"No place," he says, "was held fitter than a certain edifice
adjoining the wall of the Parliament House, which served for
withdrawing rooms for the assembled Lords, and out of Parliament
was at the disposal of the keeper of the place and wardrobe
thereunto belonging."[137]
This is quite specific, and unless Speed's evidence can be in any way
modified, fully justifies Father Gerard in his contention. Let us,
however, turn to the agreement for the house in question:--
"Memorandum that it is concluded between Thomas Percy of London
Esquire and Henry Ferrers of Bordesley Clinton in the County of
Warwick Gentleman the xxiiii day of March in the second year of our
Sovereign Lord King James.[138]
"That the said Henry hath granted to the said Thomas to enjoy his
house in Westminster belonging to the Parliament House, the said
Thomas getting the consent of Mr. Whynniard, and satisfying me,
the said Henry, for my charges bestowed thereupon, as shall be
thought fit by two indifferent men chosen between us.
"And that he shall also have the other house that Gideon Gibbons
dwelleth in, with an assignment of a lease from Mr. Whynniard
thereof, satisfying me as aforesaid, and using the now tenant well.
"And the said Thomas hath lent unto me the said Henry twenty
pounds, to be allowed upon reckoning or to be repaid again at the
will of the said Thomas.
"HENRY FERRERS.
"Sealed and delivered in the presence of
Jo: White and Christopher Symons.[139]"
It is therefore beyond question, on the evidence of this agreement, that
Speed was right in connecting with Parliament a house rented by Percy.
It is, however, also beyond question, on the evidence of the same
agreement, that he also took a second house, of which Whynniard was to
give him a lease. The inference that Percy would have been turned out of
this second house when Parliament met seems, therefore, to be untenable.
Whynniard, it may be observed, had, on March 24, 1602, been appointed,
in conjunction with his son, Keeper of the Old Palace,[140] so that the
block of buildings concerned, which is within the Old Palace, may very
well have been his official residence.
Let us now cast our eyes on the plan on p. 81. We find there a long
division of the building running between the wall of the House of Lords
and the back wall of the remainder of the block. It certainly looks as
if this must have been the house, or division of a house, belonging to
Parliament, and this probability is turned into something like certainty
by the two views that now follow, taken from the _Crace Collection_;
Views, Portfolio xv., Nos. 18, 26.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account