GREAT BRITAIN.—HISTORY TO THE TIME OF THE COMMONWEALTH.

The first references to prostitution which we find in the works of the early British annalists are so vague that it is difficult to derive from them any very definite idea as to its extent and character. Among the crude efforts at legislation there are laws to enforce chastity among women, but whether the necessity for these enactments was owing to general licentiousness or to the existence of a regular class of prostitutes does not appear.

At the period of the Roman invasion, the morals of the Britons were as low as might be expected from their nomadic habits. The population was divided into small communities of men and women, who appear to have lived promiscuously, no woman being attached to any particular man, but all cohabiting according to inclination, the carnal instinct being the feeling which regulated sexual intercourse. A sort of marriage was instituted, but with no idea that either of the parties to it should be restricted by its obligations. Its only object seemed to be to provide means for rearing the children, and to fix somewhere the responsibility of their nurture and support. A society constituted as this was can, of course, be considered scarcely a step removed from barbarism. The regulation to provide for the children was necessary to prevent depopulation; its tendency was to remove from the woman’s path every obstacle to lust; over the man it exercised but very slight control.

A still farther proof of the demoralized condition of the people is found in the gross ceremonies attending these marriages. The man appeared on his wedding day dressed in all the rude trappings of the time; the woman was entirely naked. A repulsive coarseness marked their licentiousness, and the rudeness of manners was nowhere more conspicuous than in the relations existing between the sexes.

It is to be presumed that the Anglo-Saxons imported into England the laws and customs prevailing in their own country. The rules they made against adultery were frightfully severe. When a couple were detected in the commission of the offense, the woman was compelled to commit suicide, to avoid the greater tortures awaiting her if she refused. Her body was then placed on a pile of brushwood and consumed. Nor did her partner in guilt escape punishment; he was usually put to death on the spot where her ashes lay collected. These penalties would appear to be sufficiently severe, but in some instances worse were inflicted. Where the case was one of peculiar aggravation, the adulteress was hunted down by a number of infuriate demireps of her own sex, each armed with a club, a knife, or some other formidable weapon, and stabbed or beaten to death. If one party of her pursuers became weary of the sport, another took their places until the victim expired beneath the blows.

These extremely rigid ideas of the Anglo-Saxons do not seem to have been consistent, for while adultery was punished in the severe manner described, incest was not only permitted, but commonly practiced; and it was even the custom for relations to marry within the closest degrees of consanguinity.

But they were not long located in England before the more savage traits of their character were softened down, and the women soon found amusement more suitable to their sex than that of chasing their erring sisters as quarry. The marriage ceremonies also assumed a more refined and decent character, although the wife continued to be regularly purchased by her husband, and the contract was still considered a mere matter of bargain and sale. By the laws of Ethelbert marriageable women were made commodities of barter, and enactments of this character are to be found in existence long subsequent to his reign.

As the Anglo-Saxons were a hardy, vigorous race, and existed chiefly by hunting, fishing, and a rude and imperfect system of agriculture, it is not probable that prostitution existed among them to any great extent. The fatigues of the chase and field exhausted the energy of the body, and diminished the desire and capacity for sexual indulgence, and, living in small detached communities as they did, they knew nothing of the stimulating incentives of city life.Yet that prostitutes existed, and lived by the wages of their profession, is proved by the fact that women (who were entitled by law to hold and dispose of property) bequeathed their wealth to their daughters, with the occasional stipulation that they should live chaste lives in the event of their remaining single, and not earn money by prostituting their persons.

In the reign of Canute a law was enacted by which any one found guilty of adultery was to be punished by the loss of the nose and the ears.[288] In the course of time the crime came to be punished by a fine paid to the husband of the woman. This penalty soon fell into disrepute, as it was found that some husbands and wives took advantage of it to extort fines from persons possessing more money than prudence. By a subsequent enactment the male adulterer became the property of the king, who might send him to the wars, or employ him at hard labor as he pleased. By a law of Edgar’s time the adulterer of either sex was compelled to live, for three days in each week, on bread and water for seven years. This was treating the evil on physiological principles.

We can not infer any very strict condition of morals as the result of this harsh legislation. When punishment is carried to an extreme entirely disproportioned to the offense, it is as likely to fail in its object as mistaken lenity. Forgery and arson were more frequent in England when punished with death than they are at present; and although we have no statistics of the time from which we can deduce any positive conclusions, we may reasonably imagine that neither the death penalty, nor the other barbarous punishments substituted for it, exercised any very powerful influence in the diminution of the crime among our hardy progenitors. It may have taught them greater caution and dissimulation in the prosecution of their evil purposes, but it did not render them the less eager to profit by the opportunities thrown in their way.

It has been already shown that the founders of Christianity treated illicit sexual indulgence as a sin, and resorted to extreme measures for its suppression, but yet, to some extent, tolerated prostitution. Shortly after he had established himself in Britain, Augustine put some curious queries to the Pope touching the manner in which chastity among converts to the new faith should be enforced. The nature of these interrogatories and replies forbids their appearance here.[289]That Augustine required to be instructed on such prurient details proves that he was a believer in the Jewish observances of physical ablutions and cleansing of the person being necessary to the removal of moral impurities, and that he carried his scrutiny into the morals of his flock much farther than was consistent with modesty and good sense. However much his religious teachings might have improved the manners of the people, the regulations alluded to would have exercised no very salutary or efficacious influence over them.

The lives of the early kings and rulers of Britain serve to illustrate the morals of the nation during their respective reigns, not only by exhibiting individual examples where the condition of the masses is hidden from view, but by affording us an index to that condition when it is considered that the manners of the court have, in all ages and all countries, exercised an important influence on those of the people.

Augustine converted Ethelbert, but his son Endbald deserted the Christian Church because it refused its sanction to his mother-in-law becoming his wife. It is true that he afterward divorced her, and returned to Christianity, but in this he was influenced rather by satiety than by the promptings of a reviving faith. Many of the other kings of the Heptarchy were as remarkable for the headstrong ardor of their passion as Endbald. Canulph of Wessex had, in the year 784, an intrigue with one of his female subjects, and frequently quitted his court to enjoy her society in the country. During one of these clandestine excursions he was surprised and surrounded in the night by the followers of Kynchard, a rival pretender to the throne, and murdered in the arms of his mistress.

In the ninth century prostitution seems to have been a prevailing vice throughout the country, and frequent references are made to it in the discussions of the period. In the arguments used in favor of tithes, in the time of Athelstan, it was held by some canonists that the clergy had a right to demand one tenth of the profits earned by prostitutes in the exercise of their calling. It is but right to add that the Church did not persist in enforcing this extraordinary claim.[290]

Edwy, who ascended the throne at the early age of seventeen, became involved in a controversy with the monks on the question, then first started, of the celibacy of the clergy. The celebrated Dunstan favored the new doctrine, but Edwy opposed it. The youthful and inexperienced prince was no match for his sagacious antagonist, as he soon after discovered. On the day of his coronation, which took place soon after his marriage with his cousin Elgiva, whom he loved and resolved to wed, though she was within the degrees of consanguinity prohibited by the Church, his nobles were indulging in the pleasures of the banquet, when it was discovered that Edwy had stolen away. Dunstan and Odo, Archbishop of Canterbury, conjecturing the cause of his absence, proceeded to the private apartments of the queen, and found him in her company. They tore him from her, and dragged him back to the party. Elgiva’s face was seared with a red-hot iron to destroy her beauty, and she was transported to Ireland. Her wounds being soon healed, and all trace of the injuries removed, she returned to her own country, but was met by a party the archbishop had sent to intercept her, and put to death. Thus, professedly to preserve the morals of the king, these high ecclesiastics committed crimes of far greater gravity than a marriage even between persons more nearly related than Edwy and Elgiva.

Edgar, who succeeded Edwy, was of a still more passionate and licentious disposition. He broke into a convent, and carried off one of the nuns, named Editha, who was remarkable for her beauty. In the heat of passion, he violated her person; and for the double offense of abduction and rape, the Church, according to the peculiar morality of the times, punished him by compelling him to resign his crown for the period of seven years. By a curious inconsistency, he was permitted to retain possession of Editha, who lived with him as a concubine.

Another of his mistresses he obtained by a less violent process. In passing through Andover, he accidentally met the daughter of a neighboring noble, who fascinated him by her remarkable beauty. Listening only to the suggestion of his passion, he proceeded immediately to the residence of the maiden’s mother, and, informing her of the violent love with which she had inspired him, demanded that she should be permitted to share his bed that night. The mother, fearing to excite the king’s anger by a refusal, resorted to a stratagem, by which she hoped to evade his wrath, and, at the same time, preserve the chastity of her daughter. She directed a handsome waiting-maid to introduce herself into the young lady’s chamber, and the king was admitted after dark. When Edgar discovered the trick which had been played on him, he manifested no resentment, and the accidental partner of his bed became afterward his favorite mistress.

These were not his only amours. Elfrida, daughter of the Earl of Devonshire, was distinguished by extraordinary beauty, and the fame of her charms reached the court, although she resided in the country in strict retirement, and had never been a mile from home. Edgar, hearing of her beauty, and doubting whether her appearance justified the extravagant praise lavished on it, sent one of his trusted favorites, Earl Athelwold, to her father’s residence to make a report to him on the subject. Athelwold himself, like many a similar envoy, fell in love with the young lady, and informed the king that rumor had greatly exaggerated her merits, and that she was positively ungainly. This was sufficient to allay the king’s curiosity, and Athelwold shortly afterward secured the young lady’s hand in marriage. He explained the matter to Edgar by remarking that it was her fortune which induced him to overlook her homely features. The king desired him to introduce her at court, and Athelwold persistently refusing, the king suspected the true state of the case. He intimated to the earl that he had determined to visit the castle where she resided, and the husband, dreading the consequences, implored his wife to conceal her beauty as much as possible. Elfrida, woman-like, did precisely the contrary, and set off her charms by the richest and most becoming toilette in her wardrobe. Edgar was so enraged at the deception practiced on him that he put the unfortunate earl to death, and married the widow.

The infusion of Danish blood does not seem to have exercised an improving influence on Anglo-Saxon manners. Judging from the following, the contrary may be inferred.

Ethelred kept a number of Danish troops in his pay, who were stationed in different parts of the country. A complaint was made to the king that the Danes had attained such a pitch of refinement, and made such an advance in luxury, that they combed their hair daily, and were guilty of other acts of personal embellishment equally reprehensible. Worse still, it was averred that the women looked with favor on these practices of the Danes, and that the latter debauched the wives and daughters of the English, and disgraced the nation.[291] It is evident that women who could thus easily be led away were only virtuous from the want of opportunity.The legislation of this period shows that prostitution was not only tolerated, but indirectly encouraged.

If a man seduced the wife of another, he was compelled, by an early Saxon law, to pay a fine to the husband, and to procure for him another woman, whom he was to remunerate for admitting him to her bed.[292] This was not only offering a direct premium to prostitution by providing for the debauching of a woman every time another chose to be seduced, but it shows that females were in the habit of cohabiting with men for hire. The fines for adultery were graduated according to the rank of the woman. If she happened to be the wife of a nobleman, her chastity was valued at the moderate sum of six pounds sterling (about thirty dollars); while the wife of a churl brought to her husband as a salve for his injured honor about a dollar and a half. The effect of these enactments could not but exercise a demoralizing and injurious influence on the manners of the people. They reduced the estimate of female chastity to that of a cheap marketable commodity, whose loss could be repaid by a small money compensation.

By the laws of Ethelbert a man was permitted to buy a wife, provided the purchase was made openly, and many such transactions are recorded, the price being sometimes paid down in money, and sometimes in palfreys and other kinds of property. The practice, however, was soon modified, and it became necessary to obtain the consent of the bride. The husband was compelled to support and protect her, and to treat her with respect. A couple desirous of contracting marriage were formally betrothed in presence of the priest, and this practice, having something of an ecclesiastical obligation without any of its legal force, was frequently productive of the same evil consequences as in Norway at the present day. This custom of betrothal prevailed down to the time of Elizabeth.

The Normans introduced into England, if not a higher standard of morals, at least a greater refinement in vice. Their laws were moulded by the spirit of the feudal system which they imported with them. Under their sway society was divided into two classes—feudal lords and their vassals. The lord could dispose of the person and property of the vassal, limited, indeed, by certain restrictions, but still leaving so much power in his hands as to render the latter a virtual slave.

Thus, by the laws of the time, a vassal who seduced or debauched his lord’s wife or near relative, or who even took improper liberties with them, might be punished by the forfeiture of his land. When a baron died, the estate escheated to the king, who took immediate possession, and kept it until the heir applied to do homage for it, and pay such a fee as the king might demand. If the heir happened to be a minor, the king retained possession of the estate until he reached his majority; and when the inheritance devolved on a female, the king might give her any husband he thought proper. He often turned this privilege to account by selling the right to the hand and fortune of an heiress. Geoffrey de Mandeville paid Henry III. a sum equal to about twenty thousand dollars for permission to wed Isabel, countess of Gloucester, with the right to all her lands and revenues. Even a male heir could not select his own bride except by purchasing permission from the king, otherwise he had to accept his majesty’s choice.

We have no means of estimating the amount of licentiousness arising from these arbitrary regulations, but we only require a little acquaintance with human nature to arrive at the conclusion that they must have been a prolific source of vice. The husband being selected by the king from purely mercenary or interested motives, no attention was, of course, paid to disparity of ages, or other circumstances on which the purity of the marriage-bed depends. When the inclinations are forced in this way, women, as well as men, are apt to revenge themselves on their partners by seeking illicit enjoyments. Mercenary marriages, when projected, as they are even in our day, from sordid motives on the part of parents or guardians, almost invariably lead to infidelity, and many an old dotard, who forces himself upon a girl under age, merely serves as a screen for her clandestine amours.

In the reign of Henry III., grave disputes occurred between the civil and ecclesiastical courts on the subject of bastardy. The common law deemed all children to be illegitimate who had been born before marriage. By the canon law they were held to be legitimate if the parents married subsequent to their birth.

When a dispute of inheritance arose, it was customary for the civil to issue writs to the spiritual courts, directing an inquiry to be instituted into the legitimacy of the claimants; and as the bishops always returned answers in accordance with the canon law, all persons whose parents had married at any period were legitimate. When it is considered how strongly most parents feel for the honor of their offspring, the tendency of such decisions to increase prostitution becomes apparent. It may be considered unjust to inflict disabilities on the child for the sins of the parent, but such penalties undoubtedly have the effect of imposing a check upon concubinage.

We have stated that the king claimed the disposal of the hands and fortunes of heiresses: the barons claimed a still greater privilege from their tenants. In some localities the feudal lord insisted upon enjoying the person of one of the daughters of each tenant who happened to be blessed with a plurality of them. He returned her to her parents within a given time.

Every extreme is followed by a reaction in the opposite direction. The abject condition of women, as indicated by the foregoing facts, led to the institution of chivalry, which elevated her from the position of a slave, and the mere instrument of sensual gratification, to that almost of a deity, thus assigning her a rank as much above her real sphere as her former one had been beneath it.

Previous to the advent of this system, women could not appear at any public exhibition or place of amusement unless accompanied by a band of armed retainers. Any female encountered alone and unprotected was liable to insult.

Chivalry, if it did not put an end to, greatly modified this state of things. By its rules each of its members was constituted a champion of female virtue and honor. No man was admitted into the order whose valor was not above suspicion, and a word uttered by him derogatory to the beau sexe excluded him from its ranks. No woman, however, was deemed worthy of knightly protection who had not preserved her honor, it being to that quality alone that knighthood volunteered its safeguard. At public ceremonies, if a woman of easy virtue ventured to take precedence of a woman of honorable fame, she was immediately reminded of the impropriety of her conduct by some member of the order, and compelled to retire to the rear.

This recognition of virtue had a strong tendency to promote female chastity. It could not put a stop to voluntary prostitution, but it at least prevented virtuous women being necessitated to yield their honor to force. It held out, moreover, an attractive premium to correct conduct among the sex by making it the object of heroic exploits, celebrated in the romantic lays of minstrels and troubadours. Its observances have a fantastic aspect in the light of modern civilization, but they unquestionably exercised a powerful corrective influence over the female character, so degraded at its commencement, while, at the same time, they elevated that of the male sex by teaching them to respect themselves.

In the wars of the period, it was against the rules of chivalry to take women prisoners. When a town was captured and entered by victorious troops, the first step taken was to make proclamation that no violence should be offered to any female. This conduct was so much at variance with the notions and habits of soldiery, that the feelings which sustained chivalry must have taken deep root in the minds of all classes to restrain the passions of the military, strengthened as they were by dissolute habits, and the absence of opportunity for their gratification during service in the field.

To such an extreme was this feeling of deferential courtesy to the sex carried, that the Normans were severely censured for their conduct at the capture of the castle of Du Guesclin, it being alleged that they disturbed the repose of the ladies. But as the tendency of every human institution is to degenerate from its original purpose, the rigid purism which marked the foundation of chivalry soon began to relax, and disorders crept in and sapped the basis of a system which was too theoretically perfect to have any extended duration.

It is difficult to ascertain the precise character of the relations which existed between the Troubadours and the mistresses to whose service they devoted themselves, and who were frequently married women. The knight Bertram happened to lose the favor of his mistress, the wife of Talleyrand de Perigord, in consequence of stories which had been related to her implicating his fidelity, and charging him with dividing his knightly attentions. He protests his innocence of these accusations in a lay as impassioned as that of a lover to the object of his adoration, and invokes a number of knightly calamities upon himself if his devotion to her be not above suspicion.

It is hardly credible that the loves of such ardent admirers was immaculate Platonism. On the other hand, the fact that husbands were rarely or never jealous of them, goes some way to refute the idea that they had a more serious character. The lords of those times were proud of the protestations of regard offered to their ladies, and rewarded the Troubadours with rich and valuable presents. The lords of our day, grown wise by experience, make a point of keeping all such interlopers at a distance.

While chivalry poised its lance in defense of the Lucretias, and then of the Dulcineas of the day, the religious view of the commerce of the sexes was particularly ascetic.

Although the most profound devotion was paid to woman in the abstract by the order, the Church sought to encourage perpetual celibacy, the seclusion of women, and the separation of the sexes. The clergy were forbidden to marry, and the idea seemed to prevail that it was impossible for men and women to mingle without being under the influence of lascivious ideas, and ready to carry them into practice as soon as opportunity offered. The attempt to organize society on such a basis had an inevitable tendency to produce demoralization. Its obvious result, instead of promoting chastity was to increase secret licentiousness and encourage prostitution.

Even the voluntary vows of knights and troubadours were, in the end, as little observed as these ecclesiastical precepts. The profligacy of the Troubadours became open and undisguised, and the virtue of their mistresses naturally kept pace with their example. The knights who enlisted in the Crusades, with a large amount of zeal and but a small share of wealth, supported their retainers by robberies on the way, and the females who accompanied them acted as camp followers usually do. No institution which deals merely in external observances can restrain immorality in circumstances favorable to its development, and hence chivalry was forced to yield before more powerful influences. That it served its purpose in elevating the condition of woman, and in giving a better tone to society at large, it would be unjust to deny.

Even when chivalry declined and ceased to inspire feats of knight-errantry, we find women, instead of falling back into the degrading position they had formerly occupied, employing themselves in intellectual pursuits, publishing books, mixing in public controversies, distinguishing themselves in the acquisition of languages, and even taking a leading part in the political affairs of the times.

Among the women who acquired a historical notoriety by their position as royal mistresses, during the epoch comprised between the Norman conquest and the reign of Henry VIII., were the Fair Rosamond, concubine of Henry II., and Jane Shore, the mistress of Edward IV. The misfortunes, as well as the generous qualities of these fair sinners have thrown a sort of halo around them.

Rosamond, surnamed the Fair on account of her exquisite beauty, was the daughter of Walter, Lord Clifford, and was educated in the nunnery of Godstow. The popular tradition concerning her is that Henry, hearing of her charms, paid her a visit, but, finding her virtue inflexible, had to exercise his authority as sovereign to compel her to yield to his wishes. He placed her in a building erected in the midst of a labyrinth at Woodstock, access to which could only be obtained by a clew of thread. Henry located her here to protect her from the jealousy of his queen Eleanor. She bore the king two sons, William Longsword, Earl of Salisbury, and Geoffrey, Bishop of Lincoln. During the king’s absence in France he intrusted the keeping of Woodstock and the care of the Fair Rosamond to one Lord Thomas, who endeavored to seduce her. In revenge for the rejection of his overtures, the faithless warden conducted Queen Eleanor to her retreat, and the latter is said to have mixed a cup of poison, which her minions compelled the unfortunate Rosamond to drink. It is also alleged that the queen struck the poor girl on her lip with her clenched hand.[293] Some assert that Rosamond died a natural death in a convent at Oxford, and attribute the origin of the story of poisoning to the figure of a cup which was sculptured on her tomb. It is more probable that this effigy was placed there to commemorate the actual event. Rosamond was buried in the church of Godstow, opposite the high altar, where her remains lay undisturbed until they were ordered to be removed, with every mark of indignity, by Hugh, Bishop of Lincoln, in the year 1191. She was regarded by the people as a saint, if not a martyr, and wonderful legends were related concerning her.

Jane Shore, the celebrated concubine of Edward IV., was the wife of Matthew Shore, a goldsmith in Lombard Street, London. Edward possessed a good figure and pleasing address, and was fond of athletic sports and exercises, which he enjoyed in company with the citizens, among whom he became exceedingly popular. His popularity extended to many of the citizens’ wives, and it was not considered out of the natural course of things that Mrs. Shore should be removed from Lombard Street to shine at court as the royal favorite. Historians represent her as extremely beautiful, remarkably gay in temperament, and of uncommon generosity. The king, it is said, was no less charmed with her temper and disposition than with her person. She never made use of her influence over him to the prejudice of any one, and if she ever importuned him it was in favor of the unfortunate.

After the death of Edward she attached herself to Lord Hastings, and when Richard III. cut off that nobleman as an obstacle to his schemes, she was arrested as an accomplice on the ridiculous charge of witchcraft. This accusation, however, terminated in a public penance, with the loss of whatever little property she possessed. Notwithstanding the severities exercised against her, it is certain that she was alive in the reign of Henry VIII., when Sir Thomas More mentions having seen her, poor and shriveled, without the least trace of her former beauty. Mr. Rowe, in his tragedy of “Jane Shore,” has adopted the popular story related in the old ballad, of her perishing from hunger in a ditch where Shoreditch now stands, but Stow assures us that that street was thus named previous to the time of Jane Shore.

The example of none of the English kings had a greater influence in bringing the marriage tie into disrepute than that of Henry VIII. An effort has been made by Mr. Fronde, in his new history of England, to redeem the character of this monarch from some portion of the obloquy with which it is covered, but there is no doubt that he was an unmitigated monster. Curious to say, during his youth and early manhood he betrayed no evidence of the brutal passions which afterward moved him. He was the husband of Catharine for seventeen years before his domestic conduct incurred reproach. At that late period of his career he conceived a violent passion for Anne Boleyn, and, in order to get her to share his bed, sought to divorce his wife. From this period he seemed to become the prey of a restless concupiscence, which sought gratification in new objects of indulgence, and his passion for the women he married and beheaded was as short-lived as it was violent.

There is reason to believe that his marriage with Anne Boleyn was more than adulterous. It is said Anne’s mother had been more complaisant to Henry than her duty to her husband or the laws of morality would have sanctioned, and we have the authority of Bishop Fisher for concluding that Anne was the result of this illicit connection, and that, when the king expressed an intention of marrying her, Lady Boleyn exhorted him to abandon his design, as Anne was his own daughter. Henry was not to be deterred by an obstacle of this sort. He had great difficulty in procuring a divorce, and in the mean while he and Anne had become so intimate that she began to exhibit proofs of the connection which could not be concealed. A private marriage was resorted to, considerations of state rendering it prudent to keep the union secret.

Catharine was divorced through the instrumentality of Cranmer, but Henry did not long continue to repose confidence in his new bride. Soon after the marriage was made public, and she had been formally inaugurated as queen, she attended a tilting-match at Greenwich, accompanied by the king and a large concourse of spectators. The king observed her exchange amorous signals with one of the combatants, who was also one of her paramours. Henry had entertained suspicions of her connection with this man, and this proof, as he regarded it, of her infidelity aroused his jealousy. He left the scene on the instant and returned to Westminster, where he issued orders to have her immediately arrested. She was thrown into prison, and tried on the joint charges of adultery and incest. She was accused of having committed adultery with four separate members of the king’s household, and of having had incestuous intercourse with her own brother, Lord Rochford. She was tried, found guilty, and executed.

Whether she committed the entire criminality laid to her charge it is impossible to say, but that the incidents of the career just described were in perfect unison with the doings of Henry and his court there is no doubt. Of the influence of such examples on the morals of the people at large, there is, unfortunately, as little question. If court manners and court styles are zealously followed, the vices that spring from them are not less assiduously improved upon.

Henry’s strong sexual passions, as well as his arbitrary disposition, were bequeathed to his daughter Elizabeth. However historians may differ as to the degree of her depravity, they all agree that her right to the title of “Virgin Queen” was exceedingly ill founded. Many of her delinquencies with persons of the opposite sex were notorious, although perhaps difficult of proof. While she had not the slightest claim to beauty, she delighted in flattery, and could swallow any amount of gross and fulsome adulation. Her vanity so blinded her that she never perceived that the extravagant praises lavished on her personal attractions were merely covert satire.

It is said that Elizabeth indulged in almost indiscriminate lewdness, and that Leicester, Hatton, Essex, Mountjoy, and numerous others shared her favors. In one of the notes appended to Hume’s fourth volume, the nature of Elizabeth’s dealings with a large number of her favorites is set forth, the author of the statement being the Countess of Shrewsbury.

Mary, Queen of Scots, at a time when friendly relations existed between her and Elizabeth, wrote to the latter that the countess had reported that Elizabeth had given a promise of marriage to a certain courtier, but, finding the marriage inexpedient, had dispensed with the ceremony and admitted him to her bed. The countess also stated that she had been equally indulgent to Simier, the French agent, and that Hatton, another of her paramours, had spread many reports indicative of her extreme sexual passion.

The immediate successors of Elizabeth were of a different personal temperament, and did not abandon themselves to such scandalous excesses. James I. had no mistresses, and was not of a character to seek pleasure in extravagant licentiousness, but his court was not free from the scenes which had disgraced those of Henry and Elizabeth. James, being desirous of uniting the Earl of Essex with the Lady Frances Howard, daughter of the Earl of Suffolk, had the young couple betrothed, although they had not attained the age of puberty. The earl was only fourteen years of age, while Lady Frances was but thirteen, and it was deemed proper for the youth to travel until both should have arrived at the maturity necessary for the consummation of the marriage relation. After four years spent on the Continent, the earl returned to England, and found his affianced bride in the full lustre of extraordinary beauty, and of the fame which great personal charms excite. He had also the mortification to find himself repulsed when he approached her as a husband, and was met by every manifestation of dislike and contempt. He complained to her parents on the subject, and they compelled her to accompany him to the country.

Although the young countess obeyed this mandate literally, the feud between her and Essex was far from terminated: she recognized him as her husband in name only, and sedulously kept herself aloof from his society, nor could any of his endeavors overcome her repugnance. The lady persisted in her obstinacy; the husband redoubled his attentions and importunities, but, finding that she was invincible, he finally abandoned the pursuit, and separated from her.

The cause of this strange conduct on the part of the countess was the passion which she entertained for a Scotch adventurer named Robert Carr, who had found a favorable reception from the king, by whom he was created Viscount Rochester. She believed that by refusing to consummate her marriage with Essex she would not be considered by the world in the light of his wife, and she hoped to procure a divorce, which would enable her to marry Rochester.[294] As their mutual attachment was ardent, and their opportunities for being together frequent, they anticipated the probability of a marriage, and indulged their passions without waiting for the ceremony. They did not find as much trouble in procuring a divorce as they had anticipated.

The king, who had a strong partiality for Rochester, favored their views, and Essex, finding that his suit was hopeless with his wife, opposed no obstacle to the nullification of his marriage. The grounds on which the countess sued out the divorce were of rather a curious character. The chief allegation against Essex was impotency. At that time a firm faith existed in the absurd notions that there were people who possessed the power of witchcraft, enabling them, among other things, to deprive a man of his virility. It was asserted and maintained that Essex had been subjected to this influence, and was therefore incompetent to occupy the position of a married man. The divorce was secured, and Rochester and the countess experienced no farther obstacle to the gratification of their desires.

Rochester had previously consulted Overbury on the difficulties of his position, and the latter strongly advised him not to marry the countess. These facts coming to the ears of Lady Frances, she induced Rochester to have Overbury poisoned. On the discovery of the murder, Rochester and his wife were brought to trial and convicted, but the mistaken clemency of the king interposed between them and the doom they so richly merited. They passed the remainder of their days in obscurity, but as bitter enemies, and although they resided in the same house for many years, no word or message was ever exchanged between them.