56? 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 137. 



" All this while King Henry had play'd with the 

 French, but now he seems to be in earnest, and there- 

 fore sends over the Duke of Suffolk with an army, the 

 four and twentieth of August, attended with the Lord 

 Montacute and his brother. Sir Arthur Pool, with many 

 other knights and gentlemen." 



On the knighthood of this Sir Arthur I find, 

 farther on, — 



"On AllhoUand (Query, All-hallows) day, in the 

 chief church of Roy," (the Duke) "made knights. 

 Lord Herbert (son of the Earl of Worcester), the Lord 

 Powis, Oliver Manners, Arthur Pool," &c. 



And now — 

 The 3rd Nov. (1538) Henry Courtney, Marquess 

 »f Exeter and Earl of Devonshire, Henry Pool, Lord 

 Montacute, Sir Nicholas Carew, of Bedington, Knight 

 of the Garter and Master of the Horse, and Sir Ed- 

 ward Nevill, brother to the Lord Ahurgenny, were sent 

 to the Tower, being accused by Sir Geoffry Pool, the 

 Lord Montacute's brother, of high treason. They 

 were indicted for devising to promote and advance one 

 Reinald (Qy. Reginald) Pool to the crown, and put 

 down K. Henry. This Pool was a near kinsman of the 

 king's (being the son of the Lady Margaret, Countess 

 of Salisbury, daughter and heir to George, Duke of 

 Clarence). He had been brought up by the king in 

 learning, and made Dean of Exeter; but being after 

 sent to learn experience by travel, he grew so great a 

 friend of the Pope's that he became aa enemy to King 

 Henry, and for his enmity to the king was by Pope Ju- 

 lius II L made cardinal. For this man's cause the lords 

 aforesaid being condemned were all executed ; the 

 Lord Marquess, the Lord Montacute, and Sir Edward 

 Nevill, beheaded on the Tower Hill the ninth of 

 January ; Sir Nicholas Carew the third of March ; two 

 priests condemned with them were hanged at Tyburn ; 

 Sir Geoffry Pool, though condemned also, yet had his 

 pardon." 



I give this last quotation entire (hoping to be 

 pardoned for its length), as it affords a curious 

 insight into the eventful history of the period ; 

 for, two years later, I find it on record that — 



" Reynold Pool, Cardinal, brother to the Lord Monta- 

 cute, was with divers others attainted of high treason ; 

 of whom Foskeue and Dingley the tenth of July were 

 beheaded, the Countess of Salisbury two years after." 



But I forbear quoting further the account of this 

 same cardinal's pompous " absolution of these 

 realms" and " reconciliation to the church of Rome" 

 all which are given in " marvellous" detail by 

 our worthy historian. I pass on to observe, in 

 conclusion, that, from the fact (as recorded in the 

 first of the foregoing historic extracts) that " Sir 

 Richard Pool, chamberlain " to Prince Arthur, 

 was sent by him into Wales, I gather your corre- 

 spondent I. J. H. H. has been led to suppose hira 

 a Welsh knight. That he is called a kinsman of 

 the prince is also some confirmation of the state- 

 ment afforded by J. G. N., that he became so by 

 his mother's near connexion with the Countess of 

 Richmond, but his own alliance with the house of 



Plantagenet must have taken place about the 

 close of the fifteenth century (and I own this 

 offers some objection to my theory of his descent) ; 

 it could not have occurred in 1513, as your corre- 

 spondent states, since Cardinal Pole was, as I have 

 stated, born in 1500, and was therefore fifty-four 

 years old at the commencement of Mary's reign, 

 viz. 1553-4, when proposals were made for his 

 marriage with the queen ; for, says Sir Richard, 

 once more, in speaking of " the marriages pro- 

 pounded for Queen Mary : " 



" One was Cardinal Pool, of a dignity not much in- 

 ferior to kings, and by his mother descended from 

 kings ; but there was an exception against him also, be- 

 cause four and fifty years old (as old a batchelor as 

 Queen Mary was a maid)," &c. &c. 



May I be allowed to suggest another Query as 

 to the value of the aforesaid dignity of knighthood, 

 since Lord Herbert and Lord Powis accepted it 

 with men of plainer name and " lesser note." I 

 should feel obliged to any of your correspondents 

 for information on this point. H. W. S. T. 



Southampton. 



PROCLAMATIONS TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF COAI-. 



(Vol. v., p. 513.) 



I have recently, for a definite purpose, searched 

 for facts relative to the introduction of coal into- 

 domestic use, but I have not met with the case 

 referred to by Dr. BachholFner. So harsh a mea- 

 sure appears somewhat inconsistent with other 

 facts connected with the early history of coal. 

 For instance, a grant, dated 7th May, in the 

 34th of Edward I. tolerates the introduction of 

 sea-coal into London, but levies a toll of sixpence 

 upon every ship-load passing London Bridge: 

 "De qualibet navata carbonis maris venal, sex 

 denarios " (Hearne's Liber Niger Scaccarii : Lond. 

 1774, 8vo. p. 480,), which toll was to be applied 

 to the maintenance of the said bridge. A few 

 months after this, in 1306, was issued the pro- 

 clamation prohibiting its use ; and on its being 

 disregarded, was, as stated by Prynne, followed 

 by a Commission of Oyer and Terminer in the 

 year 1307, a short time before the death of 

 Edward I. It is pretty evident that on the acces- 

 sion of Edward IL a great change occurred in the 

 opinion of the authorities respecting the use of 

 coal ; for in the year 1308 fifty pounds (equal 

 probably to 800Z. of our money) were paid from 

 the Exchequer to provide wood and coal for the 

 king's coronation. (Issue Roll, Excheq., 1 Edw. II.) 

 Tliis sum was paid to John Fairhod, Thomas de 

 Hales, Thomas Wastel, Roger le White, and John 

 de Tal worth. We cannot tell the quantity of coal 

 used on that occasion ; but, in addition to the above 

 sum we find Richard del Hurst of London peti- 

 tioning Parliament for the payment of ten shil- 



