Читать книгу The Discovery of Witchcraft - Reginald Scot - Страница 5

Table of Contents

EXCEPT that they add the names of some who have opposed his views, or some such trifling matters, all the writers of biographical notices of Scot have drawn their information from the account given of him in Wood’s Athenæ Oxon. Nor, indeed, until lately, unless original search had been made, were other sources available. Hence I, in the first place, give his words verbatim from the edition of 1691.

“Reynolde Scot, a younger Son of Sir John Scot of Scots-hall, near to Smeeth in Kent, by his Wife, Daughter of Reynolde Pimp of Pimps-court Knight, was born in that County, and at about 17 years of age was sent to Oxon, particularly, as it seems, to Hart hall, where several of his Country-men and name studied in the latter end of K. Hen. 8. and in the Reign of Ed. 6. &c. Afterwards he retired to his native Country without the honour of a degree, and settled at Smeeth, where he found great incouragement in his studies from his kinsman Sir Thos. Scot. About which time taking to him a Wife, he gave himself up solely to solid reading, to the perusing of obscure authors that had by the generality of Scholars been neglected, and at times of leisure to husbandry and gardening, as it may partly appear from these books following.

“A perfect platform of a Hop-garden, and necessary instructions for the making and maintenance thereof, with notes and rules for reformation of all abuses, &c. Lond. 1576. qu. the 2. edit. as it seems.

“The discovery of Witchcraft; wherein the leud dealing of Witches, and Witchmongers is notably detected, the knavery of Conjurers, the impiety of Inchantors, the folly of Southsayers, &c. With many other things are opened, which have long been hidden, howbeit very necessary to be known. Lond. 1584. qu. in 16 books.

“Discourse upon Devils and Spirits.—In this, and the former, both printed together, it plainly appears that the author was very well versed in many choice books, and that his search into them was so profound, that nothing slip’d his Pen that might make for his purpose. Further also in the said Discovery and Discourse, though he holds that Witches are not such that were in his time and before, commonly executed for Witches; or that Witches were, or are not; yet they, which were written for the instruction of all Judges and Justices of that age, (being the first of that nature that were published in the Mother tongue,) did for a time make great impressions in the Magistracy and Clergy, tho afterwards condemned by James King of Scots (the same who succeeded Qu. Elizabeth in the Monarchy of England) in his Preface to Dæmonology, printed under his Name at Edinburgh in 1597. qu. and by several others since, among whom was Rich. Bernard of Batcomb, in his Epist. Ded. before his Guide to Grand Jury-men, &c. Lond. 1627. in oct. What else our author Scot hath written, I cannot yet tell, nor anything else of him, only but that he dyed in Sept. or Oct. in fifteen hundred ninety and nine, and was buried among his Ancestors in the Church at Smeeth before-mentioned.

“In the time of the said Reynold Scot and before, have been conversant among the Muses in Hart hall, the Sackviles of Sussex, the Colepepers of Kent and Sussex, the Sedlies of Kent, and the Scots before mentioned, with others of inferiour note of the said Counties.”

Notes added in Bliss’s Reprint.

“7. The learned author in his Discovery is as vehement against Popery as against witchcraft, and quite indecent in his abuse of the saints of the Romish church.”—Cole. [His indecency being for the most part a narrative of, and obvious reflections on, their indecency. And this I say understanding the sense in which he uses the word.]

“8. See a full account of this curious book, as Mr. Oldys calls it, in his British Librarian, p. 213. All the copies of the first edit. 1584, that could be found were burnt by order of K. James I. an author on the other side of the question.”—Vid. Hist. Dictionary, sub voce “Scot”.

[“Reginaldus Scotus, Anglus, tractatum de Incantamentis scripsit, in quo plerasque traditiones de Magia Melancholiæ, & morbis variis, aut artibus histrionicis adscribit.”] “Hunc in Anglia publica auctoritate combustum, sibi autem nunquam fuisse visum refert Thomasius de crimine magiæ § 3.”—Vide [J. V.] Vogt., Cat. Libr. rar., p. 617 [1713].

“Liber in folio scriptus Anglica lingua a Reginaldo Scoto in quo plurima occurrunt contra magiæ existentiam argumenta. Est ille etiam in Belgicam linguam conversus: sed plenior editio est ultima Anglica.”—Morhof., ii, 459.

[Then a short note on the three editions.]

In 1874 there were privately printed, Memorials of the Scot Family, by Jas. Renat Scott, Esq., and from them I extract the following tables:

But as the first part of the ancestry given in this book is not supported by anything beyond possibility and legend, so this latter portion is incorrect in various particulars. Instead, however, of taking each inaccuracy item by item, it will be simpler to give a consecutive account of such facts as to his ancestry, and as to Reginald Scott himself, as can be proved by documentary evidence or rendered probable by deductions therefrom.

John Philipot, Rouge Dragon and Somerset Herald, who died in 1645, set forth the pleasant and picturesque, but slightly supported origin of the family. I say pleasant, because the Scotts in the times of Elizabeth, James, and Charles, were a family of large possessions, wealth, and influence, influence so great that it is said that Elizabeth refused the request made by Lord Buckhurst, or the Earl of Leicester, that Sir Thomas Scott should be ennobled, saying that he had already more influence in Kent than she had. She seems also to have had from this, or from some other reason, a personal dislike to them, for in her Progress in 1573, she having passed three days at his father-in-law’s, Sir John Baker, of Sissinghurst Castle, declined to visit Scotts-hall, saying she wished to proceed to her own house, though on her way thither she had to pass Sir Thomas’s gates. In his Villare Cantianum, p. 313, Philipot has these words: “Scotts-hall, which is now and hath been for divers Descents the Inheritance of eminent Gentlemen of that Sirname, whom I dare aver upon probable Grounds were originally called Balioll. William Balioll, second brother to Alexander de Balioll, frequently writ his Name William de Balioll le Scot, and it is probable, that upon the Tragedy of John, Earl of Atholl, who was made prisoner by Edward the first, and barbarously executed, in the year 1307. (whilst he endeavoured more nobly than successfully to defend the gasping Liberty of Scotland against the Eruption of that Prince;) this Family to decline the Fury of that Monarch, who was a man of violent passions, altered the name of Balioll to that of their Extraction and Country, and assumed for the future the Name of Scot. That the Sirname of this Family was originally Balioll, I farther upon these Reasons assert. First, the ancient Arms of Balioll Colledge in Oxford, which was founded by John Balioll, and dedicated to St. Katharine was a Katherin-Wheele, being still part of the paternal Coat of this Family. Secondly, David de Strabogie, who was Son and Heir to the unfortunate Earl above-said, astonished with an Example of so much Terror, altered his name from Balioll to Strabogie, which was a Signory which accrued to him the Right of his Wife, who was Daughter and Heir to John Comin, Earl of Badzenoth and Strabogie, and by this Name King Edward the second, omitting that of Balioll restored Chilham-castle to him for Life, in the fifteenth year of his reign. Thirdly, the Earls of Buccleugh, and the Barons of Burley in Scotland, who derive themselves originally from Balioll, are known at this instant by no other Sirname, but Scot, and bear with some inconsiderable Difference, those very Arms which are at present the paternal Coat of the Family of Scots-hall.”

This tradition excluded, we find that Sir William Scot of Braberne, now Brabourne, in Kent, is the first of whom we have historical mention. He was knighted in 1336, when the Black Prince was created Duke of Cornwall, and died in 1350: a brass to his memory, being in Weever’s time (1631), the first of the memorials of the Scot family in Brabourne church. According to Philipot, this Sir William was the same with Sir William Scot, then Chief Justice of England; but if Mr. Foss be right in stating that this latter died in 1346, the year of the Black Death, this view cannot be upheld.

Another Sir William, apparently a grandson of the above, acquired through his mother the manor of Combe in Brabourne, and through his first wife and her relations—modes of increase in which the family seem to have been fortunate—that of Orlestone, as well as other places; and in 1420 he built Scotshall, in the manor of Hall in Smeeth, and was in 1428 sheriff of the county, and in 1430 knight of the shire in parliament. He died 1433. Scotshall, from time to time enlarged or rebuilt, and especially so by Sir Edward Scot, in the reign of Charles I, became the family seat for twelve generations. Evelyn, under date August 2, 1663, records his visit to it (soon after the young knight’s marriage), and calls it “a right noble seate, uniformely built, with a handsome gallery. It stands in a park well stor’d, the land fat and good. We were exceedingly feasted by the young knight, and in his pretty chapell heard an excellent sermon by his chaplaine.” It was sold, with the remaining possessions of the family, at the close of the last century, and destroyed in 1808. Some undulations in a field on the north side of the road from Ashford to Hythe, about half a mile to the east of Smeeth church, alone mark its site.

The son of this second Sir William, named Sir John, being connected with the Woodvilles, and therefore with the wife of Edward IV, and being a staunch Yorkist, and apparently a man of intelligence, was employed in special embassies to Charles, Duke of Burgundy, especially in 1467, when he went to treat of the marriage of the king’s sister with the duke. He had also various other and more substantial favours conferred upon him from time to time, from 1461 onwards, including that of Chilham Castle for life, as somewhat oddly, and I think wrongly, noted in the extract from Philipot. He died in 1485, and probably intestate, as no will is recorded.

To him succeeded his son, the third Sir William in this account, and he dying in 1524, was succeeded by his son, a second Sir John. This last, by his marriage with Anne, daughter of Reginald Pympe, had three sons, and died on the 7th October 1533. The eldest, William, followed his father on the 5th June 1536, and leaving no offspring, his next brother, Sir Reginald, took his place. Of the third brother, Richard, the father of our Reginald, I shall speak presently. Meanwhile, returning to the main line, I would say that Sir Reginald, dying on the 16th October 1554, was succeeded by his son, Sir Thomas, the “cousin” to whom Reginald was much indebted, and one of the four to whom he dedicated his Witchcraft. He was, in his day, a man of note, intelligence, and action. Finding his estate in debt, he yet kept one hundred at his table, was most hospitable, and died owing nothing, though, of course, to provide for the younger of his very numerous progeny, various portions of his estate were by his will sold after his death. He was deputy-lieutenant of his county, sheriff of Kent in 1576, knight of the shire for the Parliaments of 13 and 28 Elizabeth, chief of the Kentish forces at Northbourne Downs, where they were assembled to repel any landing from the Armada; and it may be added, as showing his promptness, readiness, and decision, that 4,000 of these were there, equipped for the field, the day after he received his orders from the Privy Council. He was one of the Commissioners to report on the advisability of improving the breed of horses in this country, and either before or after this, is said to have published a book on the subject. He was a Commissioner for draining and improving Romney Marsh, and afterwards Superintendent of the improvements of Dover harbour. Various letters to and from him in reference to Dover harbour, as well as to the Kentish forces, are to be found in the State Calendars. Having been the parent of seventeen children by his first wife, Emmeline Kempe, a relative by maternal descent, he died on the 30th December 1594, and Ashford parish offered to pay the expenses of his funeral if only they were allowed to bury him in their church. Most of these facts are noted in the following verses, which I give, chiefly because there are some probabilities that they were by Reginald. A copy of them seems to have been found among the family papers, in his handwriting. That he made some of the verse translations given in his Witchcraft is extremely probable, from the want in these cases of marginal references to the translator’s name; hence a second probability. The verses themselves render it likely that they were one of those memorial elegies then affixed επι ταϕον by affectionate friends and relatives, and not what we now call an epitaph; and the third verse clearly shows that they were written at least some little time after Sir Thomas’s decease, and therefore were not improbably written to be affixed to the handsome tomb erected over his remains. Hence a third probability; but beyond the accumulated force of these we cannot go.

Epitaph on Sir Thomas Scott, as given in the “Memorials of the Scott Family”, and also in Pick’s “Collection of Curious Pieces in the World”, vol. 3.

Here lyes Sir Thomas Scott by name;

Oh happie Kempe that bore him!

Sir Raynold, with four knights of fame,

Lyv’d lyneally before him.

His wieves were Baker, Heyman, Beere;

His love to them unfayned.

He lyved nyne and fiftie yeare,

And seventeen soules he gayned.

His first wief bore them every one;

The world might not have myst her!*

She was a very paragon

The Lady Buckherst’s syster.

His widow lyves in sober sort,

No matron more discreeter;

She still reteiynes a good report,

And is a great housekeeper.

He (being called to special place)

Did what might best behove him.

The Queen of England gave him grace,

The King of Heav’n did love him.

His men and tenants wail’d the daye,

His Kinne and countrie† cryed;

Both young and old in Kent may saye,

Woe worth the day he dyed.

He made his porter shut his gate

To sycophants and briebors,

And ope it wide to great estates,

And also to his neighbours.

His House was rightly termed Hall

Whose bred and beefe was redie;

It was a very hospitall

And refuge for the needie.

From whence he never stept aside,

In winter nor in summer;

In Christmas time he did provide

Good cheer for every comer.

When any service shold be doun,

He lyked not to lyngar;

The rich would ride, the poor wold runn,

If he held up his fingar.

He kept tall men, he rydd great hors,

He did write most finely;

He used fewe words, but cold discours

Both wysely and dyvinely.

His lyving meane,‡ his charges greate,

His daughters well bestowed;

Although that he were left in debt,

In fine he nothing owed.

But dyed in rich and happie state,

Beloved of man and woman

And (what is yeate much more than that)

He was envied§ of no man.

In justice he did much excell,

In law he never wrangled:

He loved rellygion wondrous well,

But he was not new-fangled.

Let Romney Marsh and Dover saye;

Ask Norborne camp at leyseur;

If he were woont to make delaye

To doe his countrie pleasure.

But Ashford’s proffer passeth all—

It was both rare and gentle;

They would have pay’d his funerall

T’ have toomb’d him in their temple.

* Though a paragon, she lived, he would say, a quiet, retired life, obedient and loving to her husband.

† “Countrie”, seems not unlikely to be used here, as in the Discoverie not unfrequently, and twice in Wood’s notice just given, and, as then, for county.

‡ “Meane”, that is, moderate, midway between the very rich and the poor.

§ “Envied”, most probably in its then frequent sense of hated.

Before returning to Richard and Reginald, we may conclude this short notice of their ancestors by mentioning the very probable circumstance that the former were, by the female line, descendants of John Gower, the poet, as explained in the following table:

The Pashells, or Pashleys, were descended from Sir Edmund de Passelege, a Baron of the Exchequer, who purchased a manor in Smeeth in 1319; he died 1327. The family resided at Iden, Sussex; and the house there, and the manor in Smeeth, devolved on the Scots, Anne Pympe being her father’s only child. It is true that John Gower, the poet, does not mention any children in his extant will, but he was probably seventy-eight when he died; and, what is more to the purpose, his published will was probably only his testament, the will or declaration of uses of the land being commonly at that time a separate instrument. Th. Gower, of Clapham, given above as the father of Lowys, was probably the son or grandson of John Gower (see Sir Harris Nicolas in The Retrosp. Rev., 2 Ser., ii, 103-17). Also Gower the poet is known to have had property in Southwark; and Th. Gower, of Clapham, refers in his will (1458) to his tenement called The Falcon, in Southwark, near the hospital; and in Manning and Bray’s Surrey, iii, 623, there is noticed a deed of conveyance dated 22nd November 1506, of part of the site of St. Thomas’s Hospital, in Southwark, made by John Scot, of Iden, and Anne his wife, daughter and heir of John Pashley, who was cousin and heir of John Gower. It may be added as curious that Sir Robert Gower, who is believed to have been uncle to the poet, was buried in Brabourne church in 1349; his monument, now destroyed, being noticed in Weever.

On p. 500, Scot speaks of “his kinseman M. Deering”, Edw. Dering the divine, a writer on theological subjects and chaplain to her Majesty; but in what way they were kin I have been unable to discover.*

* My mother being a Dering, a daughter of the Thomas that was drowned in the West Indies, when trying to reach his vessel H.M.S. Circe, induces me to add, through the courtesy of Sir Edw. C. Dering, that a portrait of this worthy is still to be seen at Surrenden Dering, and that a family tradition has it, that preaching before her Majesty, he had the boldness to tell her, “that she had no more controul over her passions than an untamed heifer.” He was speedily unfrocked, and is said to have emigrated to America, where an Edw. Dering is at this moment the head of that branch, and a large landowner in Maine.

Returning now to Reginald’s father, Richard, the youngest of the three sons of that Sir John who died in 1533, we find that he married Mary, daughter of Geo. Whetenall, whose father was sheriff of Kent in 1527, and whose family had lived for three centuries at Hextall’s Place, near Maidstone. She survived her husband; and being remarried to Fulke Onslow, Clerk of the Parliaments, died before him, 8th October 1582, and was buried, as he afterwards was, in Hatfield church, Herts, where a brass to their memory is fixed in the north wall of the chancel. Of Richard himself nothing more is known. He probably died young, and certainly before December 1554, his death being mentioned in the will of his brother Sir Reginald, who died on the 16th of that month. In this will, failing his own issue—a lapse which did not occur—he left his real estate “unto Rainolde Scotte, son and heire of my brother Richard Scotte, dec^d ”, and Rainolde’s issue failing, it was devised to a more distant branch. Hence, contrary to the table given on page xi, from “The Memorials”, “Rainolde” was either the only son of Richard, or the only son then living. The same conclusion follows from the Inquis. post mortem of Lady Wynifred Rainsfoord, taken the 20th March 1575/6, where Sir Thomas Scot and his brothers are said to be co-heirs with Reynold of the lands held by her in gavelkind, the sons having one moiety, and Reynold the other.

This Inquisition also gives Reynold’s then age as thirty-eight or more, the words “et amplius” being, as was, usually at least, done in these documents, attached to all the other ages mentioned. Hence he was born in or before 1538 (not in 1541), and as, according to Wood, he entered Hart Hall, Oxford, when about seventeen, he entered it circa 1555; the intention that he should do so having been probably entertained by Sir Reginald, his uncle, who died 16th December 1554, and his expenses borne by his cousin, Sir Thomas. I say probably, because we have seen that, failing his own issue, he was named by Sir Reginald as the next heir to the estate, and also because we know nothing of the circumstances in which his widowed mother was left, nor as yet of the date at which she was re-married to Onslow.

On the 11th of October he married Jane—not, as stated in “The Memorials”, Alice—Cobbe, the daughter of an old yeoman family long resident at Cobbe’s Place, in the adjoining parish of Aldington. The entry in the Registers of Brabourne is—

“M* Reignold Scott and Jane Cobbe were

maryed the xi^th of October 1658.”

The only issue of this marriage, the only issue (that at least survived) of both his marriages—for the Maria in the table of “The Memorials” was the daughter of his second wife by her first husband—was Elizabeth, afterwards married to Sackville Turnor; and the only issue of that marriage, prior at least to Reynold’s death in 1599, was Cicely. Elizabeth’s birth must have been in or before 1574, for in the Inquis. post mortem of Reg. Scot generosus in 1602, she is said to be “28 et amplius”. The Holy Maid of Kent (mentioned by Scot, p. 26) was servant to one of her maternal progenitors, probably to her grandfather.

* To this upper portion of the “M” is added a character which may make it “Mr.” or “Married”; but I have not myself yet seen the entry.

In this year, 1574, was also published the first issue of his brain, his tractate on The Hoppe-Garden, the first work, I believe, in which not only was the culture of the hop in England advocated, both as having been successfully tried by him, and as against its importation from Poppering, in Flanders, where its mode of culture, etc., was endeavoured to be kept secret; but the whole subject of its growth, culture, drying, and preservation was gone into in a practical manner, and further explained by woodcuts. And here it may be worth noting that in this year Reynold was necessarily absent so far from London that the publisher inserted this apologetic note: “Forasmuch as M. Scot could not be present at the printing of this his Booke, whereby I might have used his advise in the correction of the same, and especiallie of the Figures and Portratures conteyned therein, whereof he delivered unto me such notes as I being unskilfull in the matter, could not so thoroughly conceyve, nor so perfectly expresse as ... the Author, or you ... the Reader might in all poyntes be satisfied [etc., etc.].” In the second edition, however, in 1576, it was: “Now newly corrected and augmented,” the augmentations increasing the book from fifty-three pages, exclusive of the epilogue, to sixty, and the corrections including one added and one emended engraving. As a matter of curiosity, and as showing that neither the publisher nor the author expected a second edition, it may be added that though only two years had elapsed, some at least of the wood engravings required to be re-cut in almost exact facsimile. A third edition was issued in 1578, and from these we can date the commencement of the hop harvests in Kent.

In 1575 he succeeded to one moiety of such part of Lady Winifred Rainsford’s estate as was held in gavelkind. Possibly, indeed, we may place his enjoyment of it earlier, for Lady Rainsford was declared insane; and to this, by the way, I am not disinclined to attribute Reynold’s prolonged absence from London in 1572, the attendance of some one of the family being required, and he, being older than the sons of Sir Thomas, and of a junior branch, and a man of business, having been chosen or requested to go. And I think we may place his loss of that estate between this date and that of 1584, the date of the publication of the Witchcraft. At least, in this Discoverie occur two passages which, taken together, seem to point to this. In his dedication to Sir Th. Scot he says: A vi, “My foot being [not, having been] under your table, my hand in your dish, or rather in your pursse”—and, A viii: “If they will allow men knowledge and give them no leave to use it, men were much better be without it than have it; ... it is, as ... to put a candle under a bushell: or as to have a ship, and to let hir lie alwaies in the docke: which thing how profitable it is, I can saie somewhat by experience.” Though it may be said that Reynold was a man of business, and, as appears from his writings, a man of decision and of unusual intelligence, still circumstances may combine to bring disaster as a shipowner on such a one, and more especially if he be new to the business. That he did in some way lose his “moiety” is shown by the words of his will, for, speaking of his second wife, he says, “whome yf I had not matched w^th all I had not dyed worth one groate.” Not, improbably, I think, it was to the time of his first marriage, or to his widowership, or to both, that Wood more especially refers when he speaks of his giving himself up to solid reading, etc.

When his first wife died and when he re-married is as yet unknown to us. But this latter could hardly have taken place until the latter end, at earliest, of 1584, since in that year he, as already quoted, describes himself as, “having his foot under your [Sir Th. Scot’s] table”, etc., or in other words, as being a dependant not worth one groat. Nor do we know more of this second wife beyond these slight particulars that we gather from Reynold’s will: that her Christian name was Alice—given in “The Memorials” instead of Jane, to Cobbe, the first wife—that she was a widow with a daughter by her former husband; and that she had some land, either in her own right or derived from her former husband. That she was a widow at the time of her remarriage is shown by Reynold’s bequest of “six poundes thirteene shillings foure pence to my daughter in Lawe Marie Collyar for apparell [? mourning] desiring that her mother’s hand be not anie thinge the shorter towards her in that respect.” Whether Collyar were this daughter’s maiden name, and therefore the name of her mother’s first husband, or whether it were the name of her own husband, is doubtful, though from the words just quoted I rather incline to this second supposition, and that the husband was not a man of much means. With regard to what I have said as to the mother’s possession of property, it has been suggested to me by one of good judgment, and a solicitor, that Reynold’s expression as to not dying worth a groat was merely an excuse for leaving the bulk of his property to his wife; as also that these concluding words of the will, and the resistance of probate to it made by Elizabeth, his daughter by his first wife, indicate the existence of family differences, probably attributable to this second marriage having been entered into with one of a social rank inferior to his own. I cannot, however, deduce this latter supposition from anything we know, neither can I thus interpret the last words of his will, nor believe him guilty of such a perversion of the truth. Reading his will attentively, I think we find that Scot, with his usual fine sense of justice, gives all the lands in “Aldington, Ruckinge, and Sellinge”, which had become his by his marriage with Alice, “to her and to her [not to his] heires”, while he only gives his lands in Romney Marsh and his lease of Brabourne Rectory to her for her life, and then the lease at least, which had come to him “from his Cozen Charles”, to his daughter Elizabeth. Reading the last words of his will verbatim, I think it consistent with justice to hold, that though he may have obtained these lands in Romney Marsh through the use of what had been his wife’s former property, but was during his marriage his own, he was entitled to leave them to his wife only for her life, they then proceeding not, as did the others, to her heirs, but to his. I strongly suspect, also, that his casual omission of any directions as to whom these Romney Marsh lands were to go after her death was the real cause of the probate of the will being resisted by his daughter Elizabeth, so as to definitely raise this point.

Reserving all notice of his Witchcraft till I speak of it under its bibliography, I would say that we know little more of his life. The Rev. Jos. Hunter, in his Chorus Vatum, states that he was “a Collector of subsidies to Q. Elizabeth in 15..., for the county of Kent.” Urged to inquiry by this, my friend, Jas. Gairdner, Esq., kindly examined for me the Exchequer documents in the Public Record Offices, and it appears from them that he was collector of subsidies for the lathe of Shepway in the years 28 and 29 of Elizabeth (1586–87). It may be added that, as appears from a previous document, ¹²⁵ /₂₉₉, in the same class of papers, that Sir Reynold Scot and other Commissioners for the collection in the lathe of Shepway, of the first payment of the subsidy granted by the Parliament, 37 Henry VIII, had appointed a high Collector. Thus we learn the mode of his appointment; and on looking through the lists we find that many such were “generosi”, though the payment was but small. For Scot, forty shillings was deducted from the incomings; and this not as a percentage, but as salary.

From the same documents we find that he is twice designated “armiger”, a word agreeing with his 1584 title-page, “by Reginald Scot, Esquire”, though in the editions of his Hoppe Garden his name alone is given. This was for myself an important find; but it will suffice here to say that it confirms Hunter’s supposition that this esquireship was due to his having been made a justice of the peace, though as to the date it can only as yet be said that this dignity was probably granted between 1578 and 1584.

In an Accompt of Sir Th. Heanage, knight, Treasurer at Warr, in the Public Record Offices, and printed by J. Renat Scott in the Arch. Canti., vol. xi, p. 388, we find the following entries:

“SThomas Scott knighte Collonel generall of the footemen in Kent for his Entertainment at xiijiiijpdiem for xxij dayes begonne the xxix^th of Julye and endinge the xix of Auguste the summe of xiiij^li xiijiiij^d .”

• • • • • • •

“Reinalde Scotte Trench mayster for his Enterteinment at iiijpdiem, and due to him for the same tyme iiij^li viij^s .”

• • • • • • •

“Sr Thomas Scott knighte for Thenterteynemof lxiij Wachemen & Garders appointed to watche & warde at Dongenesse for xxij dayes begonne [etc., as above] at viij the pece pdiem xlvi^li iiij^s .”

From the Muster-roll taken on the 25th Jan. 1587–8, and now in the possession of Mr. Oliver, it appears that the county had then furnished 8,201 footmen and 711 horsemen, and that Sir Thomas was captain of the 309 trained foot raised in the lathe of Shepway, with four hundreds of the lathe of Scraye and Romney Marsh. Hence his office as Colonel-General was not given him—indeed, this is shown by the Accompt—until the men had been assembled in camp on the 29th July. In like manner the Muster-roll gives Sir Jas. Hales as Captain of the Lances; but in the pay list Th. Scott (a son of Sir Thomas) is Captain both of the Light Horse and Lances. With regard to “Reinalde”, who, under the name of Reginald, appears in the Muster-roll as one of the thirteen captains over 1,499 untrained foot, Mr. J. Renat Scott, in a note, states that he was a son of Sir Thomas Scott; but though sons of Sir Thomas were also captains, this assertion is a guess, unsupported by any known evidence.

He made his will on the 15th September 1599, and died twenty-four days thereafter, on the 9th October. Some say that he was either taken ill at Smeeth or died there, probably misinterpreting the words of his will; some also say that he was buried there; while some think that he was buried by the side of and close to Sir Thomas Scott’s tomb in Brabourne church; but all these, like the supposition of Philipot in his Kent Notes, Harl. MS. 3917, fol. 78a, that he erected that tomb, are mere guessings, and as such we leave them.

To the few particulars thus gathered together we are obliged, with the exception of two small points, one probable, and the other, I think, certain, to confine ourselves. The first or probable point is, that as his name appears five times as a witness to family business documents between 1566 and 1594, his signature appearing in this last year in Sir Thomas’s will, he must have kept up familiar intercourse with the latter, and was not improbably, in some measure at least, his man of business, and possibly his steward. The second point, which also goes to confirm this first one, as also to confirm the belief that he was made a justice of the peace, as being a person whose attainments, if not his position, would render him useful in such a post, is one to which I was independently led by his writings, and which is, I find, borne out by almost contemporary testimony.

He who in his Hoppe Garden showed such practical thought and foresight, and in his Witchcraft such independence of thought, was not a man, especially when married and a father, to live in dependence on a cousin. The wording, as well as the tone of his writings, agree with this. We find in them traces of legal study, a habit of putting things, as it were, in a forensic form, and noteworthy and not unfrequent references to legal axioms or dicta, quoted generally in their original Latin. The Dedication before his Hoppe Garden, and the first before his Witchcraft, are to men of high legal rank, judges, in fact, to whom he acknowledges his obligations. Referring the reader to these, and to the ambiguous sentence in the latter commencing “Finally” (sig. A ii), I would also give the words in the latter, where he says, A. v: “But I protest the contrarie, and by these presents I renounce all protection”; and in the former the legal phraseology is carried on throughout in—“and be it also knowne to all men by these presentes that your acceptance hereof shall not be any wyse prejudiciall unto you, for I delyver it as an Obligation, wherein I acknowledge my selfe to stande further bounde unto you, without that, that I meane to receyve your courtesie herein, as a release of my further duties which I owe,” A. iii. v. And in B. v.: “neither reproove me because by these presents I give notice thereof.” So also he would seem to have been an attendant at the assizes; and if we look to the story, told at page 5, of Marg. Simons, we find that he was not only present at the trial, but busied himself actively in the matter, talking to the vicar, the accuser, about it, advertising the poor woman as to a certain accusation, he “being desirous to heare what she could saie for hir selfe”, and inquiring into the truth of her explanation by the relation of divers honest men of that parish. In like manner, his Will is written “w^th myne owne hande” twenty-five days before his death; and, on inquiring from a lawyer, I find that it is drawn up in due legal form, and by one who had had a legal training. Lastly, Thomas Ady, M.A., in A Candle in the Dark, 1656, alias, A Perfect Discovery of Witches, 1661, a book, like Scot’s, against the reality of witchcraft, distinctly tells us, p. 87, that Scot “was a student in the laws and learned in the Roman Laws”, the latter being exactly what such a man would be if he had turned towards the law as a profession. These considerations appear to me conclusive, even though it be added as an argument per contra that his name has not been found among the rolls of the Temple, Inner or Middle, or in those of Lincoln’s or Gray’s Inn.

And in taking leave of this portion of my subject, I cannot but reiterate the obligations both the reader and the literary world generally are under to Mr. Edmund Ward Oliver. The suppositions as to the cause of Scot’s loss of his moiety of the estates of Lady Winnifred Rainsford—not, it is believed, a large sum—and as to his law-studentship, based as they are on facts stated by Scot or derived from his writings, and those of Th. Ady, are my own; while in one or two instances I have put forth opinions not quite in accord with that gentleman’s. But nearly all the biographical facts regarding Scot himself and his marriages, in contradistinction to the supposed facts hitherto set forth, are due to the intelligent research of Mr. Oliver, and are not unfrequently stated in his own words.

The following table will bring into one view the pedigree of Reginald Scot given in the previous pages:

* It is noteworthy that, notwithstanding the memorial inscription to the first Sir William, Reginald, or whoever was the author of the verses to Sir Thomas, only traces the pedigree to this fourth knight after Sir Reginald. Either then the first Sir William was then accounted somewhat mythical, or not being a knight of fame, he was not recognised as the same with Sir William Scott, the Chief Justice of England.