CHAP. XV. An unheeded event. THE death of Chatterton excited but a passing notice even in Bristol, beyond the sorrowful little circle in the home he had so recently left. The London periodicals of that month of August, 1770, have been repeatedly ransacked, but in vain, for any recognition of the fact, that a youth of high promise had perished there, the victim of want. The caterers for news had not brought their craft to the perfection of the modern press; but many a trivial incident figures in the publications of the month in which the event occurred, unheeded then, but so notable to us now. Hamilton's Town and Country Posthumous Magazine came out a week later, with its columns filled publications. in part by three of Chatterton's contributions, the Old Rowley. meagerest remuneration for which might have rescued CHAP. XV. "written with the usual spirit of the admired author." The 24th,—the fatal day,-only yields for it the robbery The fatal by a highwayman, at the foot of Highgate Hill, of the day. postboy carrying the Chester mail. The death of Chatterton, it is obvious, attracted no attention beyond the immediate neighbourhood of Brooke Street. An inquest was, indeed, held on the body; but The inquest. it appears to have passed off as a very ordinary affair. All that could, by and by, be learned, was that a youth had "swallowed arsenic in water, on the 24th of August, and died in consequence thereof the next day." There was no friend at hand to claim the body; and it has been assumed, though without any distinct evidence, that it was buried as that of a deliberate suicide's, without any religious rites. It was, at any rate, placed in a mere 4 pauper's shell, and deposited in the common pit prepared for grave. paupers, in the neighbouring burying-ground of Shoe Lane workhouse, in the parish of St. Andrew's, Holborn, in which Brooke Street is situated; and of which, moreover, by a strange coincidence, Dr. Broughton, Vicar of St. Mary Redcliffe, was also rector.1 Delay appears to have taken place in the interment, probably in the hope that some of his relatives might appear. The register of burials contains this entry under the date Register of August 28th, 1770, "William Chatterton, Brooke Street,” to which has been subsequently added, "the Poet."2 The addition is, no doubt, correct, notwithstanding the error in the Christian name. It adds one more proof that his remains were coldly consigned by strangers to a pauper's grave. burial. interest revived. When, some nine years afterwards, interest had revived | Later in the memory of Chatterton; and controversy waxed fierce over the disputed authenticity of Rowley and the Bristol poems: the coroner was appealed to. But, according to Sir Herbert Croft's account, he had no minutes of the melancholy business; and was unable, after so long an interval, to recall any of the circum1 Vide inscription on tablet in Redcliffe Church, ante, p. 193. 2 Goodwin's Churches of London: St. Andrew's, Holborn. CHAP. XV. Witnesses at the inquest. Dr.Maitland's inquiry. Spurious coroner's report. Amazing credulity of scepticism. stances to his memory. The witnesses, as appears by his memorandum, were Frederick Angel, Mary Foster, and William Hamsley: none of whom he had been able to find out.1 This is absolutely all that is known of the inquest. In 1853, however, the Rev. Dr. Maitland, after long fretting over the "imposture" of Chatterton, resolved on a new protest against the idea of his authorship of Rowley's Poems, which "he had long believed to be a popular delusion.”2 So he started with an inquiry in "Notes and Queries," as to certain discrepancies in the account of the means by which Chatterton's death was effected. To his "great surprise and satisfaction this brought forth a report of the coroner's inquest from Mr. Gutch." The coroner had told Sir Herbert Croft, more than seventy years before, that no minutes existed, beyond his mere memorandum of the witnesses' names. Yet meagre as this was, it contradicts the report so surprisingly brought to light, without even a pretence of authentication. The date is said to be Friday, 27th August, 1770, whereas the 27th fell that year on a Monday. The witnesses, with one exception, differ from those named by the coroner; and the process of making up the whole from old materials is obvious to any student of Chatterton's memorials. Yet this new Rowleyan, having exhausted his unbelief on Chatterton's "literary imposture,” accepted the hoax as eagerly as did Mr. Burgum his famous Norman pedigree; and his "Essay" is garnished throughout with confirmations derived from the silly imposture. It furnishes one more illustration of the amazing credulity of a scepticism still on the lookout for the "undisfigured old Rowley" of the days of Henry VI. and Edward IV.3 1 Croft, p. 221. Gent. Mag. N.S. x. p. 133. Notes and Queries, second series, vol. iv. p. 24. 2 Chatterton: an Essay, p. 9. 3 The document was in the handwriting of Mr. Dix; and passed from his possession to that of Mr. Gutch, who communicated it to "Notes and Queries," vii. p. 138. As Mr. Dix had it in possession when writing Chatterton's Life, yet did not even refer to it, the interence is legitimate that he regarded it as spurious. For its But another disclosure of the present century, to which a keener interest attaches, has been the subject of much faith and more scepticism. It is impossible to think, without a shuddering sense of wrongful indignity, of the remains of the poet huddled into a pauper's grave; and then, after brief lease of the workhouse burial-ground, carted off with its nameless dead, when it was converted into a site for Farringdon Market. But when, in 1837, Mr. Dix undertook to write a life of the poet, he appended to it notes collected long before by George Cumberland, Esq., a man of reputed literary tastes. These have already been repeatedly referred to; and from them it appears that Sir Robert Wilmot first communicated to him the report "that Chatterton lay buried in Redcliffe Churchyard, and that he believed it was a fact from the manner in which it had been communicated to him." Pursuing his inquiries farther, Mr. Cumberland discovered Sir R. Wilmot's informant, Mrs. Stockwell, an old pupil of Mrs. Chatterton, who had resided with her till nearly twenty years of age. In her belief, as well as in that of others with whom he conversed, the body of Chatterton was recovered, through the intervention of a relative in London, forwarded by waggon to Bristol, and there secretly interred, by his uncle, Richard Phillips, in Redcliffe Churchyard. CHAP. XV. A novel disclosure. The poet's last resting place. in its favour. The statements are minute and circumstantial. Mrs. Probabilities Chatterton is affirmed to have often expressed her happiness at the thought that her son lay buried with his kin. Fresh inquiry added only such second-hand information as rendered the probability of the reinterment conceivable enough. The old sexton was just the man to do it for his favourite nephew, and to conceal it when done. sexton. His daughter, Mrs. Stephens, said he was very reserved on all occasions; and it was by no means likely he history, vide "Notes and Queries,” second series, iii. 362. For arguments based on it vide ibid. p. 54; Maitland, pp. 6, 51, 64, 68, 82, 104, where the argument frequently depends on the genuineness of this obvious fiction. It was burned some years since, with more valuable MSS. in the possession of Mr. T. Kerslake, of Bristol. The old CHAP. XV. Mrs. version. would have mentioned the interment, if he had done it secretly; "but she thinks he would not have refused the hazardous office, being much attached to Chatterton, and friendly with his mother." Since Mr. Cumberland's notes were published, they have been corroborated by a letter of Mr. Joseph Cottle, in which he thus gives Mrs. Edkins' version of it :-" Mrs. Chatterton was passionately fond of her darling and only son, Thomas; and when she heard that he had destroyed himself, she immediately wrote to a relation of hers,—the poet's uncle, then residing in London,-a carpenter, urging him to send down his body in a coffin or box. The box was uncle's help. accordingly sent down to Bristol; and when I called on my friend Mrs. Chatterton to condole with her, she as a great secret took me up stairs and showed me the box; and, removing the lid, I saw the poor boy, whilst his mother sobbed in silence." Afterwards she was told that he had been secretly buried, by night, in Redcliffe Churchyard; and Mrs. Chatterton said, "she had managed it very well, so that none but the sexton and his assistant knew anything about it." 1 Mr. Cottle adds that the evidence appeared to him sufficient to satisfy all reasonable minds. The London Supposed discrepancies in the story. This reputed rescue of the poet's remains, and their reinterment in his own favourite haunt on Redcliffe Hill, has been challenged by more than one writer, with proofs of discrepancies in the narrative, and impossibilities in the affirmed transaction." Some of the arguments against it are sufficiently fallacious. Mr. Richard Smith considers it quite apocryphal because they "neglected to mark the spot, or write a notice in the newspapers of the day;" whereas the evidence of secrecy is the strongest argument in its favour. Dr. Broughton, the vicar, had personal as well as profesantagonism.sional reasons for excluding Chatterton's remains from Redcliffe Churchyard; and so strongly were the latter The vicar's 1 Pryce's Memorials of Canynge, p. 294. 2 Vide Notes and Queries, second series, vol. iv. pp. 23, 54, 92, for both sides of the question. |