Chapter II: Part 2

Dorset was a staunch adherent of the King, upholding him by word of mouth, supplying him with money, and fighting by his side in the field, at the battle of Edgehill, where he distinguished himself, and recovered the royal standard from the hands of the enemy. He was, as Clarendon says, ‘of most entire fidelity to the Crown,’ attending on the royal person constantly, and using every endeavour to bring about peace between Charles and his subjects. It is said, on the authority of Sir Edward Walker, that so deeply did the noble Earl of Dorset take to heart the murder of his royal master, that he never stirred out of his house after the King’s execution.

He married Mary, daughter and co-heir of Sir George Curzon of Croxhall, county Dorset, a lady of large fortune, most virtuous and accomplished. Indeed, so highly esteemed and honoured was she, that at her demise in 1645, both Houses of Parliament decreed her a public funeral. By his wife, Lord Dorset had one daughter, and two sons, the eldest of whom succeeded him, and the second, when in arms for the King, was taken prisoner by the Roundheads and barbarously murdered.

--------------

No. 8.

HENRY RICH, EARL OF HOLLAND.

BY CORNELIUS JANSEN.

EXECUTED 1649.

_Breastplate. Order of the Garter. White collar. White and gold sleeves.
Flowing hair._

He was the second son of Robert Rich, first Earl of Warwick, by the Lady Penelope Devereux, daughter of Walter Earl of Essex.

Clarendon says of him that ‘he was a very handsome man, of a lovely and winning presence and genteel conversation.’ He went to France in his youth, was afterwards in arms in Holland; and returning to England, presented himself at Court. Here he attracted the notice and favour of George Duke of Buckingham, then all-powerful with King James I. Young Rich was said to have flattered his patron not a little, and certainly if he did so, it was to some purpose. It seems to have been through Buckingham’s intervention that he married the rich heiress of Sir John Cope of Kensington, of which place Rich shortly bore the title of Baron. He also held offices at Court, both about the King’s person and that of Henry, Prince of Wales, was made Earl of Holland, Knight of the Garter, Privy Councillor, and sent Ambassador to treat, concerning the marriage of Prince Charles, first in Spain and afterwards in France. On the latter occasion, it was rumoured that his beauty and courtliness made a deep impression on the heart of Henrietta Maria.

He also went to Holland with the Duke of Buckingham on matters regarding the Palatinate, etc.

In 1639, on the first breaking out of an insurrection of the Scots, he was made General of the Horse in that expedition, and though not in arms at the commencement of the Civil War, when evil days fell on the King, Holland joined him with many other Royalist noblemen, and being appointed General of the King’s army, numbers flocked to ask commissions from him. But in July 1648, after several fluctuations of fortune, Lord Holland was pursued, and taken prisoner near St. Neot’s, in Huntingdonshire, whence he was conveyed to Warwick House, and finally to the Tower.

A High Court of Justice was appointed to sit for the trial of the Duke of Hamilton, the Earl of Holland, and other Peers; he was in ill-health, and when examined, answered little, ‘as a man who would rather receive his life from their favour, than from the strength of his defence.’

But he was condemned with the rest of the Lords, in spite of the influence of his brother, the Earl of Warwick, and the Presbyterian party, who to a man voted for his life. There was a majority against him of three or four votes only; but Cromwell, it appears, had an inveterate dislike to him. Accordingly, on the 9th of March 1649, on the scaffold erected before Westminster Hall, Lord Holland suffered death, immediately after the Duke of Hamilton.

Spent by long sickness, he addressed but few words to the people, recommending them, with his last breath, to uphold the King’s government and the established religion.

He left four sons and five daughters. Robert, the eldest, succeeded to his father’s honours, and likewise to the earldom of Warwick, on the death of his uncle in 1672.

--------------

No. 9.

MALE PORTRAIT—UNKNOWN.

_Black gown and cap. Holding a carnation. A scroll with the words
‘Supplicatur vos.’ The rest is illegible._

--------------

No. 10.

HENRY THE EIGHTH, KING OF ENGLAND.

BY HOLBEIN.

BORN 1491, DIED 1547.

_Inscription in background, ‘Anno reg. 36, etatis 54.’ Gold and jewelled
dress, slashed. White collar. Chain, alternate columns and H.S. A
disk of gold adorned with jewels. He holds a glove. Mantle trimmed
with fur. Sleeves of cloth of gold, very full. Hat and feathers._

THE eldest surviving son of Henry VII. by Elizabeth of York. Succeeded his father in 1509. He married six wives, of whom ‘the best beloved’ was Jane Seymour, with whose family, that of the Thynnes had much intercourse and relationship.

--------------

No. 11.

THOMAS LORD SEYMOUR OF SUDELEY.

BY HOLBEIN.

EXECUTED 1549-50.

_Black gown and cap. Badge of Garter suspended by a ribbon round his
neck._

HE was the fourth son of Sir John Seymour of Wulfhall, by Margaret Wentworth. He was one of the twelve assistants to the executors of the will of his brother-in-law Henry VIII., and on the accession of Edward VI. he was advanced to great honour. Having already distinguished himself as a sailor, he was made Lord High Admiral and Baron Seymour of Sudeley, also Knight of the Garter. But these honours did not satisfy the King’s ambitious uncle; he turned his thoughts to a royal alliance, and asked the consent of the Council to his marriage with the Princess Elizabeth, then only fifteen.

His suit was refused. He then, having in his pay a gentleman about the King, bade him ask Edward whom he should marry. ‘His Majesty,’ says Froude, ‘graciously offered Anne of Cleves,’ and then added he would rather he married Princess Mary, in order that she might change her opinions. But that would neither have suited the Council, nor Mary herself, so Seymour was fain to put up with a Queen-Dowager instead of a future Queen-Regnant, and he proffered his addresses in a quarter where he knew they would be acceptable.

Between him and Queen Catharine Parr there had been love-passages, when she was the widow of Lord Latimer, till a King became his rival. Catharine at first refused to marry until her two years of widowhood should be passed, but Seymour soon prevailed on her to consent to a private union, and letters still extant show that she used to receive him clandestinely, at the palace, Chelsea.

She shared her Lord’s hatred, and jealousy of his brother the Protector, and his wife, and said, if they refused their consent, it would be of no consequence. The amiable young King was easily persuaded to do as his uncle wished, and begged Catharine to listen to Seymour’s suit. She also desired her lover to ask the Council to intercede with her in his behalf, when she was already his wife.

Princess Mary sensibly refrained from meddling, and while all these schemes were being carried on, the whole truth was discovered. There was a general outcry at the scandal, and it was no wonder that the Protector was much displeased.

Besides, it was a question if it were not high treason to marry a Queen widow, so soon after the Sovereign’s death, (at all events it was made into a charge against Seymour later,) as it might possibly have added a fresh difficulty to the vexed question of the succession to the Crown.

On the breaking out of the Scotch war, the Lord High Admiral was ordered to take command of the fleet, but he preferred remaining at home, and superintending the affairs of the Admiralty, and sent a substitute to sea.

Strange as it may appear, after all that had happened, Princess Elizabeth still remained where she had been placed for some time under the guardianship of Catharine Parr. But after a while Seymour’s conduct towards the King’s sister, his want of respect, and extreme familiarity, scandalised the royal attendants, and roused the tardy jealousy of his easy-going wife. The Princess was, in consequence, removed to safer keeping; but Seymour had other noble wards,—the daughters of the Marquis of Dorset, of whom one was the unfortunate Lady Jane Grey.

The deadly hatred which Seymour bore his brother was shared and fostered by his wife, who writes to him on one occasion, ‘This schal be to advertyse you, that my lord your brother has this afternoone made me a lyttell warme. I am glad we were dystant, or I suppose I sholde have bitten him.’

During the time the Duke of Somerset was in Scotland, Thomas Seymour did all he could to injure and supplant him, telling Edward the invasion was madly undertaken, and money wasted—that it was a pity he did not assert himself more—that he was not allowed enough money to be generous to his own servants, etc. Seymour also set about a report that the late King never intended there should be a Protectorate, and he even went so far as to write a letter, which he suggested, the King should copy and sign, to both Houses of Parliament, in his (Seymour’s) own favour, but this was refused.

Catharine had two grievances against the Duke and Duchess: one was the question of precedency between her and her sister-in-law; the other a matter respecting some jewels which Somerset had sequestered as Crown Jewels, but which Catharine affirmed had been left her by the King.

Seymour tried to bring in a Bill to separate the offices of Protector and Guardian, in order to gain possession of the King’s person, but he was foiled on all sides. His conduct was so outrageous that he was summoned before the Council to explain it; he defied, and disobeyed the summons.

In spite of this behaviour, and all these machinations against himself, Somerset was lenient to his misguided brother, even to extremes; he palliated his faults, and, ‘striving to bridle him with liberality,’ gave him fresh grants of land. But Seymour was not of the stuff that can be softened by generosity; he grew desperate, and it was reported, and believed, that he had entered into a treaty with certain privateers then infesting the seas, and that his purchase of the Scilly Islands at this juncture was with the view of acting in connection with them for his own interest.

The Protector, who showed no signs of weakness in public affairs, mildly expostulated with the headstrong man, who was speeding to his ruin, but all his forbearance was thrown away.

Catharine Parr was confined of a daughter, and died a few days after, not without some rumours of her husband having helped her exit from the world; but he was out of favour now with almost all classes, and nothing was too bad to be said of him.

Lady Dorset naturally wished to remove her daughter Jane from the Admiral’s roof on the death of his wife, but he, knowing that the Duchess of Somerset was bent on marrying the young lady to her eldest son, so worked on the weakness of Lord Dorset, that Jane Grey remained under Lord Seymour’s questionable care. Once more his thoughts reverted to the Princess Elizabeth. He gained over two of her people, who were instructed to praise him to the skies, and keep his name always before her. But Elizabeth, though only sixteen, acted with discretion and dignity, refusing to take any step without the consent of the Council, and positively declining to receive Seymour, in spite of all his tender messages.

The failures in Scotland, religious discontent, and many untoward events, had shaken the Protector’s power, and his brother was working strenuously against him. Seymour was warned of his danger; he was told that his designs on the Princess, and his scheme of possessing himself of the person of the King were discovered; but he defied advice, remonstrance, and threats.

Again summoned before the Council, he again disobeyed. He appealed to the Earl of Warwick, on the plea that he was the enemy of the Protector, but Warwick said, if there were to be any change in the Government, it should not be for the advantage of another Seymour, and so he was arrested, and sent to the Tower. All his creatures and accomplices turned upon him, and gave evidence against him, all his intrigues and machinations were discovered; and two months after his committal the Council went to the Tower and caused thirty-three charges against the Lord High Admiral to be read aloud, in his presence. When called upon for an answer, he refused to give any, (though urged to speak on his allegiance,) and demanded an open trial.

The question now arose as to the manner of the trial, and the Chancellor and the rest of the Council gave their opinions for an Act of Attainder, while the Protector, pleading ‘what a sorrowful case this was for him, did yet rather regard his bounden duty to the King’s Majesty and the Crown of England than his own son or brother, and did weigh more his allegiance than his blood, and therefore he would not resist their Lordships.’

King Edward was present, and although his gentle nature always inclined to clemency, he gave his consent to the decision. Seymour was brought before a committee of both Houses, where he pleaded his own cause; but as the charges grew graver, he stopped short, and refused to say any more.

The next day the Bill was brought before the Lords, and passed without a dissenting voice, the Lord Protector only, ‘for natural pity’s sake, desiring licence to be away.’

Seymour had a small party of friends in the Commons, but having heard the evidence, the Lower House also passed the Bill. It was sent to the Crown with the request that justice might have place. The sentence was given without reference to the Protector, who would still have interfered to save the ungrateful brother whose inveterate hatred was unconquered, but he was prevented.

The Bishop of Ely visited the prisoner to bid him prepare for death, which he did, by writing to Elizabeth and Mary to incite them to conspire against the Duke.

He concealed the letters in the sole of his shoe, and his last words, as he knelt before the block, were to commission his servant to deliver them.

He died with a courage worthy a better cause. Bishop Latimer said of his death—‘Whether he be saved or no, I leave that to God. In the twinkling of an eye He can save a man, and turn his heart. What He did I cannot tell. And when a man hath two strokes with an axe, who can tell but between the two strokes he doth repent? It is hard to judge; but this I will say, if they ask me what I think of his death, I say that he died very irksomely, dangerously, and horribly.’

Latimer says elsewhere that the Admiral was a man furthest from the fear of God that ever he heard of in England. And yet in the picture in which we are treating there are verses that laud him to the skies. Not only his outward form—

‘Of person rare, stronge limbes, and manly shape;
Of nature framed to serve on sea and lande, etc.,
A subject true to Kinge, frinde to God’s truth’—

and so forth, concluding with the lines:—

‘Yet againste nature, reason, and just lawes,
His blode was spilte, giltless, without just cause!’

The Bishop and the Poet were at variance in the estimate of Lord Seymour of Sudeley’s character.

--------------

No. 12.

THOMAS WRIOTHESLEY, LAST EARL OF
SOUTHAMPTON.

BY VANDYCK.

DIED 1667.

_Order of the Garter._

HE was the second born, but only surviving son of the third Earl, by Elizabeth, daughter of John Vernon of Hodnet, county Salop. He was educated at Eton and Oxford, where he distinguished himself, and then went on foreign travel. He tarried some time in France, where it is probable he espoused his first wife, and afterwards proceeded to the Low Countries.

His father had also gone thither in command of a military expedition, accompanied by his eldest son, but they were both attacked by low fever. The youth died, and the afflicted father, journeying home with the loved remains, ere he was fit to travel, also succumbed, and died at Bergen-op-Zoom.

Thomas, now Earl of Southampton, on his return to England, found public affairs in great confusion, it was soon evident that he did not approve of many of the Government measures, and that he had no sympathy with the Earl of Strafford; in consequence of which, the discontented leaders in Parliament strove hard to gain him over to their side; but neither did he uphold their proceedings, which he considered disloyal, and would take no part therein.

In 1641, he, with Lord Robartes, refused assent to Pym’s protestation against ‘plots and conspiracies,’ which was signed by every other member in each House. This incensed the Parliament, but pleased the King. Southampton was appointed Privy Councillor and Lord of the Bedchamber, and was henceforth, in every sense of the word, attached to the royal person.

He was prudent and zealous in his master’s cause, often giving him unpalatable advice, they were now seldom apart, Southampton frequently sleeping in the King’s chamber, and trying to soothe his hours of mental anguish. He treated (unsuccessfully indeed, but nobly, and with dignity) between the adverse parties. In 1647, when the unhappy monarch fled from Hampton Court, he took shelter with Southampton at Titchfield in Hampshire, the family estate, and when brought back to the palace, in the hands of his enemies, his first request was for the attendance of his trusty friend.

Southampton was one of the last allowed to remain with the unfortunate Charles, and one of the four to pay the last sad duties to the remains of the master he so dearly loved, in ‘privacy and darkness.’ He kept up a correspondence with the exiled King, supplied him with large sums, and on Charles’s arrival in England, went to meet him, and was rewarded (at the same time as other faithful adherents of the Crown) with the Order of the Garter. He was shortly afterwards made Lord High Treasurer, in which office, says Clarendon, ‘he had no dependence on the Court, or purpose to have any, but wholly pursued the public interest.’

Consequently he offended the King by opposing to his utmost the Bill for Liberty of Conscience, as it was called, both in Parliament and Council; yet he was not removed from his office, but held it for a few short years longer, although suffering from a terrible and painful disease, which made business irksome to him. The testimony of Burnet and Clarendon both go to prove that ‘he was a man of virtue, and of very good parts, and incorrupt,’ and during seven years’ management of the Treasury he made but an ordinary fortune, disdaining, unlike many of his predecessors, to sell places.

‘He was by nature inclined to melancholy, and being born a younger brother, was much troubled at being called “My Lord.” Great quickness of apprehension, and that readiness of expression on any sudden debate, that no man delivered more efficaciously with his hearers, so that no man ever gave them more trouble in his opposition, or drew so many to concurrence in opinion.’ The Earl of Southampton was thrice married. His first wife was Rachel, daughter of Daniel de Massey, lord of Ruvigny, in France, by whom he had two sons, who died young, and three daughters, the second of whom was Rachel, the faithful wife and widow of William Lord Russell, who was beheaded, her first husband being Lord Carbery, in Ireland. The second Countess of Southampton was Elizabeth, daughter and co-heir to Francis Booth, Lord Dunsmore, who brought him four girls, one of whom was Elizabeth, Countess of Northumberland. The third wife was the daughter of William, second Duke of Somerset, and widow of Viscount Molyneux.

The Earl died at Southampton House, in Bloomsbury, of a violent attack of the malady from which he had long suffered, and was buried at Titchfield.

--------------

No. 13.

GEORGE LORD LANSDOWNE.

BY SIR GODFREY KNELLER.

_Tawny dress. Blue velvet cap._

He was the second son of Sir Bernard Granville, by Anne, sole daughter 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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_BILLIARD ROOM_.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_DINING ROOM_.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_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.’

Moreover, the said Sir Henry Seymour, and Lord Sussex, a personal friend of Sir John’s, were so good as to pacify the Queen, by assuring her, that the master of Longleat hurried on the building, mainly with the view of receiving his royal mistress. Thither therefore she repaired in 1574, in her progress from Bristol. After feasting the royal party in the most sumptuous manner, the good knight was rewarded for his unbounded hospitality by a message, through the Earl of Hertford (son of Protector Somerset), to the effect his illustrious guest had expressed ‘great liking for her entertainment in the west, especially at your house.’ Moreover, the Queen condescended, in conversation, to praise the charms of Longleat, an example that has not been lost on succeeding generations. Sir John finished the south and east fronts, and the interior from the hall to what was then called the Chapel Court. He had to his second wife, Dorothy, daughter to Sir William Wroughton of Broadhinton, county Wilts; he died in 1580, and by his own desire was buried by his first wife at Longbridge Deverill. Amidst all the persecutions of Mary’s reign, he was a staunch supporter of the Reformed Church.

--------------

No. 25.

SIR EGREMONT THYNNE.

_Red robe. Ruff. Holding a scroll._

HE was the eldest son of Sir John Thynne of Longleat, by his second wife. He was Serjeant-at-Law, and married Barbara, daughter of Henry Calthorpe, whose brother was Lord Mayor of London. Aubrey has a strange story connected with him, in his Miscellanies, which is interesting to those who love the marvellous. One of Sir Egremont’s sisters married (as his second wife) Sir Walter Long of Draycot, county Wilts, and had several children; it would appear that this lady used every means in her power to induce her husband to disinherit his son by the first marriage, sowing dissension between the father and his first-born in a most unpardonable manner. She persuaded her brother, Sir Egremont Thynne, to draw up a paper, by which Sir Walter, if prevailed on to sign the same, cut off his eldest son from the inheritance. This was at Bath, during the Assizes, where the learned serjeant-at-law was engaged in his legal duties; Sir Egremont accordingly drew up the document, and gave it to his clerk one night, bidding him sit up and engross it.

The man set to work, but no sooner had he commenced, than he was startled by a shadow falling on the parchment; he looked up hastily, and perceived a hand between him and the candle; he rubbed his eyes, and roused himself to his work, in the belief that he was falling asleep. Once more came the dark blot on the deed, and this time he saw quite clearly a small, white, lady’s hand, that vanished each time, as he gazed on it. He flung down his pen in terror, and, hastening from the room, went and told his master he would have no more to do with so unpleasant a transaction. But Lady Long found some one else to do her bidding, and the obedient husband signed and sealed.

No good came, as may well be imagined, of such dealings. The rightful heir’s maternal relations rose in his defence, seized the body of Sir Walter (who died shortly afterwards) in the church porch, and began a law-suit against the second son, by which they compelled him to accept of a moiety of the property, and to relinquish the principal estate to his half, and elder, brother.

--------------

No. 26.

LOUISA VISCOUNTESS WEYMOUTH.

BY VAN DER BANK.

_In a fancy dress of pink and black. Pearl ornaments. Aigrette in her
hair._

LADY Louisa Carteret was the daughter of John Carteret, Earl Granville, by Lady Grace, daughter of John Granville, Earl of Bath.

She married the second Lord Weymouth (as his second wife) in 1733, and had by him two sons—Thomas, who succeeded his father; and Henry, who became Lord Carteret.

The dress in which Lady Weymouth is painted, was worn by her at a fancy ball at the Spanish Ambassador’s, and was so much admired, that she sat for her portrait in the same.

--------------

No. 27.

THOMAS THYNNE, THIRD VISCOUNT WEYMOUTH,
FIRST MARQUIS OF BATH.

BY SIR THOMAS LAWRENCE.

BORN 1734, DIED 1796.

_In Parliamentary robes._

SON of the second Viscount, by Lady Louisa Carteret. In 1753 he set out on a foreign tour to complete his education; in 1760 he was appointed Lord of the Bedchamber to the King; in 1763, Master of the Horse to the Queen; in 1765, Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, which post he did not occupy more than a few months, and in 1768, Secretary of State. He was also a Privy Councillor, High Steward of the Corporation of Tamworth, and an Elder Brother of the Trinity House. In 1759 he married Lady Elizabeth Cavendish Bentinck, eldest daughter of William, second Duke of Portland, by whom he had three sons and six daughters.

In 1789 he was created Marquis of Bath, and in the autumn of that year their Majesties and the Princesses, with a numerous suite, were sumptuously entertained at Longleat. By the way, it is mentioned, in an elaborate account of this visit, that 30,000 people pressed into the park, and 125 guests, independent of servants, slept in the house. The King, George III., who had just recovered from a serious illness, and was on his road from Weymouth, was delighted with his reception. He went out on the roof of the house, and there observed, what many have said before, and since, that Longleat far exceeded its reputation for beauty.

Lord Bath continued the alterations begun by his father, and died in 1796.

--------------

No. 28.

SIR THOMAS THYNNE.

_Black dress. Pointed beard._

HE was the eldest son of Sir Thomas Thynne, by his first wife, the daughter of Lord Audley. He was seated at Richmond, in Surrey, and married the daughter of Walter Balquanhill, Dean of Durham, by whom he had Thomas, called of ‘Ten Thousand,’ who was murdered. He died _v.p._

--------------

No. 29.

THE HONOURABLE HENRY COVENTRY.

BY SIR PETER LELY.

BORN 1620, DIED 1686.

_Scarlet and gold dress. Tawny mantle. Wig._

HE was the third son of Lord Keeper Coventry, by the daughter of John Aldersley; educated at All Souls College, Oxford. A firm Royalist, on the Restoration he was appointed a groom of the Bedchamber, and in 1664 was sent Ambassador-Extraordinary to Sweden, where he remained till 1666. The following year he and Denzil, Lord Holles, went as Joint-Plenipotentiaries to Breda, where they concluded a peace with France, Denmark, and the States-General. In 1668 he went again on an embassy to Sweden, and on his return was made one of the Principal Secretaries of State, and Privy Councillor. He gave so much satisfaction in office that when compelled to retire from bad health, the _Gazette_ had a notice respecting him: ‘His Majesty has accepted the resignation with some unwillingness, because of the great satisfaction he always had in his services.’ Lord Clarendon commends his diplomatic duties, and says he was beloved of every one.

He retired into private life, and died at his house in the Haymarket, unmarried, leaving his estates to his namesake Henry Coventry, and his nephew James Thynne, with several charitable bequests.

--------------

No. 30.

SIR JAMES THYNNE.

DIED 1670.

_In armour. Flowing hair._

THE eldest surviving son of the first Sir Thomas Thynne of Longleat, whom he succeeded.

--------------

No. 31.

THOMAS THYNNE, ESQ.

BY SIR PETER LELY.

MURDERED 1682.

_Tawny-coloured dress. Wig and ruffles. Holding a cane._

THE son of Sir Thomas Thynne of Richmond, Surrey, by Stuart, daughter and co-heir of Dr. Walter Balquanhill, Dean of Durham and Master of the Savoy. On the death of his uncle Sir James, Thomas Thynne inherited Longleat and other large estates, and was thenceforward known by the nickname of ‘Tom o’ Ten Thousand.’ He enlarged and improved the house of his inheritance, built stabling, made good roads, which were a benefit to the country round, and was proverbial for generosity and hospitality.

Indeed, his hospitable treats are immortalised in Dryden’s poem of ‘Absalom and Achitophel,’ for Absalom (the Duke of Monmouth) and the Master of Longleat were sincerely attached to each other. And on the Duke’s return from banishment to Holland, in 1680, his staunch friend Thynne gave him so enthusiastic a welcome at his house, that he was in consequence deprived of the command of a regiment of militia in the county.