STOW, John (1525-1605), historian and antiquary, was the son of Thomas Stow, a tailor, and was born in London, in the parish of St Michael, Cornhill, in 1525. His parents do not appear to have been rich, for his father’s whole rent for his house and garden was only 6s. 6d. a year, and Stow himself in his youth went every morning to fetch the milk for the family from a farm belonging to the nunnery of Minories. He learned the trade of his father, but possibly did not practise it much after he grew up to manhood. In 1549 he “kept house” near the well within Aldgate, but afterwards he removed to Lime Street ward, where he resided till his death. His first publication was A Summary of Englische Chronicles in 1561, which was frequently reprinted, with slight variations, during his lifetime. Of the first edition a copy was said to have been at one time in the Grenville library. In the British (Museum there are at present copies of the editions of 1567, 1573, 1587, 1590, 1598, and 1604. Stow having in his dedication of 1567 referred to the rival publication of Richard Grafton in contemptuous terms, the dispute between them became extremely embittered. Stow’s antiquarian tastes brought him under ecclesiastical suspicion as a person “with many dangerous and superstitious books in his possession,” and in 1568 Grindal, bishop of London, caused his study to be searched. An inventory was taken of certain books he possessed “in defence of Papistry, but he was apparently able to satisfy his interrogators of the soundness of his Protestantism. A second attempt to incriminate him in 1570 was also without result. In 1580 Stow published his Annales, or a Generale Chronicle of England from Brute until the present yeare of Christ 1580; it was reprinted in 1592, 1601, and 1605, ...the last being continued to the 26th March 1605, or within ten days of his death; editions “amended” by Howes appeared in 1615 and 1631. The work by which Stow is best known is his Survey of London, published in 1598, not only interesting from the quaint simplicity of its style and its amusing descriptions and anecdotes, but of unique value from its minute account of the buildings, social condition, and customs of London in the time of Elizabeth. A second edition appeared in his lifetime in 1603, a third with additions by Anthony Munday in 1618, a fourth by Munday and Dyson in 1633, a fifth with interpolated amendments by Strype in 1720, and a sixth by the same editor in 1754. The edition of 1598 was reprinted, edited by W. J. Thoms, in 1842, in 1846, and with illustrations in 1876. Through the patronage of Archbishop Parker Stow was enabled to print the Flores Historiarum of Matthew of Westminster in 1567, the Chronicle of Matthew Paris in 1571, and the Historia Brevis of Thomas Walsingham in 1574. At the request of Parker he had himself compiled a “farre larger volume,” but circumstances were unfavourable to its publication and the manuscript is now lost. Additions to the previously published works of Chaucer were twice made through Stow’s “own painful labours” in editions of 1561 and 1597. A number of Stow’s manuscripts are in the Harleian collection in the British Museum. Some are in the Lambeth Library (No. 306); and from the volume which includes them were published by the Camden Society, edited by James Gairdner, Three Fifteenth-Century Chronicles, with Historical Memoranda by John Stowe the Antiquary, and Contemporary Notes of Occurrences written by him (1880). Stow’s literary labours did not prove very remunerative, but he accepted poverty in a cheerful spirit. Ben Jonson relates that once when walking with him Stow jocularly asked two mendicant cripples “what they would have to take him to their order.” This favour he, however, obtained from King James, who in March 1604 authorized him and his deputies to collect “amongst our loving subjects their voluntary contributions and kind gratuities,” and himself began “the largesse for the example of others.” If the royal appeal was successful Stow did not live long to enjoy the increased comfort resulting from it, as he died on the 6th April following. He was buried in the church of St Andrew Undershaft, where the monument erected by his widow, exhibiting a terra-cotta figure of him, still remains.
[734 words — estimated reading time: 5 minutes]
STOWELL, William Scott, Baron (1745-1836), one of the ablest and most accomplished of English judges, especially in international law, was born at Heworth, a village about four miles from Newcastle, on 17th October 1745. His father was a “coalfitter” (or tradesman engaged in the transport of coal); his mother was the daughter of a small tradesman, Atkinson by name; his younger brother John became the famous Lord Chancellor Eldon (q.v.). Scott was educated at the Newcastle grammar school under the able tuition of the Rev. Hugh Moises. In February 1761 he gained a Durham scholarship at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and was immediately admitted as a student of the university. In 1764 he graduated as bachelor of arts, and became first a probationary fellow and then—as successor to William (afterwards the well-known Sir William) Jones—a tutor of University College. In 1767 he took his M.A. degree. In 1772 he graduated as bachelor of civil law. As Camden reader of ancient history he rivalled the reputation of Blackstone (1774). Although he had joined the Middle Temple in 1762 (June 24), it was not till 1776 that Scott devoted himself to a systematic study of law. In 1779 (June 23) he graduated as doctor of civil law, and, after the customary “year of silence,” commenced practice in the ecclesiastical courts. His professional success was rapid. In 1783 he became registrar of the Court of Faculties, and in 1788 judge of the Consistory Court and advocate-general, in that year too receiving the honour of knighthood; and in 1798 he was made judge of the High Court of Admiralty. Sir William Scott twice contested the representation of Oxford university,—in 1780 without success, but successfully in 1801. He also sat for Downton in 1790. Upon the coronation of George ...IV. (1821) he was raised to the peerage as Baron Stowell. After a life of distinguished judicial service Lord Stowell retired from the bench,—from the Consistory Court in August 1821, and from the High Court of Admiralty in December 1827. His mental faculties became gradually feebler in his old age, and he died on January 28, 1836. Lord Stowell was twice married,—on April 7, 1781, to Anna Maria, eldest daughter and heiress of John Bagnall of Early Court, Berks, and on April 10, 1813, to the dowager marchioness of Sligo. By his first marriage he had four children, of whom two (a son and a daughter) died in infancy, a third (a son) died unmarried in middle life, while the eldest (a daughter) was twice married and survived her father.
Lord Stowell’s judgments are models alike of literary execution and of judicial reasoning. His style is chaste yet not inornate, nervous without abruptness, and perfectly adjusted in every instance to the subject with which he deals. His decisions in the cases of Dalrymple v. Dalrymple (Dr Dodson’s Report) and Evans v. Evans (1 Hagg., 35)—from their combined force and grace, from the steadiness with which every collateral issue is set aside, from their subtle insight into human motives, and from the light which they cast on the philosophy and dark history of marriage law—deserve and will repay attentive perusal. Lord Stowell composed with great care, and some of the MSS. which he revised for Haggard and Phillimore’s Reports were as full of interlineations as a bill of the Lower House corrected by the Lords. Stowell’s mind was judicial rather than forensic,—reasoning, not as for a dialectic victory nor so as to convince the parties on whose suit he was deciding, but only with sufficient clearness, fulness, and force to justify the decision at which he had arrived.
The chief doctrines of international law with the assertion and illustration of which the name of Lord Stowell is identified are these :—the perfect equality and entire independence of all states (Le Louis, 2 Dod., 243)—a logical deduction from the Austinian philosophy and still one of the fundamental principles of English jurisprudence; that the elementary rules of international law bind even semi-barbarous states (Hurtige Hans, 2 Rob., 325); that blockade to be binding must be effectual (The “Betsey,” 1 Rob., 93); that there cannot be a legal where there is no actual blockade; and that contraband of war is to be determined by “probable destination” (The “Jonge Margaretha,” 1 Rob., 189). In the famous Swedish convoy case (The “Maria,” 1 Rob., 350; see too The “Recovery,” 6 C. Rob., 348-9) Lord Stowell, in defiance of the complaints of those greedy merchants who, as Pufendorf, himself by choice a Swedish civilian, tells us, cared not how things went provided they could but satisfy their thirst of gain, asserted that “a prize court is a court not merely of the country in which it sits but of the law of nations.” “The seat of judicial authority,” he added, in words which have become classic, “is indeed locally here, in the belligerent country, but the law itself has no locality.”
The judgments of Lord Stowell were, almost without exception, confirmed on appeal, are to this day the international law of England, and have become presumptive though not conclusive evidence of the international law of America. “1 have taken care,” wrote Justice Story, “that they shall form the basis of the maritime law of the United States, and I have no hesitation in saying that they ought to do so in that of every civilized country in the world.”
See Townsend, Lives of Twelve Eminent Judges, vol. ii.; Quarterly Review, vol. lxxv.; W. E. Surtees, Sketch of Lords Stowell and Eldon·, Creasy, First Platform of International Law·, Decisions, by Dodson and Haggard.
[949 words — estimated reading time: 6 minutes]
