Oldalképek
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

of English yews are bad bows. It grows too
fast in a damp country." Why were yews
planted then-so very frequently in garths
and cottage enclosures, and, above all, in
churchyards? Mr. Hutchinson is of opinion
that they were destined, after all, for bows
-but not war-bows, or
even second-best
bows. Those of third-best quality would
serve for the humble woodland
of
purposes
the countryman. The trees were fenced
round-for their own safety, not for that
of cattle, the poisonousness of live, green
yew being but a popular error. It is clip-
pings of yew lying about in their dry
prickly state which are lethal to cattle-who
themselves, are lethal to the yew. If the
best bows were not of English growth, we
may believe they were of English make.
Mr. Hutchinson tells some of the exploits Two Hundred Years Ago.
of the American archer Mr. Sexton Pope
from his book Hunting with the Bow and
Arrow,' which demonstrate some few advan-
tages in bow and arrow even as compared
with the rifle.

Co. Down, who was born in the year 1800.
If we except old Parr, is not this the oldest
man known of as subject of our Crown?

THE Preservation of St. Paul's,' by Canon Alexander, Treasurer of St. Paul's, will be published shortly by Mr. John Murray (2s. 6d. net). It is the story of the preservation of St. Paul's Cathedral since the beginning of the work in 1913, and contains a number of popular addresses on subjects connected with the Cathedral well as the official reports on which the work has been based. It is intended not only for architects and engineers but for all who care for St. Paul's, or have contributed to its preservation.

From

The Daily Journal.

MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 1727.

as

A great many Members of Parliament, in the North, and in Wales, have wrote, That the Roads are fo cover'd with Snow in many Places, as to render it impracticable for them to come to Town at the Meeting of the Parliament.

The Earl of Belford, Eldeft Son to the Duke of Montrofe; and the Earl of Wakefield, Eldeft Son to the Duke of Roxburgh, both created fo by his prefent Majefty, being come to Age, have had their Writs of Summons to Parliament; but their Sitting in the House of Peers, we hear, will be contefted.

ANY reader interested in old needlework will find pleasure in an article by Mrs. Eugénie Gibson in the January Connoisseur. In particular, the writer describes and illustrates, from Sir William Plender's collection, a needlework portrait of Charles I. of extraordinary beauty and skill, and a mirror-frame of needlework, of about the same date which is equally charming. The number has an interesting note by Mr. Fred Roe suggesting that the small models of furniture, too large for a doll's house yet not large enough for a child, which may be seen in some museums and fetch large prices at sales are in fact " prentice pieces,' that is an apprentice's chef d'œuvre upon the termination of his articles, intended to be carried about the country, as specimen Several of the Deferters from the 3 Regiof what he could do, in search of employ-ments that were ordered on board Sir Charles ment. A pretty arm-chair of this sort-Wager's Squadron, are taken and committemp. William and Mary-is illustrated. FLATFORD Mill and Willy Lott's Cot

[ocr errors]

tage at East Bergholt in Suffolk have been acquired by Mr. T. R. Parkington of Ipswich for presentation to the nation in memory of Constable with whose work they are closely associated.

[ocr errors][merged small]

A Profecution is commenced in the Arches Court of Canterbury, against Mary Tofts the pretended Rabbit-breeder from Godalmin.

ted to the Savoy.

On Saturday Night a Pair of Stairs broke down at the Opera-Houfe in the Hay-Market, but did no other Damage, than a little difcompofing the Gentlemen of the ShoulderKnot.

And, at the Theatre in Drury-Lane, the Performance of the Play call'd, The Careless Husband was put by, on account of a sudden illnefs that had feized Mrs. Oldfield.

Sir John Norris is gone to Chatham, to take upon him, the Command of a Squadron of his Majefty's Ships of War.

[blocks in formation]

THOSE of us who have engaged in the fascinating pursuit of the history of any family must have often been struck by the extreme difficulty of attaining accuracy in "facts"; indeed the older one grows the more chary he becomes of setting out anything in genealogy or in history for absolute fact, and all this is very strikingly exemplified in what has been written about the subject of this article.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

There is a bibliography of George Chinnery. To begin with there are the brief article in the Dictionary of National Biography' written by Mr. Louis Fagan and the account given in Mr. Strickland's 'Dictionary of Irish Artists.' Chinnery was an Irish artist only by virtue of his residence for some six years (1795-1801) in Dublin were he painted several pictures. He comes into Sir Charles D'Oyly's amusing book, a century old, entitled Tom Raw, the Griffin'; into a book entitled 'Good Old Days of Honourable John Company'; into Lady Nugent's Diary; into the Letters and Memorials of Sir Edward Paget'; into Redgrave's Dictionary of Artists 'Bits of Old China by Mr. Wm. C. Hunter; 'My Mother's Journal' by Mrs. K. Hillard, an American book which does not seem to be obtainable in London; into articles in the Studio, in Bengal Past and Present, in the Pioneer, in the Indian Pictorial Magazine; into La Chine Ouverte' by the writer who adopted the pseudonym of Old Nick; into Annals of an Anglo-Indian Family by Sir Malcolm Morris, and into the fourth volume of the Memoirs of William Hickey. We are told, moreover, that allusions to his work in India are to be found scattered through native publications in that country. Two recent articles in particular are very important regarding this artist. They are: an article in the Studio of October, 1920, by Mr. James Orange, and an article by Mr. J. J. Cotton in Bengal Past and Present, April-June, 1924, published quarterly in Calcutta. But all these accounts of Chinnery are erroneous to a greater or less

[ocr errors]

degree. The most important of them, how

ever, is Mr. Cotton's, the result of years of research carried on in India, where he belongs to the Civil Service.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

George Chinnery was by birth an Irishof Old China.' man, says Mr. William Hunter in 'Bits "He was, we believe, of Irish extraction "- -Good Old Days of Honourable John Company.' This is quite erroneous, but Mr. Hunter must have come

to his conclusion because he found Chinnery prodigal of money, eccentric in his ways, fond of telling stories and of making puns. His stories were good, but Sir Charles D'Oyly says his puns were execrable. It is a delusion on this side of the Irish Sea, not even yet dispelled, that a person who displays these, or similar, characteristics must be an Irishman, whereas they are really much more characteristic of the Englishman. But the most considerable literary allusion to Chinnery is to be found in The Newcomes.'

[ocr errors]

"Chinnery, himself, Sir, couldn't hit off a likeness better,' says Colonel Newcome to Frederick Bayham in speaking of Clive Newcome's progress in portraiture. William Makepeace Thackeray, as is well known, was born in Calcutta on July 19, 1811, where his father, who died there in September, 1816, was Secretary to the Board of Revenue. Chinnery painted the future novelist, then aged three, with his mother. He also painted a portrait of Richmond Thackeray, the father, and these may be seen reproduced in Charles Plumptre Johnson's little book: The Early Writings of William Makepeace Thackeray.'

The name of Chinnery has many variants: Chynerye, Chynorie, Chennery, Chinerie, Chinery, Chenery, Gennery, Ginry, Genry, Jennery, Jenoyre. Students of phonetic decay in language may perceive the disease very clearly in this name. It is a distinct vocal feat to produce the first syllable "chin," but it is not nearly so much of a feat to produce it as Jenn," and it is interesting to note that a George Chinnery, who made his first appearance as a settler in Ireland about 1620, in James I's time, had his name softened down into Jennery in that country in the course of fifty years after his arrival, that being the form in which it was somtimes spelled by other people in lawsuits and in wills. somewhat amusing, and withal exasperating, instance of this occurred regarding the will of Captain Thomas Phaire of Enniscorthy, 1747, whose sister Elizabeth married an

A

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Irish Chinnery. Thomas Phaire made bequests to his sister Jennery and the clerk in the Public Record Office, Dublin, when copying the will into the will book took a short cut and called the lady "Sister Jenny " to the present writer's great bewilderment, because it was perfectly certain that Thomas Phaire had not a sister Jenny. It was only when the original will was produced that the atrocity committed by the clerk became apparent. The Irish family always maintained the spelling of the name as Chinnery.

Under all the above-mentioned and other forms this name used to abound in the counties of Cambridge, Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk, but especially in Suffolk, where it is of great antiquity and where it is rather difficult to find a parish register without instances of it.

For the purposes of this paper the spelling of the name as Chinnery is selected.

From East Anglia, very probably from the neighbourhood of Wetheringsett or Haughley in Suffolk, went a George Chinnery to Ireland about 1620. He appears there in a Chancery Lawsuit of the year 1629, concerning the purchase of some bales of wool in 1628.* A transaction about wool at such a period almost suffices to mark him as a Suffolk man. The family took root in Ireland in spite of the dreadful years, 1641 and 1642, when they were despoiled of their property and goods, the father and younger son returning to England, leaving a married daughter, Mrs. Radley, and the elder son, John, behind to fight his way as an officer in the army until in 1660 he was rewarded by considerable grants of land in Co. Cork. From the family founded by him sprang three baronets of the name and one bishop, George Chinnery, d. 1780, Bishop of Cloyne, the baronetcy dying out with the Reverend Sir Nicholas Chinnery, who, with several others, was burned to death in the Irish mail train disaster at Abergele Junction in 1867, Sir Nicholas's only child being a daughter who had previously married the Rev. James Haldane subsequently, under the name of Chinnery-Haldane, Bishop of Argyle and the Isles.

One of the puzzles of the Public Record Office in Dublin used to be the presence there of a copy of the will of William Chenerye of Wetheringsett, Sept. 16, 1623, the original being at Bury St. Edmund's.

* Mention of him occurs in Ireland as early as 1624.

No explanation has ever been forthcoming of the strange appearance in Dublin of a will which disclosed no Irish name or property and one can only surmise that it was taken to Ireland by the original Chinnery settler and that it somehow drifted into the Records.

[ocr errors]

As has been said the name is of considerable antiquity. Under the form Jenoyre it is found in Essex in 1359, and under the form Chinnery in the same county in the reign of Edward III., as Chenery in Norfolk in 1388, and as Chynnore at Winchester School in 1403. Bardsley regards it as an immigrant name from the Low Countries, and during the Great War a place called Châtel Chenery in the Ardennes was mentioned more than once in accounts of army movements.

Weekley derives the name from chêne, an oak, in the form chênerai, the ending ai being the equivalent of the well-known Latin termination -etum. He instances Pomeroy as a name of similar derivation.

George Chinnery, the subject of this essay, was born at No. 4, Gough Square, Fleet Street, Jan. 7, 1774, and baptized at St. Bride's Church, Fleet Street, Feb. 4, 1774. He was the fifth son and sixth child of William Chinnery, who is described

[ocr errors]

as

Madras merchant," though the present writer has not been able to trace any verification of this description. According to Miss Maguire of Dublin, who saw the entry in an old family Bible, his mother's name was Elizabeth Bassett. He was grandson of William Chinnery, writing-master, of the same address, No. 4, Gough Square, where the Chinnerys were neighbours, and perhaps acquaintances, of the great Doctor Samuel Johnson.

William Chinnery, "Madras merchant," and Elizabeth Bassett, his wife, had seven children, whose births are recorded in the registers of St. Bride's Church :William Terry Chinnery, born Dec. 9, 1764, died June 8, 1765.

William Bassett Chinnery, born March 3, 1766.

Elizabeth Harriett Chinnery, born Feb. 16, 1768.

John Terry Chinnery, born Feb. 12, 1770. Thomas Welch Chinnery, born Jan. 7, 1772.

George Chinnery, born Jan. 7, 1774. Frances Hughes Chinnery, born July 19, 1777.

Miss Maguire thinks there were two other daughters, viz. :-Mary Henrietta and Mar

garet, but this is very doubtful. The Mary
Henrietta Chinnery of Miss Maguire's list
seems very clearly to be the daughter of
John Terry Chinnery above and Mary Pay-
ton, his wife.
She was born in Madras,
Nov. 3, 1802, and died in London, July 1,
1885, unmarried, administration of her
effects being granted to her niece, Matilda
Capel Hodgson. The Margaret Chinnery
of Miss Maguire's list was the wife of
Colonel Charles Andrew Girardot who died
at Dover 1864. In the will of Mrs. Mar-
garet Chinnery (née Tresilian), pr. Dec. 4,
1840, this lady gets a bequest of £200 and is
described as Mrs. Margaret Chinnery Girar-
dot, but there is, so far, no warrant at all
for assuming that her maiden name
Chinnery. She died at Dover in 1878 leav-
ing three children, all daughters, Mrs.
Trow, Mrs. St. George, and Mrs. Rogers
who died childless.

was

The emergence of the names Terry and Bassett in the family of the artist is of great interest by reason of the facts that the John Chinnery of Ireland above-mentioned married, as his first wife, one Catherine Terry of Castle Terry, Co. Limerick, Ireland, and that there was a well-known Bassett Chinnery marriage at Acton, near Long Melford, Suffolk, in 1787; but o actual relationship has been discovered between these London Chinnerys and the Irish and Suffolk families of the same name.

The following pedigree No. 1 compiled from wills at Bury St. Edmund's, at Norwich, and at Somerset House contains, in my belief the somewhat remote genealogy of George Chinnery, the artist.

Attention is particularly directed in this pedigree to Robert Chinnery, cordwainer, of St. Martin's-le-Grand, a young man probably not 25 years old in 1665 when he instituted a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery on his own behalf and that of his brother Martin and sisters Anne and Mary, all minors, to recover from his uncle William Chinnery of Haughley, their shares of the estate left by his grandfather, John, of Brockford. To which his uncle William made reply that he was perfectly willing to pay up all bequests if only he or the clerks in the Prerogative Court in London could decipher from the will what sums were bequeathed to the various grandchildren of the said John.

It is not a far cry, genealogically, from 1665 to 1723 when, in the excellent list of London Apprentices compiled by the Society of Genealogists, one finds that William, son of William Chinnery of St. Botolph's

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

We

Bishopsgate, cordwainer, was_apprenticed on Nov. 5, 1723, to Richard Ford, citizen and stationer. When we add to this (1) the baptism of William Jennery-so the name 18 spelled--son of William and Rebecka at St. Botolph's Church on Feb. 8, 1708, and (2) the death of William Chinnery, writing-master on Dec. 22, 1791, at No. 4, Gough Square, in his 84th year, we have an irrefragable chain of facts. have Robert Chinnery, cordwainer of St. Martin's-le-Grand, in 1665. We have William Chinnery, cordwainer, of St. Botolph's parish not so far away in 1723, and the probability is that this William's father was a relative of Robert-he may indeed have been William, son of the William Chinnery of Haughley, who died in 1649 see Pedigree No. 1.

W. H. WELPLY. (To be continued.)

THE REVOLUTION OF 1821 IN PIEDMONT,

(See ante, p. 3).

The plans of the conspirators were grad ually assuming shape when the first outburst took place in Naples and Sicily. In Sicily there was fighting and bloodshed; in Naples, where the movement took the form of a military pronunciamento, there was neither. King Ferdinand readily yielded to force majeure, granted the Spanish Constitution and swore without the least compunction all the oaths demanded of him. He was then allowed to go to Laybach, where the Emperors of Austria and Russia and the plenipotentiaries of France and Prussia were meeting to deliberate over the Spanish Revolution, and at once broke all his oaths. Metternich secured for Austria the mandate to suppress the popular movement in South Italy; and early in 1821 a strong Austrian army began the march on Naples.

These events threw all Italy into a ferment, but except the papal towns of Benevento and Pontecervo no one moved; everyone was waiting to see what would happen in Piedmont. The premature rising in the South had thrown the Northern conspirators into a quandary. Nothing was ready, yet all felt that something must be done. They hoped that the Neapolitans would be able to hold their own against the Austrians and give the Piedmontese and Lombards time to overwhelm the 12,000 Austrians left in the North, and then fall upon the rear

of the army operating against Naples. This plan unfortunately left out of count 90,000 Austrians on the Venetian frontier, to say nothing of a large Russian army in Hungary. Nevertheless, every nerve strained to put it into execution.

was

The

On Jan 11, 1821, some students of the University at Turin appeared in the theatre wearing red republican caps. They were at once arrested. Their friends caused some tumult in the town next day, with the result that the Guards Regiment was called out, the rioters were dispersed and the University building itself, though hardly defended, taken at the point of the bayonet. harsh methods adopted by the soldiers caused great indignation; and Charles Albert himself openly visited the injured in hospital. The Liberals realised that the reactionary faction, which was still very strong in Piedmont, was prepared to resort to extreme measures against them and hastened their action.

Though the leaders were many a chief was lacking. Charles Albert had frequently listened to the Liberals' private discussions and frequently expressed sympathy with their aspirations. Not unnaturally therefore the conspirators thought that he was one of them, and founded on him their hopes. On the evening of March 6 Santa Rosa, San Marzano, Lisio and Collegno revealed to him their plans and begged him to favour their enterprise. We do not know what the Prince replied, but the conspirators came away under the impression that he had consented to lead them. By next day they were undeceived. In consternation the outbreak, fixed for the 8th, was put off and a new attempt was made to obtain Charles Albert's assent. Radice, whose influence with him was known to be great, was called in; in vain. The Prince was, in Radice's words, "like a sack of mud." Disheartened at what seemed to them a volte face the conspirators sent urgent messages to their colleagues everywhere to put off the rising, but it was too late; on March 10 the revolution had begun at Alessandria.

The reasons for Charles Albert's apparent volte face are obscure. Maybe the conspirators had deceived themselves and mistaken friendly personal sympathy for the official approval of the heir presumptive to the throne. Maybe Charles Albert in his usual irresolution had not said "No" in time, with the result that he found himself suddenly faced with the necessity of making a decision and, in a last attempt at temporis

« ElőzőTovább »