APPENDIX.
In the Calendar edited by Mr. Bruce (1859), there are the following details, amongst other curious particulars, of the state of affairs after the Duke of Buckingham’s unfortunate expedition to Rhé:--
"Lionel Sharp to Buckingham, reports his sermon preached (at St Margaret’s, Westminster), in which he had alluded to the censure thrown upon the Duke for his late failure at Rhé, and had declared that he who had ventured all that was dearest in the world for a foreign church, would, if he ‘had as many lives as hairs,’ venture them all for his own, with other laudatory personal allusions to the Duke. Is ready to ‘do the rest’ within two days, ‘if he may have the place in Westminster, or on Sunday next.’"--Vol. cii., Domestic, No. 76, April, 1628.
This is a singular letter, not only as showing the alarm which led the Duke to have recourse to the Elizabeth plan of “tuning the pulpits,” but also as an instance of the almost impious mixture of political and worldly affairs with sacred subjects.
Second attempt on La Rochelle.
Sir Henry Palmer to Secretary Nicholas, from on board the “Garland,” before La Rochelle, under the Earl of Denbigh:--"In this letter Sir Henry states that what was here given out to be feasible they find directly impossible. On the approach of the English Fleet, the French retreated under their ordnance. The palisadoes across the river described. The Council of War determined that they should put out to sea, and spend their victual abroad. Lord Denbigh cruising between Ushant and Scilly. The writer between Portsmouth and Cape La Hogue. No man but looked back upon the poor town but with eyes of pity, though not able to help them."--Vol. ciii., No. 50, May 8, 1628.
Letter from the Earl of Denbigh to the same.--"Men have ever been the censure of the world who are unsuccessful from public employments. Misinformation has been the cause of this misfortune. They found Rochelle so blocked up, that in eight days’ stay they never heard from them. The palisado is so strengthened with two floats of ships, both within and without, moored and fastened together from their ports to half-mast high, that, lying in shoal water, it is impossible to be forced."--Vol. ciii., No. 57, dated May 9, at sea.
Various letters seem to clear Lord Denbigh of cowardice in turning back. See letters from Rowland Woodward to Francis Windebank. "The report is, that Lord Denbigh was overruled by Ned Clarke, that would not hazard the Fleet. The King was never seen to be so much moved, saying, ‘if the ships had been lost, he had timber enough to build more.’"--Vol. civ., No. 47.
In a letter from Sir Henry Hungate to William, Earl of Denbigh, it is stated, "the King’s pleasure is that not a single man should go ashore."--Vol. civ., No. 69.
Respecting the “Remonstrance.”
"Message on Wednesday from the King, that he would not yield to any alteration in his answer, but would close the Session on the 11th inst. The house proceeded with the Remonstrance, until another message, which absolutely forbade them to do so. Scene which ensued:--Most part of the house fell a-weeping. Sir Robert Philips could not speak for weeping. Others blamed those that wept, and said they had swords to cut the throats of the King’s enemies.
"That afternoon the King and the Lords were in council from two to eight on the question whether the Parliament should be dissolved. The negative was resolved on. On the following morning the Speaker explained away his message, and the house proceeded with the Remonstrance. The King agreed thereunto, and came that afternoon, gave the customary royal assent, adding other observations which are repeated. It is impossible to express with what joy this was heard, nor what joy it causes in the city, where they are making bonfires at every door, such as was never seen but upon his Majesty’s return from Spain."--Letter from Sir Francis Nethersole[Nethersole] to the Queen of Bohemia, vol. cvi., No. 55, dated June 5. The Strand.
"Sends a copy of the Remonstrance of the Commons. It was presented to the King on Tuesday last. The Duke was present in the Banqueting-house at the time, and on his Majesty rising from his chair, kneeled down, with a purpose, it was conceived, to have besought his Majesty to say something. But the King, saying only ‘No,’ took him up with his hand, which the Duke kissed, and so his Majesty retired. This was all that passed at the time, and all that is like to come of the Remonstrance. His Majesty’s favour to the Duke is no way diminished, but the ill-will of the people is like to be much increased."--The same to the same, vol. cvii., No. 78, June 19. The Strand.
Death of Buckingham.
Some further particulars of this event and its effects are related in a letter from Sir Francis Nethersole to James Earl of Carlisle.
“The King took the Duke’s death very heavily, keeping his chamber that day, as is well to be believed. But the base multitude in the town drink healths to Felton, and these are infinitely more cheerful than sad faces of better degrees.”
Felton.
Examination of Richard Harward:--"George Willoughby taught him to write. Saw Felton at Willoughby’s within a month; Felton complained of the Duke as a cause why he lost a captain’s place, and the obstacle why he could not get his pay, being four score and odd pounds. Went together to the Windmill, where examinant read the Remonstrance to him, and Felton took it and carried it away."--Vol. cxiv., No. 128.
"Sir Robert Savage committed to the Tower for saying that if Felton had not killed the Duke he would have done it."--Vol. cxvi., No. 95, Sept. 10, 1628.
Report by Dr. Brian Duppa of an interview held by himself and others with John Felton in the Tower. (Dr. Duppa was afterwards tutor to Charles II.):--
"On stating to him that though he had no mercy on the Duke, the King had so much compassion on his soul as to give directions to send divines to draw him to a feeling of the horror of his sin, he fell on his knees with humble acknowledgment of so great grace to him. Throughout he confessed his offence to be a fearful and crying sin; attributed it, “upon his soul, to nothing but the Remonstrance.” Being asked whether some dangerous propositions, found in his handwriting, had not stimulated him, he denied, saying they were gathered long ago out a book called the “Soldier’s Epistles.” He denied that any creature knew of his resolution but himself, and requested that he might do some public penance before his death, in sackcloth, with ashes on his head, and ropes about his neck."--Vol. cxvi., No. 101, Sept. 2, 1628.
Felton, it appears, had two letters found in his bag, perhaps duplicates. The knife was sewed into his dress. It appears that Felton was, at one time, puffed up by the popular applause. The state of rabid enmity to the Duke existing in the country, was exhibited in inhuman verses on his death, such as these:--
“Make haste, I pray thee; launch out your ships with speed;
Our noble Duke had never greater need
Of sudden succour, and these vessels must
Be his main help, for there’s his only trust.”
Satire upon the Duke, beginning--
“And art thou dead, who whilom thought’st thy state
To be exempted from the power of Fate?
Thou that but yesterday, illustrious, bright,
And like the sun, did’st with thy pregnant light
Illuminate other orbs?”
One of the poems of the day excited more than ordinary attention. It was addressed by the writer to “his confined friend, Mr. John Felton!” Suspicion fell on Ben Jonson; and even in the house of his friend, Sir Robert Cotton, the belief that he had written the poem found credence. Jonson was then paralytic, and his mind may have been somewhat embittered, perhaps enfeebled, but he was guiltless of this act of ingratitude to his deceased patron, and to his living sovereign, King Charles. His examination upon this charge is, as Mr. Bruce remarks in his preface, p. 8, ix., a new incident in Jonson’s life. The original examination before the Attorney-General is to be found in the Calendar before referred to, vol. cxix., No. 33. See Preface by Mr. Bruce, p. 9.
"The examination of Benjamin Jonson, of Westminster, gentleman, taken this 26th day of October, 1628, by me, Sir Robert Heath, his Majesty’s Attorney-General:--
"The said examinant being asked whether he had ever seen certain verses beginning thus--‘Enjoy thy bondage,‘ and ending thus--‘England’s ransom here doth lie,’ and entitled thus--‘To his confined friend,’ &c., and the papers of these verses being showed unto him, he answereth that he hath seen the like verses to these. And being asked where he saw them, he saith, at Sir Robert Cotton’s house, as he often doth, the papers of these verses lying there upon the table after dinner. This examinant was asked concerning these verses as if himself had been the author thereof; thereupon this examinant read them, and condemned them, and with deep protestations affirmed that they were not made by him, nor did he know who made them, or had ever seen or heard them before. And the like protestations he now maketh upon his Christianity and hope of salvation. He saith he took no copy of them, nor ever had copy of them. He saith he hath heard of them since, but ever with detestation. He being further asked whether he doth know who made or hath heard who made them, he answereth he doth not know, but he hath heard by common fame that one Mr. Townley should make them, but he confesseth truly that he cannot name any one singular person who hath reported it. Being asked of what quality that Mr. Townley is, he saith his name is Zouch Townley; he is a scholar, and a divine by profession, and a preacher, but where he liveth or abideth he knoweth not, but he is a student of Christ Church in Oxford.
“Being further asked whether he gave a dagger to the said Mr. Townley, and upon what occasion, and when, he answereth, that on a Sunday after this examinant had heard the said Mr. Townley preach at St. Margaret’s Church in Westminster, Mr. Townley, taking a liking to a dagger with a white haft which this examinant ordinarily wore at his girdle, and was given to this examinant, this examinant gave it to him two nights after, being invited by Mr. Townley to supper, but without any circumstance and without any relation to those or any other verses; for this examinant is well assured this was so done before he saw those verses, or had heard of them; and this examinant doth not remember that since he hath seen Mr. Townley.
”Ben Jonson."
Zouch Townley, to whom the verses were ascribed, was one of the Townleys of Cheshire. He escaped a prosecution, with which he was threatened in the Star-chamber, by taking refuge at the Hague. He was evidently on terms of intimacy with Jonson, to whom he addressed commendatory verses, beginning--
“Ben,
The world is much in debt, and though it may
Some petty reckonings to small poets pay,
Pardon if at thy glorious sum they stick,
Being too large for their arithmetic.”
It is agreeable to find that Ben Jonson stands wholly acquitted of the charge of being the writer of the offensive and discreditable verses in question.
The following letter from Edmund Windham to Dr. Plot, author of the history of Staffordshire, relative to the ghost story related by Clarendon, is taken from the “Biographia Britannica”:--
"Sir--According to your desire and my promise, I have written downe what I remember (divers things being slipt out of my memory) of the relation made me by Mr. Nicholas Towse, concerning the apparition which visited him about 1627.
"I and my wife, upon occasion being in London, lay at my brother’s, Pym’s, house, without Bishopsgate, which was next house unto Mr. Nicholas Towse’s, who was his kinsman and familiar acquaintance--in consideration of whose society and friendship he took a house in that place; the said Towse being a very fine musician and very good company--for aught I ever saw or heard, a virtuous, religious, and well-disposed gentleman. About that time, the said Mr Towse told me that, one night being in bed and perfectly waking, and a candle burning by him (as he usually had), there came into his chamber, and stood by his bed-side, an old gentleman, in such a habit as was in use in Queen Elizabeth’s time; at whose first appearance Mr. Towse was very much troubled; but after a little while, recollecting himself, he demanded of him in the name of God, What he was?--whether he were a man? And the Apparition replied, Noe. Then he asked him if he were a devil? And the Apparition answered, Noe. Then said Mr. Towse, In the name of God, what art thou then? And, as I remember, Mr. Towse told me that the Apparition answered him that he was the ghost of Sir George Villiers, father to the then Duke of Buckingham, whom he might very well remember, since he went to schole at such a place in Leicestershire--naming the place, which I have forgotten. And Mr. Towse told me that the Apparition had perfectly the resemblance of the said Sir George Villiers in all respects, and in the same habit that he had often seen him wear in his lifetime. The said Apparition also told him that he could not but remember the much kindness that he, the said Sir George Villiers, had expressed to him whilst he was a scholar in Leicestershire, as aforesaid; and that, out of that consideration, he believed that he loved him, and that therefore he made choice of him, the said Mr. Towse, to deliver a message to his son, the Duke of Buckingham, thereby to prevent such mischief as would otherwise befall the said Duke, whereby he would be inevitably ruined. And then, as I remember Mr. Towse told me, that the Apparition instructed him what message he should deliver to the Duke; unto which Mr. Towse replied that he should be very unwilling to go to the Duke of Bucks upon such an errand, whereby he should gaine nothing but reproach and contempt, and be esteemed a madman, and therefore desired to be excused from the employment. But the Apparition prest him with much earnestness to undertake it, telling him that the circumstances and secret discoveries (which he should be able to make to the Duke of such passages in the course of his life which were known to none but himselfe) would make it appeare that his message was not the fancy of a distempered braine, but a reality. And so the Apparition tooke his leave of him for that night, telling him that he would give him leave to consider until the next night, and then he would come to receive his answer, whether he would undertake his message to the Duke of Buckingham or noe. Mr. Towse passed the next day with much trouble and perplexity, debateing and reasoning with himselfe whether he should deliver this message to the Duke of Buckingham or not; but in the conclusion he resolved to doe it. And the next night, when the Apparition came, he gave his answer accordingly, and then received full instructions.
"After which Mr. Towse went and found out Sir Thomas Bludder and Sir Ralph Freeman, by whom he was brought to the Duke of Buckingham, and had several private and long audiences of him. I myselfe, by the favour of a friend, was once admitted to see him in private conference with the Duke, where (although I heard not their discourse) I observed much earnestness in their actions and gestures. After which conference Mr. Towse told me that the Duke would not follow the advice that was given him, which was (as I remember) that he intimated the casting off and rejection of some men who had great interest in him--and, as I take it, he named Bishop Laud; and that he, the Duke, was to do some popular acts in the ensueing parliament, of which the Duke would have had Mr. Towse to have been a Burgess, but he refused it, alledging that, unless the Duke had followed his directions, he must doe him hurt if he were of the parliament. Mr. Towse also then told me that the Duke confessed that he had told him those things that no creature knew but himselfe, and that none but God or the Divell could reveale to him. The Duke offered Mr. Towse to have the King knighte him, and to have given him preferment (as he told me), but that he refused it, saying that, unless he would follow his advice, he should receive nothing from him. Mr. Towse, when he made this relation, told me the Duke would inevitably be destroyed before such a time (which he then named), and accordingly the Duke’s death happened before that time. He likewise told me that he had written downe all the discourses he had had with the Apparition; and that at last his comeing to him was so familiar, that he was as little troubled with it as if it had been a friend or acquaintance that had come to visit him. Mr. Towse told me further, that the Archbishop (then Bishop of London) Dr. Laud, should, by his counsels, be the author of a very great trouble to the kingdome, by which it should be reduced to that extremity of disorder and confusion that it should seem to be past all hope of recovery without a miracle; but yet, when all people were in despaire of happy days againe, the kingdome should suddenly be reduced and resettled again in a most happy condition.
"At this time my father Pym was in trouble, and committed to the Gatehouse by the Lords of the Councill, about a quarrel between him and the Lord Pawlett, upon which one night I sayd unto my cousin Towse, by way of jest, I pray you ask your Apparition what shall become of my father Pym’s business?--which he promised to doe; and the next day told me that my father Pym’s enemies were ashamed of their malicious prosecution, and that he would be at liberty within a weeke, or some few days, which happened accordingly.
"Mr. Towse’s wife (since his death) told me that her husband and she, living in Windsor Castle, where he had an office, that summer the Duke of Buckingham was killed, told her the very day that the Duke was set upon by the mutinous mariners in Portsmouth, saying the ... would be his death, which accordingly fell out--and that at the very instant the Duke was killed (as upon strict enquiry they found afterwards) Mr. Towse, sitting amongst some company, suddenly started up and said, The Duke of Buckingham is slain. Mr. Towse lived not long after; which is as much as I can remember of this Apparition, which, according to your desire, is written by,
“Sir, yours, &c.,
“Edmund Windham.
“Boulogne, Aug. 5, 1652.”
The following letter has been adduced as a proof that Villiers owed his favour with Charles to an incident in the Monarch’s early life--his sole dereliction from propriety, as it is said. Buckingham, it is said, was Charles’s confidant, and mediator between him and King James:--
"Steenie, I have nothing now to wryte to you, but to give you thankes bothe for the good counsell ye gave me, and for the event of it. The King gave mee a good sharpe potion, but you took away the working of it by the well-relished comfites ye sent after. I have met with the partie that must not be named, once alreddie, and the cullor of wryting this letter shall make mee meete with her on Saturday, although it is written the day being Thursday. So assuring you that this business goes safelie on, I rest
“Your constant loving friend,
“Charles."[[246]]
“I hope ye will not shew the King this letter, but put it in the safe custodie of Mister Vulcan.”
THE END.
R. BORN, PRINTER, GLOUCESTER STREET, REGENT’S PARK.
Footnotes
[1]. Brodie, vol. ii., p. 117.
[2]. Masters, 137.--Nichols’ “Leicestershire,” iii., p. 200.
[3]. Brodie, from Rushworth.
[4]. Hume.
[5]. Reliquiæ Wottonianæ, p. 212.
[6]. Ibid.
[7]. He was the son of Lawrence Hyde, of Gussage St. Michael, in the county of Dorset, and of a west country branch of the ancient family of "Hyde of that Ilk."--See Lord Campbell.
[8]. Lives of the Chief Justices, vol. iv., p. 381.
[9]. Heylyn, 149.
[10]. Lord Campbell, vol. vi., 322, passim.
[11]. Brodie, after Clarendon.
[12]. Brodie, vol. ii., note, from Ayscough’s MSS. Brit. Mus., 4161, vol. ii.
[13]. Ibid.
[14]. Brodie, from Hacket’s Life of Williams, part ii., p. 96.
[15]. Brodie, from Rushworth, vol. i., p. 424.
[16]. Letter from Admiral Pennington to Buckingham, State Paper Office, inedited.
[17]. Letter from Admiral Pennington to Buckingham.
[18]. Ibid.
[19]. A request which was quickly complied with, as we find in the State Paper Office: “Orders given to impress men for the fleet,” addressed to Admiral Pennington.
[20]. Ibid.
[21]. Ibid.
[22]. Ibid.
[23]. Chamberlayne’s State of Great Britain in the seventeenth century.
[24]. State Papers, edited, 1626.
[25]. State Papers, edited, 1626.
[26]. Brodie (vol. ii., p. 147) says that only ten sail of the hundred ships that formed Buckingham’s fleet were the king’s ships; but it seems from these letters that the number was much greater.
[27]. State Papers, vol. lxvi., No. 19.
[28]. Ibid., Domestic, vol. lxviii., No. 3; see also Preface to Calendar, by Mr. Bruce, p. 11.
[29]. Own.
[30]. Action.
[31]. Sir Sackville Crowe, who had been keeper of the Duke’s privy purse, and was now treasurer of the Navy.
[32]. The spelling of this original letter is preserved here: the punctuation alone is altered.
[33]. State Papers, vol. lxv., No. 3.
[34]. Main business.
[35]. Vol. xvii. No. 28.
[36]. For the Duke’s creditors.
[37]. State Papers, 2, vol. lxvii., date uncertain, No. 60.
[38]. No. 96, Ibid.
[39]. S. P., vol. lxvi., No. 14.
[40]. State Papers, vol. lxvi., No. 33.
[41]. Ibid., No. 35 and 67.
[42]. State Papers, No. 71.
[43]. Ibid., No. 76.
[44]. Vol. 68, No. 18.
[45]. Ibid., 105.
[46]. State Papers, vol. lxviii., No. 25.
[47]. State Papers, vol. lxxi., No. 43.
[48]. Ibid., No. 36.
[49]. State Papers, vol. lxxii., No 18.
[50]. Ibid.
[51]. State Papers, vol. lxxii., No. 28.
[52]. Ibid., No. 29.
[53]. This letter is dated July 28, which contradicts Hume’s assertion that the Duke had given the Governor five days respite.--See Hume, Life of Charles I., 1627.
[54]. Brodie, vol. ii., p. 151.
[55]. State Papers, lxxii., No. 87 and 90.
[56]. Letter from Sir Allen Apsley to Secretary Nicholas.
[57]. State Papers, vol. lxxv., No. 20.
[58]. King James.
[59]. Vol. lxxv., No. 22, State Paper Office, Conway Papers.
[60]. Vol. lxvii., No. 60, Conway Papers.
[61]. State Papers, vol. lxxv., No. 53 and 57.
[62]. State Papers, 26.
[63]. Ibid., 34.
[64]. Ibid., lviiii., 65.
[65]. State Papers, vol. lxxviii., No. 71.
[66]. Edward Conway was the eldest son of the first Baron Conway of Rugby, in the County of Warwick, and succeeded his father, an eminent and popular Minister under James I. and Charles I.--Burke’s Extinct Peerage.
[67]. Probably Lady Hatton.
[68]. The Governor of La Rochelle, whom the Duchess seems to have mistrusted.
[69]. State Papers, vol. lxxxv., No. 7.
[70]. Viscount Wilmot of Athlone, here referred to, was the grandfather of John Wilmot, the dissolute, yet penitent, Earl of Rochester, whose death has been described by Bishop Burnet.
[71]. Letter from Viscount Wilmot to Secretary Conway, State Papers, vol. lxxx. No. 55.
[72]. State Papers, lxxxii., vol. 18.
[73]. State Papers, vol. lxxxii. 39.
[74]. Vol. lxxxiii, No. 3.
[75]. Letter from Lord Wilmot to Secretary Conway, State Papers, No. 45.
[76]. State Papers, No. 3 and 8.
[77]. State Papers,--Letter of Secretary Conway to the Earl of Holland, vol. lxxxiii., No. 12.
[78]. Ibid., No. 17.
[79]. Ibid., No. 27.
[80]. State Papers. The letter is dated Nov. 1, 1627. Vol. lxxxiv., No. 1.
[81]. State Papers, Ibid., Nov. 16. Dated London, Nov. 3.
[82]. He was afterwards successively Baron Goring and Earl of Norwich; his son, General Goring, whose character is so ably drawn by Clarendon, pre-deceased his father by two years; both titles became extinct in 1672.--Burke’s Extinct Peerage.
[83]. State Papers, vol. lxxxiv., No. 20.
[84]. Nov. 6.
[85]. Reliquiæ Wottonianæ, p. 227.
[86]. Letter of Denzil Holles to Sir Thomas Wentworth. Strafford Letters, vol. i., p. 42.
[87]. News Letter, State Papers, Ibid., No. 24.
[88]. Strafford Letters.
[89]. State Papers, vol. lxxxv., No. 56 and 57.
[90]. State Papers, vol. lxxxv., No. 67.
[91]. Ibid., No. 74.
[92]. State Papers, vol. lxxxvi., No. 80.
[93]. State Papers, vol. lxxxvi., No. 93.
[94]. State Papers, vol. lxvii., No. 96--Conway Papers.
[95]. Reliquiæ Wottonianæ, p. 230.
[96]. Clarendon, vol. i. p. 40-1.
[97]. State Papers, vol lxxxv., No. 10 and 11.
[98]. State Papers, vol. xc., No. 5.
[99]. State Papers, vol. xc., No. 10.
[100]. This event took place on or before the 2nd of February, 1628 (when Sir John Hippisley wished “the Duke joy of his young son”), and not on the 30th of January, as is usually stated.
[101]. See State Papers, vol. xcii., No 88. The county of Anglesea was to be charged 111l.; the money, as the King’s letter intimated, was to be paid before the 1st of March.
[102]. State Papers, xciv., No. 57.
[103]. Ibid., 108.
[104]. State Papers, vol. lxii., No. 7. Dated May 7, 1627.
[105]. At the end of the session, Charles not only pardoned Mainwaring, but gave him a valuable living.
[106]. Brodie, p. 202. Hume’s “Charles I.”
[107]. Brodie, p. 170.
[108]. State Papers, Domestic, 1625.
[109]. Parallel between Essex and Buckingham--“Reliquiæ Wottonianæ.”
[110]. Wottonianæ Reliquiæ, p. 233.
[111]. Ibid.
[112]. Brodie.
[113]. Calendar, vol. xciv., No. 96.
[114]. Brodie--Hume.
[115]. Student.
[116]. Balfour’s Annals, MSS., Advocate’s Library, quoted from Brodie, vol. ii., p. 209.
[117]. The letter from Edmund Wyndham, of Kattisford, county Somerset, was addressed to Dr. Robert Plot, who wished to have the story correctly stated, in order to correct the false representations of William Lilly.
[118]. “Biographia Britannica,” Art. “Villiers,” Note.
[119]. See Appendix A.
[120]. The original letter was in possession of the late Mr. Upcott, by whom the author of this Memoir was presented with a fac-simile. It is, however, given in all the histories of this period.
[121]. Sir Philip Warwick’s Memoirs, p. 35.
[122]. See Brodie--Wotton--Hume.
[123]. Reliq. Wotton., p. 234.
[124]. It shows in what manner the Duchess was informed of her husband’s death.
[125]. Letters.
[126]. Lady Anglesea, the sister-in-law of Buckingham’s mother, being the wife of his brother, Christopher, Earl of Anglesea.
[127]. There is an hiatus here in the MS.
[128]. Domestic State Papers, August 27, 1628. No. 21.
[129]. Clarendon.
[130]. Expresses.
[131]. Majesty’s.
[132]. Domestic State Papers, Aug. 1628, No. 26.
[133]. Biog. Brit.
[134]. Domestic State Papers, August, 1628, No. 31.
[135]. Brodie.
EPITAPH ON THE LADY MARY VILLIERS.
“The Lady Mary Villiers lies
Under this stone: with weeping eyes
The parents that first gave her breath
And their sad friends laid her in earth.
If any of them, reader, were
Known unto thee, shed a tear;
Or if thyself possess a gem,
As dear to thee as this to them,
Though a stranger to this place,
Bewail in theirs thine own hard case:
For thou perhaps at thy return
May’st find thy darling in an urn.”
ANOTHER.
“The purest soul that e’er was sent
Into a clayey tenement
Informed this dust; but the weak mould
Could the great guest no longer hold:
The substance was too pure--the flame
Too glorious that thither came:
Ten thousand Cupids brought along
A grace on each wing that did throng
For place there--till they all opprest
The seat on which they sought to rest.
So the fair model broke for want
Of room to lodge th’ inhabitant.
When in the brazen leaves of Fame
The life, the death of Buckingham
Shall be recorded, if truth’s hand
Incise the story o’er our land,
Posterity shall see a fair
Structure by the studious care
Of two kings raised, that no less
Their wisdom than their power express;
By blinded zeal (whose doubtful light
Made murder’s scarlet robe seem white--
Whose vain deluding phantoms charmed
A clouded sullen soul, and arm’d
A desperate hand, thirsty of blood)
Torn from the fair earth where it stood!
So the majestic fabric fell.
His actions let our annals tell;
We write no chronicle; this pile
Wears only sorrow’s face and style;
Which e’en the envy that did wait
Upon his flourishing estate,
Turned to soft pity of his death,
Now pays his hearse; but that cheap breath
Shall not blow here, nor th’ impure brine
Puddle the streams that bathe this shrine.
These are the pious obsequies
Dropped from his chaste wife’s pregnant eyes,
In frequent showers, and were alone
By her congealing sighs made stone,
On which the carver did bestow
These forms and characters of woe:
So he the fashion only lent,
Whilst she wept all this monument.”
[137]. "My Lord,--I was in hope, till very lately, that all your displeasure taken against my lord had been past; but, in letters sent me out of England, I was assuredly informed your lordship was much disgusted still with him, which news hath very much troubled me. I cannot be satisfied without sending these expressly to you. And I beseech you that, whatever you do conceive, you will deal clearly with me, and let me know it, and withal direct me how I may remove it. I must necessarily be included in your lordship’s anger to him, for any misfortune to my lord must be mine, and it will prove a great misfortune to me to live under your frowns. Out of your goodness you will not, I hope, make me a sufferer, who have never deserved from you but as
“Your Lordship’s
“Katharine Buckingham.
“Dunbere, this 2nd of September, 1639.”[[138]]
[138]. Strafford Letters, vol. ii., p. 386.
[139]. Burke’s Extinct Peerage.
[140]. "In the Earl of Cork’s chapel at Youghal, where he was buried, there still remains the following hexastich to his memory:--
“Munster may curse the time that Villiers came
To make us worse, by leaving such a name
Of noble parts as none can imitate,
But those whose hearts are married to the State;
But if they press to imitate his fame,
Munster may bless the time that Villiers came.”
Biographia Britannica, vol. vi.
[141]. Burke’s Extinct Peerage.
[142]. Dr. Waagen--Life of Velasquez, p. 48.
[143]. From the name of his country-seat.
[144]. The infant Cardinal, the conqueror of Nordlingen, died in 1641.
[145]. Waagen, p. 62. From "Voyage en Espagne"--Cologne, 1662.
[146]. Waagen; Life of Velasquez, p. 82.
[147]. State Papers: Calendar, by Mr. Bruce.
[148]. Waagen.
[149]. Perichief.
[150]. Walpole, p. 183, vol. v.
[151]. Clarendon’s History of the Rebellion.
[152]. Walpole’s Anecdotes of Painters; Art. “Charles I.”
[153]. In the work styled “Art and Artists,” by Dr. Waagen, there is a full and most interesting account of all Charles’s collection.
[154]. Note in Walpole, p. 189, vol. iii.
[155]. Walpole, p. 192.
[156]. Dr. Waagen says they were sequestrated; but it appears only a portion of them were sold by the Parliament--the rest fell into the hands of the second Duke of Buckingham.
[157]. Biographia, Art. “George Villiers,” the second note.
[158]. See Biographia Britannica.
[159]. Walpole.
[160]. Dr. Waagen says that some of the Duke’s pictures were not genuine, and many of little worth; but this is not the opinion of Horace Walpole.
[161]. Walpole’s Anecdotes of Painting, vol. iii., p. 297--from the Journals of the House of Commons.
[162]. Walpole’s Anecdotes of Painting, vol. iii., p. 200.
[163]. Ibid., p. 204.
[164]. Dr. Waagen.
[165]. Dr. Waagen.
[166]. Walpole, p. 188.
[167]. Walpole, p. 203.
[168]. Walpole, p. 270.
[169]. Walpole, p. 151, 152.
[170]. Walpole, p. 206. Note. From Peacham’s “Complete Gentleman.”
[171]. The fate of the Arundelian marbles is stated by Walpole to have been as follows:--They came into the elder branch of the family, the Dukes of Norfolk, and were sold by the Duchess, who was divorced in the time of George II., to the Earl of Pomfret for 300l. The Countess of Pomfret, great-grandmother to the present Earl, gave them to the University
[172]. Walpole.
[173]. Biograph. Brit., Art. “Villiers.” Note.
[174]. Walpole, p. 149, passim.
[175]. Walpole, p. 166.
[176]. There were five dials at Whitehall; a Mr. Gunter drew the lines, and wrote a pamphlet on the use of them, in 1624. “One, too,” says Horace Walpole, “may still be extant.” Vertue saw them at Buckingham House, from whence they were sold.
[177]. Note in Hartley Coleridge’s Introduction to Massinger’s Plays, p. 32.
[178]. Hartley Coleridge, p. 9.
[179]. Massinger’s Works, edited by Hartley Coleridge, p. 74.
[180]. Joanna, Lady Abergavenny, Mary Arundel, Catherine Grey, Mary Duchess of Norfolk. See “Royal and Noble Authors.”
[181]. Horace Walpole’s “Royal and Noble Authors,” vol. ii., p. 308.
[182]. No. 7.
[183]. Ibid.
[184]. Note in Parke’s edition of “Royal and Noble Authors.”
[185]. Hartley Coleridge.
[186]. This letter was discovered by Malone, in Dulwich College. There is no date on it, but Mr. Payne Collier dates it in 1614, eight years before the publication of the “Virgin Martyr.”
[187]. Introduction to Massinger’s Works, p. xxxiii.
[188]. Introduction to Massinger’s Works, p. xxxv.
[189]. Introduction to Massinger’s Works, p. xiv; from Dr. Farmer’s “Essay on the Learning of Shakspeare.”
[190]. Introduction to Massinger’s Works, p. xxxvii.
[191]. Massinger’s Works, p. 167; in his Dedication of “The Great Duke of Florence” to Sir Robert Wiseman.
[192]. Hartley Coleridge’s “Introduction,” p. xxv.
[193]. The play was acted, but not printed, and has never been discovered.--See Coleridge, from Malone.
[194]. Cunningham’s “London.”
[195]. See “Maid’s Tragedy.”
[196]. “The Guardian.” See Massinger’s Works, p. 351.
[197]. From the State Papers, a new volume of which has lately been published, it appears that Jonson was accused of writing certain lines on Buckingham’s assassination.--See Appendix.
[198]. Gifford’s “Life of Ben Jonson,” p. 2; from Anthony Wood.
[199]. Cunningham’s London.
[200]. Ben Johnson’s Works, p. i.
[201]. Gifford, from the Duchess of Newcastle’s Letters.
[202]. From the First Part of “Jeronymo,” a popular play.
[203]. Massinger’s Works, p. 200.
[204]. Gifford, p. 7, note.
[205]. Rowe’s “Life of Shakspeare,” p. xxxiii.
[206]. Gifford, p. 2.
[207]. Pope’s “Essay on Shakespere,” prefixed to the Oxford edition, p. xix., 1745.
[208]. Introduction to Massinger’s Works, p. xxxiv.
[209]. Page xxxvi.
[210]. Gifford, p. 23. See note by Mr. Dyce, p. 23.
[211]. Introduction to Massinger, p. xv.
[212]. “Lines on Shakespere,” p. 552; Ben Jonson’s Works.
[213]. In 1615. Shakspeare died in 1616.
[214]. Hartley Coleridge’s “Life of Massinger.”
[215]. Gifford’s “Life of Ben Jonson[Jonson],” p. 59.
[216]. “Royal and Noble Authors,” vol. ii., p. 268.
[217]. “Life of Ben Jonson,” p. 63.
[218]. Ibid., p. 67.
[219]. Gifford’s “Ben Jonson,” p. 37.
[220]. In Laing’s Preface to notes of Ben Jonson’s Conversation.
[221]. Note by Dyce; Gifford, p. 38.
[222]. Life, p. 49.
[223]. This was communicated to Gifford by the late Mr. D’Israeli, to whom historical literature owes indeed much.
[224]. Grainger, Biog. Hist., vol. i., p. 194.
[225]. Gifford, p. 48.
[226]. Gifford, p. 49.
[227]. With a gentler feeling, Charles Lamb made numerous extracts from “The New Inn,” to show that the mind that produced the “Fox” was still there.--Ibid.
[228]. Gifford, p. 48.
[229]. Gifford.
[230]. For some particulars of Sir John Beaumont, see Appendix.
[231]. Burton’s “Anatomy of Melancholy,” vol i., p. 235.
[232]. Stowe’s “Annals.”
[233]. Gull’s “Horn-book,” pp. 119, 120.
[234]. Henry IV.
[235]. Hartley Coleridge.
[236]. Ibid--Note.
[237]. Hartley Coleridge.
[238]. See Cunningham’s “London,” Art. “Whitehall,” from Dugdale’s “Troubles in England.”
[239]. See Cunningham, vol. i., p. 311. The Author cannot avoid expressing obligations to this excellent work.
[240]. Otherwise Bougton Place (or Palace). See Izaak Walton’s “Life of Sir H. Wotton.”
[241]. Ferdinand I., of the House of Medici, who, in 1589, succeeded his brother Francis.
[242]. Collected and edited by Izaak Walton, in 1672.
[243]. Cowley was born in 1618.
[244]. He was born in 1608, and was only seventeen when he began the study of the law under his uncle, Sir Nicholas Hyde.
[245]. State Papers, vol. cxiv., No. 17; August 27, 1627. Calendar, edited by Mr. Bruce.
[246]. “Historia et vitae et regni Ricardi II.,” p. 104, by Mr. T. Hearne, who tells us the letter is said to have once belonged to Archbishop Sancroft, and observes it is the only intrigue he had ever heard this Prince was concerned in.
Transcriber’s Note
There are several anomolies in the footnoting. Footnotes were numbered from 1 to 99, and then the sequence was repeated, starting with ‘1’. There are also a number notes which are denoted only with a traditional asterisk, etc. There is no apparent reason for the dual system. There is one instance, on p. [130], where a numbered footnote ([138]) is to be found referenced in a note ([137]) indicated with an asterisk. For this text, all footnotes have been re-sequenced numerically across the whole volume, to assure uniqueness.
At the bottom of p. [25], the letter opening ‘My dere Lord’ is prefixed by an apparent footnote anchor, for which there is no matching note. This has been deemed a stray printer’s mark and removed.
On p. [284], the paragraph ending ‘bonds with another man.’ was printed with, in the original, a footnote anchor ‘1’, but there is no matching footnote. The ‘1’ anchor is repeated on the following page, with the expected note. The anomolous anchor has been removed.
Given the frequent quotations, it was inevitable that opening and closing quotation marks would sometimes be lost or misplaced. A sampling of these problematic passages reveals that the author has a tendency to paraphrase and otherwise misquote. They are placed here where the context or voice makes their position obvious, or where an inspection of the original sources was possible and allowed for the proper placement.
| [29.18] | to himself and all good men.[”] | Added. |
| [29.20] | [“]Sir George Goring, writing | Removed. |
| [32.2] | than with his victuals.[”] | Added. |
| [45.5] | which were by the Duke so freely forgiven,[”] | Added. |
| [59.2] | [“]and then, when should they be paid?” | Added. |
| [60.17] | were now content to forget him.[’]” | Added. |
| [80.13] | on any minister of start[.] | Added. |
| [87.15] | says Lord Clarend[e/o]n | Replaced. |
| [87.18] | for the pardon of his errors;[”] | Added. |
| [87.21] | even Lord Clarend[e/o]n observes | Replaced. |
| [92.13] | apparently cau[ /s]eless melancholy | Restored. |
| [114.2] | looking down into y[e] hall | Added. |
| [118.25] | his end was upon Satterdau morning[.] | Added. |
| [217.15] | in which Shak[s/e]speare had a share | Replaced. |
| [238.8] | “authorizing Thomas Gyles,[”] | Added. |
| [240.22] | to have first drank of it herself[.] | Added. |
| [244.215.1] | Jo[u/n]son,” p. 59. | Replaced. |
| [259.20] | sent [to ]request a transcript | Restored. |
| [326.21] | Letter from Sir Francis Netherso[t/l]e | Replaced. |