In September of 1647 Parliament at last definitely made allowance for the maintenance of the Earl’s children. It was one-fifth of his revenue, the same as they meted to the rest of the “delinquents.” The allowance was made upon Knowsley, and thither two of the Earl’s three daughters, Catherine and Mary, were at once sent. Lord Fairfax issued orders that Major Jackson, who had established himself with his family in the mansion, should clear out, and the guardians were further enjoined to see “that the said Major Jackson” did no damage to house or park before he went. Lady Derby writes from London, 14th March 1648: “I am advised to go to Lancashire, and live there on the little which has been allowed to my children; for I receive nothing; and I hope that I may be able to make it go further if I am on the spot. One must live economically, and make the best of what one has.”
There seems to have been no false sentiment about Lady Derby’s nature. And if the theories of Lavater are in any way correct, it is easiest to recall her living personality through the portrait of Vandyke, who, mighty portrayer that he was, gives Charlotte de la Trémoille on his canvas the frank and happy face of a good wife and a good mother, if not as specially beautiful or striking, as Scott has depicted the widowed Countess of Derby and “Queen in Man” in his Peveril of the Peak. Scott claims his rights as a romancer to give us the famous Countess of Derby as it suited his great novel to depict her. The Wizard has indeed drawn a curiously different personality from the real wife of James Stanley. On the other hand, her wifehood was almost past before Julian Peveril of the Peak was born. It is the woman advancing in years, with the memory of dead joys and loves and countless bitter wrongs heavy upon her, whom Scott characterises. When Charles II. was king, Charlotte de la Trémoille must have been greatly changed; but it is in having changed her creed that Scott misses the strong individuality in which he might have clothed her, without overleaping fact by a hair’s-breadth. No one comprehended better than he the play of light and shadow upon every act and word of man, woman, or even child, which is cast by religious conviction or the lack of it. Scott, while apologising for the dereliction, has transformed the born Huguenot, the staunch Anglican of twoscore years’ profession, into an ardent, even fanatical Roman Catholic. How completely she stood between the Scylla and Charybdis of Rome and the Sectaries, the extract from the following letter illustrates with striking emphasis:—
“For my husband and myself, in the matter of religion, it is, thank God, so deeply graven in our hearts, that nothing by His grace can take it from us; and if Parliament really held the interests of religion and the glory of God, which you think they entertain, they would not have the cruelty and injustice which signalise all their actions. And for religion, they have misled the people of this nation, until now they see their error, and groan under the burden of tyranny. Those even, who are most attached to their party, deplore their own misery and ours, and would find it difficult to tell you what their belief is, there being as many religions as there are families. The Test is publicly maintained; books are printed denying the existence of the Holy Spirit. Those who do this are not punished for it. God’s commandments are scorned—even the Creed itself. Sunday worship is neglected, and not constrained to be celebrated anywhere. The sacraments are administered according to each person’s fancy; the ministry is neglected. Anyone who considers himself capable of preaching, may do so without any licence or examination; even women may do it. Baptism is neglected, and not given to children; and there are other things still worse, which make those who have any religion left in them shudder to see such abuses.
“For our ill-wishers, we have them, but not more than the Lords in Parliament have them, it being the desire of the Commons to have no Lords, but to make all equal. That is understood by the Lords, but not the remedy for it. If you could hear the prevailing discontent, you would hardly be able to credit it. I speak of those who have ventured all for Parliament, and are enemies of the King’s party. This has reached such a point, that if the Scotch come, as we are led to think they may, there are not many who would not join them. This has of late led to changing all the leaders who were most affected to Parliament; replacing them by men who only regard their own faction; and though it was decreed in Parliament that if the army did not approve of this, it was to be changed, one day undoes what the other has done.
“This is not credible, excepting to those who see it all; and while I was away, they had a difficulty in persuading me that it was true. If I had the honour of seeing you, and speaking with you for a little while, I know you would soon be convinced of the truth, and would regret to see the Protestant religion suffering, and the Papists turning it to their advantage.”
National affairs were now in a state of hopeless entanglement—Presbyterian against Independent, and both against the King and all who had held by him through fortune good and ill. There could be no quarter for the Royalists. “There is no doubt,” writes the Countess in March of 1648, “that affairs will settle themselves.”
She wrote prophetically when she added:
“There is such discontent prevailing, that those who are in authority say—in confidence—that things cannot remain long without a change.”
On the next 30th January King Charles I. made his “good exchange” upon the scaffold at Whitehall; penalties of high treason were declared against all who acknowledged Charles Stuart as king; the House of Peers was abolished; and Cromwell was at the head of public affairs.