minister, tried the block, and finally having warned the executioner
that such would be the sign, he stretched forth his white and
beautifully formed hands, those hands which Vandyck has immortalised,
which Henrietta Maria, his sworn enemy, had pronounced ‘the finest in
the world,’ and one stroke from the cruel axe ended the mortal career of
Thomas Earl of Strafford. Yet his name still continues a firebrand,
between contending parties, in religion and politics. His faithful and
devoted friend, Sir George Radcliffe, pays a most touching tribute to
his memory in a well-sketched mental portraiture, and among many noble
traits he mentions ‘that my Lord was not angry when told of his
weaknesses, though let it be remembered that by nature he was of a hot
and hasty spirit, for he was a man and not an angel, yet such a man as
made conscience of his ways, and did endeavour to grow in virtue and
victory over himself.’
He was thrice married, first, as we have already said, to Lady Margaret
Clifford, who died childless; next to the Lady Arabella Holles, daughter
to the Earl of Clare, by whom he had one son, his successor; Anne,
married to Lord Rockingham, and Arabella, married to the son of my Lord
Clancarty.
Of Lord Strafford’s second and best loved wife, Radcliffe writes: ‘She
was a lady exceeding comely and beautiful, and yet more lovely in the
endowments of her mind.’
There was a mystery attending his third marriage, (which was
clandestine,) with Elizabeth, daughter to Sir Godfrey Rhodes. They
parted almost immediately after the ceremony, and he was some time
before he would acknowledge her openly. Their correspondence was
singular, in one letter he promises to be a good husband; in another, he
reminds her that she is the successor of two of the noblest ladies of
the time. Laud, in writing his congratulations, is rather jocose on the
subject, but it does not quite appear whether the doubt existed as to
the lady’s character, or to the fitness of her birth and breeding. Her
husband’s letters to her during his trial are couched in affectionate
terms. She bore him several children, one of whom alone survived him.
Of his connection with that beautiful schemer, Lady Carlisle, the
‘Erinnys of politics’ (born Percy), there can be no doubt, and the undue
influence she exercised over him,—she who (says Sir Philip Warwick)
changed her gallant from Strafford to Pym, going over to his deadly
enemy.
But there were many other names coupled with his, apparently without any
reason, save the love of slander.
--------------
No. 99.
CHARLES THE FIRST, KING OF ENGLAND.
After Vandyck.
BORN 1600, SUCCEEDED 1625, EXECUTED 1649.
_Robes, Collar and Order of the Garter._
THE second son of James the First by Anne of Denmark. Married Henrietta
Maria of France. Dethroned and beheaded by his subjects.
--------------
No. 100.
THREE CHILDREN OF CHARLES THE FIRST.
AFTER VANDYCK.
CHARLES, PRINCE OF WALES, AFTERWARDS KING.
_Light dress. Lace collar._
JAMES DUKE OF YORK, AFTERWARDS KING.
_White frock. Lace cap._
PRINCESS ROYAL, WIFE TO THE PRINCE OF ORANGE,
AND MOTHER TO WILLIAM THE THIRD.
_Two dogs beside the children._
--------------
No. 101.
HENRIETTA MARIA, QUEEN OF ENGLAND.
AFTER VANDYCK.
BORN 1607, DIED 1669.
_Blue dress, with flowers in her lap._
DAUGHTER of Henry IV., King of France, by Marie de Medicis, and wife of
Charles the First, King of England.
--------------
No. 102.
WILLIAM, SECOND DUKE OF HAMILTON.
AFTER VANDYCK.
BORN 1616, DIED 1651.
_Mantle, Ribbon, and Star of Garter._
SECOND son of James, second Marquis of Hamilton, by Anne, daughter of
James Conyngham, seventh Earl of Glencairn. Educated at the University
of Glasgow, and afterwards travelled in foreign countries. His brother,
who was ten years his senior, was the friend and companion of King
Charles I., who raised him to a Dukedom. William, in returning home
after his tour, reckoned on his brother’s influence for promotion at
Court, and applied for the post of Master of the Horse to the Queen. The
refusal he met with, although founded on the plea of a previous promise
to another, so angered young Hamilton that he announced his intention of
going back to France, and it was with difficulty he was dissuaded from
so doing by prospects of speedy advancement. He had not long to wait. In
1639 he was created Baron Polmont and Machanshire, and Earl of Arran and
Lanark, and the following year Secretary of State for Scotland, honours
which must surely have satisfied this ardent and ambitious spirit,
although Scotland was at that moment in such a state of fermentation
that the direction of her affairs was far too arduous for a young man
totally unacquainted with public business. Lord Lanark therefore looked
to his brother as a man of ability and experience for advice and
guidance. The mother of the two Hamiltons, a determined and energetic
woman, had early instilled into the mind of her first-born the religious
tenets in which she had been educated by her father, a staunch
Covenanter; and the elder had no difficulty in imparting his views to
the younger brother, and the two young men conceived, says Lodge, ‘the
impracticable scheme of uniting and reconciling the actual monarchy with
a Calvinistic Church.’
For two years Lord Lanark strove, on the one hand, to persuade the King
to make all manner of humiliating concessions to the Covenanters, while
on the other he used fruitless endeavours to stem the tide of the
rebellious outbreak; and naturally he was unsuccessful in both
instances. Charles’s partiality for the house of Hamilton was no help to
him in his troubles north of the Tweed. In 1642, the Scotch having
called a Parliament without the royal sanction, the King wrote,—‘If,
notwithstanding our refusal, and the endeavours of our well affected
subjects and servants to hinder it, there shall be a Convention of the
Estates, we wish all those who are right affected to us should be
present at it, but do nothing but only protest against their meeting and
actions.’ The Hamiltons accordingly took their seats, but were silent
members on most occasions. Their conduct in several instances was most
inconsistent, and when the Scotch Parliament, following the example of
their English brethren, levied troops in the King’s name to make war on
Charles himself, Lanark actually affixed the royal signet to the
proclamation for the levy!
Such behaviour naturally incensed all true-hearted Royalists, and the
Duke of Montrose especially was so disgusted that he hastened to Oxford,
where the Court then was, to denounce the brothers. They on their part,
discovering his intention, thought it wisest to follow him, but were
arrested and imprisoned on their arrival. Lanark soon found means to
escape to London, and afterwards to Scotland, where he recommenced his
temporising policy, professing all the while deep attachment to the
King, which did not prevent his joining the Covenanters against the Duke
of Montrose. So contradictory a proceeding led to the rumour that he
acted in obedience to secret orders from the King himself, who soon
afterwards received him back into favour, and reinstated him in the
Secretaryship of which he had been deprived. Charles’s conduct with
regard to the Duke was inexplicable, for when that nobleman, who had
been for some time a prisoner in Pendennis Castle, Cornwall, (whence he
was released by the chances of war,) joined the King at Newcastle, he
was received without the slightest signs of anger. Neither did Charles
resent the manner in which Lanark endeavoured to enforce the bitter
terms proposed by the Scottish Parliament, although he resolutely
refused to submit to such conditions. This was in 1646, when the idea
was entertained of delivering up the person of the King to the English
Commissioner. Lanark, however, was roused on this occasion, and
exclaimed indignantly, ‘As God shall have mercy on my soul at the great
day, I would choose rather to have my head struck off at the Market
Cross of Edinburgh than give my consent to this vote.’ He was now in
constant attendance on the King, who treated him with great confidence.
The Duke of Hamilton placed himself at the head of an army of Scottish
Royalists, and made an irruption into England, but was defeated by
Cromwell’s forces and taken prisoner. His trial and execution followed
shortly after that of the King himself; and about the same time, Lanark,
being deprived of his public offices and proscribed by the Government,
fled to Holland.
It was not, indeed, till his arrival in that country, Clarendon says,
‘that he knew he was Duke Hamilton by the slaughter of his brother;’
Charles II. received the new Duke with affection and sympathy. Lanark
had loved his brother with a blind affection, which led to his following
him on many occasions against his own views.
He said his condition had been very hard, for having been bred up in the
Church of England, for which he had a great reverence, he had been
forced to comply with the Covenant, which he perfectly detested. Charles
gave him the Garter, and took him in his suite to Scotland, where, not
being permitted to enter the capital, he retired to the isle of Arran,
whence he was recalled by the King’s orders.
At the commencement of the ensuing year he raised a body of men for His
Majesty’s service, and distinguished himself at their head against the
English Roundheads in Scotland, and was appointed Lieutenant-General of
the Scotch army under orders to cross the Border. Hamilton’s inclination
was to march on London, but his wishes were overruled by the King.
Cromwell came up with the Royalist troops, and gave them battle at
Worcester—a sad day for England’s nobles, when so many fell. Bishop
Burnet tells us how devoutly and piously the Duke passed the vigil of
his last battle. Stationed at his post at an early hour, he saw with
dismay (shortly after the commencement of the action) his own regiment
in retreat, and rashly galloped forward to rally the fugitives. A shot
in the leg shattered the bone, and the brave General fell into the hands
of his enemies. But the wound (though it proved mortal) saved him from
the fate that had attended his brother. He only survived eight days, the
surgeons quarrelling all the time over the question of amputation. There
is a tradition in Worcester that the body of the Duke was buried
provisionally, under the hearthstone, in the room of a hospital, (now a
Blind School,) called the Commandery, before it was transferred to the
Cathedral. Lord Clarendon says of Duke William: ‘He was much to be
preferred to his brother, a wiser, but less cunning man, an accomplished
person; and though he had been led into some unwarrantable actions, it
was evident it was not through his own inclination. In his death he
showed a great cheerfulness, that he had the honour to die for the King,
and thereby wipe out the memory of his former transgressions, which was
odious to himself.’ Burnet says from a child he could never on any
temptation be made to lie.
His faults seem to have been greatly owing to a blind adherence to the
proceedings and opinions of his brother. The Bishop describes William
Duke of Hamilton ‘as of middle stature, complexion black, but very
agreeable, and his whole mien noble and sprightful.’ He married in 1638
Lady Elizabeth Maxwell, eldest daughter and co-heir of James Earl of
Dirleton, in Scotland, and by her had one son who died an infant, and
five daughters.
--------------
No. 103.
MARTIN LUTHER.
BORN 1483, DIED 1546.
_Black gown and cap._
THE biography of ‘the day-star of the Reformation’ belongs to the
history of the world, and we have no space for a notice of the principal
events of his life. He was the son of a miner, originally intended for
the study of civil law, but being struck by lightning, his mind took a
strong religious turn, and he eventually became a priest. It is well
known how his indignation was aroused by the sale of indulgences, and
other abuses of the Church of Rome, and with what indomitable courage
and energy he upheld and promulgated his opinions, enduring persecution,
danger, and imprisonment for conscience’ sake. He married Catherine von
Bora, who had been a nun, a step which gave great offence in many
quarters.
He is one of those men whose name is a history in itself.
--------------
No. 104.
CHARLES PRINCE OF WALES, AFTERWARDS
KING CHARLES THE FIRST.
AFTER VANDYCK.
_Full length. In armour. Red and gold trunks. Riding boots, one top
turned down to show the Garter. Helmet on the ground._
--------------
No. 105.
HENRY THE FOURTH, KING OF NAVARRE, AND
OF FRANCE.
BORN 1553, MURDERED 1610.
_Full length. In armour, with a white scarf, blue ribbon, and Order.
Boots and spurs. Helmet on the ground._
HE was the son of Anthony de Bourbon and Jeanne d’Albret, Queen of
Navarre. Brought up by his mother in the strictest principles of the
Protestant faith, whose champion he became, defending it by speech and
sword. He was heir to the throne of France, as well as Navarre, in right
of descent from Louis IX., called St. Louis. On the death of Henry III.
he succeeded him as King, and it was then he embraced the Roman Catholic
faith, although he watched over the interests of his former friends as
far as was consistent with the policy of his government.
The Edict of Nantes in 1595 was most advantageous to the Huguenots.
Henry was for some time involved in foreign warfare, but peace was at
length established. Though having at heart the improvement and the
well-being of his subjects of all conditions, yet parties ran so high
that his life was constantly attempted. It was reserved for the hand of
a fanatic, one Ravaillac, (a monk, whose ill conduct had caused him to
be expelled from his convent,) to terminate the valuable life of this
great and noble Prince. He was twice married, first to Margaret de
Valois, sister to Charles IX., the King and Queen-Mother having elected
to make the terrible massacre of St. Bartholomew one of the features of
rejoicing for these ill-starred nuptials. From her he was divorced, and
married as his second wife Marie de Medicis.
--------------
No. 106.
EDWARD STAFFORD, DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
AFTER HOLBEIN.
EXECUTED 1521.
_Brown vest, blue sleeves. Red mantle with fur. Black cap, and jewel._
HIS father, Henry Duke of Buckingham, was executed in the reign of
Richard III., but the titles and estates were restored to his son.
Edward accompanied Henry VIII. to France when he went to meet the French
King. He was a great favourite with his Sovereign, which caused him to
be an object of jealousy at Court, and his downfall was planned by
influential foes, amongst whom Wolsey was accounted the chief.
Buckingham was the last to occupy the post of Lord High Constable of
England, an office of great power and emolument. Accused of high
treason, his enemies went so far as to say he aspired to the Crown, it
having been prophesied by one Hopkins, a monk, that King Henry would die
without male issue. The Duke was found guilty on very insufficient
evidence, and beheaded on Tower Hill. His name and memory are endeared
to us, through the inspired pages of Shakespeare—the eloquent
description of his character given by the King himself, even while he
promised him no mercy, and the appeal of Queen Katherine, pathetic, but
unavailing, ‘that the Lord Cardinal should deliver all his evidence in
charity.’
--------------
No. 107.
HENEAGE FINCH, EARL OF NOTTINGHAM.
BY SIR PETER LELY.
BORN 1621, DIED 1682.
_Robes and badges of office._
SIR Thomas Finch, Privy Councillor to Queen Elizabeth, holding many
lucrative offices under the Crown, had an only daughter, Elizabeth, by
his wife, the daughter of Sir Nicholas Poyntz, of Acton Poyntz, county
Gloucester. Sir Thomas left his heiress a very large fortune, and she
married Sir Moyle Finch, and was the grandmother of the first Earl of
Nottingham of that name. Sir Moyle died in 1614, and his widow was
created Viscountess Maidstone in 1623, and in 1628 further advanced to
the grade of Countess of Winchilsea. Her fourth son, Heneage, was a
celebrated lawyer, Speaker of the House of Commons, and the friend of
Bacon. He married the daughter of Sir Edmond Bell of Beaupré, county
Suffolk, and their eldest child was the subject of this memoir.
He was born at his father’s beautiful estate of Eastwell in Kent, but
passed most of his youth at Kensington, which property, it may here be
observed, was purchased by William III. of Finch’s grandson, and has
remained in possession of the Crown ever since.
Heneage received a good education at Westminster and Oxford, and went to
Christ Church in 1645, where he was steady and studious; but the sudden
death of his father, from whom he inherited a large fortune, called him
away from the University before he had taken his degree. Rich as he was,
it did not suit the young man’s taste to remain without a profession;
and he began to study law in the Inner Temple, where he soon gained a
name for fluency of speech and readiness of reply, and was called to the
bar before the usual time in consideration of his proficiency.
During the Protectorate Finch contented himself with an extensive
private practice, and having married Elizabeth Harvey, daughter of a
London merchant, lived a happy domestic life with his ‘pretty and
dearly-loved wife.’ He came of too loyal a family, and shared their
opinions too truly, to be popular with the powers that then were, or to
seek their favour.
His kinsman, Sir John Finch, (Speaker of the House of Commons,) had made
himself so obnoxious to the Government that he had found it advisable to
fly the country, while another cousin was in actual attendance on the
King’s person.
At the time of the Restoration, Heneage Finch contrived to ingratiate
himself with His Majesty by getting up a memorial, signed by the
principal inhabitants of his county, to show forth that none of ‘the men
of Kent’ had had any participation in the ‘murder of Charles the
Martyr.’ At all events, it was not long after his Restoration that the
King summoned him from his retreat, named him Solicitor-General, and
gave him a Baronetcy. In return for these honours perhaps it might have
been that Sir Heneage pursued the prosecution of the regicides with
great violence, and would willingly have brought John Milton to condign
punishment on account of his political tendencies.
He served in several Parliaments for Canterbury, Oxford, etc., but never
gave up his profession, and as a true Templar he acquired great
‘_kudos_’ (in 1601) by an eloquent course of lectures, which he
delivered, in his capacity of Reader, at the Temple. Surely that
time-honoured pile had never witnessed such a brilliant concourse as
flocked to listen to the law and learning of the future Lord Chancellor.
All the dignitaries of London, in the robes of their respective
callings, municipal, clerical, commercial, legal, and the last day of
the course many Peers of the realm, members of the royal household, in
barges of State, attended by servants in scarlet and white doublets, the
King’s own Majesty, accompanied by the Duke of York, Prince Rupert, and
numerous grandees. This was but the shadow of coming honours.
Sir Heneage continued in Parliament for some time, now gaining, now
losing, popularity with his constituents, for voting as he thought fit
on important measures.
In 1670 he became Attorney-General on the death of Sir Jeffrey Palmer,
having exercised the duties of the office for some time past. His
ambition, however, suffered a temporary disappointment, when, on the
removal of Sir Orlando Bridgeman, he saw his rival, Lord Shaftesbury,
elevated to the Woolsack in his despite.
But he had not long to wait for his enemy’s downfall. At the end of 1673
the Great Seal of England was consigned to him, and the beginning of the
next year saw him Lord Keeper, with the title of Baron Finch of
Daventry, in the county of Northampton, and other dignities.
In 1677 he sat as Lord High Steward of England on the trial of Philip
Earl of Pembroke, and in 1680 on that of William Howard, Viscount
Stafford, where his speech, in which he passed sentence on that
unfortunate nobleman, (accused of plotting against the King,) was
pronounced a model of eloquence, but scarcely of justice. Burnet, who
found great fault with him in many ways, testifies to his probity, yet
other writers insinuate that he consulted the royal wishes on many
points of law, at least before he had attained to the heights of his
ambition.
Be that as it may, he was very firm on all matters where the interests
of the Reformed Church were concerned. In his latter days Lord Finch
became so great a sufferer from gout that he was for some time
incapacitated from attending his duties in public, and he did not long
survive the last mark of royal favour, dying within a year after the
Earldom of Nottingham had been conferred on him.
This great lawyer, who has been called ‘the Father of Equity,’ and
‘Finch the Silver Tongue,’ died at his house in Queen Street, Covent
Garden, and was buried at Ravenstone, near Olney, county Bucks, where a
grand monument assigns him every virtue under the sun. He had fourteen
children, of whom the eldest son was the ancestor of the present Earl of
Winchilsea and Nottingham, and the second of the Earl of Aylesford.
Lord Nottingham was a liberal patron of literary men, and encouraged
rising talent. As Bishop Warburton quaintly expresses it, (in a letter
to Lady Mansfield, Nottingham’s granddaughter, and wife of the
celebrated Judge,) ‘He was elegantly ambitious to give the last polish
to his country by patronage of learning and science.’
In the distribution of Church preferment he was very conscientious, and
often said, ‘God knows, I would not willingly appoint one unworthy.’ He
was by no means of a grasping disposition, and having a good private
fortune, gave up of his own accord £4000 a year, which was allowed him
in his official capacity for the expenses of the table.
In ‘Absalom and Achitophel,’ Dryden contrasts him, (by the name of
Amri,) in most complimentary terms, with Lord Shaftesbury.
Alluding to the English laws, the poet says he had fathomed them all:—
‘No Rabbin speaks like him, their magic spell,
So just, and with such charms of eloquence;
To whom the double blessing does belong,
With Moses’ inspiration, Aaron’s tongue.’
Worth says, that ‘the business, rather than the justice of the Court,
flourished exceedingly under Finch.’ Another opinion has it that ‘he was
a formalist, and took much pleasure in encouraging and listening to nice
distinctions of law, instead of taking a broad view of the equity of
each case.’ So do historians differ. It was said he had such fear of
thieves stealing his wand of office, that he used to sleep with the mace
under his pillow.
--------------
No. 108.
GEORGE MONCK, DUKE OF ALBEMARLE.
BY SIR PETER LELY.
BORN 1608, DIED 1670.
_Gold armour. Mantle, collar, and badge of Garter. Left arm akimbo.
Right hand holding a truncheon._
A NATIVE of Devonshire. When a youth of seventeen he became involved in
some local quarrel, where, says the _Biographie Universelle_, ‘par excès
d’amour filial, il maltraita le sous-Sheriff d’Exeter.’ He was sent to
sea, and served at one time under the Duke of Buckingham. In 1629 he
entered an English regiment in Holland, where he studied the art of war
with great diligence, and was remarkable for his steadiness of conduct,
and the discipline he maintained among the soldiers, treating them at
the same time with uniform kindness. In 1639 he returned to England; and
in Charles I.’s disastrous expedition to Scotland, Monck displayed great
skill in command of the artillery, though productive of no good results.
He then went to Ireland on promotion, where he did considerable service,
and was made Governor of Dublin; but the Parliament intervening, he was
suspended from the office; and on the conclusion of a treaty (by the
King’s command) with the Irish rebels, he once more returned to England.