Barnard Castle often changed masters during the middle ages. Upon the forfeiture of the unfortunate John Baliol, the first king of Scotland of that family, Edward I. seized this fortress among the other English estates of his refractory vassal. It was afterwards vested in the Beauchamps of Warwick, and in the Staffords of Buckingham, and was also sometimes in the possession of the Bishops of Durham, and sometimes in that of the crown. Richard III. is said to have enlarged and strengthened its fortifications, and to have made it for some time his principal residence, for the purpose of bridling and suppressing the Lancastrian faction in the northern counties. From the Staffords, Barnard Castle passed, probably by marriage, into the possession of the powerful Nevilles, Earls of Westmoreland, and belonged to the last representative of that family when he engaged with the Earl of Northumberland in the ill-concerted insurrection of the twelfth of Queen Elizabeth. Upon this occasion, however, Sir George Bowes of Sheatlam, who held great possessions in the neighbourhood, anticipated the two insurgent earls, by seizing upon and garrisoning Barnard Castle, which he held out for ten days against all their forces, and then surrendered it upon honourable terms. See Sadler's State Papers, vol. II. p. 330. In a ballad, contained in Percy's Reliques of Ancient Poetry, vol. I. the siege is thus commemorated :—

Then Sir George Bowes he straight way rose,

After them some spoyle to make;

These noble erles turned back againe,

And aye they vowed that knight to take.
8

That baron he to his castle fled,

To Barnard Castle then fled he;
The uttermost walles were eathe to won,
The erles have wonne them presentlie.

The uttermost walles were lime and bricke;
But though they won them soon anone,
Long ere they wan the innermost walles,
For they were cut in rock and stone.

By the suppression of this rebellion, and the consequent forfeiture of the Earl of Westmoreland, Barnard Castle reverted to the crown, and was sold or leased out to Car, Earl of Somerset, the guilty and unhappy favourite of James I. It was afterwards granted to Sir Henry Vane the Elder, and was therefore, in all probability, occupied for the Parliament, whose interest during the civil war was so keenly espoused by the Vanes. It is now, with the other estates of that family, the property of the Right Honourable Earl of Darlington.

Note II.

-no human ear,

Unsharpen'd by revenge and fear,

Could e'er distinguish horse's clank, &c.-P. 13.

I have had occasion to remark, in real life, the effect of keen and fervent anxiety in giving acuteness to the organs of sense. My gifted friend, Miss Joanna Baillie, whose dramatic works display such intimate acquaintance with the operations of human passion, has not omitted this remarkable circumstance:

VOL. VII.

I

"De Montfort. (Off his guard) 'Tis Rezenvelt; I heard his well-known foot!

From the first stair-case mounting step by step.

Freb. How quick an ear thou hast for distant sound! I heard him not.

[De Montfort looks embarrassed, and is silent.”

Note III.

The morion's plumes his visage hide,

And the buff-coat in ample fold

Mantles his form's gigantic mould.-P. 14.

The use of complete suits of amour was fallen into disuse during the civil war, though they were still worn by leaders of rank and importance." In the reign of King James I." says our military antiquary," no great alterations were made in the article of defensive armour, except that the buff-coat, or jerkin, which was originally worn under the cuirass, now became frequently a substitute for it, it having been found that a good buff leather would of itself resist the stroke of a sword; this, however, only occasionally took place among the light-armed cavalry and infantry, complete suits of armour being still used among the heavy horse. Buff-coats continued to be worn by the city trained-bands till within the memory of persons now living, so that defensive armour may in some measure be said to have terminated in the same materials with which it began, that is, the skins of animals or leather."-GROSE's Military Antiquities, Lond. 1801, 4to. vol. II. p. 323.

Of the buff-coats, which were worn over the corslet, several are yet preserved, and Captain Grose has given an engraving of

1

one which was used in the time of Charles I. by Sir Francis Rhodes, Bart. of Balbrcugh-Hall, Derbyshire. They were usually lined with silk or linen, secured before by buttons, or by a lace, and often richly decorated with gold or silver embroidery. From the following curious account of a dispute respecting a buff-coat between an old round-head captain and a justice of peace, by whom his arms were seized after the Restoration, we learn that the value and importance of this defensive garment were considerable. "A party of horse came to my house, commanded by Mr Peebles; and he told me he was come for my arms, and that I must deliver them. I asked him for his order. He told me he had a better order than Oliver used to give; and, clapping his hand upon his sword hilt, he said that was his order. I told him, if he had none but that, it was not sufficient to take my arms; and then he pulled out his warrant, and I read it. It was signed by Wentworth Armitage, a general warrant to search all persons they suspected, and so left the power to the soldiers at their pleasure. They came to us at Coalley-Hall, about sun-setting; and I caused a candle to be lightd, and conveyed Peebles into the room where my arms were; my arms were near the kitchen fire; and there they took away fowling-pieces, pistols, muskets, carbines, and such like, better than 20l. Then Mr Peebles asked me for my buffcoat; and I told him they had no order to take away my apparel. He told me I was not to dispute their orders; but if I would not deliver it, he would carry me away prisoner, and had me out of doors. Yet he let me alone unto the next morning,

that I must wait upon Sir John, at Halifax ; and coming before him, he threatened me, and said, if I did not send the coat, for it was too good for me to keep. I told him it was not in his power to demand my apparel; and he, growing into a fit, called me rebel and traitor, and said if I did not send the coat with all speed, he would send me where I did not like well. I told him I was no rebel, and he did not well to call me so before these soldiers and gentlemen, to make me the mark for every one to shoot at. I departed the room, yet, notwithstanding all the threatenings, did not send the coat. But the next day he sent John Lyster, the son of Mr Thomas Lyster, of Shipden-Hall, for this coat, with a letter verbatim thus; Mr Hodgson, I admire you will play the child so with me as you have done, in writing such an inconsiderate letter. Let me have the buff-coat sent forthwith, otherwise you shall so hear from me as will not very well please you." I was not at home when this messenger came; but I had ordered my wife not to deliver it, but if they would take it, let them look to it; and he took it away; and one of Sir John's brethren wore it many years after. They sent Captain Batt to compound with my wife about it ; but I sent word I would have my own again; but he advised me to take a price for it, and make no more ado. I said it was hard to take my arms and apparel too; I had laid out a great deal of money for them; I hoped they did not mean to destroy me, by taking my goods illegally from me. He said he would make up the matter, if I pleased, betwixt us; and, it seems, had brought Sir John to a price for my coat. I would not have taken 107. for it; he would have given about 4%; but wanting