Page:Notes and Queries - Series 10 - Volume 11.djvu/372

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.
304
NOTES AND QUERIES.
[10 S. XI. APRIL 17, 1909

of Feversham' long held the stage; Shakespeare is thought to have had a hand in retouching the piece. A ballad telling the story is still extant. That nothing might be wanting, Arden was perhaps the first whose tragic fate was cited as proof of the widespread belief that evil befell those who held abbey lands.

The painter concerned in the first attempt on Arden's life fled, and was never more heard of. Nine persons paid with their lives for complicity in this great crime. One villain, own indifferently as Loosebag or Shakebag, took sanctuary, was decoyed thence, as it seems, and was murdered in Southwark. Black Will escaped for the time and got across the sea in an oyster boat, but was taken later and burnt on a scaffold at Flushing.

The rest met their fate at the hands of the justice of their country. One suffered unjustly. Bradshaw had unwittingly conveyed a criminal letter, but he had been a fellow-soldier of Black Will in Boulogne, and this sealed his fate.

Mistress Arden, the wife, and Elizabeth Stafford, a servant, were both burnt, as guilty of petty treason.

Michael Sanderson, also a servant, was drawn, hanged, and quartered as guilty of petty treason.

Mosbie, the lover, and his sister Cicely Founder, widow, were hanged in Smithfield.

Bradshaw, the innocent victim, and Greene, who had escaped, but was taken later, were hanged in chains.

Statements as to the several punishments, made in the various accounts do not quite tally; but the records of the Privy Council contain notes of instructions given with respect to each of the executions ordered. Twice the order is for Mosbie and Cicely Pounder to be hanged, while the order respecting Bradshaw and Greene is that they should be hanged in chains. Why this difference if the punishment were the same in the two cases, except that in one case the unimportant detail of hanging in chains after execution was meant?

We find the same feature in another great murder case occurring a little later. In 1555 Benedict or Benet Smith, Smyth, or Smythe was found guilty of hiring two men, John Spenser and Francis Conyers, to murder Giles Rufford. As the law then stood, a murderer could not claim his clergy, unless he were a clerk of the rank, at least, of subdeacon. But, not being the actual murderer, Smyth was in a position to claim his clergy. An Act (2 and 3 Phil. and Mary, c. 17) was passed to take away his benefit of clergy. It is a remarkable Act in the form of a narrative and petition by "Yor true Subjecte and dayly Oratrice Margerie Rufforde widowe."

From Machyn we learn the fate of the three malefactors:—

1555/6. "The Fryday the vij day of Marche was hangyd in chaynes besyd Huntyntun on [one] Conears, and Spenser after-ward, for the kyllyng of a gentyllman," &c.

"The xxvij day of Marche was hangyd beyonde Huntyngtun in cheynes on [one] Spenser, for the deth of master Rufford of Bokynghamshyre, by ys fellow Conears hangys [hangs]."

The entry regarding Smyth is as follows:

"The ix day of Marche was hangyd at Brykhyll Benett Smyth in Bokyngham-shyre, for the deyth of master Rufford, gentyllman, the wyche Conears and Spenser sluw."—'Diary,' Camden Society, 1848, pp. 102-3.

Here it is even more difficult to suppose that the punishment was the same for all three, except as regards a comparatively unimportant detail as to what was done to the bodies after execution. The punishment was greater in the case of Conyers and Spenser, their offence being greater as the law then stood. Nor is there here or elsewhere indication that the sentence carried hanging by the neck prior to hanging in chains. Alfred Marks.

155, Adelaide Road, N.W.

(To be continued.)


EDWARD FITZGERALD.—'Extinctus amabitur idem may be said truly of him, and though FitzGerald has been dead more than twenty-three years, many united a few days ago in commemorating his memory. Almost everything known of him has been gleaned and brought together as worthy of preservation.

One circumstance occurs to me which I have not seen alluded to, namely, that Naseby battle-field belonged either to him or to his ancestors. Well do I remember, some twenty years ago, visiting that field. On that occasion I recited to a friend who accompanied me Macaulay's stirring lyric purporting to be "The Battle of Naseby, by Obadiah Bind their Kings in Chains, and their Nobles with Links of Iron, Sergeant in Ireton's regiment."

Near the field is a pedestal, literally covered with pencil names, erected by John and Mary FitzGerald, Lord and Lady of the Manor of Naseby.

Only one short month before his death Dr. Arnold, then in his full vigour, came