“Worcester.
“June 9th, 1660.
“For the Right Honourable the Lord Chancellor, present these.”[C]
It is painful to find the Marquis of Worcester compelled by the theological tendencies of that age, to allude in his letter to “the obnoxiousness of his religion.” But it is in just accordance with all that we have seen of his progress through life, his “having had a dearly bought experience what it is to trust to princes alone,”—that is, without witnesses or other sufficient legal evidence. This last observation is called forth by his “desire to show” Clarendon, as he states—“what I intend to produce or say.” This might possibly have reference to his long written statement of his losses, amounting to £918,000, intended for the King’s inspection, if not also to form the basis of an address to the House of Lords, as given in the last chapter. If this surmise is correct, it would clearly establish how severely pressing were his pecuniary affairs, the King having then only been eleven days at Whitehall; so early, would it seem, was he a suitor for the royal favour.
The House, on the 20th of June,[D] upon the reading of the Marquis’s Petition, “That he hath been dispossessed of his estate in the late unhappy wars, and hath undergone many pressures in the same,”—ordered, “That he be put into possession of his estate, which is not sold; and a stop and stay of waste, and cutting wood upon his land sold; and the rents to be stayed in the tenants’ hands; and to have a view of the writings and evidences which concern him, which are in the custody of the trustees at Drury Lane.”
And further, on the 11th of September,[E] the said order was ratified and confirmed, with the exception that, it was not to “extend to any manors or lands sold unto or enjoyed by Henry Lord Herbert, son and heir apparent of the said Marquis.”
But previously, on the 9th of July,[F] the House of Lords, “Upon information given, That Elizabeth Cromwell, widow, the relict of Oliver Cromwell; Richard Cromwell, Esquire; and Henry Lord Herbert, have many deeds, evidences, and writings belonging to the Lord Marquis of Worcester,”—it was ordered that “all such deeds, evidences, conveyances, court-rolls, surveys, patents, fines, recoveries, rentals, plates, papers, memorials, and writings, whatsoever,” in their hands, should be delivered up unto his Lordship.
Among other purchasers of his estates under the authority in power, in 1651, was one Ann Tisser, a widow, whose husband had become possessed of the Gatehouse attached to Worcester House. On the 27th of July the House had ordered possession to be given up, but Ann Tisser refusing, another order was issued on the 20th of August, requiring possession within two days, but with no better effect; so, on the 29th, the refractory widow “was brought to the Bar, to hear what she can say, why she does not deliver up the Gatehouse.” To which she answered, “She bought it of the trustees that did sell the Marquis of Worcester’s lands in 1651.” Her plea, however, was only met by the House directing the Lord Chancellor to inform her, “That the House expected that she should deliver up the said Gatehouse forthwith; or else she must expect to undergo the displeasure of the House, for contempt of their Lordships’ order.” Three days were allowed her to obey this mandate, and as we hear no further account of Ann Tisser, she, like many others in the same pitiable plight, was doubtless speedily ejected.
In August, 1660, the House of Lords[G] discussed the subject of his Patent creating him Duke of Somerset, declared to be in prejudice to the Peers; and therefore the following particulars will prove interesting, taken in connexion with the copy of this Patent given at page 162.
On the 18th of August, “upon information to the House, by the Marquis of Hertford, that a patent is granted to the Marquis of Worcester, which is a prejudice to the Peers:—
“It is Ordered, That the consideration of the said Patent is referred to the consideration of these Lords following:—