Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

the queen daunce in her privie chamber." This last charge of disrespect to royalty was dexterously retorted by Arundel: for Oxford, through Leicester's influence, stood well with the queen. He testifies to the Earl's " raylinge at (Francis Southwell) for comendinge the queene's singinge one night at Hampton Court, protestinge by the blud of God, that she had the worst voyce and did every thinge with the worst grace that ever any womā did."

Arundel's main charge against Oxford is an extraordinary production of malignity. It begins: "To reporte at large all the viceis of this monsterous Earell were a labour without end, bycause they are so manye, so vile, and so scandalus, that it should be paine to write them and lost time to read them." Nevertheless, he goes on to attack his character at great length. "And first I will detecte him of the most impudent and sencelesse lies that ever past the mouth of any man-divers of a million at the least that hathe past his tongue." The second count is that "he is a notorious drunkerd and verye seldome sober;" whereupon the writer proceeds to rake up all the foolish things the Earl ever said over his cups. Then follows a circumstantial and startling account of his unnatural practices. Fourthly, we have his "detestable practices of hireid' murders." These, however, seem only to have comprised shooting a man's hat off with a caliver; giving a servant £100 to escape from justice; and a wild plot to have "Mr. Sidnei" murdered. Lastly, his blasphemies are repeated, both to show that the world "never brought forthe suche a villonous monster, and for a partinge blow to geve him his full payment." The alleged blasphemies comprise an allegorical interpretation of the Trinity, and a still more scandalous theory of the Incarnation. The "parting blow" is really contained in the peroration, "In him no vertue to be found and no vice wantinge."

A careful perusal of the State Papers of the reign of Elizabeth will show at once the enormous prevalence of privateering, and the exaggerated views of the Government on the subject. No national crime has ever, perhaps, been held more venial by the people them. selves. Restricted in every form of commercial enterprise, the sea was the only outlet for their pent-up energy. The feats which Drake performed in the queen's cause were emulated in their own by a hundred "village Drakes," and plentiful traces of them will be found in the reports of the commissioners of piracy. The officials, too, were accomplices with the people in this as well as in smuggling-for such the "piracies" generally amounted to and at the

1 So I read it. The Official Calendar has 'horrid,' which makes poor sense,

very time that the Spanish treasure taken by Drake was being stored in the Tower, a humble "pirate" was thrown into Exeter gaol for plundering a Spanish ship, and made his escape with the manifest connivance of the mayor and gaoler.

The following case, in the reign of Charles I., bears a greater resemblance to a modern smuggling outrage.

Thomas Gyar, mayor of Weymouth, and others, were found to be engaged in a gigantic smuggling enterprise, in the shape of exporting woollen goods free of duty, and importing French wines, and of other offences against the statute concerning the "exportation of goods and bullion, and the importation of trayterous and seditious bookes and pamphletts." When once at sea, they evaded search of their vessels "by the strong hand." But to embark illicit goods they contrived to have them "secretlie laden out of the backe doore (of Gyar's house), and carried through the fould or yard." Hence they conveyed them to the beach in carts. But one day they were intercepted by John Gardiner, a custom-house officer, who stopped them till the leader of the party, "with his then ryotous associates, did then and there violently sett upon the said John Gardiner, and did cruelly assault, beate, wounde, and bruise him, soe as his face appeared visibly to bee blacke, and very much bruised"—they all the while crying, "Kille the rogue! kill the rogue !" After which one of them, "in boasting and scoffing maner, shortlie after affirmed that John Gardiner did not loose all his labour in coming to the beache, for he had given him a dozen good knockes with his sworde for his paines."

Indeed, the good man did not "loose his labour," for he by making out a grievous case of assault and battery got £100 out of the Government as compensation. If every modern coast-guardsman who received a black eye in a skirmish were to obtain £500 as amends, what harrowing tales would be inflicted on the public ear!

The two last cases relate to ejectments, and the account given by the officials concerned must be considered as a little overdrawn, even if we admit the truth of the proverb-"the Englishman's house is his castle."

To execute, in the year 1625, a writ of ejectment issued against the tenant of "Gates and Glossomes," co. Sussex, the deputy sheriff went with a party to the house, but did not approach, as he was informed from the windows that the ground under his feet was mined, and that "provision had been made to blow up anie five hundred men." Thereupon the deputy "took to his heels" and repaired to the 1 Notably from Geneva,

sheriff, who came in person, but at once retreated on being told that it was intended to "kill and shoot" him. But meanwhile the deputy had brought up reinforcements in the shape of "one hundred inen and three justices of the peace." These, however, dared not approach, so a justice bearing the equivocal name of Sir John Wildgoose foolishly volunteered to carry terms to the rioters, and was promptly seized by them as a hostage. Not even the arrival of a hundred more "specials" and three "commissioners" could mend matters, for the defenders made a sally, armed with "long staves," and laid about them, inflicting "many cruel blows" and routing the whole company. The officials were content to report the matter to the "honorable court" that issued the writ.

The concluding case is that of an ejectment attempted to be served upon the tenant of the manor of Bradley. Here too an obstinate defence was made, the leader swearing "very deeply" that "if any did but offer to breake downe the walles" he would shoot the sheriff, "and soe thruste forthe a naked sworde out of windowe, and fyred of a pece." The sheriff then summoned six hundred men of the county, with two pieces of ordnance, and three justices of the peace. "But they in the house with gun and sword kept them off, to the great terror and amasement of them all;" and "having fortified the house in a very warlike manner," returned the fire of the cannon by "letting off six or seven musketts; and continued shooting all that day," though with more zeal than accuracy, it would seem, as they only hit three persons-the leg of one of whom was "broke almost a-peces." Finally the sheriff judged it wise to retire altogether.

The above are only a few scattered instances of a form of pert:nacious misrepresentation which, with all its circumstantial details, approaches closely to the most common delusions of subjective insanity. Such reckless charges and counter-charges have, indeed, lost much of their weight through the narrowed personal jurisdiction of the king in his chancery. We no longer hear of a claimant who bases his demands upon the convenient assertion that he well remembereth that the defendant's grandmother demised her estates to his own respectable ancestors by certain writings under her hand, as therein more at large appeareth, though where he has deposited But if this will not hold the same he for his part remembereth not. good, then, being in sore anguish of mind, and remembering not what he did, he put the same precious documents upon the fire.

I have by chance found that this worthy had just before incurred large liabilities by becoming bond for his brother-a notorious bankrupt.

H

Neither is there any longer occasion for the apt retort of the honourable court, that in their mind the plaintiff remembereth but what he liketh. Otherwise, the more charitable doctrine prevails of attributing these figurative licences to the highly poetical temperament of certain nationalities, or even to mere local aberrations from the fixed principles of dry narrative. Such, at least, is the case of the modern Essex peasant, who stoutly maintained under examination that his adversaries "hurled" his sister (then waiting to give, perhaps, similar evidence) "out of the field-and broke her back!"

It is only when we remember how many great events, and how many great characters in history, have been warped and blackened by what a modern scholar has called "the small-talk of dead gossips," that the subject wears a more serious aspect. In another direction, too, it may exert a warning influence, for we ourselves are engaged in "making history" no less than were our forefathers.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

IF

THE POETS' BIRDS.

IV. BIRDS OF OMEN AND SUPERSTITION.

Birds of omen, dark and foul,

Nightcrow, raven, bat, and owl.--Scott.

F there are any three "birds," as they call them, which poets are rude to, they are "the night raven, bat, and owl." The preposterous conjunction of a myth, a mammal, and a harmless bird, as typifying the horrific aspect of Night, is thoroughly poetical. But, after all, the night raven is the poets' own, and they are therefore at liberty to do what they like with it; while the bat, not being a bird at all, can afford to be generous to such misdirected animosity. the owl has very solid grounds for complaint indeed.

But

For myself, I trace the poets' dislike of this delightful bird to their intolerable affectation of thinking Night to be hateful. It is one of the poet's stock sentimentalisms; one of his original data of consciousness, that since Light is in itself salubrious and beautiful, and in its effects amiable and admirable, therefore Darkness is the reverse. He forgets that in Holy Writ, Night is specially mentioned with the Morning on each of the six days as pleasing to the Creator and satisfying Him. But, taking it for granted that they are therefore the children of Light, the poets make it a family matter to abuse Darkness and everything pertaining to it, even owls. They call Night a time of horrors, and even extend their objection to its colour, and speak of black as if it were the criminal of the paint-box. But, as a matter of fact, it might be contended that darkness is not favourable to horrors, and that a murder in broad daylight is far more shocking than one in the dead of night. Fancy is here opposed and contradicted by fact. "To be murdered in the dark saves the victim," it might very plausibly be argued, "half the horrors of violent death. It may rob the murdered man of the powers of defence and Justice But if his death was certain, it was of her revenge on the murderer. better for him that he should not see the act and its shocking accessories, the threatening weapon, the crimeful eyes, and the blood. Darkness really hushes up horror. Light, on the other hand, aggravates

« НазадПродовжити »