Page:The Elizabethan stage (Volume 4).pdf/90

extracts from the accounts of St. Margaret's, Westminster (cited as Margaret's), in J. Nichols, Illustrations, 1, of Lambeth in D. Lysons, Environs of London, i. 222, and S. Denne, Historical Particulars of Lambeth (1795, Bibl. Top. Brit. x. 185), of Fulham in T. Faulkner, Fulham (1813), 139, of Kingston in Lysons, Environs, i. 164, and of Wandsworth by C. T. Davis in Surrey Arch. Colls., xviii (1903), 96, are scrappy and the year concerned is not always clear. Nichols, Eliz. iii. 37, gives an analogous record from the accounts of Chalk in Kent of the occasions on which the local carts were requisitioned for removes from Greenwich. (e) The dates and localities of knightings are given in W. A. Shaw, The Knights of England (1906), but many of them are from inconsistent and untrustworthy sources. (f) The Chamber Accounts (cf. App. B) contain under the annual heading 'Apparelling of Houses' summaries of monthly bills sent in by the Gentlemen Ushers of the Chamber of their expenses while engaged in making preparations for royal visits. They yield much new information as to the houses visited, but only very approximately date the visits. And it may be that the Ushers occasionally had to prepare for a visit which never took place. Analogous information is contained in the Declared Accounts of the Office of Works. A single account of the Cofferer of the Household, printed by Nichols, i. 92, gives a daily record of the locality of the household throughout the progress of 1561; as far as I know, it is the only extant document of its kind. (g) J. Nichols, in his Progresses of Elizabeth^2 (1823) and Progresses of James I (1828), drew fully upon the contemporary printed descriptions of state entries and progresses, of which a list is given in ch. xxiv, and upon such 'gests' of progresses (cf. ch. iv) as survive. I have been able to correct and amplify his record of houses visited to a great extent, as much of the material now available, notably the Privy Council Register and the Chamber Accounts, was not used by him, and he occasionally assumed that royal plans were carried out, when they were not. I have done what I can to identify the royal hosts and their houses, but there is more of conjecture in my lists than my query-marks quite indicate. The Chamber Accounts entries are not in chronological order. Often only a name or a locality is given, and a good deal of plotting of routes on a map has been necessary. A more thorough study of local and family histories than I have been able to undertake would doubtless add corrections and further details. Local antiquaries might well follow the lines of study opened up by E. Green, Did Queen Elizabeth visit Bath in 1574 and 1592 (1879, Proc. of Bath Field Club, iv. 105), W. D. Cooper, Queen Elizabeth's Visits to Sussex (1852, Sussex Arch. Colls., v. 190), W. Kelly, Royal Progresses and Visits to Leicester (1884), and M. Christy, The Progresses of Queen Elizabeth through Essex and the Houses in which she stayed (1917, Essex Review, xxvi. 115, 181). A knowledge of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century roads is useful. The Elizabethan list in W. Smith, The Particular Description of England, 1588 (ed. H. B. Wheatley and E. W. Ashbee, 1879) is fuller than that in W. Harrison, Description of England (ed. N. S. S. ii. 107), or that described from a manuscript of c. 1603 by G. S. Thomson in E. H. R. xxxiii. 234. The seventeenth-century description of J. Ogilby, Itinerarium Angliae (1675) became the parent of many travellers' guides. But it does not include three private royal roads largely used in removes; viz. the King's road by Chelsea to Richmond and Hampton Court, Theobald's Road, and a road from Lambeth Ferry to Greenwich and Eltham. Useful studies are T. F. Ordish, History of Metropolitan Roads (L. T. R. viii. 1), and H. G. Fordham, Studies in Carto-Bibliography (1914). Other books are given in D. Ballen, Bibliography of Roadmaking and Roads (1914).]