HIS PROSPECTS AT THE PERIOD OF THE RESTORATION--PROCEEDINGS
IN PARLIAMENT RESPECTING THE PATENT TO CREATE HIM DUKE OF
SOMERSET--RECOVERY OF ESTATES, ETC.--PARLIAMENTARY DUTIES.
Charles the Second was only thirty years of age when he ascended
the throne, the Marquis was verging on sixty. Charles, gay, lively,
accomplished, and fascinating in his manners, well knew from bitter
experience the pain of leading a courtly life on straitened means; and
the Marquis had been too closely associated with him on the continent,
not to be aware of his exact position then, and his now brilliant
change of circumstances. The Marquis of Worcester too, was one of those
happily constituted men who do not grow misanthropic on every fresh
instance of the world’s ingratitude. His own nobleness and goodness
of heart found a thousand excuses for the cold, callous, calculating
society around him; and with his enlarged views, and greatness and
purity of mind, he never despaired that the day would arrive, when he
should be able to move at least in ease, if not in plenty. As regarded
his Majesty, he enjoyed the fullest confidence in his behaving towards
him with more than ordinary consideration; he might not be able to be
magnificent, but at the very least he dared not to doubt that the word
of the King would be realized, who had written to inform him[A]--“I
am truly sensible of your great merit and sufferings in the service
of the King my father, and _I never shall be wanting_ to reward and
encourage as well that kindness to his person as that zeal to his
service which you have expressed in all your actions.” But he was then
only nineteen years of age, unseared by the eleven years of profligacy,
the expiration of which found him on the throne of his ancestors.
The Marquis’s political position had been unpopular, making him many
enemies, which even altered times could not wholly obliterate. It was
not merely a question whether he was justified in acting in concert
with the late King, but it was manifestly imprudent and unwise, to say
the least, his becoming the champion of his church in so dangerous an
enterprise as that in which he engaged in Ireland. Consequently he
found comparatively few who sincerely sympathised in his sufferings,
amidst the crowd of suffering humanity distinguishing those unhappy
times.
On the 9th of May, 1660, being the day after the King’s proclamation,
the House of Lords had before them a petition from the Marchioness of
Worcester,[B] the subject of which was strange enough, being no other
than to complain “That Colonel Christopher Copley, doth undermine
Worcester House.” Wherefore it was ordered, “That stop be made to
further proceedings therein.”
His Lordship early solicited the kind offices of Lord Clarendon,
offering him gratuitously the use of his mansion in the Strand.[26] He
says:--
“MY LORD CHANCELLOR,
“The world speaks you to be a person of honour, and I know your
Lordship to be so, and that if you say the word your Lordship will
make good the same. My humble suit, therefore, to your Lordship is,
but to tell me freely whether you will be my friend in all things
honourable, just, and fitting; and when I ask of your Lordship anything
contrary to either of these, then do not only deny it me, but spit in
my face, having afforded me only patience first to give you my reasons.
“Nothing, I am confident, can set an obstacle to your Lordship’s
granting me this reasonable request, but an apprehension of the
obnoxiousness of my religion, as for that, such are my abilities to
serve not only my Prince but the whole kingdom, that when once known in
Parliament, and his Majesty looking but as favourably upon me as the
tenth part of my deserts (pardon me if I say so) doth require, I will
undertake, within few days, there shall be a vote in the very House
of Commons to make me capable of any service whereof I may be thought
worthy. Another Remora doth perhaps forcibly lie in the way, which is
my son the Lord Herbert’s underhand working by false suggestions; but I
shall soon blow them over. In a word, if your Lordship please to accept
of me, I am the most real and affectionate servant, and as a little
token of it, be pleased to accept of Worcester House to live in, far
more commodious for your Lordship than where you now are, though not in
so good reparation; but such as it is, without requiring from you one
penny rent (yet that only known between your Lordship and me). It is
during my life at your service, for I am but a tenant in tail; but were
my interest longer, it should be as readily at your Lordship’s command,
and I believe I may serve you in some things of ten times the value;
yet I never desire word or deed from your Lordship other than according
to what I first began with. Be but pleased to deal plainly with me,
and I desire to show your Lordship in the King’s presence or ... if you
please, what I intend to produce or say, having had a dearly bought
experience what it is to trust to Princes alone. So preventing your
Lordship further trouble, and asking pardon for what I have put your
Lordship unto, I only desire to receive a verbal answer by this most
deserving person, Mr. White, my ancient acquaintance, into whose hands
I would deposit the greatest imaginable treasures untold, and intrust
the greatest secrets, without other tie than his acceptance of them.
“My Lord,
“your Lordship’s,
“Most really affectionate and humble servant,
“WORCESTER.
“June 9th, 1660.
“For the Right Honourable the LORD CHANCELLOR, present these.”[C]
It is painful to find the Marquis of Worcester compelled by the
theological tendencies of that age, to allude in his letter to “the
obnoxiousness of his religion.” But it is in just accordance with all
that we have seen of his progress through life, his “having had a
dearly bought experience what it is to trust to _princes alone_,”--that
is, without witnesses or other sufficient legal evidence. This last
observation is called forth by his “desire to show” Clarendon, as he
states--“what I intend to produce or say.” This might possibly have
reference to his long written statement of his losses, amounting to
£918,000, intended for the King’s inspection, if not also to form
the basis of an address to the House of Lords, as given in the last
chapter. If this surmise is correct, it would clearly establish how
severely pressing were his pecuniary affairs, the King having then only
been eleven days at Whitehall; so early, would it seem, was he a suitor
for the royal favour.
The House, on the 20th of June,[D] upon the reading of the Marquis’s
Petition, “That he hath been dispossessed of his estate in the late
unhappy wars, and hath undergone many pressures in the same,”--ordered,
“That he be put into possession of his estate, which is not sold; and
a stop and stay of waste, and cutting wood upon his land sold; and the
rents to be stayed in the tenants’ hands; and to have a view of the
writings and evidences which concern him, which are in the custody of
the trustees at Drury Lane.”
And further, on the 11th of September,[E] the said order was ratified
and confirmed, with the exception that, it was not to “extend to any
manors or lands sold unto or enjoyed by Henry Lord Herbert, son and
heir apparent of the said Marquis.”
But previously, on the 9th of July,[F] the House of Lords, “Upon
information given, That Elizabeth Cromwell, widow, the relict of
Oliver Cromwell; Richard Cromwell, Esquire; and Henry Lord Herbert,
have many deeds, evidences, and writings belonging to the Lord Marquis
of Worcester,”--it was ordered that “all such deeds, evidences,
conveyances, court-rolls, surveys, patents, fines, recoveries, rentals,
plates, papers, memorials, and writings, whatsoever,” in their hands,
should be delivered up unto his Lordship.
Among other purchasers of his estates under the authority in power, in
1651, was one Ann Tisser, a widow, whose husband had become possessed
of the Gatehouse attached to Worcester House. On the 27th of July the
House had ordered possession to be given up, but Ann Tisser refusing,
another order was issued on the 20th of August, requiring possession
within two days, but with no better effect; so, on the 29th, the
refractory widow “was brought to the Bar, to hear what she can say, why
she does not deliver up the Gatehouse.” To which she answered, “She
bought it of the trustees that did sell the Marquis of Worcester’s
lands in 1651.” Her plea, however, was only met by the House directing
the Lord Chancellor to inform her, “That the House expected that she
should deliver up the said Gatehouse forthwith; or else she must
expect to undergo the displeasure of the House, for contempt of their
Lordships’ order.” Three days were allowed her to obey this mandate,
and as we hear no further account of Ann Tisser, she, like many others
in the same pitiable plight, was doubtless speedily ejected.
In August, 1660, the House of Lords[G] discussed the subject of his
Patent creating him Duke of Somerset, declared to be in prejudice
to the Peers; and therefore the following particulars will prove
interesting, taken in connexion with the copy of this Patent given at
page 162.
On the 18th of August, “upon information to the House, by the Marquis
of Hertford, that a patent is granted to the Marquis of Worcester,
which is a prejudice to the Peers:--
“It is Ordered, That the consideration of the said Patent is referred
to the consideration of these Lords following:--
D. of Gloucester.
Marq. of Winton.
Marq. of Dorchester.
L. Steward.
Comes South’ton.
L. Chamberlain.
L. Great Chamberlain.
Comes Derby.
Comes Portland.
Comes Peterborough.
Comes Bolingbrooke.
Comes Bristol.
Comes Devon.
Comes Winchilsea.
Comes Dorset.
Comes Scarsdale.
Comes Berks.
Comes Rivers.
Viscount Stafford.
Viscount Paget.
Viscount Fynch.
Viscount Lucas.
Viscount Arundel.
Viscount Robertes.
Viscount Seymour.
Viscount Mohun.
Viscount Wharton.
Vis. Howard de Charlt.
Viscount Tenham.
“Their Lordships, or any five, to meet on Monday next, in the
afternoon, at 3 of the clock; and to have power to send for such
persons as they think fit, to give them information concerning this
business; and to send for the Patent.”
On the 20th of August, it was ordered, “That the Lord Chancellor and
Mr. Attorney General do attend the Lords Committee, which are to meet
this afternoon, to advise them, in point of law, concerning the Marquis
of Worcester’s Patent.”[H] Then on the 23rd of August, the Marquis of
Dorchester reports from the Committee, “That the Marquis of Worcester
confessed to their Lordships, that a Patent was made, and left in
his hands, by the King, to create him Duke of Somerset, upon certain
conditions, which never yet were performed; that he made no use of it;
that the said Patent is in the hands of his son the Lord Herbert; and
his Lordship is willing to deliver it up to his Majesty.”
A message was sent to the House of Commons, by Justice Tyrrell and
Justice Turner:
“To let them know, that the Marquis of Worcester hath acknowledged that
the Patent of the Dukedom of Somerset was made to him upon conditions
on his part to be performed, which he hath not performed; and that
therefore he hath not assumed the place or title, and is willing to
submit it to be surrendered, or otherwise disposed, as the King should
appoint; but that it is in the hands of his son the Lord Herbert, who
is a member of the House of Commons; and therefore to desire that the
Lord Herbert may deliver it up to the Marquis of Worcester.”[I] Then it
was on the--
1st of September, “Ordered, That the Committee formerly appointed to
examine the business concerning the Marquis of Worcester’s patent do
meet on Monday next, in the afternoon, peremptorily: And these Lords
following are added to that Committee:--
Comes Bristol.
Comes Bridgwater.
Comes Clare.
Viscount Montagu.
Viscount Maynard.
Viscount Petre.
Viscount Culpepper.
Viscount Clifford.
Viscount Craven.
“The Marquis of Worcester is to have notice hereof; and if his Lordship
be not present in the House on Monday morning, then witnesses are to be
examined upon oath in the business, by the Committee.”[J]
On the 1st of September it was “Ordered, That the said Committee do
meet on Monday next in the Prince’s lodgings;” but in repeating the
names the Earl of Bristol was omitted.
On the 3rd of September, the Lord Arundel of Warder signified to the
House, “That the Marquis of Worcester hath delivered up the patent to
his Majesty, for the Dukedom of Somerset.” When it was--
“Ordered, That the same Committee prepare a Bill, that all patents and
grants obtained since the beginning of the late wars shall be brought
within a short time to be limited, or else the same to be vacated.”
In consequence of this order, on the 5th of September, Lord Roberts
reported the Draught of a Bill for bringing in of grants and patents,
which was twice read and committed; and being read a third time on the
6th, it was duly passed.
It is very humiliating to find the Marquis of Worcester stripped, not
only of his great wealth, but of even empty titles; and this latter act
not by professed enemies, but through his peers conjointly with his
very sovereign! There is something so utterly contemptible in the whole
proceedings, which deprive without substitution, and sap the wealth of
any man without an adequate effort at remedial measures, that we feel
perplexed how to account for treatment so heartless and discreditable;
whether considered in reference to Charles the First, or his son and
successor, or the reformed Parliament. In all the relations of private
life the conduct of Charles the First was as commendable as that of
his son was reprehensible; and if Charles the Second had viewed the
Marquis’s case only in respect to his father’s private debts, he must
have felt bound in honour and in common gratitude to assist and uphold
the Marquis of Worcester in every way and by every means consistent
with existing circumstances. It is true that his property was restored
along with the very deeds held by Cromwell, but his Castle was an
untenantable ruin, and his estates denuded of their wood; so that
without fortune, and in debt, his possessions were almost valueless.
Besides, the Marquis was remarkably modest and fastidiously considerate
in all he urged; yet he sought royal patronage in vain, for the gay
monarch was not to be won from his levity by the philosopher’s most
plausible petitions.
On the 14th of December, 1661, Lord Herbert and other members brought
a message to the Lords, with several Bills, one being “An Act for
confirming the Marquis of Hertford to the Dukedom of Somerset,” which
had passed the House of Commons; and on the 17th, having then been read
a third time, it also passed the House of Lords.
As Courthope[70] observes, although the Marquis of Worcester thus
resigned his claim on the Dukedom of Somerset he still retained the
titles of Earl of Glamorgan and Baron Beaufort, as will be seen
hereafter in the copy given of his funeral certificate.
The Marquis seems to have attended the House of Lords for the first
time after the Restoration, on the 13th of June, 1660, continuing
very regularly for some months. The only others of his rank were the
Marquises of Winton, Hertford, Dorchester, and Newcastle, and later,
the Marquis of Winchester, seldom more than one or two of these being
present on the same occasion. Between this date and the 30th of August,
he sat in the House on thirty-seven days. Then after an absence of more
than two months he is again present on the 6th of November, from which
to the 24th of December he attended twenty-five meetings, the King
being in the chair on the last occasion. He was not again in his place
until the 29th, when his Majesty in person adjourned the House; which,
meeting again on the 8th of May, “his Majesty, being arrayed in his
regal robes with his crown on his head, ascended his seat of state,
the Peers being in their robes. On the right hand of his Majesty stood
the Lord Great Chamberlain of England, the Marquis of Winton, bearing
the cap of state, and on his left hand stood the Earl of Brecknock,
Lord Steward of his Majesty’s household, bearing the sword.
“And the Commons being below the bar, his Majesty made a short speech,
declaring the cause and the reasons for his summoning this present
Parliament.”
In all this august assembly the Marquis of Worcester, robed as were
the other Peers, claims our special notice. He sat there in strange
contrast with that gorgeous company, and the formalities which marked
every process of action or language. Was it possible for him to be too
expectant, seeing what he then saw and hearing what he then heard? Here
was one who was no obscure individual, no questionable professor, or
undeserved claimant on the patronage and smallest available favours
often solicited by him from the crowned monarch in whose presence he
then sat.
We again miss his attendance until the 11th of May, and the 8th of
June, from which time he attended twenty-nine meetings, the last being
on the 30th July, when his Majesty in person adjourned the House, and
again recalled it on the 20th November, when the Marquis was present,
as before.
He again attended in his place on the 26th of November, 1661, from
which time to the 17th of May, when Parliament was prorogued, until
the 18th of February, 1662, he attended thirty-two meetings with much
irregularity, being on one occasion absent for above a month; and he
did not appear on the re-opening of Parliament, when the House being
called, he was declared absent; wherefore, it would seem he attended on
the next meeting of the House, on the 25th of the same month, when he
was elected one of a Committee to report on Petitions, occasioning his
further more regular attendance.
These particulars satisfactorily show his residence in or near London,
while they likewise account for the nature of a large share of the
employments that then engaged his active mind. But a change in the
Government had brought him little if any alleviation in a pecuniary
point of view, for on the 2nd of July, 1661, his petition was read in
the House of Peers,[K] showing “That he having contracted many debts in
the service of his late Majesty’s wars, and some of his creditors have
obtained judgments against his estate, and are now extending his lands,
being contrary to the privilege of Parliament, he being a Peer of this
Realm.
“It is Ordered, That there shall be no further proceedings, by any of
the Marquis of Worcester’s said creditors, against him, during the time
of the privilege of this Parliament: And hereof all counsel, attornies,
and solicitors herein employed, or to be employed, are to take notice,
and yield obedience to this Order, as the contrary will be answered to
this House.”
And as affecting his property, on the 7th of August, 1660, he had
leave granted him by the House to bring in a Bill,[L] “for restoring
him to his estate, as other Lords have.” Accordingly, on the 13th of
that month an Act for the same was read. But in consequence of the
petitions of certain creditors, his Lordship had leave granted him on
the 28th of February, 1661–2, to withdraw his Bill; and on the 10th of
March following he brought forward an amended Bill, entitled--“An Act
on the behalf of Edward, Marquis of Worcester, and of the creditors
of the said Marquis, for vesting and settling upon the feoffees, in
trust, certain manors, lands, and tenements, for payment of the debts
of the said Marquis.” In fact, the estates were heavily encumbered,
the petitioners, among others, alleging, that “They have bought lands
and houses of the Marquis of Worcester, for which they have as good
assurances as the law can give;” and being heard by counsel at the bar
of the House, they succeeded in their object, as just stated.
It was in the midst of such distractions as these Parliamentary details
serve to illustrate, that this talented inventor and noble benefactor
to his species, had to maintain his social position; and at the same
time, struggle to convince a bigoted age that he was master of a power
of such magnitude for the abridging of human labour, as the mind of man
had never before conceived.
Footnotes
[A] See page 190.
[B] Jo. H. of Lords, Vol. xi. p. 19.
[26] Clarendon.
[C] The Lord Chancellor was at this time occupying Dorset
House, in Salisbury Court, once the residence of the Bishops of
Salisbury, one of whom alienated it to the Sackville family.
Notwithstanding this offer (free of rent), it is stated by Lord
Clarendon, that he paid for Worcester House a yearly rent of £500.
(T. H. Lister’s Life of Edward, first Earl of Clarendon.)
[D] Jo. H. of Lords, Vol. xi. pages 70 and 302.
[E] Ibid. Vol. xi.
[F] Ibid. p. 85.
[G] Jo. H. of Lords, Vol. xi. p. 133.
[H] Jo. H. of Lords, Vol. xi. p. 135.
[I] Jo. H. of Lords, 1660. 12 Car. II.
[J] Ibid. p. 152.
[70] Nicholas.
[K] Jo. H. of Lords, Vol. xi. p. 296.
[L] Ibid, pages 119, 125, 149, 150, 348, 386, 393, 395.