Production Note Cornell University Library pro- duced this volume to replace the irreparably deteriorated original. It was scanned using Xerox soft- ware and equipment at 600 dots per inch resolution and com- pressed prior to storage using CCITT Group 4 compression. The digital data were used to create Cornell's replacement volume on paper that meets the ANSI Stand- ard Z39.48-1984. The production of this volume was supported in part by the Commission on Prés- ervation and Access and the Xerox Corporation. Digital file copy- right by Cornell University Library 1992.A CHRONICLE OF ENGLAND DURING THE REIGNS OF THE TUDORS, FROM A.D. 1485 TO 1559. BY CHARLES WRIOTHESLEY, WINDSOR HERALD. EDITIiD, FROM A MS. IN THE POSSESSION OF LIEUT.-GENERAL LORD HENRY H. M. RERCY, K.C.B., V.C., F.R.G.S., WILLIAM DOUGLAS HAMILTON, F.S.A. VOLUME I. PRINTED FOR THE CAMDEN SOCIETY. M.DCCC.LXXV.WESTMINSTER i PRINTED BY J. B. NICHÛLS AND SONS, 25, PARLIAMENT STREET. [NEW SERIES XI.]COTOCIL OF THE CAMDËN SOCIETY FOR THE YEAR 1874-75. President, THE RIGHT HON. THE EARL OF VERULAM, F.R.G.S. ^J IAM CHAPPELL, ESQ. F.S.A., Preasurer. WILLIAM DURRANT COOPER, ESQ. F.S.A- HENRY CHARLES COOTE, ESQ. F.S.A. FREDERICK WILLIAM COSENS, ESQ. JAMES GAIRDNER, ESQ. SAMUEL RAWSON GARDINER, ESQ., Director. ALFRED KINGSTON, ESQ., Secretary. SIR JOHN MACLEAN, F.S.A. FREDERIC OUVRY, ESQ. V.P. S.A. JAMES ORCHARD PHILLIPPS, ESQ. F.R.S. F.S.A. EDWARD RIMBAULT, LL.D. REV. W. SPARROW SIMPSON, D.D. F.S.A JAMES SPEDDING, ESQ. WILLIAM JOHN THOMS, ESQ. F.S.A. J. R. DANIEL-TYSSEN, ESQ.The Council of the Càmden Society desire it to be under- stood that they are not answerable for any opinions or observa- tions that may appear in the Society’s publications ; the Editors of the several Works being alone responsible for the same.INTBODUCTION, In its main features this History may be described as a continua- tion of “ The Customes of London/’ by Richard Arnold, from which the earlier portion, Le. as far as the llth year of Henry VIII., is a mere plagiarism. After that date the Chronicle becomes original, and contains much valuable information. From internai evidence it would appear to be the work of a scholar, and to hâve been written contemporaneously, the events being jotted down from day to day as they occurred. The characteristic of City Chronicles is maintained throughout by the adoption of the civic year, marking the term of office of each Lord Mayor instead of the régnai year of the sovereign, thus causing an apparent confusion in the chro- nology. This form was probably adopted by our author as he found it already employed by Richard Arnold, whose reign of Henry YII. he made the commencement of his history, with but slight variations, for the reasons subsequently explained. It has therefore been thought advisable to retain this peculiar division of the year in the text, but in the margin the Anno Domini and régnai years hâve been added in their correct places, so that the reader will expérience but little inconvenience from this dévia- tion from the ordinary chronology. Whether the author of the Chronicle placed the régnai year in its présent position in the text as synonymous with Lord Mayor’s Day, or whether it was afterwards transferred thither from the margin by the copyist, is an open question. In the earlier éditions of most City Chronicles the name of the new Lord Mayor and sheriffs for the succeeding year are inserted in a blank space in the text left for this purpose in the CAMD. SOC. b11 INTRODUCTION. month of November ; but, when such chronicles or historiés became more widely known, the editor or transcriber frequently omitted the names of these civic dignitari^s, and inserted in their stead the régnai year of the sovereign, thus giving a rough approximation to the chronology, for in no instance did the accession of the sovereign occur exactly on the same day of the month as Lord Mayor’s Day. It is not necessary to follow this investigation further, but the mention of it was essential as affording the first step in the evidence as to the authenticity and authorship of the Chronicle. There is no doubt then as to its being one of those numerous City Chronicles which were at this period so often kept by intelligent Londoners for their own satisfaction and the perusal of their friends and descendants, without any ultçrior intention of publication. In this instance, the MS., which has been preserved amongst the family archives of the noble house of Percy, is not the original but a transcript of the time of James I. bearing no trace of the author’s name, or indication of the time at which he lived. We are conse- quently compelled to fall back on internai evidence, and fortunately several incidental allusions made by thè author to his own family connections furnish us with the desired information. The most direct and valuable of these is a passage in which he daims relation- ship with the great statesman of Henry the Eighth’s reign, Lord Chancellor Wriothesley, afterwards, on 16th February, 1547, created Earl of Southampton: “ Thisyeare [1540], in Aprill, my cosin Mr. Thomas Wriosley was made the Kinges Secretarie, and Mr. Sadler, of the Privie Chamber, joyned with him^ and were booth made knightes also.” It is likewise very clear from the context that the writer held some official post, which brought him into contact with the Earl Marshal’s and Lord Stewards departments, for he not only par- ticularises which of the Heralds took part in certain public céré- monials, and the names and precedence of the illustrious guests who were présent at the city and court banquets, but spécifiés theINTRODUCTION. 111 number of dishes and even the dress of the ladies. Such infor- mation could only be acquired by one who was présent to witness these proceedings. Now such opportunity was enjoyed by the members of the College of Arms, who, as we are informed by Noble,a had a stage appropriated to their use, at the “right end’* of the table, at ail banquets. We can thus hâve little difficulty in determining the name of the author of the Chronicle, who was also a résident of the City of London. On turning to the list of Heralds in the reign of Henry VIII- we find that Sir Thomas Wrythe or Wriothesley was Garter Principal King at Arms from 26th Jan. 1505 till 24th Nov. 1534, and that his son Charles Wriothesley was created Windsor Herald on Christmas Day 1534, by patent dated lst Jan. following. Whilst the latter held this office, says Noble,b he saw four sovereigns upon the English throne ; these were Henry VIII., Edward VI., Mary, and Elizabeth, in the second year of whose reign this Chronicle terminâtes. He succeeded Thomas Wall as Rouge-croix pursuivant in 1524, a short time after he had been appointed Berwick pursui- vant, and, as he was born in 1508, he must hâve been under sixteen years of âge when he entered on his public career. According to the custom of those times, our author attached himself to the person or service of Lord Chancellor Audley, whom he looked up to as his patron, of which circumstance we are in- formed by his reference to that statesman on several occasions as “ his lord and master,” and of whom the last mention occurs at page 147, where our author writes “ The 30th day of Aprill, 1544, Sir Thomas Awdley, knight, Lord of Walden and Chancellor of England, my late lord and master, departed this worldly life at his place of Christes Church in London.” Subsequently we meet with such expressions as “ my lord great master,” “ my great master,” and “ my great master’s house;” but these are to be under- stood as only designating the Lord Steward of the King’shousehold, a Hist. College of Arms, p. 103. l> Page 121.IV INTRODUCTION. especially Lord St. John, who filled that higli office in the latter part of the reign of Henry VIII. and was generally styled the Lord Great Master of the King’s household. At the tirne of his entering upon life our author’s uncle, William Wrythe or Wriothesley, the elder brother of Sir Thomas (Garter), was York Herald, and it was his son Thomas, subsequently Lord Chancellor, wliom our author, in the above quoted passage, daims as his cousin. As the Chancellor’s fortunes had a marked influence on the life of our author, which is even noticeable in his writings, a brief sketch of his biography will not be here entirely out of place. The earliest notice of this Thomas we hâve met with is in the 27th of Henry VIII. when he was made Coroner and Attorney in the Court of Common Pleas, and in three years afterwards, being tlien one of the principal Secretaries of State (see p. 115), he was sent ambassador to treat of a marriage between the King and Christiana, second daugh- ter of the King of Denmark. Although unsuccessful in this mission, he managed it with such tact as not to give offence to his royal master; in this, more happy than his fellow-minister Crumwell, wTho for procuring the hand of Anne of Cleves for his imperious lord was ordered to execution by the summary process of an Act of Attainder without a trial. It was no easy task to serve such a “ gallant prince,” but our knight continued to prosper during ail the long reign of “ our king and emperor.” In 1541, subsequently to his having received the honour of knighthood (see p. 115), he was made Constable of the Castle of Southampton. He was soon after accredited as one of the Commissioners to treat with the Emperor Charles V. and he was elevated to the peerage by letters patent dated lst January 1544, by the title of Baron Wriothesley of Titchfield, Hants, which, being one of the monasteries then dis- solved? he obtained by grant from the Crown. Soon after this, upon the decease of Lord Audley, the “ lord and master ” of our cnronicler, Lord Wriothesley was constituted Lord Chancellor of England (see page 147), and the same year he was made a Knight of the Garter. (See page 154). He was subsequently appointed byINTRODUCTION. V King Henry one ofhis executors (see page 179), and named of the Council to the young Edward VI., three days before whose corona- tion lie was created Earl of Southampton, by letters patent dated 16th February, 1547. His Lordship did not long, however, main- tain his influence in this reign. Prior to the accession of the boy king he was opposed to the Duke of Somerset, and he had little chance, under the new order of aflairs, of sustaining himself against so powerful a rival. The Earl, in order that he might hâve the greater leisure to attend to other business, had, ofhis own authority as it would seem, put the great seal into commission, and had empowered four lawyers, two of whom were canonists, to execute, in his absence, the duties of his high office. Complaints of this irregularity were made to the Council, which, influenced by the Protector Somerset, readily seized the opportunity to disgrâce him. The judges were consulted upon the occasion, and gave it as their opinion that the commission was illégal, and that the Chan- cellor, by his presumption in granting it, had justly forfeited the great seal and had even subjected himself to punishment. He was consequently required to deliver up the great seal (see page 183), and having paid his fine was ordered to confine himself to his own house during the King’s pleasure. This eminent person’s position as a reformer, it may be observed, was within the bounds of Henry the Eighth’s reforms, and in this he was in sympathy with the position taken by our chronicler, but his opinions were not sufficiently advanced for the ultra-Protestant régime of Edward VI. He was accustomed to observe, that “ force awed, but justice governed the world;” and that “ he loved a bishop to satisfy his conscience, a lawyer to guide his judgment, a good family to keep up his interest, and an University to preserve his name.” Not long after the fall of his illustrious cousin our author would appear to hâve withdrawn himself from public life, for he no longer speaks familiarly of “ my Lord May or,” “ my Lord Chancellor,” or “ my lord great master,” as if personally acquainted with the officialVI INTRODUCTION. personages, but simply as the Lord Mayor, &c. In the second part of this Chronicle occurs an entry* under the year 1550, recording the death of the ex-Lord Chancellor. “ Mémorandum, the 30th of July, Sir Thomas Wriothesley, Lord Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, and Knight of the Garter, and one of the executors of King Henry VIII., departed out of this transitory life at his place in Holborn called Lincoln’s Place, about midnight; he had been long sicke, and the 3rd of August in the forenoon he was buried in St. Andrew’s Church in Holborn at the right hand of the high alter ; Mr. Hooper, Bishop of Gloucester, preaching at the burial.” “ I had never seen,” observes Noble,a “ any other child of William Wriothesley mentioned than this Sir Thomas, Earl of Southampton, K.G., until I read the will of that fortunate states- man, where he notices his sisters Breten, Pounde, and Lawrence, to each of whom he gives legacies,” as he does likewise to other more distant relations, including his cousin Charles, our author, to whom he bequeathed 20£., a sum equal to about 2501. of our money. The Chancellor left to succeed him a son Henry, the account ol whose christening is given by our author at page 154, “ This year, 1545, on St. George’s day,. Sir Thomas Wriothesley, Lord Chan- cellor, was made Knight of the Garter at St. James by West- minster, and the morrowe, being St. Markes Even, he had a sonne christned at St. Andrewes in Holborne with great solempnity, the Kinges Majestie godfather, the Erle of Essex [being] deputy for the Kinge, the Duke of Suffolke the other godfather, my Lady Mary (the Princess Mary) godmother at the christninge, and the Earle of Arundell godfather at the bishopinge; the name Henry.” This young nobleman inherited the estâtes and title of Earl of South- ampton in 1550. He was the first cousin, once removed, from our author, but his religion and politics were of the opposite school, so that the two seem to hâve had but little intercommunication. Henry is well known to hâve been an intimate friend of Thomas * Hist. of College of Arms.INTRODUCTION. VU Duke of Norfolk, and involved himself in trouble by promoting the contemplated marriage of that nobletnan with Mary Queen of Scots, “ to whom and her religion,” says Dugdale, “ he stood not a little affected.” The origin of the Wriothesleys, like that of many other illustrious families, is involved in obscurity.a Ail we can say for certain is, that the common grandfather of our chronicler and of the first Earl of Southampton was Sir John Wrythe, who at a very early âge was brought to the Court of Henry Y., and was made by that sovereign Antelope Pursuivant Extraordinary, afterwards Eouge-croix in Or- dinary, and then Faucon Herald, which office he received from Henry VI. He wasappointed Norroy Jan. 25th, 1476, and created on Candlemas day following by Edward IV., which monarch also, upon the death of John Smert, gave him the place of Garter King at Arms, July 16th, 1478, being the third who had enjoyed that office. This préféraient laid the foundation in his family of that distinction which the Wrythes or Wriothesleys afterwards attained. He had 40Z. yearly settled upon him, payable out of the Petit Customs of London, and at the accession of Henry VII. received a douceur of 80L together with a tabard (or herald’s coat), in order that he might be présent at the coronation of that monarch. The next year he was sent to the King of the Romans ; in his third year to Ireland ; in the following one to Bretagne. In the sixth of this reign he took the Order of the Garter to Maximilian I., King of the Romans, afterwards Emperor of Germany, and in the ninth he was sent with the Garter to Charles VIII., King of France. 1 Segar, in his MS. Baronagiüm, Part III., in the College of Arms, traces the family up to A.D. 1214, as in the following table :— Robert Wriothesley.=j=Lucie, daughter to Palton. I------------1 Wm. Wriothesley, s. and h.=j=Nichola, d. to Peter de Fontaville. _____________i Wm. Wriothesley, s. and h.=ÿ=Agnes, d. to Robt. Giles. r_-------------------------1 Sir John Wriothesley,—Barbara, d. and h. to Januarius Dunstanville, Garter. a descendant of King Henry I.Vlll INTRODUCTION. During the early part of the year 1504, only four years before the birth of his grandson, the author of our Chronicle, he was buried in the choir of St. Giles’s Church without Cripplegate, London, where he was laid in “a fair torab,” with his effigies and epitaph in brass inlaid. He must hâve been a very old man at his death, as it was more than sixty years from the time of his having been created a Pursuivant. Having no paternal arms, he took Azuré, a cross or, between four falcons argent, in memory of his having been Falcon Herald. He often varied his crest, if not his arms, says Noble,a but he always made the former allusive to his office ; his motto was “ Humble and Serviceable.” In compliment to him, who had been at the head of their incorporation, the Heralds’ College hâve adopted his arms as their own, changing the colours. Mr. Dalla- way, in his élégant work, has given a portrait of Sir John on horseback, taken in 1511 from a Tournament Roll in the Heralds’ College. He is represented in a brown or sad-coloured robe, and over it his tabard, with a verge or sceptre in his hand, and upori his head is a cap, which, on account of his great âge, he had obtained licence to wear. He married thrice: first Barbara, daughter and sole heir of John de Castlecomb, or, as he is by some called, Janua- rius de Castlecomb alias Dunstanville, a lineal descendant of one of the illegitimate sons of Henry I., by which marriage he greatly augmented his riches and honour, and had presented to him four children, two sons and two daughters. The elder of these sons was William, who became York Herald, and father of Sir Thomas, Earl of Southampton, K. G. ; and the younger, Sir Thomas, who succeeded his father as Garter, and was the father of our chronicler. „ Sir John’s second wife was Eleanor, daughter of Thomas Arnold, Esq., by Agnes his second wife, and sister and sole heir of Richard Arnold, Esq. She was buried in the choir of St. Giles’s Church, Cripplegate, and had this inscription upon her grave-stone: “ Elienor, wyff of John Wrythe, Esq. daughter of Thos. Arnold, a Noble’s College of Arms, p. 81.INTRODUCTION. IX Esq.” By her, Garter had three children, a son John, who died young, and two daughters, Agnes, a nun at Sion, and Barbara, married to Anthony Hungerford, son of Sir Thomas Hungerford of Down Ampney in Wilts, knight. Sir John’s third wife was Ann Mynne, probably a relative of John Mynne, York Herald, by whom he had two children, Margaret, married to Mr. Yaughan, and Isabel, married to William Gough, and secondly to John Davers, Esq. of Worming-hall, co. Bucks. It is, however, with Sir John’s second wife, Eleanor, that we are chiefly interested; she was, as we are told by Noble,a the sister and heir of Bichard Arnold. Now Bichard Arnold, according to Hearne, was the author of the Chronicle indifferently known as “ The Customes of London,” u The Chronicle of the City of London,” and “ Arnold’s Chronicle,” of which the earlier portion of the présent Chronicle, embracing the reign of Henry VII. and the first eleven years of Henry VIII., is little more than a paraphrase. This is confirmatory of the supposition that the writer was Charles Wriothesley. It is also remarkable that the name of Bichard Arnold’s wife was Alice, and that our author’s wife should also hâve been Alice ; but whether she were the same lady does not appear. So far as the dates serve, it is quite possible that Charles Wriothesley might hâve married his grandfather’s second wife’s brother’s widow. The only reference made by our author to his wife is at page 108, where, speaking of the suppression of Barking Abbey, he writes, u this howse with the demeanes was geaven to Sir Thomas Denis, knight, of Devonshire, and to his heires for eaver, which Sir Thomas Denis hath to wife my ladie Murffen, sometyme wief to Mr. Murfen, late May or of London, and daughter to Mr. Angell Dunne, and sometime mistress to Alis my wife that now (1539) is;” from which expression we might infer that Alice was his second wife, and not the daughter of Mr. Mallory mentioned in the MS. genealogy in a Noble’s College of Arms, p. 83. CAMD. SOC. CX INTRODUCTION. the College of Arms. It would likewise appear that the writer was contemporary with Thomas Murfin or Murfen, whom he speaks of as late mayor. Now Thomas Mirfin was Lord Mayor in 1518, which is two years prior to the date at which the second édition of Arnold’s Chronicle breaks off, and ten years subséquent to the birth of our author. It does not appear that Charles Wriothesley had any children. He had many books, which had probably been his father’s, but he kept them, says Stow, 6i too long from the sight of the learned.” At his death Sir William Dethick-, Garter, purchased most of them, including possibly the original MS. of this Chronicle, but which I hâve not been able to discover. The transcript from which our text is derived was probably made for the Wriothesleys Earls of Southampton, and came, through the marriage of Elizabeth, daughter and co-heiress of Thomas Wriothesley, Earl of Southamp- ton, with Josceline Percy, the eleventh and last Earl of Northum- berland of the male line of the Percies, into the possession of that family. It is known to hâve belonged to George fifth Duke of Northumberland when Earl of Beverley, to whom it is supposed to hâve corne from his grandmother the heiress of Alnwick and Syon, and was in his library in 11, Portman Square ; at the division of whose books and library it fell to the share of its présent owner. The Wriothesleys would appear to hâve been a literary family, or, besides their connection with Richard Arnold, the chronicler of London, Stow tells us that Sir John Wryth (the grandfather of our chronicler), whom he misspells “ Sir John Ryst,” made a remark- able note of the Chartæ Regiæ, or Royal Charters, granted to divers abbeys and colleges, which he gathered together in a book by com- mandment at the suppression of the monasteries, which book he left, with divers such like monuments, to his heirs. His son Sir Thomas, who likewise filled the office of Garter, is recorded by Noble a to hâve also written and collected many MS S., chiefly bearing on his official employment. The orthography of his name appears to hâve given him much perplexity, for he continually varied his a Noble’s College of Arms, p. 109.INTRODUCTION. XI signature, at times writing himself Thomas Wr. of Crick[lade], from his place of abode, at other times Wrye Wallingford and Wryst Wallingford, the suffix being borrowed from his office of Wallingford Pursuivant, which he held under Arthur Prince of Wales; and subsequently he signed himself Wreseley, Writhesley, and Wriothesley, almost indifferently.a Queen Katharine Parr, writing to a lady of his family, spells the name Wreseley, but the Earls of Southampton adopted the spelling of Wriothesley. Upon his élévation to the office of Garter, Sir Thomas came to résidé in London, and built for himself a fair house without the postern of Cripplegate. Stow, in his “ Survey,” gives the foliowing very in- teresting description of the site of the family mansion :—“ In Eed Cross Street, on the west side from St. Giles’s churchyard up to the cross, there be many fair houses built outward, with divers alleys turning into a large plot of ground, called the Jews’ Garden, as being the only place appointed them in England wherein to bury their dead, till the year 1177, the 24th of Henry II. that it was permitted to them, after long suit to the King and Parliament at Oxford, to hâve a spécial place assigned them in every quarter where they dwelt. This plot of ground remained to the said Jews till the time of their final banishment out of England, and is now turned into fair garden plots and summer-houses for pleasure. And on the west side of the Eed Cross is a Street called the Barbican, because sometirne there stood, on the north side thereof, a burgh-kenin, or watch-tower, of the City, called in some language (or dialect) a barbican, as a bikening is called a beacon.b This burgh-kenning, by the name of the Manor of Base-Court, was given by Edward III. a At the accession of Henry VIII. he obtained, October 9, 1509, a new patent, in which he is designated Thomas Wriothesley alias Writhe late called Wallingford, son of John Wriothesley alias Writhe late called Gartier. See Rot. Pat. 1 Hen. VIII. Part. 2, m. 16. b The dérivation of Barbican is evidently from the two Anglo-Saxon words “bnrh,” a city, and “beacen” or “ becun,” a beacon, signifying the City watch- tower.Xll INTRODUCTION. to Robert Ufford Earl of Suffolk, and was lately appertaining to Peregrine Bertie, Lord Willougliby of Eresby.