Transcription from ‘Petitions in the State Papers: 1670s’, in Petitions in the State Papers, 1600-1699, ed. Brodie Waddell, British History Online, Lewis Sulpice Jonquier and Martin Corbonell, Frenchmen and now prisoners in Newgate. SP 29/287/1 f. 206 (1671).
To the Kings most excellent majestie
The humble peticion of Lewis Sulpice Jonquier, and Martin Corbonell Frenchmen and now prisoners in Newgate;
Sheweth That your petitioners being at the last sessions at the Old Bayly indicted the one for stealing of lace and the other for takeing of a sword were thereupon convicted and condemned to suffer death.
Now for as much may it please your majestie as your petitioners were not guilty of the said crimes but being tryed by a jury of twelve men where seven were English foure Walloones and one French men only they were found guilty thereof, whereas according to the custome of England one halfe of the said jury ought to have been French men for the better understanding of the truth of the case and for want of which due tryall your petitioners are like to suffer wrongfully unlesse releived by your majesties accustomed clemency and goodness, his interpreter being also an English man who could not well understand French nor your petitioner understand him;
Wherefore your petitioners most humbly pray that your majestie will be graciously pleased to grant that the execucion of the said sentence may bee suspended till the next sessions and that your petitioners may be tryed by a jury halfe English and halfe French and they shall willingly submitt to the judgment of such a jury;
And as in duty bound shall ever pray etc
Report by Janette Storey
Two French citizens, Lewis Sulpice Jonquier and Martin Corbonell, were found guilty of the theft of a sword and some lace and were imprisoned. However, they are petitioning because the Court was not made up of an equal number of English and French jurors as was required by law.
The Old Bailey
The trial of Louis Sulpice Jonquier and Martin Corbonell took place at the Old Bailey in 1670/1. The Old Bailey is situated close to St Paul’s Cathedral and named after the street where it is located, which follows the line of the original city wall or ‘bailey’. It originated as the Sessions House for the City of London and Westminster plus the county of Middlesex.[1] In medieval times, the court was held in nearby rooms and later in a court building constructed in 1539, until it was destroyed by the Great Fire of London in 1666.[2] A new open-sided courthouse was opened in 1673.[3] The petitioners’ trial took place between the destruction of the old building and the erection of the new one. One reference quotes ‘that prior to the fire judges heard cases under an open-sided roof in the Session House garden, while from 1666 to 1673 trials were conducted in a wooden shed “erected amidst the rubble”’.[4] Disease, particularly typhus or ‘jail fever’, was rife amongst prisoners and the open-air arrangement of the courts was supposed to protect court officials from this. Even the replacement building of 1673 reflected this thinking and was designed to be open on one side. The court was finally enclosed in 1734. However, there were subsequent outbreaks of typhus and sixty people died in the 1750 outbreak, including the Lord Mayor.[5]
Newgate Prison
Newgate prison was conveniently located next to the Old Bailey to enable prisoners to be quickly moved to and from the court.[6] It stood at the northern end of the same street, on the site of the modern-day Old Bailey. The main feature was a sixty-foot-tall tower spanning Newgate Street, the City gate opening below it. From the 12th century it was used as a prison. In the 1400s, money from Dick Whittington contributed to a rebuilding scheme. A later incarnation in 1679 incorporated a statue of him and his cat.
The prison – if not totally destroyed – was certainly gutted by the Great Fire in 1666. Sir Christopher Wren designed the new building in 1672.[7] Jonquier and Corbonell were imprisoned in the interim between the fire and the rebuilding. Prisoners were fitted with leg irons on entering the prison and conditions were appalling. It was said that the prison was so dirty and squalid that the floors crunched as you walked due to all of the lice and bedbugs. Typhus was spread by bites from human lice. If you had money you could buy better accommodation, food and even alcohol. A vivid description of the prevailing prison conditions is given in The Chronicles of Newgate, including a detailed account of the interior of the 1667 prison, a work published in 1724 and written by ‘B. L. of Twickenham’.[8]
Swords
In the 1670s firearms were beginning to take over from swords on the battlefield but gentlemen still wore them. From the 1620s, there had been sword making on Hounslow Heath, West London. Several of the swordsmiths were from Solingen. The factory was well-established and organised at the time of the Civil War and supplied the parliamentary party with a large number of swords.[9]
The mortuary sword was used by the cavalry in the Civil War.[10] The hilt could be intricately designed; after the execution of Charles I the basket hilts often had his face on them and gave them the name mortuary swords. Less decorative basket hilts had been in use for some time.[11]
At the end of the Civil War hostilities there must have been a large number of weapons in circulation. However, Nicholas Hall observes that ‘the style of sword was related to social class. Gentlemen wore “civilian” swords, derived from the 16th century rapier, as part of their dress. But not entirely for ornament – of course, a gentleman was supposed to be able to defend himself, having some skill in fencing’.[12] So, the blade was generally the slender but stiff rapier blade, made purely for thrusting.
The gentlemanly sword was often a kind of male jewellery, a legitimate way of demonstrating taste and wealth (a bit like a good watch – expensive and valuable thus worth stealing). The style of the hilt could vary greatly, from the simple cross hilt, a bit like a small version of a medieval hilt, to the classic ‘cup hilt’ of the rapier and the fairly new simplified ‘small sword’ hilt, with a shallow guard and cross hilt. Materials also varied greatly, including precious metals and stones and the best hilts were made by leading goldsmiths and metalworkers.
In 1626, the price of a sword with a damasked hilt was between forty and fifty shillings.[13] Styles in all their rich variety have been exhaustively catalogued by A. V. B. Norman (1930-1998) a former Master of the Royal Armouries in the Tower of London.[14]
The English short sword probably originated in the French court of Louis XIV, worn in place of a rapier. New fencing techniques emphasised the use of the blade for offence and defence and in a duel a lighter weapon was advantageous if opponents were equally matched. After the Restoration of Charles II small swords were worn by gentleman as part of their everyday outfits. They were more convenient to carry than the lengthier rapier.
Lace
Image: Anthony van Dyck, Queen Henrietta Maria, 1636, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
Lace was a very trendy and desirable item in the 17th century, and it appears in most portraits until the Commonwealth period (1649-60). Under Puritan rule the wearing of gold and silver laces, cuffs, fine collars, gartering and shoe roses was discouraged, though not actually banned. Green lace seen on a pair of shoes was blamed for ‘arousing passions’.[15] The middle and lower classes were affected by the ban but it was ignored by Sir Thomas Fairfax, father of the model army general, who is described as wearing a ‘buff coat ornamented with silver lace, his trunk hose trimmed with Flanders lace and his breastplate partly concealed by a falling collar of the same’.[16]
Incidentally, Oliver Cromwell, who shunned lace in life, was dressed in purple velvet, ermine and the richest Flemish laces after death. In 1660, the throat decoration known as a gorget or whisk cost about £50. Lace importation was taxed in 1653.[17] Lace cravats are even mentioned by Samuel Pepys: ‘Lord’s Day. Oct 19, 1662. Put on my new lace band, and so neat it is that I am resolved my great expense shall be lace bands, and it will set off anything else the more’. Notices were even placed in newspapers reporting, for example, the loss of a laced band, the lace a quarter of a yard deep.[18]
Lace came in two varieties: needle lace made by stitching, mainly Venetian in origin, and bobbin or bone lace from Northern Europe. Dutch and Flemish laces were considered very fine. Indeed, the very fine threads used then are not available to the modern lace-maker. The type of flax plant used to produce the linen thread has died out. Items such as collars were usually detachable from garments to enable washing and starching.[19]
Image: Collar, British or Flemish, 17th Century, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
Following the Restoration of the Monarchy, fashions changed from the plain puritan styles, there was a period of decorative exuberance. There was a big demand for lace. To preserve the largely cottage industry of British lace-making laws were passed banning the import of foreign lace in 1662.[20] Smuggled lace was confiscated and a fine of £100 levied. Justices were permitted to issue search warrants if they thought the law was being broken.[21] This did not stop Charles II. He ordered quantities of foreign lace for his family. He is known to have paid £194 for three Venetian lace cravats and 24 shillings for 57 yards of lace to trim his ruffles.
Vermeer painted his famous ‘Kantwerker’ (Lacemaker) in about 1669-1670, and this shows how bone lace was made. In England, a lace worker could earn as much as a labourer and was considered very marriageable, able to contribute to the family income and support herself if widowed.
Image: Johannes Vermeer – The lacemaker (c.1669-1671), Musée du Louvre
Theft
At the time Louis Jonquier and Martin Corbonell were accused of stealing lace and a sword there would have been a lot of both in circulation. They were valuable commodities. It has not been possible to find any further details of the stolen items or who they belonged to. However, it is safe to assume that they were worth more than 12d. or one shilling each. Grand larceny or theft for items worth over a shilling resulted in an automatic death penalty in 1670/1.[22]
The Jury
Jurors were supposed to be selected randomly, although in 1670/1 they could only be selected if they owned land of a particular value to qualify.[23] The 1664 act specified jurors should own a property valued at £20 or more.[24] Old Bailey cases were tried in batches, juries hearing several trials before retiring to consider their verdicts. Trials tended to be very short about half an hour on average.[25] Men who were summoned for jury service attended the Old Bailey on the first day of the sessions. Defendants could challenge the selection but infrequently did so.
The Trial and Petitions
The petitioners were a special case for which the random selection of a jury was modified. They were entitled to Trial de Medietate Linguae.[26] That meant that half the jury should be of their nationality and the other half English.[27] In 1201, a law passed by Richard I applied medietate linguae to Jewish people.[28] The jury de medietate linguae had existed in England for merchants from 1353 and then extended to all aliens from 1354.[29] It was only abolished by the statute in the Naturalization Act of 1870, which also gave foreigners the right to serve on juries. From their first two petitions, it can be seen the accepted procedure was not adhered to. In addition the English interpreter was not very good and made understanding the procedures difficult.[30]Interestingly, the second petition lists five, not four Walloons and no French citizens as jurors.
The third petition to the King by the Jonquier and Corbonell also in January 1671 mentions the death sentence having been stayed because of the composition of the jury, and it requests a pardon or transportation to the plantations.[31] This could be the Caribbean or North America, Virginia for example. It notes that their accusers, ‘who were themselves probably guilty’, had fled to France. Their apprehension had been requested by the French Ambassador: Charles Colbert de Croissy,Conseiller ordinaire du Roi en tous ses Conseils, the ambassador from August 1668 to January 1674.[32]
In January 1671, the fourth petition, after the stay of execution, was a request to change the sentence to transportation to Virginia or to serve in the galleys.[33] Transportation to America was commonplace at this time.[34] Serving in the galleys was a typically French punishment.[35] At this time King Louis XIV had some forty galleys each requiring 260 rowers, provided mainly by the law courts. British galleys were rapidly being replaced by sailing ships. In Britain convicts could be sent into the navy, helping recruitment and simultaneously getting rid of undesirables.[36] The British Navy only had three galley frigates, but they were mainly used as sailing vessels.[37]
The fourth petition also highlights the trial’s procedural difficulties and the problems of the jurymen. One did not agree with the verdict, another felt obliged to agree with the guilty verdict and others did not understand what was going on.
In early September 1670, there had been a famous case: The Old Bailey trial of William Penn (subsequent founder of Pennsylvania) and William Meade, a law student.[38] The two Quakers had been preaching outside their meeting house in Gracechurch Street, which had been closed by the authorities. This came to the notice of James Cook and Richard Read, two local constables. The recently passed Conventicle Act banned gatherings for worship of more than five people, apart from for services of the Church of England. The prisoners appeared before twelve judges and twelve jurors: Thomas Veer, Edward Bushel, John Hammond, Charles Milson, Gregory Walklet, John Brightman, William Plumsted, Henry Henley, Thomas Damask, Henry Michel, William Lever and John Baily.[39] Penn challenged the legality of the charge and would not plead without seeing a written copy; since this was not given, he pleaded not guilty. The next day the prisoners were fined forty marks for failing to remove their hats in court. The recorder charged the jury to bring in a verdict of guilty. Four jurors dissented, and they were sent back to rethink their verdict. The jury then found Penn and the others guilty of ‘speaking in the street’ but refused to add the words ‘in an unlawful assembly’. The Justice Howel said ‘I will have a positive verdict, or you shall starve for it’. He refused to accept the jury’s verdict and ordered them to be ‘locked up without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco’, while Penn called to them not to give up their rights as Englishmen.[40] Justice Howel said ‘I am sorry, gentlemen, you have followed your own judgments and opinions, rather than the good and wholesome advice which was given you; God keep my life out of your hands, but for this the Court fines you 40 marks a man; and imprisonment till paid’.
The jurors, led by Edward Bushel were, released on a writ of habeas corpus and sued the mayor and recorder.[41] They won their case before the Court of Common Pleas before Chief Justice John Vaughan in a historic decision that conceded that judges ‘may try to open the eyes of the jurors, but not to lead them by the nose. The jury must be independently and indisputably responsible for its verdict free from any threats from the court’. The trial in November 1670 is referred to as Bushel’s Case and is a landmark case that established the independence of the jury in the English legal system. It also confirmed that the Court of Common Pleas could issue a writ of habeas corpus in ordinary criminal cases. There is a plaque on the wall of the Old Bailey to this effect, praising the courage and endurance of Bushel and the other jurymen.[42]
Bushel’s historic case, coming so soon before, may have had some impact on the decisions made regarding the Frenchmen’s trial, particularly concerning the doubts of one juryman, the constraint of another and lack of understanding of the others. Their petition was dated January, so the trial may have been in December 1670 or before. It is not exactly known when the Frenchmen were arrested.
The fourth petition also mentions a third party: the woman who accused the Frenchmen. She is unnamed but after fleeing to France (see third petition) she had been arrested. It is unknown if this was in France or England. The Lord Mayor would not allow a second trial and the Frenchmen would have to appeal to the King’s mercy.
Sir Richard Ford of the Mercers’ Company was Lord Mayor at the time.[43] He was a man experienced in many things from trade such as supplying the Royalist forces from a base in Rotterdam during the Civil War and a Commissioner with the East India Company. He became an MP for Southampton, but he does not appear to have had any legal training. As an MP in 1670 Ford did serve on a committee to prevent illegal imprisonment.[44] Whether it was the influence of this committee work or the law of double jeopardy that influenced his findings for Jonquier and Carbonell is impossible to say. Double jeopardy was a common law procedure that prevented a person being tried for the same or a similar offence.[45]
There is mentioned in the State papers a fifth petition January 1670 that is to the same effect as the fourth.[46]
The Outcome
Louis Jonquier and Martin Corbonell had to wait a while longer in gaol but finally they got the best result they could hope for. On 13 February 1671, there appears a warrant in the State Papers that they should be included in the next general pardon.[47]
Louis Jonquier
The surname ‘Jonquiere’ occurs frequently in records from the Toulouse region of France. Some intriguing records have come to light, though they may not be directly related to the Lewis Sulpice Jonquier of the 1671 petitions. If he did continue to live in England it is possible that he had a son with the same name. On 12 April 1726, there is a marriage record of Louis Jonquiere to a Mary Bourgeois, by special licence at St Margaret, Westminster.[48]
Another marriage is recorded on 22 November 1735, Westminster Martha Kitchingham or Margarate Kitchingham to Louis Jonquiere.[49] Did Mary Bourgeois die, and this is a second marriage or just another Louis? No death records for Mary Jonquiere have been found 1726-35.
Lewis Jonquiere is recorded as paying rates of £8 4s for a property in Mount Street, Hanover Square, Westminster in 1739. However, he is marked as gone in the ledger.[50] Before 1724, this area was part of St Martin’s in the Fields.
Martin de Carbonell
A will for Martin de Carbonell, a gentleman of St Martin in the Fields with probate granted in 1703 may refer to Martin Corbonell.[51] Unfortunately, it does not give how he made his living or name his family except for a son-in-law Sir Thomas Stepney, although this would imply he had a daughter. Martin de Carbonell had marital links to the family of the artist Sir Anthony van Dyck.
Anthony van Dyck
Anthony van Dyck was born in Flanders on 22 March 1599.[52] After a flourishing career in Holland and all over Europe, particularly Italy, he became court painter to Charles I, who granted him a pension of £200 per annum.[53] Perhaps one of his most famous paintings is of Charles I in three positions.[54]
He died aged 42, at home in Blackfriars, on 9 December 1641 after returning from about a year in Antwerp and is buried in St Paul’s Cathedral. His will is dated 4 December 1641 and mentions his new-born daughter.[55] He left his estate in England to his wife and daughter. He left his estate in Antwerp to his illegitimate daughter Maria Teresa and his sister Suzanna who was caring for her.
In 1640 Van Dyck had married Lady Mary Ruthven.[56] They had one child, Justina (Justiniana) Maria Catherine Van Dyck, born on 30 November 1641. She was baptised on 9 December 1641, St Anne’s, Blackfriars, London, the same day her father died.[57]
Van Dyck’s widow quickly remarried in the summer of 1642, to Sir Richard Pryse (Pryce) of Gogerddan, Wales. She died in 1644 in Wales.
Justina van Dyck
Justina was left an orphan, who was brought up by her stepfather. In fact, her aunt Suzanna, in Flanders, was appointed her guardian on 28 April 1645 but appointed Jan Hooff to act in her place. He had previously been in the Van Dyke household. Suzanna was keen for Justina to be brought up in the Catholic faith and in November 1649 made a will leaving all her property to Anthony Van Dyke’s illegitimate child Maria Teresa. However, if Justina came to live in Antwerp and become a Catholic, she would be entitled to half the estate on her aunt’s death.
In 1653, aged just thirteen years old, Justina married John Baptist Stepney.[58] The family connections of John’s uncle being married to Richard Pryce’s daughter, from his previous marriage, probably facilitated the match. Justina demonstrated her artistic talent by painting ‘Christ on the Cross with four angels catching the blood from his wounds’ in oil for her aunt. Cornelis de Bie, an author of a book ‘Het Gulden Cabinet’ published in 1661 on painters of the time included her among notable female painters.[59]
Sir John and Lady Stepney returned to London where she gave birth to their first child, Ana, in 1662. Post Reformation Britain was Protestant and they had to be discreet about their beliefs. John managed to conceal his, enabling him to join the Horse Guards of Charles II. Three other children followed between 1665 and 1672. When his uncle died in 1676, John Stepney became the fourth baronet of Prendergast, Pembrokeshire. But he died not long afterwards and was buried at Kidwelly, Wales on 1 July 1681.[60]
Justina had problems with her finances throughout her life. Her father’s will left all his pictures, goods, effects and the money owed to him by King Charles and others to be divided between his wife and baby Justina. When Mary remarried, she and her husband made some efforts to recover the money, before the Civil War made it difficult. It is believed that most of Pryce’s lands were mortgaged and he was in debt and it is likely that Pryce married Mary in order to pay off his debts.[61] After her mother’s death Justina was in Wales, behind Royalist lines. However in a petition to the House of Lords, March 1645, Justina’s grandfather Patrick Ruthven claimed that Richard Andrews, a dealer, had been taking paintings from Van Dyck’s house in Blackfriars in Parliamentarian London and paying under value prices to help pay off Sir Richard Pryce’s debt. Andrews then sold the paintings abroad, making large profits. In 1644, Sir John Wittewronge sought to recover some paintings on behalf of his mother Lady Anne Middleton. Wittewronge’s suit successfully retrieved the paintings. Lawsuits went on until 1704. Ruthven also claimed that some of Pryce’s other creditors were entering the house and taking what they wanted. He asked the Lords to impose an embargo on exports of the art, which they apparently did. However, he returned to the Lords in February 1647 reporting Andrews had had ignored the order and was still sending items abroad. In 1656 The Earl of Northumberland paid Thomas and John Stepney £80, in addition to the £200 he had previously paid, to establish he had been the owner of Titian’s Perseus and Andromeda, which though listed amongst his possessions was one of the paintings that had vanished from the Van Dyck’s Blackfriars collection.[62]
In 1662 Justina applied to become a Dresser to the Queen, Catharine of Braganza.[63] Charles II granted Justina a pension of £200 per annum for life, in lieu of the £1,500. This matched the pension granted to her father by Charles I. In April 1662 an initial £200 grant was awarded to Justina.[64] By 1664, she had to petition for payment and ‘the continuance of the pension, that had stopped a year ago, having nothing else to subsist on’.[65] There were several gaps and arrears but Justina Stepney seems to have received her pension from the Crown quite regularly between 1670 and 1687.[66]
After she was widowed Justina went on to make a second, childless, marriage to Martin de Carbonnel, a French Huguenot. Justina died before 27 November 1688 when administration of her estate was awarded to Martin de Carbonel.[67]
There is a reference to the Carbonell household by George Vertue.[68] He was a skilled engraver and his notes on artists were bought posthumously and used in books by Horace Walpole. Vertue was born in 1684 in the parish of St Martin’s in the Fields, the same area that Martin Carbonell resided, according to his will. Reminiscing about Justina Van Dyck, Vertue says ‘I remember in my youth, the name Carbonel, A gent, who was married to […] Mrs Carbonnel, a gentlewoman, descendant of Van Dyke who lived in the same house, where I learnt to draw at first and somehow I got into her favour, and she showed me many drawings etc of works that had been so kind as to lend me some of them to draw after’.[69] Vertue would only have been about four or five at the time.
Martin Carbonell was a French Huguenot refugee.[70] Huguenots were employed predominantly as artisans, especially weavers, and those who came to Britain included many skilled craftsmen, silversmiths, watchmakers and the like, and professional people – clergy, doctors, merchants’ soldiers, teachers. Being both Protestants and having skills explains why so many Huguenots crossed the Channel. Protestant England was second in popularity as a place of refuge only to the Dutch Republic.
In 1691 there is a record of a Secret Service payment of £20 to Martin d’ Carbonell as a royal bounty for the subsistence of himself and three of Lady Stepney’s children.[71] There is another payment of £37 10 s in 1692.[72] Whether Carbonell rendered the Secret Service assistance for this money is unknown. In June 1700, Carbonell, listed as a poor pensioner, was awarded a £10 bounty.[73] There is also a record of a ‘Martin Carbonel’ in the Royal Household.[74] This quotes a pension of £20 per annum from 1702.
In 1703, Martin Carbonell attempted again to recover payment for debts still outstanding from Anthony Van Dyck’s estate. Martin de Carbonel described Sir Thomas Stepney as his son-in-law, leaving him ten pounds in his will. Thomas was actually his stepson. He later became a Whig MP for Carmarthenshire 1717-1722.[75] Martin does not appear to have fathered any children of his own.
References
[1] ‘Old Bailey’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Bailey.
[2] ‘London Topia’: https://londontopia.net/site-news/featured/great-london-buildings-old-bailey/
[3] The Old Bailey Online: https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/The-old-bailey.jsp
[4] J. Oldham, Trial by Jury The Seventh Amendment and Anglo-American Special Juries (2006), p. 262 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=F-u24xKc3W0C&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=sessions+house+old+bailey+1666+-+1673&source=bl&ots=OOd7E0mhxu&sig=ACfU3U2OWJ4FG0Ik3vM2CjMaLUq29lQqLw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjTl_bbibvnAhWhTxUIHTtRCVQQ6AEwFnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=sessions%20house%20old%20bailey%201666%20-%201673&f=false.
[5] C. Ward, Desire and Disorder: Fevers, Fictions and feeling in English Georgian Culture (2007), pp. 105-106.
[6] Department of Planning pamphlet Newgate Area Conservation Planning Summary, p. 5. https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/environment-and-planning/planning/heritage-and-design/conservation-areas/Documents/newgate-street-character-summary.pdf.
[7] ‘Newgate Prison’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newgate_Prison.
[8] A. Griffiths, Chapter IV Newgate after the Great Fire. Project Gutenberg’s The Chronicles of Newgate, vol. 1/2: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46649/46649-h/46649-h.htm#page_143.
[9] ‘Pooly Sword’: https://pooleysword.com/en/Evolution_of_Swords_-_Swordsmiths_in_England.
[10] Sword: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket-hilted_sword#Mortuary_sword
[11] Swords: https://southernswords.co.uk/english-mortuary-hilt-sword.html
[12] Nicholas Hall Hall BA FSA AIExpE, retired Keeper of Artillery in 2016, now Curator Emeritus of Artillery, Royal Armouries.
[13] My Armoury Illustrative article on swords: http://myarmoury.com/feature_engswords.html
[14] A. V. B. Norman, The Rapier and Small-Sword (1980).
[15] L. Bartlet, Lace Villages (1991).
[16] Mrs Bury Palliser, A History of Lace, p. 288. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=CyoGAAAAQAAJ&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA288.
[17] ‘House of Commons Journal Volume 7: 30 November 1653’, in Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 7, 1651-1660 (London, 1802), pp. 360-361. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/commons-jrnl/vol7/pp360-361.
[18] Palliser, Lace, p. 292 https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=CyoGAAAAQAAJ&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA292.
[19] P. Earnshaw, The Identification of Lace (2000).
[20] ‘House of Commons Journal Volume 8: 19 February 1662’, in Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 8, 1660-1667 (London, 1802), pp. 368-369. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/commons-jrnl/vol8/pp368-369.
[21] ‘Charles II, 1662: An Act prohibiting the Importacion of Forreign Bonelace Cutt worke Imbroidery Fringe Band-strings Buttons and Needle worke.’, in Statutes of the Realm: Volume 5, 1628-80, ed. John Raithby (s.l, 1819), pp. 405-406. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/statutes-realm/vol5/pp405-406.
[22] Proceedings of the Old Bailey https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/Crimes.jsp#grandlarceny.
[23] Chicago Law School https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol50/iss1/3/146.
[24]Devon Freeholders http://www.foda.org.uk/freeholders/intro/introduction2.htm.
[25] Proceedings of the Old Bailey https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/Trial-procedures.jsp#trial.
[26] Chicago Law School https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol50/iss1/3/ pp. 167-170 of the PDF. Jurors in Trials of Aliens, Clerics, and Others.
[27] Hofstra Law Review, Douglas G Smith The Historical and Constitutional Contexts of Jury Reform, page 404 https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1958&context=hlr
[28] Joelle D. Million, Racial Issues in Criminal Justice: The Case of African Americans. (2003) Page 242
[29] The Washington and Lee Law Review page 850 https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2257&context=wlulr
[30] ‘Charles II: January 1671’, in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1671, ed. F H Blackburne Daniell (London, 1895), pp. 1-63. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/chas2/1671/pp1-63
[31] ibid
[32] Notes on the Diplomatic Relations of England and France 1603-1688 http://bob.fooguru.org/content/firth/NotesDiploRel/Notes.html
[33] ‘Charles II: January 1671’, in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1671, ed. F H Blackburne Daniell (London, 1895), pp. 1-63. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/chas2/1671/pp1-63
[34] Wikipedia article see section 2.1.1. and 2.2 transportation to the Americas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_transportation
[35] Musee Protestant https://www.museeprotestant.org/en/notice/sentenced-to-the-galleys/
[36] Old Bailey on line Punishment https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/Punishment.jsp#misc-militarynaval
[37] Wikipedia article see definition and Terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galley
[38] Wikipedia article see early modern section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_trial_by_jury_in_England
[39] Duhaime.org Learn Law http://www.duhaime.org/LawMuseum/LawArticle-1335/1670-The-Jury-Earns-Its-Independence-Bushels-case.aspx
[40] The trial of William Penn and William Mead : at the Old Bailey, 1670. Transcript as written by Penn https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112065768381&view=1up&seq=15
[41] Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
[42] Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushel%27s_Case
[43] Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ford_(Southampton_MP)
[44] https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1660-1690/member/ford-sir-richard-1614-78
[45] ‘Double jeopardy’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy#Pre-2003.
[46] ‘Charles II: January 1671’, in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1671, ed. F H Blackburne Daniell (London, 1895), pp. 1-63. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/chas2/1671/pp1-63
[47] ‘Charles II: February 1671’, in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1671, ed. F H Blackburne Daniell (London, 1895), pp. 63-110. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/chas2/1671/pp63-110.
[48] Find my past Lewis Jonquiere https://www.findmypast.co.uk/transcript?id=GBPRS%2FM%2F492318500%2F1; Find my Past Marriage Register for Louis Jonquiere https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=GBPRS%2FWSMTN%2F005620241%2F00243&parentid=GBPRS%2FM%2F492318500%2F1.
[49] Find my Past Lewis Jonquiere: https://www.findmypast.co.uk/transcript?id=R_850485295; Family Search: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NJ69-YPR.
[50] Find my Past, Westminster Rates Book: https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=GBPRS%2FWSMTN%2F005135852%2F00075&parentid=GBOR%2FWESTMINSTER_RATEBOO%2F9066452%2F1.
[51] Ancestry The will of Martin Carbonell https://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=5111&h=816626&usePUB=true&_phsrc=jhl420&_phstart=successSource&requr=9288966289260544&ur=0&lang=en-GB.
[52] ‘Anthony Van Dyck’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_van_Dyck.
[53] Anthony Van Dyck: http://jordaensvandyck.org/articles/van-den-branden-van-dyck/.
[54] ‘Charles I in Three Positions’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_in_Three_Positions.
[55] Anthony Van Dyck’s will: http://jordaensvandyck.org/archive/van-dycks-will-4-december-1641/.
[56] The Peerage Mary Ruthven: http://www.thepeerage.com/p20494.htm.
[57] Family Search: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NL5X-LY3.
[58] A portrait believed to be John Baptist Stepney: https://jddavies.com/2015/03/02/highways-and-byways-of-the-seventeenth-century-the-artists-daughter/.
[59] ‘Het Gulden Cabinet’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Het_Gulden_Cabinet; L. Cust, Anthony van Dyck, an historical study of his life and works. (1900) pp. 147-150
https://archive.org/details/gri_33125008086213/page/n383/mode/2up/search/carbonell.
[60] Some Notices of the Stepney Family: https://archive.org/stream/somenoticesofste00harr/somenoticesofste00harr_djvu.txt
[61] https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2018/old-masters-evening-l18036/lot.29.html Catalogue note on various Van Dyke paintings:Portraits of Prince Charles and his sister, were soon the subject of protracted litigation brought after Lady Van Dyck’s death in 1644 by Sir John Wittewronge, who sought to recover them on behalf of his mother Lady Anne Middleton. Wittewronge’s suit successfully retrieved the paintings from the hands of a dealer in Blackfriars called Richard Andrews, who had taken possession of the pictures and begun to sell them abroad. As Price had died intestate, both Andrews and Wittewronge were no doubt motivated by a desire to avoid the pictures falling into the hands of the ‘Committee for Seizing and Sequestering the Estates of Delinquents and Papists in the City of London’. Lawsuits against the Price family seeking recovery of the money originally owed by them continued as late as 1704.
[62] ‘Perseus and Andromeda’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseus_and_Andromeda_(Titian)
[63] http://jordaensvandyck.org/archive/petition-of-justina-van-dyck-for-the-post-of-dresser-to-the-queen-march-1662/
[64] ‘Charles II – volume 53: April 1662’, in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1661-2, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1861), pp. 329-357. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/chas2/1661-2/pp329-357
[65] ‘Charles II – volume 109: Undated 1664’, in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1664-5, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1863), pp. 137-158. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/chas2/1664-5/pp137-158
[66] ‘Entry Book: June 1670, 1-14’, in Calendar of Treasury Books, Volume 3, 1669-1672, ed. William A Shaw (London, 1908), pp. 581-594. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-treasury-books/vol3/pp581-594.
[67] Find my Past https://www.findmypast.co.uk/transcript?id=OR%2FCANT%2FCOURT%2F0021643
[68] George Vertue: https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-Vertue
[69] C. Brown and N. Ramsay, ‘Van Dyck’s Collection: Some New Documents’, The Burlington Magazine, 132:1051 (1990), pp. 704-709.
[70] Protestant exiles from France, chiefly in the reign of Louis XIV; or, The Huguenot refugees and their descendants in Great Britain and Ireland.
[71] Secret Service Payments: William Jephson’, in Calendar of Treasury Books, Volume 17, 1702, ed. William A Shaw (London, 1939), pp. 612-626. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-treasury-books/vol17/pp612-626.
[72] ‘Secret Service Payments: Henry Guy’, in Calendar of Treasury Books, Volume 17, 1702, ed. William A Shaw (London, 1939), pp. 652-679. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-treasury-books/vol17/pp652-679
[73] ‘Warrants etc: June 1700, 1-15’, in Calendar of Treasury Books, Volume 15, 1699-1700, ed. William A Shaw (London, 1933), pp. 364-380. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-treasury-books/vol15/pp364-380
[74] Find my Past https://www.findmypast.co.uk/transcript?id=GBPRS%2FHRH%2F88005509%2F1
[75] Sir Thomas Stepney: https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1715-1754/member/stepney-sir-thomas-1668-1745.
This report is part of a series on ‘Petitioners in the reign of Charles II, 1660-1685’, created through a U3A Shared Learning Project on ‘Investigating the Lives of Seventeenth-Century Petitioners’.