Prégent De Bidoux's Raid in Sussex in 1514 and the Cotton MS
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Prégent de Bidoux's Raid in Sussex in 1514 and the Cotton MS. Augustus I (i), 18 Author(s): Alfred Anscombe Source: Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Third Series, Vol. 8 (1914), pp. 103-111 Published by: Royal Historical Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3678450 . Accessed: 15/01/2014 05:28 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Royal Historical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 05:28:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PREGENT DE BIDOUX'S RAID IN SUSSEX IN 1514 AND THE COTTON MS. AUGUSTUS I (i), i8 By ALFRED ANSCOMBE, F.R.Hist.S. Read June 18, 1914 THE late Dr. JamesGairdner read a paper beforethe Royal HistoricalSociety on November15, 19o6,upon a sixteenth- centurydrawing in the Cottoncollection which depicts the burningof the town of Brighthelmstonein the reign of King HenryVIII. It willbe rememberedthat Dr. Gairdner came to the conclusionsthat the accepted accounts were not reliable; that the raid depicted really took place in the springof 1514 and notin the summerof 1545 ; and that the Frenchdid not burnthe townon the latteroccasion. In additionto the obviousdiscrepancies in thenarratives of the chroniclers,Dr. Gairdneradvanced two chiefreasons for coming to these conclusions. One of the reasons is providedby the incongruityof the differenthands which appear on the Cottondrawing. The otherdepends upon the beliefthat Brightonpossessed a harbourin 1545,and upon the factthat no harbouris shownin thedrawing erroneously assignedto that year. Withregard to the firstreason, Dr. Gairdner'squalifica- tion for adjudicatingupon the date of various types of handwritingin Tudor timesis unquestionable,and he was so much impressedby the long intervalof time indicated betweenthe earlyhandwriting of the Brighthelmstoneplat, as a whole,and thelater handwriting of the date in theupper left-handcorner of it, that he did nothesitate to characterise that date as ' false.' This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 05:28:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 104 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY Withregard to theharbour-which, if it existed,certainly to have been delineated a town of ought upon plat 545-- Dr. Gairdnerattributed undue importance, I believe,to the reportof AndrewBoarde, who compiledand publisheda perambulationof England in 1542. Dr. Boarde was a nativeof Sussex, and he enumeratedBrighthelmstone among theharbours of England. But he did not includeShoreham Harbour,and I suggestthat theimportance of his testimony is diminishedby that omission. He mayhave givenBright- helmstonein place of Shoreham. The documentscited by Dr. Gairdner,with respect to thevessels of forty tons' burthen and the piratesof Brighton,are not sufficientto warrantthe presumptionthat Brightonhad a harbourin the middleof the sixteenthcentury. Apart fromthis question, I believe that Dr. Gairdneradvanced insuperableobjections to the viewsentertained in Sussex and elsewhereabout the date of the raid depictedupon the Cottonplat. The strongestpiece of evidencethat he was right,more- over,is conveyedby the drawingitself. It is a curiousfact that all chroniclers,modern investigators, and catalogue- makers who have had occasion to deal with the Cotton drawinghave misreadthe date--even as Dr. Gairdnermis- read it. The Cottonroll bears the press-markAugustus I, vol. i. It comprisesa numberof sixteenth-centurymaps, charts,plans of fortsand harbours,and 'plats' (as they werecalled) oftowns. DocumentNo. 18 in thisgathering is describedin the CottonCatalogue as 'A Chartof Bright- helmstoneand the countryround it, with several French galleysin the road fromwhich troops are [being]landed; dated July,1545.' Here the name of the monthis speltas we spell it. But in Sir Henry Ellis's account of the documentin 'Archaeologia,' vol. xxxiv., p. 297 (1832), the name of the monthis spelt 'Julye.' I referto this because it indicates one of the methods adopted in order to evade a recogniseddifficulty. On the original drawingand also on the reproductionthereof which forms the frontispieceof Vol. I of the ThirdSeries of the ' Royal This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 05:28:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRPGENT DE BIDOUX'S RAID IN SUSSEX IN 1514 105 Historical Society's Transactions,'the month appears as ' Julyi.' The finalletter, is supposedto represente, as in ' Julye,'and that mightbe regardedas a contemporaneous spellingof the name of the month. All thisis erroneous,however; and not onlymust the i stand, but somethingelse which gives that letter an unsuspectedvalue must be taken into account. It was a scribal custom of some centuries' standing to set a point beforeroman letters,as well as afterthem, when they were used as numerals,and the final letter of the word,misread Julyi, has a pointbefore and a pointafter it. Consequently,' i' representsprimus. The point may not be verydistinct, but it is thereupon the originalsheet, and it can also be detectedupon our facsimile. The date, therefore,of the Cottonplat is 'July I, 37 Hen. viij,' i.e. Julythe first, 1545. Now the attackthreatened by Admiral D'Annebaultin 1545 was not deliveredtill afterJuly 16. Consequently,a drawingdated onthe previous July I cannot relateto the circumstancesof that attack. It was believed by Dr. Gairdnerthat the Elizabethan reportsof the raid into Sussex and the burningof Brighton in 1545 were based upon the Cottondrawing itself. The decipheringof the date ofthe drawing justifies Dr. Gairdner's viewsonce again ; although,as I have said, he was in error in supposingthat the date was false. The drawingmust have been in existencequite two weeksat least beforethe events it has been supposedto recordcould have takenplace. Our task, then,is to discoverwhat it is that the date actually refersto. In the year 1539, King Henry appointeda numberof commissionersto searchand defendthe southerncoast-line. Amongthese were the Lord High Admiral; WilliamFitz- Alan, Earl ofArundel, and his son Henry,Lord Maltravers; Lord Delawarr,Lord Dacre, Sir JohnGage, and Sir Richard Shirley(cp. ' Lettersand Papers,' HenryVIII, xiv, pt. I, p. 398.) The gentlemenof Sussex were well represented, and some ofthe commissionersfor that countywere members of 8 This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 05:28:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Io6 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY the PrivyCouncil in 1544-five yearslater. In the summer of thatyear, Henry invaded Franceas ally of the Emperor Charles V, and besiegedBoulogne. That citysurrendered to him on September14, and on September19 the Emperor brokefaith with him,and concludeda separatepeace with their commonenemy, King Francis I. Henry placed a garrisonin Boulogne,and on September30o returnedto Englandwith the bulk of his army. The Frenchspent some timein unsuccessfulattempts to recoverBoulogne, and they collecteda large and formidablefleet at Havre de Grace. By the end of June1545, their preparations for the descent upon Englandwere matured. On July I, the date of the Cottondrawing, the Kingheld a PrivyCouncil at Greenwich, and a few days later proceededto Southampton. Three Sussex magnateswere members of the PrivyCouncil at the time-namely,Lord Arundel,Sir AnthonyBrowne, and Sir JohnGage. Arundelwas not present,but both Gage and Brownewere in attendance. Sir AnthonyBrowne, K.G., was King Henry's Masterof the Horse. He was ownerof Cowdray,near Midhurst, in WestSussex. SirJohn Gage was also K.G., and was Comptrollerof the Household. He was ownerof Firle Place, on the northside ofthe Downs,nearly underFirle Beacon, and not farfrom Lewes and Seaford,in East Sussex. I believe that the Cottonplat was his pro- perty,and that he laid it beforethe King in Councilon the date it bears. I shall advance threereasons for this belief. First, a passage in Holinshed,which Dr. Gairdnerdid not reproduce-perhapsbecause it was too generalin its import; secondly,the Cottonplat again; and thirdly,the argu- ment to be drawn fromthe near neighbourhoodof Firle Beacon to Sir JohnGage's mansion-houseat Firle. The beacons of Sussex have played an importantpart in the historyof the south coast and the Weald. They corresponded,in so faras concernstheir intention; with the coast-guardstations of to-day. A tax knownas 'beacon- age' was levied by the Lord-Lieutenantof the countyfor theirupkeep, and it was his duty to see that they were This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 05:28:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PRtGENT DE BIDOUX'S RAID IN SUSSEX IN 1514 107 properlymanned and watchedin timeof war. The beacon watchwas drawnfrom the men of the neighbouringvillages, and theywere required to assembleat the rallying-placeat an hour's notice. The gentlemenof the countywho were on the Commissionof Peace would assist, and it will be rememberedthat Ralph Holinshed,speaking of a raid on Brightonin 1513, says that 'The gentlementhat dwelt neereraised the countrieand came to the coast and drove PriorJehan to his gallies.' This is misplacedby Holinshed, and it is not possiblefor Pregent de Bidoux to have raided Brightonso early. Turningto the Cotton plat again, and comparingit with Dr. Gairdner'sreading, we may findthat he misread the manuscriptin two places owingto the close similarity ofthe letters r and v in the scriptof the time. Threebodies of armed men are shown comingover the Downs to the rescue of the burningtown. The most westerlyis the rallyfrom Poynings (Dr. Gairdnermisread ralley as' valley'). The middle rally is the one fromLewes town.