Prégent de Bidoux's Raid in 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 theattack threatened 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 Place, on the northside ofthe Downs,nearly underFirle Beacon, and not farfrom 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. Both of theseare describedin the manuscript. But the thirdbody is not described. Neitherare we told whence it comes; but two indicationsare given which should lead us to solve the problemof its provenance. It is offthe road and up among the hills, and it is placed to the rear and to the eastwardof the rallymarching along the road from Lewes. The meaningthat I attach to these circumstances is that the undescribedrally came froma greaterdistance than the Lewes rally,and that it came fromthe eastward of Lewes town. We will leave this thirdrally for a momentand turn again to the Sussex beacons. Pregentde Bidoux landed at Brighthelmstoneunder cover of night. The fire-cage to the east of the Steyne,a little way up the east cliff,was set alight,and the watch at the town beacon out on the road to Poynings,some distance north-westof the West Hill, saw theflare and flashedthe alarmto DitchlingBostal. Runners,either from Ditchling Bostal or fromBrighthelm-

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 Io8 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY stoneBeacon--most probably from the latter--arousedthe men of Poyningsand the neighbouringvillages. Ditchling Beacon is 8o00feet above sea-level,and its lightalarmed the middleWeald northwardto Crowborough. But the light on Ditchlingcannot be seen fromLewes Castle--theDowns themselvesintercept the view. How, then,did Lewes town get the alarm? The answeris--from Firle Beacon: that is 700 feethigh, and standsto the south-eastwardof Lewes. The alarmsignal on Ditchlingwould be seenby thewatch at Firle Beacon and wouldbe passed on immediatelyto Lewes Castle. Withina fewminutes from the momentof lighting up the fire-cagenear the sea-frontof Brighthelmstonethe watchersin the easternand middleWeald wouldknow that theFrench were a-land. One ofthe first to knowthat would have been JohnGage of Firle Place,and we need not doubt but that he was one of the gentlemenwho dwelt near, as Holinshedsays, and raisedthe country. His, I believe,was the rally depictedto the east of the road fromLewes, up in the hills,and that rallyhad come along the Downs from Firle,had crossed the Ouse at Itford,and had made its way by Balsdean to the place wherewe see it on the Cotton plat. Sir JohnGage was a statesmanand militarycommander who was muchtrusted by King HenryVIII, and constantly employedupon commissions,both at home and abroad. He was governorof Ghisnes and ofOye. He was comptroller of Calais from 1521 to 1523, and was called home to take a seat on thePrivy Council. He was theonly son ofWilliam Gage ofFirle Place, byAgnes, daughter of Benjamin Boleney of Bolney,near Cuckfield. He was born in 1479,and lost his fatherin 1496,when he was put underward of Edward Stafford,Duke of Buckinghamand Lord High Constable. Sir JohnGage was made Knightof the Garterin 1532,and was subsequentlycreated Captain of the Guard and Con- stable of the Tower. He was also Vice-Chamberlainfrom 1528 to 1540. He retained that post in spite of the fact that he offendedKing Henryin 1533 by takingsides with

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 109

Queen Katharine of Aragon. Sir John Gage died in 1556. He commanded the expedition against King JamesV of Scotland,which ended withthe routof Solway Moss on November 25, I542. The HistoriographerRoyal for Scotland-Dr. P. Hume Brown-speaks ofthis engagement in somewhatsensational terms. He tells us that therewere Io,ooo Scotchmen, at least, and about 3000 Englishmen. Whenthe two bodies came face to face betweenthe waters of the Leven and the Esk, a 'strange confusion'arose in the host of the Scotch and theydispersed. Twentywere killed,many were drowned, and 1200oowere taken prisoners. The confusionamong the Scotchmen,according to Dr. Hume Brown,' made the day the mostdisgraceful in their militaryannals.' Such phrasesas this should be avoided in historicalwriting. It is not wise to assume that we knowall because we knowthe end, and the apportioningof militarydisgrace should not be undertakenin doubtful circumstancesby civilians. The movementof bodies of men over water in face of an active enemyhas oftenbeen accompaniedby accidentsthe full effectof which could not have been foreseen. Sir John Gage was highlysuccessful at the waters of the Esk and Leven in 1542. But his possibleopponent at Brightonin 1514-the AdmiralPregent de Bidoux-was disastrouslyunfortunate at the attempted crossing of the river Gariglianoby the French in 1503, and a few facts about this famous naval commandermay be of interesthere. In 1499,King Lewis XII andhis Queen, Anne of Britanny, were entertainingthe notionof directinga crusadeagainst theTurks at Constantinople,and, at therequest of the Grand Masterof Rhodes forhelp, the Gascon knightPr6gent de Bidoux,or Bidoulx,was sentby KingLewis and commanded to act in concertwith the Venetians. This expeditionfailed throughdisagreement with Venice and throughthe defection of the Knights of Rhodes themselves. In 1501, a new expeditionwas organised,and a naval forceconsisting 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 110 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY twelve ships fromNormandy and Britannywas put under Philip of Ravenstein,together with fourgalleys under the commandof Pr6gentde Bidoux. This also was compelled to returnto , and the Venetians,so it was said, did not conceal theirdelight at the failureof theirallies. In 1503 Pr6gentappeared offGaeta duringthe siege of that townby the Spaniards,and was in commandof six carracks and fivegalleys. He had morethan thirty pieces of artillery, and bombardedthe Spanish camp effectively. In August1503, Lewis XII made a greateffort to recover lost ground,and two French armieswere raised. One of the two attacked the Spaniardsin Roussillon. The other was sent to the assistanceof the Frenchin the kingdomof Naples. By the time it reached the river Gariglianothe French army numberedabout Io,ooo men. In October and November,1503, the French were encamped on the rightbank of the Garigliano,not farfrom its mouth. Gon- zalva and the Spaniardswere concentrated on the opposite bank, and Pr4gentde Bidoux, withhis fleetof galleysand carracks,was able to commandthe mouthof the riverand the coast forsome distanceto the south. The Frenchhad the advantage in artilleryat the Garigliano,just as their Scottishallies had at Flodden some ten yearslater. They had twenty-ninepieces of artillery,nine of whichare de- scribed as great cannons,and thesewere served by thirty- six skilledgunners. The chances of war were greatlyin favourof the French,but a seriesof errorswas committed, the combinedeffect of which resulted in disastrousdefeat. Pregentde Bidoux had throwna bridgeof boats across the riverand had fixedit in position. The Spaniardswere not preventedfrom entrenching themselves, and this they did a littlehigher up thestream than thehead ofthe bridge. Pr6gentcould not preventthis, perhaps; but he left the bridgeof boats in position,and thedisasters of the Garigliano may be said to have originatedin that error. When the French reinforcementscame up theirartillery was massed near the bridgeas thoughit werenecessary to preventthe

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 I514 III Spaniardsfrom crossing. The ChevalierBayard, with fifteen men-at-armsand 300 soldiers,impetuously rushed across the bridge,and they took up a positionon the left bank directlyin the line of fireof theirown artilleryand thus preventedit fromplaying upon the enemy. The battle was eventuallystopped on December27, 1503,and twodays later the Marquisde Saluces,with the Frencharmy, began the retreatupon Gaeta. The artillerywas embarked,in the meanwhile,on the riverfor transhipment to Pr6gent's galleys; but the weatherwas so tempestuousthat the roar of the sea is said to have been audible two miles inland. The French fleetwas disabled; the French artillerywas engulfed, and it was with the utmost difficultythat Pregentde Bidoux kepthis owngalley afloat. The careerof this brave and skilfulseaman and theactions in whichhe took part were narratedby the late M. Alfred Spontin theRevue des Questions historiques for October 1895, and in the paper on ' The War with France in 1512-13' whichthe same authorcontributed to the ' Publicationsof the Navy Record Society,' 1897.

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