PREFA-¡ NOTE TO 1603. so significantly, in Ralegh's letter to Cecil on the treatment of the Earl of Essex in 1600. The Bishop, it is plain, had now, in some degree, made a favourable impression on James, and his present request came on the eve of Ralegh's fatal implication in some of the schemes of Cobham-whatever may have been their real object or extent. The Bishop won his suit. But his direct interest in Durham House was to be brief. I doubt that he himself lived in it for more than a few weeks. And within three years, he was transferred to the Archbishopric of York. There, he found occasion and motive to do with the London mansion of the Archbishops of York precisely-but under aggravated circumstances-what, in 1603, he condemned Queen Elizabeth for having done with its near neighbour, that of the Bishops of Durham. He alienated it from the See (of course, under the illusive form of an 'exchange') to the King's all-powerful favourite, the Duke of Buckingham. Nor were his dealings with Durham House itself during his short tenure much to the credit of his honesty. A well-known apophthegm has kept alive the memory of Bishop Matthew's domestic infelicities:-"One of my sons has wit and no grace; the other, grace but no wit; and the third has neither grace nor wit." The scapegrace first named in this pleasant trio proved his wit by getting, in some way or other, from his father-with whom, nevertheless, he was almost always at variance-an interest in certain outlying portions of Durham House and its purlieus which was valuable enough to be purchased by Robert Cecil (by that time Earl of Salisbury), in the year following the Bishop's translation to York, for the sum of 1200/. The plunder of the Church, and of its pastors, went on-in substance-just as prosperously under James as it had done under Elizabeth. But it then became the fashion to cloke the theft with somewhat of outward sanctimoniousness in phrase and profession,-a disguise which before had commonly been deemed superfluous. Two years 1 T. Matthew to E. of Salisbury; in Cecil Papers, vol. cxx. f. 94 Hatc TORY after his purchase, Lord Salisbury obtained, from Bishop PREFAMatthew's successor, a lease of the "courtyard of Durham House." Bishop James, on this occasion, spends no time in useless remonstrance, but, with the simple rhetoric of cumulative figures, sums up to the Lord Treasurer1 the onerous deductions claimed from the revenues of Durham-for very secular purposes-under the rule of the royal theologian. The total, thus stated, is certainly expressive. Not the least curious incident in the history of Durham House' is the fact that its temporary restoration to the ancient owners was contemplated by Sir Robert Cecil, before the Queen's death. He it was who instigated the application by Bishop Matthew, and who paved the way for its success.2 Whatever else had happened to Sir Walter Ralegh, on the accession of King James, there had been a foregone determination that he should lose his town residence. When part of the outbuildings had been burnt-in the October of 1600Lady Ralegh had written to Sir Robert: "It is time for you to get an interest in this rotten house." The context suggests --but it is suggestion only-the probability that there had already been some talk between Ralegh and Cecil about the subtraction of a part of the large purlieus of the old episcopal palace, either as an addition to Cecil's own house and grounds, or for some ulterior purpose. Whether or not Sir Robert had, at that date, formed his plan of building a vast bazaar or exchange' on the site, there is nothing, I think, to show. The first idea of such a novel scheme would seem more Consonant with Ralegh's mind than with Cecil's. Be that as it may, the NEW EXCHANGE'-so often mentioned in the dramas and other popular literature of the Stuart reigns-rose, eventually, on the site of the offices belonging to Durham House. William James, Bishop of Durham, to the Lord Treasurer Salisbury, June, 1609; Cecil Papers, vol. cxxvii. f. 83 (Hatfield). Letter of Bishop Matthew, written from Berwick, 7 April, 1603; Cecil Papers, vol. xcix. § 98 (Hatfield). 1603. PREFA- NOTE TO I ETTER 1603. Sir Robert Cecil's innovation was eagerly welcomed by expectant occupiers of the shops and stalls, who besieged him with applications to become his tenants there; and it was just as eagerly opposed by the established traders of the City. The Corporation of London tried to induce the powerful minister of James to abandon his purpose. In his reply to the Lord Mayor, Cecil protested his strong affection to the citizens,whom he had loved, he said, from his cradle by an hereditary obligation. No man, he told them, could in his opinion be a good servant to the King "that should go about to weaken London ;" adding, "If I labour against London, I labour against my own thoughts and affections." But, then (he reminded the Londoners), their old neighbour, Westminster, had also claims upon him and them. The Londoners, he thought, "should be contented to contribute some small portion of commodity for such a neighbour, even though it were drawn directly from themselves,"-a condition which he was scarcely inclined to admit. "I have now found," he continued, “this opportunity to leave unto the inhabitants and unto posterity some such monument as may adorn the place, and haply derive some effect of present benefit and future charity to the whole Liberty."1 During the occupancy of Salisbury House by the second. Earl, its new neighbour the Exchange' attracted, for a few weeks, almost universal attention. Its name was on men's lips, both at home and abroad. One day, it was the scene of the wanton murder committed on an inoffensive bystander by the Portuguese Ambassador's brother, Don Pantaleon de Sa On another day, it was the scene of the execution-before a crowd such as London had then rarely collected, and with circumstances of unusual parade-of the offender, a few hours before the signature of Cromwell's treaty with Portugal. A century later, there remained of the old episcopal mansion 1 Earl of Salisbury to the Lord Mayor of London, 10 July, 1608. (Draft, with numerous corrections in Lord Salisbury's hand; Cecil Papers, vol, exev. §§ 26, 30. Hatfield.) itself only a ruined river-front; and, behind it, a confused PREFA TORY 1603. CXVII. TO THE COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED BY KING As printed from the Original, in the Collection of the EARL of Elles- LETTER 1603. May. I RECEVED a warrant from your Lordshippes, my Lord Keeper and my Lorde Chiefe Justice, and signed also by Mr. Aturney Generall, requireinge me to deliver the possession of Deram Howse to the Byshop of Derum, To the or to his aturney, before the xxiiijth day of June next insewinge, and that the stabells and garden should be presently putt into his hands; and that I should not remove any selinge, glass, iron, &c. without warrant from your Lordships or any two of you. This letter semeth Keeper and others LETTER 1603. May. Claim made for the delivery of Durham House to of Dur ham. to mee very strange, seinge I have had possession of the howse almost xx yearese, and have bestowed well nire £2,000 uppon the same out of myne own purse. I am of oppinion that if the Kings Majestye had recovered this howse, or the like, from the meanest gentleman and sarvant hee had in Inglande, that his Majestye would have given six monethes tyme for the avoydance, 1 the Bishop and I do not know butt that the poorest artificer in London hath a quarter's warninge given hyme by his land lord. I have made my provisions for 40 persons in the springe, and I have a . . . . of no less number 1 and the like for allmost xx horse. Now to cast out my hay and oates into the streats, att an howeres warninge, and to remove my famyly and stuff in 14 dayes after, is such a seveare expultion as hath not bynn offred to any man before this daye. But this I would have written to any that had not bynn of your Lordships plase and respect, that the course taken with mee is both contrary to honor, to custome, and to civillity, and therefore I pray your Lordships to pardon me till I have acquaynted the Kings Majestye with this letter; and then, if his Majestye shall thinck it reasonabell, I will obey it. But for the commandment sent mee for the wenscote and other things, I do not finde that it pleased his Majestye to give your Lordships any suche direction, and if I do any thing contrary to law the Byshope may take his remedy, and I percave cannot want good frindes. And so I humblie take my leve, and rest your Lordships to cummande, Addressed: W. RAI EGH. "To the right honorabell my good Lords, the Lorde Keper of the Great Seale, and my Lorde Chief Justice of Ingiande, and va my very good frinde his Majesties Aturney Generall.” 1 Blank in MS. |