THE MARQUIS OF WORCESTER’s SON, AND TWO DAUGHTERS.
With a view to giving completeness to the preceding domestic narrative
(affecting the Marchioness of Worcester, in respect to Worcester
House), our remarks have extended to the early part of the year 1659,
thus going some years beyond the time of the Marquis of Worcester’s
flight to and residence in France.
We come next, in the order of family claimants, to consider the several
petitions, first of his son, Henry Lord Herbert; and next of his
daughters, Ladies Anne and Elizabeth.
On Wednesday, the 23rd of April, 1651, the humble petition of Henry,
Lord Herbert, was read in the House of Commons,[57] when it was--
“Ordered, That it be referred to a Committee, to consider what
interest the Petitioner hath in any of the lands, late the Earl of
Worcester’s, settled by Act of Parliament on the Lord General, and
the value thereof, and to report the whole state of the business to
the Parliament. And, in case they find the Petitioner hath any good
title to any of the said lands, that then they bring in a proviso, for
excepting out of sale, by this Act, so much of the lands of the said
Earl, now in the power of the Parliament to dispose of, as may be of
like value; to be disposed of as the Parliament shall see cause.”
After naming a Committee--
“Ordered, That the business of the delinquency of the Lord Herbert of
Raglan, as to the matter of fact, be referred to this Committee; to
send to the Commissioners at Goldsmiths’ Hall, for what evidence they
have against him; and to report the state of the business touching the
delinquency charged on the said Lord Herbert, to the Parliament.”
This was succeeded, on Wednesday, the 21st of May, 1651,[A] by an
inquiry into the state of the case of the Lord Herbert of Raglan,
reported as follows:--
“Manors and lordships of Tidenham in the county of Gloucester; Chepstow
Barton, and Hardwick Chepstow, Burgus, and Frythwood, in the county of
Monmouth; the seigniory of Gower in the county of Glamorgan; by force
of two several indentures, one of them dated 3º Junii, 3º Caroli, the
other dated 10º Novembris, 1631, for good and valuable considerations,
in the said indentures mentioned, were settled upon the Earl of
Worcester, for and during his life only; the remainder thereof to
the said Lord Herbert, and the heirs male of his body; with divers
remainders over; which said lordships and manors are, by Act of this
present Parliament, settled upon the Lord General Cromwell and his
heirs; and are of the yearly value of one thousand seven hundred and
seven pounds, fifteen shillings and two pence.
“And that the manors of Monmouth, Wisham, Pelleny, Purcasseck,
Trellacks Grange, the demesnes of Grosmond, Skewfreth, and Monmouth,
Bettus, and Per Lloyd, in the county of Monmouth, the manor of
Crookham in the county of Berks, the manor of Kendall in the county
of Westmorland, the manor of Shopden in the county of Hereford, by
force of several conveyances thereof made, are settled upon the Earl
of Worcester, and the heirs males of his body; with divers remainders
over; all which said manors and lands are forfeited, for treason of the
said Earl; and are in the power of the Parliament, to settle or dispose
of; and are of the yearly value of one thousand seven hundred pounds,
twelve shillings and sixpence.
MONMOUTHSHIRE.
£. _s._ _d._
The manors of Monmouth and Wyesham 186 0 10
The manor of Pellenny 38 18 0
The manors of Purcasseck, and Trellecks Grange 443 0 8
The demesnes of Grosmont, Skenseth, and Monmouth 160 0 0
Bettus and Per Lloyd 110 0 0
BERKS.
The manor of Crookham 392 6 10
WESTMORLAND.
The manor of Kendal 220 6 6
HEREFORD.
The manor of Shobdon 150 0 0
-------------
Sum £1700 12 10
=============
“Lands disposed of by the Parliament to my Lord General Cromwell, and
entailed on my Lord Herbert:--
GLOUCESTER.
£. _s._ _d._
The lordship of Tyddenham 356 3 11
MONMOUTHSHIRE.
The lordships of Chepstow Barton, and Hardwick 510 1 10
Chepstow Burgus 68 13 8
Frithwood, near unto Chepstow, conceived to be
equivalent to £100 per annum 100 0 0
GLAMORGANSHIRE.
The seigniory of Gower 672 15 9
-------------
Sum £1707 5 2
=============
“The question being put, That the House do take into debate the
business of delinquency, concerning the Lord Herbert of Raglan.
“It passed with the negative.
“Resolved, That it be sent back to the Commissioners for compounding,
to proceed touching the point of delinquency charged on the Lord
Herbert of Raglan; and give judgment therein; and to report their
judgment, and the grounds of it, to the Parliament, forthwith.”
Again, on Thursday, the 30th of October, 1651.[57]
“The humble Petition of Henry, Lord Herbert, of Raglan, was this day
read.
“Ordered, That this Petition be referred to the former Committee,
touching the Lord Herbert, to consider of this business; and if they
find the Petitioner hath just title to the land, to present some lands
to the Parliament for the Petitioner’s satisfaction, in consideration
thereof.
“Ordered, That it be referred to the same Committee, to consider of
the lands settled upon Mr. Peters, to which the Lady Anne Somerset
maketh title; and if they find her title thereunto to be just, that
then the said Committee do present some other lands to be settled upon
the said Lady, in lieu and satisfaction of her title to those lands.”
And on Friday, the 9th of January, 1651–2.[B]
“Mr. Say reports from the Committee, to whom the business touching
the Lord Herbert of Raglan was referred, several resolutions of that
Committee, as followeth:--
“Resolved, That the houses and lands conveyed by Act of Parliament
unto Mr. Pennoyer and Mr. Hill, were, by indenture, dated 3º Caroli,
conveyed by Edward, then Earl of Worcester, unto the Petitioner and his
heirs, after the decease of Edward, now Earl of Worcester, who is but
tenant for life thereof.
“Resolved, That the yearly value of the said houses and lands are, and
were, before the beginning of these wars, £786.
“Resolved, That it be humbly presented to the Parliament, as the
opinion of this Committee, That the several manors and lands, the
inheritance whereof is by this present Parliament settled upon the
Petitioner and his heirs, and are of the yearly value of £1700; that
the present possession thereof be granted unto the Petitioner, he
paying to the trustees for sale of delinquents’ lands, the sum of £800.
“Resolved, That it be presented to the Parliament, as the opinion
of this Committee, that the trustees and contractors for sale of
delinquents’ lands, do convey the said manors and lands to the said
Petitioner, during the life of Edward, Earl of Worcester; the said
Petitioner paying to them therefore the said sum of £800.
“Resolved, by the Parliament, That in satisfaction and discharge of
the title and claim of the Lord Herbert of Raglan unto the houses and
lands settled by ordinance of Parliament on Mr. Pennoyer and Mr. Hill,
the trustees for sale of several lands and estates forfeited to the
Commonwealth for treason, be authorized and required to convey unto
the said Lord Herbert of Raglan, and his assigns, all the manors and
lands, the inheritance whereof is, by this present Parliament, by an
Act, intituled, An Act for Sale of several Lands and Estates forfeited
to the Commonwealth for Treason, settled on the said Lord Herbert,
and his heirs, during the life of Edward, Earl of Worcester; the said
Lord Herbert paying for the same, to the Treasurers of the receipt,
the sum of £800. And that the present possession of the said manors
and lands be thereupon delivered unto the said Lord Herbert: And that
the Commissioners for compounding be authorized and required, upon
a certificate of the said Treasurers, to take off the sequestration
thereof.”
The Marquis’s two daughters were, like their mother-in-law,
petitioners to Parliament for the restoration of their rights in their
proportionate share of their father’s property. On the 17th of March,
1647, after other business before the House of Commons, “The humble
petition of Anne and Elizabeth, daughters of Edward, Earl of Worcester,
was read.” And it was ordered, “That this petition be referred to the
consideration of the Committee, where Mr. Wheeler has the chair.”
On the 9th of July, 1649, after a lapse of two years and a quarter,
this matter was again before the House, when, “The humble petition of
the Ladies Anne and Elizabeth, daughters of the Earl of Worcester, was
read:--
“Whereas, according to an order of the Committee of Lords and Commons
for sequestrations, of the 17th of March, 1646, the Committees of
Monmouth, Brecknock, Glamorgan, Gloucester, and Berks, have sent out,
and assigned, unto the Petitioners, a fifth part of their father’s
estate in those counties, towards their respective maintenance: It is
ordered by the Commons assembled in Parliament, That the Petitioners
shall have and receive the profits of the said fifth part, so allotted
unto them, from the time of their demand, according to the said order
of the Lords and Commons, until this House take further order: And
the several Committees of the said counties are hereby authorized
and required forthwith to pay the same, or permit the Petitioners to
receive the same accordingly.”[57]
The period from the surrender of Raglan Castle in August, 1646, down
to the close of 1651, extending over five years, must have been one of
the most galling and trying nature to the Marquis of Worcester. From a
state of ease and affluence he was suddenly plunged into a condition
the most mortifying possible to a noble and independent mind; without
any other than the barren consolation that his Prince, the Court, and
men of all ranks shared a similar fate. He did not stand alone, a
monument of ruin amidst plenty. In September, 1649, Charles the Second
had quitted the Continent for Jersey, and the next year he arrived
in Scotland; in 1651, his romantic career in England terminated, and
in November he was once more in France, without credit, as Clarendon
asserts, to borrow twenty pistoles.
The Marquis’s extensive property in Middlesex and in Wales enabled the
Government to discharge many heavy claims; but among its claimants,
its very good friends, its warmest and most needful supporters had
first to be considered; while charitable acts, and the asserted claims
of persons related to recusants, and persons specially proscribed by
Parliament, and all who were even remotely related to them would have
to submit to long delays and hard wrung submissions, when the object
was to obtain the least assistance from an already depressed treasury.
That the Marquis’s wife and family received any assistance whatever,
through appeals to the Commonwealth Parliament, is significant of the
high estimation in which he himself must have been held, simply for
his moral worth, and his not overstrained political bias: marking his
acts with extreme humanity in war, and good sense in avoiding the risk
of launching into any of those extraordinary measures, for which the
late King had granted him the ample powers already considered. Indeed
the Nuncio,[C] as early as 1646, had correctly estimated his Lordship’s
character, designating him “an Englishman of a very mild temper.”
Footnotes
[57] Jo. H. C. Vol. vi. p. 565.
[A] Page 577. The same inquiry also supplied an interesting
notice of Lord Herbert’s early life.
[57] Jo. H. C. Vol. vii. p. 33.
[B] Page 67.
[57] Jo. H. C. Vol. v. p. 504; vi. p. 256.
[C] See page 182.