FOOTNOTES:
[79] The History of the Troubles and Tryal of the most Reverend Father in God, and Blessed Martyr, William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury. Wrote by Himself, during his Imprisonment in the Tower: London, R. Chiswell, 1695, p. 146.
[80] Finetti Philoxenis, London, 1636, p. 239.
[81] P. 10.
[82]Historical Collections, p. 607 (ed. 1659).
[83] Rushworth's Collections, p. 616.
[84] Campbell, Vol. I., p. 334.
[85] Strafford Letters, I., p. 265.
[86] Harleian MS. 390, fol. 534.
[CHAPTER XI.]
"The circle smil'd, then whisper'd, and then sneer'd,
The misses bridled, and the matrons frown'd;
Some hoped things might not turn out as they fear'd:
Some would not deem such women could be found,
Some ne'er believed one half of what they heard:
Some look'd perplex'd, and others look'd profound."
Don Juan, ix., 78.
Soon after the death of Sir Edward Coke, up to the date of which event his daughter had apparently been taking care of him with great filial piety for two years and living a virtuous life, she came to London. About this coming to London Archbishop Laud must be allowed to have his say,[87] albeit not altogether a pleasant say:—
"They," i.e., Sir Robert Howard and Lady Purbeck, "grew to such boldness, that he brought her up to London and lodged her in Westminster. This was so near the Court and in so open view, that the King and the Lords took notice of it, as a thing full of Impudence, that they should so publickly adventure to outface the Justice of the Realm, in so fowl a business. And one day, as I came of course to wait on his Majesty, he took me aside, and told me of it, being then Archbishop of Canterbury; and added, that it was a great reproach to the Church and Nation; and that I neglected my Duty, in case I did not take order for it. I made answer, she was a Wife of a Peer of the Realm; and that without his leave I could not attach her; but that now I knew his Majesty's pleasure, I would do my best to have her taken, and brought to Penance, according to the sentence against her. The next day I had the good hap to apprehend both her and Sir Robert; and by order of the High-Commission-Court, Imprisoned her in the Gate-House and him in the Fleet. This was (as far as I remember) upon a Wednesday; and the Sunday sevennight after, was thought upon to bring her to Penance. She was much troubled at it, and so was he."
In the Strafford Papers[88] there is a letter to the Lord Deputy from Garrard, in which he says that, after Lady Purbeck's sentence some years earlier, she had evaded it by flight and had "not been much looked after since;" but that "this winter she lodged herself on the Water side over against Lambeth, I fear too near the road of the Archbishop's barge; whereof some complaint being made, she had the Sergeant at Arms sent with the warrant of the Lords and the Council to carry her to the Gate-House, whence she will hardly get out until she hath done her penance. The same night was a warrant sent signed by the Lords, to the Warden of the Fleet, to take Sir Robert Howard at Suffolk House, and to carry him to the Fleet; but there was never any proceeding against him, for he refused to take the oath ex-officio, and had the Parliament to back him out, but I fear he will not escape so now."
It is open to those who may like to do so to take Laud's words as meaning that Lady Purbeck and Sir Robert Howard were again living together in immorality. Possibly that may have been Laud's meaning. If it was, he may have been mistaken. The world is seldom very charitable and, when Sir Robert and Lady Purbeck were both in London—which was comparatively a small place in those days—the gossips would naturally put the worst construction on the matter. If the very proper Charles I. heard such rumours, he would most likely believe them; so also would Laud.
From the meagre evidence existing on the question, there is much—the present writer thinks most—to be said in favour of the theory that the relations of Lady Purbeck to Sir Robert Howard were, at this time, perfectly innocent, and that they had been so ever since she had left him to live with her father, two years earlier. To begin with, is it likely that if, after so long a separation, the pair had wished to resume their illicit intercourse, they would have chosen London as the place in which to do so? Sir Robert may, or may not, have obtained for Lady Purbeck her lodging. If he did, there was not necessarily any harm in that.
Then the fact of Lady Purbeck's returning openly to London looks as if she was conscious of innocence since she had left Sir Robert a couple of years earlier, and as if she believed that the innocence of her recent life was generally known. And, indeed, she might naturally suppose that because, as Garrard wrote, she "had not been much looked after" by the authorities, when she had gone into the country to continue her offence many years earlier, she was perfectly safe in returning to London now that she was living a life of virtue.
Sir Robert Howard, says Garrard's letter, was sought for and taken at Suffolk House, the London home of his brother, whereas Lady Purbeck was taken at, and living at, a house "on the Water side, over against Lambeth." This does not absolutely prove that they were not living together; but it is certainly evidence in that direction.
Again, although it is possible that the King and Laud may have believed in the revival of the criminal intercourse between Lady Purbeck and Sir Robert, it is equally possible that they did not, and that they merely considered it "boldness" and a "thing full of Impudence" to "publickly adventure to outface the Justice of the Realm," when a woman under sentence to do public penance for grave immorality—a woman who had fled to a remote part of the country to escape from that penance—came back to London and took up her quarters "so near the Court, and in so open view," as if nothing had happened; and that, as the sentence had never been repealed, they thought it ought to be executed.
It might even be contended that the conduct of the King and Laud looks in favour of the innocence of Lady Purbeck, at that time; for, if they had had any evidence of a fresh offence, far from being content with executing the sentence for the old transgression, they would probably, if not certainly, have prosecuted her again for the new one, and have either added to the severity of the first sentence, or passed a second to follow it, as a punishment for the second crime.
Be all this as it may, one thing is certain, namely, that the King and Laud were determined to carry out the sentence which had been passed some seven or eight years earlier, now that the escaped convict had had what Laud calls the "Impudence" to come to the capital; and it appears that Sir Robert was to be proceeded against in the Star Chamber upon the old charge.
Apart from any concern on his own account, Sir Robert was greatly distressed that Lady Purbeck should be exposed to public punishment for an offence of the past, of which he himself was at least equally guilty. In the hope of saving her from it, he took into his counsel " Sir ... of Hampshire," some friend whose name is illegible in Laud's MS.
We must now turn attention, for a little time, elsewhere. The first Earl of Danby was a man of great respectability, and he had distinguished himself in arms, both on sea and on land. He was a Knight of the Garter and the Governor of Guernsey, and he had been Lord President of Munster. He had always done those things that he ought to have done, with as great a regularity as his attainted elder brother, Sir Charles Danvers, had done those things that he ought not to have done.
This paragon of a bachelor, at the age of sixty-two, received a visit at his Government House in Guernsey from a youth who requested a private interview. This having been granted, the boy, to the astonishment of Lord Danby, proclaimed himself to be his Lordship's cousin, Frances, Lady Purbeck.[89]
In a former chapter we saw that Lady Purbeck had escaped from punishment through the medium of a boy dressed up like a woman. The process had now been reversed: for she had escaped from the Gate-House—a woman dressed up like a boy. The Sir Somebody Something of Hampshire, says Laud, "with Money, corrupted the Turn-Key of the Prison (so they call him) and conveyed the Lady Forth, and after that into France in Man's Apparel (as that Knight himself hath since made his boast). This was told me the Morning after the escape: And you must think, the good Fellowship of the Town was glad of it." Lady Purbeck, however, did not go first into France. As we have seen, she went to Guernsey and placed herself under the protection of her old cousin, Lord Danby.
That old cousin must have wished devoutly that she had placed herself anywhere else. For the Governor of one of the King's islands to receive and to shelter a criminal flying from justice was a very embarrassing position. On the other hand, to refuse protection to a helpless lady, and that lady a kinswoman, much more to betray her into the hands of her enemies, would have been an act from which any honourable man might well shrink. The possibility that it might be discovered in the island that he was entertaining a woman in male attire must also have been an annoying uncertainty to the immaculate Governor of Guernsey. Over the details of this perplexing situation history has kindly thrown a veil; indeed, we learn nothing further about Lady Purbeck's proceedings until we read, in the already noticed letter of Garrard's, that she landed at St. Malo, whence she eventually went to Paris.
It seems safe to infer that whatever protection and hospitality her relative, Lord Danby, may have afforded to Lady Purbeck, he was heartily glad to get rid of her. If she had originally intended to go to Paris, she would scarcely have made the long voyage of nearly two hundred miles out of her way to Guernsey, and the most natural explanation of that voyage is that she had hoped and expected to obtain concealment, hospitality, and a refuge in the house of her relative. Instead of conceding her these privileges for any length of time, Lord Danby evidently speeded the parting guest with great celerity.
While all this was going on, Sir Robert Howard remained under arrest in London. Laud, writing of Lady Purbeck's escape, says: "In the mean time, I could not but know, though not perhaps prove as then, that Sir Robert Howard laboured and contrived this conveyance. And thereupon in the next sitting of the High-Commission, Ordered him to be close Prisoner, till he brought the Lady forth. So he continued Prisoner about some two or three months."
It may be observed here that some years later, in fact in the year 1640, Sir Robert Howard turned the tables upon Laud for this transaction. "On Munday, December 21," wrote Laud in 1640, "upon a Petition of Sir Robert Howard, I was condemned to pay Five Hundred Pounds unto him for false Imprisonment. And the Lords Order was so strict, that I was commanded to pay him the Money presently, or give Security to pay it in a very short time. I payed it, to satisfie the Command of the House: but was not therein so well advised as I might have been, being Committed for Treason." Laud was at that time a prisoner in the Tower, only to leave it for execution. In addition to this £500, Sir Robert was ordered to have a fine of £250 paid to him by the sorcerer, Lambe, and another fine of £500 by a man named Martin;[90] so altogether, the Long Parliament assigned him,£1,250 damages.
In a letter to the Lord Deputy, dated 24th June, 1635,[91] Garrard says: "Sir Robert Howard, after one month's close imprisonment in the Fleet, obtained his liberty, giving £2,000 bond never more to come at Lady Purbeck, wherein he stands bound alone; but for his appearance within 30 days, if he be called, two of his brothers stand bound for him in £1,500, so I hope there is an end of the business."
On the 30th of July, 1635, the same correspondent wrote of Lady Purbeck's being "in some part of France, where I wish she may stay, but it seems not good so to the higher powers: for there is of late an express messenger sent to seek her with the Privy Seal of his Majesty to summon her into England, within six weeks after the receipt thereof, which if she do not obey, she is to be proceeded against according to the laws of this Kingdom."
In a letter[92] from the "Rev. Mr. Thomas Garrard to the Lord Deputy," dated 27th April, 1637, there is an announcement which may surprise some readers:—
"Another of my familiar acquaintance has gone over to that Popish religion, Sir Robert Howard, which I am very sorry for. My Lady Purbeck left her country and religion both together, and since he will not leave thinking of her, but live in that detestable sin, let him go to that Church for absolution, for comfort he can find none in ours."
Now, "the Reverend Mr. Garrard" can scarcely have known what Sir Robert would, or would not, "leave thinking of," and, as to his living "in that detestable sin," he and his fellow-sinner had not been even in the same country for nearly two years at the time when Garrard was writing; and, as we have already shown, the unlikelihood of their having committed the sin in question for another couple of years before that may be more than plausibly argued. And it should be remembered that these two people could have no object in becoming Catholics, unless they received the benefits of the Sacraments of the Catholic Church; and as Catholics, they would believe that their confessions would be sacrileges, their absolutions invalid, and their communions the "eating and drinking their own damnation," unless they confessed their immoralities among their other sins, with a firm purpose never to commit them again.
It is clear, therefore, that when they became Catholics Sir Robert Howard and Lady Purbeck must have determined never to resume their illicit intercourse; and, so far as is known, they never did so. In a letter to Secretary Windebanke written from Paris, in July, 1636, Lord Scudamore, after saying something about Lady Purbeck, adds: "She expects every day Sir Robert Howard here:" but this must have been mere gossip, for Scudamore cannot have been in the confidence of that fugitive from England, Lady Purbeck, as he was English Ambassador at Paris; moreover, he was a particular ally of Archbishop Laud,[93] therefore, not likely to have relations with an escaped prisoner of Laud's; although, as we shall presently find, another, although very different, friend of Laud took her part. Nor is there anything to show that Sir Robert Howard went to Paris.
Respecting the matter of Sir Robert's submission to the Catholic Church, the Reverend Mr. Garrard was perfectly right in saying: "Let him go to that Church for absolution, for comfort he can find none in ours." Whether the Catholic religion is the worst of religions or the best of religions, it is the religion to which those in grievous trouble, whether through misfortune or their own fault, most frequently have recourse; a religion which offers salvation and solace even to the adulterer, the thief, the murderer, or the perpetrator of any other crimes, on condition of contrition and firm purpose of amendment.[94]