Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Perrot, John (1527?-1592)
PERROT, Sir JOHN (1527?–1592), lord deputy of Ireland, commonly reputed to be the son of Henry VIII, whom he resembled in appearance, and Mary Berkley (afterwards the wife of Thomas Perrot, esq., of Istingston and Harroldston, in Pembrokeshire), was born, probably at Harroldston, about 1527 (Naunton, Fragmenta Regalia; Archæologia Cambrensis, 3rd ser. vol. xi.) He was educated apparently at St. David's (Cal. State Papers, Irel. Eliz. ii. 549), and at the age of eighteen was placed in the household of William Paulet, first marquis of Winchester [q. v.] Uniting great physical strength to a violent and arbitrary disposition, he was much addicted to brawling, and it was to a fracas between him and two of the yeomen of the guard, in which he was slightly wounded, that he owed his personal introduction to Henry VIII. The king, whether he was acquainted with the secret of his birth or whether he merely admired his courage and audacity, made him a promise of preferment, but died before he could fulfil it. Perrot, however, found a patron in Edward VI, and was by him, at his coronation, created a knight of the Bath. His skill in knightly exercises secured him a place in the train of the Marquis of Northampton on the occasion of the latter's visit to France in June 1551 to negotiate a marriage between Edward VI and Elizabeth, the infant daughter of Henry II. He fully maintained the reputation for gallantry he had acquired at home, and by his bravery in the chase so fascinated the French king that he offered him considerable inducements to enter his service.
Returning to England, he found himself involved in considerable pecuniary difficulties, from which he was relieved by the generosity of Edward. The fact of his being a protestant did not at first militate against him with Queen Mary; but, being accused by one Gadern or Cathern, a countryman of his, of sheltering heretics in his house in Wales, and, among others his uncle, Robert Perrot, reader in Greek to Edward VI and Alexander Nowell [q. v.] (afterwards dean of Lichfield), he was committed to the Fleet. His detention was of short duration, and, being released, he served under the Earl of Pembroke in France, and was present at the capture of St. Quentin in 1557. His refusal, however, to assist Pembroke in hunting down heretics in south Wales caused a breach in their friendly relations, though it did not prevent the earl from generously using his influence to bring to a successful issue a suit of Perrot's for the castle and lordship of Carew. At the coronation of Elizabeth, Perrot was one of the four gentlemen chosen to carry the canopy of state, and being apparently shortly afterwards appointed vice-admiral of the seas about south Wales and keeper of the gaol at Haverfordwest, he for some years divided his time between the court and his estate in Pembrokeshire.
Since the outbreak of the rebellion in Ireland of James Fitzmaurice Fitzgerald [q. v.] in 1568, it had been the settled determination of Elizabeth and her ministers to establish a presidential government in Munster similar to that in Connaught. In November 1570 the post was offered to Perrot, and was somewhat reluctantly accepted by him. He sailed from Milford Haven and arrived at Waterford on 27 Feb. 1571. A day or two afterwards Fitzmaurice burned the town of Kilmallock, and Perrot, recognising the importance of reaching the seat of his government without loss of time, hastened to Dublin, and, having taken the oath before Sir Henry Sidney [q. v.], proceeded immediately to Cork. From Cork he marched directly to Kilmallock, where he took up his quarters in a half-burned house, and issued a proclamation to the fugitive townsmen to return and repair the walls and buildings of the town. While thus engaged, information reached him one night that the rebels had attacked Lord Roche; whereupon, taking with him his own troop of horse, he pursued them as far as Knocklong. But finding they were likely to make good their escape among the neighbouring bogs, he caused his men to dismount and to follow them in their own fashion, and had the satisfaction of killing fifty of them, whose heads he fixed on the market-cross of Kilmallock. Having placed the town in a posture of defence, Perrot pursued his journey to Limerick, capturing a castle belonging to Tibbot Burke on the way. From Limerick, where the Earl of Thomond, O'Shaughnessy, and Sir Thomas of Desmond came to him, he proceeded to Cashel, where he hanged several ‘grasy merchants, being such as bring bread and aquavita or other provisions unto the rebels,’ and so by way of Fethard, Clonmel, Carrick-on-Suir, and Lismore, near where he captured Mocollop Castle, back to Cork, which he reached on the last day of May.
Fixing his headquarters at Cork, he made excursions into the territories of the ‘White Knight’ and the McSwineys, and ‘slew many of the rebels and hanged as many as he might take.’ Though greatly harassed by his incessant warfare, Fitzmaurice had managed to enlist a large body of redshanks, and with these he scoured the country from Aharlow to Castlemaine, and from Glenflesk to Baltimore. Perrot, who spared neither himself nor his men in his efforts to catch him, in vain tempted him to risk a battle in the open, but, meeting him on the edge of a wood, he attacked and routed him, and forced his allies across the Shannon. On 21 June he sat down before Castlemaine, but after five weeks was compelled, by lack of provisions, to raise the siege. His eagerness to terminate the rebellion led him to countenance a proposal for the restoration of Sir John of Desmond as a counterpoise to Fitzmaurice [see Fitzgerald, Sir John Fitzedmund, (1528–1612)], and even induced him to listen to a proposal of Fitzmaurice to settle the question by single combat. Fitzmaurice, as the event proved, had no intention of meeting Perrot on equal terms; and, after deluding him with one excuse and another, finally declared that a duel was out of the question. ‘For,’ said he, ‘if I should kill Sir John Perrot the queen of England can send another president into this province; but if he do kill me there is none other to succeed me or to command as I do’ (Rawlinson, Life, p. 63). Perrot swore to ‘hunt the fox out of his hole’ without further delay. Shortly afterwards he was drawn by a trick into a carefully prepared ambush. Outnumbered by at least ten or twelve to one, he would certainly have lost his life had not the opportune arrival of Captain Bowles with three or four soldiers caused Fitzmaurice, who mistook them for the advance guard of a larger body, to withdraw hastily. Even this lesson did not teach Perrot prudence. For having, as he believed, driven Fitzmaurice into a corner, he allowed himself to be deluded into a parley, under cover of which Fitzmaurice managed to withdraw his men into safety. In June 1572 he again sat down before Castlemaine, and, after a three months' blockade, forced the place to surrender. He encountered Fitzmaurice, who was advancing to its relief at the head of a body of Scoto-Irish mercenaries, in MacBrian Coonagh's country. Fitzmaurice, however, with the bulk of his followers, managed to make good his escape into the wood of Aharlow. Perrot's efforts to expel them were crippled by the refusal of his soldiers to serve until they received some of their arrears of pay. But the garrison at Kilmallock, assisted by Sir Edmund and Edward Butler, rendered admirable service; and Fitzmaurice, finding himself at the end of his tether, sued for mercy. Perrot reluctantly consented to pardon him. He was somewhat reconciled to this course by Fitzmaurice's submissive attitude, and comforted himself with the hope that the ex-rebel, having seen the error of his ways, would eventually prove ‘a second St. Paul.’
Having thus, as he vainly imagined, restored tranquillity to Munster, he begged to be allowed to return home. During his tenure of office he had killed or hanged at least eight hundred rebels, with the loss of only eighteen Englishmen, and had done something to substitute English customs for Irish in the province. But the service had told severely on his constitution; and for every white hair that he had brought over with him he protested he could show sixty. He was dissatisfied with Elizabeth's determination to restore Gerald Fitzgerald, fifteenth earl of Desmond [q. v.]; he was annoyed by reports that reached him of Essex's interference with his tenantry; and, though able to justify himself, he could ill brook to be reprimanded by the privy council for his conduct in regard to the Peter and Paul, a French vessel hailing from Portugal with a valuable cargo of spices, which he had caused to be detained at Cork. A graceful letter of thanks from Elizabeth, desiring him to continue at his post, failed to alter his resolution; and in July 1573 he suddenly returned to England without leave. His reception by Elizabeth was more gracious than he had reason to expect; and pleading ill-health as an excuse for not returning to Munster, where he was eventually superseded by Sir William Drury [q. v.], he retired to Wales. To Burghley he declared that it was his intention to lead a countryman's life, and to keep out of debt. But as one of the council of the marches, and vice-admiral of the Welsh seas, he found plenty to occupy his attention, especially in suppressing piracy along the coast (cf. Gent. Mag. 1839, ii. 354). In May 1578 a complaint was preferred against him by Richard Vaughan, deputy-admiral in South Wales, of tyrannical conduct, trafficking with pirates, and subversion of justice. Perrot had apparently little difficulty in exonerating himself; for he was shortly afterwards appointed commissioner for piracy in Pembrokeshire.
In August 1579 he was placed in command of a squadron appointed to cruise off the western coast of Ireland, to intercept and destroy any Spanish vessels appearing in those waters. On 29 Aug. he sailed from the Thames on board the Revenge with his son Thomas. On 14 Sept. he anchored in Baltimore Bay; and after spending a few days on shore, ‘where they were all entertained as well as the fashion of that country could afford,’ he sailed to Cork, and from Cork coasted along to Waterford, where he met Sir William Drury, who shortly before his death knighted his son Thomas and Sir William Pelham [q. v.] After coasting about for some time, and the season of the year growing too late to cause any further apprehension on the part of Spain, Perrot determined to return home. In the Downs he fell in with one Deryfold, a pirate, whom he chased and captured off the Flemish coast; but on trying to make the mouth of the Thames he struck on the Kentish Knocks. Fortunately he succeeded in getting off the sand, and reached Harwich in safety. During his absence his enemies had tried to undermine his credit with the queen; and early in 1580 one Thomas Wyriott, a justice of the peace, formerly a yeoman of the guard, exhibited certain complaints against ‘his intolerable dealings.’ Wyriott's complaints were submitted to the privy council, and, being pronounced slanderous libels, Wyriott was committed to the Marshalsea. But he had powerful friends at court; and shortly after Perrot's return to Wales he was released, and letters were addressed to the judges of assize in South Wales, authorising them to reopen the case. Though suffering from the sweating sickness, Perrot at once obeyed the summons to attend the assizes at Haverfordwest. He successfully exculpated himself and obtained a verdict of a thousand marks damages against Wyriott.
He had acquired considerable reputation as president of Munster, and a plot or plan which he drew up at the command of the queen in 1581 ‘for the suppressing of rebellion and the well-governing of Ireland’ marked him out as a suitable successor to the lord deputy, Arthur Grey, fourteenth lord Grey de Wilton [q. v.], who was recalled in August 1582. Nevertheless, he was not appointed to the post till 17 Jan. 1584, and it was not till 21 June that he received the sword of state from the chancellor, Archbishop Adam Loftus [q. v.] From his acquaintance with the southern province he was deemed well qualified to supervise the great work of the plantation of Munster. His open instructions resembled those given to former viceroys; but among those privately added by the privy council was one directing him to consider how St. Patrick's Cathedral and the revenues belonging to it might be made to serve ‘as had been theretofore intended’ for the erection of a college in Dublin. His government began propitiously, and a remark of his expressive of his desire to see the name of husbandman or yeoman substituted for that of churl was, according to Fenton, widely and favourably commented upon. The day following his installation order was issued for a general hosting at the hill of Tara, on 10 Aug., for six weeks. In the interval Perrot prepared to make a tour of inspection through Connaught and Munster for the purpose of establishing Sir Richard Bingham [q. v.] and Sir John Norris (1547?–1597) [q. v.] in their respective governments. He had already received the submission of the chieftains of Connaught and Thomond, and was on his way from Limerick to Cork when the news reached him that a large body of Hebridean Scots had landed in O'Donnell's country. Norris was inclined to think that rumour had, as usual, exaggerated the number of the invaders; but Perrot, who probably enjoyed the prospect of fighting, determined to return at once to Dublin and, as security for the peace of Munster, to take with him all protectees and suspected persons.
On 26 Aug. he set out for Ulster, accompanied by the Earls of Ormonde and Thomond and Sir John Norris. At Newry he learned that the Scots had evaded the ships sent to intercept them at Lough Foyle and had returned whence they came. Half a mile outside the town Turlough Luineach O'Neill [q. v.] met him, and put in his only son as pledge of his loyalty, as did also Magennis, MacMahon, and O'Hanlon. But having come so far, Perrot determined to cut at the root, as he believed, of the Scoto-Irish difficulty, and to make a resolute effort to expel the MacDonnells from their settlements along the Antrim coast. An attempt, at which he apparently connived (State Papers, Irel. Eliz. cxii. 90, ii.), to assassinate Sorley Boy MacDonnell [q. v.] failed, and Perrot, resorting to more legitimate methods of warfare, divided his forces into two divisions. The one, under the command of the Earl of Ormonde and Sir John Norris, advanced along the left bank of the Bann and scoured the woods of Glenconkein; while himself, with the other, proceeded through Clandeboye and the Glinnes. On 14 Sept. he sat down before Dunluce Castle, which surrendered at discretion on the second or third day. Sorley Boy escaped to Scotland, but Perrot got possession of ‘holy Columbkille's cross, a god of great veneration with Sorley Boy and all Ulster,’ which he sent to Walsingham to present to Lady Walsingham or Lady Sidney. A mazer garnished with silver-gilt, with Sorley Boy's arms engraved on the bottom, he sent to Lord Burghley. An attempt to land on Rathlin Island was frustrated by stormy weather, and, feeling that the season was growing too advanced for further operations, Perrot returned to Dublin.
Meanwhile he had not been unmindful of his charge regarding St. Patrick's. On 21 Aug. he submitted a plan to Walsingham for converting the cathedral into a courthouse and the canons' houses into inns of court, and for applying the revenues to the erection of two colleges. When the project became known, as it speedily did, it was vehemently opposed by Archbishop Loftus [q. v.] On 3 Jan. 1585 Perrot was informed that there were grave objections to his scheme, and that it was desirable for him to consult with the archbishop. Perrot for a time refused to desist from his project, and never forgave Loftus for opposing him. There can be little doubt that his blundering hostility towards the archbishop was a principal cause of his downfall.
Another scheme of his for bridling the Irish by building seven towns, seven bridges, and seven fortified castles in different parts of the country fared equally unpropitiously. Given 50,000l. a year for three years, he promised to permanently subjugate Ireland, and took the unusual course of addressing the parliament of England on the subject. But Walsingham, to whom he submitted the letter (printed in the ‘Government of Ireland,’ pp. 44 sq.) promptly suppressed it, on the ground that the queen would certainly resent any one but herself moving parliament. Nor indeed did his manner of dealing with the Hebridean Scots argue well for his ability to carry out his more ambitious project. Scarcely three months had elapsed since the expulsion of Sorley Boy before he again succeeded in effecting a landing on the coast of Antrim. He was anxious, he declared, to become a loyal subject of the crown, if only he could obtain legal ownership of the territory he claimed. But Perrot insisted on unqualified submission, and, despite the remonstrances of the council, began to make preparations for a fresh expedition against him. When Elizabeth heard of his intention, she was greatly provoked, and read him a sharp lecture on ‘such rash, unadvised journeys without good ground as your last journey in the north.’ As it happened, Sir Henry Bagenal and Sir William Stanley were quite able to cope with Sorley Boy, and the Irish parliament being appointed to meet on 26 April, after an interval of sixteen years, Perrot found sufficient to occupy his attention in Dublin.
A German nobleman who happened to be visiting Ireland was greatly impressed with his appearance at the opening of parliament, and declared that, though he had travelled all over Europe, he had never seen any man comparable to him ‘for his port and majesty of personage.’ But Perrot's attempt to ‘manage’ parliament proved a complete failure. A bill to suspend Poynings' Act, which he regarded as necessary to facilitate legislation, was rejected on the third reading by a majority of thirty-five. Another bill, to substitute a regular system of taxation in lieu of the irregular method of cess, shared a similar fate, and Perrot could only prorogue parliament, and advise the punishment of the leaders of the opposition. Tired of his inactivity, Perrot resumed his plan of a northern campaign, and having appointed Loftus and Wallop, who strongly disapproved of his intention, justices in his absence, he set out for Ulster on 16 July. But misfortune dogged his footsteps. For hardly had he reached Dungannon when wet weather rendered further progress impossible. His time, however, was not altogether wasted. For besides settling certain territorial differences between Turlough Luineach O'Neill and Hugh O'Neill, earl of Tyrone [q. v.], he reduced Ulster to shire ground. He returned to Dublin at the beginning of September. Six weeks later Sorley Boy recaptured Dunluce Castle, and resumed his overtures for denization. Perrot, who was ‘touched with the stone,’ and provoked at the coolness of his colleagues, felt the disgrace bitterly, and begged to be recalled. Eventually he consented to pardon Sorley Boy, and to grant him letters of denization on what were practically his own terms. In one respect Perrot could claim to have been fairly successful. The composition of Connaught and Thomond with which his name is associated, though proving by no means commensurate with his expectations, and due in a large measure to the initiative of Sir Henry Sidney, was a work which undoubtedly contributed to the peace and stability of the western province. Parliament reassembled on 26 April 1586, and, after passing acts for the attainder of the Earl of Desmond and Viscount Baltinglas, was dissolved on 14 May.
With Loftus and Wallop Perrot had long been on terms of open hostility, and even Sir Geoffrey Fenton, who at first found him ‘affable and pleasing,’ had since come to change his opinion in that respect. Perrot, it is true, could count on the devotion of Sir Nicholas White and Sir Lucas Dillon; but their influence in the council was comparatively small, and their goodwill exposed him to the charge of pursuing an anti-English policy. Nor were his relations outside the council much better. Sir John Norris and Captain Carleil had long complained of his overbearing and tyrannical behaviour. Perrot's conduct towards Sir Richard Bingham added him to the long list of avowed enemies. Early in September 1586 a large body of redshanks invaded Connaught at the invitation of the Burkes of county Mayo, and Bingham, who felt himself unable to cope with them, sent to Perrot for reinforcements. The deputy not only complied with his request, but, in opposition to the advice of the council, went to Connaught himself. He had, however, only reached Mullingar when he received information that the Scots and their allies had been completely overthrown and almost annihilated by Bingham at Ardnaree on the river Moy. But instead of returning to Dublin, he continued his journey to Galway, though by so doing he inflicted a heavy and unnecessary expense on the country. His own statement that he had been invited thither was manifestly untrue. But whether he was jealous of Bingham's success, as seems likely, or whether he really disapproved of his somewhat arbitrary method of government, his presence had undoubtedly the effect of weakening the president's authority and stimulating the elements of discontent in the province. His language towards the council was certainly most reprehensible, and unfortunately he did not confine his abuse to words. In January 1587 he committed Fenton to the Marshalsea on pretext of a debt of 70l. owing to him. But though compelled by Elizabeth instantly to set him at liberty, he seemed to have lost all control over himself. Only a few days afterwards he committed the indiscretion of challenging Sir Richard Bingham, and on 15 May he came to actual blows in the council chamber with Sir Nicholas Bagenal. The fault was perhaps not altogether on his side, but government under the circumstances suffered, and in January Elizabeth announced her intention to remove him.
In May one Philip Williams, a former secretary of Perrot, whom he had long kept in confinement, offered to make certain revelations touching his loyalty, and Loftus took care that his offer should reach Elizabeth's ears. This was the beginning of the end. Williams was released on bail, not to quit the country without special permission, in June; but he steadily refused to reveal his information to any one except the queen herself. In December Sir William Fitzwilliam [q. v.] was appointed lord deputy, but six months elapsed before he arrived in Dublin. Meanwhile, racked with the stone, and feeling his authority slipping away from him inch by inch, Perrot's position was pitiable in the extreme. But it must be said in his favour that when he surrendered the sword of state on 30 June 1588, Fitzwilliam was compelled to admit that he left the country in a state of profound peace. Shortly before his departure he presented the corporation of Dublin with a silver-gilt bowl, bearing his arms and crest, with the inscription ‘Relinquo in pace’ (cf. Gilbert, Cal. Municipal Records, ii. 220). He sailed on Tuesday, 2 July, for Milford Haven, leaving behind him, according to Sir Henry Wallop, a memory ‘of so hard usage and haughty demeanour amongst his associates, especially of the English nation, as I think never any before him in this place hath done.’ After his departure Fitzwilliam complained that, contrary to the express orders of the privy council, he had taken with him his parliament robes and cloth of state.
Among others a certain Denis Roughan or O'Roughan, an ex-priest whom Perrot had prosecuted for forgery, offered to prove that he was the bearer of a letter from Perrot to Philip of Spain, promising that if the latter would give him Wales, Perrot would make Philip master of England and Ireland. The letter was a manifest forgery, but it derived a certain degree of plausibility from the recent betrayal of Deventer by Sir William Stanley [q. v.] One Charles Trevor, an accomplice of O'Roughan's, knew the secret of the forgery, and, according to Bingham, Fitzwilliam could have put his hand on him had he liked to do so. But in a collection of the material points against Perrot, drawn up by Burghley on 15 Nov. 1591, O'Roughan's charge finds no place, though the substance of it was afterwards incorporated in the indictment. Still, if there was no direct evidence of treason against him, there was sufficient matter to convict him of speaking disparagingly of the queen. Notwithstanding Burghley's exertions in his favour, there was an evident determination on the part of Perrot's enemies to push the matter to a trial, and there is a general concurrence of opinion in ascribing the pertinacity with which he was prosecuted to the malice of Sir Christopher Hatton (cf. Cal. State Papers, Eliz. Add. 12 March 1591). According to Sir Robert Naunton, who married Perrot's granddaughter, Perrot had procured Hatton's enmity by speaking scornfully of him as having made his way to the queen's favour ‘by the galliard,’ in allusion to his proficiency in dancing. But Naunton was unaware that Hatton owed him a deeper grudge for having seduced his daughter Elizabeth (Archæol. Cambr. 3rd ser. xi. 117).
After a short confinement in Lord Burghley's house, Perrot was in March 1591 removed to the Tower. More than a year elapsed before his trial, and on 23 Dec. he complained that his memory was becoming impaired through grief and close confinement. On 27 April 1592 he was tried at Westminster on a charge of high treason before Lord Hunsdon, Lord Buckhurst, Sir Robert Cecil, and other specially constituted commissioners. According to the indictment he was charged with contemptuous words against the queen, with relieving known traitors and Romish priests, with encouraging the rebellion of Sir Brian O'Rourke [q. v.], and with treasonable correspondence with the king of Spain and the prince of Parma. Practically the prosecution, conducted by Popham and Puckering, confined itself to the charge of speaking contemptuously of the queen. Perrot, who was extremely agitated, did not deny that he might have spoken the words attributed to him, but resented the interpretation placed upon them. Being found guilty, he was taken back to the Tower. He still hoped for pardon. ‘God's death!’ he exclaimed. ‘Will the queen suffer her brother to be offered up a sacrifice to the envy of his frisking adversary?’ His last will and testament, dated 3 May 1592, is really a vindication of his conduct and an appeal for mercy. He was brought up for judgment on 26 June, but his death in the Tower in September spared him the last indignities of the law. A rumour that the queen intended to pardon him derives some colour from the fact that his son, Sir Thomas, was restored to his estates. Two engraved portraits of Perrot are in existence, one in the ‘History of Worcestershire,’ i. 350, the other prefixed to the ‘Government of Ireland’ by E. C. S. (cf. Bromley).
Perrot married, first, Ann, daughter of Sir Thomas Cheyney of Shurland in Kent, by whom he had a son, Sir Thomas Perrot, who succeeded him, and married, under mysterious circumstances (Strype, Life of Bishop Aylmer, and Lansdowne MS. xxxix. f. 172), Dorothy, daughter of Walter Devereux, earl of Essex. Perrot's second wife was Jane, daughter of Sir Lewis Pollard, by whom he had William, who died unmarried at St. Thomas Court, near Dublin, on 8 July 1597; Lettice, who married, first, Roland Lacharn of St. Bride's, secondly, Walter Vaughan of St. Bride's, and, thirdly, Arthur Chichester [q. v.], baron Chichester of Belfast, and lord deputy of Ireland; and Ann, who married John Philips. Among his illegitimate children he had by Sybil Jones of Radnorshire a son, Sir James Perrot, separately mentioned, and a daughter, who became the wife of David Morgan, described as a gentleman. By Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Christopher Hatton, he had a daughter, also called Elizabeth, who married Hugh Butler of Johnston.[Barnwell's Notes on the Perrot Family in Archæol. Cambrensis, 3rd ser. vols. xi. xii.; Dwnn's Heraldic Visitation of Wales, i. 89; Naunton's Frag. Regal.; Lloyd's State Worthies; Fenton's Hist. of Tour through Pembrokeshire; Rawlinson's Life of Sir John Perrot; The Government of Ireland under Sir John Perrot by E.C.S.; Cal. State Papers, Eliz., Ireland and Dom.; Camden's Annals; Bagwell's Ireland under the Tudors; Annals of the Four Masters; Hardiman's Chorographical Description of West Connaught; Notes and Queries, 1st ser. ii. 254; MSS. Brit. Mus. Lansdowne 68, 72, 156; Harl. 35, 3292; Sloane, 2200, 4819; Addit. 32091, ff. 240, 257; Hist. MSS. Comm. 3rd Rep. pp. 45, 51, 367, 8th Rep. p. 36.]