EDWARD, LORD HERBERT’S SECOND MARRIAGE.
In 1639 Lord Herbert entered a second time into the matrimonial
state, a prudential step as he was then situated, at the age of 38,
having a young family without any sufficient guardian. He married the
Lady Margaret, second daughter and co-heir of Henry O’Brien, Earl of
Thomond; by which alliance he obtained some possessions, as well as a
connexion with many of the best and most powerful families in Ireland.
Of this, as of his first marriage, no particulars have been preserved,
not even their date, or where celebrated; yet considering that both
occurred during his father’s lifetime and greatest prosperity, we
can readily believe that they were accompanied with all the usual
demonstrations of joy, ceremony and feasting. They had but one
daughter, Mary, who died during her infancy. In a family group, painted
by Hanneman, a close imitator of Vandyck, Lord Herbert is represented
as a Roman general, seated by his lady attired in a modern costume of
pale blue satin, with their child standing before her in a reclining
position. He has a very aged appearance, although one might presume
that the portrait was executed when he was under forty-five. It is a
very thinly and sketchily painted performance. His Lordship presents a
singular appearance in a toga and tight fitting hose of deep scarlet,
an ornamented leathern jerkin, and wearing a wig streaming over his
breast and shoulders, sitting in a chair with his right hand resting
on a walking stick, while his left hangs negligently over the arm of
the chair in proximity with a mighty sheathed sword. His lady in
ample folds of silk, with the usual long, tightly fitting, jewelled
stomacher, has her hair in a fringe of small curls over her forehead,
combed closely back, where it terminates in a knot from which a few
ringlets flow behind; she wears also pearl ear-drops and a pearl
necklace, which ornaments are repeated on her child.
The same year, on the 8th of April, he lost his mother, Anne, Countess
of Worcester, who was buried at Raglan. It is possible, therefore, that
his marriage was deferred during her illness, and not celebrated until
some months after her decease.
It was then the 15th year of Charles the First’s reign. Before
the close of the year following, the Long Parliament commenced
its sittings, when Lenthall was chosen Speaker. All projectors and
monopolists were denounced as incapable of holding office, several
members, therefore, withdrew, whose places were speedily supplied. What
must have been his Lordship’s impressions under the existing aspect of
political affairs may easily be conceived, while as yet “Royalist” and
“Roundhead” could scarcely be called popular terms of party distinction.
In 1641, that martyr of science, Galileo, died, whose case so far
assimilated with the Marquis’s own, that they were of the same
religious persuasion: the one proscribed at home for the peculiar
heretical turn his genius had taken, the other under the ban of
suspicion for his papistical persuasion and supposed consequent
prejudices.
We now enter on the most critical era in the history of this great and
good man. He was then residing in London, where he continued for some
length of time, with the politic motive of avoiding as much as possible
the suspicion of Parliament; for through his father’s liberality he
had already commenced supplying Charles the First with heavy loans.
In the collection of manuscripts at Badminton, is an unpublished letter
from Charles the First, dated 3rd of August, 1641, and also copies, in
an ancient and probably contemporary hand, of letters, the originals
of which, according to Birch, form part of the Harleian collection.[A]
In the first of these, dated 7th of December, 1641,--Charles the First
requires Lord Herbert to repair to Whitehall, “not only for _his own
particular use_, but _likewise for the good of the kingdom_,” so early
had his Majesty taken him into his confidence and council. He had then
not long returned from Scotland, and soon after he retreated to Hampton
Court. He writes:--
“CHARLES R.
“Right trusty and right well-beloved Cousin, We greet you
well,--whereas We have heretofore by many letters and messages signed
by us, given you testimony of Our favour and inclination to reward the
good service of you and yours: These are further to assure you, that
neither the times nor business shall ever make us unmindful of them:
Yet upon occasions when Our good intentions therein may be really
manifested, We desire to be put in mind that we may readily concur to a
speedy performance, of which you may be ever most confident. And being
[seeing?] your indisposition of body is such, that before Our intended
journey We cannot signify the same to yourself in person, We have
thought good to express it by these our Letters, Given at our Palace of
Westminster, 3 day of August, In the seventeenth year of Our Reign and
1641.”
[Endorsed in an old handwriting, 1641.]
“To Our Right trusty and right well beloved Cousin, HENRY EARL OF
WORCESTER.”
Next comes the following:--
“HERBERT,
“Yours of the 1st of December has given me a just reason for your
absence but certainly I have juster cause for your attendance, for
it is well known how that you are to give me account of matters not
only for my particular use, but likewise for the good of the kingdom;
wherefore I require your repair hither with all convenient diligence;
And the rather that you may find out the authors of these lying and
scandalous Pamphlets concerning your father and you, touching [which] I
not only promise you protection to your innocency but justice against
those offenders, assuring you likewise that I shall be so mindful of
you that, if I live, you shall neither be a loser in, nor repent you
for the services you have done me. And so I rest
“Your assured friend,
“CHARLES R.
“Whitehall, the 7th December, 1641.[13]
“I send you herein the paper that I could not find when you were with
me.”
In his journey towards the north, his Majesty, on arriving at Royston,
wrote to Lord Herbert as follows:--
“HERBERT,
“Your services are expressed to me in so noble a way that I cannot
but acknowledge to you under my own hand, and that I should think
myself very unhappy, if I did not live by real testimonies to express
my gratitude to you. And for your sister, Carnarvon, though I cannot
punctually answer your expectation therein, yet I hope you will be
satisfied with the answer you will receive by your cousin Sir John
Byron, to whom, referring myself for many things I have not time to
write. I rest,
“Your most assured constant friend,
“CHARLES R.
“Royston, 6 March, [1641–2.]”
And again he addressed him a few lines, shortly before being refused
admittance to Hull:--
“HERBERT,
“I entrusted your cousin Byron with the particular answers to your
letter, reserving only to myself to answer you, that I esteem your
services such as my words cannot express them; but by showing myself at
all occasions to be
“Your most assured constant friend,
“CHARLES R.
“York, 9 May, 1642.”
We have here the earliest communications on record between these two
remarkable individuals, whose personal histories have alike perplexed
all political, polemical, and philosophical writers.
Before setting out for Scotland, the King appears to have desired a
personal interview with his Lordship, who seems to have been prevented
from complying by some severe indisposition in July, 1641; his Majesty,
therefore, conveys to him in writing, his “favour and inclination to
reward the good service of you and yours.” His Lordship’s father had
already made to the needy monarch some of those munificent advances,
which, as long as he could obtain them, he was in the habit of repaying
with ample promises and abundant flattery.
In his second letter, he alludes to “lying and scandalous pamphlets
concerning” his Lordship’s father, but what these may have been has not
transpired; they may only have referred to him as connected with the
Roman Catholic party.
In another letter he expresses his “gratitude” for his Lordship’s
noble expression of services; and alludes to his sister Carnarvon. And
in the last of these letters, he flatteringly informs his Lordship,
that,--“I esteem your services such as my words cannot express them;”
yet by _words_ alone were they ever, as then, expressed, only to be as
conveniently repudiated.
Up to forty years of age, Lord Herbert had lived as became a gentleman
of ancient nobility, great expectations, and in the enjoyment of the
most friendly intercourse with his sovereign. Well educated, travelled,
accustomed to courtly life, devoted to learned studies and given to
scientific pursuits, he has been hitherto only presented to us, in his
domestic relations, as a dutiful son, a husband and father, having
few engagements to withdraw him from the management of his estates,
or distract him from the enjoyment of country sports and social
intercourse. During this period, he had probably nothing more serious
on hand than an occasional change of residence, as he passed some
portions of the year at Raglan Castle, and occupied at others the ample
accommodations of Worcester House.
In a statement[B] he wrote long after, he incidentally remarks:--“I
was not privy, or present with his Majesty at Greenwich [26th
February, 1641] when he first took his resolution for the North, and
removed, without the Queen, to Theobalds; from which he was pleased
to write me a lamentable letter by the hands of Sir John Byron,
averring that he had but £600, and £300 of which was given to defray
his horses, which the Marquis of Hamilton, then Master of the Horse,
refused to do, fearing to displease the Parliament.”
For awhile he was necessitated to act with consummate caution to
conceal his true political bias from the Parliamentary party. But the
drama of his life has now to change; his “golden days” are gone, and
hereafter we view him only in evil times, times so distracted and
turbulent, that the materials they afford us of his future life, are
but like the fragments of a terrible wreck.
Footnotes
[A] Inquiry, 1756, page 349.
[13] Birch, gives the date “11th of December, 1641.” p 356.
[B] See Chapter XVIII.