[46] Craggs was much implicated in the “South Sea Bubble.” He resided in a house on the property of Sir T. M. Wilson—since the residence of Mrs. Fitz-Herbert—afterwards of Queen Caroline, when Princess of Wales—afterwards of Alderman Atkins, and recently of Gen. Sir Thomas Hislop, Bart., who died there.
[47] The Hall is opened to the public generally, only on Friday (between the hours of eleven and four) the day on which Hampton Court is closed. Visitors are admissible by cards, which must be obtained previously from Mr. Caddel, library, Gravesend, or Mr. Wildash, bookseller, Rochester. A charge is made of one shilling to each person. The sum thus accruing is appropriated to the benefit of the schools and other charitable institutions in the neighbourhood. The visitor is thus relieved from the irksome necessity of considering what gratuity he is to bestow upon the guide who accompanies him through the several galleries,—servants “being strictly forbidden to take any fees.” The cards contain the “Regulations.” Those who can devote but one day to an examination of this locality will do well to commence by an inspection of the church and village, and wander about the park after the Hall has been seen. Those who are not content with so comparatively brief a scrutiny, will find a homely but neat and comfortable inn at Cobham. It is scarcely necessary to observe that steam-boats ply, in summer, from Blackwall—distant six miles, or ten minutes, from the heart of London—every half hour. These voyages commence very early, and are continued to a late hour; so that although the Hall is five or six and twenty miles from the metropolis, it will not be found difficult to visit it and return to the city within one day.
[48] “Cobeham, anciently Coptham,—that is the head or village, from the Saxon Copt, an head.”—Philipott. Survey of Kent.
[49] One of the husbands of this lady was Sir John Oldcastle, who, in the reign of Henry V., attached himself to the Lollards. He was cited to appear before the Archbishop of Canterbury, and sentenced to death as “a heretic; who together with others, to the number of twenty men, called Lollards, had conspired to subvert the clergy and kill the king.” Having been outlawed upon treason and excommunicated, he was removed from the Tower to the “New Gallows” in St. Giles’, where he underwent his sentence—“to be hanged, and burned hanging.” At the place of execution, it is said, he desired Sir Thomas Erpingham, “in case he saw him risen the third day after, that he would then be a means to procure favour to the rest of his sect.” His “Tryal” before the Archbishop of Canterbury, 1 Henry Fifth, A.D. 1413, “on the Saturday after the feast of St. Matthew,” in the Chapter House of St. Paul, is reported in the State Trials. It is curious to note the language in which the prelate is stated to have addressed the doomed recusant:—“We repeated in soft and moderate terms, and in a manner very courteous and obliging, all our proceedings against him.” “We replied with much patience, and in a courteous and affectionate manner.” “We besought him, with tears in our eyes, and exhorted him in the most compassionate manner.” Such, and similar phrases, record the “gentleness” with which he was doomed to a cruel death. The archbishop could “make nothing” of the brave Lollard. He openly avowed that the only honour he vouchsafed to the Image of the Cross was, to “keep it clean, and in his closet;” declared his belief that he was “the true successor of St. Peter, who followed him in the purity of his life and conversation;” and protested that he “desired absolution only from God.” For the said “detestable crime of heresy” he was ordered to die; “by the advice and consent of men famous for discretion and wisdom;” and was “dispatched with all convenient expedition.”
[50] Sir Thomas Broke, and Joan de Cobham, his wife, had ten sons and four daughters. It is their tomb which occupies so prominent a position in the chancel of Cobham church.
[51] At the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh, at Winton, the 17th of November, 1 Jac. 1603, for high treason, “in conspiring to depose the king and set up the Lady Arabella Stuart, and corresponding with Spain for that purpose;” a variety of documents and letters were produced and read; written, as alleged, by Lord Cobham, implicating Sir Walter, admitting his own guilty participation, and affirming that “he would not have entered into these courses but by his, Raleigh’s, instigation.” Raleigh’s demand to be brought “face to face” with his accuser was refused, on the ground that “the accuser may be drawn by practise to retract what he had deposed, while he is here in person.” To this Raleigh replied, “He dares not accuse me. He said I was the cause of all his miseries and the destruction of his house, by my wicked counsel. If this be true, whom hath he to accuse or be revenged of but me?” “I say,” he added, “that Cobham is a base, dishonourable, poor soul.” Cobham, however, had retracted his assertions concerning Raleigh, who, at his trial, produced a letter from Cobham, to this effect:—“Seeing myself so near my end, for the discharge of my conscience and freeing myself from your blood, which else will cry vengeance against me, I protest upon my salvation, I never practised with Spain by your procurement: God so comfort me in this my affliction, as you are a true subject for anything I know. I will say as Pilate, ‘Purus sum a sanguine hujus.’ So God have mercy upon my soul, as I know no treason by you.” The letter, however, availed Sir Walter nothing; the attorney-general affirming “that it had been procured by subtle practices; and that the first declaration was drawn up voluntarily by my lord Cobham, and without any hopes of pardon.” Under a most iniquitous sentence then pronounced, Raleigh was executed fifteen years afterwards; and Cobham had been a houseless wanderer, meanwhile, perishing unpitied and unwept. Of their intimacy there is no doubt; and it is more than probable that the Old Hall we are describing was often the home of Sir Walter Raleigh, when distinguished as “the noble and valorous knight.” It is grievous to think that so great a “worthy” should have been sacrificed to the pitiful cowardice of so “poor a soul” as the last of the Cobhams—the degenerate scion of a munificent and valorous race.
[52] Sir Joseph Williamson was the son of a clergyman of Cumberland. He held various appointments under the Crown, was President of the Royal Society; and was buried in Westminster Abbey.
[53] “Lady Katherine O’Brien died in November following; upon which her two-thirds of this manor and seat, with the rest of the estates of the late Duke of Richmond, purchased by Sir Joseph Williamson, descended to Edward, Lord Clifton and Cornbury (son of Edward, Lord Cornbury, afterwards Earl of Clarendon, and Catherine his wife, the only daughter and heir of the said Lady Katherine, by her first husband, Henry, Lord O’Brien), and on her death without issue, in 1713, to his only surviving sister and heir, the Lady Theodosia Hyde.”—Hasted’s Kent, vol. i.
[54] The Blighs were originally a Devonshire family; and in the reign of Charles the First were seated at Rathmore, in the county of Meath, in Ireland.
[55] In 1714, 1 Geo. I., Sir Richard Temple, Bart. was created Baron Cobham—a title his descendants enjoy. The Temples were connected in the female line with the Brokes.