EDWARD, LORD HERBERT’S SECOND MARRIAGE.

In 1639 Lord Herbert entered a second time into the matrimonial state, a prudential step as he was then situated, at the age of 38, having a young family without any sufficient guardian. He married the Lady Margaret, second daughter and co-heir of Henry O’Brien, Earl of Thomond; by which alliance he obtained some possessions, as well as a connexion with many of the best and most powerful families in Ireland. Of this, as of his first marriage, no particulars have been preserved, not even their date, or where celebrated; yet considering that both occurred during his father’s lifetime and greatest prosperity, we can readily believe that they were accompanied with all the usual demonstrations of joy, ceremony and feasting. They had but one daughter, Mary, who died during her infancy. In a family group, painted by Hanneman, a close imitator of Vandyck, Lord Herbert is represented as a Roman general, seated by his lady attired in a modern costume of pale blue satin, with their child standing before her in a reclining position. He has a very aged appearance, although one might presume that the portrait was executed when he was under forty-five. It is a very thinly and sketchily painted performance. His Lordship presents a singular appearance in a toga and tight fitting hose of deep scarlet, an ornamented leathern jerkin, and wearing a wig streaming over his breast and shoulders, sitting in a chair with his right hand resting on a walking stick, while his left hangs negligently over the arm of the chair in proximity with a mighty sheathed sword. His lady in ample folds of silk, with the usual long, tightly fitting, jewelled stomacher, has her hair in a fringe of small curls over her forehead, combed closely back, where it terminates in a knot from which a few ringlets flow behind; she wears also pearl ear-drops and a pearl necklace, which ornaments are repeated on her child.

The same year, on the 8th of April, he lost his mother, Anne, Countess of Worcester, who was buried at Raglan. It is possible, therefore, that his marriage was deferred during her illness, and not celebrated until some months after her decease.

It was then the 15th year of Charles the First’s reign. Before the close of the year following, the Long Parliament commenced its sittings, when Lenthall was chosen Speaker. All projectors and monopolists were denounced as incapable of holding office, several members, therefore, withdrew, whose places were speedily supplied. What must have been his Lordship’s impressions under the existing aspect of political affairs may easily be conceived, while as yet “Royalist” and “Roundhead” could scarcely be called popular terms of party distinction.

In 1641, that martyr of science, Galileo, died, whose case so far assimilated with the Marquis’s own, that they were of the same religious persuasion: the one proscribed at home for the peculiar heretical turn his genius had taken, the other under the ban of suspicion for his papistical persuasion and supposed consequent prejudices.

We now enter on the most critical era in the history of this great and good man. He was then residing in London, where he continued for some length of time, with the politic motive of avoiding as much as possible the suspicion of Parliament; for through his father’s liberality he had already commenced supplying Charles the First with heavy loans.

In the collection of manuscripts at Badminton, is an unpublished letter from Charles the First, dated 3rd of August, 1641, and also copies, in an ancient and probably contemporary hand, of letters, the originals of which, according to Birch, form part of the Harleian collection.[A] In the first of these, dated 7th of December, 1641,—Charles the First requires Lord Herbert to repair to Whitehall, “not only for his own particular use, but likewise for the good of the kingdom,” so early had his Majesty taken him into his confidence and council. He had then not long returned from Scotland, and soon after he retreated to Hampton Court. He writes:—

“Charles R.

“Right trusty and right well-beloved Cousin, We greet you well,—whereas We have heretofore by many letters and messages signed by us, given you testimony of Our favour and inclination to reward the good service of you and yours: These are further to assure you, that neither the times nor business shall ever make us unmindful of them: Yet upon occasions when Our good intentions therein may be really manifested, We desire to be put in mind that we may readily concur to a speedy performance, of which you may be ever most confident. And being [seeing?] your indisposition of body is such, that before Our intended journey We cannot signify the same to yourself in person, We have thought good to express it by these our Letters, Given at our Palace of Westminster, 3 day of August, In the seventeenth year of Our Reign and 1641.”

[Endorsed in an old handwriting, 1641.]

“To Our Right trusty and right well beloved Cousin, Henry Earl of Worcester.”

Next comes the following:—

“Herbert,

“Yours of the 1st of December has given me a just reason for your absence but certainly I have juster cause for your attendance, for it is well known how that you are to give me account of matters not only for my particular use, but likewise for the good of the kingdom; wherefore I require your repair hither with all convenient diligence; And the rather that you may find out the authors of these lying and scandalous Pamphlets concerning your father and you, touching [which] I not only promise you protection to your innocency but justice against those offenders, assuring you likewise that I shall be so mindful of you that, if I live, you shall neither be a loser in, nor repent you for the services you have done me. And so I rest

“Your assured friend,

“Charles R.

“Whitehall, the 7th December, 1641.[13]

“I send you herein the paper that I could not find when you were with me.”

In his journey towards the north, his Majesty, on arriving at Royston, wrote to Lord Herbert as follows:—

“Herbert,

“Your services are expressed to me in so noble a way that I cannot but acknowledge to you under my own hand, and that I should think myself very unhappy, if I did not live by real testimonies to express my gratitude to you. And for your sister, Carnarvon, though I cannot punctually answer your expectation therein, yet I hope you will be satisfied with the answer you will receive by your cousin Sir John Byron, to whom, referring myself for many things I have not time to write. I rest,

“Your most assured constant friend,

“Charles R.

“Royston, 6 March, [1641–2.]”

And again he addressed him a few lines, shortly before being refused admittance to Hull:—

“Herbert,

“I entrusted your cousin Byron with the particular answers to your letter, reserving only to myself to answer you, that I esteem your services such as my words cannot express them; but by showing myself at all occasions to be

“Your most assured constant friend,

“Charles R.

“York, 9 May, 1642.”

We have here the earliest communications on record between these two remarkable individuals, whose personal histories have alike perplexed all political, polemical, and philosophical writers.

Before setting out for Scotland, the King appears to have desired a personal interview with his Lordship, who seems to have been prevented from complying by some severe indisposition in July, 1641; his Majesty, therefore, conveys to him in writing, his “favour and inclination to reward the good service of you and yours.” His Lordship’s father had already made to the needy monarch some of those munificent advances, which, as long as he could obtain them, he was in the habit of repaying with ample promises and abundant flattery.

In his second letter, he alludes to “lying and scandalous pamphlets concerning” his Lordship’s father, but what these may have been has not transpired; they may only have referred to him as connected with the Roman Catholic party.

In another letter he expresses his “gratitude” for his Lordship’s noble expression of services; and alludes to his sister Carnarvon. And in the last of these letters, he flatteringly informs his Lordship, that,—“I esteem your services such as my words cannot express them;” yet by words alone were they ever, as then, expressed, only to be as conveniently repudiated.

Up to forty years of age, Lord Herbert had lived as became a gentleman of ancient nobility, great expectations, and in the enjoyment of the most friendly intercourse with his sovereign. Well educated, travelled, accustomed to courtly life, devoted to learned studies and given to scientific pursuits, he has been hitherto only presented to us, in his domestic relations, as a dutiful son, a husband and father, having few engagements to withdraw him from the management of his estates, or distract him from the enjoyment of country sports and social intercourse. During this period, he had probably nothing more serious on hand than an occasional change of residence, as he passed some portions of the year at Raglan Castle, and occupied at others the ample accommodations of Worcester House.

In a statement[B] he wrote long after, he incidentally remarks:—“I was not privy, or present with his Majesty at Greenwich [26th February, 1641] when he first took his resolution for the North, and removed, without the Queen, to Theobalds; from which he was pleased to write me a lamentable letter by the hands of Sir John Byron, averring that he had but £600, and £300 of which was given to defray his horses, which the Marquis of Hamilton, then Master of the Horse, refused to do, fearing to displease the Parliament.”

For awhile he was necessitated to act with consummate caution to conceal his true political bias from the Parliamentary party. But the drama of his life has now to change; his “golden days” are gone, and hereafter we view him only in evil times, times so distracted and turbulent, that the materials they afford us of his future life, are but like the fragments of a terrible wreck.