and heir of Cuthbert Morley, of Normanby in Cleveland, county York,
consequently grandson to the gallant Sir Bevil Granville, who was slain
at the battle of Lansdowne. He was raised to the peerage as Baron
Lansdowne, of Bideford, county Devon, having held the appointments of
Secretary at War, Comptroller of the Household, Treasurer, and Privy
Councillor. He married, in 1711, Lady Mary, the widow of Thomas Thynne,
Esq., daughter of the Earl of Jersey, and mother of the second Lord
Weymouth.
--------------
No. 14.
SIR HENRY FREDERICK THYNNE.
BY SIR PETER LELY.
BORN 1615.
_Oval. Dark dress. White cravat. Tawny mantle._
WAS the eldest surviving son of Sir Thomas Thynne, by his second wife,
Catharine Howard. His royal godmother, Queen Anne, wife to James I.,
desired he should bear the name of Frederick, after her father, the King
of Denmark, Thomas, first Earl of Suffolk, and cousin to Henry’s mother,
being one of Her Majesty’s ‘gossips.’
Sir Henry Thynne, who was created a Baronet in 1641, married Mary,
daughter of Thomas, first Lord Coventry, by whom he had Sir Thomas
Thynne, his heir; James of Buckland, county Gloucester, one of the
representatives for Cirencester in Parliament; Henry Frederick; John;
Mary, wife to Sir Richard How, Bart., of Wishford, county Wilts; and
Catharine, married to Sir John Lowther, afterwards Viscount Lonsdale.
Sir Henry Frederick died at his residence at Kempsford, where he and his
wife lie buried.
[Illustration]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_THIRD LIBRARY_.
No. 15.
EDWARD, FIRST LORD THURLOW.
BY SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS.
BORN 1732, DIED 1806.
_Full length. In Chancellor’s robes._
SON of the Rev. Thomas Thurlow of Ashfield, county Suffolk, by Elizabeth
Smith. He went to Cambridge, but left it before taking his degree,
studying too little, and amusing himself too much. He then proceeded to
London to read law, but took part in all the pleasures and dissipations
of the town. One time, when opposed to the famous lawyer, Sir Fletcher
Norton, he completely worsted his eminent antagonist, which was esteemed
a great feat in one so young to the legal profession. But what brought
him into prominent notice, and gave him the silk gown, was the able
manner in which he conducted the case of Archibald Douglas _versus_ the
Duke of Hamilton, which made a great noise at the time.
It was by the merest chance that Thurlow was consulted in the matter.
Two lawyers belonging to the counsel were conversing together over the
matter at a fashionable coffee-house, where Thurlow passed a great deal
too much of his time. They came to the conclusion, that a clear and
elaborate statement of the facts of the case in question, must be
carefully drawn up, a labour to which they were both averse. They
accordingly proposed to young Thurlow, at that moment idling in the bar
with the pretty maid, to undertake the task. He did so, and executed the
work with so much talent and ability, that he was retained for the
defence, and was the chief instrument in gaining his client’s cause.
This brought him into great notice, and gained him, amongst others, the
patronage of Lord Weymouth, then in the Administration, who brought him
into Parliament.
Solicitor-General in 1770, and Attorney-General in 1771, he was a firm
supporter of Lord North’s Administration, and spoke so eloquently on the
Ministerial side when the American war broke out, that he was created
Lord Thurlow of Ashfield, and next day Lord High Chancellor.
On taking his seat in the House of Lords, the Duke of Grafton made some
slighting remark on the obscurity of the Thurlow family, to which the
new Peer, although owning the truth of this assertion, retorted in so
cutting a manner, with an allusion to the bar sinister in the Ducal coat
of arms, as turned the laugh completely against his Grace.
Lord Thurlow retained the Great Seal till turned out by the Cornwallis
Ministry, but on Pitt becoming Premier he was reinstated in office. In
1793-4 his opinions were so adverse to those of the Government, that he
tendered his resignation, and never returned to office. He still,
however, continued to take great interest in public affairs during the
remainder of his life, frequenting, and often speaking in the House of
Lords. Eloquent, energetic, just, severe, at times morose, he was
unpopular (socially speaking) with the members of the legal profession.
Lord Thurlow was a man of pleasure, but a scholar, a patron of
literature and the arts, though sometimes accused of bestowing benefits
in an ungracious manner. He never married, and his honours devolved on
his brother, the Bishop of Durham. He left three natural daughters, to
two of whom he bequeathed good fortunes, and to the other only a scanty
pittance, in consequence of her having made a marriage which displeased
him. On his retirement he gave himself up to literary pursuits,
translating the classics, and writing fugitive pieces on various
subjects; and in a high-flown dedication of his poem, ‘The Doge’s
Daughter,’ to Lord Eldon, he extols the efficacy of ‘the light and
cheerful airs of poesy’ as ‘medicine for the mind.’ There seems little
doubt he derived great amusement from his own poetical effusions,
whatever his readers may have done.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration]
_BILLIARD ROOM_.
[Illustration]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLIARD ROOM.
-------
No. 16.
FRANCES HOWARD, DUCHESS OF RICHMOND
AND LENNOX.
BY VANDYCK.
BORN 1577-8, DIED 1639.
_Full length. Black velvet dress. Girdle of pearls. Pearls in her hair.
Cap, wimple. In one hand a staff, in the other a handkerchief, marked
F. R. Miniature at her bosom. Coronet on the table._
SHE was the daughter of Thomas, first Viscount Howard of Bindon, by his
third wife, Mabel, daughter of Nicholas Burton of Carshalton, county
Surrey.
A curious contemporaneous account is given of this remarkable woman:
‘She was one of the greatest, both for birth and beauty, in the land,
but at first she went a step backward.’ This alludes to her early fancy
for one Prannall, a vintner, and son to a rich alderman. Their union
made a great noise in the world of which Frances Howard was a
distinguished ornament, the bridegroom having incurred severe censure,
wrote a touching and manly appeal, to Lord Burghley on the occasion.
We subjoin some extracts: ‘My very good Lorde, hearing to my very grete
griefe, how your Honour, by misinformation, shulde be incensed againste
me, and daring not presume into your Lordship’s presence to pleade
pardon for my amisse, I thoughte it my duty to acknowledge my fault, and
under your Lordship’s favoure, with all humilitie, to allege somewhat
for myselfe. Though I have married Mistress Frances Howard, yet I
proteste, as I desire your Honour’s patronage, I did not begin my suit
without the knowledge of her friendes, neither cann they justifie I
married her against their willes. The gentlewoman I have a long time
dearlie loved, being bounde thereto by her mutuall likinge of me. I
expected little or nothing with her, she having little or nothing to
maintaine herself, and being destitute of friendes, I thoughte it
friendlie to present her myselfe, and thereby to make her partaker of
‘all wherewith God had blessed me,’ and so forth. Then he goes on to
remark to the great Minister that he did not think ‘your Lordship, being
busied with serious publick affairs, woulde have time to be troubled
with such domestical and private matters,’ etc. etc. ‘It cannot be
justlie suggested that the gentlewoman is cast away, consideringe I will
avowe myself a poore gentleman, the son of a deceased alderman of honest
fame,—one who is to assure her a large jointure, one whose inward
disposition of mynde his outward behaviour can testifie.’ Continuing in
this quaint style, he encloses a schedule of his estate and property,
and concludes with ‘all manner of goode wishes for Lord Burghley
himself, and his progenie, both in this worlde and that which is to
come,’ subscribing himself, ‘your Honour’s poore suppliant, Henry
Prannall.’
The true-hearted plebeian did not survive his marriage long, to fret the
proud spirit of the Howards; and, faithful to his promise, he left a
large fortune to his young and beautiful widow, unencumbered by children
to perpetuate the despised name of Prannall. Under these circumstances,
it may well be imagined Mistress Frances did not want for suitors. One
Sir George Rodney, we are told, ‘a gentleman of the West, well fitted in
person and fortune, fixed his hopes upon her, but Edward Earl of
Hertford, being entangled by her eyes, she, having “a tang of her
grandfather’s ambition,” left Rodney, and married Hertford. The knight
having drunk in too much affection, and not being able to digest it,
summoned up his scattered spirits, to a most desperate attempt, and
coming to Amesbury in Wilts, where the Earl and Countess then resided,
shut himself in a chamber, and wrote a large paper of well-composed
verses to the Countess in his own blood.’
A strange sort of composedness, ‘wherein he wails his unhappinesse, and
when he had sent them to her, he ran himself upon his sword, leaving the
Countess to a strict remembrance of her inconstancy, and himself a
desperate and sad spectacle of frailty.’
Such trifles made little impression on Lady Hertford, who so wrought
upon the good-nature of the Earl, her husband, that he settled above
£5000 a year on her, for life. She carried a fair fame during Lord
Hertford’s time, although she had many admirers, and amongst them the
Duke of Richmond, whom she afterwards espoused. She was very fond of
boasting of her high descent, and of her two grand, grandfathers, the
Dukes of Norfolk and Buckingham, but she would desist when Hertford came
into her presence, for, ‘when he found her in those exaltations, he
would say, “Frank, Frank, how long is it since thou wert married to
Prannall?” which woulde damp the wings of her spirit.’
Lodowick Stuart, son of Esme, fifth Duke of Lennox and second Duke of
Richmond, as we have already said, paid his addresses to her, while Lord
Hertford was still alive; and, says Wilson, (whom we have already
quoted,) ‘that in very odd disguises.’
She survived the Duke, her third husband, well pleased with the grand
title he had bestowed on her. But the proud widow had ‘still more
transcendent heights in speculation,’ for King James, being then a
widower, she turned her eyes on him, saying, ‘that after so great a
Prince as Richmond,’ she ‘would never condescend to be kissed by, or to
eat at the table of a subject. She wished this vow to be spread abroad,
that the King might take notice of the bravery of her spirit. But it did
not catch the old King, so that she missed her aim.’
‘The Duchess was a woman greedy of fame, and loved to keep great state
with little cost, for being much visited by the great ones, she had a
formality of officers and gentlemen that gave attendance. None ever sat
with her, yet all the tables in the hall were spread; but before
eating-time, the house being voided, the linen returned into its folds,
and all her people grazed on few dishes. Yet when her actions came into
fame’s fingering, her gifts were suitable to her greatness; for the
Queen of Bohemia, to the christening of whose child she was a witness,
had some taste of them. The Duchess, either to magnify her merit (or it
was done by others in mockery to magnify her vanity) had huge
inventories of massy plate writ down that she had given that Queen; yet
they were but paper presents. Those inventories had _a non est
inventus_. At the Hague, the shell (the inventory) was seen; but the
kernel (the plate) was never found.’
The Duchess of Richmond was half-sister to Lady Thynne, second wife to
Sir Thomas Thynne. She died at Exeter House in the Strand, and was
buried in Henry VII.’s chapel, beside her last husband.
--------------
No. 17.
THOMAS THYNNE, SECOND MARQUIS OF BATH.
BY PICKERSGILL.
BORN 1765, DIED 1837.
_Full length. Robes of Knight of the Garter._
THE eldest son of the first Marquis, by Lady Elizabeth Bentinck, was
Knight of the Garter, Lord-Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum, county
Somerset, F.S.A. and F.S.L. Married in 1794 Isabella, daughter of
George, fourth Viscount Torrington, and Lady Lucy Boyle, by whom he had
seven sons, and three daughters.
Lord Bath, like his predecessors, made considerable alterations in the
house, and estate, and died in 1837, deeply and deservedly regretted for
his hospitality, and open-handed charity. Not only did he relieve the
wants of the poor on his property, but he showed them that personal
sympathy which is above all price. He indeed loved to share his good
fortune with those around him, and was a benefactor to the neighbourhood
where he lived during a long life.
--------------
No. 18.
FRANCES ISABELLA CATHERINE,
MARCHIONESS OF BATH.
BY G. F. WATTS, R.A.
_Full length. White dress._
SHE is the eldest daughter of Thomas, third Viscount de Vesci, by Lady
Emma Herbert, youngest daughter of George Augustus, eleventh Earl of
Pembroke. She married John Alexander, fourth and present Marquis of
Bath, in 1861.
[Illustration]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration]
_DINING ROOM_.
[Illustration]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_DINING ROOM_.
No. 19.
ELIZABETH SACKVILLE, VISCOUNTESS WEYMOUTH.
BORN 1713, DIED 1729.
_Plain white dress. Looking at a miniature she holds in her hand._
THE second daughter of Lionel, first Duke of Dorset, by the daughter of
General Colyear. She became the bride of the second Lord Weymouth, the
respective ages of the pair being sixteen and fourteen. Immediately
after the ceremony the bridegroom proceeded on his travels, and the
separation was eternal, for the poor child-wife died before the return
of her lord to England.
--------------
No. 20.
FRANCES FINCH, VISCOUNTESS WEYMOUTH.
BY SIR PETER LELY.
DIED 1712.
_Fair hair. Grey gown. Blue mantle. Spaniel in her lap._
ELDEST daughter of Heneage Finch, second Earl of Winchilsea, by Mary,
daughter of William Seymour, Duke of Somerset. She married the first
Lord Weymouth, by whom she had a son, Henry, who died _v.p._, and a
daughter, married to Sir Robert Worsley, Bart.
--------------
No. 21.
THOMAS THYNNE, SECOND VISCOUNT
WEYMOUTH.
BY DAHL.
BORN 1710, DIED 1751.
_Tawny coat. White skirt. Short hair._
ON the death of the first Viscount, the title and estates, by virtue of
patent, and entail, descended to the heirs of his youngest brother,
Henry Frederick, namely, his grandson Thomas, then only four years old,
the posthumous son of Thomas Thynne, by Lady Mary Villiers, daughter of
the first Earl of Jersey.
His guardians appear to have been in haste to arrange the young lord’s
marriage. At the early age of sixteen he espoused Lady Elizabeth
Sackville, eldest surviving daughter of Lionel, Duke of Dorset. But the
married pair were immediately separated, as before mentioned, and Lord
Weymouth sent off to travel, and while absent from his wife she fell
sick, and died in 1729. On his return to England in the same year, a
second wife was speedily provided for him, in the person of Lady Louisa
Carteret, daughter of John Earl Granville, by whom he had three sons;
Lord Weymouth, on first coming of age, finding the grounds and gardens
round Longleat House, not only in a bad state, but in too antiquated a
style to suit his taste, sent for the renowned ‘Capability Brown’ to
improve and modernise them; some of the plans, however, made at that
time were not carried out till later. ‘The most august house in England’
was much neglected during this Lord’s lifetime. He did not reside there
in his minority, and soon after he came of age he went to live in an old
manor-house in the neighbouring village of Horningsham, which had once
belonged to the Arundel family. He died and was buried at Horningsham.
In 1739 Lord Weymouth was appointed Ranger of Hyde and St. James’s
Parks.
--------------
No. 22.
THOMAS THYNNE, FIRST VISCOUNT WEYMOUTH.
BY SIR PETER LELY.
BORN 1640, DIED 1714.
_Coronation robes. Holding coronet. Full wig._
THE eldest son of Sir Henry Frederick Thynne, Bart., of Kempsford, by
Mary, daughter of the first Lord Coventry. From his schoolmaster, Dr.
William Burton, young Thynne imbibed a taste for antiquarian research,
which lasted his life. He studied successively under Dr. Triplet and Dr.
Henry Drummond, both literary men of mark, and finally at Christ Church
College, Oxford, under Dr. John Fell, afterwards Bishop of the diocese.
It was about the year 1657, that Thynne entered the University at the
same time as Ken, with whom he then formed a close friendship, which
only terminated with the life of that celebrated divine. In 1673 Thomas
Thynne was returned M.P. for the University of Oxford, in place of Sir
Heneage Finch, appointed Lord Keeper, and later he sat for Tamworth. In
1679 he was chosen Honorary Steward of Sutton Coldfield, county Warwick;
and in 1682, in addition to his large paternal estates, he inherited
Longleat and other vast possessions on the murder of his cousin and
namesake. This was in virtue of an entail made by his uncle, Sir James.
The same year he was raised to the peerage by the titles of Baron Thynne
of Warminster, county Wilts, and Viscount Weymouth, county Dorset, with
limitations to his brothers in default of male issue. In 1762 Lord
Weymouth was sworn of Queen Anne’s Privy Council, and in 1710 Custos
Rotulorum, county Wilts, and the ensuing year Keeper of His Majesty’s
deer, and woods, Forest of Dean. He married the daughter of the second
Earl of Winchilsea, by whom he had three children.
Lord Weymouth was much esteemed for many excellent qualities. He died in
the seventy-fourth year of his age, and was buried at Longbridge
Deverill; his kindness and hospitality towards Bishop Ken is recorded in
another page.
He appears to have been worthy of his good fortune, inasmuch as he
valued and appreciated the beautiful estate which had fallen to his
share. He made considerable improvements in the interior of Longleat
House, finished and caused to be consecrated the domestic chapel, and
laid out the gardens adjoining the mansion. He was a friend to
literature, a patron of literary men, and was deservedly regretted when
he passed away.
--------------
No. 23.
SIR JOHN COVENTRY.
BY DOBSON.
_Grey suit. Blue cloak._
SIR John of Pitminster, county Somerset, and Mere, county Wilts, was the
son of John Coventry, by Elizabeth, daughter and co-heir of John Barton,
and widow of one Herbert, a gentleman of Hampshire. The Lord Keeper
Coventry was his grandfather. He was Knight of the Bath, and sat in the
Long Parliament, and others, for Weymouth.
In 1670 an inhuman assault was made on him, which gave rise to the Act
since known as ‘The Coventry Act,’ against wounding, maiming, etc.
Money being asked for in the House of Commons at a time when Sir John,
and other members, were advocating economy, the good knight proposed to
tax the theatres, the immorality of which was at that time notorious.
The courtiers opposed the measure, saying that the players were the
King’s servants, and part of his pleasure. Whereupon Sir John asked
facetiously, ‘Whether the King’s pleasure lay among the actors, or the
actresses?’
This speech was reported to His Majesty by those who were glad to
inflame his choler against Coventry, and revenge was projected. Some of
the guards were to watch for Sir John in the street, and set a mark upon
him.
The Duke of York heard of the plot, and told Bishop Burnet that he had
done all in his power to dissuade his brother from so cruel and unjust a
proceeding, but in vain. As Coventry came out of his house one evening,
he was attacked by three gentlemen, but snatching the flambeau from his
servant, with the light in one hand, and his sword in the other, he made
a most gallant defence. He wounded one, but was soon overpowered, and
the villains cut his nose to the bone,—‘to remind him,’ they said, ‘of
the respect he owed the King,’ and leaving him in his pain, returned to
the Duke of Monmouth’s, whence they came. The Duke was much censured for
the part he had taken in the affair, and all the more that he and
Coventry had been on friendly terms. Fortunately for the sufferer, ‘his
nose was so well needled up,’ that the scar was scarcely perceptible.
The members of the House of Commons were furious, and passed a Bill of
banishment against the perpetrators of the outrage, with a clause that
it should not be in the King’s power to pardon them. Sir John died
unmarried.
--------------
No. 24.
SIR JOHN THYNNE,
CALLED ‘THE BUILDER.’
BY HOLBEIN.
BORN 1515, DIED 1580.
_White and gold dress, with buttons. Badge. Sword. In the corner an
inscription: ‘Sir John Thynne, builder of Long Leat. An^o Dom^i 1566.
Ætatis suæ, 51.’_
THE son of Thomas Thynne of Stretton, Shropshire, by Margaret Eynes.
In 1540 he married Christian, daughter of Sir Richard Gresham, (twice
Lord Mayor of London,) who was half-sister and co-heir of Sir Thomas
Gresham, builder of the Royal Exchange. In the same year Sir John
purchased the old Priory of the Black Canons of St. Augustine, near to
Horningsham, county Wilts, with the adjoining lands, and he spent
several years in improving and enlarging the estate.
In 1547, being then Secretary to the Duke of Somerset, he was knighted
by that nobleman in the camp before Roxburgh, after the battle of
Musselburgh and the siege of Leith.
When the Protector Somerset, to whom Sir John was much attached, was
sent to the Tower, on being attainted, his Secretary was also
imprisoned, and subjected to a heavy fine, but was soon released. In
1555 he obtained a grant of Kempsford, county Gloucester, and was
appointed by the Lady Elizabeth (afterwards Queen) Comptroller of her
Household, a post he ere long vacated, and went to live on his estate.
He sat in Parliament for county Wilts, for Bedwyn, and for Heytesbury.
Now Sir John’s good fortune roused the jealousy of his neighbours, one
of whom, an Earl and a Privy Councillor, caused him to be arraigned
before the Council, upon the somewhat novel accusation of having amassed
a large fortune. Perhaps the worshipful gentlemen were in hopes of
discovering Sir John’s secret. The knight spake out boldly, and
honestly, saying his wife’s fortune had laid a good foundation, which he
had improved by industry and economy, and he wound up his defence by
observing that his Lordship and the other gentlemen had now as good a
mistress in the Queen as he had formerly had a master in the Duke of
Somerset; and thus terminated the legal (?) inquiry into well-gotten
wealth.
It was in 1567 that he began to build that noble structure, the glory,
not only of the west, but of all England, respecting the architecture of
which, so many pages of controversy have been written.
Both to John of Padua and John Thorpe (unless they be one and the same
person) the designs for the house were attributed; but from documents
lately discovered, the most probable solution of the mystery is, that
Sir John made use of designs prepared many years before by his patron,
the Duke of Somerset, for a house on his own estate; this would account
for the name of the architect not being mentioned in the records of the
building. Be this as it may, the fame of Longleat and its beauty reached
the ears of Queen Elizabeth, and she resolved to judge for herself, even
before its completion; and so Sir Henry Seymour (the Protector’s
brother) told poor Sir John roundly, ‘that her Grace did not relish his
seeming unwillingness to receive her, and making excuses of sicknesses
and other letts to divert her from the country.’