Sarah, widow of Sir Vincent Corbet, Bart., was created (23rd October, 1679)
Viscountess Corbet, of Linchlade, co. Bucks, for her natural life; and in
the patent the preamble runs,--that his Majesty Charles II.,
"Having taken into his royal consideration the great worth and merits
of the trusty and well-beloved Sarah Lady Corbet, together with the
faithful services of the late Sir Vincent Corbet, grants," &c.
This evidently explains but little of the real reason both of the grant and
its limitation. Lady Corbet had, besides four daughters, two sons then
living: both in turns succeeded to the baronetcy. If the peerage were a
reward for the services of the late Sir Vincent (those services, indeed,
consisting in his having been completely routed by Sir Will Brereton at
Nantwich, and afterwards with six troops of horse taken by surprise at
Drayton, followed eventually by fine and sequestration),--if, I say, for
these services, nineteen years after the Restoration, and certainly three
after Sir Vincent's own death, the peerage were bestowed on his widow, then
why was it limited for her life? Why was the unusual course taken of
actually excluding the succession of the issue, who naturally should have
been the recipients of the honour? We may conclude, therefore, the motive
was personal favour, "the great worth and merits" of Lady Corbet in fact,
as the patent first asserts; but then the Query arises what these were.
Tradition says Lady Corbet was a beauty and a _favourite_ (the term may be
understood) at a profligate court, and the peerage was the reward; but I
cannot discover that this is more than tradition, and have never found any
corroborative authority even among the many scandalous histories of the
time, and I am most desirous to know if any such evidence can be given.
It may be as well to add that in 1679 Lady Corbet was _sixty-six_ years of
age; but we may presume she still had attractions (unless these were only
her rank) from the fact that two months later she remarried Sir Charles Lee
of Billesley.