"The circle smil'd, then whisper'd, and then sneer'd,
The misses bridled, and the matrons frown'd;
Some hoped things might not turn out as they fear'd:
Some would not deem such women could be found,
Some ne'er believed one half of what they heard:
Some look'd perplex'd, and others look'd profound."
_Don Juan_, ix., 78.
Soon after the death of Sir Edward Coke, up to the date of which event
his daughter had apparently been taking care of him with great filial
piety for two years and living a virtuous life, she came to London.
About this coming to London Archbishop Laud must be allowed to have
his say,[87] albeit not altogether a pleasant say:--
"They," _i.e._, Sir Robert Howard and Lady Purbeck, "grew to such
boldness, that he brought her up to London and lodged her in
Westminster. This was so near the Court and in so open view, that the
King and the Lords took notice of it, as a thing full of Impudence,
that they should so publickly adventure to outface the Justice of the
Realm, in so fowl a business. And one day, as I came of course to wait
on his Majesty, he took me aside, and told me of it, being then
Archbishop of Canterbury; and added, that it was a great reproach to
the Church and Nation; and that I neglected my Duty, in case I did not
take order for it. I made answer, she was a Wife of a Peer of the
Realm; and that without his leave I could not attach her; but that now
I knew his Majesty's pleasure, I would do my best to have her taken,
and brought to Penance, according to the sentence against her. The
next day I had the good hap to apprehend both her and Sir Robert; and
by order of the High-Commission-Court, Imprisoned her in the
Gate-House and him in the Fleet. This was (as far as I remember) upon
a Wednesday; and the Sunday sevennight after, was thought upon to
bring her to Penance. She was much troubled at it, and so was he."
In the _Strafford Papers_[88] there is a letter to the Lord Deputy
from Garrard, in which he says that, after Lady Purbeck's sentence
some years earlier, she had evaded it by flight and had "not been much
looked after since;" but that "this winter she lodged herself on the
Water side over against Lambeth, I fear too near the road of the
Archbishop's barge; whereof some complaint being made, she had the
Sergeant at Arms sent with the warrant of the Lords and the Council to
carry her to the Gate-House, whence she will hardly get out until she
hath done her penance. The same night was a warrant sent signed by the
Lords, to the Warden of the Fleet, to take Sir Robert Howard at
Suffolk House, and to carry him to the Fleet; but there was never any
proceeding against him, for he refused to take the oath _ex-officio_,
and had the Parliament to back him out, but I fear he will not escape
so now."
It is open to those who may like to do so to take Laud's words as
meaning that Lady Purbeck and Sir Robert Howard were again living
together in immorality. Possibly that may have been Laud's meaning. If
it was, he may have been mistaken. The world is seldom very charitable
and, when Sir Robert and Lady Purbeck were both in London--which was
comparatively a small place in those days--the gossips would naturally
put the worst construction on the matter. If the very proper Charles
I. heard such rumours, he would most likely believe them; so also
would Laud.
From the meagre evidence existing on the question, there is much--the
present writer thinks most--to be said in favour of the theory that
the relations of Lady Purbeck to Sir Robert Howard were, at this time,
perfectly innocent, and that they had been so ever since she had left
him to live with her father, two years earlier. To begin with, is it
likely that if, after so long a separation, the pair had wished to
resume their illicit intercourse, they would have chosen London as the
place in which to do so? Sir Robert may, or may not, have obtained for
Lady Purbeck her lodging. If he did, there was not necessarily any
harm in that.
Then the fact of Lady Purbeck's returning openly to London looks as if
she was conscious of innocence since she had left Sir Robert a couple
of years earlier, and as if she believed that the innocence of her
recent life was generally known. And, indeed, she might naturally
suppose that because, as Garrard wrote, she "had not been much looked
after" by the authorities, when she had gone into the country to
continue her offence many years earlier, she was perfectly safe in
returning to London now that she was living a life of virtue.
Sir Robert Howard, says Garrard's letter, was sought for and taken at
Suffolk House, the London home of his brother, whereas Lady Purbeck
was taken at, and living at, a house "on the Water side, over against
Lambeth." This does not absolutely prove that they were not living
together; but it is certainly evidence in that direction.
Again, although it is possible that the King and Laud may have
believed in the revival of the criminal intercourse between Lady
Purbeck and Sir Robert, it is equally possible that they did not, and
that they merely considered it "boldness" and a "thing full of
Impudence" to "publickly adventure to outface the Justice of the
Realm," when a woman under sentence to do public penance for grave
immorality--a woman who had fled to a remote part of the country to
escape from that penance--came back to London and took up her quarters
"so near the Court, and in so open view," as if nothing had happened;
and that, as the sentence had never been repealed, they thought it
ought to be executed.
It might even be contended that the conduct of the King and Laud looks
in favour of the innocence of Lady Purbeck, at that time; for, if they
had had any evidence of a fresh offence, far from being content with
executing the sentence for the old transgression, they would probably,
if not certainly, have prosecuted her again for the new one, and have
either added to the severity of the first sentence, or passed a second
to follow it, as a punishment for the second crime.
Be all this as it may, one thing is certain, namely, that the King and
Laud were determined to carry out the sentence which had been passed
some seven or eight years earlier, now that the escaped convict had
had what Laud calls the "Impudence" to come to the capital; and it
appears that Sir Robert was to be proceeded against in the Star
Chamber upon the old charge.
Apart from any concern on his own account, Sir Robert was greatly
distressed that Lady Purbeck should be exposed to public punishment
for an offence of the past, of which he himself was at least equally
guilty. In the hope of saving her from it, he took into his counsel
"Sir ... of Hampshire," some friend whose name is illegible in Laud's
MS.
We must now turn attention, for a little time, elsewhere. The first
Earl of Danby was a man of great respectability, and he had
distinguished himself in arms, both on sea and on land. He was a
Knight of the Garter and the Governor of Guernsey, and he had been
Lord President of Munster. He had always done those things that he
ought to have done, with as great a regularity as his attainted elder
brother, Sir Charles Danvers, had done those things that he ought not
to have done.
This paragon of a bachelor, at the age of sixty-two, received a visit
at his Government House in Guernsey from a youth who requested a
private interview. This having been granted, the boy, to the
astonishment of Lord Danby, proclaimed himself to be his Lordship's
cousin, Frances, Lady Purbeck.[89]
In a former chapter we saw that Lady Purbeck had escaped from
punishment through the medium of a boy dressed up like a woman. The
process had now been reversed: for she had escaped from the
Gate-House--a woman dressed up like a boy. The Sir Somebody Something
of Hampshire, says Laud, "with Money, corrupted the Turn-Key of the
Prison (so they call him) and conveyed the Lady Forth, and after that
into France in Man's Apparel (as that Knight himself hath since made
his boast). This was told me the Morning after the escape: And you
must think, the good Fellowship of the Town was glad of it." Lady
Purbeck, however, did not go first into France. As we have seen, she
went to Guernsey and placed herself under the protection of her old
cousin, Lord Danby.
That old cousin must have wished devoutly that she had placed herself
anywhere else. For the Governor of one of the King's islands to
receive and to shelter a criminal flying from justice was a very
embarrassing position. On the other hand, to refuse protection to a
helpless lady, and that lady a kinswoman, much more to betray her into
the hands of her enemies, would have been an act from which any
honourable man might well shrink. The possibility that it might be
discovered in the island that he was entertaining a woman in male
attire must also have been an annoying uncertainty to the immaculate
Governor of Guernsey. Over the details of this perplexing situation
history has kindly thrown a veil; indeed, we learn nothing further
about Lady Purbeck's proceedings until we read, in the already noticed
letter of Garrard's, that she landed at St. Malo, whence she
eventually went to Paris.
It seems safe to infer that whatever protection and hospitality her
relative, Lord Danby, may have afforded to Lady Purbeck, he was
heartily glad to get rid of her. If she had originally intended to go
to Paris, she would scarcely have made the long voyage of nearly two
hundred miles out of her way to Guernsey, and the most natural
explanation of that voyage is that she had hoped and expected to
obtain concealment, hospitality, and a refuge in the house of her
relative. Instead of conceding her these privileges for any length of
time, Lord Danby evidently speeded the parting guest with great
celerity.
While all this was going on, Sir Robert Howard remained under arrest
in London. Laud, writing of Lady Purbeck's escape, says: "In the mean
time, I could not but know, though not perhaps prove as then, that Sir
Robert Howard laboured and contrived this conveyance. And thereupon in
the next sitting of the High-Commission, Ordered him to be close
Prisoner, till he brought the Lady forth. So he continued Prisoner
about some two or three months."
It may be observed here that some years later, in fact in the year
1640, Sir Robert Howard turned the tables upon Laud for this
transaction. "On Munday, December 21," wrote Laud in 1640, "upon a
Petition of Sir Robert Howard, I was condemned to pay Five Hundred
Pounds unto him for false Imprisonment. And the Lords Order was so
strict, that I was commanded to pay him the Money presently, or give
Security to pay it in a very short time. I payed it, to satisfie the
Command of the House: but was not therein so well advised as I might
have been, being Committed for Treason." Laud was at that time a
prisoner in the Tower, only to leave it for execution. In addition to
this L500, Sir Robert was ordered to have a fine of L250 paid to him
by the sorcerer, Lambe, and another fine of L500 by a man named
Martin;[90] so altogether, the Long Parliament assigned him,L1,250
damages.
In a letter to the Lord Deputy, dated 24th June, 1635,[91] Garrard
says: "Sir Robert Howard, after one month's close imprisonment in the
Fleet, obtained his liberty, giving L2,000 bond never more to come at
Lady Purbeck, wherein he stands bound alone; but for his appearance
within 30 days, if he be called, two of his brothers stand bound for
him in L1,500, so I hope there is an end of the business."
On the 30th of July, 1635, the same correspondent wrote of Lady
Purbeck's being "in some part of France, where I wish she may stay,
but it seems not good so to the higher powers: for there is of late an
express messenger sent to seek her with the Privy Seal of his Majesty
to summon her into England, within six weeks after the receipt
thereof, which if she do not obey, she is to be proceeded against
according to the laws of this Kingdom."
In a letter[92] from the "Rev. Mr. Thomas Garrard to the Lord Deputy,"
dated 27th April, 1637, there is an announcement which may surprise
some readers:--
"Another of my familiar acquaintance has gone over to that Popish
religion, Sir Robert Howard, which I am very sorry for. My Lady
Purbeck left her country and religion both together, and since he will
not leave thinking of her, but live in that detestable sin, let him go
to that Church for absolution, for comfort he can find none in ours."
Now, "the Reverend Mr. Garrard" can scarcely have known what Sir
Robert would, or would not, "leave thinking of," and, as to his living
"in that detestable sin," he and his fellow-sinner had not been even
in the same country for nearly two years at the time when Garrard was
writing; and, as we have already shown, the unlikelihood of their
having committed the sin in question for another couple of years
before that may be more than plausibly argued. And it should be
remembered that these two people could have no object in becoming
Catholics, unless they received the benefits of the Sacraments of the
Catholic Church; and as Catholics, they would believe that their
confessions would be sacrileges, their absolutions invalid, and their
communions the "eating and drinking their own damnation," unless they
confessed their immoralities among their other sins, with a firm
purpose never to commit them again.
It is clear, therefore, that when they became Catholics Sir Robert
Howard and Lady Purbeck must have determined never to resume their
illicit intercourse; and, so far as is known, they never did so. In a
letter to Secretary Windebanke written from Paris, in July, 1636, Lord
Scudamore, after saying something about Lady Purbeck, adds: "She
expects every day Sir Robert Howard here:" but this must have been
mere gossip, for Scudamore cannot have been in the confidence of that
fugitive from England, Lady Purbeck, as he was English Ambassador at
Paris; moreover, he was a particular ally of Archbishop Laud,[93]
therefore, not likely to have relations with an escaped prisoner of
Laud's; although, as we shall presently find, another, although very
different, friend of Laud took her part. Nor is there anything to show
that Sir Robert Howard went to Paris.
Respecting the matter of Sir Robert's submission to the Catholic
Church, the Reverend Mr. Garrard was perfectly right in saying: "Let
him go to that Church for absolution, for comfort he can find none in
ours." Whether the Catholic religion is the worst of religions or the
best of religions, it is the religion to which those in grievous
trouble, whether through misfortune or their own fault, most
frequently have recourse; a religion which offers salvation and solace
even to the adulterer, the thief, the murderer, or the perpetrator of
any other crimes, on condition of contrition and firm purpose of
amendment.[94]
FOOTNOTES:
[87] _History of the Troubles and Tryal of Archbishop Laud_ (ed.
1695), p. 146.
[88] Vol. I., p. 390, 17th March, 1635.
[89] _Strafford Papers_, Vol. I., p. 447. Letter from Garrard to the
Lord Deputy, dated 30th July, 1635.
[90] Lingard, Vol. VII., Chap. V.
[91] _Strafford Letters_, Vol. I., p. 434.
[92] _Ibid._, Vol. II., p. 72.
[93] "The remarkably studious, pious, and hospitable life he led, made
him respected & esteemed by all good men, especially by Laud, who
generally visited him in going to & from his Diocese of St. David's &
found his entertainment as kind and full of respect as ever he did
from any friend" (Burke's _Dormant and Extinct Peerages_, p. 483).
[94] In _Coles' MSS._, Vol. XXXIII., p. 17, may be found the following
note, after a mention of Lady Purbeck: "Sir Robert Howard died April
22, 1653, and was buried at Clunn in Shropshire, leaving issue by
Catherine Nevill, his Wife, 3 sons, who, I presume, he married after
the Lady Purbeck's death which happened 8 years before his own. The
Epitaph in my Book in Folio of Lichfield, lent me by Mr. Mitton. Sir
Robert was 5th Son to Thomas, Earl of Suffolk, Lord Treasurer of
England."