; ii. 171
Alençon, Duke d’, i. 63
Allen, Cardinal, i. 213
Andrews, Colonel Eusebius, execution of, ii. 49
Anne Boleyn, i. 35, 39;
State visit to the Tower, 131;
coronation, 132;
arrest, 143, 144;
trial, 146;
execution, 149
Anne of Cleves, i. 157
Apsley, Sir Allen, i. 41 and _n._, 42, 112
Arden, John, i. 50
Armagh, Archbishop of, murder of, i. 34
Armour in the White Tower, i. 64–73
Armoury, the, destroyed by fire, ii. 142–144
Arnold’s Chronicles, quoted, i. 117
Arques Castle, i. 61
Artillery at the Tower, i. 73
Arundel, Sir Thomas, execution of, i. 179, 180
Arundel, Philip Howard, Earl of, i. 31, 32, 214
Arundel, Richard Fitzalan, Earl of, arrest of, i. 95;
execution of, 96
Arundel, Earl of, quarrel with Lord Spencer, ii. 27
Arundel, Humphrey, i. 180
Aske, Robert, i. 151
Askew, Anne, story of, i. 162–164
Athol, Earl of, i. 85, 86
Atterbury, Bishop, ii. 112
Audley, Mervin, Lord, execution of, ii. 32
Axe, the processional, i. 12, 25, 26, 70, 73; ii. 133
Axten, Colonel, execution of, ii. 58
Babington, Anthony, i. 215
Bacon, Francis, i. 48;
imprisonment of, ii. 27
Badlesmere, Lady, i. 87
Bagot, Sir Francis, execution of, i. 151
Bailly, Charles, i. 33, 209
Balfour, Sir William, ii. 33, 37, 38
Baliol, King, i. 85
Ballard, trial and execution of, i. 215
Ballium Wall, the, i. 13, 14, 43, 44, 46, 51;
restoration of, ii. 169
Balmerino, Lord, i. 40; ii. 116, 117;
trial of, 118–120;
execution of, 121–125
Banqueting Hall, i. 57;
explosion in, ii. 145
Barkstead, Colonel, execution of, ii. 61
Barlow, Lucy, ii. 51, 52
Barnes, Dr Robert, execution of, i. 159
Barracks, the, ii. 145
Bathurst, Earl, i. 42
Battista, Giovanni, i. 46, 47
Beauchamp Tower, the, i. 14, 29–34, 44; ii. 94;
restoration of, 169
Becket, Thomas à, i. 81, 83
Bedingfield, Sir Henry, i. 200
Bedingfield, Sir Thomas, ii. 42
Bell, Mr Doyne, i. 35, 36, 39
Bell, Dr, i. 127
Bell Tower, the, i. 14, 28, 29
Berkeley, Sir Maurice, i. 197
Besant, Sir Walter, quoted, i. 2, 6
Birch, Mr G. H., i. 2 _n._, 44 _n._, 61; ii. 93, 114 _n._
Birds at the Tower, i. 74
Biron, Duke de, i. 228
Bishops, the Seven, ii. 86, 87
Block, the, i. 70; ii. 133
Blood, Colonel, i. 19, 42, 45; ii. 67–71
Bloody Tower, the, i. 12, 13, 17, 20, 21, 22; ii. 94;
restoration of, 169, 175, 176
Blount, Sir Michael, i. 41, 217
Blount, Sir Richard, i. 41
Blunt, Sir Christopher, execution of, i. 229
Board of Ordinance, the, i. 68
Bonner, Bishop, i. 163, 201
Bowyer Tower, the, i. 45;
part destroyed by fire, ii. 144
Brackenbury, Sir Robert, i. 116
Brass Mount Battery, i. 52
Brick Tower, the, i. 45
Bridges, the four, i. 9
Bridges, Sir John, i. 192, 193
Britton and Brayley, quoted, i. 44, 46, 64, 67
Broad Arrow Tower, the, i. 6, 46;
restoration of, ii. 169
Brooke, Duke, ii. 6, 7
Brooke, George, ii. 2;
execution of, 5
Brooke, William, ii. 7
Brown, Sir Anthony, i. 169, 177, 192
Brown, Horatio F., ii. 1 _n._
Bruce, David, i. 87, 88
Buckingham, Edward Bohun, Duke of, i. 127,
trial and execution of, 128–130
Buckingham, George Villiers, Duke of, bribed by Raleigh, ii. 8, 20;
assassinated, 31
Buckingham, George Villiers, 2nd Duke of, five times imprisoned in
the Tower, ii. 62
Bulwark, the, i. 9, 112
Bulwer, Sir John, execution of, i. 151
Bulwer, Lady, burnt at Smithfield, i. 151
Burchet, Peter, i. 212
Burdett, Sir Francis, ii. 139, 140
Burgoyne, Sir John, i. 25, 42
Burley, Sir Simon, execution of, i. 94
Burnet, Bishop, ii. 74, 77, 78, 79
Byron, Sir John, ii. 37, 38
Byward Tower, the, i. 10, 11, 21, 44
Cade’s Insurrection, i. 104, 105
Campion, hanged at Tyburn, i. 213
Cannon in the Tower, i. 73
Capel, Lord, escape and recapture of, ii. 46, 47;
execution of, 47
Carew, Sir Alexander, execution of, ii. 44
Carew, Sir George, i. 218
Carew, Sir Nicholas, execution of, i. 152
Carew, Sir Peter, i. 194
Carr, Robert, _see_ Earl of Somerset, ii. 17
Catherine of Arragon, i. 121, 123, 125
Catherine Howard, i. 35, 39;
execution of, 160, 161
Catherine Parr, i. 162, 165, 170
Cato Street Conspiracy, the, ii. 140
Cecil, Sir Robert, i. 218, 219, 223; ii. 4
Chaplain’s House, the, i. 34
Charles I., journey to Spain, i. 19;
armour of, 72;
treatment of Lord Loudon, ii. 33, 34;
betrayal of Stafford, 34, 35;
plot to seize the Tower, 36, 37
Charles II. and Colonel Blood, i. 42; ii. 70, 71;
executions of regicides, 56;
death of Sir Harry Vane, 59;
visit to the Tower, 59;
coronation, 59;
courage during the Fire, 62;
Papistical tendencies, 73;
visit to the Tower on the day of Essex’s death, 76, 77
Chelmsford, Lord, ii. 146
Cholmondeley, Sir Richard and Lady, i. 40, 41, 127
Clarence, George, Duke of, i. 44, 108, 111, 112
Clarke, Mr G. J., quoted, i. 6, 44, 53, 57, 61
Clement, Gregory, execution of, ii. 56
Clifford, Gervase, Lord, imprisonment and suicide of, ii. 26
Cobham Tower, i. 30
Cobham, Thomas, i. 34
Cobham, Henry, Lord, i. 30; ii. 2, 3, 5;
his career and death, 5, 6;
his writings, 7
Cobham Family, history of the, ii. 5, 6, 7
Coke, Sir Edward, i. 27, 48; ii. 18, 27
Cold Harbour, i. 6, 23, 24
Combermere, Lord, i. 25
Commines, Philip de, quoted, i. 112, 117
Constable of the Tower, office of, i. 25
Constable Tower, the, i. 46
Constable, Sir Robert, execution of, i. 151
Conyers, Sir John, ii. 37, 38, 43
Cooke, Lawrence, execution of, i. 159, 160
Cooper, Sir Anthony Ashley, ii. 53
Corbet, Miles, execution of, ii. 61
Cornwallis, Sir Thomas, i. 198
Council Chamber, the, i. 26, 27, 57
Courtenay, Edward, Earl of Devonshire, i. 188
Courtenay, Henry, Marquis of Exeter, execution of, i. 152, 153
Coventry, Sir William, ii. 65, 66
Cowdray, paintings formerly at, i. 169, 170
Coxe, Dr, Bishop of Ely, i. 177
Cradle Tower, the, i. 50, 52,;
restoration of, ii. 169, 172, 173;
recent discoveries, 173
Cranmer, Archbishop, i. 21, 144, 147, 158, 187, 189
Cromarty, Earl of, ii. 116, 117, 118, 120, 133
Cromwell, Oliver, Constable of the Tower, ii. 38;
plots to assassinate, 51, 52
Cromwell, Thomas, i. 19, 133, 143, 144, 148, 150, 151, 152;
made Earl of Essex, 155;
compared with Robespierre, 155;
his career, 155–157;
his fall, 157;
execution of, 158
Cruikshank, G., ii. 143
Cuffe, Henry, execution of, i. 230
Cumberland, Earl of, i. 72
Dacre, Lord, execution of, i. 159
Daniell, John, i. 46, 47
Danvers, Sir Charles, execution of, i. 229
Darcey, Lord, execution of, i. 151, 153
Darcy, Sir John, i. 88
Darnley, Lord, i. 181, 206
Dartmouth, William Legge, Lord, i. 67
David, King of Scotland, i. 58
Davison, Elizabeth’s secretary, i. 216
de la Motte, Henry Francis, hanged at Tyburn, ii. 137
de Ros, Lord, quoted, i. 13, 37, 42, 56, 59, 149, 163; ii. 111, 112
Derwentwater, Earl of, ii. 102, 103;
execution of, 104, 126
Desborough, Nathaniel, ii. 67
Desmond, Earl of, ii. 12
Develin Tower, the, i. 43, 52, 53
de Vere, Aubrey, Earl of Oxford, i. 109
Devereux Tower, the, i. 43
Dick, Rev. R., quoted, i. 33
Digby, Sir Everard, execution of, ii. 9
Dighton, one of the murderers of the two Princes, i. 116, 117
Dillon, Viscount, i. 65, 69, 71, 211 _n._
Draper, Hugh, i. 48
Dudley, Edmund, execution of, i. 124
Dudley, Lord Guildford, i. 34, 182, 185, 189;
execution of, 192;
buried in the Tower, 194
Dudley, Lord Harry, i. 187
Dudley family, the, i. 31, 32
Dungeons, in the Wakefield Tower, i. 18;
White Tower, 26;
Flint Tower, 44;
Salt Tower, 47;
St John’s Chapel, 55
Edward I., i. 83;
the Tower under, 85, 86
Edward II., the Tower under, i. 86, 87
Edward III., i. 36, 44;
the Tower under, 88, 89
Edward IV., murder of sons of, i. 20, 21, 22, 55, 112, 114–118;
defeats the Lancastrians, 107;
coronation of, 108, 109;
battle of Tewkesbury, 110;
his additions to the Tower, 112;
death, 112
Edward VI., coronation of, i. 169, 170;
execution of Somerset, 176, 178;
further executions, 179, 180
Edwards, Talbot, i. 42; ii. 68, 69, 70
Eliot, Sir John, imprisonment of, ii. 28, 29;
death, 29, 30
Elizabeth, Queen, i. 10;
figure of, on a wooden horse, 56;
and the Countess of Lennox, 28, 206;
birth, 132;
relations with Lord Seymour, 170, 171;
and Bishop Coxe, 177;
visit to the Tower with Queen Mary, 188;
imprisoned in the Tower, 198;
released, 200;
visit to the Tower before her coronation, 202;
her treatment of Catherine Grey, 203;
her struggle with Mary Stuart, 206;
the Ridolfi plot, 208;
proceedings against the Jesuits, 212, 213;
State prisoners, 214;
the Babington plot, 215;
imprisonment of Raleigh, 218;
fall of Essex, 221;
her last days, 230
Elizabeth, Queen of Henry VII., i. 60;
coronation of, 121
Elizabeth Woodville, i. 109, 114
Empson, Sir Richard, execution of, i. 124
Essex, Arthur Capel, Earl of, ii. 74;
death in the Tower, 75, 76, 77
Essex, Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of, i. 65, 80, 81
Essex, Robert Devereux, Earl of, i. 35, 43;
armour of, 72;
an enemy of Raleigh, 221;
his person and position, 221;
failure of his Irish expedition, 222, 223;
imprisonment and trial of, 223;
execution of, 224
Essex, Robert, Earl of, 229
Eu, Counts of, i. 88, 103
Evelyn, John, ii. 71, 83
Fabyan, quoted, i. 112–117
Fairfax, Sir Thomas, ii. 38
Fawkes, Guy, i. 26, 55; ii. 9
Feckenham, i. 191, 193
Felton, John, assassination of Buckingham, i. 29, 76; ii. 31;
execution of, 32
Fenwick, Sir John, execution of, ii. 91
Ferrers, Lawrence Shirley, Earl, hanged at Tyburn, ii. 133–135
Fire of 1841, the, i. 27; ii. 142–144
Fisher, John, Bishop of Rochester, i. 29, 132, 133;
imprisonment, 134;
trial and execution, 135–138;
buried in the Tower, 142
Fitz, Colonel, ii. 53
Fitzgerald, Gerald, Earl of Kildare, i. 142
Fitzgerald, Thomas, siege of Dublin Castle by, i. 142;
hanged, 143
Flambard, Astronomer-Royal, i. 60
Flambard, Bishop, i. 54, 57, 79, 80
Flete, John de, i. 65
Flint Tower, the, i. 43
Forde, Thomas, i. 47
Forrest, one of the murderers of the two Princes, i. 116
Fraser, Sir Simon, i. 86
Freeman, Professor, i. 53, 54, 80
Gage, J., i. 47
Gage, Sir Thomas, i. 200
Galligman’s Tower, i. 53
Garden Tower, the, i. 20
Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, i. 185, 188, 199
Gardiner, Mr S. R., quoted, i. 95, 97, 110, 113, ii. 114
Gardner, Sir James, ii. 42
Garnet, Father, i. 48;
execution of, ii. 8, 9
Gates, Sir John, execution of, i. 187
“Gentleman-gaoler,” the, i. 12
Gerard, Father, i. 44, 48–51; ii. 8, 9
Gerard, Thomas, execution of, i. 159
Gerrard, John, execution of, ii. 51
Ghosts in the Tower, i. 26, 27
Gibbons, Grinling, i. 46
Gladstone and Sir Thomas More compared, i. 139
Gloucester, Gilbert de Clare, Earl of, i. 84
Gloucester, Humphrey, Duke of, i. 103
Gloucester, Richard, Duke of, i. 108, 110;
made Protector, 112;
his portrait, 113;
imprisons his nephews, and declares them bastards, 114, 115;
crowned 115.
_See_ Richard III.
Gloucester, Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of, revolt of, i. 94;
arrest of, 95
Gloucester, Duchess of, i. 104
Glendower, Owen, i. 100
Gordon, Lord George, ii. 137
Gorges, Sir Arthur, i. 218
Gough, Sir Mathew, i. 105
Governor’s House, _see_ King’s House
Green, one of the murderers of the two Princes, i. 116
Grey, Lady Catherine, i. 191;
marriage with Lord Hertford, 203;
imprisonment of, 204;
death of, 205
Grey, Lady Jane, i. 33, 34, 35;
marriage with Guildford Dudley, 182;
enters the Tower in state, 182;
imprisonment of, 185;
trial of, 189;
letters to her father, 190, 191;
execution of, 192–4;
buried in the Tower, 194
Grey, Lord John, i. 194
Grey, Lord Leonard, i. 143;
execution of, 143, 159
Grey, Sir Richard, execution of, i. 114
Grey de Wilton, Lord, imprisonment and death of, ii. 2, 5, 7
Griffin, Edward, ii. 92, 93
Grillot, i. 45
Gundulf, Bishop of Rochester, i. 6, 54, 62
Gunpowder Plot, the, ii. 8
Gurney, Sir Richard, ii. 42
Hacker, Colonel, execution of, ii. 58
Haiward and Gascoigne’s plan of the Tower, i. 6, 7, 23, 43, 75
Hales, Sir Robert, murder of, i. 90, 91, 92
Hamilton, James, Duke of, ii. 45;
execution of, 46
Hamilton, Sir Stephen, execution of, i. 151
Harley, Robert, Earl of Oxford, imprisonment of, ii. 100
Harrington, James, ii. 56, 57
Harrison, Major-General Thomas, execution of, ii. 56
Harvey, Sir George, ii. 9, 10
Hastings, Sir Edward, i, 198
Hastings, Lord, i. 35, 57;
execution of, 114
Hengham, Ralph de, i. 86
Henry I., i. 6, 7, 81;
imprisonment of Flambard by, 79
Henry III., i. 17, 36, 45, 51, 59, 76;
buildings in the Tower due to, 82;
obliged to take shelter in the Tower, 83
Henry IV., i. 98, 100
Henry V., i. 101, 102
Henry VI., his minority, i. 103;
Cade’s insurrection, 104, 105;
deposition and imprisonment of, 108, 110;
murder of, 19, 110
Henry VII., i. 120–123
Henry VIII., i. 16, 37;
armour of, 71;
marriage with Catherine of Arragon, 125;
his executions, 126;
marriage with Anne Boleyn, 131;
execution of More and Fisher, 132 _et seq._;
execution of Anne Boleyn, 143 _et seq._;
marriage with Jane Seymour, 150;
marriage with Anne of Cleves, 157;
execution of Cromwell, 158;
execution of Catherine Howard, 160;
increasing cruelty, 166;
imprisonment of Norfolk and Surrey, 166;
death, 168
Henry, Duke of Normandy, i. 81
Henry, Prince of Wales, armour of, i. 72;
friendship with Raleigh, ii. 12;
death of, 16, 18
Hentzner, Paul, i. 8, 58, 66, 67, 69
Hertford, Lord, i. 203, 204, 205;
marriage with Lady Catherine Grey, 203;
imprisonment of, 204, 205
Hewet, Dr, execution of, ii. 52
Hocking, W. J., quoted, ii. 97, 99
Hogarth, his portrait of Lord Lovat, ii. 127
Holland, Earl of, execution of, ii. 46
Hopton, Sir Owen, i. 24, 213, 217
Hopton, Sir Ralph (afterwards Lord), ii. 41, 42.
Hotham, Sir John, and Captain, execution of, ii. 44
Hudson, Mr W. H., quoted, i. 74
Hungerford, Lord, execution of, i. 158, 159
Hussey, Lord, execution of, i. 151, 153
Hutchinson, Mrs, i. 21, 41 _n._, 42, 112
Inner Ward, the, i. 12, 20, 45, 51
James I., portrait of, in the Council Chamber, i. 27;
first visit to the Tower, ii. 1;
his appearance, 4;
treatment of the Cobhams, 6, 7;
treatment of Arabella Stuart, 13–15;
betrayal of Raleigh, 23, 24
James II., Roman Catholicism, ii. 73, 84;
visit to the Tower on the day of Essex’s death, 76, 77;
appointments of Roman Catholics at Oxford, 85;
trial of the Seven Bishops, 86, 87;
flight, 88, 89
James, Prince, of Scotland, imprisonment of, i. 100, 101
James, Colonel John, execution of, ii. 56
“Jane of the Tower,” birth of, i. 87
Jean de Vienne, i. 88
Jerningham, Sir Henry, i. 196
Jerome, William, execution of, i. 159
Jewel House, the, i. 18, 45; ii. 68
Jews, imprisonment of, i. 55, 85
Jeffreys, Judge, i. 21; ii. 75, 79, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90
Joan of Kent, i. 60
John, King, the Tower besieged by, i. 82
John, King of France, i. 58, 88
Julius Cæsar’s Tower, i. 47;
repairs in, 131
Kent, Hubert de Burgh, Earl of, i. 82
Kent, Thomas Holland, Earl of, i. 94, 96
Kenmure, Lord, ii. 102, 103;
execution of, 104, 105
Keys, ceremony of receiving the, i. 22
King’s House, i. 14, 20, 23, 24–28
Kildare, Gerald Fitzgerald, Earl of, i. 39
Kildare, Thomas Fitzgerald, Earl of, i. 34
Kilmarnock, Lord, i. 40; ii. 116, 117;
trial of, 118–120;
execution of, 121–124
Knighton, Sir W., i. 144, 145, 147, 148
Knights Templars, imprisonment of the, i. 87
Knyvett, Sir A., i. 164
Lambert, John, escape of, ii. 54;
recaptured and banished, 54, 55
Lancaster, Duke of, i. 97.
_See_ Henry IV.
Lansdowne, George Granville, Earl of, ii. 95, 101
Lanthorn Tower, i. 6, 51, 52; ii. 173, 174;
restoration of, 169
Latimer, Bishop, i. 15, 172, 187, 201
Laud, Archbishop, i. 21;
imprisonment of, ii. 34;
his room searched by Prynne, 39;
trial and execution, 40
Lee, Sir Henry, i. 211
Legge’s Mount, i. 52
Leicester, Robert Dudley, Earl of, i. 31, 66, 72
Lennox, Countess of, i. 28, 206;
imprisonment of, 206
Le Swifte, E., i. 27
Lieutenant of the Tower, office of, i. 25
Lilburne, Colonel John, ii. 48
Lion Gate and Tower, i. 7, 10
Lisle, Arthur Lisle, Viscount, death of, i. 161
Lithbury, Robert, i. 86
“Little Ease,” i. 162; ii. 9
“Little Hell,” i. 44
Llewellyn, death of, in escaping from the Tower, i. 83
Lollards, persecution of the, i. 101, 102
London, Visscher’s view of, in 1616, ii. 21, 22;
the Fire, 62, 63;
Hollar’s view of London before and after the Fire, 62
London, Lord Mayor imprisoned, ii. 136, 137
Longchamp, Bishop of Ely, i. 9, 82
Lopez, plot of, i. 220;
execution of, 221
Loudon, Lord, ii. 33, 34
Lovat, Simon Fraser, Lord, i. 39, 40, 70; ii. 126, 127;
trial, 128, 129;
execution, 130–133
Love, Christopher, execution of, ii. 50
Lucas, Lord, ii. 88, 89, 91
Lucy, Richard de, i. 81
Luke, Sir Thomas, ii. 26
Lumley, William, execution of, i. 151
Lumsford, Sir Thomas, ii. 38
Lysons, Sir Daniel, i. 25
Macaulay, Lord, i. 35
MacMahon, Colonel, attempted escape from the Tower, ii. 45;
execution, 45
Maximilian, Emperor, armour given to Henry VIII. by, i. 68, 70, 71
Macquire, Lord, attempted escape from the Tower, ii. 44, 45;
execution, 45
Main Guard, the, i. 22
Margaret, Queen, i. 108, 109, 110
Marlborough, Duke of, imprisonment of, ii. 91, 92
Mary, Queen, i. 171, 172;
proclaimed Queen, 184;
visit to the Tower, 187;
coronation, 188;
marriage with Philip of Spain, 198;
imprisons Elizabeth, 198, 199;
her persecutions, 201;
death, 201
Mary Stuart, i. 181;
struggle with Elizabeth, 206
Martin Tower, the, i. 27, 45, 46; ii. 68
Master of the King’s Ordnance, office of, i. 67
Matilda, the Empress, i. 80, 81
Mayne, Cuthbert, i. 213
Menagerie, the, i. 7, 8
Menteith, Earl of, i. 85
Merrick, Sir Gilley, execution of, i. 229
Meyrick, Dr S. R., i. 64, 66
Middle Tower, i. 9, 10
Middlesex, Lionel Cranfield, Earl of, imprisonment of, ii. 27
Milman, General George, i. 24; ii. 146, 171
Minories, the, i. 196
Mint, the, i. 13, 14; ii. 95–99
Mint Street, i. 13
Moat, the, i. 8, 9,
Molini, Nicolo, Venetian Ambassador, ii. 1 _n._
Mohun, Lord, ii. 92
Monk, George, imprisonment of, ii. 44
Monmouth, James, Duke of, i. 28, 39, 43, 70; ii. 75;
execution of, 81–83
Montague, Lord, i. 131
Montford, Simon de, i. 83
Montgomery, John de, i. 65
Mordaunt, Henry, Lord, imprisonment of, ii. 8, 9
Mordaunt, Henry, conspiracy of, ii. 52
More, Sir Thomas, i. 29, 117, 132;
compared with Gladstone, 139;
imprisonment and execution, 140, 142
Moreton, Sir William, ii. 43
Mortimers, the, i. 58, 87, 88
Morton, Bishop of Ely, i. 114, 117
Napier of Magdala, Lord, i. 25
Nevill, Sir Edward, i. 131;
execution of, 152
Neville, Lady Anne, i. 108
Neville, Sir Henry, i. 208
Neville, Marmaduke, i. 31
Newton, Sir Isaac, i. 15; ii. 98
Nithsdale, Lord, i. 28; ii. 102, 103;
escape of, 105–111
Norfolk, 2nd Duke of, i. 129
Norfolk, 3rd Duke of, i. 143, 146, 151, 161, 188, 189, 196;
sentenced to death, 166;
narrow escape, 168;
death 168
Norfolk, 4th Duke of, i. 31, 207, 208;
trial, 209;
execution, 211
North Bastion, i. 52
Northumberland, Henry Percy, 8th Earl of, i. 214
Northumberland, Henry Percy, 9th Earl of, ii. 8, 9, 11
Northumberland, John Dudley, Duke of, i. 21, 39, 173, 174, 178,
179, 181, 182;
arrested and imprisoned, 184;
apostacy, 185, 186;
execution, 187
Nottingham, Earl of, i. 94, 96
Oates, Titus, ii. 72, 73
O’Connor, Arthur, ii. 138, 139
Offley, Sir Thomas, i. 192
Okey, Colonel, attempt to seize the Tower, ii. 53;
execution of, 61
Oldcastle, Sir John, i. 101, 102
Oldcorn, Father, execution of, ii. 8, 9
O’Neale, Daniel, ii. 43
Orleans, Charles of, i. 53, 57, 58, 63, 64, 103
Otho, Papal Legate, i. 84
Otway, death of, i. 76
Outer Ward, the, i. 10, 52
Overbury, Sir Thomas, i. 21;
story of the murder of, ii. 16, 17
Owen, Sir John, ii. 46, 47, 48
Owen Tudor, i. 104
Palmer, Sir Thomas, execution of, i. 187
Parade, the, i. 24
Parkhurst, Sir W., i. 15
Parry, plot and execution of, i. 214, 215
Partridge, Sir Miles, execution of, i. 179, 180
Partridge, Nathaniel, i. 185, 186
Penn, William, i. 76; ii. 71, 72
Pennington, Sir Isaac, ii. 38, 44
Pepys, Samuel, i. 37; ii. 54, 58, 59, 62, 64–67, 96
Percy, Henry, i. 109
Percy, Sir Thomas, execution of, i. 151
Perrot, Sir John, imprisonment of, i. 216;
death of, 217
Peverel, i. 31
Pierce, the Regalia saved by, ii. 143
Planché, J. R., i. 64
Pole, Arthur de la, i. 34, 206
Pole, Cardinal, i. 152, 153, 156
Pole, Edmund de la, i. 34, 206
Pole, Sir Geoffrey de la, i. 152;
death in the Tower, 153
Pole, Henry de la, Lord Montagu, execution of, i. 152
Pole, _see_ also Suffolk
Pope, Sir Thomas, i. 141
Princes, murder of the two, i. 20, 21, 22, 112–118;
their bones found, 55
Prynne, William, visit to Laud in the Tower, ii. 38, 39
Queen’s House, _see_ King’s House
Raleigh, Sir Walter, i. 21, 22, 27, 56;
marriage with Elizabeth Throgmorton, 218;
imprisonment, 218;
release, 220;
an enemy of Essex, 221, 223, 228;
second imprisonment, ii. 2, 3, 5, 8–12;
his “History of the World,” 10, 12, 18, 19,
released, 20;
expedition to the West Indies, 21, 23;
failure, 23, 24;
trial, 24;
execution, 25, 26
Raleigh, Lady, i. 76, 218, 219; ii. 8, 9, 10, 25
Raleigh’s Walk, ii. 175
Ratcliffe, Charles, ii. 126
Rathbone, Captain, ii. 62, 63
Record or Hall Tower, i. 17
Regalia, the, i. 18, 19, 45;
Colonel Blood’s attempt to steal, ii. 68–70;
saved by Pierce in 1841, 143
Reynardson, Sir Abraham, ii. 43, 49
Richard I., i. 43, 82
Richard II., i. 10, 11;
coronation of, 90;
seeks refuge in the Tower, 90, 94;
marriage with Isabel of France, 95;
arrest of the Duke of Gloucester and others, 95;
imprisonment in the Tower, 97;
deposition of, 98;
his character, 99
Richard III., murder of Henry VI. by, i. 19;
and Lord Hastings, 57;
coronation of, 115, 116;
murder of the young princes, 116
Ridley, Bishop, imprisonment of, i. 187
Ridolfi Plot, the, i. 208, 209
Rivers, Earl, i. 110, 114
Robinson, Sir J., i. 37; ii. 62
Roches, Peter de, Bishop of Winchester, i. 82
Rochester, John Wilmot, Earl of, ii. 64
Rochford, Lord, execution of, i. 150
Rochford, Lady, i. 35;
execution of, 160, 161
Roettier, J., i. 15; ii. 96, 97, 98
Roman remains, i. 2, 3, 55; ii. 171, 172
Roper, Margaret, i. 140 141, 142
Ross, Bishop of, i. 29, 208, 211
Ross, Earl of, i. 85
Russell, William, Lord, i. 43, 70; ii. 73, 74;
trial, 75, 77, 78;
execution, 79
Rye House Plot, the, ii. 73, 75
Salisbury, Earl of, i. 91
Salisbury, Countess of, i. 35, 39, 152, 153;
execution of, 154
Salt Tower, the, i. 47;
restoration of, ii. 169
Salutation Battery, i. 73
Salvin, i. 14, 17, 18, 30, 38, 51, 52, 62; ii. 169, 171
Sandwich, Ralph de, i. 36
Sandys, Sir William, i. 130
Sautre, William, i. 102
Savile, Henry, ii. 66
Saye, Lord, i. 105
Scaffold, site of the, i. 35;
on Tower Hill, 75
Scales, Lord, i. 105, 109
Scaramelli, Venetian envoy, ii. 1 _n._
Scott, Thomas, execution of, ii. 58
Scott, Sir Walter, i. 31
Scottish prisoners in the Tower, i. 18; ii. 114–116, 155–167
Sensenhofer, Conrad, i. 71
Seton, Sir Christopher, i. 86
Seymour of Sudley, Lord, i. 170;
arrest and death of, 171, 172
Seymour, Jane, i. 144;
marriage with Henry VIII., 150
Seymour, Lady Jane, i. 203, 204
Seymour, William, ii. 3, 13, 14, 15, 16
Shakespeare, at the Tower, ii. 2
Sherin, execution of, i. 212
Shaftesbury, Lord, ii. 63, 73
Shrewsbury, Lady, ii. 13, 15
Sidney, Algernon, i. 20; ii. 73;
execution of, 79, 80
Simnel, Lambert, i. 120, 121
Simon’s “Petition Medal,” ii. 98
Skelton, Sir Bevil, ii. 88
Slingsby, Sir Henry, execution of, ii. 52
Smeaton, Mark, i. 150
Somers, Will, i. 72
Somerset, Robert Carr, Earl of, ii. 17;
imprisonment of, 18
Somerset, Protector, i. 11, 39, 170, 171;
arrest, 173;
release, 174;
again arrested, 174;
trial, 175;
execution, 176, 177
Somerset, Duchess of, i. 188
Somerville, John, and family, i. 214
Southampton, Lord, i. 24, 222;
imprisonment and trial, 223;
released by James I., 229
Southwell, Sir Richard, i. 198
Spencer, Lord, quarrel with the Earl of Arundel, ii. 27
Spur-Yard, the, i. 9
St John’s Chapel, i, 36, 55, 57, 58–60;
stained glass in, 76–78; ii. 177, 178
St Ledger, Sir Anthony, i. 15
St Peter’s Chapel, plate in, i. 16, 24, 35–43;
stained glass in, 76
St Thomas’ Tower, i. 12, 13, 14;
fall of, 16, 17;
repairs in, 131
Stafford, Sir Henry, i. 124
Stafford, Thomas, Lord, execution of, i. 201
Stafford, William Howard, Viscount, execution of, ii. 72, 73
Stained glass in the Tower, i. 76; ii. 177, 178
Stanhope, Sir Michael, execution of, i. 179, 180
Stanley, Lord, i. 114
Stanley, Sir William, execution of, i. 122
Stephen, i. 17;
residence in the Tower, 80
Stevenson, R. L., description of the Duke of Orleans, i. 63
Stillingfleet, Bishop, ii. 72
Store, Dr John, i. 33
Store House, the, i. 46
Stoughton, John, i. 47
Stourton, Lord, imprisonment of, ii. 8, 9
Stowe’s “Survey,” quoted, i. 6, 40, 75, 112, 157, 202, 228
Strafford, Earl of, ii. 21;
committed to the Tower, 34;
trial, 35;
execution, 35, 36
Strafford, Edmund de, Lord Chancellor, i. 96
Stuart, Lady Arabella, ii. 2, 3, 13, 14, 15
Stubbs, Dr John, i. 212
Subterranean passages, i. 23, 44
Sudbury, Simon of, Archbishop of Canterbury, murder of, i. 90, 91,
92
Suffolk, Charles Brandon, Duke of, i. 66, 72, 127
Suffolk, Henry Grey, Duke of, i. 181, 182, 190, 194;
trial and execution of, 195;
discovery of his head, 196
Suffolk, Edmund de la Pole, Earl of, execution of, i. 126
Suffolk, John de la Pole, Duke of, i. 117, 126
Suffolk, William de la Pole, Duke of, i. 104, 105
Suffolk, Lord and Lady, imprisonment of, ii. 27
Surrey, Earl of, i. 146;
execution of, 165, 168
Sutherland, Earl of, i. 85
Syndercombe, Miles, death of, ii. 52
Talbot, Sir Gilbert, i. 19; ii. 68
Talbot, Thomas, i. 34
Tankerville, Count of, i. 88
Taylor, Sir John, i. 38
Taylor, John, ii. 169, 171
Tempest, Nicholas, execution of, i. 151
Thanet, Lord, ii. 138, 139
Thistlewood, execution of, ii. 140, 141
Throgmorton, Francis, execution of, i. 214
Throgmorton, Sir John, i. 192
Torture, instruments of, i. 69
Torture chamber, the, i. 26, 48
Tower, the, first used as State prison, i. 79;
besieged by citizens of London, 81, 82;
besieged by King John, 82;
handed over to Prince Louis of France, 82;
seized by the Barons, 84;
first woman prisoner, 87;
seized by Mortimer, 87;
survey of, in 1336, 88;
Tyler’s Rebellion, 90–93;
imprisonment and deposition of Richard II., 97–98;
Cade’s insurrection, 105;
murder of the two Princes, 112–118;
attacked for the last time, 196;
Tower guards appointed, ii. 37;
plot by Charles I. to seize, 36, 37;
in the hands of the Parliament, 38, 41;
constant escape of prisoners, 50;
seized by the Royalists, 53;
repairs in, 61;
danger from the Fire, 61, 62;
Pepys’ story of hidden treasure, 64, 65;
ceased to be a royal residence, 81;
the mint, 95–99;
Jacobite plot to seize, 112;
Spanish treasure brought to, 135;
last peer imprisoned in, 139;
ceased to be a prison of State, 141;
the Fire of 1841, 142–144;
area of, 145;
Fenian attempt to blow up, 145–147;
rights and privileges of, 151;
dates of restorations at, 169;
new buildings, 169;
recent discoveries, 171–174;
stained glass in, 177, 178
Tower Green, i. 24, 25
Tower Hill, i. 75;
last execution on, ii. 128
Tower Wharf, i. 10
Traitor’s Gate, i. 12, 14, 16, 20
Trevelyan, Mr G. M., quoted, i. 91–93
Tudenham, Sir Thomas, execution of, i. 109
Tullibardine, Marquis of, ii. 116, 117
Tunstall, Bishop of Durham, i. 188
Turnbull, James, ii. 99
Turner, Mrs, ii. 17;
execution of, 18
Tyler’s Rebellion, i. 90
Tyrell, James, i. 116; execution of, 123
Tyrell, Sir William, execution of, i. 109
Vane, Sir Harry, execution of, ii. 57, 58
Vane, Sir Ralph, execution of, i. 179, 180
Vaux, Sir Nicholas, i. 130
Victoria, Queen, visit to the Tower, i. 150
Waad (or Wade), Sir William, i. 27, 37, 48, 49, 50; ii. 10, 16
Wakefield Tower, the, i. 6, 17
Wallace, William, i. 86
Walpole, Sir Robert, imprisonment of, ii. 95
Walpole, Jesuit priest, i. 221
Walsingham, Sir Edmund, i. 146;
epitaph of, ii. 2 _n._
Walsingham, Secretary of State, i. 207, 215, 216
Walworth, William, Lord Mayor, i. 90, 91
Warbeck, Perkin, insurrection of, i. 122;
hanged, 123
Warders of the Tower, the, i. 11, 12
Warders’ Parlour, the, i. 11
Warding Gate, the, i. 11
Wardrobe Gallery and Tower, the, i. 6, 46, 47; ii. 171
Warner, Sir Edward, i. 205
Wars of the Roses, the, i. 107, _et seq._
Warwick, Ambrose Dudley, Earl of, i. 32, 33
Warwick, Edward Plantagenet, Earl of, i. 120;
execution of, 121
Warwick, John Dudley, Earl of, i. 32, 33;
death of, 200
Warwick, Thomas Beauchamp, Earl of, i. 30, 95
Waterford, Lord, i. 71
Well Tower, the, i. 52, 53;
restoration of, ii. 169
Wellington, Duke of, i. 9, 25; ii. 145
Westcott, J. R., ii. 169
Weston, Sir John, i. 88
White, Thomas, Lord Mayor, i. 189
White Tower, the, i. 4, 5, 6, 45, 53–73;
repairs in, 137;
Fenian attempt to blow up, ii. 145–147;
restoration of, 169;
recent discoveries, 171, 172
Wilkes, John, ii. 136
William I., i. 5, 62
William Rufus, i. 6, 47
Williams, Sir Fenwick, i. 25
Williams, John, Bishop of Lincoln, ii. 32, 33
Williamson, General, ii. 120, 129, 131
Wintoun, Lord, ii. 102, 103;
escape of, 112
Wolsey, Cardinal, i. 127
Woodville, Elizabeth, i. 109, 114
Worcester, Edward Somerset, Marquis of, ii. 50, 51
Worcester, Earl of, armour of, i. 72
Wren, Sir Christopher, i. 45, 54, 62; ii. 93, 94, 172
Wriothesley, Sir Thomas, i. 163, 165
Wyatt, Sir Henry, story of, i. 118, 119
Wyatt, Sir Thomas, rebellion of, i. 194;
attacks the Tower, 196;
capture and execution of, 197
Wyatt’s Rebellion, i. 30, 34, 56, 190, 194, 196, 197
Yeomen of the Guard, i. 12
Yeomen porter, the, i. 22
Yeomen Warders, i. 11, 12
Yorke, Sir Charles, i. 38
Yorke, Sir John, i. 15
THE RIVERSIDE PRESS LIMITED, EDINBURGH
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| FOOTNOTES: |
| |
| [1] The Venetian envoy Scaramelli, writing to the Doge from |
| London on the 15th May 1603, says, “Et fra tanto non entrera sua |
| Maestà in Londra, ma solamente prenderá il possesso della Torre |
| ad uso antico, come del Trono et fondomento regale, essendovi in |
| essa il Tresoro, et le Armi, ciò è tutte le forze del regno,” |
| which translated is, “Meantime his Majesty will not enter London, |
| but will only take possession of the Tower, according to ancient |
| custom, as the Throne and the foundation of the royal power, for |
| in the Tower are the treasury and the armoury—that is, all the |
| strength of the realm.” Two years later (on December 8th, 1605) |
| Nicolo Molini, the Venetian Ambassador in England, writes to |
| Venice about the Tower, “It is a most remarkable fact in this |
| country, that if a nobleman is put in the Tower, he either loses |
| his life or ends his days there.” I am indebted to my friend, |
| Mr Horatio F. Brown, for these two interesting notices which he |
| found in the Venetian State Paper Records. |
| |
| [2] Among the contemporary dramatists of Shakespeare, reference |
| to the Tower is made by Peele, Decker, Webster, and Heywood. |
| Peele, in his play of “Edward I.,” where Llewellyn, Prince of |
| Wales, mentions how his father broke his neck in attempting to |
| escape from what he calls “Julius Cæsar’s Tower.” Decker and |
| Webster refer to the fortress in their “Famous History of Sir |
| Thomas Wyatt,” and to Guildford Dudley and Jane Grey; Heywood, in |
| his tragedy of “Edward IV.,” recounts the murders of Clarence and |
| the sons of Edward, and refers to Queen Elizabeth’s imprisonment |
| in the Tower in his “History of Queen Elizabeth.” There are also |
| allusions to the Tower and to Cromwell, Earl of Essex, and to Sir |
| John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham, in the “Doubtful Plays.” The above |
| information I have obtained from that rare scholar and critic, |
| Dr Furnival. Probably scattered about the country are many other |
| inscriptions recording the connection with the Tower of the dead, |
| commemorated as was Sir Edward Walsingham on his tomb by his son |
| Sir Thomas, in the church of St Nicholas at Chislehurst in Kent: |
| |
| “A knight, sometime of worthie fame, |
| Lyeth buried under this stonie bower; |
| Sir Edmund Walsingham was his name, |
| Lieutenant he was of London Tower.” |
| |
| [3] In a series of fac-simile letters of illustrious personages |
| published by John Thorne in 1793, is the following from Strafford |
| to his wife. It is dated from the Tower the 4th February 1640—but |
| this date is evidently a mistake, and 1641 must be the year:— |
| |
| “Sweet Harte,” he writes, “it is long since I writt unto you, for |
| I am here in such trouble as gives me little or noe respett. The |
| Charges now cum in, and I am now able, prayse God, to tell you, |
| that I conceave there is nothing Capitall, and for the rest I |
| knowe at the worste his Ma.ty will pardon all without hurting my |
| fortune, and then we shall be happy by God’s grace. Therefore, |
| comfortt your self, for I trust these cloudes will pass away, |
| and that we shall have faire weather afterwardes. Farewell.—Your |
| loving husband, |
| STRAFFORD.” |
| |
| [4] Sir Isaac Pennington was a fishmonger, and elected Alderman |
| of the Ward of Bridge Without, January 29th, 1638; and became |
| Lord Mayor, 1641–42. He was one of the Commissioners who sat upon |
| the trial of Charles I., for which he was condemned to death at |
| the Restoration, but was not executed. He was sent to the Tower |
| August 25th, 1660, where he died on the 17th of the following |
| December. |
| |
| [5] Sir John Robinson was a clothworker, and elected Alderman |
| of Dowgate, December 18th, 1655, and chosen Sheriff, June 24th, |
| 1657. He was removed to Cripplegate, December 7th, 1658, and |
| made Lord Mayor in 1662, being appointed Lieutenant of the Tower |
| on September 22nd, 1663. He was the eldest son of the Reverend |
| William Robinson, Archdeacon of Nottingham, and was knighted at |
| Canterbury on 26th May 1660, and created a baronet in the June of |
| the same year.... He was a nephew of Archbishop Laud, and married |
| Anne, daughter of Sir George Whitmore, a knight and an alderman. |
| He was Lieutenant of the Tower from 1661 to 1678. King Charles |
| II. and his Queen, the Queen-mother and the Duke and Duchess of |
| York, dined with him at the Clothworkers’ Hall, where he kept his |
| mayoralty on the 23rd of June 1663. The pageant performed by his |
| Company at his inauguration was entitled “London’s Triumph.” The |
| _Gazette_ of April 23rd to 26th, 1666, contains an account of the |
| trial of certain persons for high treason for conspiring to kill |
| him and other officers of the Tower, and to fire the city. He was |
| a benefactor to the Clothworkers’ Company, who still preserve his |
| portrait in their hall. |
| |
| [6] The pamphlet has been copied _in extenso_, and will be found |
| in the Appendix. The illustrations, with the exception of one |
| which I was allowed to reproduce by the kindness of Mr Birch, the |
| Curator of the Soane Museum, were also lent me by Mr Gardiner. |
| |
| [7] See Appendix. |
| |
| [8] The office had been hereditary, but ceased to be so under |
| Stephen. |
| |
| [9] Appointed by Lady Jane Grey’s party. There is no record of |
| Constables during the reign of Elizabeth, Sir John Gage being |
| restored to office at Mary’s succession. |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Transcriber’s Notes:
- Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
- Text enclosed by equals is in bold (_bold_).
- Blank pages have been removed.
- Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected.