a reste [arrested] many of the sayde dukys [servants] to the nombyr of
xxxviij squyers, be-syde alle othyr servantys that nevyr ymagenyd no
falsenys of the [that] they were put a-pon of. And on Fryday the xiiij
day of Juylle nexte folowynge by jugement at Westemyster, there by fore
v personys were dampnyd to be drawe, hanggyd, and hyr bowellys i-brente
be fore hem, and thenne hyr heddys to be smetyn of, ande thenne to be
quarteryde, and every parte to be sende unto dyvers placys by assygnement
of the jugys. Whyche personys were thes: Arteys the bastarde of the sayde
Duke of Glouceter, Syr Rogger Chambyrlayne knyght, Mylton squyer, Thomas
Harberde squyer, Nedam yeman, whyche were the sayde xiiij day of Juylle
i-drawe fro Syn Gorgys thoroughe owte Sowthewerke and on Londyn Brygge,
ande so forthe thorowe the cytte of London to the Tyborne, and there
alle they were hanggyde, and the ropys smetyn a-sondyr, they beynge alle
lyvynge, and thenne, ar any more of any markys of excecusyon were done,
the Duke of Sowthefolke brought them alle yn generalle pardon and grace
from our lorde and soverayne Kynge Harry the vjᵗᵉ.[143]
=1455.= Also this yere was a grete affray in London agaynst the
Lombardes. The cawse began of a yong man that took a Dagger from a
straunger and broke it. Wherefore the yong man was sent for vnto
the Mair and Aldermen beyng at Guyldehall, and there by theym he was
commytted for his offence to One of the Countours: and then the mair
departyng from the hall toward his mancion to dyner, in Chepe met with
him a grete company of yong men of the Mercery, as Apprentices and other
lowse men: and taried the Mair and the Sheriffes still in Chepe, not
suffryng hym to depart till they had their ffelow, beyng in pryson, as
is aforsaid, delyuered: and so by force delyuered their felaw oute of
pryson. Wherevpon the same evenyng the hand craftymen Ranne vnto the
lombardes howsys, and Robbyd and dispoilid Dyuers of theym. Wherfor the
Mair and Shyreffes, with thassistence of good and weldisposed people of
the Cite, with greate Jubardy and labour Drove theym thens, and commytted
some of theym that had Robbid to Newgate. Whervpon the yong man, which
was rescoed by his feloship, seying the greate rumour folowyng vpon his
occasion Departed and went to Westm’, and ther abode as sayntuary man:
Wherby he saved his lyf. ffor anone vpon this came down an Oye determyne,
for to do Justice vpon alle theym that soo had Rebellid in the Cyte:
vpon which sat that tyme with the Mayr the Duke of Bokyngham with dyuers
other grete lordes, for to see Execucion doon. But the Comons of the
Cyte did arme theym secretely in their howses, and were in purpos to
haue Rungyn the Comon Bell, callid Bowe Bell: But they were lette by
sadde and weladuysed men, which when it come to the knowleyge of the Duke
of Bokyngham and other lordes their beyng with hym, they Incontynently
arose, feryng longer to abyde: for it was shewed to theym that all the
Cite wold arise vpon theym. But yet notwithstondyng in Conclusion ij or
iij mysdoers of the Cite were adjuged for the Robbery, And were hanged at
Tybourne: and this doon the kyng and the quene and other lordes Rood to
Coventre, and with drewe theym from London for these cawsis (Chronicles
of London (Kingsford) 1905, pp. 166, 167).
=1467.= Alle soo that same yere there were many chyrchys robbyd in the
cytte of London only of the boxys with the sacrament. And men had moche
wondyr of thys, and sad men demyd that there had ben sum felyschippe of
heretykys assocyat to gederys. But hyt was knowe aftyr that it was done
of very nede that they robbyd, wenyng unto the thevys that the boxys
hadde ben sylvyr ovyr gylt, but was but copyr. And by a copyr smythe hit
was a spyde of hyr longe contynuans in hyr robbory. At a tyme, alle the
hole feleschippe of thevys sat at sopyr to gedyr, and had be fore hem
fulle goode metys. But that copyr smythe sayde, “I wolde have a more
deynty mosselle of mete, for I am wery of capon, conynge, and chekyns,
and such smalle metes. And I mervyl I have ete ix goddys at my sopyr that
were in the boxys.” And that schamyd sum of them in hyr hertys. Ande a
smythe of lokyers crafte, that made hyr instrumentes to opyn lockys, was
ther that tyme, for hyt was sayed at the sopyr in hys howse. And in the
mornynge he went to chyrche to hyre a masse, and prayde God of marcy;
but whenn the pryste was at the levacyon of the masse he myght not see
that blessyd sacrament of the auter. Thenn he was sory, and a bode tylle
a nothyr pryste wente to masse and helpyd the same pryste to masse, and
say [saw] howe the oste lay a-pon the auter and alle the tokyns and
sygnys that the pryste made; but whenn the pryste hylde uppe that hooly
sacrament at the tyme of levacyon he myght se no thynge of that blessyd
body of Chryste at noo time of the masse, not somoche at _Agnus Dei_;
and thenn he demyd that hit had ben for febyllenys of hys brayne. And
he went unto the ale howse and dranke a ob. [a halfpennyworth] of goode
alle, and went to chyrche agayne, and he helpyd iij moo prystys to masse,
and in no maner a wyse he ne myght se that blessyd sacrament; but then
bothe he and hys feleschyppe lackyd grace. And in schorte tyme aftyr iiij
of hem were take, and the same lokyer was one of yᵉ iiij, and they were
put in Newegate. And by processe they were dampnyd for that trespas and
othyr to be hangyd and to be drawe fro Newegate to Tyborne, and soo they
were. And the same daye that they shulde dy they were confessyd. And thes
iiij docters were hyr confessourys, Mayster Thomas Eberalle, Maystyr Hewe
Damylett, Maystyr Wylliam Ive, and Maystyr Wylliam Wryxham. Thenn Mayster
Thomas Eberalle wente to masse, and that lokyer aftyr hys confessyon
myght see that blessyd sacrament welle i-nowe, and thenne rejoysyd and
was gladde, and made an opyn confessyon by fore the iiij sayde docters of
devynyte. And I truste that hyr soulys ben savyd.[144]
=1468.= That yere were meny men a pechyd of treson, bothe of the cytte
and of othyr townys. Of the cytte Thomas Coke, knyght and aldyrman, and
John Plummer, knyght and aldyrman, but the kyng gave hem bothe pardon.
And a man of the Lorde Wenlockys, John Haukyns was hys name, was hangyd
at Tyburne and be heddyd for treson.[145]
=1495.= The 22. of Februarie were arraigned in Guildhall at London foure
persons, to witte, Thomas Bagnall, Iohn Scot, Ihon Hethe, and Iohn
Kenington, the which were Sanctuarie men of Saint Martin le grand in
London, and lately before taken thence, for forging seditious libels, to
the slander of the King, and some of his Councell: for the which three
of them were adiudged to die, & the fourth named Bagnall, pleaded to be
restored to sanctuary: by reason whereof he was repriued to the Tower
till the next terme, and on the 26 of February the other three with a
Flemming, and Robert Bikley a yeoman of the Crown were all fiue executed
at Tyborne (Stow, ed. Howes, p. 479).
=1483.= _December 4._ Four yeomen of the Crown were drawn from Southwark
to Tyburn, and “there were hanged all” (Chronicle of London, Kingsford,
1905, p. 192).
=1495.= In this year Perkin Warbeck, a pretender, “A yoongman, of visage
beautifull, of countenance demure, of wit subtil,” made a descent on the
English coasts:—But Perken would not set one foote out of his Shippe,
till he sawe all thinges sure; yet he permitted some of his Souldiours to
goe on lande, which being trained forth a prettie way from their Shippes,
and seeing they coulde haue no comfort of the Countrey, they withdrew
againe to their Shippes: at which withdrawing, the Maior of Sandwich,
with certaine commons of the Countrey, bikered with the residue that
were vppon lande, and tooke aliue of them 169. persons, among the which
were fiue Captaines Mountfort, Corbet, White Belt, Quintin & Genine. And
on the twelfth of Julie, Syr Iohn Pechy, Sheriffe of Kent, bought vnto
London bridge those 169. persons, where the Sheriffes of London, Nicholas
Alwine and Iohn Warner receiued and conueied them, railed in robes like
horses in a cart, vnto the tower of London, and to Newgate, and shortlie
after to the number of 150. were hanged about the sea coasts in Kent,
Essex, Sussex, and Norffolke; the residue were executed at Tiborne and at
Wapping in the Whose besides London; and Perken fled into Flanders (Stow,
ed. Howes, p. 479).
=1499.= Perkyn (of whome rehersall was made before) beyng now in holde,
coulde not leaue with the destruccion of him selfe, and confusion of
other that had associate them selfes with him, but began now to study
which way to flye & escape. For he by false persuasions and liberall
promises corrupted Strangweyes, Blewet, Astwood and long Rogier hys
kepers, beynge seruantes to syr Ihon Dygby, lieutenaunt. In so muche
that they (as it was at their araynment openly proued) entended to haue
slayn the sayde Master, and to haue set Perkyn and the Erle of Warwyke at
large; which Erle was by them made preuy of this enterprice, & thereunto
(as all naturall creatures loue libertie) to his destruccion assented.
But this craftie deuice and subtil imaginacion, beyng opened and
disclosed, sorted to none effect, and so he beyng repulsed and put back
from all hope and good lucke with all hys complices and confederates, and
Ihon Awater sometyme Mayre of Corffe in Ireland, one of his founders, and
his sonne, were the sixten daye of Nouembre arreyned and comdempned at
Westmynster. And on the thre and twenty daye of the same moneth, Perkyn
and Ihon Awater were drawen to Tyborne, and there Perkyn standyng on a
little skaffolde, redde hys confession, which before you haue heard, and
toke it on hys death to be true, and so he and Ihon Awater asked the kyng
forgeuenes and dyed paciently. (Hall’s Chron., ed. 1809, p. 491).
=1497.= Henry had prepared “a puissaunt and vigorious army to inuade
Scotland,” when domestic troubles arose:—“When the lord Dawbeney had his
army assembled together and was in his iourney forward into Scotlande,
he sodeinly was stayed and reuoked agayne, by reason of a newe sedicion
and tumult begonne within the realme of England for the subsedy whiche
was graunted at the last parliament for the defence of the Scottes
with all diligence and celeritee, whiche of the moost parte was truely
satisfied and payde. But the Cornish men inhabityng the least parte of
the realme, and thesame sterile and without all fecunditee, compleyned
and grudged greatly affirmyng that they were not hable to paye suche a
greate somme as was of theim demaunded. And so, what with angre, and what
with sorrowe, forgettynge their due obeysaunce, beganne temerariously
to speake of the kyng him selfe. And after leuyng the matter, lamentyng,
yellyng, & criyng maliciously, sayd, that the kyngs counsayll was the
cause of this polling and shauing. And so beyng in aroare, ii. of thesame
affinitee, the one Thomas Flamocke, gentleman, learned in the lawes of
the realme, and theother Mighell Ioseph a smyth, men of high courages
and stoute stomackes, toke vpon theim to be captaynes of this vngracious
flocke and sedicious company.… These capiteynes exhorted the common
people to put on harneys, & not to be afearde to folowe theim in this
quarell, promisyng theim that they shoulde do no damage to any creature,
but only to se ponyshement and correccion done to such persons which were
the aucthors & causers that the people were molested and vexed with such
vnreasonable exaccions and demaunds.” The rebels marching towards London,
“the kyng perceauyng the cyuile warre to approche & drawe nerer & nerer,
almost to his very gates, determined with all his whole powre to resist
and represse thesame.… Wherfore he reuoked agayn the lord Dawbeney which
as you have heard, was with a puyssaunt army goyng into Scotland, whose
army he encreaced and multiplied with many picked and freshe warryers,
that he might the better, and with lesse laboure ouercome these rebelles.”
At Wells the rebels were joined by Lord Audley, who became their leader.
They reached Blackheath where, although they captured Lord Dawbeney
himself, they were overcome. “There were slain of the rebelles whiche
fought & resisted ii. thousand men & moo & taken prisoners an infinite
nombre, & emongest theim the black smyth & chiefe capteins.” The king
pardoned all the leaders “sauyng the chiefe capiteynes & firste aucthors
of that mischiefe, to whome he woulde neither shewe mercy nor lenity.
For he caused the Lord Audeleigh to be drawen from Newgate to the Towre
hil in a cote of his awne armes peinted vpon paper, reuersed and al
to torne, & there to be behedded the xxviii. day of Iuyn. And Thomas
Flamock and Myghell Ioseph he commaunded after the fassyon of treytours
to be drawen, hanged, and quartered [at Tyburn], & their quarters to be
pytched on stakes, & set vp in diuerse places of Cornewhale, that their
sore punyshementes and terrible execucions for their treytorous attemptes
and foolish hardy enterprices, might be a warning for other herafter to
absteyne from committing lyke cryme and offence.”
Michael Joseph, the blacksmith, “was of such stowte stomack & haute
courage, that at thesame time that he was drawen on the herdle toward
his death, he sayd (as men do reporte) that for this myscheuous and
facinorous acte, he should haue a name perpetual and a fame permanent and
immortal” (Hall’s Chronicle, ed. 1809, pp. 476-80).
=1502.= Vpon Monday, beyng the second day of May, was kept at the
Guyld hall of London an Oyr determyne, where sat the Mayre, the Duke
of Bokyngham, Therle of Oxenford, with many other lordes, Juges, and
knyghtes, as commyssioners: before whome was presented as prisoners to be
enquyred of, sir James Tyrell, and sir John Wyndam, knyghtes, a Gentilman
of the said sir James, named Wellesbourn, and one other beyng a shipman.…
Vpon ffriday folowyng, beyng the vjᵗᵉ day of May and the morowe after
the Ascension of our Lord, Sir James Tyrell and the forsaid Sir John
Wyndam, knyghtes, were brought out of the Toure to the scaffold vpon the
Toure hill, vpon their ffete, where they were both beheded. And the same
day was the forsaid Shipman laied vpon an herdyll, and so drawen from
the Toure to Tybourne, and there hanged, hedid, and quartered. And the
forenamed Wellysbourn Remayned still in prison at the kynges commaundment
and pleasure (Chronicles of London, Kingsford, 1905, p. 256).
=1523.= About eight miles from Bath is a village, Farleigh-Hungerford,
known locally as Farleigh Castle from the extensive ruins of what was
once a proud castle full of life and movement. As the name denotes,
the Castle was the seat—one of the seats—of the Hungerford family,
established at Heytesbury so far back as the twelfth century. In 1369
the Hungerford of his day, Sir Thomas Hungerford, purchased the manor
of Farleigh. In 1383 he obtained permission to convert the manor-house
into a castle. Sir Thomas made a great figure in the world: he is the
first person formally mentioned in the rolls of Parliament as holding the
office of Speaker.
Wandering among the vast ruins, the visitor, prompted by his guide-book,
will not fail to note the spot where was formerly a furnace. If there
is in all England a place where ghosts should walk, where the midnight
owl should hoot, it is in the ruins of Farleigh Castle. For, now nearly
four hundred years ago, Farleigh Castle was the scene of a terrible
crime, expiated, perhaps in part only, by the death on the scaffold of
one of the principal criminals, and of one or two of the abettors of an
over-reaching ambition, or of a lawless passion.
In the Chronicle of the Grey Friars is the following passage:—
=1523.= And this yere in Feuerelle the xxᵗʰ day was the lady Alys
Hungrford was lede from the Tower vn-to Holborne, and there put in-to
a carte at the church-yerde with one of hare seruanttes, and so carred
vn-to Tyborne, and there bothe hongyd, and she burryd at the Grayfreeres
in the nether end of the myddes of the churche on the northe syde.
Stow, who in his Annals has a marginal reference to this Chronicle, adds
a particular omitted by the earlier Chronicler—that the lady was executed
for the murder of her husband. The curiosity of antiquaries was naturally
excited by this story, half-revealed, half-concealed. The first discovery
made was of the inventory of the lady’s goods. This was printed in
_Archæologia_, vol. xxxviii. (1860). The goods fell into the hands of
the king by forfeiture: so it came about that an inventory existed. It
is a list of plate and jewels, of sumptuous hangings, “an extraordinary
collection of valuable property.”
Finally more of the story was disclosed by Mr. William John Hardy, in the
_Antiquary_ of December, 1880. It is one of the greatest interest.
The lady’s name is given as Alice, both by the chronicler and by Stow
in his Annals. Stow also, in a list of the monuments in the Grey Friars
church, mentions one to “Alice Lat Hungerford, hanged at Tiborne for
murdering her husband” (Survey, ed. Thoms, p. 120).
But the lady’s name was not Alice, but Agnes. She was the second wife of
Sir Edward Hungerford, who was first married to Jane, daughter of John
Lord Zouche of Haryngworth. The date of the death of Sir Edward’s first
wife is not known. If we knew it there might arise a new suspicion. Nor
do we know the date of Sir Edward’s second marriage, but it must have
been not earlier than the latter half of 1518.
Sir Edward Hungerford was one of the great ones of the land. In 1517 he
was sheriff for Wilts: in 1518 for Somerset and Dorset. In 1520 he was
present at the Field of the Cloth of Gold. In 1521 he was in Commission
of the Peace for Somerset.
We have seen that the original seat of the family was at Heytesbury,
in Wilts, distant from Farleigh about twelve miles, and here Sir
Edward commonly lived. In addition to Farleigh Castle, Sir Edward
possessed a great London house, standing with its gardens where now is
Charing Cross station. From this house were named Hungerford Street
and Hungerford Stairs. On the site of the house and garden was built
by a later Hungerford, in the reign of Charles II., Hungerford Market,
which continued till the site was taken for the railway station.
The foot-bridge over the Thames, starting from this point, was known
as Hungerford Bridge, a name still sometimes given to its successor,
the existing railway bridge. It was in Hungerford Street that Charles
Dickens, a child of ten, began life by sticking labels on blacking
bottles.
Sir Edward made his will on December 14, 1521. By it, after leaving
legacies to certain churches and friends, “the residue of all my goods,
debts, cattalls, juells, plate, harnesse, and all other moveables
whatsoever they be, I freely geve and bequeth to Agnes Hungerforde my
wife.” She was also appointed sole executrix. Sir Edward died on January
24, 1522, six weeks after making this will.
The husband murdered was not Sir Edward Hungerford, but a first husband,
John Cotell. The outlines of the story are given by Mr. Hardy from the
Coram Rege Roll for Michaelmas term, 14 Henry VIII.:—
“On the Monday next after the feast of S. Bartholomew, in the 14th
year of the now king (25 August, 1522), at Ilchester, before John Fitz
James and his fellow-justices of oyer and terminer for the county of
Somerset, William Mathewe, late of Heytesbury, in the county of Wilts,
yeoman, William Inges, late of Heytesbury, in the county aforesaid,
yeoman, [were indicted for that] on the 26th July, in the 10th year of
the now Lord the King (1518), with force and arms made an assault upon
John Cotell, at Farley, in the county of Somerset, by the procurement
and abetting of Agnes Hungerford, late of Heytesbury, in the county of
Wilts, widow, at that time the wife of the aforesaid John Cotell. And a
certain linen scarf called a kerchier (quandam flameam lineam vocatam
‘a kerchier’) which the aforesaid William and William then and there
held in their hands, put round the neck of the aforesaid John Cotell,
and with the aforesaid linen scarf him, the said John Cotell, then and
there feloniously did throttle, suffocate, and strangle, so that the
aforesaid John Cotell immediately died, and so the aforesaid William
Maghewe [Mathewe] and William Inges, by the procurement and abetting
of the aforesaid Agnes, did then and there feloniously murder, &c.,
the aforesaid John Cotell, against the peace of the Lord the King, and
afterwards the aforesaid William, and William, the body of the aforesaid
John Cotell did then and there put into a certain fire in the furnace of
the kitchen in the Castle of Farley aforesaid, and the body of the same
John in the fire aforesaid in the Castle of Farley aforesaid, in the
county of Somerset aforesaid, did burn and consume.”
The indictment charged that Agnes Hungerford, otherwise called Agnes
Cotell, late of Heytesbury, in the county of Wilts, widow, late the wife
of the aforesaid John Cotell, well knowing that the aforesaid William
Mathewe and William Inges had done the felony and murder aforesaid, did
receive, comfort and aid them on 28th December, 1518.
Such was the indictment, “which said indictment the now Lord the
King afterwards for certain reasons caused to come before him to be
determined, &c.” All three accused were committed to the Tower of London;
“and now, to wit, on Thursday next after the quinzaine of St. Martin
(November 27, 1522), in the same term, before the Lord the King at
Westminster, in their proper persons came the aforesaid William Mathewe,
William Inges, and Agnes Hungerford, brought here to the bar by Sir
Thomas Lovell, Knight, Constable of the Tower of London, by virtue of the
writ of the Lord the King to him thereupon directed.”
So they were brought to trial, and all found guilty. William Mathewe and
Lady Agnes Hungerford were sentenced to be hanged; William Inges pleaded
benefit of clergy. The plea was contested on the ground that he had
committed bigamy, by which he lost his right to claim his clergy. The
question was referred to the Bishop of Salisbury, who proved that Inges
was a bigamist, and Inges was therefore also sentenced to be hanged.
There is no record of a third execution; the servant hanged at the same
time as Lady Agnes Hungerford was therefore William Mathewe.
The story is still incomplete: it may be hoped that records somewhere
exist the discovery of which will tell us more. It will be observed
that Lady Hungerford was indicted, not for the murder of her husband,
but for receiving, comforting, and aiding, five months after the fact,
those who, by her procurement, had murdered him. What was the nature
of the comfort and aid thus given? Had something of the story leaked
out, and was Lady Hungerford compelled to protect the murderers? Again,
what part in the tragedy was played by Sir Edward? It is clear that at
the time of the murder Agnes Cotell was supreme at Farleigh Castle. She
brought over from Sir Edward’s other house the two men who committed
the deed; she was so fully in command of Farleigh Castle that she could
secure the use of the furnace for disposing of the body of the murdered
man. It is not difficult to divine what were the relations between Sir
Edward and the wife of Cotell, who was probably employed in some capacity
on the estate. How did Agnes Cotell account for his disappearance? And
not his disappearance only; as a preliminary step towards the marriage,
Sir Edward must have been satisfied that Cotell was dead. Did he know
the nature of his death? Had he a share in this great crime, or was he
merely the helpless victim of an ambitious woman, bent on obtaining a
great position, and reckless as to the means to be employed to obtain
it? There may have been in Sir Edward a tendency towards degeneracy;
his son by the first wife was executed at the Tower in 1540 for an
abnormal crime. But if Sir Edward was ignorant of the murder, there must
have been suspicions, perhaps necessitating the active interference of
Lady Hungerford when she received, comforted, and aided the murderers.
There must have been whispers, rising to open denunciation when Lady
Hungerford’s protector, her husband, all-powerful in the county, had
quitted the scene. For more than three years justice was blind and
deaf, but only seven months after Sir Edward’s death the criminals were
indicted. If we take into account the imperfect means of communication
then existing, we shall find reason to believe that the law must have
been set in motion very soon after Sir Edward’s death.