[98] _S.P. Dom._, Charles I., Vol. CCCXLIV., No. 58. Sir Kenelm Digby to Edward Lord Conway and Kilultagh, 21/31 January, 1637.
[99] Wimbledon was Governor of Portsmouth and the letter in question was probably one mentioned by Walpole in his _Royal and n.o.ble Authors_, to the Mayor of Portsmouth "reprehending him for the Townsmen not pulling off their hats to a Statue of the King Charles, which his Lordship had erected there." Such an "epistle" might well excite the derision and contempt of Sir Kenelm.
[100] The author of _Annales Ecclesiastici_.
CHAPTER XIII.
"To err is human, to forgive divine."
POPE.
Concerning Lady Purbeck"s life, after her return to England, we have the following evidence from _Coles" Ma.n.u.scripts_. Let us observe, first, that in the extract there is a mistake. It was not Lady Purbeck, but the wife of her son, whose maiden name was Danvers.
Anybody who may choose to discredit the whole, on account of this error, can do so if he pleases; but it is certain that Lord Purbeck "owned the son" and that the son"s grandson, "the Rev. Mr. Villiers,"
claimed "the t.i.tle of Earl of Bucks." Therefore we see no reason for doubting the statement that Lord Purbeck "took his Wife again." The "after 16 years" would seem to tally with the undoubted facts.
"[101]Lady Purbeck"s name Danvers; absent from Husband 16 years: had by Sir Robert Howard one son who married a Bertie, and took the t.i.tle of Lord Purbeck, which Lady Purbeck"s will I have. Lord Purbeck after 16 years took his wife again, and owned the Son, which 2nd Lord Purbeck had one Son, Father of the Rev. Mr. Villiers, who now claims the t.i.tle of Earl of Bucks. &c."
It will be remembered that even when Lady Purbeck was being proceeded against for unfaithfulness to her husband, at the instigation of Buckingham, she was on friendly terms with Lord Purbeck, and that Buckingham had considerable difficulty in keeping them apart: consequently it is the less to be wondered at that Lord Purbeck "took his wife again," after her return from exile. Not only was Lady Purbeck now a reformed character, but, like Lord Purbeck, she was a convert to the Catholic Church; and this would probably make him the more inclined to receive her again as his wife and to trust her for the future. At the time of their reunion Lady Purbeck must have been about forty, and he must have been an oldish man; although not too old to be a bridegroom, and no longer under suspicion of insanity; for, in addition to starting a second time as husband to Frances, Lady Purbeck, it is recorded that after her death, which occurred in five or six years, he married again,[102] and survived his first wife by twelve years.
If the beginning of married life a second time, after an interval of sixteen years--to say nothing of certain awkward incidents which had transpired in the meantime--may have been a little out of the common, it is more remarkable still that Lord Purbeck should have acknowledged the boy, Robert Wright, as his son. As was shown in an earlier chapter, it is just possible that he may have been ignorant of the fact that the lad was not his own child, or rather, perhaps, that he refused to believe in that fact. On the other hand, as the boy was born in wedlock, he had in any case the right to acknowledge him as such, if he so pleased. That was his concern, not ours, so we need not cavil at it.
His doing so may be accounted for by either of the two following suppositions: namely, that he acknowledged the boy out of affection for, and to please, his wife--possibly it may have been one of the inducements held out to persuade her to return to him--or that he gradually took a fancy to the lad and chose this method of adopting him. Whatever the cause of his acknowledging the boy may have been, that acknowledgment encourages the idea that good relations existed between Lord and Lady Purbeck after what may almost be called their second marriage, or, perhaps still better called, their first real marriage with consent on both sides.
Purbeck called the boy Robert Villiers, and would not allow him to be spoken of as Robert Wright. When the lad came of age, Lord Purbeck made him join with himself, as his son and heir, in the conveyance of some lands, under the name of Robert Villiers,[103] the most formal of legal recognitions.
It is likely that her life soon became that of an invalid, for she died in the year 1645, when staying with her mother at Oxford. In that year the Court of Charles I. was at this town, which may account for her own and her mother"s presence there. As we saw, in the first chapter, there is some question as to whether Lady Purbeck was born in the year 1599 or in 1600, so she may have been either forty-five or forty-six at the time of her death. Her life, although of very moderate length, had been one of considerable adventure, which may have told heavily upon her const.i.tution; if her personal concerns were peaceful at the time of her death, we know that the conditions of the King and of the Court, together with the prospects of all of high rank who were loyal to the Crown, were then causing great anxiety and excitement at Oxford: and this may well have had a bad effect upon the health of an invalid.
Of Lady Purbeck"s character much less is recorded than of the characters of several other leading figures in this story--her father, her mother, Bacon, Buckingham. We know, however, that she faithfully nursed during his last two years her surly old father, who had treated her abominably and spoiled her life; that she never lost the friendship of Lord Purbeck; that, in her trouble she sought the consolations of religion in a Church which would require a full confession of her sins, accompanied by sincere repentance and virtuous resolutions; that she bore an excellent character in Paris; and that she spent her last years with her husband or her mother. It is true that she had sinned, that she had sinned grievously; but, when we consider her education under parents who were fighting like cat and dog, the marriage which was forced upon her, and the dissolute Court in which she, a singularly beautiful woman, spent the early years of her married life, we may well hesitate before we look for stones to cast at her memory.
And, after all, the only description of her character, of any length, which we have been able to find, namely, that given by Sir Kenelm Digby, is highly favourable. If an apology be required for repeating it, that apology is humbly given.
After declaring that of "wit, courage, generosity, and other heroic parts," nature had given Lady Purbeck "a double share," together with "all other n.o.ble endowments," Sir Kenelm says: "I have not seen more prudence, sweetness, honour and bravery shown by any woman that I know, than this unfortunate lady showeth she hath such a rich stock of. Besides her natural endowments, doubtless her afflictions add much; or rather have polished, refined and heightened, what nature gave her."
Even when we have made due allowance for the fact that the pen of Sir Kenelm Digby was inclined to be a little flowery, sufficient is left in this description of Lady Purbeck to make her character attractive, and we know that nature had added to her charms by endowing her with exceptional beauty. No attempt shall be made here to exaggerate either her attractions or her virtues, much less to extenuate or minimise her faults; but let us at least forgive the latter.
There are ladies who call the story of Mary Magdalen "beautiful," yet would on no consideration tolerate a repet.i.tion of even its most beautiful incidents, in real life. If she now existed, the greatest concession they would make would be to subscribe towards sending her to a Home for Fallen Women; or, which is more likely, they would ask for an order of admission for her from someone else who subscribed to such an inst.i.tution. From such we cannot expect a charitable view of _The Curious Case of Lady Purbeck_.
It would be out of place to enter into petty theological questions in a comparatively trivial work such as this--to inquire, for instance, into the question whether it may not be as possible to be d.a.m.ned for detraction as to be d.a.m.ned for adultery; but we may at least believe that Lady Purbeck spent her later years in contrition for the past and virtue in the present.
We have now done with the curious case of Lady Purbeck, and it only remains to say something about the less curious cases of some of her descendants.
It might be supposed that "Robert Wright," who was just of age at the time of his mother"s death, would be proud to bear the name of Villiers and to be acknowledged as the rightful heir to the estates and t.i.tle of Viscount Purbeck. As time went on, however, he became ashamed of those privileges.[104] The son of a Cavalier, he became a Roundhead, and three years after the death of his mother he married one of the daughters and co-heiresses of his relative, Sir John Danvers, subsequently one of the judges who condemned King Charles I.
to death.
He eventually obtained a patent from Oliver Cromwell to change his name for that of his wife, declaring that he hated the name of Villiers on account of the mischief which several of those who bore it had done to the Commonwealth; and as to the t.i.tle of Viscount Purbeck, he disclaimed it with contempt.
But before the Commonwealth Robert Danvers, as he even then called himself, sat in the House of Commons as member for Westbury. When people want t.i.tles, they do not always find it easy to obtain them; but, when they do not want them, they cannot always get rid of them.
Robert was summoned to the House of Lords, as a peer, to answer the very serious charge of having said that "he hated the Stuarts and that if no person could be found to cut off the King"s head, he would do it himself." He refused to attend, on the ground that he was not a member of the House of Lords but of the House of Commons. This plea was not allowed, and he was actually compelled to kneel at the bar of the House of Lords and to beg pardon for his criminal words.
At the Restoration he remained an obstinate Roundhead, and, instead of showing any desire to claim the t.i.tle of Viscount Purbeck, he obtained permission from Charles II. to levy a fine of his t.i.tles in possession and in remainder. Then he retired to an estate which he owned in the parish of Houghton in Radnorshire, bearing the curious name of Siluria. He died in the year 1676, at Calais, and in his will he is described as "Robert Danvers, alias Villiers, Esq."
Robert"s wife survived him, and, now that he and his idiosyncrasies were safely out of the way, it occurred to this daughter of a regicide that "the Right Honourable the Dowager Viscountess Purbeck"
would sound much more euphonious than "the widow Danvers;"
accordingly--solely for the sake of others--she adopted that t.i.tle. At the same time, her two sons, Robert and Edward, resumed the name of Villiers.
Immediately after the death of his father, Robert, the elder of the two sons, took as much trouble to get summoned to the House of Lords as his father had taken to escape from it. He sent a pet.i.tion on the subject to Charles II., who referred him to the House of Lords. His claim was opposed. First, on the ground that his father had barred his right to honours by the fine which he had levied, _i.e._, by renouncing those honours, and, secondly, on the ground that his father had not been a son of John Villiers, First Viscount Purbeck, but a son of Sir Robert Howard. A pet.i.tion[105] against the claim was presented by the Earl of Denbigh, who professed himself "highly concerned in the honour of the Duke of Buckingham and his sister, the d.u.c.h.ess of Richmond & Lennox; Pet.i.tioner"s mother, Susanna, having been the only sister of the late Duke of Buckingham," and he prayed "the House to examine the truth of these a.s.sertions, before allowing itself to be contaminated by illegitimate blood."
This warning to the Lords against contaminating itself by illegitimate blood, at a time when Charles II. was constantly enriching it with his own illegitimate offspring, or what at least purported to be so, is rather entertaining. On the other hand, in support of the claim, the claimant"s counsel professed to be able to prove the legitimacy of Robert Villiers, alias Wright.[106]
The House of Lords after considering the matter pet.i.tioned the King to allow the introduction of a Bill to disable Robert from claiming the t.i.tle of Viscount Purbeck: but seven peers opposed this pet.i.tion stating in writing that "the said claimant"s right ... did, both at the hearing at the bar and debate in the House, appear to them clear in fact and law and above all objection." Charles II. replied that he "would take it into consideration." This appears to have been the last official word ever p.r.o.nounced upon the subject, and n.o.body has since then been summoned to the House of Lords as Viscount Purbeck.
The claimant, however, continued to call himself Lord Purbeck. He came to an early end, being killed in a duel by Colonel Luttrell, at Liege, when he was only twenty-eight; but he left a son. Nor did this son only call himself Lord Purbeck, for on the death of the childless second Duke of Buckingham, of whom Dryden wrote:--[107]
Stiff in opinion--always in the wrong-- Was everything by starts, but nothing long; Who in the course of one revolving moon Was chemist, fiddler, statesman and buffoon.
Then all for women, painting, rhyming, drinking: Besides a thousand freaks that died in thinking;
John Villiers, alias Danvers, alias Wright, in addition to the t.i.tle of Viscount Purbeck, a.s.sumed that of Earl of Buckingham, the reversion of which had been secured by the first Earl and Duke to his brother and his heirs, in the case of his own direct heirs failing. This self-styled Earl squandered his fortune in a life of debauchery, and then married the daughter of a clergyman, a widow with a large jointure but about as dissolute in character as himself, which is saying much. He left no sons.
Such claims as there were to the t.i.tles of Purbeck and Buckingham then lay with the Rev. George Villiers, Rector of Chalgrove, in Oxfordshire. He was the son of Edward, the second son of the boy christened Robert Wright. In the year 1723, on the death of his cousin, the so-called Earl of Buckingham, this clergyman put in a claim to the t.i.tles of Earl of Buckingham and Viscount Purbeck; but, unlike his cousin, he does not appear to have ever "lorded" himself.
This cleric left a son named George, who also became a parson, and Vicar of Frodsham in Cheshire. Efforts were made in his youth to obtain for him a summons to the House of Lords; but, in addition to the doubtful character of his claims, he was no _persona grata_ to the King, as he was known to be an ardent Jacobite. As Burke says: "Republicans during the reign of the Stuarts--Jacobites during the reign of the Guelphs--this unfortunate family seems always to have had hold of the wrong end of the stick." As a rule, they appear to have held that end of it, but certainly it is a rule to which George Villiers, first Duke of Buckingham, was a remarkable exception.
The Rev. George Villiers, who still owned property which had been settled by Sir Edward c.o.ke on his daughter, Lady Purbeck, died without issue, in 1774, and his brother died a bachelor. The male line of Villiers, alias Danvers, alias Wright, then expired. We hear no more of any claims to the Purbeck peerage; henceforward the t.i.tle which stands at the head of this story was no longer to have any place in living interests. At this point, let us also take leave of it; and the author hopes that his readers, if ever reminded of this book by the mention of Lady Purbeck, may not exclaim in the words of a character in Macbeth:--"The devil himself could not p.r.o.nounce a t.i.tle more hateful to mine ear."
FOOTNOTES:
[101] _Coles" MSS._, Vol. x.x.xIII., p. 17.
[102] He married a daughter of Sir William Slingsby of Kippax, Yorkshire.
[103] Burke"s _Extinct and Dormant Peerages_.
[104] The authorities for most of what follows are _The Historical MSS. Commission_, Ninth Report, Part II., p. 58; _MSS. of the House of Lords_, 30th April, 5th May, and 3rd June, 1675, 14th March, 16th June, and 9th July, 1678, and Burke"s _Extinct and Dormant Peerages_.
[105] _MSS. of the House of Lords_, 228, 30th April, 1675.
[106] _MSS. of the House of Lords_, 228, 30th April, 1675.
[107] _Absalom and Achitophel_, line 447, _seq._