Chapter XXX: Sixteenth Century Women Students 295 (8)

We are accustomed to think of the building as the permanent and fixed item and the players as the transitory and passing element in a whole theatre. But on this occasion the company, like the snail, in its exodus from Middlesex, carried its house on its back. Two contemporary descriptions of the event give different dates. The Star Chamber proceedings, 44 Eliz., A. xii, 35, state that it was on 28th December 1598; the Coram Rege Roll, Trinity Term 42 Eliz., 587, says it was on the 20th of January following. Possibly the wardrobe and the stuff, the portable properties, and the play-books went on the first date to safe storage; and the solid framework on the later date. But I think authority is all in favour of the earlier date. It was a stiff piece of work to take down and carry away the materials in a short time; it would necessitate a little army of housebreakers and transplanters, probably aided by the players themselves. They had more work to do than they bargained for, as they met sturdy opposition from Giles Alleyn’s men, who saw their expected job and pickings thus torn away from them. It is likely that the night would be selected by the phase of the moon and the time of the tide, for it cannot be supposed that Cuthbert would be rash enough to carry his materials in a train of lumbering wagons across London Bridge, paying wheelage and passage dues, under the danger of being stopped to explain at any point. He would be certain to ship them over the water. He was fortunate in the man he employed, Peter Street, an “ordinary servant of the Queen’s Household.” I find, from an earlier lawsuit (Court of Requests, 91/57, January 1597), that Peter Street had a wharf of his own handy near Bridewell Stairs, whence he probably wafted the lot in a little flotilla of boats and barges, at high tide, to the wharf on Bankside, nearest his new site. The night of 28th December 1598, or rather the following dawn, saw a pile of unsightly wreckage lying on the southern bank of the Thames, beyond Giles Alleyn’s control or the Lord Mayor’s jurisdiction. Peter Street did his best; Burbage did his best; the shareholders were eager, and moneylenders ready; and in a very short time a new “Theatre” rose, like the phœnix, from the ashes of the old. Shakespeare by that time knew what was in a name, and as the decree had gone out against “The Theatre,” they changed its name. Was it because they knew “all the world’s a stage” that they called it then “the Globe”? There Shakespeare was free to create, and Burbage to interpret his creations. Londoners on the other side had known of its exodus, and had watched its rising, and again it was its own advertisement. The hopes of the Thames watermen were radiant as it grew.

The litigation which had handicapped the Burbages had ceased with the death of the two principals, Margaret Braynes and James Burbage. But Cuthbert, even before he left Holywell, had been sucked again into the vortex of the law. In Trinity Term 38 Eliz., 1596, while his father was yet alive, Cuthbert had sued in the King’s Bench, Roger Ames, John Powell, and Richard Robinson, because they had on 1st May 1596 trespassed _vi et armis_ on the inner close of Cuthbert Burbage at Holywell, had destroyed grass to the value of 40_s._, and had kept the close from the 1st of May till the 27th of June in their own custody, the damage in all amounting to £20. One can read between the lines that in May 1596 James Burbage would be away superintending hurried building alterations in his newly purchased property at Blackfriars, and the company would be on tour to earn their livelihood. The case did not come on for hearing until Tuesday in the Octaves of Hilary, which fell on or about this very removal day, 20th January 1598-9 (Coram Rege Rolls, Hilary 41 Eliz., r. 320). No one has hitherto understood the full bearing of this case, through lack of the light shed on it by a later case (Exchequer Bills and Answers, No. 369, and Exchequer Depositions, 44-45 Eliz., No. 18). Thence we find that Cuthbert Burbage was really in this case acting on behalf of Giles Alleyn, and in co-operation with him, against the three defendants. These, Giles Alleyn said, had been put forward by the Earl of Rutland, the neighbouring land-owner, or rather by command of his steward, Thomas Scriven. They had ejected Cuthbert from the inner court, and inclosed it with a mud wall. Cuthbert had brought an action against Ames and the others for loss of profits; Thomas Scriven, without the knowledge of the Earl, who was a minor and a royal ward, and “was beyond the seas,” caused information to be sent to “the Court of Wards and Liveries”[89] against Cuthbert Burbage and _Richard_ Allen, “misnaming him of purpose that he might not answer.” There had been an injunction issued to stay Burbage’s suit against Ames till the facts should be considered in the Court of Wards. This continued for two years, when, the Earl having come of age and sued his livery, the power of that court ceased, Burbage went on with his suit, and Ames, Powell, and Robinson were forced to plead. They denied force and injury, and demanded to be tried by a jury. The real cause at issue was as to the ownership of “the Capital Mansion House of the late dissolved Priory of St. John Baptist in Holywell.” The Earl of Rutland claimed that his father had had a lease of it from the Queen, with many years yet to run, and that “the void ground” was part of the estate. Cuthbert Burbage had wrongfully entered it, and the Earl’s undertenants had justly withstood him. Giles Alleyn answered that it was true “the void ground” did belong to the capital mansion house, but the capital mansion house did not belong to the Earl. His was only a secondary house, which the Earl’s father had enlarged. The real Capital Mansion House had been granted by Henry VIII to Henry Webbe for £136. He settled it on his daughter Susan when she married Sir George Peckham. They sold it to Christopher Bumpstead, mercer, for £533 6_s._ 8_d._ in 1556, and in that same year he sold it to Christopher and Giles Alleyn for £600. Giles held it as the survivor, and drew his rents peaceably till 1st May 1596, when Thomas Scriven commanded Ames to enter, and Cuthbert Burbage sued them under Giles Alleyn’s title. Thomas Scriven had had the case repeatedly postponed, to the great trouble and cost to Alleyn.

Cuthbert Burbage had therefore, during this critical time, shared with his landlord the trouble and worry of this suit against “the trespassers,” though apparently Giles Alleyn was responsible for the costs.

In this very Hilary Term, January 1598-9, Cuthbert’s infuriated and unexpectedly-outwitted landlord took the preliminary steps for bringing a suit against him, or rather against his agent, Peter Street, in the Court of the King’s Bench, also for trespass on the same ground! A strange cross-suit indeed! He made his complaint in Easter Term, 41 Eliz. (see Coram Rege Roll, Trinity Term 42 Eliz., No. 587). This is one of four suits, of which Halliwell-Phillips speaks, and quotes largely from three. But as he did not study their relative dates, and the bearing of the one upon the other, and as he had not _read_ the fourth, the later Star Chamber case, he has missed the legal bearing of them all, and is ignorant of the decisions in any of them. It is very easy, and it becomes very interesting to collate them. In the 1602 Star Chamber case Alleyn says he began his suit against Burbage in the Hilary Term following 28th December 1598; but that would be about 20th January 1598-9, the second date given for the transportation of “The Theatre,” and the time of the hearing of the case brought by Burbage _and_ Alleyn versus Ames and others. I think he was in error, because it is stated in Coram Rege Roll, 42 Eliz., 587, that Giles Alleyn had commenced his suit against Peter Street in Easter Term, 1599, but it had been postponed. This was because Cuthbert Burbage appealed to the Court of Requests, 42 Eliz., 87/74 to stay this suit. Burbage in his complaint, dated 26th January 1599-1600, states simply that Giles Alleyn and his wife, Sara, owners of certain garden grounds and tenements near Holywell, in the parish of St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch, on 13th April 1576, granted them to his father James for good consideration, for a term of twenty-one years at £14 a year. The condition was that if he had spent £200 on the repair of the tenements (not the theatre) before the end of the first ten years, he could then sue for a new lease at the same rent for a new term of twenty-one years, making thirty-one years in all. He could, at the end of either term, carry away any building he had put up for himself. James Burbage was to pay the expenses of drawing up the second lease. All these conditions James Burbage had faithfully performed. But Giles Alleyn would not sign that lease when drawn up, substituting another, in which the Burbages were to pay £10 more annual rent, and not use “The Theatre,” _as a theatre_, for more than five years of the second term. James Burbage would not sign such a lease, nor would Cuthbert; but the latter had stayed on at the old rent, buoyed up by the hopes of having _his_ new lease signed. It was only when he heard that Alleyn was about to take away the Theatre that he did so himself, which he had a perfect right to do. Alleyn was prosecuting his suit against Peter Street with “rigour and extremity”; the heavy damages he claimed would injure him much. Cuthbert prayed, therefore, that the suit in the King’s Bench might be stayed, and Alleyn summoned to answer personally in this Court.

Giles Alleyn presented his voluminous “answer” on 6th February 1599-1600. He said, of course, that the complaint was untrue, and “exhibited of malice.” He went through the original lease, with a few glosses. He refused to sign the new lease because it was different from the original one; also because James Burbage had not spent the £200 in repairs, and there were arrears of rent. “He was a troublesome tenant. When he had tried to distrain for rent, either the doors and gates were kept shut, or there was nothing left to distraine.” He had offered to give Cuthbert a new lease, with good security and increased rent. He could well afford it, seeing he had made at least £2,000 by the Theatre. He had heard it had been built at the charges of John Braynes, whom James Burbage defrauded,[90] as Cuthbert now defrauded Robert Myles, his executor. It was manifestly illegal for Burbage to remove the Theatre.

Cuthbert’s “replication” is dated 27th April 1600. He said he could prove everything in his complaint, and denied all Alleyn’s charges. If his father delayed paying the rent, it was owing to the trouble and expense he had had in keeping the property against Edward Peckham, who disputed Alleyn’s right to it. He could bring the workmen’s bills to show that his father had spent the £200 in repairs. He himself had disbursed a large sum since. He had been quite willing to sign a fair lease such as his father drew up. The sole difference from the first lay in its containing no clause for the further extension of the lease. A Royal Commission was issued on 5th June to examine witnesses on interrogatories, the depositions to be returned by Michaelmas 1600. The depositions on behalf of Giles Alleyn were taken at Kelvedon, Essex, on 14th August. They were not very convincing. The depositions on behalf of Street and Burbage are not among the Calendared Proceedings of the Court of Requests, or we might have had some interesting names as well as facts. But they appear to have prevailed. No one seems to have found the decisions in any of the cases. But I have found from the Star Chamber case Alleyn’s statement, “_Thereby I lost my suit_.” This case, therefore, is the only one of the four which came to a conclusion. The 5th of June 1600, on which Alleyn’s witnesses were being examined, is in Trinity Term, and it was in this Trinity Term that Giles Alleyn sued Peter Street in the postponed action in the King’s Bench, regardless of the injunction from the Court of Requests, or the order that the answers were to be returned at Michaelmas, It is from this King’s Bench case (Coram Rege Roll, Trin. 42 Eliz. 587) that Halliwell-Phillipps selected his lengthy extracts. But the vital points are missed. The Court, “not being sufficiently informed of particulars,” postponed the hearing till Michaelmas, and it was never heard. Why? Because on 18th October 42 Eliz., the Privy Council decreed, through the Court of Requests, that Giles Alleyn and his attorneys should from thence surcease, and no further prosecute the action at common law for trespass, and should never commence any suit for the _pulling down of the Theatre_, and that Cuthbert Burbage should be at liberty to take his remedy at Common Law against Alleyn for not agreeing to seal the second lease. (See “The demurrer of Cuthbert Burbage, Richard Burbage, Peter Street, and William Smith to Giles Alleyn’s complaint” in the Star Chamber case, 23rd November, 44 Eliz., 1601, A. xii/35.)

In Hilary Term 43 Eliz., 1601, postponed till Easter, 44 Eliz., Alleyn sued a plea of broken agreement against Cuthbert Burbage in his own name (Coram Rege Roll, 1373, r. 255, Easter 44 Eliz.).

Then Giles Alleyn, still at white heat, brought the noteworthy, though hitherto unnoted, complaint in the Star Chamber, again defying legal etiquette and legal decision, 23rd November 44 Eliz., 1601. He recited the well-known indenture and conditions, and further blackened the character of the Burbages by saying that Braynes, not Burbage, had built the Theatre at the cost of 1,000 marks. (Mrs. Braynes herself only claimed to have contributed £500 for their moiety; see D. and O. Books, Chancery A., 1590, p. 109.) “Cuthbert, desiring to make gain, allowed the theatre to remain after the expiry of the lease, when it became clearly vested in the Landlord,” who, “seeing the grievous abuses that came by the said Theatre, resolved to pull it downe”; but Cuthbert carried it away “in and about 28th December, 1598.” Alleyn claimed to have commenced an action in Hilary Term following (_i.e._ January 1599); but Cuthbert exhibited a bill to stay him in Easter. We have proved both of his dates incorrect. Alleyn goes on to make an extraordinary charge--that Burbage had combined with John Maddox, his attorney, and Richard Lane, the Register of the Court of Requests, to draw up a forged order that he should not make any demurrer. Being ignorant of this, he drew up a demurrer and went home to Haseley, thinking everything settled till the case should be heard. But Burbage gave information that he had “broken order,” and he was, for supposed contempt, in the vacation time following, fetched up to London by a pursuivant, “to his great vexation and annoyance, a man very aged and unfitt to travell, to his excessive charges in journey, and likewise to his great discredit and disgrace among his neighbours in the country.” The pursuivant brought him to a Master of the Court of Requests, and bound him in a bond of £200 to Cuthbert to appear at Michaelmas, when he was purged of contempt. Alleyn further said he had witnesses to bring up, but Cuthbert and Richard Burbage, reviling them because they had formerly testified untruths, threatened to stab them if they did it again, so that the witnesses were terrified and could not testify on his behalf. Meanwhile Burbage suborned his witnesses “to commit grievous perjury” concerning the costs of James Burbage, “by which unlawful practises your said subject _did then lose his case_.” Further, in the suit between him and Peter Street, and between him and Cuthbert Burbage, one William Smith laid out “divers sums of money on their behalf, whereby arose forcible entries, abuse of justice, law, and order, and examples of misdemeanour worthy of punishment.” Cuthbert and Richard Burbage and the others denied all his charges, and denied “the riott in pulling down the said playhouse called the Theatre.” Cuthbert “in conscience, being the assignee, could justify it, although not in strictness of common law, by Alleyn’s breach of covenant.” Therefore he had sought relief in the Court of Requests, which on 18th October 1600, non-suited Alleyn, and forbade him ever again from bringing another “action for pulling down _of The Theatre_.” Cuthbert added that Alleyn “offers great scandal and abuse to your Majesty’s Council by calling the same matter again in question, after such judiciall sentence and decree passed against him.” On 12th June 1602, Richard Lane, “who was then and is still acting as deputy Register in the Court of Requests,” denied Alleyn’s charge against himself. His whole procedure had been what he was accustomed to for the past thirty years; he therefore denied the charge of forgery. On 17th June Richard Hudson and Thomas Osborne denied the charge of perjury brought by Alleyn against them. After these wholesale denials Giles Alleyn’s bill of complaint and the demurrers were referred to the consideration of “the right worshipful Mr. Francis Bacon, Esq.”; and he decided that Giles Alleyn’s bill of complaint was very uncertain and insufficient in law, and _no further answer need be made to it_. This means that it was dismissed. This is my first discovery of any association between Francis Bacon and the theatre, and even the Baconians must allow it was a purely legal one, and not literary.

Alleyn defied legal etiquette and legal decision by continuing the postponed suit against the same man in another court. This is the case in the Queen’s Bench (Coram Rege Roll, Easter 44 Eliz. R. 257), which is varied from the former one in that court by being brought directly against Burbage, instead of his servant Peter Street. The case gives the former recitals quoted by Halliwell-Phillipps, who apparently did not understand that Burbage argued this time that Alleyn was incompetent to bring the action. Giles Alleyn and Sara his wife appealed to the country for a jury. This was never summoned, because, Alleyn’s case being dismissed from the Star Chamber in Trinity, 44 Eliz., he was left by the previous decision of the Court of Requests incompetent at law to bring the case at all.

I can only account for Giles Alleyn’s audacity in bringing such a case again by the fact that since the Privy Council’s decision had occurred, the Essex conspiracy, executions, imprisonments, and fines had occupied the attention of the Privy Council, and weakened the strength of the players’ friends at Court. Burbage’s company themselves had not escaped without suspicion: Augustine Phillips had been summoned, though he had proved his innocence, and the company performed at Court till the eve of the executions.

Giles Alleyn was a stubborn and testy man, and very likely would have revived the case the following year in the new reign. But, unfortunately for him, the new sovereign from the first showed decided favour to these special players, and, among the first acts he performed in his reign, patented them to be his own Royal Servants and Grooms of the Chamber. Exit “Giles Alleyn, Armiger.” After that, the troubles were ended concerning the transportation of the Theatre over the water to Southwark and its transformation into the Globe, though the losses crippled the company for long.

This paper acts as the second part of my answer to the Baconian query, “Where did Shakespeare learn his law?”

_“Athenæum,” Oct. 16, 1909._

PS.--These latter two articles and several lectures on the same subject were expanded into a volume called “Burbage and Shakespeare’s Stage,” delayed by my printers until July 1913, and then delayed by my wish in publication till 8th September 1913. Later in the same year came out Dr. Wallace’s “Nebraska University Studies,” where he gives many of the documents _in extenso_, along with some interesting depositions from the Uncalendared Court of Requests which he was permitted to see in advance of others. He has chosen to add a note that “_he told me_,” in 1908, of all these papers above-mentioned. He is mistaken. If he ever told anybody it must have been somebody else. Neither then, nor at any time, did he ever tell me anything that I wished to know. I had all my papers before he began his work, which I can prove.

FOOTNOTES:

[89] I have been unable to find the Information, but another case in the same court, 38 Eliz., concerns the same property and the same tenants.

[90] See my article “Burbage’s Theatre,” “Fortnightly Review,” July 1909.

XIX

EARLY PICCADILLY

The exact locality of early Piccadilly, the date of the first appearance of the name, and its derivation from a “collar,” a “gaming-house,” or a “hill-peak,” have been frequently discussed by London topographers and by writers in “Notes and Queries.”[91] I do not pretend to be able to decide the third question, but I have collected some definite facts concerning the first and second which are worth preserving, as they may prevent futile discussions and may hereafter help to the elucidation of the derivation.

Many writers, stating that the name was first used by Gerard in his “Herbal,” assume that he did so in his first edition of 1597. This is an error. It first appears in the edition of 1633. I have, however, found the word used at least ten years earlier than that, not in connection with “Higgins the draper,” as Walford suggests (who really lived at “the Mearemaide”), but in connection with “Robert Baker, Gent., of Piccadilly Hall, St. Martin-in-the-Fields.” “Piccadilly,” like many other names and things, has travelled considerably westward in its day. There is no mention of the name in any book, nor, so far as has yet been discovered, in any manuscript, of Elizabeth’s reign. Having found Mr. Baker first associated with it, I worked back on his traces.

In Aggas’s map, which shows the appearance of the neighbourhood at the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth, there is a mass of building about the royal mews, facing St. Martin’s Church (on the present site of the National Gallery), and open fields stretching beyond to the country. The wall of Convent Garden formed the eastern boundary of St. Martin’s Lane, or, as it was then called, Church Lane. There were a few buildings about St. Giles’s, and _one_ at the end of St. Martin’s Lane, commonly described as “_over_ the Church Lane.” The district does not seem to have changed much in the early years of James’s reign. The churchwardens of St. Martin-in-the-Fields regularly entered receipts for the rent of “the house _over_ Church Lane,” but the first sign of an enclosure of the Fields appears in the books of 1612, when they stated they had “received from Roger Haighton, steward of the Right Hon. Earl of Salisbury, Lord High Treasurer of England, on February 17th, 1611, 50s, for a yeares rent of five acres of ground in the Lammas Common, heretofore called Swanne Close, whereuppon the new buildings are erected to the west of St. Martin’s Lane.” In the following year, 1612-3, there is a similar entry and the record of a new tenant:

Item, receved of Robert Baker Tayler, for the Lammas ground which he built uppon neare the Windmill, for one year ended Lammas Day, 1612, 30_s._

The next year similar rents are recorded, and a topographical entry:

Received of Francis Gilford, Inholder, towards the charges of throwing up the ditch, and amending the highway of the upper corner of St. James’s Fields, near the Windmill, 16_s._ 6_d._

In 1614-5 the churchwardens admit a third encloser:

Received of Jeffrey Culsheth, gent., for one yeares rent of the Lammas ground, which he enclosed with a brick wall for a bowling alley, 10_s._

Ten shillings appears to be the ground rent of an acre of ground in that neighbourhood then! The three rents reappear in the following account, with the exception that “for a bowling alley” is scratched out and is not repeated. Other temporary enclosures near the almshouses in 1616 seem to have been recalled later. In 1619 the Earl of Salisbury, Jeffrey Culsheth, and Robert Baker are still tenants, and the last is described as “gent.” In 1621 the name of Jeffrey Culsheth is omitted. In 1622-3 William Warden is allowed “the gravel pitts hitherto demised to Thomas Warden, 10_l._” The Earl of Salisbury is still in possession, but

Receyved of the Executors of Robert Baker, gent., for the Lammas Common of certain grounds lyeing at the Causeway-head, near the Windmill, builded uppon by him, 30_s._, in lieu of the said Lammas Common, &c., 30_s._

Here we may turn to another authority. The Overseers of the Poor of St. Martin’s acknowledge in the record of the same year 1622-3, “Landside ... Of Robert Baker, _of Pickadilly Hall_, given by him by will, 3_l._” This then, is the first entry of the name that has yet been found, and it is important to note that the term “Hall” is used. This “Robert Baker, gent.,” made his will on 14 April 1623, and it was proved on 8 May of the same year. He left Samuel Baker sole executor, to sell all leases, pay all debts, and provide for the liberal education and endowment of his children and his wife. His daughters Judith and Mary were to have £600 each. His wife Mary to have the house where he then dwelt, with the garden and the cowhouse in St. Martin’s, and “2 houses in the High Street neere against Brittaine’s Burse.” To his son Samuel he left

a peece of ground divided into several parcels, and in part built upon, containing about 2 acres, situated behind the muse of St. Martin’s, which I lately enclosed with a brick wall, together with all walls, stables, howses and edifices thereupon.

He also provided for his son Robert, and an unborn child, who was to have “a close called Conduit Close” and the reversion of the mother’s houses. The name Piccadilly nowhere appears in the will, so it would seem not to have been a name selected by himself. As Samuel was to have two acres, doubtless the house and garden of Mr. Baker occupied the other acre, thirty shillings being regularly paid for the whole. With this will in memory, we may go back to the churchwardens’ accounts, and find in the following year, 1623-4:

Item, received of the executors of Samuel Baker, gent., deceased, who was executor of Robert Baker, deceased, the some of thirty shillings in lieu of the Lammas Common neare the Windmill, builded upon by him in his lifetime, and _lately called Pick a dilly_, 30_s._

In 1624-5 the same entries continue, with only slight variations. The Earl of Salisbury,

for the _Swanne Close_ upon which many faire dwelling houses have been erected, and gardens belonging to them taken out of it, 50_s._

Of the heirs or executors of Robert Baker ... for certain ground near the Windmill at Causeway-head, and _usually_ called Pick a dilly, 30_s._

Item, received of John Johnson for a piece of ground heretofore enclosed by Jeffrey Kelsey and used for a Bowling Alley, 10_s._

The entries of 1625-6 remain the same, but in 1626-7 “Mrs. Marie Baker, Widdowe,” pays for the ground

neare the Windmylne at the Causewayhead builded uppon in the lyfetime of Robert Baker, her late husband, deceased, and _usually now_ called Pick a dillie, 30_s._

No Johnson or representative was charged for the bowling alley. In 1628-9, other entries remaining the same, a new tenant was admitted:

The Hon. Sir William Howard, Knight, in lieu of the Lammas Common of a certayne piece of ground called _the Swanne Close_, whereuppon the same Sir William hath lately erected a faire dwelling house, with a garden thereunto adjoyning taken out of the same Close, and is the first yeares rent for the same, 10_s._

In 1631-2 to this small list is added another encloser:

The Right Honble, the Earl of Leicester, for the Lammas Common of a piece of ground adjoyning to the military garden, newely enclosed with a brick wall, 30_s._

In 1632-3 the entries remain the same, Mrs. Marie Baker’s lot being described as “usually nowe called Pickadilly.” To the Earl of Leicester’s entry is added “and faire buildings thereuppon erected,” and his rent raised to £3. In 1634-5 the Earl of Newport held the land built on by Sir William Howard, and an adjoining close. This small list of enclosers remains the same. In 1638 the churchwardens’ books cease to record the rents, a special book after that date being used for the Lammas lands.

Returning to the overseers’ books, we find Mrs. Mary Baker assessed 16_s._ 4_d._ in 1623-4, and 17_s._ in 1625-6. The following year the residents are classified by their addresses, and for the first time is mentioned “Pecadilly, Mrs. Mary Baker, widow, 11_s._, John Woode, 2_s._, Isabell Ridley, 3_s._ 4_d._,” which entries imply subletting. In 1634-5 she was only charged 6_s._ 6_d._, but no streets were named. In 1636, under the wider address of “Brick hill, near Soho,” we find “Mrs. Mary Baker, 18_s._,” and “Symon Osbalston, Esq., 4_s._” which assessments in the following year are raised to 26_s._ and 34_s._ 8_d._ In 1637, under the heading “Brick Hill, near Soho,” is specified “Pickadilly,” which now contains nine names:

The Widow Camell, 2_s._ 2_d._, William Vaugh, 2_s._ 2_d._, Thomas Heylock, 2_s._ 2_d._, Mrs. Mary Baker, 3_s._ 6_d._, Sir Richard Grymes, Knight, 9_s._ 6_d._, William Larke, 3_s._ 4_d._, Widow Bedwell, 2_s._ 2_d._, Symme Osbaldston, 8_s._ 6_d._, Anthony Walter, 6_d._

This certainly implies lodgers or subletting of houses on her own or her son’s property, as the ground rent is still paid in Mrs. Baker’s name. It is an important list, for it shows that “the gaming-house” must have been very near, or part and parcel of the Bakers’ lands.

In another book, entitled “An Abstract of Rents in St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields,” there are entries concerning the Earl of Salisbury and others which show that, though undated, it commences about 1633. Mrs. Mary Baker has to pay for “the Lammas common of the _land neere Pick a dillie_ where his buildings are erected, 30_s._” The next folio is dated 1635, where her ground is “_usually now_ called Pick a dilly.” In that list appears “Of Symon Osbalston, Esq., for ground built upon sence, neere Pick a dilly, the some of 4_l._” There is some reverse writing on p. 1 of this volume, which reads:

Item of Mr. Fox for the Bowling Greene and Bear _in Swanne Close_ yearely 10_l._

Rents due yearely from these undernamed for the ground rent of the ground added to the ends of their gardens out of _Swanne Close_, Mr. Dobbins, 1_l._, Mr. Boulton, 12_s._, Mr. Cooke, 4_s._, Mr. Temple, 1_l._, Mr. Plunkett, 15_s._, the Lady Vane, 1_l._, the Lady Armin, 2_l._, Mr. Bull, 6_s._

A marginal reference adds, “The Earl of Leicester hath these now.”

On p. 4, also reversed and without date:

Of the owners of Pickadilly House and Bowling Greens, 4_l._ Of Mrs. Mary Baker, for the Lammas Common of grounds whereon she hath houses at Pickadilly, 1_l._

These notices clearly show that the name was first applied to the Bakers’ property, and the title of “Pickadilly Hall” only applied to their house; that the neighbouring building of Simon Osbaldistone’s, which became the “gaming-house,” was built either partly on their ground or in close proximity to it (probably including the old bowling alley of Culsheth or Kelsey), and that it was therefore called “Pickadilly House.”

The earliest notice of the name in the State Papers occurs in “Dom. Ser. St. Pap. Car. I, 178 (43), 1630 (?),[92] note of priests and Jesuits now in England: ‘John Blundeston, a priest, son to Blundeston in Fetter Lane, is now much at Pecadily Hall at the Countess of Shrewsbury’s’”; and in the same series, S. P. D. C. Car. I, 195 (3), on 24 June 1634, Rich. Wainwright and others, writing to Secretary Dorchester, say:

This day at Lady Shrewsbury’s house at Piccadilly Hall, Parish of St. Martin’s, Mass was said by Captain George Popham, Priest. Richard Wainwright apprehended him, by the aid of Edward Corbett the Constable, and took him to Somerset House, whence he escaped, and was received by the Friars.

Evidently the countess at the time must have been renting Mrs. Baker’s “Hall.”

An important description is preserved in a letter written by the Rev. George Garrard, Master of the Charterhouse, to the Earl of Strafford:

Since the spring garden was put down (1634), we have, by a servant of the Lord Chamberlain’s, a new spring garden erected in the fields beyond the Mews, where is built a fair house and two bowling greens made to entertain gamesters and bowlers at an excessive rate, for I believe it hath cost him above 4,000_l._, a dear undertaking for a gentleman barber. My Lord Chamberlain much frequents that place, where they bowl great matches. June 24, 1635.

Garrard, writing to Edward, Viscount Conway, 30 May 1636, adds:

Simme Austbiston’s house is newly christened. It is called Shaver’s Hall, as other neighbouring places are named Tart Hall, Pickadell Hall. At first, no conceit there was of the building being a barber’s, but it came upon my Lord of Dunbarr’s loosing 3,000_l._ at one sitting, whereon they said a northerne Lord was shaved there; but now, putting both togeather, I feare it will be a nickname of the place, as Nicke and Frothe is at Petworth, so long as the house stands. My Lord Chamberlain knows not of it yett, but will chafe abominably when he comes to know it. My neighbours at Salisbury House are all gone to Hatfield.--Dom. Ser. St. Pap. Car. I, 323 (41).

The barber was Simon Osbaldistone, servant to Philip, Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, Chamberlain of the Royal Household.

Clarendon, in “The History of the Rebellion,” mentions the place:

Mr. Hyde going to a House called Piccadilly, which was a fair house for entertainment and gaming, with handsome gravel walks with shade, and where is an upper and lower bowling green, whither many of the best quality resorted for exercise and recreation.

A description of the building is found in an estimate of 1650.

Mr. H. B. Wheatley in “Round about Piccadilly” gives a full account of the later fortunes of Piccadilly. “The house commonly called Pickadilly House” was assigned as soldiers’ quarters on 1 August 1650 (“Interregnum Order-Book”). Faithorne’s map (1658) shows it as “The Gaming House.” Evelyn mentions the locality in his “Diary” (1662) saying that “orders had been given to pave the way from St. James’s North, which was a Quagmire, and the Haymarket, and Piquadillo.” Colonel Thomas Panton seems to have purchased it in 1671, and petitioned for leave to build on it, which was granted.

All this throws very little light on the derivation of the name, except that it dissociates it from “the gallants of the gaming house,” which was not built until Piccadilloes were out of fashion. Among the annals of 1612 we find mention of “yellow starch, and great cut-work bands and piccadillies (things that hath since lost the name),” said to have been imported or contrived by the notorious Mrs. Turner (Kennet’s “England,” ii, 638). Barnabe Rich in his “Honesty of the Age,” 1614, satirizing the tailors and “body-makers,” says, “he that some forty or fifty years sithens should have asked after a Pickadilly, I wonder who, could have understood him, or could have told what a Pickadilly had been, either fish or flesh.” Ben Jonson, in undated lines in “Underwoods,” says:

And then leap mad on a neat Pickardill.

In 1615 the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge promulgated an injunction against excess in apparel and the use of “strange peccadillies”; and in that same year, “4th November, 1615, Mrs. Anne Turner, who was executed at Tyburne, for poysoning of Sir Thomas Overbury, Knight, was buried at St. Martin’s,” and the churchwardens received 17_s._ 8_d._ for her grave. An effort to discredit her invention was made by “hanging her in yellow ruffles,” and the piccadillies shortly went out of fashion too.

Butler in his “Hudibras” styles the collars of the pillory “Peccadilloes.” Cotgrave, 1611; Minsheu, 1627; Nares’s “Old Glossary,” Blunt’s “Glossographia,” 1656, explain the word as a stiff collar or hem round a garment.

Seeing that Robert Baker was originally a tailor, it is quite possible that his aristocratic neighbours threw scorn on his ambitious house by nicknaming it after his collars “Pickadilly Hall,” a possibility supported by Garrard’s letter. But there is another possibility which I may suggest. Seeing that it was in the immediate neighbourhood of “Swanne Close,” held by the Earl of Salisbury, and seeing that the district was marshy, full of ditches, and pools formed in old gravel pits, it is just possible that a breed of plebeian ducks throve there. Down to the present time children in East Essex, calling these to their meals, cry,

Dilly Dilly, cuddilly, cuddilly, cuddilly,
Cud, Cud, Cud, Pick a dilly, dilly, dilly,

which words are probably a survival of the old original of the mocking parody “Dilly Dilly, come and be killed.” It is also possible that some specimens of dill, or of daffodils, frequently called dillies, grew there abundantly. The churchwardens’ clerk of St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, in early years, carefully dissociated the parts of the word as “Pick a dilly.” It remains at least a fact for us that the word as a place name first enters literature associated neither with collars, tailors, nor gaming-houses, but with the botanist John Gerard, who found the blue buglosse “growing in a dry Ditch at Pickadilla” some time before 1633.

_“Athenæum,” July 27th, 1901._

FOOTNOTES:

[91] “Notes and Queries,” First Series, viii, 467; Third Series, ix, 176, 249; Fourth Series, i, 292; iii, 415.

[92] The doubtful date of the calendar should be rendered 1633-4.

XX

LITERARY EXPENSES IN ST. MARGARET’S, WESTMINSTER, 1530-1610

The important historical information given in the accounts of the Churchwardens justifies the reproduction of those selections which testify to the rapid changes in religion and education. William Russell and Thomas Cloudesley were churchwardens from 2nd June 1530 till 11th May 1532, and they “Payd for a Prick Song book xxᵈ.” The next Wardens “payd for the covering of the Pryksong book ijˢ.” Thurston Amere and William Combes 1538-40, in their “first yere” “payd for a book to registre in the names of the Buryalls Weddynges and Cristeninges ijˢ.” This entry is exceedingly interesting for many reasons. Archbishop Cranmer and Thomas Cromwell issued a set of Injunctions dated 11th October 1538; of which a contemporary copy is preserved in the Public Record Office, (uncalendared Papers of Henry VIII, 253). The second of these ordained

The Bible in English to be sett up in the churches Royal et parrochim.... Sixth, A sermon to be preached at least every quarter.... Twelfth, Register-bookes to be kept of weddings Cristenings and Burialls, and for safe keeping thereof, the Parish to finde a cheste with two locks and two Keyes to be taken out every Sunday and the Parson in the presence of the Wardens to write.... etc.

For every omission a fine of 3_s._ 4_d._ to be levied.

St. Margaret’s is one of the few churches whose Registers are preserved from this early date. This entry proves promptness in obedience, as the books themselves show carefulness in preserving. In their second year these Wardens “payd for the halfe parte of the Bybell accordingly after the King’s injuncions ixˢ ixᵈ, Item payd for a desk for the Bybell iijˢ viiiᵈ. Item payd for a Quire of Paper for a parucker booke for this 2ⁿᵈ yere ijᵈ.” Among the Foren payments are repairs to the organ, and “payd for two hympnalls for pdco, ijˢ viiiᵈ.” The “accompt of Robert Smalwood gent, and William Heynings, grome of the King’s most honourable Chamber,” wardens from 1540 to 1542; in relation to pew-letting mentions “the purchase of a book for the pewes of freemen xiᵈ.” Passing over the regular items of quires of paper for their “particular books”; of “parchment for their general book” and of help “in the writing of the same; in the Accompte of John Kenet and Thomas Massy 36ᵗʰ to 38ᵗʰ Hen. VIII,” we find amid the “foren payments of the first yere,” “Also payd for VI Bookes of the Lattony in Englyshe xviiiᵈ.”

In the account of Nicholas Ellys and Richard Dod, 12th June, 38th Henry VIII to 17th May, 2nd Edward VI, after mentioning the dirge for Henry and the expenses contributed to his funeral, recorded in the second year.

Also payd in Christemas quarter to Goodman Beyton for makynge of the stone in the body of the churche for the priest to declare the pistolls and gospells, ijˢ.

... to Thomas Stokedale for xxxv ells of clothe for the fronte of the Rode Lofte where as the X commaundements be wrytten, price of the ell viiiᵈ, xxiiiˢ iiiiᵈ.

... to hym that dyd wryght the said X commaundements and for the drynkynge, lxviˢ ixᵈ.

Also payd for the hangyng of the same clothe, vˢ ijᵈ.

Also payd for a Byble for to rede the pystell and the gospell, xˢ.

Also payd for ij wayscotte bords for the hie Alter, xijᵈ.

Also payd for the wryghtynge of the Scriptures upon the same bords, vˢ.

The Account of Richard Babbye and John Buckherde, 2nd Ed. VI to 4th Ed. VI. In the first year is entered a dated purchase,

Also payd for the half pte of the paphyrice of Erasmus the xᵗʰ August, vˢ.

After Christmas they bought and

Also payd for viii salters in Englyshe, xiijˢ iiijᵈ.

Also payd to Hansforthe for the Inventory that was deliuered to the Kyngs commyssioners, iiijˢ viiiᵈ.

In the second year

Also paid for the searching of the records in the Kynges Exchequer, ijˢ vᵈ.

Also paid to Nicholas Poole for wryttyng and prykynge of Songs for the Quyer, iijˢ iiijᵈ.

Also payd to William Curlewe for mendynge of divers pewes that were broken when Doctor Lattymer dyd preache, xviiiᵈ.

Forren payments. First payd for iiij books of the Service in the church, xviᵈ.

... to Nicolas Poole for pryking of divers songs, iijˢ iiijᵈ.

Also payd for the taking up of the foundation of the Crosse at the west door, viijᵈ.

The Book of Thomas Duffield and John Curtesse from 4th to 6th Ed. VI is written on paper, while all the others have used parchment.

They note an energetic sale of tabernacles and Popish ornaments; the introduction of a communion table and communion cups after the Protestant fashion.

Also payde to a Carpenter for a dayes workynge for to set up the Skaffolde for hym that dyd wryght the vi chapter of St. Johns Gospell in the quire, viijᵈ.

... for nailes to the same, iijᵈ.

Also payde to hym that did paynte and wryghte the vi chapter of Saynt Johns Gospel in ye quyre, xlˢ.

Also payd to hym for wrytynge of certeyne chapitres more in the quyre as appereth, xiijˢ iiijᵈ.

Also paid to him for wrytynge and trymmynge of the north yle and the sowthe yle, iiiˡⁱ ixˢ viiiiᵈ.

Also payd for the makyng of our bill to put in at the Bishopp’s visitacyon, iiijᵈ.

Also payd for a boke of the Artycles, ijᵈ.

Also payde for a supplicacyon that was put to Mr. Chanceloure of the Augmentation for his patent, ijˢ.

Nicholas Ludforde and Rychard Castell occupied the responsible position from 6th Ed. VI to 1st Mary.

Also payd to Mr. Curate and Nicholas Poole for makynge the Book of Church goods to be presented to the King’s Commissioners and for ye paynes they toke abowte it, that is to say to Mr. Curate, iiiˢ iiijᵈ and to Nicholas Poole, viˢ viiiᵈ.

Allso payde for two communion Bookes, viiˢ iiijᵈ.

Allso payde for the pullpit where the Curat and the Clark did reade the chapitres at servis tyme, xiiiˢ iiijᵈ.

Without any notice of change of sovereign, the entries go straight on to the service of the “old faith.”

Allso payd for an ymnall & a processionall, iiijˢ.

... for iij Great Antiphoners ij Grayles and a Masse Book, xlixˢ.

Also payde for an owlde Legente, a Massebook, and a processionall, and an owlde Antyphoner, xiiˢ.

Allso payd to John Bray for the new trimming of an Antiphoner, ijˢ.

Allso payde for a Supplicacion to the Queen’s Majesty for the Church goods.

Allso payde for a copie of the Instructions geven by the commissioners to Mr. Smallwood and others for the Churchgoods, viᵈ.

William Pampion and John Bray (from 1 Mary to 1 and 2 Phil. & Mary), early in their first year pay

to a painter for washing owte of the Skripture from of the hie Altar table, xiiᵈ.

Item payde to Wyer for new byndynge of a mansel and a processyonall, xiiᵈ.

The next churchwardens

Payd for making of a Serplis of the cloth that hung before the Rode loft wrytten with the Commandements, ijˢ.

Richard Hodges and Robert Davys were churchwardens from 4 and 5 Phil. and Mary to 2nd Eliz.

In their second year they

Payde for a Bybill & a paraphrase, xviˢ.

Item for a Communion Booke bounde in Parchmine, viˢ.

Item paid for a book of the names of all such persons as were buried within the Parish from Mydsommer day in Anno domini 1558 until Mydsommer day in the year 1559 delyvered to the vysytors, ijˢ.

Item for a chaine and two stapulles for the paraphrase. xᵈ.

John Skonner and John Hunter 2ⁿᵈ Eliz. to 4ᵗʰ Eliz.

First yere, Item a quire of paper, iiijᵈ.

... for a Psalter for the Quyre, xviiiᵈ.

... for Byndyng of a Communion Booke, xiiᵈ.

... for a Quyre of paper and for setting the same into the Register booke, viᵈ.

Item for a new Calendar set for the order of our servys in the church, iiijᵈ.

... For a paper with the 10 commaundements, xviᵈ.

2ⁿᵈ year Item, for making a bill to the Commissioners of concealed lands, viiiᵈ.

Item for a Communion Book, iiijˢ.

William Worley and William Stanton, 4 to 6 Eliz.

payde for 4 qr bookes of psalmes in meeter for the quyer, iiiiˢ viiiᵈ.

Item to Nicholas Poole for the pryckinge of two bookes withe _Te Deum Laudamus_ for the quyre, xᵈ.

Item payd for 2 bookes of meeter psalmes of the gretest volume for the quyer bought by Poole, iiˢ viiiᵈ.

... for a quire of paper for the making of a certificate of strangers, iiijᵈ.

... for a book of the Queens Matⁱᵉˢ injunctions, viᵈ.

... a quier of paper for a book for clerk’s wages, iiijᵈ.

... for 4 qʳ songe bookes for the service of God in the same churche, vˢ.

... for 4 qʳ bookes of service for the cessing of warres, xviᵈ.

... for 4 qʳ books of prayer to God for the cessing of the plague, viiiᵈ.

... To a booke bynder for newe byndynge and mendinge of sondrie places of the Bible iijˢ.

For a quier of papier for the clerke to make weekely certificates unto the Court of all Burials and cristenings, iiijᵈ.

... to Christopher Robinson for a copy of Edmond Wilgres Will signed under the hand of Mr. Argall, iiiˢ iiijᵈ.

William Spencer and John Fisher, 1564 to 1566.

payd for two quyer of paper, viiiᵈ.

... one pynte of ynke, viiiᵈ.

... for two paddelocks for the Register cheaste, xviᵈ.

Item, payd for a quyre of paper for the Register Book, iiiiᵈ.

Item, payd for 2 psalme books for the Quyer, iiiiˢ.

It. payd to Mr. Archdeacon’s man for writing a book of Articles, xijᵈ.

For two psalme bookes for the quyer, iiijˢ.

For a quire of paper for certificates, iiijᵈ.

For writing a book for the Collectors, xᵈ.

For two Books of Prayers, ijᵈ.

Richard Gybbes and Roger Boseley, 1566 to 1568, 2nd year.

Item paid for a Book of Queen’s Injuncions, iiijᵈ.

... for a Book of Homilies, iiiiˢ.

... for twoo books of prayers set out by the Byshoppe of Canterbury to be redd Sondaies Wedensdaies & fridaies, viᵈ.

... for a Certyficate made of all the strangers within the parische, viᵈ.

... for one book of Homelyes and another book called a protestation, xiiᵈ.

John Jennens and Richard Garradd, 1568-1570.

Item payde for byndyng and new covering of the Bybell, viˢ viiiᵈ.

... for the writing of a book to the Queen’s maiesties Commissioners for armer, xijᵈ.

... for writing of a booke to Mr. Latimer of articles, xijᵈ.

George Bryghte and Nicholas Corne, 1570-1572.

Item payd for a new booke of the Queen’s Majesties injuncions, iiijᵈ.

... for a plott of the church drawn out in parchment, xxᵈ.

... payd to the Registre for entering our booke of presentments when we delivered up the same, iiijᵈ.

Thomas Clerke and Andrew Holborne, 1572-1574.

Item for a new Regyster book for to wryte in the names of every buryall crystening and marryge that is in the Parisshe, vˢ.

... for 3 new books of common prayers set owt by the Bishop, viᵈ.

... for writyng a copy of the Artycles, iiijᵈ.

John Wheler and Edward Taylor, 1574-1576.

Item payd for a coppy of the Artycles gyven by the vysytors to the sworn men to inquyr of, ijˢ.

Item payd for a new Byble of the largest volume, xxviiiˢ.

The accompt of Davy Rogeres and John Ryall, 1576-1577, during which year John Ryall died, and the following year the account is of John Fyssher and Davy Rogers, 1577-1578.

1st year Item payd for tow iron chauynes for the tow paraphrases of Erasmus.

Item paid for making writinge & drawing out of the lease of St. Anns Chappell to laye wood in for the poore, vˢ viiiᵈ.

These continue in office for a second term.

The Accompt of John Fisher and Davy Rogers, 1578-1580, has no literary expenses worth noting.

The Accompte of Thomas Wharton and John Lovadge, 1580-1582, 2nd yere.

Item payd for a Book of Abridgments of Statutes to remain in the church, ixˢ.

John Bradshawe and William Conham, 1582-1584, the usual paper, ink, parchments, and nothing else.

Richard Ferris and George Lee, 1584-1586, the same.

Morris Pickeringe and John Prieste, 1586-1588.

Item payde for a Communyone Booke, vijˢ.

Item payde for an Hower glasse, iiijᵈ.

Item payde for three Psalter bookes, vˢ.

Item payde for a lace for a register for the communion booke, viᵈ.

Item payd to Robert Jones for wrytynge of certayne duties ordered by the consentes of the parish and for wrytynge the names of the pore people of Mr. Cornellis his almes howses, xiiᵈ.

Item payd for three bokes of prayers for the Queenes Matie, viᵈ.

Item payd for a Book of Injuncions, iiijᵈ.

Item payd to Mr. Price for two bookes of prayers for the Queenes Mayesties daye, viᵈ.

Item paid for a backe and cheste for a writting table.

Item payd to the joyner for makeing a Table wherein are sett the names of all such that payde in every ward towards the statute of Westminster, and for wrytyng of the same table, ijˢ viijᵈ.

Thomas Cooper and Richard Ireland, 1588-1589-90.

1st year Item payd for the wrytynge of a copye of Mr. Warnham’s Will, viᵈ.

Item payd for two prayer books, when the Spanisshe Fleete was upon the narrow Seas, iijᵈ.

Item payd for mendinge the Table of the Tenn Commaundements that hangeth over the Communion Table, ijˢ.

Item payd for makinge of the Indentures between Baron Southerton and the Churchwardens, xijᵈ.

William Towe and Cuthbert Lyne, 1590-1591.

Item payd to Thomas Collins for drawing certen articles of agreements for the benefit of the Churche & after for ingrossing them into the Register Booke, iiijˢ.

The Accompt of Marmaduke Servaunt and Thomas Cole, 1592-1594. This being plague time there was little literature.

William Goddard and George Waites, 1594-1596.

Item geven to Mr. Fletcher a precher who preched the 4 of August being Sonday in the afternoon by consent of such of the vestry as were present at that sermon, vˢ.

2ⁿᵈ yere Item geven to Jhon Crewonne alias Foke a pore scoller borne in this parish after a sermon by him made in this church by consent of such of the vestry as were present at that sermon, xxˢ.

Roger Darly and Samuel Haselwood, 1596-1598.

Item for a prayer-book, jᵈ.

2ⁿᵈ yere. Item for a Communion Booke & a Psalter book, bothe embossed, viiiˢ iiijᵈ.

Item for a praier book, ijᵈ.

Henry Weatherfield and William Man, 1598-1600.

It. gyven to Mr. Ailworthe for preaching on Easter day, xˢ.

Item payd for a service book, iijˢ.

Robert Gouldinge and William Stanlake 1602-1604.

There was plague again. Only at the end there is an entry,

Item payed 24ᵗʰ March, for four books, xxiᵈ.

the very date of Elizabeth’s death and James’s accession.

William Carter and John Butcher, 1604-1606, head their title-page with the motto “Tempora mutantur et nos mutantur in illis.” After 5th November 1605 they paid

Item for three prayer bookes, xiiᵈ.