ever bore the designation of Florus; but it is undoubtedly proved by
Bouchet and others that the said Peter married a daughter of Reginald de
Courtenay, and enjoying her possessions, called himself by the title of
her seigneurie. It is also fairly assured that the offspring of this
noble couple did not number among them any son of the name of Reginald,
and the preponderance of authority seems to show that the Reginald,
friend of Queen Alienore of Aquitaine, who, being divorced from King
Louis, afterwards married Henry of England, was probably the father of
that Elizabeth de Courtenay who became allied with the Royal family of
France.
On many occasions a de Courtenay is mentioned as accompanying Henry on
his travels; and in the year 1167, Roger de Hoveden records that
“Reginald de Curteney” witnessed a treaty of peace between Henry II. of
England and Roderick, King of Connaught.
For services rendered to the State, Henry, in exercise of his
prerogative, gave as wards to Reginald de Courtenay, probably the one
aforesaid, the two daughters of Matilda, herself daughter of Randolph
Avenel.
Reginald immediately married the elder, Hawise, and bestowed her
half-sister, Maude, on a William de Courtenay, possibly his son,
probably, as Cleveland thinks, his brother.
Hawise, as sole heiress to her father, Robert d’Abrincis, and descended
from Baldwin de Brionis, a valorous Norman knight, inherited large
estates in the West of England—the Barony of Okehampton, the Shrievalty
of Devonshire, the custody of the Castle of Exeter, and the title of
Vicecomes or Viscount; both dignities and land, as was the custom in
those days, being enjoyed, “jure uxoris,” by her husband, Reginald de
Courtenay, passed to the child of their marriage, Robert, who still
further augmented the position of the family by marrying in his turn
Mary, younger daughter of William de Redvers or Rivers, sixth Earl of
Devon, through whom the House of Courtenay finally obtained the title
which they retain to this day.
The policy of Henry III. deprived Robert de Courtenay of the Viscounty
of Devon and the custody of Exeter Castle, but the Barony of Okehampton
still remained in the line, being successively held by John and Henry,
son and grandson of the said Robert.
In 1262, by the failure of heirs male, Isabella, daughter of Baldwin,
seventh Earl, and his wife, Amicia, became Countess of Devonshire. This
masterful lady married William de Fortibus, Earl of Albemarle, and,
surviving her husband and children for more than thirty years, exercised
despotic sway over the wide domains belonging to her. She erected a weir
across the River Exe, even now called Countess Weir, for the benefit, as
she declared, of her mills situated on both banks, though the citizens
of Exeter were of different opinion, and on their oaths did aver that
the Countess had “made a great Purpresture or Nusance ... to the
Annoyance, Hurt and Damage of the said City.”
At her death, in 1292, the Earldom of Devon reverted to Sir Hugh
Courtenay, second of the name, Baron of Okehampton, through his
great-grandmother, Mary de Rivers, daughter of William de Ripariis,
Redvers or Rivers, sixth Earl.
Some forty years after the death of his predecessor, Sir Hugh was
summoned by writ, without any further creation, to take his seat as
Earl, but before then he participated in many Parliaments as a Baron,
both Stowe and Holinshed alleging that he was one of the two Lords of
that rank who carried a solemn message to King Edward II., demanding
from him the abdication of the throne.
Chiefly by means of judicious matrimonial alliances, the first members
of the English Courtenays added largely to their rank and possessions.
Following the good example, Hugh, third of the name and second Earl,
wedded, in 1325, Margaret, daughter of Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of
Hereford, Lord High Constable of England, by her obtaining that appanage
associated so intimately with the Courtenay name as known in their own
county, the beautiful castle and demesne of Powderham. Earl Hugh
assigned this residence and estate to his younger son, Philip, from whom
is descended the present branch of the family.
High in rank, possessed of great territory, honoured in the council,
foremost in the fray, for a hundred and fifty years the Courtenays of
Devon occupied a great place in English history. They took part in the
battles of Halidon Hill, Creçy, the siege of Rouen, the triumphal entry
into Paris; as Admirals of the West, repelled invasion; as Governors of
the County, exercised extensive jurisdiction; and in their just pride of
station, contended with the Earls of Arundel as to who should take
precedence as premier Peer in the degree which they held.
Their functions, when acting as rulers of the county, were varied, for
it is stated that in 1383 a command was issued to them by the King,
ordering the punishment of “certain malefactors and troublers of our
peace ... come lately to Topsham and by force of arms have taken Peter
Hill, a certain messenger of the Venerable Father, William, Archbishop
of Canterbury, and with no small cruelty and threatening compelled him
to eat the wax of a certain seal of the said Archbishop.”
This William, son of Hugh, second Earl, at first Bishop of London,
afterwards raised to the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury, possessed so
fully the hereditary courage of his opinions that he not only resolutely
opposed the weighty influence of the Duke of Lancaster and Lord Percy of
Northumberland, when exercised by them in favour of John Wicliffe, but
also as Adam, Archdeacon of Usk, pathetically declares: “Eciam a facie
istius regis Ricardi, ille vir perfectissimus Willelmus Cantuariensis
Archiepiscopus quia hujus modi taxe resistere volens.” The strength of
the superlative epithet is justified by the said tax having been levied
solely against the clergy.
But the prosperity of the Courtenays, as of most other noble families in
England, was rudely disturbed by the outbreak of civil strife—the Wars
of the Roses. Supporting strongly the House of Lancaster, they shared in
undue proportions the calamities which befel that party, three
successive Earls of Devon, the sons of Thomas, fifth in title, giving
their lives for the cause they supported. Thomas, the elder of the
three, taken at Towton, was soon after executed, as historians say, to
appease the ghost of the Duke of York. A few years later, Henry, his
brother, met the same fate; while John, the youngest, fell in the
disastrous battle of Tewkesbury, the great estates of the family being
escheated by the King.
Yet once more, with the triumph of Henry VII., the fortunes of the
ancient house revived. The King annulled the attainder and restored the
ancestral domains to the faithful noble who had followed him into exile
and fought by his side at Bosworth Field, subsequently sanctioning also
the marriage of the eldest son, Sir William Courtenay, with Katherine,
the younger daughter of the late King Edward IV.; though this royal
alliance, as was often the case in such connections, only led to
suspicion on the part of the reigning monarch and calamity to the
aspiring bridegroom.
In the succeeding reign, Henry, the child of this marriage, stood high
in the favour of the monarch. As the boon companion of his cousin the
King, he tilted with him at Greenwich; as his brother-in-arms, he fought
at the Battle of the Spurs; in the office of Lord High Steward, he
presided over the trial of those persons who had fallen under the Royal
displeasure; and finally the honour of a Marquisate was bestowed, and
Henry, seventh Earl of Devon, became the first Marquis of Exeter.
But the friendship of Henry VIII. was almost as deadly as his enmity.
Accused of treason, neither personal virtues nor high connections
availed anything, and so the Marquis of Exeter was arrested, tried, and
executed. Hume, in this connection, remarks: “We know little concerning
the justice or iniquity of the sentence pronounced against these men: we
only know that the condemnation of a man who was at that time prosecuted
by the court forms no presumption of his guilt”; but with characteristic
ambiguity he continues: “Though ... we may presume that sufficient
evidence was produced against the Marquis of Exeter and his associates.”
In the light of present knowledge, it is not difficult to conjecture the
causes of this unfortunate nobleman’s downfall. There were two actions
Henry VIII. never forgave: Failure to obey his wishes, tantamount to
disobedience to his commands; and friendship, or even tolerance, towards
those whom he chose to consider his enemies.
There is little doubt that Henry Courtenay committed the former as well
as the latter form of “lèse majesté.” A letter from Sir Thomas More to
Cardinal Wolsey is still extant, in which he writes:—“And as touching
the ouverture made by my Lord Shevers for the marriage of my Lord of
Devonshire the King is well content and as me seemyth very glad of the
motion, wherein he requireth your Grace that it may lyke you to call my
Lord of Devonshire to your Grace and to advise him secretly to forbere
any further treate of marriage with my Lord Mountjoy.”
Now, in 1526, Henry, Marquis of Exeter, married, as his second wife,
Gertrude, daughter of Lord Mountjoy, as this letter shows in opposition
to the wishes of the King; and although, truly, the matter cannot in any
way be considered of importance, yet the fact that the lady was a strong
supporter of the ancient Church, taken in conjunction with the jealousy
obviously shown by Henry towards the power and authority exercised in
the West Country by all who bore the Courtenay name, may well have had
an influence over the fate of the unfortunate nobleman.
The actual charge, in the State Trial, alleged complicity with the
designs of Cardinal Pole and a desire to deprive the King of his
prerogatives. At this period of his reign, the one great object of
Henry’s life was to assert his supremacy over the English Church—that
church in whose services and welfare he showed such deep interest, not
only by the extreme frequency with which he celebrated the marriage
ceremony, but also by the tenacious affection he displayed for her
temporal possessions.
Reginald Pole, at one time Dean of Exeter, born of a royal stock, allied
with many noble English houses, a Cardinal, and deep in the councils of
the Pope, was an unsparing opponent of Henry’s aspirations; so if, as
Burnet says, “There were very severe invectives printed at Rome against
King Henry, in which there were nothing omitted which could make him
appear as the blackest of tyrants, ... and Cardinal Pole’s style was
known in some of them,” even a kindly expression, much less a spirit of
friendliness towards the author of these attacks would be amply
sufficient to draw on anyone, be he gentle or simple, the wrath of
Henry, who “never spared man in his anger, or woman in his lust.”
Therefore, as Wriothesley, in his Chronicle, relates: “The third of the
same month, the Lord Henry Courtney, Marquis of Exceter and Earle of
Devonshire, and the Kinge’s neare kinsman, was arraigned at Westminster
Hall ... and there condempned to death, for treason against the Kinge by
the counsaille of Raynold Poole, Cardinall ... which pretended to have
enhaunsed the Bishop of Rome’s usurped authority againe, lyke traitors
to God and their Prince.”
The same strain of royal blood, breeding jealousy and mistrust, which
had caused the imprisonment of the grandfather and the death of the
father, inflicted also heavy penalties on the son. Edward, only child of
Henry and Gertrude Courtenay, though but twelve years old at the date of
his father’s execution, was then committed to the Tower, and there
remained close prisoner for fifteen years.
Released by Mary on her first regal entry into London, restored to his
hereditary titles and property, endowed, moreover, with ample bodily and
many mental charms, the youthful Earl of Devonshire rapidly rose into
favour, and at one time was even considered as a fitting aspirant for
the hand of the Queen.
But to a young man of twenty-seven, the greater part of whose life had
been spent amid the gloom and seclusion of a State prison, with only
such amusements as the translation of Italian theological treatises
could afford, or other similar exercises, whether physical or mental, as
the gaoler would allow, the freedom of the outer world presented greater
temptations than his untrained nature could resist. Yielding to the
dissipations of the court and, so ’tis said, the more sordid pleasures
of the town, Edward Courtenay sacrificed to the enjoyment of the moment
the opportunities which were offered him of gratifying splendid
ambitions, and, too high placed to be disregarded, became, as his
progenitors before him, an object of mistrust and suspicion to the
occupant of the throne.
This unfortunate youth has been accused not only of ingratitude to his
royal benefactress by making secret advances to her sister, the Princess
Elizabeth, but also of the serious offence of disloyalty and treason
towards the monarch. But though, indeed, he may have committed the
former mistake, a critical examination of the evidence produced clears
him of knowing and wilful participation in any of the serious plots
which the proposed marriage of the Queen with Philip of Spain had
aroused among her subjects. Sir Thomas Wyat unreservedly absolved
Courtenay from all knowledge of his rising, and the leniency with which
Mary, little given to clemency, extended towards the Earl shows that
she, at least, believed in his innocence.
Probably the truest aspect of the case is shown by Burnet, who declares,
when writing of the harsh treatment dealt to Elizabeth by her royal
sister: “Others suggest a more secret reason for this dispute. The new
Earl of Devonshire was much in the Queen’s favour, so that it was
thought that she had some inclination to marry him, but he, either not
presuming so high or having an aversion to her and an inclination to her
sister, who of that moderate share of beauty which was between them had
much the better of her and was nineteen years younger, made his
addresses with more than ordinary concern to the Lady Elizabeth, and
this did bring them both into trouble.”
[Illustration
_From the original portrait by Sir Antonio More, at
Woburn._] [_Engraved by T. Chambars._
EDWARD COURTENAY, EARL OF DEVONSHIRE.
]
It is plain enough that this young man, little older and assuredly not
more experienced than a boy, was a tool in the hands of those astute
intriguers, de Noailles and Simon Renard, the French and Spanish
ambassadors. The one, strenuously opposing the Spanish marriage, the
other, equally determined in his advocacy of the alliance, united in
using the innocent Earl of Devonshire as a factor in their game, with
disastrous results to the unfortunate victim.
Advised to remove himself far from the scene of those intrigues which
had caught him in their net, Edward Courtenay departed for the Continent
with the declared intention of travelling to distant lands, even to
Constantinople. That he had no consciousness of having committed a great
offence is evident from his correspondence; for while frequently
expressing the hope that he may soon be home again, he asks a friend to
give him a buck and some does, so that his park may be stocked with
deer, and gleefully relates that the Emperor and King Philip had
received him kindly. But his health is not good. He suffers, so he
writes, from a disease in his hip from cold; there is, also, much plague
about; and then no more is heard until the news arrives from Peter
Vannes, the English ambassador to the Venetian Republic, who was staying
at Padua, announcing that Edward, Earl of Devonshire, had died in that
city, on September 18th, 1556. _Ubi lapsus, quid feci?_
Noble and honoured in degree, gifted with many admirable and amiable
qualities, the fairest prospects open before them, yet, one after the
other, successive Earls of Devon, like their even more exalted
ancestors, perished in sorrow and adversity, until, as was generally
believed, their ancient title became extinct.
Yet, far away in the West Country, beneath the oaks of Powderham, while
the elder branches dropped or were snapped off, the descendants of Sir
Philip Courtenay, youngest son of Hugh, second Earl of Devon, lived and
thrived, gaining among their own people a love and devotion which has
endured the strain of centuries and the many vicissitudes of fortune.
Through the course of years the Courtenays of Powderham followed the
example of their greater kinsmen, taking part in events of national
importance, bearing themselves with distinction against the foreign foe;
with hereditary courage and self-denial opposing the usurper, Richard of
Gloucester, and, in defeat as well as in victory, supporting the cause
of Henry VII.
But in all things, great or small, they essentially were Devonshire
leaders of Devonshire men—living among their own people, beloved and
respected by them.
Peter Courtenay, Bishop of Exeter in 1437, expended his energy and
substance in maintaining and improving the Cathedral, and to this day
the great bell which he hung in the north tower is called by his name,
Great Peter.
Many a Devonshire Courtenay sat as Knight of the Shire for his native
County; others of the family filled the office of Sheriff; and thus for
340 years this branch of the house did its duty punctually and well,
earning fresh honours and new titles in the place of those which lay in
abeyance.
On the death of Edward, eighth Earl, in 1556, at Padua, the Courtenays
of Powderham were represented by Sir William Courtenay, who died at the
siege of St. Quintin, a few months after the decease of his noble
kinsman, his son and successor, also called William, being but four
years old at the time.
It may be that the tidings of the death of the head of the house were
long in travelling from Italy to distant Devonshire. It may be that none
of the living members of the family were cognizant of the facts of the
case; but whatever the reasons, for 260 years the Earldom of Devon was
regarded as lapsed, and no successor claimed its honour and dignity,
though some indications may, indeed, be found, both in written records
and the behaviour of individuals, of a belief that the title, though
latent, was not extinct.
Gibbon, who himself has conferred a great and undying honour on the
family by devoting, in his monumental work, a whole chapter to the
history of the Courtenays, uses this significant expression: “His
personal honours as if they had been legally extinct”; and in 1660, when
Charles II. offered the dignity of a Baronetcy to the then Sir William
Courtenay, it was, as Cleveland relates, refused, “he not affecting that
title because he thought greater of right belonged to him. Indeed, the
patent of Baronetcy was never taken out, although his successors were
always styled as such.”
It is possible, however, that this refusal may have been due to the
natural irritation felt by the head of a great family at seeing his
hereditary and ancestral honours conferred on others; for in 1602, James
I. created Charles Blunt, Lord Mountjoy, Earl of Devonshire, and on his
decease, six years later, gave the same title to William Cavendish, in
whose line it remained until changed to a Dukedom.
In the reign of William III., an offer of an English Barony was made to
the head of the Courtenays, and again refused; but in 1762, the many
services of Sir William Courtenay, eighth of the name, merited a higher
honour, and he, accepting a Peerage, took his seat in the House of Lords
as Viscount Courtenay of Powderham Castle.
Only surviving his elevation some six months, he was succeeded by his
son, who, marrying a lady of less exalted lineage than himself, became
the parent of one son and thirteen daughters.
This only son and heir, the tenth in thirteen generations who
successively bore the name of William, on the advice, it is said, of
that distinguished lawyer, Mr. Pepys, afterwards Lord Chancellor and
first Earl of Cottenham, in 1830 asserted, by petition to Parliament,
his right to the ancient Earldom of Devon. The grounds of the claim were
as follows: When, in the year 1553, Sir Edward Courtenay, son of Henry,
Marquis of Exeter and Earl of Devonshire, attainted and executed by
Henry VIII., after having suffered a long confinement in the Tower,
obtained from Queen Mary his release, she annulled the attainder, and
created him, by special patent, “to hold the title and dignity of Earl
of Devon with the said honours and pre-eminence thereunto belonging, to
the aforesaid Edward and his _heir male for ever_” (“prefato Edwardo et
heredibus suis masculis imperpetuum”). And this phrase is again repeated
later: “Do grant to the aforesaid now Earl that he and his _heirs male_
may enjoy ... the same pre-eminence as any of the ancestors of the said
Earl being heretofore Earl of Devon may have enjoyed.”
With great lucidity and deep knowledge of the subject, Mr. Pepys
maintained that, whereas in the majority of patents it was usual to
restrict the title to the recipient and his direct descendants (heirs
male of his body), in this instance, as shown by the wording of the
deed, the Sovereign deliberately intended to restore the Earldom to the
heir male of Hugh, second Earl of Devon, which position was undoubtedly
occupied by the claimant, William, Viscount Courtenay.
Certain cases were cited in support of this contention, especially the
charter given by Richard II. creating William le Scrope Earl of
Wiltshire, and special reference was made to a patent of Charles I.
appointing Lewis Boyle Baron of Bandon Bridge, which contained a
declaration explaining the express intention of words absolutely similar
to those used in the deed concerning the Earldom of Devon. The claim was
tried before the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords,
consisting of the Lord Chancellor (Lord Brougham) and Lord Wynford, who
himself, as Sir W. Draper-Best, had lately been raised to the peerage,
for the reason, as Greville, in his Memoirs, amusingly remarks, “that he
is to assist the Chancellor in deciding Scotch causes of which he knows
nothing whatever; as the Chancellor knows nothing either, the Scotch law
is likely to be strangely administered.” The decision in this case which
related to an English peerage, however, was eminently just, and the
House resolved and adjudged: “That William, Viscount Courtenay, hath
made out his claim to the title, honour, and dignity of Earl of Devon.”
By this decision, William, Lord Courtenay, succeeded to one of the great
historical titles of England, for the Earl of Devon is justly entitled
to rank with his brothers of Shrewsbury, Derby, Huntingdon, and
Pembroke, who, occupying Earldoms created before 1600, have been
designated Catskin Earls—a name concerning the derivation of which
authorities differ, some alleging that the ancient trimming of an Earl’s
gown consisted of cat skin, in the place of ermine; while others are
inclined to believe that in early times Peers of this rank were
permitted to wear four (quatre) rows of fur on their coronation robes.
It is to be feared that now this question “des jupons” will never be
definitely settled.
On the successful issue of his claim, William, ninth Earl of Devon, both
at Powderham, in London, and in Paris, maintained a state which, however
worthy of the vast domains appertaining to his great ancestors, yet cast
a heavy burden on the mere moderate appanage inherited by himself, with
the inevitable result that the estates were encumbered and the successor
to the title seriously embarrassed. He died, a bachelor, in 1835, being
succeeded by his cousin, William, the representative of a younger branch
of the family derived from Sir William Courtenay, third Baronet.