"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
_Henry VI._, 2, IV., 2.
Although Robert Wright was baptised in October, 1624, the date of his
birth is uncertain. He may have been born many months before his
baptism; but his being christened at a private house rather points the
other way. Anyhow, proceedings were instituted against Sir Robert
Howard and Lady Purbeck, long before the child was christened. In _The
Diary of Archbishop Laud_ occurs the following entry for the year
1624:--
"_Januar. 21. Friday._ The business of my _Lord Purbeck_, made known
unto me by my Lord Duke." This business of my Lord Purbeck may refer
exclusively to his insanity, or reputed insanity; but it seems more
probable that it has reference to the Howard-Purbeck scandal.
A letter[61] from the Lord Keeper, Williams, Bishop of Lincoln, to
Buckingham, and written on 11th March, 1624, shows that the
proceedings against Sir Robert Howard and Lady Purbeck were in full
swing at that date.
"May it please your Grace,
"Sir Robert Howard appeared yesterday, and continues obstinate in his
refusal to swear. When we came to examine the Commission for our Power
to fine him for his Obstinacy, we found, that Sir Edward Coke
(foreseeing, out of a prophetical Spirit, how near it might concern a
Grand-Child of his own), hath expunged this Clause (by the Help of the
Earl of Salisbury) out of the Commission, and left us nothing but the
rusty Sword of the Church, Excommunication, to vindicate the Authority
of this Court. We have given him day until Saturday next, either to
conform, or to be excommunicated. She hath answered wittily, and
cunningly, but yet sufficient for the Cognisance of the Court:
Confesseth a Fame of Incontinence against her and Howard; but saith,
it was raised by her Husband's Kindred. I do not doubt, but the
Business will go on well; but (peradventure) more slowly, if Howard
continue refractory, for want of this power to fine and amerce him."
That Lady Purbeck "answered wittily," or, as would now be said,
"cleverly" in court, is not to be wondered at; for was she not the
daughter of a father who had been the cleverest barrister of his day,
and of a mother who was more than a match for that cleverest of
barristers?
A couple of days later the same correspondent wrote[62] to the Duke:
"For your Brother's Business, this is all I have to acquaint your
Grace with: Sir Robert Howard appeared, yesterday, at Lambeth,
pretended want of Council (the Doctors being out of Town) desired
respite until to-morrow, and had it granted by my Lord's Grace. Most
men think he will not take his Oath at all; I do incline to the
contrary Opinion, because, to my knowledge, he hath sent far and near,
for the most able Doctors in the Kingdom, to be feed for him, which
were great folly, if he intended not to answer. He is extreamly
commended for his closeness and secrecy by the major part of our
Auditors (the He and She Good-fellows of the Town,) and though he
refuseth to be a Confessor, yet he is sure to dye a Martyr, and most
of the Ladies in Town will worship at his Shrine. The Lady Hatton,
some nine days since was at Stoke, with the good Knight her Husband,
for some counsel in this particular; but he refused to meddle
therewithal, and dismist her Ladiship, when she had stayed with him
very lovingly half a quarter of an hour."
There had been some sort of reconciliation between Coke and Lady
Elizabeth in July, 1621, says Woolrych in his life of Coke, "a
reconciliation effected through the mediation of the King." It was
not, however, cordial; for "we have good reason to suppose that they
lived apart to the day of Coke's death," says Campbell. At any rate
they were now on speaking terms, though that was about all; for, as we
have just seen, Coke refused to meddle in a matter upon which he was
eminently qualified to give an opinion, and he got rid of his wife
after an interview of seven minutes and a half, instead of giving her
the leisurely and lengthy advice and instructions which were the least
that she might have expected from him. Sympathy, of course, she could
not have hoped for.
The proceedings against the two delinquents would appear to have been
in abeyance during the rest of the year; but in January, 1625, Sir
John Coke--the Secretary of State, not one of the Cokes of Sir
Edward's family--wrote[63] to Buckingham, saying that the King,
although so ill as scarcely to be able to sign his name, had put it to
the warrant sent by the Lord Chief Justice for authority to examine
into Lady Purbeck's business. This warrant, however, James either
issued with certain qualifications, or else privately advised
Buckingham only to act upon with prudence, as may be inferred from the
following letter,[64] written on February the 11th, by Buckingham to
the Lord Chief Justice:--
"I have moved the P. for a warrant from his ma^tie for the commitment
of Sir Ro. Howard and my sister Purbeck, but his ma^tie hath out of
his gracious and provident care of me dissuaded me in this lest upon
it coming to a publique hearing it might be thought that I had gained
power more by the way of favour than by the wayes of justice.... I
desire you to acquaint this bearer Mr. Innocent Lanier all the
particulars of this matter for I know him to be very honest, and
discreete and secret." The part of the letter immediately following is
illegible, but presently it goes on to say that Lanier[65] is much
trusted by his brother Purbeck; that Lanier will not otherwise be able
to keep his brother with him; and that, if he leaves, Sir Robert and
Lady Purbeck "by their crafty insinuations will draw from him speeches
to their advantage."
Now, if Purbeck were still insane, or anything near it, no "speeches
drawn from him" could have had any effect for the advantage of Lady
Purbeck and Sir Robert. And it is clear from this letter that Lady
Purbeck was even at that time on good terms with her husband and able
to influence him. A reader might have been tempted to imagine that
Purbeck's "melancholy fitts" of insanity were the result of misery
about his wife's infidelity; but, if she could still "draw from him
speeches to her advantage," this cannot have been the case. The
prosecution of Lady Purbeck was pretty clearly at the instigation of
Buckingham and not of Purbeck. There is just a possibility that
Purbeck had refused to proceed against her, and that Buckingham
represented him as mad in order to act in his place, as his brother,
and divorce Lady Purbeck; although such a theory is not supported by
strong evidence. There is, however, this evidence in its support, that
Purbeck acknowledged the boy christened Robert Wright as his own son
some years later.
It is true that, fifty years afterwards, in a petition to the House of
Lords[66] by Lord Denbigh against a claim made by a son of Robert
Wright, it is stated that Lord and Lady Purbeck had not lived together
as man and wife for two years before the birth of Robert Wright; and
that Lord Purbeck "was entrusted in the hands of physicians for the
cure of a melancholy distemper, occasioned by the cruelty and
disorders of his wife." But this claimed absence of two years, or
anything approaching two years, is very questionable, if not very
improbable; and although there is not much doubt as to the real
parentage of Robert Wright, Purbeck may have lived with his wife
sufficiently near the birth of the boy to imagine himself his father.
Indeed, as the following letter will show, she was so far at Court, as
to be living in Prince Charles's house so late as February, 1625, a
year after the birth of the boy. Moreover, as we have seen, Lord
Purbeck held office in Prince Charles's household, and from this it
might be inferred that Purbeck and Lady Purbeck were then together.
This is the more likely because in the following letter Buckingham
expresses a fear that his "brother will be also every day running to
her and give her occasion to worke on him by the subtlty of her
discourse." And if the husband and wife had access to each other when
the proceedings against the latter had gone so far, they are much more
likely to have been together during the year preceding the birth of
the boy.
All this only affects the question whether Purbeck discredited his
wife's fidelity. Nothing has been said above in favour of the theory
that she was faithful.
Buckingham experienced considerable difficulties in the prosecution of
Lady Purbeck. On 15th February, 1625, he wrote[67] from Newmarket to
the Lord Chief Justice:--
"MY LORD,
"I understande you are not yet resolved to committ my sister Purbeck
who (if she be at Libbertie) will be still plotting and devising with
her ill counsellors to cover and conceal the truth and fowlness of her
crime and my brother will be also every day running to her and give
her occasion to worke on him by the subtlty of her discourse. It is
known that His Ma^tie was tender (at the first mention of this
business) of the hande of a Lady of her quallity but sure [if] he hath
fully understood the proofs and truth of her fault and how
dishonorably she hath carryed herself he would have no more support
showen to her than to an ordinary Lady in the like case for that she
hath by her ill carriage forfyted that hande."
Things were not going so well now as they had been with Buckingham.
Within twelve months he was to be impeached in the House of Commons;
and, although still high in the royal favour, his King may not have
been so completely his servant at this time as he had been formerly.
Buckingham continues:--
"It is likewise very unfit she should remayne in the Prinses house for
defying which I thinke much aggravates her crimes and his highness
often speaks in distast of her continuance there. You are well
acquainted with the proof which is against her, so as I shall not nede
to tell you how much it reminds me to be carefull in the prosecution
of her faulte but I assure you there is nothing that more sollisits my
minde. I ... thanke you for the paynes you have always taken in this
business, which my earnest desire is to have to be fully discovered
and that you will for much oblige me by the continuance of the care
and diligence therein as that she may be tymely prevented in her
cunning endeavours to hinder the discovery of the truth of the facts
whereof she stands justly accused which (in my opinion) cannot be done
but by her present commitment.
"And Sir, I rest,
"Your very loving friend.
"Upon syght of the pregnancy of the proofes and the guiltiness of Sir
Rob. Howard and my sister, I desire that you will committ them to
prison with little respect, from where I heare Sir Rob. Howard is, for
an Alderman's House is rather an honour than disparagement to him and
rather a place of entertainment to him than a prison." It will be
observed that, although the accused persons had not yet been tried,
Buckingham wished them to be put into a place of punishment; a place
of mere detention would not satisfy him.
Lanier, who, as Buckingham said in a letter quoted above, was much
trusted by his brother, seems to have been trusted by Purbeck without
reason, as he was evidently in the employment of Buckingham.
A letter[68] written by Buckingham to Coventry, the Attorney-General,
and to Heath, the Solicitor-General, contains the following:--
"I perceive by your paper I have read how much I am beholding, and do
also understand by Innocent Larnier and others of the persons
themselves and my Lo: Chiefe justice have taken in the business
concerning the Lady Purbeck for which I thanke you:... but I did hope
you would have more discovered before this.... I desire you to say
what you think fitt to be done in the matter of the divorce of my
brother and to notify me your opinion thereupon and (if you thinke it
fitt to be proceeded in that) what is the speedyest worke that may be
taken therein."
It was probably of this letter that Buckingham wrote[69] to Heath, the
Solicitor-General, on 16th February, 1625, from Newmarket:--
"I have written a letter to yourself and to Mr. Attorney regarding
the business of the Lady Purbeck showing that I desire you principally
only to aggravate her crimes that the Lady by my humble and your like
kind favour may yet be kept in prison, before the returne to towne,
for other my brother who hopes to be going soune will not be kept from
her and she will (if he should meet with her) so worke on him by her
subtilty and that shee will draw from him something to the advantage
of her dishonourable cause and to her end." Here again is evidence
that Purbeck "will not be kept from" his wife; and that, if they meet
"shee will draw something to the advantage of her" case in the divorce
suit. In what form could this something come? Is it possible that
Buckingham may have thought that she might induce Purbeck to appear as
a witness in her favour? Or that she might persuade him to stop the
suit if he should happen to be sane enough to do so when it came on?
The next letter has an interest, first, because it shows that Lady
Purbeck's child was really in the custody of Buckingham. Nominally it
was probably in that of Purbeck; but, if Purbeck as a lunatic was in
the custody of Buckingham, what was in Purbeck's custody would be in
Buckingham's custody. Presently, however, we shall hear of the child
being with its mother in her imprisonment at the house of an
Alderman.
_Innocent Lanier to Buckingham_.[70]
"May it please your grace,
"Appon my returne to London, I presently repayred to my Lo: Chiefe
Justice, where I found Mr. Attorney and Mr. Solicitor.... I have heer
inclosed fore your Grace ther letter which before it was sealed they
showed mee, being something contrary to their resolution last nyghte,
w^ch was, to have sent for Sr. Ro: Howard this morning, and so to
comitt him closs in the Fleett, but of this I presume ther letter will
give yor. Grace such satisfaction that I shall need neither to write
more of it, nor of what is yett past. They much desier yor. Grace's
coming to towne wch. I hope wilbe speedy as it wilbe materiall. I
finde them resolved to deale roundly in this Busnes as yor. Grace
desiers and are this morning in the examination of divers witness the
better to Inform themselves agaynst my Ladies coming this afternoone.
The next Day, they Intend to fall uppon Lambe and Frodsham. My Lady
uppon the receipt of my lo: Chiefe Justice letter is something
dismayed but resolved to prove a new lodging, and new keepers. The
Childe, and Nurse, must remayne with us till farther directions,
having nothing more at this present to aquaynt yor. Grace of, wth. my
humblest duty I take leave.
"Yor. Grace's most humble and
"obedient Servant,
"(Signed) I. LANIER.
"DENMARK HOUSE.
"_Feb. 19, 1625._"
"_Enclosed_. Att. Gen. Coventry and Sol. Gen. Heath to Buckingham.
"Have consulted with Sir Henry Martin on Lady Purbeck's business, and
think the best plan would be to have the case brought before the High
Commission Court, which can sit without delay, in the vacation, and
when the crime is proved there, the divorce can be obtained by
ordinary law. Think it unadvisable to send the culprits to prison, as
it is unusual for persons of their rank but advise that they may be
confined in the houses of Aldermen, where in fact they would probably
be more closely restrained than in prison."
The last statement sounds curious; especially as we saw, a few pages
ago, that Buckingham wrote: "an Alderman's house is rather an honour
than disparagement," and "rather a place of entertainment than a
prison."
Buckingham now sought a fresh weapon against his sister-in-law. A
couple of scoundrels, mentioned in Lanier's letter, and named Frodsham
and Lambe, men suspected of sorcery, offered to give evidence to the
effect that Lady Purbeck had paid them to help her to bewitch both
Purbeck and Buckingham. On the 16th of February, 1625, Buckingham
wrote[71] to Coventry, the Attorney-General:--
"I perceive by the paper I have received how much I am beholding to
you and do also understand by Innocent Lanier and others of the paynes
[you] and my lo. Chief Justice, have taken in the business concerning
the Lady Purbeck for which I thanke you ... but I did hope that you
would have some more discovered before this tyme. If Lambe and
ffrodsham may escape the one by saying what he did was but jugglinge
and the other by seeming to affect to be thought a juggler I believe
all that hath been already discovered of the truth of this business
will be deluded. I do therefore desire that you will take some sound
course with them to make them speake more directly and truly to the
point and to bout (?) them from their shifts, for Lambe hath hitherto
by such means played mock with the world to preserve himself. I desire
you to acquaint Innocent Lanier (who is appointed by my brother to
sollicit this business) with all the particulars and publique speeche
that he may the better know how to imploy this paynes for the
discovering of the knot of this villany. I desire you to say well what
is fitt to be done in the divorce of my brother and to notify me your
opinions thereon and (if you thinke it fitt to be pursued in this)
what is the speediest work that may be taken therein. And you discover
the best serving friend.
"I rest, &c.
"NEWMARKET."
If this was true it would seem that Purbeck himself suspected that he
had been bewitched.
Yet on that very same day Buckingham wrote to Heath, the
Solicitor-General, expressing his opinion that, unless Lady Purbeck
were put in prison, Lord Purbeck would not "be kept from her," which
does not look as if he can have been afraid lest she should bewitch
him. The letter runs:--
"I have written a letter to yourself and Mr. Attorney concerning the
business of the Lady Purbeck which I desire you on whose love to me I
principally rely to aggravate and ayre the crimes of that Lady and her
dealings with Lambe and the like, so soon as yet she may be before my
coming to London committed to some prison for otherwise my brother who
hopes to be going hence, will not be kept from her and she will (if he
should come to her) so worke on him by her subtilty as that she will
draw from him something to the advantage of her dishonourable ends and
to his prejudice. Iff ffrodsham and Lambe once feele or be brought to
feare their punishment I believe they will unfold much more than they
yet have, for it seems they have but boath sported in their
examinations, &c."
This letter, again, proves that Lord Purbeck was on good terms with
Lady Purbeck, and that Buckingham was striving to keep them apart; and
it adds still further support to the theory that it was not Lord
Purbeck but Buckingham who was trying to divorce Lady Purbeck, by
"aggravating and airing her crimes."
Buckingham himself was suspected of having dealings with Lambe on his
own account; for Arthur Wilson says, in his _Life of James I._:[72]
"Dr. Lamb, a man of an infamous Conversation, (having been arraigned
for a Witch, and found guilty of it at Worcester; and arraigned for a
Rape, and found guilty of it at the King's Bench-Bar at Westminster;
yet escaped the Stroke of Justice for both, by his Favour in Court)
was much employed by the Mother and the Son," _i.e._, by the Duke of
Buckingham and his mother. If this be true, Buckingham's conduct
towards Lady Purbeck, in connection with Lambe, does not seem to have
been very straightforward.
Lambe's "favour in Court," however, proved no protection to him in the
streets. Whitelock writes[73] in 1632: "This Term the business of the
Death of Doctor Lamb was in the King's Bench, wherein it appeared that
he was neither Dr. nor any way Lettered, but a man odious to the
Vulgar, for some Rumors that went of him, that he was a Conjurer or
Sorcerer, and he was quarrelled with in the Streets in London, and as
the people more and more gathered about him, so they pelted him with
rotten Eggs, Stones, and other riff raff, justled him, beat him,
bruised him, and so continued pursuing him from Street to Street, till
they were five hundred people together following him. This continued
three hours together until Night, and no Magistrate or Officer of the
Peace once showed himself to stop this Tumult: so the poor man being
above eighty years of age, died of this violence, and no Inquisition
was taken of it, nor any of the Malefactors discovered in the City."
On the 26th of February Chamberlain wrote[74] to Carleton:--
"The Lady Purbecke w^th her young sonne, and Sr. Robert Howard are
committed to the custodie of Generall Aldermen Barkham and Freeman to
be close kept. When she was carried to Sergeants ynne to be examined
by the new L. Chiefe Justice and others she saide she marvailled what
those poore old cuckolds had to say to her. There is an imputation
laide on her that with powders and potions she did intoxicate her
husbands braines, and practised somewhat in that kinde upon the D. of
Buckingham. This (they say) is confest by one Lambe a notorious old
rascall that was condemned the last sommer at the Ks. bench for a rape
and arraigned some yeare or two before at Worcester for bewitching my
L. Windsor ... I see not what the fellow can gaine by this confession
but to be hangd the sooner. Would you thinke the Lady Hattens stomacke
could stoupe to go seeke her L. Cooke at Stoke for his counsaile and
assistance in this business?"
It would appear that Buckingham really believed Lady Purbeck to have
possessed herself of some powers of witchcraft and that he felt
considerable uneasiness on his own account, as well as on his
brother's, in connection with it; for he seems to have consulted some
other sorcerer, with the object of out-witching the witchery of Lady
Purbeck. In some notes[75] by Archbishop Laud for a letter to
Buckingham, the following cautious remarks are to be found:--
"I remember your Grace when I came to you on other busyness told me
you were gladd I was come, for you were about to send for me, that you
calld me asyde into the gallerye behind yo^r lodgings bye the back
stayres. There you told me of one that had made a great offer of an
easy and safe cure of your G. brother the Ld. Purbecke.
"That it much trobbled you when he did but beginne to express himselfe
because he sayde he would doe it bye onlye touchinge his head with his
hands[76] w^ch made yo^r Grace jealous in as much as he mentioned noe
Naturall Medicine.
"Upon this yo^r Gr. was pleased to aske what I thought of it. I
answered these were busynesses which I had little looked into. But I
did not believe the touch of his hand, or any mans els could produce
such effects.
"Your G. asked farther if I remembered whether you might not
entertayne him farther in discourse to see whether he would open or
express any unlawfull practises; w^ch I thought you might for it went
no farther than discourse.
"And to mye remembrance your Grace sayde that he offered to laye his
hand on your head sayinge, I would doe noe more than thiss; And that
thereupon you started backe, fearinge some sorcerye or ye like, and
that you were not quiett till you had spoken with me about it. This,
or much to this effect is the uttermost I can remember that passed at
ye time."
Buckingham had evidently felt some scruples about meddling with the
Black Art, and had consulted Laud on the question. It is also pretty
plain that Laud was anxious not to offend Buckingham, yet, at the same
time, wished to guard against any possibility of being accused of
approving, or even of conniving at, witchcraft. These notes occur in a
"draft of a speech, in the handwriting of Bishop Laud, and apparently
intended to be addressed to the House of Commons, by the Duke of
Buckingham. It has not been found that this latter speech was ever
actually spoken."
So far as accusations against Lady Purbeck of witchcraft were
concerned, Buckingham must have found that he had no case; for, in a
letter[77] to Carleton, written on 12th March, 1625, Chamberlain says
that the charge of sorcery had been dropped; but that Lady Purbeck was
to be prosecuted for incontinency. He adds that Sir Robert Howard was
a close prisoner in the Fleet in spite of the advice given by the
Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General three weeks earlier--and
that Lady Purbeck was a prisoner at Alderman Barkham's, had no
friends who would stand bail for her, and was asking Buckingham to
let her have a little money with which to pay her counsel's fees.
Eleven days later Chamberlain again wrote[78] to Carleton, saying that
Lady Purbeck was acquitting herself well in the Court of High
Commission; that a servant of the Archbishop's had been committed for
saying that she had been hardly used, and that she called this man one
of her martyrs. He also states that Sir Robert Howard had been
publicly excommunicated at St. Paul's Cross, for refusing to answer.
How long the delinquents were kept in captivity is very doubtful.
Little else is recorded of either of them during the next two years;
but, at the time of their trial in 1627, they would seem to have been
at liberty. The reason of this long interval between the trial in the
Court of High Commission in 1625 and that before the same Court in
1627 seems inexplicable.
FOOTNOTES:
[61] _Cabala_, p. 281.
[62] _Cabala_, p. 282.
[63] _S.P. Dom._, James I., Vol. CLXXXII, No. 79.
[64] _S.P. Dom._, James I., Vol. CLXXXIII, No. 41
[65] Innocent Lanier was one of the King's musicians.
[66] _MSS. of the House of Lords_, 228, 30th April, 1675. _Hist. Com.
MSS._, Ninth Report, Part II., p. 50.
[67] _S.P. Dom._, James I., Vol. CLXXXIII, No. 52.
[68] _S.P. Dom._, James I., Vol. CLXXXIII, No. 65, 16th February,
1625.
[69] _Ibid._, No. 66.
[70] _S.P. Dom._, James I., Vol. CLXXXIV., Nos. 7 and 7.1.
[71] _S.P. Dom._, James I., Vol. CLXXXIII, No. 65.
[72] _Camden, Complete History of England_, Vol. II., p. 791 (ed.
1719).
[73] _Memorials of the English Affairs_, etc., p. 17.
[74] _S.P. Dom._, James I., Vol. CLXXXIV., No. 47.
[75] _S.P. Dom._, Charles I., Vol. XXVI., No. 30.
[76] This looks like an anticipation of Mesmer.
[77] _S.P. Dom._, James I., Vol. CLXXXV., No. 48.
[78] _S.P. Dom._, James I., No. 99.