66

they were confident his servants in England, under what persecution soever they lay, would send him "some supply; but, whilst he remained in France, nobody would be prevailed with to send to him."1

66

Their advice agreed well with the King's inclination, and their wish was fulfilled by his quitting France for Germany. Fortunately for him, no objection was raised to his departure, for the debts he had contracted at Paris were so large, that without the assistance of the Cardinal he could not have begun his journey, notwithstanding the gift from England.

Lord Hertford's purse appears to have also aided the necessities of Royalist friends in exile, and the Duke of Newcastle received jointly from him and from a relation of his own the sum of 20001.2 It has been also said that so long as the Protectorate lasted he contributed 50007. yearly to Charles and his friends.3 Lord Clarendon specifies no precise sum, but mentions that the Marquis of Hertford and the Earl of Southampton "sent the

66

King sometimes such sums as they could raise out of "their long sequestered and exhausted fortunes, by "messengers of their own, and accompanied their gifts by advice to the King to sit still and expect a rea

Hist. of the Rebellion, vol. vii. p. 81.

2.66 My Lord had then but a small stock of money left; for though the "then Marquis of Hertford (after Duke of Somerset), and his cousin-ger66 man once removed, the now Earl of Devonshire, had lent him 20007. "between them, yet all that was spent, and above 1000l. more, which my Lord borrowed during the time he lived in Rotterdam, his expense "being the more by reason (as I mentioned) he lived freely and nobly." -Life of William Duke of Newcastle, by the Duchess of Newcastle, p.62. Collins's Peerage' (1735), vol. i. p. 50. Collins gives no authority for this statement.

'Life of Earl of Clarendon, vol. i. p. 338, Oxford edit., 1827. The State Paper Office furnishes the following account of the demands and fines made upon Lord Hertford's estates by the Parliament:

“27 Feb. 165 .-William Marquis Hertford petitions to complete his "composition.

"28 Sept. 1654.-William Marquis Hertford petitions that the estate of "Fishwick Hall, co. Lancaster, may be discharged from sequestration, "being then vested in him the Marquis.

66

"2 May, 1655.-Report thereon.

"19 April, 1655.-T. Bayly certifies, that on the 12th of January, $1647-8, the Lord Marquis of Hertford was fined for his delinquency eight thousand three hundred and forty-five pounds, and hath paid the 66 same into the Treasury at Goldsmiths' Hall; and had a saving to compound granted for some part of his estate.'

"1652.-Lady Frances Seymour, eldest daughter of William Marquis of “Hertford, married Richard Viscount Molyneux, with a portion of 80007., "for which he conveyed the manor of Fishwick to the Marquis.

"Particulars of the delinquency of William Marquis of Hertford. "Particular of all his lands, estates, manors, &c.

"19 Nov. 1646.-Prays to be allowed to make composition and to have "the benefit of the Articles of Oxford, his debts amounting to 22,0007. "Fine, 12,6037., at a tenth.'

“12 Jan. 1646-7.-Report on the particulars of the Marquis of Hert"ford's demands, augmenting the fine proposed :

“12 Jan. 1646-7.-Upon the motion of Mr. Rich, in the behalf of the "Lord Marquis of Hertford, it was ordered by the Lords and others at this Committee, that his Lordship's fine should be reduced and made certain, "and his estate for life allowed of, and the addition to his particular set "both according to the Articles of Oxford and the proceedings and rules "of this Committee, and with all other men that came in upon the said "Articles: according to which order the said Lord Marquis's fine at a "tenth is 83457.'

"Certificate of his fine as tenant for life, and in fee of the above "amounts.

"Particular of the life estate of the Marquis of Hertford, signed by him. "Other particulars.

"Particular of all the estate of the Marquis of Hertford."-2nd Series, vol. xviii. pp. 587-614.

In the year 1656 Lord Hertford was again sorely visited by domestic affliction, in the death of his third and then eldest son, Henry Lord Beauchamp. Lord Beauchamp had married Mary, eldest daughter of Arthur Lord Capell, in the year 1648. Their union lasted between seven and eight years, when he died, leaving her a widow with four infant children. Lord Hertford was deeply afflicted, and his misfortune led to an expression of sympathy from a quarter where it was least to be expected, and from which it was not even felt to be welcome. Cromwell could appreciate the worth of such men as Lord Hertford and Lord Southampton, and he would willingly have secured their services or even their countenance to support his Government. Lord Hertford's affliction afforded the Protector an opportunity of opening at least some communication with him, and the following account is preserved of his fruitless attempts to win his regard :— 1

1

"A little after the death of the Lord Beauchamp "his son, in the year 1656, which was of unspeakable

66

grief to him, the Protector sent Sir Edward Syden"ham to him to condole with him for the great loss he

' Collins's 'Peerage,' vol. i. p. 49, edit. 1735. Collins gives the account here quoted in inverted commas, saying that he finds it "related in "an authentic MS. ;" he does not mention in whose possession the MS. is to be found. The visit to Cromwell is confirmed by Lord Clarendon, who says "the Marquis had been prevailed with once and no more to give him 66 a visit." With the Earl of Southampton Cromwell's attempt to obtain any communication was still more fruitless, for he "could never be per"suaded so much as to see him; and when Cromwell was in the New "Forest, and resolved one day to visit him, he, being informed of it, or "suspecting it, removed to another house he had, at such a distance as "exempted him from that visitation."-Life of Earl of Clarendon, vol. ip. 33 (edit. 1827).

"had sustained, and many fine words and compliments "besides. The Marquis of Hertford would have been glad Cromwell had spared that ceremony, but, how

66

ever, received it in the best manner he could, and "returned a suitable acknowledgment for the same. "Some time after this the Protector sent to invite the Marquis to dine with him. This great nobleman "knew not how to waive or excuse it; considering it "was in Cromwell's power to ruin him and all his family, sent him word that he would wait upon his Highness. Cromwell received him with all imagi"nable respect; and after dinner took him by the hand "and led him into his withdrawing room, where they "two being alone, he told the Marquis he had desired "his company that he might have his advice what to "do. For,' said he, I am not able to bear the weight "of business that is upon me; I am weary of it, and you, my Lord, are a great and a wise man, and of 66 great experience, and have been much versed in the "business of government. Pray advise me what I "shall do.' The Marquis was much surprised at this "discourse of the Protector, and desired again and

66

again to be excused, telling him he had served King "Charles all along, and been of his private council, and "that it was no way consistent with his principles that "either the Protector should ask, or he the Marquis "adventure, to give him any advice. advice. This, notwith

standing, would not satisfy Cromwell; but he pressed "him still, and told him he would receive no excuses "nor denials, but bid the Marquis speak freely, and "whatsoever he said it should not turn in the least to

66

66

66

66

"his prejudice. The Marquis, seeing himself thus "pressed, and that he could not avoid giving an 66 answer, said,said, Sir, upon this assurance you have given me, I will declare to your Highness my thoughts, by which you may continue to be great, and establish your name and family for ever. Our young master "that is abroad-that is, my master, and the master of "us all-restore him to his crowns, and by doing this you may have what you please.' The Protector, no 66 way disturbed at this, answered very sedately that he “had gone so far that the young gentleman could not "forgive. The Marquis replied that, if his Highness pleased, he would undertake with his master for what "he had said. The Protector returned answer that, in "his circumstances, he could not trust. Thus they parted, and the Marquis received no prejudice thereby "as long as Cromwell lived."

66

This idea that he had gone too far "for the young gentleman to "forgive," either really operated as a bar to prevent any possible negotiation with the King, or was used as such by Cromwell to silence all such propositions. Bishop Burnet relates the following anecdote, which shows the same feeling, whether real or feigned :—

"The Earl of Orrery told me that, coming one day to Cromwell during "those heats, and telling him he had been in the city all that day, Crom"well asked him what news he had heard there: the other answered, that "he was told he was in treaty with the King, who was to be restored, and “to marry his daughter. Cromwell expressing no indignation at this, "Lord Orrery said, in the state to which things were brought, he saw not 66 a better expedient: they might bring him in on what terms they "pleased: and Cromwell might retain the same authority he then had, "with less trouble. Cromwell answered, The King can never forgive his "father's blood.' Orrery said he was one of many that were concerned in "that, but he would be alone in the merit of restoring him. Cromwell "replied, "He is so d―bly debauched, he would undo us all;' and so turned "to another discourse without any emotion, which made Orrery conclude "he had often thought of that expedient."-Bishop Burnet's History of his own Time, vol. i. p. 119.