"To err is human, to forgive divine."
POPE.
Concerning Lady Purbeck's life, after her return to England, we have
the following evidence from _Coles' Manuscripts_. Let us observe,
first, that in the extract there is a mistake. It was not Lady
Purbeck, but the wife of her son, whose maiden name was Danvers.
Anybody who may choose to discredit the whole, on account of this
error, can do so if he pleases; but it is certain that Lord Purbeck
"owned the son" and that the son's grandson, "the Rev. Mr. Villiers,"
claimed "the Title of Earl of Bucks." Therefore we see no reason for
doubting the statement that Lord Purbeck "took his Wife again." The
"after 16 years" would seem to tally with the undoubted facts.
"[101]Lady Purbeck's name Danvers; absent from Husband 16 years: had
by Sir Robert Howard one son who married a Bertie, and took the Title
of Lord Purbeck, which Lady Purbeck's will I have. Lord Purbeck after
16 years took his wife again, and owned the Son, which 2nd Lord
Purbeck had one Son, Father of the Rev. Mr. Villiers, who now claims
the Title of Earl of Bucks. &c."
It will be remembered that even when Lady Purbeck was being proceeded
against for unfaithfulness to her husband, at the instigation of
Buckingham, she was on friendly terms with Lord Purbeck, and that
Buckingham had considerable difficulty in keeping them apart:
consequently it is the less to be wondered at that Lord Purbeck "took
his wife again," after her return from exile. Not only was Lady
Purbeck now a reformed character, but, like Lord Purbeck, she was a
convert to the Catholic Church; and this would probably make him the
more inclined to receive her again as his wife and to trust her for
the future. At the time of their reunion Lady Purbeck must have been
about forty, and he must have been an oldish man; although not too old
to be a bridegroom, and no longer under suspicion of insanity; for, in
addition to starting a second time as husband to Frances, Lady
Purbeck, it is recorded that after her death, which occurred in five
or six years, he married again,[102] and survived his first wife by
twelve years.
If the beginning of married life a second time, after an interval of
sixteen years--to say nothing of certain awkward incidents which had
transpired in the meantime--may have been a little out of the common,
it is more remarkable still that Lord Purbeck should have
acknowledged the boy, Robert Wright, as his son. As was shown in an
earlier chapter, it is just possible that he may have been ignorant of
the fact that the lad was not his own child, or rather, perhaps, that
he refused to believe in that fact. On the other hand, as the boy was
born in wedlock, he had in any case the right to acknowledge him as
such, if he so pleased. That was his concern, not ours, so we need not
cavil at it.
His doing so may be accounted for by either of the two following
suppositions: namely, that he acknowledged the boy out of affection
for, and to please, his wife--possibly it may have been one of the
inducements held out to persuade her to return to him--or that he
gradually took a fancy to the lad and chose this method of adopting
him. Whatever the cause of his acknowledging the boy may have been,
that acknowledgment encourages the idea that good relations existed
between Lord and Lady Purbeck after what may almost be called their
second marriage, or, perhaps still better called, their first real
marriage with consent on both sides.
Purbeck called the boy Robert Villiers, and would not allow him to be
spoken of as Robert Wright. When the lad came of age, Lord Purbeck
made him join with himself, as his son and heir, in the conveyance of
some lands, under the name of Robert Villiers,[103] the most formal of
legal recognitions.
It is likely that her life soon became that of an invalid, for she
died in the year 1645, when staying with her mother at Oxford. In that
year the Court of Charles I. was at this town, which may account for
her own and her mother's presence there. As we saw, in the first
chapter, there is some question as to whether Lady Purbeck was born in
the year 1599 or in 1600, so she may have been either forty-five or
forty-six at the time of her death. Her life, although of very
moderate length, had been one of considerable adventure, which may
have told heavily upon her constitution; if her personal concerns were
peaceful at the time of her death, we know that the conditions of the
King and of the Court, together with the prospects of all of high rank
who were loyal to the Crown, were then causing great anxiety and
excitement at Oxford: and this may well have had a bad effect upon the
health of an invalid.
Of Lady Purbeck's character much less is recorded than of the
characters of several other leading figures in this story--her father,
her mother, Bacon, Buckingham. We know, however, that she faithfully
nursed during his last two years her surly old father, who had treated
her abominably and spoiled her life; that she never lost the
friendship of Lord Purbeck; that, in her trouble she sought the
consolations of religion in a Church which would require a full
confession of her sins, accompanied by sincere repentance and virtuous
resolutions; that she bore an excellent character in Paris; and that
she spent her last years with her husband or her mother. It is true
that she had sinned, that she had sinned grievously; but, when we
consider her education under parents who were fighting like cat and
dog, the marriage which was forced upon her, and the dissolute Court
in which she, a singularly beautiful woman, spent the early years of
her married life, we may well hesitate before we look for stones to
cast at her memory.
And, after all, the only description of her character, of any length,
which we have been able to find, namely, that given by Sir Kenelm
Digby, is highly favourable. If an apology be required for repeating
it, that apology is humbly given.
After declaring that of "wit, courage, generosity, and other heroic
parts," nature had given Lady Purbeck "a double share," together with
"all other noble endowments," Sir Kenelm says: "I have not seen more
prudence, sweetness, honour and bravery shown by any woman that I
know, than this unfortunate lady showeth she hath such a rich stock
of. Besides her natural endowments, doubtless her afflictions add
much; or rather have polished, refined and heightened, what nature
gave her."
Even when we have made due allowance for the fact that the pen of Sir
Kenelm Digby was inclined to be a little flowery, sufficient is left
in this description of Lady Purbeck to make her character attractive,
and we know that nature had added to her charms by endowing her with
exceptional beauty. No attempt shall be made here to exaggerate
either her attractions or her virtues, much less to extenuate or
minimise her faults; but let us at least forgive the latter.
There are ladies who call the story of Mary Magdalen "beautiful," yet
would on no consideration tolerate a repetition of even its most
beautiful incidents, in real life. If she now existed, the greatest
concession they would make would be to subscribe towards sending her
to a Home for Fallen Women; or, which is more likely, they would ask
for an order of admission for her from someone else who subscribed to
such an institution. From such we cannot expect a charitable view of
_The Curious Case of Lady Purbeck_.
It would be out of place to enter into petty theological questions in
a comparatively trivial work such as this--to inquire, for instance,
into the question whether it may not be as possible to be damned for
detraction as to be damned for adultery; but we may at least believe
that Lady Purbeck spent her later years in contrition for the past and
virtue in the present.
We have now done with the curious case of Lady Purbeck, and it only
remains to say something about the less curious cases of some of her
descendants.
It might be supposed that "Robert Wright," who was just of age at the
time of his mother's death, would be proud to bear the name of
Villiers and to be acknowledged as the rightful heir to the estates
and title of Viscount Purbeck. As time went on, however, he became
ashamed of those privileges.[104] The son of a Cavalier, he became a
Roundhead, and three years after the death of his mother he married
one of the daughters and co-heiresses of his relative, Sir John
Danvers, subsequently one of the judges who condemned King Charles I.
to death.
He eventually obtained a patent from Oliver Cromwell to change his
name for that of his wife, declaring that he hated the name of
Villiers on account of the mischief which several of those who bore it
had done to the Commonwealth; and as to the title of Viscount Purbeck,
he disclaimed it with contempt.
But before the Commonwealth Robert Danvers, as he even then called
himself, sat in the House of Commons as member for Westbury. When
people want titles, they do not always find it easy to obtain them;
but, when they do not want them, they cannot always get rid of them.
Robert was summoned to the House of Lords, as a peer, to answer the
very serious charge of having said that "he hated the Stuarts and that
if no person could be found to cut off the King's head, he would do it
himself." He refused to attend, on the ground that he was not a
member of the House of Lords but of the House of Commons. This plea
was not allowed, and he was actually compelled to kneel at the bar of
the House of Lords and to beg pardon for his criminal words.
At the Restoration he remained an obstinate Roundhead, and, instead of
showing any desire to claim the title of Viscount Purbeck, he obtained
permission from Charles II. to levy a fine of his titles in possession
and in remainder. Then he retired to an estate which he owned in the
parish of Houghton in Radnorshire, bearing the curious name of
Siluria. He died in the year 1676, at Calais, and in his will he is
described as "Robert Danvers, alias Villiers, Esq."
Robert's wife survived him, and, now that he and his idiosyncrasies
were safely out of the way, it occurred to this daughter of a regicide
that "the Right Honourable the Dowager Viscountess Purbeck"
would sound much more euphonious than "the widow Danvers;"
accordingly--solely for the sake of others--she adopted that title. At
the same time, her two sons, Robert and Edward, resumed the name of
Villiers.
Immediately after the death of his father, Robert, the elder of the
two sons, took as much trouble to get summoned to the House of Lords
as his father had taken to escape from it. He sent a petition on the
subject to Charles II., who referred him to the House of Lords. His
claim was opposed. First, on the ground that his father had barred
his right to honours by the fine which he had levied, _i.e._, by
renouncing those honours, and, secondly, on the ground that his father
had not been a son of John Villiers, First Viscount Purbeck, but a son
of Sir Robert Howard. A petition[105] against the claim was presented
by the Earl of Denbigh, who professed himself "highly concerned in the
honour of the Duke of Buckingham and his sister, the Duchess of
Richmond & Lennox; Petitioner's mother, Susanna, having been the only
sister of the late Duke of Buckingham," and he prayed "the House to
examine the truth of these assertions, before allowing itself to be
contaminated by illegitimate blood."
This warning to the Lords against contaminating itself by illegitimate
blood, at a time when Charles II. was constantly enriching it with his
own illegitimate offspring, or what at least purported to be so, is
rather entertaining. On the other hand, in support of the claim, the
claimant's counsel professed to be able to prove the legitimacy of
Robert Villiers, alias Wright.[106]
The House of Lords after considering the matter petitioned the King to
allow the introduction of a Bill to disable Robert from claiming the
title of Viscount Purbeck: but seven peers opposed this petition
stating in writing that "the said claimant's right ... did, both at
the hearing at the bar and debate in the House, appear to them clear
in fact and law and above all objection." Charles II. replied that he
"would take it into consideration." This appears to have been the last
official word ever pronounced upon the subject, and nobody has since
then been summoned to the House of Lords as Viscount Purbeck.
The claimant, however, continued to call himself Lord Purbeck. He came
to an early end, being killed in a duel by Colonel Luttrell, at Liege,
when he was only twenty-eight; but he left a son. Nor did this son
only call himself Lord Purbeck, for on the death of the childless
second Duke of Buckingham, of whom Dryden wrote:--[107]
Stiff in opinion--always in the wrong--
Was everything by starts, but nothing long;
Who in the course of one revolving moon
Was chemist, fiddler, statesman and buffoon.
Then all for women, painting, rhyming, drinking:
Besides a thousand freaks that died in thinking;
John Villiers, alias Danvers, alias Wright, in addition to the title
of Viscount Purbeck, assumed that of Earl of Buckingham, the reversion
of which had been secured by the first Earl and Duke to his brother
and his heirs, in the case of his own direct heirs failing. This
self-styled Earl squandered his fortune in a life of debauchery, and
then married the daughter of a clergyman, a widow with a large
jointure but about as dissolute in character as himself, which is
saying much. He left no sons.
Such claims as there were to the titles of Purbeck and Buckingham then
lay with the Rev. George Villiers, Rector of Chalgrove, in
Oxfordshire. He was the son of Edward, the second son of the boy
christened Robert Wright. In the year 1723, on the death of his
cousin, the so-called Earl of Buckingham, this clergyman put in a
claim to the titles of Earl of Buckingham and Viscount Purbeck; but,
unlike his cousin, he does not appear to have ever "lorded" himself.
This cleric left a son named George, who also became a parson, and
Vicar of Frodsham in Cheshire. Efforts were made in his youth to
obtain for him a summons to the House of Lords; but, in addition to
the doubtful character of his claims, he was no _persona grata_ to the
King, as he was known to be an ardent Jacobite. As Burke says:
"Republicans during the reign of the Stuarts--Jacobites during the
reign of the Guelphs--this unfortunate family seems always to have had
hold of the wrong end of the stick." As a rule, they appear to have
held that end of it, but certainly it is a rule to which George
Villiers, first Duke of Buckingham, was a remarkable exception.
The Rev. George Villiers, who still owned property which had been
settled by Sir Edward Coke on his daughter, Lady Purbeck, died without
issue, in 1774, and his brother died a bachelor. The male line of
Villiers, alias Danvers, alias Wright, then expired. We hear no more
of any claims to the Purbeck peerage; henceforward the title which
stands at the head of this story was no longer to have any place in
living interests. At this point, let us also take leave of it; and the
author hopes that his readers, if ever reminded of this book by the
mention of Lady Purbeck, may not exclaim in the words of a character
in Macbeth:--"The devil himself could not pronounce a title more
hateful to mine ear."
FOOTNOTES:
[101] _Coles' MSS._, Vol. XXXIII., p. 17.
[102] He married a daughter of Sir William Slingsby of Kippax,
Yorkshire.
[103] Burke's _Extinct and Dormant Peerages_.
[104] The authorities for most of what follows are _The Historical
MSS. Commission_, Ninth Report, Part II., p. 58; _MSS. of the House of
Lords_, 30th April, 5th May, and 3rd June, 1675, 14th March, 16th
June, and 9th July, 1678, and Burke's _Extinct and Dormant Peerages_.
[105] _MSS. of the House of Lords_, 228, 30th April, 1675.
[106] _MSS. of the House of Lords_, 228, 30th April, 1675.
[107] _Absalom and Achitophel_, line 447, _seq._