AT CASTLE RUSHEN. AN HONOURABLE SURRENDER. THE MAUDLIN WELL.
CORRESPONDENCE RECOMMENCES. DISAPPEARANCE OF LORD STRANGE. A PRICE ON
LORD DERBY’S HEAD. HOLMBY HOUSE. MISS ORPE AGAIN. A LAWSUIT.
DIVISIONS AMONG THE PARLIAMENTARIANS. A LULL IN THE STORM. A NOBLE
AUTHOR. AT KNOWSLEY. THE SUBSTANCE AND THE SHADOW. THE SECTARIES. “A
GOOD EXCHANGE”
On the conclusion of the siege of Lathom House, the Countess of Derby
went with her children to the Isle of Man. This appears to have been
done by the advice of Prince Rupert, who well knew, not only the
animosity of the Parliamentarians against the Earl, and therefore
against his family, but also the jealousy entertained against him by the
King’s party.
In the old castles of Rushen and of Peel, Lady Derby spent the ensuing
years of King Charles Ist’s stormy reign, for the most part in peace,
compared with the turmoil and anxiety of the previous months.
As for the brave old mansion, it remained for some time in the charge of
the garrison left in it. Finally, by the desire of the King, whose
fortunes were now too low to come to its assistance when again it was
attacked by the Roundheads, it yielded, but with honours for all it
contained, and the garrison marched forth with their arms and baggage.
Neither were they called upon to take the oath to Parliament.
Whether it would even have yielded when it did is more than
questionable, had it not been for an Irish soldier, “the one traitor the
garrison contained, who swam the moat and informed the enemy of the
deplorable condition of the besieged—at the end of their food and
ammunition.” The matter was now easy to compass—brute strength against
weakness. The doors were burst open, the house sacked, its towers thrown
down, and its walls levelled with the ground. Three little pieces of the
battlements alone remained to tell of the long, brave defence it had
made. Cromwell’s sequestrators sold its doors, its floors, and all else
of it, and the receipts of sale are still to be found in the Ormskirk
parish records.[19] Finally, the peasants of West Derby were invited to
take away the stones and timbers without any charge.[20]
Footnote 19:
Seacome.
Footnote 20:
Heywood.
“Nothing remained of the old place,” says a later chronicler, “along
whose banks knights and ladies have a thousand times made resort,
harking to stories as varied as those of Boccaccio. The Maudlin Well,
where the pilgrim and the lazar devoutly cooled their parched lips—the
brewing-house—the training round—all now are changed, and a modern
mansion and a new possessor fill their places.”
The new mansion which a later Earl raised upon the honoured ashes of the
old is a splendid house; but with it our story has not to do. The noble
presence of Charlotte de la Trémoille never graced its Ionic colonnades
and spacious chambers; and it is to her once more that we will turn, in
her old feudal stronghold in the Kingdom of Man.
Yet one more word, before biding adieu to Lathom, as to the Maudlin Well
mentioned. A question arises which suggests itself for antiquarian
solving. In later times a “Lathom Spaw” came into some repute in that
neighbourhood. Was this “Spaw” the old Maudlin Well of the Stanleys’
famous home?
For the first time after several years, Charlotte de la Trémoille’s
correspondence recommences. Probably from time to time, during the siege
of Lathom, and the first year or two of her sojourn in the Isle of Man,
she wrote to her relatives in France, but these letters have been lost
or stolen. It is only in the month of August 1646 that she writes from
the Isle of Man in no small anxiety. Her eldest son, Lord Strange, had
secretly left the island to go, no one knew whither. “We are told that
he is in Ireland,” she writes to her sister-in-law, “but the letters he
left behind with us say that he was going to you.” She adds that if this
be the case, and the Duchess receives him graciously, forgiveness from
both parents for his escapade will not be long withheld from him.
Lord Strange had, in fact, made his way to Paris, where the Duchess de
la Trémoille, his aunt, had received him kindly, and treated him with
maternal solicitude. On learning this gratifying intelligence, it is
Lord Derby who writes to thank Madame de la Trémoille in terms of almost
enthusiastic courtesy for her obligations. “No service which I could
humbly render you, madame, would be too difficult for me,” he writes,
“so that I might prove to you with what devotion I am, madame, your very
humble and very obedient brother and servant, Derby.”
The Earl was probably glad that the youthful heir of his home was out of
the country; for the Royalist cause was growing desperate. It was death
now to anyone who should have to do with the King. The Parliament sent
proposing an amnesty. Its terms were: his acceptance of the Scottish
Covenant, the abolition of the Anglican Church, and the entire
relinquishment of power into the hands of Parliament. Thirty-six persons
were excluded from this amnesty, and a price set upon the heads of seven
of them. Third on the list, after Prince Rupert and Prince Maurice,
stood the name of Lord Derby; and in the next letter of the Countess she
speaks of a proposed journey to London to intercede for the Earl, “after
a journey from the Isle of Man, which lasted forty-eight hours, upon a
dangerous sea, in a wretched boat; but if God blesses my efforts, as I
have prayed Him to do, I can bear anything.”
She further speaks hopefully of obtaining her husband’s pardon. “The
Lords,” she writes, “will, I think, easily grant it.” From the Commons
she looks for more obduracy. “But God will give me wisdom and prudence.
The King continues to refuse to do what Parliament desires, and declines
to listen to the preaching of its ministers.” There are natures which
can meet martyrdom; but flinch at slow torture, and spiritual discourses
in those days were nothing if they did not stretch to a good hour at the
least. The sword of the Spirit was a long one. On the 25th March the
King had been sold by the Scotch to the Parliament. He was now at Holmby
House in Northamptonshire, only to go thence upon the road which
terminated on the scaffold of Whitehall.
In addition to all these grave cares Lady Derby was burdened with the
settlement of her brother’s affairs. He had recently died, and his title
and estates were claimed by Miss Orpe, who asserted that she had been
privately married to him. Lady Derby complains bitterly of the part
which the Queen took in this matter. She openly gave countenance to Miss
Orpe’s pretensions. Notwithstanding, Lady Derby and the Duke de la
Trémoille gained their suit; and his estate was shared between them.
From this time it was that the opponents of the King became divided
against themselves. The Independents and the Presbyterians had little in
common sympathy. The Independents formed the majority in the army, and
the Presbyterians, jealous of their power, were now anxious to disband
the army. In this difference the Independents, gaining the day, formed a
military Parliament, and took possession of the King; but the hope that
this raised in the minds of the Royalists, and among them the hopes of
the Earl and Countess of Derby, was doomed to be disappointed. The King
in the hands of the Independents was merely a puppet to play off against
the Presbyterians.
The Earl of Derby was all this time being treated with comparative
leniency, considering that his loyalty to his party amounted to a
passion which no terrors or threats could ever quench. Total inaction
was imposed upon him; and policy prompted him to compliance. “Reculer
pour mieux sauter” was the watchword now for the ardent-spirited Earl.
To attempt to do anything for his royal master’s defence at this time
was but to hurry him the faster to his doom; though there was a gleam of
hope in the treatment which the King was now receiving. During some
months which he spent at Hampton Court, the semblance of kingly state
and of loyal respect surrounded him. It was the calm and deceptive
tranquillity which precedes the tempest. Like the old _trève de Dieu_ of
mediæval days—the oasis which travellers come upon in the desert, and
perforce must leave again—those few little months at Hampton Court, with
his children once more about him, must have been very blessed to the
King. Despite the gloom on all sides of the horizon, sunshine was
overhead, sweetness was in the air.
Lord Derby during his enforced inactivity took up his pen, and began his
“History and Antiquities of the Isle of Man.” He wrote it for the
instruction of his son, and its title _in extenso_ explains his
intentions in writing it. “With an account of his own proceedings, and
losses in the Civil War; interspersed with sundry advises to his son.”
The advice is excellent. After some details concerning the early history
of the island, its noble chronicler writes: “Sir John Stanley, who was
the first of our family to possess it, took out in letters-patent the
name of the King of Man. His successors did the same until the time of
Thomas, second Earl of Derby, who, for good and wise reasons, decided to
relinquish this title.
“I know no subject who owns a dominion as important as this,” and then
the Earl adds that, lest it may be found to be too important, his son
will do well to observe this rule, which will enable him to keep the
kingdom uncontested: “Fear God, and honour the King.”
Further on, the Earl takes blame to himself for not having seen how he
might have added to the prosperity of the Manx folks by turning the
island to more profitable account, “for he who is not careful of what he
has, is not worthy to possess it.” He advises that manufactories and
more trade be established in Man. “Then the sea will be covered with
ships, and the land with inhabitants, to the great advantage of the
whole country.” He further gives excellent advice as to the selection of
a bishop for the island. He must be one, he says, who is a pious and
worthy person, seeing that the clergy do their duty, and therefore one
who must reside in the island, and have no benefice elsewhere. Further,
the Earl would have a university, which, from the great natural
advantages of the island, might be maintained at moderate cost and be
serviceable to many, “finishing by putting something into the purse of
its suzerain lord. But of this I will talk with you more, if it please
God that I see you again, and have a quiet mind.”
He adds more good counsel for personal conduct, and for the general
business of life. This work was never finished, as the Earl intended it,
but is published as he left it in Peck’s _Desiderata Curiosa_.[21]
Footnote 21:
Vol. ii. lib. ii.
In September of 1647 Parliament at last definitely made allowance for
the maintenance of the Earl’s children. It was one-fifth of his revenue,
the same as they meted to the rest of the “delinquents.” The allowance
was made upon Knowsley, and thither two of the Earl’s three daughters,
Catherine and Mary, were at once sent. Lord Fairfax issued orders that
Major Jackson, who had established himself with his family in the
mansion, should clear out, and the guardians were further enjoined to
see “that the said Major Jackson” did no damage to house or park before
he went. Lady Derby writes from London, 14th March 1648: “I am advised
to go to Lancashire, and live there on the little which has been allowed
to my children; for I receive nothing; and I hope that I may be able to
make it go further if I am on the spot. One must live economically, and
make the best of what one has.”
There seems to have been no false sentiment about Lady Derby’s nature.
And if the theories of Lavater are in any way correct, it is easiest to
recall her living personality through the portrait of Vandyke, who,
mighty portrayer that he was, gives Charlotte de la Trémoille on his
canvas the frank and happy face of a good wife and a good mother, if not
as specially beautiful or striking, as Scott has depicted the widowed
Countess of Derby and “Queen in Man” in his _Peveril of the Peak_. Scott
claims his rights as a romancer to give us the famous Countess of Derby
as it suited his great novel to depict her. The Wizard has indeed drawn
a curiously different personality from the real wife of James Stanley.
On the other hand, her wifehood was almost past before Julian Peveril of
the Peak was born. It is the woman advancing in years, with the memory
of dead joys and loves and countless bitter wrongs heavy upon her, whom
Scott characterises. When Charles II. was king, Charlotte de la
Trémoille must have been greatly changed; but it is in having changed
her creed that Scott misses the strong individuality in which he might
have clothed her, without overleaping fact by a hair’s-breadth. No one
comprehended better than he the play of light and shadow upon every act
and word of man, woman, or even child, which is cast by religious
conviction or the lack of it. Scott, while apologising for the
dereliction, has transformed the born Huguenot, the staunch Anglican of
twoscore years’ profession, into an ardent, even fanatical Roman
Catholic. How completely she stood between the Scylla and Charybdis of
Rome and the Sectaries, the extract from the following letter
illustrates with striking emphasis:—
“For my husband and myself, in the matter of religion, it is, thank God,
so deeply graven in our hearts, that nothing by His grace can take it
from us; and if Parliament really held the interests of religion and the
glory of God, which you think they entertain, they would not have the
cruelty and injustice which signalise all their actions. And for
religion, they have misled the people of this nation, until now they see
their error, and groan under the burden of tyranny. Those even, who are
most attached to their party, deplore their own misery and ours, and
would find it difficult to tell you what their belief is, there being as
many religions as there are families. The _Test_ is publicly maintained;
books are printed denying the existence of the Holy Spirit. Those who do
this are not punished for it. God’s commandments are scorned—even the
Creed itself. Sunday worship is neglected, and not constrained to be
celebrated anywhere. The sacraments are administered according to each
person’s fancy; the ministry is neglected. Anyone who considers himself
capable of preaching, may do so without any licence or examination; even
women may do it. Baptism is neglected, and not given to children; and
there are other things still worse, which make those who have any
religion left in them shudder to see such abuses.
“For our ill-wishers, we have them, but not more than the Lords in
Parliament have them, it being the desire of the Commons to have no
Lords, but to make all equal. That is understood by the Lords, but not
the remedy for it. If you could hear the prevailing discontent, you
would hardly be able to credit it. I speak of those who have ventured
all for Parliament, and are enemies of the King’s party. This has
reached such a point, that if the Scotch come, as we are led to think
they may, there are not many who would not join them. This has of late
led to changing all the leaders who were most affected to Parliament;
replacing them by men who only regard their own faction; and though it
was decreed in Parliament that if the army did not approve of this, it
was to be changed, one day undoes what the other has done.
“This is not credible, excepting to those who see it all; and while I
was away, they had a difficulty in persuading me that it was true. If I
had the honour of seeing you, and speaking with you for a little while,
I know you would soon be convinced of the truth, and would regret to see
the Protestant religion suffering, and the Papists turning it to their
advantage.”
National affairs were now in a state of hopeless
entanglement—Presbyterian against Independent, and both against the King
and all who had held by him through fortune good and ill. There could be
no quarter for the Royalists. “There is no doubt,” writes the Countess
in March of 1648, “that affairs will settle themselves.”
She wrote prophetically when she added:
“There is such discontent prevailing, that those who are in
authority say—_in confidence_—that things cannot remain long
without a change.”
On the next 30th January King Charles I. made his “good exchange” upon
the scaffold at Whitehall; penalties of high treason were declared
against all who acknowledged Charles Stuart as king; the House of Peers
was abolished; and Cromwell was at the head of public affairs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------