THOMAS, LORD WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTED. 1501-1551.

From the Piat1we contrib1ded to the Royal Tudor EmhibUfon, 1890, by

THE RIGHT HON. Sm CHARLES WENTWORTH DILKE, BART.

THREE BRANCHES

OF THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

I. WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD, SUFFOLK. II. WENTWORTH OF GOSl!~IELD, . III. WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL, OXFORDSHIRE.

BY 0 WILLIAM LOFTIE R UTTON.

~"13 '...:,, ,w,;_ ~-~I~,~~ ....

LONDON: 1891.

~rtfatt.

IN presenting this Volume to my Subscribers I hope it will be found to fulfil the promise of its Prospectus, in so far as showing that a sustained historical interest belongs to the branches of the Wentworth family here dealt with; and I trust that the pleasure which has been mine in collecting these annals may now be . shared by those who peruse them. I desire also on this page to inscribe the names of those to whom my Yery sincere thanks are due for their prompt and liberal response to my request for particulars connected with the subject of the Volume-viz., Major WILLIAM COOPER COOPER, F.S.A., Toddington Manor,· Bedfordshire; the Rt. Hon. Sir CHARLES WENTWORTH DILKE, Baronet; the Rev. HENRY LETTSOM ELLIOT, M.A., Vicar of Gosfield, Essex; and the late ReY. WILLIAM LLOYD, M.A., Rector of Lillingstone Lovell, Buckingham. W. L. R.

27 ELGIN AVENUE, , w. April 1891.

WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. PAGE ROGER WENTWORTH, died 1452, and his wife MARGERY, L.AJ}Y Roos, died 1478 1 Roger Wentworth's origin-His marriage causes his migra­ tion from to Suffolk-Margery Despenser, heiress of the Despensers, and of Tibetot of Nettlestead-Her marriage with John, Lord Roos-His early death-His widow's endowments-Her second mar­ riage with Roger Wentworth-His connection with Lord Scrope-His will, death, and burial-Death of Lady Roos­ Benefactress of Queens' College, Cambridge-Her be­ quests to churches, and of articles of silver to her heir and others-Her possessions.

Sm PHILIP WENTWORTH, Knt., died 1464 8 Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk-Knight of the Shire-Com­ mencement of contest between Houses of Lancaster and York-Sir Philip a Lancastrian-At first Battle of St. Albans-Diplomatic employments-Attainted on succession of Edward IV.-Taken prisoner at Battle of Hexham­ Executed-Burial. Srn , Knt., died 1499 13 Restored in blood-Succeeds Lady Roos, his grandmother, at Nettlestead-Serves in French expedition-Knighted­ Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk-Constable of Queen­ borough, -Constable of Knaresborough, York­ Sheriff of Yorkshire-His death and burial-By marriage of his daughter Margery, grandfather of Queen -Portrait. Vl CONTEN'l'S.

PAGE SIR RrcHA.RD WENTWORTH, Kut., died 1528 18 Commissioner for King's subsidy-Knighted-Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk-Serves in French expedition-At Court-At Field of Cloth of Gold-At reception of Em­ peror Charles V.-Again in French expedition-His death -Estates-Arms, Crest, Standard, Motto.

SIR THOMA.s, FIRST LoRD WENTWORTH, 1501-1551 24 Serves in French expedition-Knighted at Roye-At Court~ Created Baron Wentworth of Nettlested-Supports King's divorce-Attends Henry VIII. to France-At trial of Queen -At reception of Anne of Cieves-In suppression of insurrection-In judgment on heretics, scene at trial and execution-Governor of Edward VI.­ --Has grant of Stepney and Hackney­ Buys the Abbot's house, -His death-Burial in the Abbey-His wife-Loss of two of his sons in ship "Greyhound "-Portraits, Arms, Crest. SIR THOMAS, SECOND LORD WENTWORTH, 1525-1584 . 35 At St. John's College, Cambridge-In expedition to Scotlan

PAGE arrival at N ettlestead, the people of Ipswich present him with wine-At trial of Mary Queen of Scots-His death- His estates. Sm THOMAS, FOURTH LORD WENTWORTH, EARL OF CLEVE- LAND, 1591-1667 61 Removal of the W entworths from N ettlestead to Toddington­ Lord Wentworth at Court and knighted-First military experience-Lord-Lieutenant of Bedfordshire-Created Earl of Cleveland-With Duke of Buckingham-Outbreak of Civil War-The Earl engages to serve the King--At Berwick-Friendship with Earl of Strafford-Their letters -At trial and execution of Stmfford-Colonel of Horse­ In Parliament-Surprises the enemy at Abingdon­ At Battle of Cropredy-At Newbury taken prisoner-Long imprisonment-In Scotland with Prince Charles-At Battle of Worcester-Again prisoner-At the Restoration-His ruined estate-As a veteran soldier-Death and burial-­ His wives-Portrait. Sm THOMAS, LORD WENTWORTH, Colonel of the Guards, 1613-1665 . 84 Early knighthood-Travels-Proposed marriage with Barbara Lambe-Match broken off,letters thereon-With the Kirig's army-Summoned to the -With Lord Goring in the West-Commands the- Cavalry-On Sur­ render of Royal Army accompanies Prince Charles to the Continent, later to Scotland, and after Battle of W or­ cester returns to the Continent-Diplomatic employment­ Regiment of Guards formed, Wentworth Colonel-Battle of the Dunes-Returns to England at the Restoration­ Pecuniary embarrassment-His death and burial-His wife Philadelphia, and her father Sir :Ferdinando Carey­ Her will, and· provision for monument-Portrait.

HENRIETTA-MARI.A, LADY WENTWORTH, C. 1657-1686 . 102 Her succession as Baroness-Her birth-At Court, plays in the masque Calisto-Meets the Duke of Monmouth-His youthful marriage with Duchess of Buccleuch-He fol­ lows Lady Wentworth to Toddington, whence they go to · Brussels and the Hague-On death of Charles II., Mon- viii CONTEN'l'S.

PAGE mouth persuaded to claim the Crown-His expedition, landing in Dorsetshire, manifesto, short-lived triumph, dis­ appointed hopes-The Sedgmoor rout-His flight, capture, and abject demeanour in presence of James IL-His courage and composure on the scaffold-His vindication of Lady Wentworth-She dies broken-hearted-Her burial at Toddington-Her monument, and named carved on an oak by Monmouth-Portrait.

THE SucCESSION TO THE BARONY OF WENTWORTH 113 Anne (Wentworth) Lady Wentworth and Lovelace-Martha (Lovelace) Lady Wentworth, wife of Sir Henry Johnson, Knt.-The Noel Lords Wentworth- becomes Lady Wentworth-Her two grandsons, King-Noel, suc­ ce~sively Lords Wentworth.

TRANSMISSION OF THE TODDING-TON ESTA.TE • 115 Inherited by Martha (Lovelace) Lady Wentworth-Returns to Wentworth family by marriage-William, :Fourth Earl of Strafford-Divided between coheirs-Purchased by John Cooper, Esq.

TonnrNG-TON MANOR A.ND TonnING-TON PLACE 118 " Dodintone " held by Ernulf de Hesding-Sir Paulin Peivre temp. Henry III.-His "palace "-The Peivres­ The Broughtons-Lord Cheney rebuilds the mansion- _ Royal visits-Thomas, Fourth Lord Wentworth, after­ wards Earl of Cleveland, inherits-Partial rebuilding of mansion-The apartments-Demolition by Lord Strafford -Duke of Monmouth's rooms, tradition-Mr. Cooper's restoration-The great kitchen now dining-room--Wood carving-The park, etc.-The Monmouth oak.

TODDING-TON CHURCH 131 Built by the Peivres-Their tombs-Cheney tombs-The Wentworth monuments and vault.

PEDIGREE OF WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEA.D • 138 CONTENTS. IX

WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD. PAGE HENRY WENTWORTH, died 1482 145 He obtains Codham Hall-His marriages with Elizabeth Howard and Joan I<'itz Simon-Lands acquired. Sm ROGER WENTWORTH, Knt., 1465-1539 . 146 Marriage with Anne Tyrrell, heiress-Acquires Gosfield, ete.-Knight of the Shire-Suppression of insurgents at Blackheath-Knighted-Sheriff of Essex and Herts-At reception of Katharine of Aragon-At Field of Cloth of Gold-At reception of Emperor Charles V.-In French expedition-His death-Tomb, effigies, armorials-His second son Henry of Mountnessing, wife, and sons of same-Peter of Abberton, clerk-Roger and John, younger sons of Sir Roger-Miraculous cure of a daughter.

Sm JoHN WENTWORTH, Knt., 1494-1567 153 At Field of Cloth of Gold-Attends Cardinal Wolsey­ Wentworth estates-Sir John builds Gosfield Hall and the Wentworth Chapel-Sheriff of Essex and Herts-Receives the Queen at Gosfield-Has charge of Lady Katharine Grey-His death, burial, and tomb-His wife and children.

ANNE, LA.DY M.A.LTR.A.VERS, 1537-1581 . 160 Her first husband, Sir Hugh Rich-Second husband, Lord Maltravers-Third husband, William Deane-Queen Eliza­ beth's second visit to Gosfield-Death of Lady Maltravers -Her estates. Pedigree showing alliances through which were derived the · quarterings of shield on tomb of Sir John Wentworth. Between pp. 160 and 161

JORN W ;ENTWORTH, 1540-1588 164 Sheriffof Essex-His wives-Sir Edward Moore.

JOHN WENTWORTH, 1564-1614 166 Sheriff of Essex-Member of Parliament-His wife, Cecilia Unton, afterwards Lady Hoby-'-Her tomb at Aston Rowant, Oxfordshire.

b CONTENTS. PAGE Sm JoHN WENTWORTH, Knt. and Bart., died 1631 . 168 Knighted at Belvoir Castle by James !.-Travels-Gentleman of the Chamber to Henry Prince of Wales-Created Baronet-Sells lands for payment of debts-Imprisoned and fined for interference in matter of Overbury's murder -,Joins expedition for recovery of Palatinate-Sells his estates-Conveys jewels to Prince Charles at Madrid­ Commands a privateer-Prisoner at Dunkirk-Again at sea-His vessels sold-Dies-His wife and- daughters­ Disposal of Codham Hall.

THE SuccEssoRs OF THE WENTWORTHS A.T GosFIELD 176 Sir ,John Garrard, Bart.-Lord Coleraine-Mr. Allen-Vis­ countess Dorchester-Lady Dacre-The family of Grey­ The Millington family-Mr. Knight-Earl Nugent­ Marquis of Buckingham-Louis XVIII. resides at Gosfield Hall-Colonel Astle resident-Mr. Barnard-Mr. Cour­ tauld-Mrs. Lowe.

GosFIELD HA.LL 182 Built by Sir John Wentworth-Rebuilt by Mr. Knight­ Horace Walpole's description-Wood carving and Portraits removed to Stowe-The situation, Park and Lake.

GosFIELD CHURCH . 190 Date-Sir .John Wentworth's addition-The Hall pew­ Thomas Rolfe's tomb-Wentworth tombs and burials.

PEDIGREE OF "\VENTWORTH OF GosFIELD 193 PEDIGREES OF WENTWORTH OF BOCKING A.ND WENTWORTH OF STEEPJ,E BUMPSTEAD 196

NoTES TO THE PEDIGREE OF WENTWORTH OF GosFIELD 198 OONTEN'l'S. XI

WEN'l1WORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL.

PAGE THE MANOR OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL . 205 Situation-Change of county-Domesday record-De Anesi -Monte Alto-Lovell-Ferrers-Alicia Perrers-Fitz Symond-The Lovell possession-Mauntell-Empson­ Tyler-Parr-Wentworth, by inheritance and King's grant.

Sm NICHOLAS WENTWORTH, Knt., died c. 1553 214 His parentage and early life-Chief Porter 0£ Calais­ Knighted at Boulogne-The King's grant-Retirement and pension-His death, will, disposal 0£ possessions, and legacies-Direction as to burial-His wife.

PETER WENTWORTH, M.P., 1524-1597. 219 His efforts in Parliament for liberty of speech-First elec­ tion-First speech-Interview with Archbishop 0£ Canter­ bury-At home preparing his great speech-The speech, 1576-Effect on the House, by which committed to the Tower-The Queen recommends his release-Submission and reinstatement-Mention in Parliamentary Journal­ In 1587 opposes Queen's restriction of debate-Committed by Council to the Tower-In 1593 moves prohibited ques­ tion of the Succession-For third time sent to the Tower, where rem:tins to end of life-Constancy to his cause­ His book-Letters to Lord Burghley, and remarks of latter on the book-His final appeal to Sir Robert Cecil for release-He dies in the Tower-His wives, Elizabeth Walsingham and Letitia Lane.

PAUL WENTWORTH, M.P., OF BURNHAM .ABBEY, 1534-1594. 244 Distinguished in the contest for Parliamentary privilege­ His first election-His marriage and acquirement 0£ lease of Burnham Abbey, where fixes his residence-In Parlia­ ment-Questions Queen's inhibition 0£ debate on the Succession-The Queen's anger -At Burnham -Has charge of Duke of Norfolk-The Queen's instructions thereon-Again in Parliament-He moves for a Public xii CONTENTS.

PA.GE Fast and daily preaching in the House-The Queen incensed reprimands the House - Retired from Parliament -Has renewed leases of Burnham Abbey-His other pro­ perty-Seizes Popish books and relics of Mistress Hampden -His death-Inscription on his monument and armorial shield-Remarks as to quarterings, and Pedigree showing alliances-His will-His wife, her death and will-His sons -Memorial in Burnham Church to his daughter Anne, wife of Norton Knatchbull.

NICHOLAS WENTWORTH, 1561-1613 263 Succeeds his father Peter Wentworth at Lillingstone Love11, having by his marriage acquired other property at W olston, Warwickshire-His second marriage-His death at W ol­ ston-His brother W altm· Wentworth of Castle Bytham, Lincoln shire.

THOMAS WENTWORTH, M.P., 1567-1628 265 At Oxford University-Of Lincoln's Inn and called to the Bar-His Legal Treatise-In Parliament-Recorder of Oxford-Quarrels with the University authorities-His action in Parliament-His death.

PETER WENTWORTH, D.D., 1601-1661 273 At Oxford University-- Dean of Armagh-Archbishop Laud's letter relii,ting to him-His life during the Com­ monwealth-His death.

Sm PETER WENTWORTH, K.B., M.P., 1592-1675. 276 Knighted at Coronation of Charles I.-Sheriff of Oxford­ shire-Charged with collection of Ship-money-Explains difficulties to Council-Elected for Tamworth, and sides with Parliament-Votes against attainder of Earl of Straf­ ford-Swears to the Solemn League and Covenant-An "Independant "-Speeches in 1648-Relations with Crom­ well-On Council of State-Deprecates Cromwell's abusive speech at expulsion of Parliament-Retires to his estate­ Resists assessment for maintenance of Army-Stocks his park with deer from Whittlewood Forest-His death-Dis­ position of his estates by will, and numerous legacies, including one to John Milton the Poet-Portrait. CONTENTS. xiii

PAGE PAUL WENTWORTH, 1600-1690 290 Fifteen years owner of Lillingstone Lovell and W olston estates-Nothing else to record of him-His will and lega­ cies-Creswell succeeds to Lillingstone Lovell, Dilke to Walston.

THE WENTWORTHS alias CRESWELLS, 1690-1784, .A.ND THEIR SucCESSORS 292

INVENTORY OF THE Goons, etc., OF PA.UL WENTWORTH, EsQ. 295 Taken 7th March 1689 (o.s.), and the late Rector's account of the vestiges of Lillingstone Hall in 1836.

PEDIGREE OF WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL 300

NOTES TO THE PEDIGREE OF WENTWORTH OF LTLLI,',GSTONE LO YELL 303 ( XIV )

JHlu~tratton~.

PORTRAIT OF THOMAS, FIRST LORD WENTWORTH Frontispiece. '11HE GATEWAY OF NETTLESTEAD HALL facin,r; pa,r;e 54 ARMORIAT, SHIELDS ON GATEWAY ... Two Plates,following the above.

PORTRAIT OF HENRIETTA. MARIA, LADY WENTWORTH facing page 102

Tm; MoNMOTITH OAK AT TODDINGTON facing page 130

THE ARMS OF JOHN WENTWORTH, Esq. facing page 160

GosFIELD HALL, THE TnnoR FRONT facing page 182

Trrn ARMS OF Srn NrcHOLA.S WENTWORTH, Knt. facin,r; page 214

THE ARMS OF P A.TIL WENTWORTH, Esq. facing page 257

** * In regard to the portrait of the First Lord Wentworth, I wish here to _correct what, on page 35, is too probably a misstatement, viz., that the picture was painted before Lord Wentworth became Lord Chamberlain. Examined closely the label reveals his age at the time as "48," and having been born in 1501 (a fact ascertained from the inquis. p.m. of his father), it follows that the date of the picture was 1549, not 1547 as given in the Catalogue of the Tudor Exhibition. In 1549 Lord Wentworth became Lord Chamberlain, and doubtless the wand be bears, if not the whole costume, indicates the office. ( xv

PEDIGREE SHOWING THE VARIOUS BRANCHES OF THE W1':NTWORTH FAMILY,facing page 1 (1 page).

PEDIGREE OF WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD, page 138 (5 pages).

PEDIGREE SHOWING ALLIANCES THROUGH WHICH WERE DERIYED THE

QUARTERINGS 01" SHIELD ON TOMB OF SIR JOHN WENTWORTH

IN GosFIELD CHURCH, EssEX, between pages 160 and 161 (2 pages).

PEDIGREE OF WENTWORTH OF GosFIELD, page 193 (3 pages). PEDIGREE OF WENTWORTH <;)F BOCKING, } page 196 PEDIGREE OF WENTWORTH OF S'rEEPLE BuMPSTEAD, (2 pages).

PEDIGREE SHOWING ALLIANCES WHICH ACCOUNT FOR 'l'HE QUARTERINGS

OF THE SHIELD ON THE MONUMENT OF PAUL WENTWORTH, IN BURNHAM CHURCH, BucKs, page 259 (1 page).

PEDIGREE OF WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTOXE LOYELL, page 300 (3 pages).

PEDIGREE SHOWING THE VARIOUS BRANCHES OF THE WENTWORTH FAMILY.

'. __0) of Weutworth-Woodhouse,,Isabella, da. and coheir of William Pollington co. York; died 1308. j of Pollington, co. York. ,,,-., I WILLIAM WENTWORTH of Wentworth-::plsabella, da. and coheir of Walter --J~HN WENTWORTH ;,Joan, da. and coheir of Richard le Tyas Woodhouse, co. York; living 1314. J Tinsley of Tinsley, co. York. living 1314. Iof Burgh-Wallis, co. York. ,+.. .• _,3) I Wentworth of Wentworth-Woodhouse. JOHN WENTWORTH, ju. um. of North=;=Alice, da. and coheir of Roger BisRett Wentworth of Woolley, co. York. Flmsall, co. York, temp. Edw. III. Iof North Elmsall, co. York. · Wentworth of Wentworth Castle, co. York. I 13 JOHN WENTWORTH of North Elmsall; living 1413.=;=Agnes, sister and coheir of Sir William Dronsfield of West Brettou, co. York. I I I I JOHN WENTWORTH ROGER WENTWORTH,jii. um. of::;::TMargery, da. and heir of Sir Philip Despenser, RICHARD WENTWORTH of of North Elmsall. Nettlestead, co. Suffolk; died Knt., of Nettlestead; widow. of John, Lord West Bretton, co. York. 1452. Roos; she died 1478.

I . I W I dh. I Wentworth of North Sir PHILIP ENTWORTH, Elizabeth, da. and=j=HENRY WENTWORTH::pJoan, da. an eir Wentworth of Elmsall, South Elm­ Kut., of Nettlestead, co. heir of Henry of Codham Hall, co. of Robert Fitz- West Bretton, sall, Brodsworth, Suffolk; died 1464. Howard, uncle of Essex; died 1482. Simon of North co. York. a.nd tJ.S. America. 1 John, 1st Duke of Shoebury, Essex. j Norfolk. 1st wife. 2nd wife. ~I-----· . I -I Sir HENRY WENTWORTH, Knt., of Sir ROGER WENTWORTH, Knt., Sir NICHOLAS WEN1'WORTH, Knt., of Nettlestead ; died 1499. of Gosfield ; died 1539. Li11ingstone Lovell; died 1552 or 1553. T T T Wentworth of Nettlestead, Wentworth of Gos:field, Wentworth of Lillingstone Lovell, co, Suffolk. co. Essex. co. Osford.

THREE BRANCHES

OF THE jf amtlp of Bentmortb.

WENTWORTH OF NE'rTLESTEAD, SUFFOLK.

THIS was the first Wentworth house established beyond the limits of Yorkshire, the native county of the family ; and it was the most uniformly eminent. For although Thomas, Earl of Strafford, of the parent stem of Went­ worth-Woodhouse, holds a historical position unap­ p roached by any other member of the family, he was the only one of his own individual line who rose to eminence in public affairs. On the other hand, the N ettlestead house, ennobled almost a century earlier than the Yorkshire house, held from that time until its extinction a prominent position in the Kingdom.

R:oGER WENTWORTH, of Nettlestead (ju. ux.), died 1452. and his wife, MARGERY, LADY Roos, died 1478. Roger, the first Wentworth of N ettlestead, was a younger son of the third John Wentworth of the North Elm,sall house, co. York. 'l1he early history of the family B 2 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH, had showed a remarkable tendency to expand in its own county; at one time there were no less than seven Wentworth houses in the West Riding of Yorkshire; so that the leap of Roger Wentworth to the distant county of Suffolk seems to call for explanation. The explana­ tion lies in his marriage with the heiress of N ettlestead, a young widow, largely endowed with possessions, not only in Suffolk, but in Yorkshire and other counties. Margery Despenser-or le Despenser-the heiress, was the la.st representative of a branch of that famous family which had been seated at Goushill (now Goxhill), in the north of Lincolnshire, near the Humber; and which had had its origin in Philip, a younger son of Hugh DP.spenser, Senr., Earl of Winchester.1 This Philip, by marriage with the heiress Margaret Gousel (or Goushill), o. 1312, had acquired the lands of her inherit­ ance at Goushill, Gedney, and elsewhere in Lincolnshire; but he died a year after his marriage, and thirteen years before the catastrophe which overtook the evil ambition of his father and brother, the Hughs Despenser. Philip, however, left an infant son, bearing his name, who in time succeeded him at Goushill, and in due course two other Philips followed; the third was summoned by writ to Parliament from 1387 to 1400, and was therefore Baron Despenser; nevertheless it does not appear that his son ever bore higher style than that of his knight­ hood. This the fourth Sir Philip married one of the three daughters and coheirs of Robert, Lord 1ribetot-or Tiptoft-of N ettlestead, and that manor with others formed the portion of Lady Despenser : of the issue of the marriage there survived but one daughter, the above 1 Not the son of Hugh Despenser, Junr., as has often been errone­ ously stated. See correction of the error in Gage's Hist. of Thingoe Hunilreil, Sujfollc, p. 4. WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD, 3

Margery, who thus inherited her mother's portion of the Tibetot estates, as well as those of the Lincolnshire Despensers. She very early became the wife of John, Lord Roos, of Hamlake, co. York, a young baron of an illustrious house, whose career was cut short in the wars of Henry V. in France; he was but twenty-four years of age when he, and also his younger brother, fell with the Duke of Clarence and many of the English nobility, at the disastrous encounter between the English force and that of the French aided by several thousand Scotch auxiliaries, at Bauge near Angers and Beaufort, in Anjou, 22 March 1421. Lord Roos had very liberally endowed his wife with manors in six different counties, and among these en­ dowments was the Castle of Hamlake-now Helmsley, in the estate of Lord Feversham-in the North Riding. Thus it may well have happened that Roger Wentworth became acquainted with the young widow in his ,.own county; for Hamlake Castle, where probably she resided, was within :fifty miles of his father's house at North Elmsall. The marriage of Wentworth and Lady Roos, who of course retained her title, took place rather ~ore than two years after the death of Lord Roos (Chester has June 1423); and some .months later died Sir Philip Despenser, leaving his daughter sole heir to N ettlestead and his other estates. Thus Roger Went­ worth, quitting his native county, settled on his wife's property at Nettlestead, and there became the pro­ genitor of a new line of Wentworths. Beyond bis good fortune in making this wealthy and important alliance, very little concerning him has come down to us. In his younger days he was in the favour of Henry, Lord Scroop of Masham, appears indeed at one time to have resided with him, and by the will of 4 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. that lord (who was executed for high-treason in 1415) he had a legacy .1 The prefix of knighthood is often given to his name, but there is no evidence of his having been knighted; in the Suffolk Visitation of 1561 he is simply Roger Wentworth, Esquire, and in his wilP he writes himself Ego Rogerus Wentworth, .A.rmig., naming his eldest son Philip as miles, and his second son Henry as armiger ; they are his executors, with others. The will is dated 5 June 1452; it simply contains bequests to the altars of the churches in the N ettlestead neigh­ bourhood, and appoints his burial to be in the church of the Friars Minors (or Grey Friars) at Ipswich. This church had been founded, temp. Edward I., by his wife's maternal ancestor, Robert Tibetot, who, and several of his family, had burial there; the fraternity was suppressed in 1538, and the church, probably soon afterwards, demolished ; not a vestige of it how remains. Roger Wentworth died 21 October 1452. Lady Roos, again a widow, survived her second husband twenty-six years, and was more than eighty when she died 20 April 1478. She had been a bene­ factress to Queen's College, Cambridge, and had placed a window, to the honour of St. Margaret and St. Be:r­ nard-to whom the college was dedicated-in the chapel, on the north side of the choir ; and under this window she directs by her will that her body shall be laid. The will, in Latin, is at Somerset House ( Wattis, 33), and is given at length in the History of Queen's College, Cam­ bridge Antiquarian Society's Publications, No. 9, p. 72. 1 "Lego Rogero Wentw01·th-and others-cuilibet eorum si tempore mortis mei sint mecum commorantes in hospitio meo, sive de jocalibus (? jewels), sive de apparatu (? furniture), usg_ue ad valorem c. s." The will occupies 8½ folio pages of Rymer's .Fcedera, ix., 272. 2 Harl. MSS. 10, f. 300. WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 5

The testatrix makes several bequests in money, varying from ten to forty shillings, to the high altars of St. Botolph's, Cambridge, N ettlestead, Somersham, and Blakenham; twenty pounds to the fabric of the church of the Order of St. Francis at Ipswich; forty shillings each to the brotherhoods of the Order of Preachers, and the Carmelite Order, Ipswich; and the same to a brotherhood at Cambridge. The most interesting clause is a conditionary bequest to Henry Wentworth her grandson and heir, who is to have twelve silver dishes (discos), a goblet with six small cups (parvis peciis), and a basin (pelvim concavum), all of silver, on condition that he shall at his own expense cause the body of her (? his) father, Dom. Philip Wentworth, Knight, to be transferred to the church of Newsam in Lincolnshire, and a marble stone to be laid over his body; and also shall cause a marble stone to be laid over the body of his mother in .the church of the Order of St. Francis (Friars Minors), Ipswich. There is a clerical error here, perhaps only of the transcript, but very likely to trouble genealogists ; either for patris mei should be read patris sui, or for Wentworth should be read Despenser. As the words stand it is not clear whether Lady Roos refers to the body of her father Sir Philip Despenser or to that of her son Sir Philip Wentworth; for Sir Philip, her eldest son, had come to an untimely end, and his son Henry was now the heir. It seems, however,· most probable, considering the place and circumstances of the death of Sir Philip Wentworth, whose career we are about to notice, that his remains are referred to, and that it was his mother's wish he should rest with his Despenser ancestors at Newsam. Newsam (Newsham or Newhouse) Abbey had been founded by Peter de Gousla (= Gousel) in the reign of Stephen, and was 6 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

probably the burial-place of hi.s successors, both Gousel and Despenser; the distance between their residence at Goushill and Newsam Abbey was about five miles. To complete our reference to the will of Lady Roos, · there are other bequests of silver to her heir free of con­ ditions ; the articles named are a basin with a vase or ewer (pelvim cum lavacr9), a salt with cover (salsarium cum coopertorio) and a second one gilt, and two can­ delabra. Her son Thomas Wentworth, chaplain, had a basin with small ewer, a salt with cover, twelve spoons (coclearia), a half-lagena jar (ollam semilagene, the lagena being a measure of capacity), a cup without cover, six dishes with side-dish (parapside), two small dishes with the arms of Lord Roos, three saucers, and two phials (.fiolas), all of silver. To Master Andrew Dokett (= Duckett), President of Queen's College, Cambridge, is bequeathed a silver cup with cover bearing the arms of Roos, and ten pounds; and to Queen's Col­ lege six silver dishes with side dish, three saucers, a half­ lagena jar, a missal, a chalice of silver, and a portifory or breviary (portij"o1·ium), so that her priests may use the same as long as they shall remain in the college. She had many years before provided a stipend of £6. 13s. 4d. for five priests, fellows of the college, to pray for the souls of Dame Margery Roos, Sir Philip Went­ worth, Knight, and Sir John (Lord) Roos, Knight. Finally there are legacies of twenty pounds to John Constable, son of her daughter Agnes (wife of Sir Robert Constable of Flamborough, co. York), and of six marks to Roger Wentworth son of Thomas Wentworth, whose identity is not further explained; her son Thomas was the churchman above mentioned. The possessions of Lady Roos (Margareta qurefuit uxor Rogeri Wentworth, nuper Domina Roos) are WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 7 enumerated in the inquisition p.m. as follows. SUFFOLK, the manors of N etylstede, Blakenham, N ewhalle, Wodehouse, Barowe, Overtey, Tunstall. EssEx, Stan­ brige Parva maner., Rocheford hundr. membr. KENT, the manors of Chetham (Chatham) and Kingston, and the 4th part of the manor of Kingesdon. LONDON, mess. in vico vocato Lymestreet. LINCOLNSHIRE, the manors of Gouxhill, Halton, Bullingbroke honor. membr., the manors of W ellisby, Basyngham, Gedeney, Aukebergh, Lymbergh Magna, Poynton, Aveland hundr. membr., the manors of Roxham, Hostilers, Lobyngthorp, Merston in le Vale. YORKSHIRE, the manors of Dodington, Pauleholme, Caldon, Perlyng­ ton, Syneflete mess. et terr., Rosse 3rd part of manor. The sons of Roger Wentworth and Lady Roos were three, viz., Sir Philip Wentworth, the narrative of whose career follows ; Henry Wentworth of Codham Hall, Essex, who has his place in the account of the Gosfield house of Wentworth; and 'l'homas the priest. The latter was presented by his mother, 16 July 1474, to the rectory of Barrow, Suffolk; and by his nephew Sir Henry to Little Blakenham rectory, 15 February 1492 ; he seems to have died in 1501, as in that year the next presentations to both rectories occurred. There is a brass in Duxford Church, Cambridgeshire, to "Thomas Wynt­ worth," vicar, who died 21 September 1489; 1 but only through impugning the accuracy of the above dates can this vicar be supposed to have been the son of Roger Wentworth and Lady Roos. They had also three daughters whose marriages will be seen by reference to the Pedigree.

1 Cole MSS. I. 16, and XVIII. 50; and Haines's Manual, p. 37. 8 .THE FUULY OF WENTWORTH.

SIR PHILIP WENTWORTH, Knight, of Nettlestead; died 1464. Sir Philip's ability appears to have been of early de­ velopment; for at the age of twenty-three or four, and in his father's lifetime, he was made Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk, 26 Henry VI. = 1447-'8; and 20 January 1449 he was chosen Knight of the Shire for Suffolk, his election being repeated 12 March 1453. Previous to the second election he had been knighted, and had chosen his side in the dire contest about to ensue between the Houses of Lancaster and York. Sir Philip ranged himself with the Lancastrians, and supported the reigning King, whose long minority, and, afterwards, total incapacity for government through physical and mental defect, had stimulated rivalry for place and power in the great nobles, and prompted the Duke of York to aspire to sovereignty. At first, and for several years, the contest between the two parties-led on the one side by Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, who was closely connected with the House of Lancaster, and was supported by the Queen, Margaret of Anjou; and on the other by Richard, Duke of York-was limited to court intrigues and quarrels. But in 1452 York appeared in arms, with the avowed purpose of overthrowing Somerset, who be declared had "laboured his destruction," and "by his pernicious in­ fluence with the King had brought about the distraction of the state;" at the same time the Duke professed loyalty to his sovereign, nor is there reason, on this occasion at least, to doubt his sincerity. Bloodshed for the while was averted by the submission of the poor King to the de­ mands of his cousin York, viz., that Somerset should be dismissed from office and imprisoned, and the fire of hostility smouldered fitfully three years longer. In 1464 WENTWORTH OF NET'l'LES'l'EAD. 9 the King had become so imbecile, that a deputation of peers appointed to wait upon him at Windsor, "could get no answer or sign from him;" and consequently the Duke of York was elected "protector and defender of the realm." At the beginning of 1455 the wretched sove­ reign's mental condition had partial recovery; Somerset was released from confinement, and the protectorate of York terminated. Hostility between the great rivals now became so intense, that all attempts to effect a com­ promise proved useless ; and York retired to his north­ ern estates to summon his followers to arms. Sir Philip Wentworth's figure is occasionally seen during the long period of the War of the Red and White Roses; and what is learnt of him is chiefly derived from the Paston Letters, the valuable contemporary corre­ spondence which has so fortunately been preserved to us. We hear of him at Midsummer 1454, riding towards London with a hundred horsemen cased "in jacks, sallets, and rusty habergeons ;" and at another time he rides accompanied by his brothers in law, "young Hopton and young Calthorp," with them twenty-four horsemen. We have him too at St. Alban's, 23 May 1455, when the sword was drawn for the first time between Lancaster and York, and considerable blood spilled. From the North, in the spring of 1455, marched Richard, Duke of York, towards London with a force of three thousand men, avowedly against his enemy the Duke oi Somerset, and to the King still professing lealty. To meet him advanced from London the King's force of two thousand commanded by Somerset and other nobles, Henry himself nominally its head. The opposing forces met at St. Alban's, the Lancastrians holding the town. York's demand was that Edmund, Duke of Somerset, "enemy to all the realm," should be given up; this the 0 10 THE FAMILY OF WENTWOR'l'R,

King, by advice of his council, refusing, the Yorkists assaulted the town. The royal banner had been set up in the broad street of St. Peter's, Henry was placed by it, and Sir Philip Wentworth had charge of the standard; the chronicle of the knight were well interrupted here. But it is recorded that after repeated repulse the Earl of Warwick, at the head of a strong force, carried the bar­ riers; fierce combat and slaughter ensued, the Duke of Somerset, the Earl of Northumberland, and Lord Clifford were among the slain, the passive, non-combatant King was wounded in the neck by an arrow as he stood under his banner, the battle was lost to the Lancastrians, and "Sir Philip Wentworth cast down the King's standard, and fled. My lord Norfolk [ who fought for York l saith he shall be hanged therefore, and so is he worthy. He is in Suffolk now, he dared not come about the King." (Paston Letters, Gairdner ed. 1872, vol. i., 336.) But Sir Philip, if he fled the battle, lived to fight another day ! and it must here be said that only in the Paston Letters is the discreditable conduct above related attributed to him. It is not alluded to by Abbot Whethamstede of St. Alban's, a contemporary chroni­ cler, and almost a witness of the Battle of St. Alban's; neither is it found in Hall's Chronicle of 1548. If the report had been based on fact, it seems strange tbat the subject of it should two years later, 1457, have been entrusted with important negotiations relating to Scot­ land;1 and that in 1459, the last year of poor Henry's reign, he should again have held the Sheriff's office in Suffolk and Norfolk, and again have been elected to represent his county in Parliament; so, however, it was. In the same year also he was appointed one of an embassy, composed of prelates, nobles, and knights, to assist in a 1 Rymer's Jf'(l]dera, xi., 389, 397, 399, 403, WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 11 council in Mantua, instituted by the Pope "to take measures against the Turks;" on account, however, of the civil war the embassy did not proceed.1 In 1460, after various alternations of fortune, took place the Battle of , wherein Richard, Duke of York, was slain, leaving his claim to the throne to his martial young son Edward (soon to become Edward IV. of England), whose time to triumph came a month later at Mortimer's Cross. In January 1461 the masculine­ hearted Queen, Margaret of Anjou, with a great and lawless force advanced from the North, pillaging the country passed over, until they reached St. Alban's, where they met and routed a Y orkist force led by the Earl of Warwick, with him poor King Henry, who now fell into the hands of the party nominally his own. After the second Battle of St. Alban's the Lancastrians pillaged the old town, and while thus intent young Edward of York-not yet twenty years of age-effected a junction of his array with the defeated force of Warwick, and together they marched to London, where, in an assemblage of nobles, prelates, and citizens, Edward demanded and assumed the crown. The next event is the Battle of Towton, near York, whither Edward with surprising alacrity has led fifty thousand men to en­ counter sixty thousand Lancastrians; the Yorkists gain the day, and thirty-three thousand men lie dead on the field of battle. Edward is again i:n London, and towards the end of that same year, 1461, a Parliament devoted to him pass Bills of Attainder, "thick as autumnal leaves," against Lancastrian nobles and knights, and among the latter is named Sir Philip Wentworth. He is, however, still at large in the North country, and in 1462 is in Dunstanburgh Castle, Northumberland, when it is besieged by Warwick and surrendered. In 1464 1 Ohrons. and Mems. of Gt. Brit., etc. Regist. Whethamstede, i., 136. 12 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

Margaret of Anjou has landed a second time in Scotland from France, and again is the leading spirit of a Lan­ castrian host which makes a final attempt at Hexham, Northumberland, to retrieve the fortunes of the Red Rose. But the victory is with John Nevill, Lord Montagu (or Montacute), cowmanding the forces of the White Rose ; and in the flight are taken Henry Beau­ fort, Duke of Somerset (son of him who fell at St. Alban's, 1455), Lords Roos and Molines, Sir Philip Wentworth, and many others. These were all executed, Somerset at Hexham, "the other lords and knights were had to Newcastle, and there, after a little respite, were likewise put to death."1 Thus died Sir Philip on the 18th of May 1464, in the prime of manhood, his age being forty years. His body probably was entombed at Newcastle, where he suffered; and fourteen years later, if the directions of his mother's will be thus understood, the remains were removed to the sepulchre of his maternal ancestors at Newsam Abbey, Lincolnshire; this was probably determined by distance, which would have been more than doubled had the remains of the knight been taken to the burial-place of his father, at Ipswich. Sir Philip's wife was Mary Clifford, daughter of the Baron who fell in France, 1422, and sister of the Baron who was slain at St. Alban's, 1455. The year of her death, and whether before or after her husband, is not known, but it probably o<'curred at N ettlestead, as, from Lady Roos's will, it appears she was buried in the church of the Friars Minors, Ipswich. The issue was-as shown in the pedigree-one son and one daughter.

1 Hall's Ohroniale, ed. 1809, p. 260. Hall has "Sir Thomas Went­ wortb," though evidently referring to Sir Philip. The mistake is rectified in Foxe's Aats and Monuments, Townsend ed., iii., 742, where the name is "lord Philip Wentworth." WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 13

Srn HENRY WENTWORTH, Knight, of N ettlestead, died 1499. Sir Henry Wentworth, the only son of Sir Philip, was about sixteen years of age at the death of his father in 1464. In the same year he petitioned the King to be relieved from the effect or his father's attainder, which deprived him of his inheritance; his prayer was granted, and by an Act of Parliament1 he was" restored in blood," and thus enabled to succeed to N ettlestead and the other estates of Lady Roos, his grandmother, when her de­ cease should occur. The plea of his petition was that Sir Philip had never been in possession of any lands, so that by his attainder no title or possession had come to the King. This was clearly the case; for Sir Philip, having died in the lifetime of his mother, had not suc­ ceeded to her estates, a circumstance now much to the advantage of Sir Henry. His inheritance, secured to him by the Act, did not, however, come into his possession for another fourteen years ; for Lady Roos, tenacious of life, did not die until she had attained eighty years, in 1478, when Sir Henry's age was about thirty. Thus it may be supposed that his early life was passed at Nettle­ stead under the tutelage of his grandmother. Three years, however, before succeeding to the estate he served in Edward IV.'s expedition to France.2 This ex­ pedition of 1475 had as its object the recovery of the pro­ vinces lost during the minority of Henry VI. ; it brought, 1 Rolls of Parl., v., 548. 2 Ry)?-er's lJ'cedera, xi., 846. "Henrico Wentworth, Juniori, Armigero, pro iv hominibus ad arma seipso cmnputato, et pro xxiv sagitariis." This occurs in a list headed" Solutione vadiorum de primo q_uarterio pro viagio Francim." .A..D. 1475. ·The senior Henry Went­ worth at this time was of Codham Hall, Essex, uncle of Henry of N ettlestead. 14 THE FAMILY OF WEN'l'WORTH. however, neither glory nor advantage to the Y orkist King, who, having arrogantly demanded the crown of France, and landed at Calais with a considerable army, first lowered his pretensions to a claim for and Gascony, and, after awhile, was content to demand a large sum of money as the condition of leaving the country he had invaded. Finally, feasted and propiti­ ated with three hundred cart-loads of the best wines of France,1 his sensuality doubtless known to his wily brother sovereign, Edward met Louis XI. at Picquiny, when a treaty was agreed to, by which the Engfo;h King rP-ceived payments of money, and made a contract of marriage (afterwards repudiated) between his eldest daughter and the Dauphin. Then the cajoled Edward, to the disgust of his nobles and his army, and to the indigna­ tion of his people, returned to England, after an absence of between two and three months. Sir Henry Wentworth was created a knight 18 January 1478,2 on the occasion of the marriage, or be­ trothal, of the young Richard, Duke of York, second son of Edward IV., with little Lady Anne Mowbray, the only child and heiress of the late Duke of Norfolk ; the prince being at the time five years old, the heiress three. Three months after being knighted Sir Henry succeeded, on the death of his grandmother, to her great estates, and henceforth, for the space of eleven years, figures as a magnate in the county of Suffolk. In 1482 he was Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk ;3 his name appears in the "list of Dukes, Earls, Lords, and Knights at the corona­ tion of Richard III. and Queen Anne,"4 6 July 1483; and in the first year of that King he was Constable of

1 Philip de Comines, Memoirs, Uvedale ed. 1712, i., 358. 2 Cotton MSS. Claudius, c. iii., £. 65. 3 Harl. MSS. 259, £. 47. 4 Bentley's Excerp. Hist., 884. WENTWORTH OF NETTLES1'EAD. 15 the Castle of , Kent.1 During the period 1487-1489, Henry VII. being now his sovereign, he is named in several important commissions directed to the nobles and knights of Suffolk; e.g., in a commission of 23 December 1488, addressed to the Duke of Suffolk, the Earl of Oxford, and other notables, Sir Henry's name occurs fourth in the list. The purport of the instructions was to summon all Earls, Barons, Knights, and other nobles (sic) to examine how many archers each is bound to find for the King's army, preparatory to the expedi­ tion for the relief of Brittany, and to make return to the King.2 In 1489 Sir Henry's public services were transferred to Yorkshire, and indeed from this time he appears to have resided chiefly in the northern county; in pedi­ grees he is generally said to be "of ." It may be that the cause of his going to the North was to join the Earl of Surrey in the suppression of the insur­ rection consequent on the imposition of taxes to defray the expenses of Henry VII.'s expedition to Brittany.

1 Hasted, in Hist. of Kent, gives the name of the Queen borough Constable as Thomas Wentworth, and has correctly transcribed it from the register of grants,· Harl. MSS. 433, f. 53. Tbe picture, however, exhibited at South Kensington in 1866 was catalogued " Sir Henry VVentworth, K.B.," and whatever may have been the reason for t1rns naming it, the decision appears to have been correct; for not only is the date and the office in accord with the career of Sir Henry, but also, in 1483, no Thomas Wentworth is found that could have held the position. The first word of the inscription (seep. 18) is unintelligible; H NAS cannot be taken as an abbreviation of Henricus, nor can it, when examined, be satisfactorily thought an imperfect or partially obliterated Thomas. Rather it seems to be an unsuccessful attempt to alter Thomas into Henricus; the surname also is very faulty. If, how­ ever, Sir Henry were the Constable in 1484 his name was incorrectly entered in the register of grants. 2 Ohrons. and Mems. of Gt. Brit,, etc. Reign of Hen. VIL, ii., 384. 16 THE FAMILY OF WEN'l'WORTH.

Whatever were his services they were rewarded by a grant, dated 24 ,Tune 1489, "in regard for his prudence and discretion, to Henry Wentworth, one of the knights for the King's body, of the office of Steward of the lord­ ship of Knaresborough, co. York, the office of Constable of the Castle there, and also the office of Master of the game and wild animals within the forests, parks, chases, and warrens of the said lordship, to hold with the ancient and customary wages, fees, etc., etc., out of the issues of the lordship." 1 In the spring of 1490 he was made Sheriff of Yorkshire,2 and under date of 27 November of that year he had a " grant during pleasure-in considera­ tion of faithful service, and also of the great expenses, costs, and burthens, sustained in former times by the grantee in the King's service-of an annuity of c. li. [ £100, quite equal to £1000 of the present time], to be had at the receipt of the Exchequer." 3 In 1491 he was commissioned with Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, and others, to confer with the King's subjects in the county of York as to raising a supply for the maintenance of the fleet and army then being sent against the French ;4 and in 1492 he was again Sheriff of Yorkshire.5 It would appear that on being appointed to the Stewardship of Knaresborough the Castle there had be­ come his residence; for written thence, seven years later, a letter of his exists in which he refers to it as his home. This letter, addressed to his cousin Sir William Calverley (John Wentworth of North Elmsall had married Eliza­ beth Calverley), is dated from "the King's Castle of

1 Ohrons. and Mems. of Gt. Brit., eta. Reign of Hen. VII., ii., 454. 2 Harl. MSS., 259, f. 98. 3 Ohrons. and Mems. of Gt. Brit., eta. Reign of Hen. VII., ii., 540 and 560. 4 Rymer's Fcedera, xii., 464. 5 Harl. MSS. 259, £. 98. WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 17 Knaresborough," 17 Sept. 1497. Sir Henry "returning home from W estchestre " (? Chester) had met certain nobles at -Whalley Abbey, and had learnt from them of the landing of Perkin Warbeck in Cornwall; "wherefore he prays his right worshipful cousin, in the King's name, to be ready in his own person, with such company as he makes to serve His Highness." 1 All the indications we have of Sir Henry's career show him to have been an important personage of his · time. His life closed in the month of August 1499,2 and probably in Yorkshire, as his burial was at Newsam Abbey. He had married twice; first, Anne, daughter of Sir John Saye of Broxburn, (in the church of which place is that knight's tomb), and, secondly, Elizabeth, daughter of John Nevill, Marquis of Montagu, and widow of Thomas, Lord Scrope of Mas ham and U psal, co. York. It is from the will of this lady (who died in 1515, though her will was not proved until 1521) that we learn the burial-place of Sir Henry. She directs "that a tomb be made over Sir Henry Wentworth, Knight, late my husband, lying in Newsam Abbey in Lincolnshire, to the value of £20 stt'lrling;" her own interment she desired _to be "in the Black Friars in London, beside my lord and husband, 'fhomas, Lord Scrope of Upsall and Masham." The children of Sir Henry were, by his first wife, two sons and four daughters: through the marriage of his daughter Margery to Sir John Seymour, Knt., of Wolf Hall, Wilts, he was the grandfather of Queen ,1 ane Seymour, and consequently great-grandfather of King Edward VI. 1 Ohrons. and Mems. of Gt. Brit., etc. Reigns of Rich. III and Hen. VIL, i., 112. 2 Will dated 17 Aug.1499. Inq.p.m.14 Hen. VII.= Aug, 1498-99. D 18 THE FA.MILY OF WEN'I.'WORTH.

:@ottntit.-The portrait, belonging to Lord de L'Isle and Dudley, which is said to be of Sir Henry, I have already re­ ferred to in the note p. 15; it is probably the earliest Wentworth portrait existing. The face is long, grave, and shaven; the fair hair cut even and falling over the ears; the neck bare; he wears a rather high, square-topped black cap, apparently of beaver or other close fur, adorned in front with a jewel set in gold ; an under-dress, with slightly ornamented border at neck, a black surtout meeting and tied at top, and opening below to show the under garment which is gathered in at waist by a narrow band or girdle; a gold chain pendant from the neck; the right hand holds a square paper, the left rests on a table; these hands are skilfully drawn and painted, as is indeed the whole figure. The costume is similar to that seen in portraits of Richard III. or Henry VII., and is in fact the court costume of the time. The arms of Wentworth have been depfoted on a shield obliquely set in upper corner o-f the picture, right hand of the subject, but the chevron only is now discernible, at least in the photo­ graph from which I make this description: in the other upper corner is inscribed, H NAS WATWORT CONSTA.BVLARIVS C TRI DE Q,VEENEBVRG 6 DIE MA.RTll A.NNO PRIMO RICH, TER,

Srn RICHARD WENTWORTH, Knight-Banneret, of Nettlestead; died 1528. Sir Richard Wentworth, eldest son of Sir Henry, and fourth chief of the N ettlestead house, was probably under age on the death of his -father, though there are no sure means of ascertaining the year of his birth; only an im­ perfect inquisition of Sir Henry's property is found, and the heir is not mentioned. His name appears in a list of twenty commissioners, charged, in 1503, with the collection in Suffolk of the King's subsidy, to defray the expenses occasioned by the WENTWORTH OF NETTLES'l'EAD. 19 knighting of Arthur, the late Prince of Wales, and by the marriage of the Princess Margaret to the King of Scots.1 He was knighted at the coronation of Henry VIII., 24 June 1509 ;2 and in November of the same year was made Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk, 3 these counties at that period, and until 18th Elizabeth, · forming one Shrievalty. In 1512 he was again knighted,4 this second time as a Knight-Banneret, a higher degree of knighthood than any other, the Garter alone excepted; so at least it appears in Tables of Precedency. As the Knight-Banneret was made in .the field, generally by the sovereign under the royal standard, it is probable that Sir Richard was in the expedition directed against Guienne, and with that object sent to Fonterabia, within the Spanish frontier, in 1512; Henry VIII. having, at the call of the Pope, declared war against Louis XII. of France. This expedition re­ turned to England having effected little or nothing, and the next year Henry, eager for "the pride, pomp, and circumstance of glorious war," but little disposed to its toil and hardship, determined to take the field in person. His army of twenty-five thousand men was to act, in conjunction with that of the Emperor Maximilian, against the French; and the king, in great state, set sail from for Calais, 30 June 1513. At the latter place, record The Chronicles of Calais, "there landed also in these days Sir Richard Went­ worth," and numerous other knights. The order of the march thence to Terouenne, with the description and marshalling of the forces, " Almains " and English, has

1 Rolls of Parl., vi., 536. 2 Metcalfe's Book of Knights; and Cotton MSS. Claudius, c. iii., fs. 69b and 74b, 3 Harl. MSS. 259, £. 47. 4 Metcalfe's Book of Knights, etc. 20 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. been preserved. We read that in the "rear ward " were the Lord Chamberlain [ of the Household, Earl of Worcester] with 1067 men, the Earl of Northumberland with 500, etc., and that in this division marched with the banner of Sir Richard ~rentworth [Knight-Ban­ neret] 104 men.1 'The expedition, however, brought little credit to the English arms, though it served the chief object of the vainglorious Henry, in whom the display of royal-state and sumptuousness was a leading passion. Fortune favoured his desires in a remarkable manner; for at the first encounter at Guinegate with a large force of French cavalry, these were seized with panic on the advance of the German horse and the English mounted-archers, and fled, leaving their leaders on the field to. be taken prisoners. This cheaply-bought victory was estimated and proclaimed as a grand triumph by King Henry; the French themselves named it, in derision, the Battle of Spurs. Within the next six weeks Terouenne and 'l'ournay were easily taken, and after many weeks of triumph and parade, with banquets, masques, and jousts at Lisle, the campaign ended in November, and Henry returned to England. 'rhe years 1514-1519 appear to have been spent by Sir Richard at N ettlestead and at Court; his appoint­ ments on the Commission of the Peace for his county are numerous, and in November 1516 he was again selected as Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk. His presence at Court is shown in the account of a grand banquet at Greenwich, 17 ,July 1517, when, among a host of nobles and gentlemen in attendance on the King, Sir Richard vV entworth and Sir Adrian Fortescue-whose daughter

1 Brewer's Letters, etc., Reign of Hen, VIII., i., 631. WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 21

became the wife of Sir Richard's son-are named with many others, as "sewers," or squires.1 The year 1520 was that of "the 1'1 ielcl of the Cloth of Gold," when the vain King of England again repaired to France, not this time in the name of war, for peace had been made in 1514-, but purely and simply to display his magnificence, and in jt to rival the French King, Francis I., whom he was to meet. Nobles and gentlemen of every county were summoned to attend the King and Queen on this occasion ; in the list of thirteen for Suffolk occurs Sir Richard's name, as also in another list of a hundred persons especially selected to attend His Majesty, in addition to his household and guard; and the Chronicles of Calais mention, a second time, Sir Richard's landing there. 'I1he meeting of the kings took place as arranged near Calais, between Guisnes and Ardres, 7 June l:>20 ; ten days were spent in tournaments and feats of arms accompanied by all the rival display of splendour the sovereigns and their ministers could devise; whether Sir Richard took part further than as an attendant on the King of England we do not learn. The pageantry was over by Midsummer Day, and the kings took leave of each other; how hollow their assumed friendship, and how fruitless in the interests of peace their meeting and costly festivities, soon appeared. A fortnight after the parting another meeting took place, not between Henry and Francis, but between Henry and the Emperor , Charles V., the enemy of Francis; and at this interview, which was held near Gravelines, 10 July 1520, Sir Richard Wentworth again appears in the list of atten­ dant knights. 2 Returned to N ettlestead, his residence

1 Brewer's Letters anit Papers, ii., 1097. 2 lbiit., iii., 326. 22 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. there 1s evident in the frequent mention of him in Commissions of the Peace. In August 1523 both he and his eldest son-afterwards first Lord Wentworth­ were nominated for the collection in Suffolk of a subsidy for war with France, which had been declared notwith­ standing the amicable courtesies interchanged at the Field of the Cloth of Gold; and both father and son took part in the expedition commanded by Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk.1 In this invasion of France some towns were taken, but the troops, unprepared for the severities of an early winter, suffered so much from privation and disease, that Suffolk was forced to disband them, and to return to England. After 1523 I find no other mention of Sir Richard than in the Peace Commissions; he did not live to be an old man, but died in the zenith of his years, 17 Oct. 1528,2 directing by his will to be buried in the church of the Grey Friars, at Ipswich. His wife Anne, who sur­ vived him, was the daughter of Sir James Tyrrell, of Gipping, Suffolk, a knight to whom is attached the infamy of the murder in the Tower of Edward V. and his brother. The issue of the marriage was three sons and five daughters; of the second and third sons nothing is known but their names, the eldest, Sir Thomas, succeeded his father at N ettlestead.3 As the inquisition p.m. of the possessions of Sir Richard appears to be perfect, the enumeration of the manors or lands will here be interesting; the names are given as found. SUFFOLK, N etilsted, Overtie, Tun-

1 Brewer's Letters and Papers, iii., 1ar1. 2 Inq_uis. p.m. 3 In Brewer's Letters and Papers, iv., 1864, there is this interesting entry touching Nettlestead: "Cardinal's College, Ipswich. Oaks to be felled in various places for building of the college "-among other places-" from the woods of Sir Ric. Wentworth of N etylstede." WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 23 stall, Blakenham sup. montem, Newhall in Oodenham, Dennondeston, Bramford, Blakenham pva., Somersham, Flowghton, Ofton, Willisham, Bailham magna, Olaidon, Oreting See. Marie and Oreting Omi. Sanctoru., Barow, Lovestoftes, , Wodhouse. CAMBRIDGESHIRE, Harston alias Hardeliston. EssEx, Toppysfeld and Lynsell, Overyeldam and N etheryeldam, Stanbrigge. KEN'l', Sybton, Kyngeston, Ohetham. LINCOLNSHIRE, Basyngham, Gouxsell, Holton and Awkeberghe, Gedney, Roxham and Poynton, Lymbergh, Staynton. YORK­ SHIRE, Pawhome and Swynflet, Plyngton, Aberford and Sheping, Dodyngton and Ooldon.

~t'mf1.-The arms of Sir Richard Wentworth are twice tricked in the Cotton MSS. Claudius, c. iii. In the first instance, fol. 69b, they are quarterly: 1, BISSETT, gules, on a bend argent three escallops azure; 2, DESPENSER, Quarterly argent and gules, fretty or, over all, on a bend, three mullets of the :first ; 3, TrnETOT, argent, a saltire engrailed gules; 4, GouSHILL, Barry of six or and gules, a canton ermine. College of Arms : " Syr Rychard W entworthe of Netyllestede in Sufi'.; colour of standard, red; in first divison, a griffin statant argent, fore-legs or, collared per pale or and argent, with three covered cups, with ribbons attached to the handles of the last, aud four annulets per pale as the collar; second and third divisions, in each the cup between two annulets as before. -otto.-Penses a bien," now written Pensez a bien. The arms are quarterly of six as tricked in the Cotton MSS. Olaudins, c. iii., fol. 74b.

Srn THOMAS WEN'rWORTR, Knight, created Baron Wentworth of N ettlested 1529; born 1501, died 1551. Sir Thomas, eldest son of Sir Richard, commenced his successful career by joining, in August 1523, the ex­ pedition commanded by Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, against France, in which his father, Sir Richard, also took part. The expedition, as before observed, ter­ minated uselessly and disastrously, in consequence of the hardships and disease which befell the English force during an early winter, and which compelled its retreat; yet it served the young soldier for experience in arms ; and in the taking of Braye, Montidier, Cappe, and Roye, he had the opportunity of seeing some hard fighting, and of winning his spurs. It, was in the church of Roye, WEN'rWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 25 after the surrender of the town, that he received knight­ hood at the hands of the Duke of Suffolk as the King's lieutenant, "on Allhallowen day," 31 October 1533.1 Returned to England at the end of the year Sir Thomas entered Court life, and in March 1527 is found in the household of "Mary, the French Queen,'' sister of Henry VIII., and now wife of the Duke of Suffolk. 2 Towards the end of the next year he succeeded his father at N ettlestead; and a little more than a year later, i.e. 2 December 1529, he had writ of summons to Parliament as a peer, and became Baron Wentworth of N ettlested, being the first Wentworth ennobled. It was at this time that the divorce of Queen Katha­ rine of Aragon had become the foremost question in England; it had been raised two years earlier, and was not determined until four years later. Lord Wentworth supported the king, and was one of the eighty-three signa­ tories-Archbishops, Dukes, Marquises, Earls, , Barons, Abbots, Knights, and Doctors-who in 1530 subscribed the declaration to Pope Clement VII., urging him to sanction the divorce.3 Great were the difficulties, and great the delay, before the King accomplished his desire; indeed, failing to obtain the dissolution of the marriage from the Pope, he took the matter into his own hands, and with the help of his servant Cranmer ended it. The marriage with Katharine was declared null and void by an ecclesiastical court, at which the Archbishop presided, in May 1533; for this decision, however, Henry had not delayed his marriage with Anne Bolyn; it harl taken place four months at least earlier. Their espousals had followed a visit which the King, having "the Lady Anne" in his company, had made to Calais 1 Brewer's Letters, etc., of the Reign of Henry VIIL, iii., pt. 2, 1464. :l Ibid., iv., pt. 2, 1331. 3 Rymer's Fredera, xiv., 405. E 26 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. for the purpose of meeting the French King in October 1532 ; the interview was accompanied by all the display of magnificence in which Henry delighted, and in his numerous retinue of nobles and knights was Lord Went­ worth.1 Four years later he was one of the twenty-seven peers who, in May 1536, sat in judgment on this poor Queen ;2 no record of the proceedings has been preserved, nor was the evidence on which she was pronounced guilty, and executed, ever published. Once again Lord Wentworth is mentioned in con­ nection with the marriages of Henry VIII.; in December 1539 he was at Calais, in the company of four hundred noblemen and gentlemen to receive with great state Henry's fourth Queen, Anne of Oleves,3 who arrived in England only to be rejected and repudiated. In the autumn of 1536 broke out, in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, the popular insurrection caused chiefly by the suppression and spoliation of the monastries, to which the people had for centuries looked for the allevi­ ation of poverty and distress. The rising was most formidable in Yorkshire, where it was named "The Pilgrimage of Grace," and received the support of many nobles, gentlemen of position, and ecclesiastics. To suppress it the nobility and landed gentry were called on to supply the King with men; the list of those on whom the demand was made, and the quota of men to be supplied by each, occupies many pages.4 At the head of the list appear the Duke of Norfolk for 600 men, the Marquis of for 500, the Earl of Oxford for 500, etc., etc., and among the many named is Lord Went­ worth who has to find 100 rnen. He is appointed to attend upon the King's own pers9n, so perhaps did not 1 Collins's Peerage, vi., 210. 2 Brewer's Letters, etc., x., 361. 3 _Chronicles of Calais, 175. 4 Brewer's Letters, etc., xi., 232. WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 27 accompany the Duke of Norfolk to the North for the suppression of the revolt; this was effected in the spring of 1537, when dire was the hanging, heading, and which followed. In the magisterial proceedings to enforce the abom­ inable statutes enacted by the subservient Parliaments of Henry VIII. "for the punishment of heresy," Lord Wentworth's name is not, as we would wish, absent. '11he King had been declared Supreme Head of the , vice the Pope in that respect de­ posed; and therefore it was deemed necessary that the purity of the faith should be maintained by an Act which provided "that heretics, upon lawful conviction, and re­ fusal to abjure, should be committed to lay power to be burned in open places, for example of other." (Act 25 Hen. VIII.) The duty was even imposed on the magi­ strates of reporting such cases of heresy as came under their notice. There are grounds however for believing, although there is no sign of Lord Wentworth's refusal to enforce the law, a refusal which would have ensured his own destruction, that his legal duties were performed with reluctance, and that his disposition was not in unison with the cruel statutes he was compelled to ad­ minister. We have a letter from him to Thomas Crom­ well, dated "Netylstede, 20 April 1535," in which he writes, "The Bearer is in trouble for preaching, for which he is indicted for heresy in the county of Essex. I never heard anyone well learned in God's Word who accused him of it. I have heard him three or four times and judge him to be an honest man." 1 Here the desire to shield an accused man is very evident. In Foxe's Acts and Monuments, among many sad stories of persecution and martyrdom, is one in which 1 Brewer's Letter,, etc., viii., 215. 28 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

Lord Wentworth has place. In 1545 two poor men, Kerby and Roger Clarke, having been arraigned before him and other magistrates at Ipswich, for heresy in the denial of transubstantiation, were found guilty, and, ac­ cording to law, sentenced to death at the stake. The narrative will be best given in the. words of the martyr­ ologist. "Kerby, when his judgment was given by the lord Wentworth, with most humble reverence holding up his hands and bowing himself devoutly, said 'Praised be Almighty God;' and so stood still without any more words. Then did the lord Wentworth talk secretly, putting his head behind another justice that sat between them. rrhen Roger perceiving that said with a loud voice, 'Speak out my lord, and if you have done any­ thing contrary to your conscience ask God mercy; and we, for our parts, do forgive you : and speak not in secret, for you shall come before a judge, and then make answer openly, even before him that shall judge all men.' Then," continues the narrative, "the lord Wentworth, somewhat blushing and changing his countenance ( through remorse it was thought) said, ' I did speak nothing of you, nor have I done anything unto you but as the law is.'" There is indication here that the magistrate was carrying out a very painful duty, one probably repug­ .nant to his nature, but forced upon him in his official position. To have refused, however, to condemn the culprits would have been to have ranged himself with them, and thus to have displayed a heroism of which but few men are capable. rrhe narrative of the martyrdom of one poor fellow at Ipswich proceeds, the iµagistrates attending it. "Kerby was fastened to the stake with irons, there being in the gallery the lord Wentworth, with the most part of all WENTWORTH OF NETTLES'l'EAD. 29· the justices of those quarters, where they might see his execution, how everything should be done, and also might hear what Kerby did say, and a great number of people, about two thousand by estimation. There was also standing in the gallery by the lord Wentworth Dr. Rugham, who was before a monk of Bury," and who ex­ horting Kerby set forth the Romish doctrine of the sacrament, finally asking him if that was his belief. rrhe martyr "answering boldly said, 'I do not so believe,'" and further questioned, reverently confessed the Pro­ testant doctrine. " rrhe Doctor said no more, and the undersheriff having asked Kerby if he had more to say, he taking his nightcap from his head put it under his arm, as though it should have done him service again; but remembering himself he cast it from him, and lifting up his hands he said the hymn Te Deum and the Belief, with other prayers, in the English tongue. The lord Wentworth, while Kerby was thus doing, did shroud himself behind one of the posts of the gallery, and wept, and so did many others. 'l1hen said Kerby, 'I have. done : you may execute your office, good Master Sheriff.' 'l1hen fire was set to the wood, and with a loud voice he called unto God, knocking on his breast, and holding up his hands, so long as his remembrance would serve, and so ended his life, the people giving shouts and praising God with great admiration of his constancy, being so simple and unlettered." 1 In this shocking scene the compassion of Wentworth is evident, but his figure is less noble than that of the suffering culprit. In the reign of Edward VI. Lord Wentworth, the King's cousin, reached the summit of his career. Early in 1547 he is mentioned in the transactions of the Privy Council, and he continued to be an active member of it 1 Foxe's .Acts and Mon., Townsend ed., v., 530. 30 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. during the succeeding years.1 In July 1549 he was with Parr, Marquis of Northampton, in the suppression of the insurrection in Norfolk led by " Captain Ket, the Tanner." 2 In October of that year, on the committal of the Protector Somerset to the Tower, he waR one of the six Lords of the Council appointed to attend on the young King; 3 and in the same month he became Lord Chamberlain of His Majesty's Household.4 The manors of Stepney and Hackney, surrendered by Ridley to the King, were by him granted to Lord Wentworth, and his heirs for ever, "in consideration of his good and faithful service." In the abstract of the title the "appurtenances" of the manors are described as lying in "Stebunheath [Stepney], Hackney, Shore­ ditch, Holywell Street, White Chappell, Stratford at Bow, Poplar, North Street, Limehouses, Radcliffe, Oleve­ street, Brooke Street, Milend, Bethnall Green, Old Jford, W estcheth, Kingsland, Shathwell, Newington Street alias Hackney Street, Clapton, Church Street, and Bennet Street alias Merestreet, in Com. Middlesex, Stebunheath Marsh." 5 The date of the grant is 16 April 1550. The Manor-house of Stepney, where the successors of the first Lord Wentworth occasionally resided, appears notwithstanding the transfer, to have retained its old appellation of "Bishop's Hall," or "Bishop Bonner's Hall." The map in 8tow's Survey, Strype's edition 1720, has the name in the first form, the earliest map of the Post Office Directory, 1843, has it in the second form. The 1 Burnet's Hist. of the Reformation, Pocock ed., iii., 321, 333, and v., 301, 304. 2 Hayward's Life of Ed. VI. in Kennet's Complt. Hist., ii., 297. 3 Burnet, ut supra, ii., 244, and v., 12. 4 Thomas's Hist. Notes, i., 363. 5 Newcourt's Repertorium, i., 737, and Cowper's Hist. of Mill­ wall, etc., 53. WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 31

latter map shows its plan to have been that of large Tudor houses in general, the hollow square; its situation was a mile north of Stepney Church, on the western border of Victoria Park. Having undergone the degra­ dation of being divided into tenements, it stood until 1851, figuring latterly on the Map of London as "Bon­ ner's Hall;" and in that year it gave place to the now existing "Hospital for Diseases of the Lungs." The memory of the site is still retained in "Bishop's Road" and "Bonner's Road;" there is also in the neighbour­ hood "~T entworth Street" and "Cleveland Street," but distant from the site of the Manor-house. It does not seem that Lord Wentworth ever occupied his house at Stepney. On becoming Lord Chamberlain he bought the old house of the Abbots of Westminster, now the Deanery, which had become vacant on the ex­ tinction of the short-lived Bishopric.1 But he was not long to inhabit it ; these Wentworths were not long­ lived, and the first Lord was no more than fifty when death overtook him. "The Lord Wentworth died about · ten of the clock at night [3 March 1551], leaving behind him sixteen children;" thus wrote King Edward in his journal.2 Another record is, "'l1110mas Lord Wentworth, Lord Chamberlain of the King's Majesty's Most Honor­ able Household, died in the King's Majesty's Palace at ""\V estminster, on Tuesday the 3 of March in the 5 year of E. the 6, and from thence brought to his house at Westminster, and was buried in the minster there, on Saturday the 7 of March following." 3 Dean Stanley, in his Memorials of the Abbey, quoting Machyn's Diary, has a few lines in regard to the funeral, 1 Stanley's Memorials of , 426. 2 Burnet's Hist of the Reform., Pocock ed., v., 31. 3 Harl. MSS. 897, £. 7Sb. 32 THE FAMILY OF WENTWOR'l'H. which was sumptuous and ceremonious as befitted the office of the deceased. Here we will take the description from Machyn himself, orthography excepted. "The vii day of March was buried my lord Wentworth, the lord Chamberlain of the King's house, in Westminster Abbey, in the same chapel that the old Abbot was buried. There was four of the chief heralds there, M. Garter, M. Clarenceux, M. York, M. Chester, bearing the coat armour, the helmet, and target; then came the standard, and then the mourners all in black .... and a hundred children and priests and clerks in their surplices; then the corpse with four bannerols ; and the choir was hanged with black, and the rails and arms. Miles Coverdale did preach, and there was a great dole, and a great company of lords and knights and gentlemen mourners." 1 It is shown by Dean Stanley that the position of the grave is uncertain, and that Machyn's reference "the chapel where the old Abbot was buried" may apply either to the interment of Abbot Islip in 1532, or to that of Abbot (afterwards Dean) Benson in 1549. The first of these lies in the chapel which bears his name, in the north aisle of the choir; the second in the chapel of St. Blaize, at the south end of the south transept; these places are very far apart, in fact on opposite sides of the Abbey. Dart, writing in 1742, says Lord Wentworth was buried in the chapel of St. .John the Evangelist; this chapel adjoins that named after Islip, and in one or the other is, most probably, the unmarked grave . .The first Lord Wentworth married Margaret the elder daughter of Sir Adrian Fortescue, Knt., by his first wife Anne Stonor daughter and heir of Sir William 1 Diary of Henry Machyn, Citizen and Tailor of London, 1550 to 1563, as printed by Camden Society, p. 3. WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 33

Stonor, of Stonor, near Henley on Thames. Thus Lady Wentworth brought to her husband the Stonor property which she inherited from her mother, Lady Fortescue ; and moreover her grandmother ( the wife of Sir vVilliam Stonor), having been Lady Anne Nevill, daughter and eventually heir of John Nevill, Marquis of Montagu (brother of Richard Nevill, Earl of Warwick," the King Maker"), the coats of Nevill, Montagu, Monthermer, and Holland became quarterings in the Wentworth shield. Sir Adrian Fortescue, the father of Lady Wentworth, was a prominent personage in the reign of Henry VIII., having the tyrant's favour until he refused to subscribe to the King's supremacy in the Church; this refusal being accounted high-treason, he was brought to the block 10 July 1539. King Edward VI., as we have seen, wrote in his journal that Lord Wentworth left sixteen children; their number is generally given as seventeen, eight sons and nine daughters, one may have died before him. Were it not of such frequent occurrence, that in great families, of only the eldest son has any record been preserved, we should be surprised to learn so very little of Lord Went­ worth's younger sons. Of the fate of two of them, however, we read in that interesting Diary of Henry Machyn quoted above: the account runs thus. "The xxi day of March [1563] tidings came to the Court that one of the Queen's ships, called the Grey­ hound, was lost going to Newhaven. The Captain was Sir Thomas Fynche, Knight, of Kent, and his brother, and one of my lord Oobham's brothers, and two of my lord Whentforth's (sic) brethren, and many gentlemen and minstrels; one of my lord Warwick's nephews, and a good master, and many good mariners and soldiers to F 34 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. the number of" (blank).1 , To this the editor adds an account of the misfortune found in Stow's Chronicle :­ " Sir Thomas Finch had been appointed to succeed Sir Adrian Poynings as knight-marshal of the army in France; and having previously sent over his brother Sir Erasmus Finch to have charge of his band, and his kins­ man Thomas Finch to be provost-marshal, he at length embarked in the Greyhound, 'having then aboard with him, besides threescore and six of his own retinue, four and forty other gentlemen, two of them being brethren to the lord Wentworth, to wit James Wentworth and John Wentworth, with divers others, who in the whole (accompting the mariners) amounted to the number of two hundred persons and upwards.' Having been driven from Newhaven [? Nieuport, Flemish coast], they un­ wisely urged the captain 'to thrust into the haven' of Rye 'before the tide,' and consequently the lives of all were lost, except four ' of the meaner sort.' " 2 The marriages of seven of Lord Wentworth's daughters are noted in the Pedigree; almost without exception they are interesting. The marriage of the eldest with Lord Cheney led, as further on will be seen, to the succession, by the great-grandson of the first Lord Wentworth, to the manor of Toddington, Bedfordshire, the grand mansion of which estate became the family residence in lieu of N ettlestead.

~ot:tt:a:itss.-The Holbein Drawings-belonging to the Queen, and exhibited at the Tudor Exhibition, 1890-include a fine head of the first Lord Wentworth. Engravings after the drawings were published by Chamberlain in 1792 and 1812; the volumes, folio and quarto, are found at the British Museum. Lord Wentworth's portrait (engraved by Bartolozzi and Minasi)

1 Machyn's Diar!f, p. 302. 2 Ibid., p. 394, WENTWORTH OF NETTLES'rEAD, appears to have been taken at the age of forty, or perhaps under. The face is handsome and agreeable, with moustache, whiskers, and pointed beard; he wears a low cap or bonnet, a short feather drooping behind it. At the Tudor Exhibition was also seen a portrait belonging to Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke ; life size, three-quarters length, looking to left, face agreeable, age (inscribed) forty-eight, wears moustache and short pointed beard, bla0k cap, narrow white collar, black doublet, and sur­ coat trimmed with white or grey fur, a strip of same fur passing over shoulders and falling down in front to bottom of picture, six inches wide at neck diminishing to one inch, in right hand gloves, in left hand a white wand. The wand seems to denote official position at Court, though the date of the picture, 1547, shows it to have been painted two years before Lord Wentworth became Lord Chamberlain; neither is the costume specially that of the office, it is simply the court-dress, as seen in other portraits of the time. ~t:ttt~.-In the upper corner of the picture, subject's left, is a shield, quarterly of six: 1, WENTWORTH; 2, DEsPENSF.R; 3, TrnETOT; 4, BADLESMERE ; 5, GousHILL; 6, 0YRY. Above the shield on a knight's helmet is the ~u~t.-A ewer argent, not the griffin passant. Mr Vernon-Wentworth of Castle Wentworth, YorkRhire, has a picture very similar to that above described, but the face is less pleasing. It was exhibited in the Portrait Loan Exhi­ bition, 0£ 1866, at South Kensington, where a photograph 0£ it can be seen with others 0£ the collection.

SIR THOMAS WENTWORTH, Knight-Banneret, Second Lord Wentworth of N ettlested ; born 1525, died 1584. As the current of English History flows on, it is seen that the Wentworth chiefs of N ettlestead successively appear on its surface, and are associated with the prin­ cipal events of their time. This, indeed, may not be shown as regards Roger Wentworth, the founder of the 36 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. house, who does not appear to have taken part in public life; but after him we have his son, Sir Philip, an actor in the civil war of the Red and White Roses, and eventually forfeiting his life at the triumph of the latter. Next, Sir Henry, serving Edward IV., Richard III., and Henry VII., in important official capacities, Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk, and afterwards of Yorkshire. 'rhen Sir Richard, one of the prominent Knights in the reign of Henry VIII., attending the King in his expeditions to France, whether of war or pageantry, and, as his father had been, Sheriff and magnate of his county. After Sir Richard we have his son, Sir Thomas, serving also in France, and there achieving his knighthood, later raised to the Peerage as Baron Wentworth of N ettlested ; taking a place in most of the important transactions of Henry VIII.'s reign; in the next acting as one of the six special guardians of his cousin, the young King Edward VI., and dying Lord Chamberlain of the Household. Now we have the sixth chief of the family, 'rhomas, the second Lord, who will be found to hold an important position during the reigns of the Queens Mary and Elizabeth. Having finished his education at St. John's College, Oambridge,1 he, at the age of twenty-two, joined the Duke of Somerset's expedition into Scotland, in 1547. The Protector had been foiled in his attempts to unjte the Kingdoms of England and Scotland, by the marriage of the young King Edward VI. with Mary, Queen of Scots; and the marriage having been arranged by treaty, the infraction of it served Somerset with a pretext for the invasion of Scotland, by which he hoped to add the persuasion of force to that of argument. He crossed the

1 Cooper's .A.thente Oantabrigienses, i., 484. WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 37 border at Berwick with a large army, Wentworth serv­ ing in it, on the 2nd September, and on the 10th the collision between the English and Scotch forces took place at Pinkie, near Edinburgh, which resulted in the complete defeat and rout of the Scotch, of whom 10,000 are reported to have fallen, whereas the English loss is said to have been but 200. The battle generally takes the name of Pinkie, but sometimes of Musselburgh, the town on the coast off which lay an English fleet in co-operation with the land force. Wentworth, having distinguished himself in the battle, was on the 28th September, in the camp beside Roxburgh, dubbed a Knight-Banneret by the Duke of Somerset, as the King's representative.1 The Duke appears to have thought the victory suf­ ficient to impress on the Scotch Government a sense of English might; or perhaps it was that fearing influences at Court adverse to his interests, he advanced no further into Scotland, but, three weeks after the battle of Pinkie, recrossed the border on his march back to London. On the 4th November of the same year, 1547, Sir Thomas Wentworth was chosen for Suffolk Knight of the Shire,2 and entered the first Parliament of Edward VI. as a member of the House of Commons. This Parliament, which had an existence of more than five years, did good work in repealing the cruel and arbitrary statutes of the preceding reign, and in promoting Church reformation. To its last session Lord Wentworth-his father having died ten months previously-had summons as a Peer, 23 January 1552.

1 Metcal£e's Book of Knights; and Cotton MSS. Olaud., c. iii., f. 169. 2 Members of Parliament, Official Returns. 38 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

The year before he took his seat among the Peers, Lord Wentworth-with Lord Darcy and Sir Anthony Wingfield-had, in May 1551, been appointed joint Lord-Lieutenant of Norfolk and Suffolk.1 In December of the same year he had sat on the trial of the fallen Duke of Somerset/ who, arraigned on a charge of high­ treason in conspiring to depose the King and to seize the Government, was on that charge acquitted; but indicted also of felony in purposing the imprisonment of Dudley, Earl of Warwick (later Duke of Northum­ berland), a privy councillor, was of this found guilty, and for it suffered death. During the first six months of 1553, the feeble life of Edward VI. waned to its close. On the 21st June he signed the letters-patent by which the Crown was settled on his cousin, , to the exclusion of his half-sisters Mary and Elizabeth, whose illegitimacy was declared. This momentous document, fraught with danger to the peace of the Kingdom, and ominous of bloodshed, was witnessed by the Archbishop of Canter­ bury, the Dukes of Northumberland and Suffolk, and others of the principal nobility, and among the barons by Lord Wentworth; also by officers of the Household, Judges, Privy Councillors, the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Sheriffs of London, eta., in all about a hundred per­ sons. These were enjoined by the King to support· the succession as limited by this settlement, but it can scarcely be said that they bound themselves to do so; their signatures appear to have been appended simply as witnesses to the King's act. There was, however, by another document, an engagement of some of the above

1 Strype's Mems. Eccles., ed. 1721, ii., 261 and 459. 2 Report// of Dep. Keeper of P. Recorils, iv., Apd. ii., 230. WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD, 39

signatories, the chief nobles and members of the Council, · twenty-three in all, to maintain the King's settlement; but Wentworth was not one of these ; he, indeed, not being at the time a Privy Oouncillor.1 Edward died a fortnight after signing his will, as the settlement of the succession is called, and less than a month after his death, Mary Tudor, triumphant over her enemies, the few adherents of poor Lady Jane Grey, a victim to the ambition of others, entered London, 3 August 1553. Holinshed says, that of the nobility, the first who rallied to Mary, were the Earls of (Ratcliffe), Bath (Bourchier), and Oxford (Vere), and Lord Went­ worth; that the nobles and gentry of Suffolk were fore­ most in giving their allegiance, but that it was given only on Mary's promise that the religion established by her brother, and then exercised throughout the realm, should not be altered.2 That Wentworth from the first supported the Queen is evident in the business with which he was immediately charged on her accession. He was one of those appointed to examine "the prisoners for treason in the last rebel­ lion," viz., the Dukes of Northumberland and Suffolk, the Marquis of Northampton, John Dudley, Earl of Warwick, , the Lady Jane his wife, etc.;3 on 17th August he was one of the Peers who tried Northumberland, Warwick (his son), and North­ ampton, and the day following he sat in judgment on prisoners of less degree, Sir Ambrose Dudley, Sir John Gates, Sir Henry Gates, and Sir Thomas Palmer.4 He 1 Ohron. of Q. Jane, Camden Soc., pp. 91 and 99. 2 Holinshed's Ohron., ed. 1587, p. 1086. 3 Haynes's Burghley State Papers, p. 196. 4 Reports of Dep. Keeper of P. Records, iv., Apd. ii., pp. 234,235. 40 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

was now sworn of the Privy Council, attended its deli­ berations for the first time, at Richmond, 21st August, and is repeatedly named in its sessions until 4th October.1 He did not sit on the trial of the Lady Jane and her · husband, 13th November 1553. T4e second Lord Wentworth is chiefly remembered as the last English Deputy or Governor of Calais. The time of his appointment has been somewhat obscured by Sir John Hayward's statement, that in 1552 "the lord Grey was chosen Deputy of Calais, and the Lord Went­ worth removed as one whose youth and want of experi­ ence was held unfit to govern that charge in tur~ulent times.''2 This, written about 1630, was followed by Dugdale in his Baronage some thirty-five years later; nevertheless the statement appears to be erroneous. In the first place, as Lord Wentworth's age in 1552 was twenty-seven, he could not then have been represented as in his youth, nor had insufficient maturity prevented his holding, a year earlier, the Lord-Lieutenancy of Suffolk, and his sitting on the trial of the Duke of Somerset. Secondly, Lord Grey (of Wilton) never was Deputy of Calais. The editor of the Chronicles of Calais shows us that Lord William Howard (afterwards Lord Howard of Effingham) was constituted Deputy 31 October 1552, and a letter from Howard to Queen Mary, dated Calais, 14 November 1553, represents him at that time to have been expecting the arrival of Wentworth as his successor.s Lord Grey was Captain of Guisnes ; there are several letters from the Privy Council to him in that capacity, and there is one, dated 29 July 1553, to the Deputy of 1 Haynes's Burghley State Papers, p. 171. s Hayward in Kennet's Oomplt. Hist., ii., 321. 3 Oal. of State Papers, Foreign, 1553-8. WEN'l'WORTH OF NET'l'LESTEAD. 41 Calais (not named), directing him to unite in certain matters with Grey, 1 who, moreover, continued to be Captain of Guisnes during the whole period of Went­ worth's government at Calais. Wentworth was constituted Deputy 13 December 1553,2 and held that position more than four years ; there are no grounds for doubting the ability of his administration, but his qonnection with the place was, from the circumstances of the time, a misfortune to him. War against France was proclaimed by England, in the summer of 1557, at the instigation of Queen Mary's husband, Philip II. of Spain. The war was really between him and Henry II., but the Spanish King, desiring the support of England, persuaded the Queen to join him, on the very insufficient pretext that the French King had encouraged Wyat's rebellion, and had not assisted Mary in the pursuit of English Protestants who had fled to France. An English force of 7000, horse and foot, was sent to join the Spanish army on the Flemish frontier under Philibert, Duke of Savoy, who proceeded to invest St. Quentin, a town within the French province of Picardy. On the 10th of August Montmorency, the Constable of France, arrived with a strong force for the relief of the town; battle at once ensued between the allies and the French, with the result of total defeat to the latter, who left 6000 dead on the field, and lost an equal number as prisoners, with these their general Montmorency. The siege of St. Quentin continued, and the town being eventually taken by storm, was sacked with great barbarity by the Spanish, German, and English troops.

1 Haynes's Burghley State Papers, p. 161. ~ Ohroniales of Calais, p. xxxix. 42 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

To avenge St. Quentin, the attack on Calais, and pos­ sibly its capture, was resolved and undertaken. The strength of the place had been neglected by the English Government ; munitions of war and stores of every kind were scanty, and the garrison so weak as to be utterly inadequate for the defence. Wentworth appears to have lost no time in the attempt to remedy defects. In the first year of his government he writes to the Queen, 5 April 1554, representing the deficiency of officers as a danger to the place, and begging her to command the residence of those who were absent.1 Seven months previous to the attack, and before war with France had been declared, we have a letter, dated 23 May 1557, from Lord Wentworth and his council at Calais to the Queen, informing her that "on circumspect consideration and view of stores of munitions and other habiliments of war, there is found not only great want in many kinds, but also such a decay in divers other things, that they are not serviceable, and will be utterly lost if they be not with speed repaired and put in better estate. " 2 Highfield, the master of ordnance, is sent to England with this dispatch in order that the necessities may be the better repre­ sented to the Queen and Council. The means, however, taken for the defence of the town were wholly inadequate, the probability of an attack on it was not credited, or the Council, too much occupied with matters nearer home,had no leisure to appreciate the danger whfoh menaced Calais ; and an exhausted treasury also rendered difficult the relief demanded. Even at the last, when the muster of necessary troops had been ordered, it was countermanded by the Queen on a report, emanating, it was afterwards supposed, from the enemy, that an attack was not threatened. 1 Oal. of State Papers, ll'oreign.

~ ;Ld. Hardwick~'s Miscel. State Papers, i.1 103. WJ

Thus the movements of the French commander, the Duke of Guise, suffering no interruption, he was able by the end of December 1557 to bring an army of 30,000 men against a walled.:. town def ended by "five hundred English soldiers, ordinary, and no more ; and of towns­ men not fully two hundred fighting men."1 Calais, with a non-combatant population of four thousand souls, was at the same time unvictualled and suffering from scarcity ; so reported Wentworth and his Council to the Queen on the 27th December; adding, that though he deemed it impossible to resist the powerful forces of the enemy brought against the place, he would draw all his soldiers within the fortification, and defend it to the uttermost. His letters to the Queen,2 reporting the pro­ gress of events, continue until the 1st January 1558, the date of the last, communication being then cut off. Some ineffectual resistance had been made by the outlying forts of Ruysbank and Newenham Bridge, but these soon overpowered, the enemy then directed their cannonade against the Castle, which was taken by assault on the 6th January. The English band then en­ deavoured to confine the French within the Castle, a sortie from which was very gallantly repulsed, and the enemy driven back ; a brave English knight, Sir .Anthony Ager, his son, and between sixty and eighty men losing their lives in the conflict. But the same night, after the repulse, the French force in the Castle becoming greatly augmented from the army outside the walls, Wentworth, persuaded of the uselessness of further resistance, and considering the lives of the towns-people,

1 Holinshed's Chronicles, ed. 1587, p. 1136. 2 Oal. of State Papers, Foreign; and Ld. Hardwicke's Miscel. State Papers, i., 108, etc. 44 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. in case the place were taken by storm, sought parley with the enemy, and agreed to terms of capitulation. ':rlie terms were that the town, with the artillery, and stores of all kinds, should be delivered to the French; that Lord Wentworth, and fifty other principal officers or persons selected by the Duke of Guise, should remain as prisoners ; but that the English population should be allowed to depart, under safe conduct, "where they listed." They were not suffered, however, to take their goods with them ; a command was issued by the French Duke that all the inhabitants of the town should bring their money, plate, or jewels, to the value of one groat, to the churches, laying them on the high altars there ; and while the poor people were in the churches making this "sorrowful offertory," their houses were entered and pillaged.1 Thus fell Calais after having been upwards of two centuries in possession of England. When the intel­ ligence reached the country, consternation was great. The Government, now fully conscious, attempted to re­ deem the disaster ; the fortress of Guisnes, three miles from Calais, still held out under Lord Grey of Wilton, and might be relieved; but nature at this juncture inter­ vened, tempests delayed and shipwrecked the succours hastily dispatched, and the surrender of Guisnes fol­ lowed a fortnight after that of Calais . .As for Wentworth, it was well he remained a prisoner in France; for indicted of high-treason in having "traitor­ ously surrendered Calais," had he been put on his trial at the time when Q,ueen Mary and her ministers, and indeed the nation, were smarting under the recent mis­ fortune, it is more than probable that he would have been condemned and executed. He continued a captive 1 Holinshed. WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 45 in the hands of the French about fifteen months, part at least of which time he passed at Dijon, as is learned in a letter dated 20 December 1558, from Sir Thomas Chal­ loner to William Cecil, afterwards Lord Burghley, eleven months after the fall of Calais. Of his ransom we have no particulars ; the next intelligence gained is his own report of himself to Cecil, dated 24 March 1559, to the effect that he "is now out of the enemy's hands, and has entered the Queen's realm, whereof he writes to her· yielding himself prisoner," requesting the delivery of the letter, and the minister's good offices that the answer may be speedy.1 The unhappy Queen Mary had passed away, and Elizabeth now reigned ; other ministers filled the places of those who would naturally have been ill-disposed to­ wards vVentworth, and probably too ready to lay on him the onus of a disaster caused hy their own culpable neglect; popular excitement and indignation had cooled; and all the circumstances of the time tended to a fair, if not indu1gent, hearing of the accused. On the 21st of April 1559 orders were sent by the Privy Council of th~ Star Chamber to the Lieutenant of the Tower to receive Lord Wentworth into custody. The next day he was arraigned on the high-treason indictment before his peers assembled in Westminster Hall, Parr, Marquis of Northampton, presiding as Lord High Stewa,rd; when it being clearly shown that he had repeatedly warned the Government of the impending attack on Calais, and had fruitlessly entreated that the force and supplies neces­ sary for defence should be sent, he was the same day unanimously acquitted. Henry Machyn, in his JJiary, writes thus of the trial: "The [22nd] day of April was

1 Cal. qf State Papers, li'oreign. 46 THE F .A.MILY. OF WENTWORTH.

brought from the Tower unto Westminster Hall to be arraigned my lord Wentworth, last Deputy of Calais, for the losing of Calais ; and there were certain of his accusers; but he quit [acquitted] himself, thanks be God, and clean delivered, and went into Whittington's College."1 The tone in which the diarist records the event is probably indicative of the general satisfaction with which the judgment was received. Speed (1632) writes: "He so nobly defended himself, that he was acquitted by his peers, and won a most honourable opinion for his many and faithful services." 2 Burnet represents how opinion was divided as to whom culpa­ bility attached in the loss of Calais. The party of the Reformation cast the blame on the Papists, and it was urged that the late Queen's ministers should be examined in regard to their misgovernment ; the pur­ pose in making this charge being to render the Roman Catholics odious to the nation. On the other hand, the Papists censured Lord Wentworth, " who was now pro­ fessedly one of the reformed, and had been very gentle to those of that persuasion during his government."3 In regard to Wentworth's opinions on religious matters, it may be gathered that they were tolerant. His support to the succession of Queen Mary seems to have been given from a conviction of her right to the throne; and, as Holinshed shows, it was exacted of her, as the condition on which her natural right should be main­ tained, that she should not force her own faith on the nation. For her breach of this engagement, her sup­ porters were not answerable. The Papists, as shown above, witnessed to his sympathy with those of the re-

1 Machyn's JJiar!J, p. 195. 2 Speed's Hist. of Gt. Brit., p. 1186. 3 Burnet's Hist. of the Reform., Pocock ed., ii., 607. WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD.._ 47 'formed faith, and further evidence of his religious bent may be seen in the dedication to him, in 1561, of the English translation of the Hundred Sermons on the .Apocalypse, by Heinrich Bullinger of Zurich. His declaration of obedience to the Act of Parliament for Uniformity of Common Prayer was made, with others, at Ipswich, 30 December 1569.1 From the above mention of Lord Wentworth's retire­ ment after his trial to Whittington College, it would appear that he was then lodging there. Evidently the College at that time included other buildings than the alms-houses founded by the famous Lord Mayor, and transferred from the City to Highgate in 1822. The W entworths had become possessed of property here, for the inquisition p.m. of Anne (Wentworth), Lady Mal­ travers, in 1581, included "Whittington College within the City of London."2 Now Lady Maltravers being the sister of Lord Wentworth's first wife, his residence at the College is easily accounted for pending the restitution of his Stepney manor-house and estate, of which he had been deprived after the loss of Calais. The Stepney and Hackney manors were restored to him by Act of Parlia­ ment, 1 Elizabeth, very soon after his return from France. The memory of Whittington College is preserved in" Col­ lege Hill" and "College Street" between Cannon Street Railway Station and Queen Street ; and two venerable gateways, with the Church of St. Michael Paternoster Royal, in which formerly stood Whittington's tomb, are interesting features here, though they date subsequently to the Great Fire. During the reign of Elizabeth the second Lord Went­ worth held a high position at Court and in his county.

1 Oal. State Pape,rs, Domestic. 2 Morant's Hist. of Es8ex, ii., 372. 48 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

Soon after returning from France he was reappointed Lord Lieutenant of Norfolk and Su:ffolk,1 and so con­ tinued, probably, the remainder of his life. In September 1559 he, with the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Oxford, and other nobles, had command from the Queen to attend her at the reception of John, Duke of Finland, second son of Gustavus Vasa, and the Swedish embassy2 arrived to solicit Elizabeth's hand for Prince Eric, the heir to the throne of Sweden. And 8 September 1560 the Earl of Oxford and Lord Wentworth had the Queen's com­ mands to receive the Prince himself,3 whose.coming, however, appears to have been prevented by the illness and death of the King his father. The story of the royal courtship is scarcely in place here, but it may be added that on Eric's accession he recalled his brother, the Duke of Finland, from the English Court, where he had re­ mained a whole year, wooing the ·Queen, professedly for his brother, but furtively, as the latter had reason to think, for himself. In 1562, Dec. 24, Lord Wentworth with the Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk had command to dispatch six hundred soldiers and a hundred pioneers to N ewhaven, or Nieuport, near Ostend.4 This no doubt was part of the English force sent to aid the French Protestants; and probably had connection with the disastrous voyage of the " Greyhound," referred to p. 33, the ship being lost with two hundred persons on board, including two younger brothers of Lord Wentworth, and other members of distinguished families. In 1565, July 29, as a magistrate for Middlesex, Lord Wentworth was engaged in taking the muster of horses in that county.4

1 Dedication ofBullinger' s Sermons. 2 Oal. State Papers, Foreign. 3 Oal. State Papers, Domestic. • Oal. State Papers, Domestic. WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 49

In January 1572 he was one of the twenty-seven Peers who tried and condemned the Duke of Norfolk for high-treason.1 in furthering the pretensions of Mary, Queen of Scots, to the English throne ; the hand of which Queen he had sought in marriage. In the last years of his life Lord Wentworth was afflicted with the loss of his eldest son, William Went­ worth, who had but recently married a daughter of the Lord Treasurer Burghley. Strype says a great friend­ ship existed between the lords, to whom the marriage between their children appears to have given mutual satisfaction. Several letters of Wentworth on the sub­ ject exist. In one of the earliest, written from "Mile End," 8 June 1581, he acknowledges Burghley's "honourable, friendly, and courteous answer to the pro­ posal," and "rejoices that his son has made so honour­ able a choice, and that in this wanton time he was not wantonly disposed."2 Another letter refers to the join­ ture, which was to be £200 a year during Lord Went­ worth's life, and £300 afterwards; a very modest provision, even when the greater value of money at the time is considered. The marriage festivities were sumptuously conducted, and were prolonged over three days; an account of the expenses, in all their details, has been preserved, the total :1mounting to £629 ls. lld.3 But the wedded happiness of the young people was to be of short duration,' sixteen or seventeen months at most. Mr. Wentworth, being atTheobalds, Lord Burgh­ ley's Hertfordshire seat, in November 1582, was seized with the plague; one Thomas Bellot, probably of the

1 Cobbett's State Trials, i., 957. 2 Cal. State Papers, Domestic. 3 Ellis's Ori!f, Letters, 3rd S.1 iv., 40. 50 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

Lord Treasurer's household, writes to him, 6 November, of the "perilous state" of his son-in-law; "he had made his will, and was now lying delirious; Mrs. Wentworth was fain to be brought to him, for he was so earnest and took on so that they could not deny him."1 Death soon released him. Strype has that Lord Burghley "coming home from the City, where the plague was, to Tybalds his country seat, found Mr. Wentworth newly dead there."2 The grief of the parents was acute, the Queen and Sir wrote sympathetic letters to the great statesman, and Walsingham speaks to the excellent qualities of the deceased, considering that "the taking away a man of his virtue and hope in this cor­ rupted age was an argument of God's displeasure towards us."3 Lord Wentworth also writes to Burghley that " the loss common to them both was such as would have staid a wiser man than he was; and that although many crosses had fallen upon him, yet none so great as this; he thanked God; however, that the burthen was made somewhat lighter to him" in the prospect of a grandchild.4 The hope, however, was not to be fulfilled, and more sorrow lay before the parents, for Mrs. Wentworth survived her husband but five months, dying in April 1583.5

1 Cal. State Paper&-, Domestic. 2 Reformation, ed. 1725, iii., 144. 3 Reform., ed. 1725, iii., 144. 4 :Ellis's Orig. Letters, 3rd S., iv., 44. 5 Strype's Reformation, ed. 1725, iii., 145. Of :Elizabeth Cecil (Mrs. Wentworth) there is a portrait at Hatfield, by Lucas de Heere. It was in the exhibition at South Kensington of 1866, and the photograph is now there. The fantastic costume is that of :Elizabeth's Court, familiar to us in the portraits of the Queen herself. The S. K. cata­ logue thus describes it: "Three-quarter length, close curled brown hair with pearl head-dress, lace ruff, long stomacher and fardingale, stllffed diapered sleeves, fan in right hand," WENTWORTH OF NETTLES'l'EAD. 51

Lord Wentworth lived only a little more than a year after the loss of his son; he died at Stepney, 13 January 1584, 1 and, although his burial is not in the register, it is probable that his body was laid in Stepney Church, with that of his second wife, who predeceased him by twelve years. Lady Wentworth's burial, also omitted in the register,2 we have from Norden, who, in his Speculum Britannia: (1594), p. 39, has, "There [in Stepney Church] lyeth also the Lady Anne Wentworth, wife to Thomas, Lord Wentworth, and daughter to Henry Wentworth, Esquire. She died the second of September 1571." This seems to have been taken from a monument or inscription then existing, but now not to be found. Errors have frequently been made in reference to the marriages of the second Lord Wentworth. His first wife, Mary, daughter of Sir J olm Wentworth of Gos­ field, died at Calais, childless ;3 and her place, apparently after a short interval, was filled by her cousin Anne, daughter of Henry Wentworth of l\fountnessing, Essex. The second marriage was probably celebrated in 1555 or 1556 (Henry, the Recond son, being born in 1558), and perhaps at Calais, if not during a temporary absence of the Deputy from his post. The second Lady Wentworth had the Queen's command to attend with her lord at the reception of the Swedish embassy in

1 Inqiiis. p.m. 2 Lysons ( Environs of London) notes two Wentworth burials from the Stepney registers, viz., "The Right Hon. Lady Agnes Wentworth, buried Sep. 3rd 1576," and " Katherine, daughter of Mr. Roger Wentworth, buried July 14, 1577." Lady Agnes may possibly have been the ~other of Lord Wentworth's second wife, though Agnes (Hamond), widow of Henry Wentworth of Mountnessing, married William Wilford as second husband; Roger Wentworth was the youngest son of the first Lord Wentworth. 3 Harl. MSS. 1103, £. 41, and 6065. 52 . THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. September 1559. Her children were three, viz., William, whose premature death has been noticed; Henry, the third Lord; and Elizabeth, who married Sir William Hynde, Knight, of Madingley, Cambridgeshire.

:}r.lortratt.-The South Kensington Exhibition of 1866, 'before referred to, had a half-length portrait of the second Lord Wentworth, on panel, 38 ins. by 26 ins., inscribed, and dated 1564 (?), ret. 40; the picture belonged to Mr. Vernon-Wentworth of Wentworth Castle, co. York. The face, in the photograph, is very dark, and rather short; the hair scanty, over it appa­ rently a skull-cap; high collar or ruff, ribbon around neck suspending a jewel or badge on breast; white slashed doublet falling a little over hips and girdled tightly round waist; black cloak; frills at wrists, left hand on hilt of sword ; stiff Eliza­ bethan costume. Another and pleasanter portrait, yet resembling that just described, is engraved in the Antiquarian Repository (1808), iii., 59. The picture is stated to have belonged to Thoma.s Noel, Viscount Wentworth, in 1779. It is a three-quarter length; the face, as in Mr. Vernon-Wentworth's picture, short, the forehead heightened by baldness, scanty hair, moustache, and tuft on chin; Elizabethan ruff; short tunic; no weapon; left arm bent and hand resting on hip, right hand on table. The name is inscribed, and the age and date as 40 in 1574 (?). The arms of Wentworth are shown on a shield, and the griffin crest surmounts a helmet. The motto, Spes in Christo (not that usually borne by the Nettlestead family, viz., Penses a bien)'. "0. J. pinxit '' also appears; the initials cannot refer to Cor­ nelius Jansen; at least the portrait could not have been taken by the painter, whose period was later. The dates and age in the two pictures are at variance, and in neither are satisfactory. We have from the inq_uis. p.m. of the first Lord Wentworth that the age of the second Lord in 1551 was 26; the year of his birth would therefore be 1525, and his age 49 in 1574. It is to be said, however, that the inscription in the engraving is very indistinct, and presuming part of the figure 9 to be obliterated or omitted, and thus reading 49 for 40, we may consider the WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 53 inscription to have been originally correct. The face also cor­ responds to the age 49. The dating of Mr. Vernon-Wentworth's picture may also have suffered in transcription, the portraits having apparently been taken at the same period. ~rm~.-The coat borne by Sir Thomas Wentworth (after­ wards second Lord) when knighted "in the camp beside Rox­ burgh in Scotland" is shown in Cotton MS. Claud., c. iii., f. 169. The shield is quarterly of six, the coats as in the shield of Sir Richard (seep. 23), but the Wentworth coat is differenced by a label of three points. The etr:e~t is similar to that borne by his father and grandfather, the ewer argent, ribbons attached or; not the griffin passant, which, nevertheless, appears in the portrait just described.

N ETTLESTEAD HALL. The Hall, or rather its remnant, stands in a pleasant retired valley, about six miles N.vY. of Ipswich. The builder is said to·have been the second Lord "\Ventworth,1 though there seems to be no other basis for the assertion than his having built the handsome gateway, yet seen at a little distance from the house; to which fact is witness his heraldry, and that of his wives, in the spandrils of the arch. It is, however, at least probable that the second Lord, to some extent, rebuilt the old Hall, which had come to his family with Margery Despenser, whose father had obtained it by marriage with one of the coheirs of Tibetot. But so little now remains, and that little has been so modernized, that any conjecture as to the date of the building, which stood perhaps until the commencement of the present century, is impossible. The existing house has a very modern appearance, the front and roof having been renewed; but there are yet remaining just a few interesting relics· which point

1 Davy's Architec. Antq_s. Suffolk. 54 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

to the past. Such is an old panelled room in the upper storey, where iR seen emblazoned the Wentworth coat and numerous quarterings. This panel painting, however, came from another part of the building now gone, pro­ bably from the Great Hall, the memory of which sur­ vives its deplorable destruction, and of which the windows are said to have been .rich in painted armorial glass, record of which has been collected by Davy, chiefly from the note-book of Harvey, Olarencieux, 1561.1 Another memorial of the Wentworths is a great stone, 10 feet long and a foot in depth, now appearing as a window-sill in front of the house, and on which is incised, in characters yet perfectly legible, the motto of the family, PENSES A :BIEN. The chief relic, however, is the handsome gateway, above referred to, standing in front of the house at a distance of about eighty yards. It is not of grand dimensions, the total height being no more than 17½ feet, the width 15 feet ; while the arched opening is but 10 feet high, with a span of 8 feet. But the renaissance design is excellent, and the form and sculpture of the fluted columns on either side of the arch, the deep entablature above, and the pediment filled with bold and graceful foliated ornament, all compose a decidedly handsome work. In the spandrils, as said before, two shields preserve an interesting and valuable heraldic record of the family alliances. The dexter shield has twenty quarterings, the armorial bearings of the builder. First come the old quarterings of the N ettlestead Wentworths, viz., after w ENT WORTH, a crescent for difference, D ESPENSER, CLARE, GousHILL, POYNTON, OYRY, T~:BETOT, and BADLES-

1 Brit. Mus., Add. MSS. 19085; £. 115. THE GATEWAY OF NETTLESTEAD HALL

From a Drawing made by HENRY DAVY in 1823, and published in his "Series of Sketches illustrative of the Architectural Antiquities of Suffolk," 1827. on tbt @att\uap of Jltttltuttab ~all.

@>'-., r1''"'-'-: \ ..., ~lJ,-Or~ -~ Ar

Ar

1. WENTWORTH. 2. DESPENSER. 3. CLARE. 4. GOUSHILL. 5. POYNTON. 6, OYRY. 'l. TIBETOT. 8. BADLESMERE. 9. FORTESCUE. 10, STONOR. 11. NEVILL. 12. MONTAGU. 13. MONTHERMER. 14. HOLLAND. 15. TIBETOT. 16. DE LA POLE, 17. INGLETHORPE. 18. BRADSTON. 19. KIRKBY. 20. HARNEHALL. 1-Bt,rttr ~bttlb on tbt ~attwap of Jltttltuttab ~alt

1. WENTWORTH, 2, DESPENSER. 3, CLARE. 4. GOUSHILL. 5, POYNTON. 6. OYRY. 7. TIBETOT. 8. BADLESMERE, 9, FORTESCUE. 10. STONOR, 11. NEVILL. 12, MONTAGU. 13. MONTHERMER. 14. HOLLAND. 15, TIBETOT. 16. DE LA POLE. 17. INGLETHORPE. 18. BRADSTON. 19. KIRKBY. 20. HARNEHALL, ~tnt~ttr sbttlb on tbt ~atrinar of jlltttlt~ttab ~alt

1. WENTWORTH. 2, DESPENSER. 3. GOUSHILL. 4. TIBETOT. 5. BADLESMERE. 6, HOWARD. 7. TYRRELL. 8. HELION. • 9. NORTOFT. 10. SWYNBURNE. 11. GERNON. 12, BOTETOURT. 13. ROLFE. 14. PARIS. 15. HAMOND.

WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 55

MERE; then the quarterings brought in by the builder's mother, viz., FORTESCUE, STONOR, NEVILL, MoN'l'AGU, MoNTHERMER, HOLLAND, TIBETOT, DE LA POLE, lNGLE­ THORPE, BRADSTON, KIRKBY, and HARNEHALL. 'rhe sinister shield has fifteen quarterings, being those of the Gosfield W entworths, of which house were both the wives of the second Lord Wentworth, viz., after WENT­ WORTH, a crescent on a crescent for difference, DE­ SPENSER,1 GOUSHILL, TIBETOT, BADLESMERE, HOWARD, TYRRELL,2 HELION, NoRTOFT,3 SWYNBURNE, GERNON, BoTE'l'OURT, RoLFB, p ARIS, and HAMOND. The latter coat is especia1ly valuable because of the error or uncertainty which, as before noticed, appears to have prevailed in regard to the marriages of this Lord ·w entworth. His first marriage, celebrated at Gosfi.eld, 9 February 1546, to Mary, daughter of Sir John Went­ worth of Gosfield, is there recorded in the registers; but not so his second marriage, which the quartering of Hamond clearly indicates to have been with Anne, daughter of Henry Wentworth of Gosfield and Mount­ nessing by his wife Agnes Hamond, an heiress. This fifteenth quartering, as noted by Davy, has been defaced by a repairing mason, but fortunately it is easily supplied from Harl. MSS. 1103, f. 40, where the herald gives the quarterings in the above order; and, as if in anticipation of the question which might arise, he names the last coat, and that one only, "Hamond of Kentt." The face of the gateway, fronting the Hall-as the

1 Clare is here omitted, though quartered in the dexter shield. 2 Tyrrell does not seem properly to have place here; for Anne 'fyrrell (see Wentworth of Gos.field pedigree) was not her father's heir, though her mother's, through whom were brought in Helion, N ortoft, Swynburne, Gernon, Botetourt, Rolfe, and apparently Paris, ~ N 9i-toft is generally assigned to Inglishe. 56 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH, house is still called-has been left to the adornment of Nature, and is thickly covered with ivy.

NETTLESTEAD CHURCH. The Gothic church is about two hundred and twenty yards from the house. In it the visitor will naturally look for Wentworth memorials, but he will be dis­ appointed, for there are none; except perhaps the one brass of a knight in armour, now nameless, which, if not representing a member of the family, it is difficult to ascribe to any other. N ettlestead Church, however, was not the Wentworth burying-place. Roger, the first of the family here, and his great-grandson Sir Richard, were carried to the Grey Friars, Ipswich; Sir Philip and Sir Henry were laid in Newsam Abbey, Lincolnshire; the first Lord had his grave in Westminster Abbey, the second Lord probably in Stepney Church, the third (though in this we are anticipating) died at Exton in Rutland, and his interment is not recorded. The earliest N ettlestead registers have, very unfortunately for our subject, been lost; they now date no further back than 1618, at which period the W entworths had left Nettle­ stead; thus the christenings, and probably some burials, of the family are lost to us. Of the latter there is just one record, but it is in the registers of St. Margaret's, Ipswich: "The worshipfull Mr. Philip Wentford [sic] deceased at Christ Church, and was buried at Nettlestead the x of October anno 1583." This Philip, of Ipswich, appears to have been a brother of the second Lord, and if, though not living at N ettlestead, he was taken there for burial, the inference is natural that others of the family had been there interred. Authorities on brasses refer that in the church to o. 1500, WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 57

HENRY WENTWORTH, Third Baron Wentworth of N ettlested ; born 1558, died 1593. Henry, third Lord Wentworth, was in his twenty­ sixth year when he succeeded his father; this, derived from the inquisition, leads to the conjecture that he was born in the summer of 1558, the year which commenced with the loss of Calais, and during the time his father was a prisoner in the hands of the French. Of the third Lord there is little to be said, a reason for this being that his life was but short. He was in the Stepney manor-house with his father when he died, and immediately wrote to Lord Burghley to inform him of the event, placing himself at the command of his lord­ ship, and entreating his favour and assistance in the discharge of the duties which his father's decease had en tailed on him .1 Very soon afterwards he repaired to his inheritance at N ettlestead, and we have evidence of the welcome he received in the register of the Great Court of Ipswich, which contains the order for "half a tun of wine as a present to Lord Wentworth, on his first coming to N ettlestead, after his accession to the title." 1l1he good will of the citizens appears to have been maintained, for from the same source is learnt that two years later, 1585, my lord "was presented with a hogshead of wine, 2 two gallons of claret, and a gallon of sack. " • We would be glad to have other indications of his residence at the old family seat, for he was the last of his house who lived there, but nothing more is learnt;

1 Strype's Reformation, ed. 1725, iii., 208. 2 Clarke's Hist. of Ipswich, p. 41. ! 58 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. nor have we even the meagre evidence which the parish registers mjght have afforded had they not disappeared. It has been claimed that the W entworths of Nettle­ stead maintained an unbroken connection with the hfatory of their country; and, although the career of the third Lord was brief, and perhaps unilistinguished, there is still one link which connects him with the events of hjs time, as if to preserve the continuity noticed. This one link is his participation in the trial of the unhappy Queen of Scots; he was one of the Peers who sat in judgment at Fotheringay in October 1586. The part has been assigned to his father, but the second Lord had been nearly three years dead at the time of the memo­ rable trial, and the error doubtlessly arose out of another, viz., the erroneous dating by Camden (who has been fol­ lowed by later historians) of the second Lord's decease, which he places in 1590.1 The mistake of the King-at­ .Arms is curious, because, noticing the trial in 1586, he gives with the Queen's commissions that directed to "our trusty and well-beloved Henry, Lord Wentworth, another of the Lords in Parliament."2 The Queen of Scots had now been eighteen and a half years a captive in England, and during this interval it had been demonstrated that her life was a continual menace to her cousin the English Queen. It would be unfitting here to touch the great historical question, whether Elizabeth and her ministers were justified be­ yond taking measures to defeat the conspiracies which had Mary as their centre; and whether the Scottish Queen, having resigned her crown to her son (who had now been on the throne of Scotland nineteen years), and placed herself under English protection, could claim the

1 Camden, in Kennet's Oomplt. Hist., ii., 561. 2 Ibid., ii., 519. WEN'l.'WORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 59 right of an "absolute Queen," and as such be held un­ answerable to the laws of another sovereign. Sufficient to say, that after the exposure of Babington's conspiracy to assassinate Elizabeth, of which Mary was accused of being cognizant, she was brought to Fotheringay Castle in Northamptonshire, where it was determined her trial should take place . .A. full account of the trial is found in Cobbett's State Trials, with the names of the Commissioners present on the memorable 14th and 15th of October 1586; and in one of the Cotton MSS. ( Calig., c. ix.) is a plan, sketched by the hand of Lord Burghley himself, for the arrange­ ment of the hall of judgment. One end of the chamber was occupied by a chair, furnished with" Cloth of State," for the Queen of England. On the right were placed the , the Lord Treasurer, three Judges, and ten Earls. On the left sat four other Judges and thirteen Barons, Wentworth between Sandys and Mor­ daunt; Walsingham was one of five knights of the Privy Council, with whom also was Croft of Hereford. There were besides the chief law-officers, and over against the Chair of State, that is at the opposite end of the portion of the Great Hall which had been railed off for the court, was placed a chair for the Queen of Scots. Mary at first claimed her privilege as a sovereign, and refused to answer to the court; but this position she was persuaded to yield ; and then, unaided by counsel, which was denied her, and placed alone before her judges, did she, during two days, with wonderful courage and intelligence, argue her own defence. The court was adjourned to Westminster, there to sit again on the 25th of October, and that day a verdict of guilt was found against her; that, pretending to the Crown of England, she had been privy to the Babington conspfracy 60 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. for the assassination of the Queen. Elizabeth's reluct­ ance, or at least her hesitation protracted over three months, to sign the death-warrant is a matter of his­ tory; so also is the calmness, courage, and dignity with which Mary faced death in the hall of Fotheringay. To this one great event in English History was the participation of the third Lord Wentworth limited. , There is no more to record of him than such matters as his presenting to the rectory of Hackney, 2 August 1588, and to Stepney rectory, 8 May 1593.1 The last date was shortly before his decease. This occurred 16 August 1593, at Burley2 or Exton,3 the adjoining estates in Rutlandshire of Sir James Harrington, whom Lord Went­ worth was visiting; the cause of death was "the plague," the same dreadful malady to which his elder brother had fallen victim; his age was but thirty-five. Of his burial I find no mention. The third Lord's wifo was .Anne, daughter of Sir Owen Hopton, Lieutenant of the Tower, and a direct descendant of Sir William Hopton, who married Mar­ garet, daughter of Roger the first Wentworth of Nettle­ stead. By this lady-who had for second husband Sir William Pope of W roxton, Oxfordshire, afterwards Earl of Downe-Henry, Lord Wentworth, left two sons and two daughters, all very young at the time of his decease. As the inquisition p.m. of the third Lord's property is the last of the series (such investigations ceasing after 20 Charles I., owing to abolition of land-tenure by knight-service), it will be interesting to note the manors or lands mentioned; the spelling of the names is given unaltered. SUF.FOLK, Flowton, Washbrooke, Copdocke,

1 Newcourt's Repe1·toriurn. 2 Inquis. p.rn. 3 Harl. MSS. 1177, f. 38. WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 61

Sprowghton et Belsteed quondam pcell. nup. dissolut. priorat. Sci. Petri in Gipwico, Lovetoft, Bramford, Whitton, N ettlested, Blakenham pva., Overtie, Dunstan, Blakenham magna. Lampe aker feilde, Swannes neast, Anthonies close. Caters pightells, Homefilde als. Hallifilde meadowe in N ettlested, le N ewe parke, Bail­ ham, Sycklemere Meadowe. MIDDLESEX, Stebbenhuth als. Stepney, Hackeney als. Hackney. It may be added here that the lands in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, named (p. 23) in the inquisition p.m. of Sir Richard Wentworth, are not mentioned in the later inquisitions found in the Public Record Office, London, this leading to the inference that they were alienated by the first Lord Wentworth. The three or four Kentish manors which had place in the same inquisition are ac­ counted for by Hasted; Chatham, the last remaining manor in Kent, was sold by the second Lord, 8 Elizabeth. The Essex manors in the inquisition of the first Lord, given as Tendrynge, Fratinge, Misteley, Bradfeld, Wrab­ naes, and Wykes, do not appear in the last two inqui­ sitions, but that of the second Lord names only his Middlesex property at Stepney and Hackney, and is therefore incomplete.

SIR THOMAS WEN'l'WORTH, K.B., Fourth Lord Wentworth of N ettlested, created Earl of Cleveland 1626; born 1591, di.ed 1667.

As the first three Lord Wentworths had their careers in the reigns of the Tudor sovereigns, and took part in the events of those reigns, so now, arrived at Stuart times, we have the fourth Lord identified with them, and distinguished as a officer in the reigns of 62 THE FAMILY (i)F WENTWOR'l'H.

Charles I. and II. His youth indeed was passed in the latter years of Queen Elizabeth, for when his father died in 1593 he was a child of scarcely two years old ; but not having reached manhood until the first Stuart had been nearly ten years on the throne of England, it was in the reign of James I. that his career commenced. There is nothing learnt of his childhood or education. Lady Wentworth, his mother, about two years after her first husband's death, married Sir William Pope, afterwards Earl of Downe; and the conjecture is natural that the three young Wentworth children accompanied their mother to her second husband's home at Wroxton in Oxfordshire. During the life of the third Lord an event had oc­ curred of much import to his heir, and leading to the migration of the family from their old seat at Nettle­ stead to another county. This event was the death, in 1587, of Henry, Lord Cheney, of Toddington, Bedford­ shire, whose wife Jane was the eldest daughter of the first Lord Wentworth ; Lord and Lady Cheney having no issue, the Toddington estate was devised to the heirs of the latter. Lady Cheney survived her husband twenty-seven years, and from the indications afforded by the parish register, it would appear that her great-nephew and heir, Lord Wentworth, lived with the childless widow at Toddington some years previous to her demise, or at least from the time of h\s marriage ; for his first child, whom he lost, was buried in Toddington Church 1612, and his eldest son was there baptized in 1613. Old Lady Cheney died 16 April 1614, as her tomb in the church yet very clearly records. Early possessed of a good estate, and heir to a second, the young Lord was not long suffered to remain unwedded; indeed his youth was scarcely passed, and WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 63 the age fixed as that of manhood scarcely reached, when he took to wife one of the seven daughters of Sir John Crofts, the representative of a family which had been seated in Suffolk, at Saxham Parva and --w eston, upwards of two centuries. Previous to his marriage Lord Went­ worth had made his appearance at Court, and there, at the age of nineteen, he had received his knighthood, 4 June 1610, on the occasion of the knighting of Henry, Prince of Wales. The year of his marriage was probably 1611, and within the next twelve years his six children-by first wife-were born at Toddington, as may be presumed from finding their baptisms in the register. During this interval other indications of Lord ·w entworth's life are very few, and we can only suppose it to have been spent on his estate and at Court; perhaps for a time he may have travelled. His name is found in a "Com­ mission of Sewers," or Officers of the Royal Household, passed under the Great Seal, 15 February 1617, and which included Howard Earl of Suffolk, Lord Treasurer, and other nobles.1 In 1619 he had the office of Custos Rotulorum for the county of Bedford.2 Lloyd, Canon of St. Asaph, who as contemporary with Wentworth should have special credence, says in his Memoirs that the young noble gained his military experience with the great generals, Maurice, Prince of Orange, in the Low Counties, and Count Mansfeldt, in Germany. It would have been more satisfactory had the author given us the period and the circumstances of Wentworth's association with the distinguished leaders ; for, not finding other mention of it, we are left to take the information unsupported.

1 Cal. State Papers, Domestic, 2 Doyle's Official Baronage. 64 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

In the five last years of J ai:n.es I. two expeditions left England, nominally for the assistance of the King's son-in-law, Frederick, the Elector Palatine, who, a Pro­ testant, had rashly accepted the crown of Bohemia, and thereby drawn on himself the enmity of the Catholic Powers, with the loss consequently of both kingdom and palatinate. 'fhe recovery of these dominions being rendered hopeless by the strength of the enemy, the English expeditions were employed in giving assistance to Prince Maurice in his war with the Spaniards. The first expedition was undertaken in the summer of 1620 ; Sir Horace Vere had the command, and the chief officers were the Earls of Oxford and Essex; Sir J olm Went­ worth of Gosfielcl was also one of the officers, but of Lord Wentworth of Nettlestecl no mention is made. Very little was effected, and at the encl of the year the Earls had returned to England, though Sir Horace Vere remained, bravely to fight an unequal contest for the space of two years, after which he was recalled. If Lord Wentworth accompanied the first expedition which left England in July, he had returned by De­ cember, for there is a letter from him to the Council, dated 7 December 1620, saying that he had already con­ tributed according to his ability towards the Palatinate, and would forward a Parliamentary supply.1 He took his seat with the peers in Parliament 30 January 1621 (there had been no set3sion for seven years), and his name appears as one of the signatories to the petition to the King, beseeching him not to confer Scotch and Irish titles on English gentlemen, to the prejudice of the English nobility.2 1 Cal. State Papers, Domestic. 2 ·Wilson's Hist. of Reign of Jas. L, in Kennet's Oomplt. Hist., ii., 747. WEN'l'WOR'I'H OF NE'l'TLESTEAD.

The second of the two expeditions mentioned was made in the beginning of 1624. Count Mansfeldt came to England to solicit aid, and 12,000 men were raised to act with the Count's German troops, and others he hoped to collect in France. In the same spring four regiments were formed to support Prince Maurice; they were com­ manded by the Earls of Oxford, Essex, and Southampton, and Lord Willoughby; but neither in connection with these regiments, nor with those collected for Mansfeldt, is Lord Wentworth named. Thus it only remains to us to take Lloyd's information alone as it stands. In 1625, May 5, Lord Wentworth became Lord Lieutenant of Bedfordshire, conjointly with his neigh­ bour Henry Grey, Earl of Kent ;1 in this capacity they acted together during the next ten years, and afterwards Wentworth appears to have filled the office alone. The year after his appointment, the instructions from the Council are directed to the Earl of Cleveland; his ele­ vation in the peerage is datAd 7 February 1626, the ancient connection of his race with Yorkshire having probably determined the designation of his earldom. From Lloyd we further learn that the Earl was one of the chief friends of George Villiers, Duke of Buck­ ingham. The intimacy with the attractive but unprin­ cipled and voluptuous favourite of the King could have brought no more solid advantage to Cleveland than his titular earldom. Neither could he have gained credit by being associated with the Duke in the mis­ managed and futile expedition of 1627, for the relief of the beleagured French Protestants at La Rochelle.2 Lloyd even says that the l~arl ·was in the company of the Duke when assassinated by Felton at Portsmouth, 1 Rymer's Fmdera, viii., 123 ; and Gal. State Papers, Domestic. 2 Doyle's Official Baronage. K 66 THE FA.MILY OF WENTWORTH.

23 August 1628; though this does not appear m the narrative of the murder.1 During the interval of ten years, 1625-1635, when the Earls of Kent and Cleveland acted together as Lords Lieutenant of Bedfordshire, the nature of their official business indicates the growing contention between the King and his people. The beginning of that contention must indeed be dated much earlier than the reign of Charles I., who simply continued the policy of his father; which policy, through Charles's greater dignity of cha­ racter and stronger resolution, became the more danger­ ous. More and more was kingly prerogative made to override statutes, and the national· desire subjected to the despotic will of the sovereign. Discontent and resistance to the King's forced loans appea,r even in the first year of his reign. In November 1625-seven months after Charles's accession-the Lords Lieutenant, acting on their instructions, send to the Council the list of per­ sons in the county of Bedford of ability to furnish money on loan, naming their dwelling-places and the sums they can lend. 'rhey report also that they have made search for martial munitions among the recusants, but have found only ordinary weapons for the guard of their houses, which they have left in their custody. They have forborne to muster the Trained Bands on account of the infection [? the plagueJ, which daily increases. Seven months later they report the county unwilling to entertain any longer the officers sent down to instruct the Trained Bands; and a little later they inform the Council on the military condition of the county. Re­ ports of similar character continue to be made at inter­ vals down to 1635.2 1 Sir Henry Wotton, and Rushworth. 2 Oal. State Papm·s, Domestic, WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 67

During these years there is evidence too sure that the Earl of Cleveland wns not carefully managing his re­ sources, and that probably his early association with Buckingham had developed an extravagance in living, which by the time he had reached middle life resplted in a heavy encumbrance on his property. In 1636 there are instructions to Counsel to prepare a settlement of his estates, comprising the ·manors of Stepney and Hackney in Middlesex, and Toddington, Tingrith, and Harlington in Bedfordshire, in orcle1· to effect the payment of debts, and to make a provision for the Countess and 'f'homas, Lord Wentworth, his son. The young lord, now about twenty-four, had also commenced his career extrava­ gantly, for in 1637 there is "a. list of debts owing by Thomas, Earl of Cleveland, and Thomas, Lord vVent­ worth, to several persons named, the total £19,200,"1 which even now would constitute a considerable defi­ ciency, and two hundred and fifty years ago must have formed a most serious encumbrance. These pecuniary embarrassments did not diminish; but, on the contrary, were greatly augmented by the expenditure and sacri­ fices entailed on the Earl as a loyal cavalier; it cannot, however, be justly represented that the impoverishment of his estate was entirely due to his faithful adherence to the King's cause. At the beginning of 1639 were sounded the first notes of civil war ; not yet between King and Parlia­ ment, but between the King and the Scotch Covenanters. The ensuing strife had its origin in the ill-judged attempt of Charles, Archbishop Laud, and certain of the Scotch Bishops to force on the people of Scotland uniformity in religious worship; to which end a Service-book and

1 Oal. State Papers, JJ01nestic. 68 'l'HE FAMILY OF WENTWOR'l'H, a book of Canons were sent from Lambeth, and their use commanded in the Church of Scotland. Vehement resistance to this arbitrary act gave rise to the "Cove­ nant," by which a very large proportion of the nation, nobles, gentry, and commonalty, bound themselves by oath to resist the innovations, and to abjure the doc­ trines, rites, and ceremonies of the Romish Church, which they considered involved in the ritual forced upon them. rrhe people of England generally knew little of Scotland, and had no interest in the contest, which, never­ theless, they were called on to support. The despotic King determinedly held his course, and on the i6th January 1639 issued his summons " to all the nobles and gentry of England to attend his royal standard at York, against the 1st of April, when he was to go to the border to oppose the Scots there." To the summons we find the Earl of Cleveland's response, dated 12th February: " I propose to attend his Majesty at the time and place in his letter mentioned, and to continue my attendance so long as his royal person shall be in the aemy; and to have with me during the same time ten horse ready furnished for service in the wars, and also accompanied by some of my friends, and with my own retinue and servants."1 The King's force mustered weakly, and when, in June, he arriVf•d with it at Ber­ wick, the Scotch array, on their side of the Tweed, was found to be so strong and formidable that the English commanders deemed it prudent to avoid an encounter. Proposals for a conference came from the Covenanters, vvere assented to by the King, and, terms being agreed on, bloodshed was for the time avoided; Charles returned to London and the Scots disbanded.

1 Cal. State .Papers, Domestic. WEN'l'WORTH OF NETTLES'rEAD. 69

The quarrel, however, was by no means settled; the Covenant was inflexibly maintained, and the Scotch Parliament, demanding privileges which the King's Commissioners considered adverse to the royal authority, was by them dismissed. Acts of war ensued, trade with Scotland was prohibited, and the King's ships captured Scotch merchant-vessels. Again on both sides armies were enrolled, and 25,000 Scots, marching to London to present a petition, were met by 20,000 English on the banks of the Tyne, near Newcastle, for the Northern army had already traversed Northumberland. t'he attempt of the enemy to cross the 'ryne was but weakly opposed by the King's troops, who had no heart in the contest; the cavalry were put to flight at "the Newburn rout," and Newcastle then surrendered to the Scots with­ out resistance. This happened at the end of August 1640 ; Charles was at York, and summoned a Council of Peers to consider the situation; it was resolved to send a commission of sixteen Peers to treat with the Scots at Ripon, when a truce for two months was agreed to, in order that the demand of the Covenanters might be considered in London, the Scotch army in the meantime to be maintained by a payment of £850 pe1· diem. In connection with these occurrences we have in the State Papers just one glimpse of the Earl of Cleveland, learning from a letter dated Berwick, 9 October 1640, that he was then at the border town with the royal troops; the line runs, "We have been very merry here since the Earl of Cleveland came hither." Certainly we should be glad to hear more about him ; but this little is not un~ interesting, as it indicates the Earl to have been a genial and popular cavalier, who contributed to the cheerfulness of garrison life. In the spring of 1640 the King had summoned a 70 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

Parliament, having reigned eleven years without one, and so far as he might venture as an absolute monarch. This assembly had an existence of but three weeks; his Majesty, finding it resolute to redress grievances before voting supplies, dissolved it; but, forced by circum­ stances, he again summoned, to meet in November, the represeutatives which formed the famous "Long Parlia­ ment." Even less than their predecessors were they disposed to overlook the past, and simply, as the King desired, to supply him with a revenue to be expended according to his royal will and pleasure; rather were they set on demanding securities for the future against his arbitrary encroachments on the rights of Parliament. We cannot here follow step by step the course of events, or trace the growing intensity of the contention, and the gradual but sure advance to civil war; our design ex­ tends no further than to note the career of the Earl of Cleveland in connection with the history of his time. rrhe impeachment and trial of his great kinsman, the Earl of Strafford, for having too well seconded the despotic rule of his master, was the first business under­ taken by the . Cleveland's sympathy with the now fallen minister, to whom he was connected both by the ties of kinship and party, was natural; but beyond that limit we have evidence sufficient to show that there had been the bond of personal friendship be­ tween them. Among the Strafford Letters are two, one from each peer to the other; Cleveland's is brief in the expectation of their soon meeting. THE EARL OF CLEVELAND TO THE LORD DEPUTY [ OF IRELAND J . NEWMARKET, Oct. 24, 1632. MY LoRD,-This worthy Peer promised me the favour to deliver this letter to your hands, which can express nothing so WENTWORTH OF NETTLES'l'EAD. 71 to the life, but in saying myself to be your Lordship's lover and servant. I may not venture to send you any news from Court, when my Lord Newcastle intends to visit you as soon as these few lines Rhall have the honour to kiss your hands. But if his Lordship had not given me assurance of your speedy coming to London, I ha,d intended a posting journey into Yorkshire to have seen my chief, who when he pleaseth to command me any service I shall take it for an honour, and as long as I live ever shall remain, Your Lordship's Cousin, and most faithful servant, CLEVELAND.

THE LORD DEPUTY TO THE EARi, OF CLEVELAND.

DuBLIN, The last of January 1633. My very good Lord,-As often as I may have in the least or greatest the happiness to serve you, not your Lordship but all the world shall be sure to hear of me. Thus I am set, and thus I will be found, living or dead. This is all I can say, and this I will do. Thus much being true, and your Lordship believing it, to weave over the same professions, were but to sully the fairness and beauty of that friendship and honour I shall ev·er preserve for your Lordship without spot or stain. 'Tis true I understand my cause in the Star Chamber hi1th had a fair evening; for "·hich I am ever to acknowledge and reverence the justice of that great Court to an absent man. Your Lordship hath still been pleased to honour me with your presence, when anything concerned me there; and believe me, if ever I be absent from the place where I may serve you, it shall be most extremely against my will. I see it must still be my fortune to work it out in a storm, and I find not myself yet so faint, as to give over for that, or to abandon a good cause be the wind never so loud or sour. Nay, I yet trust God shall give me better days at last than the first have been, that is, once to be safe and quiet on land, looking and considering the madness of those waves, which hitherto have all along, so mightily threatened me, 72 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

I crave leave to present my humble service to my noble Lady, wishing to you both the full and lasting contentment of many and many happy New Years. Your Lordship's most affectionate Cousin, and humble servant, WENTWORTH, 1 At the time of Strafford's trial there were in the House of Commons two W entworths, Sir George, the Earl's brother, and Sir Peter, of Lillingstone Lovell ; their nameR are in the list (v. Rushworth) of the fifty­ six "Straffordian8, Betrayers of their Country " (the members who were supposed to have voted for the acquittal), posted up in Old Palace Yard by the incensed mob on the day the Bill of Attainder had passed the Commons. We have not the names of the Peers who voted in like manner, but may be sure that Cleveland was in the minority of nineteen against twenty-six. The Journals of the House of Lords record this much, that on the day the Royal assent was given,. 10 May 1641, "the .Earl of Cleveland had leave to see the .Earl of Strafford this affrrnoon ;" doubtless to comfort him. 'fwo days later Cleveland was one of those attending "his chief" on the scaffold, to which, writes Rushworth, who witnessed the scene, Strafford walked" like a general at the head of an army." ( Trial of.E. of Strafford, p. 782.) The King's attempted seizure of the five members, 4 .lanuary 1642, who had been prominent in promoting the Bill for giving to Parliament the control of the militia, was the immediate cause of the resort to arms. Charles, defeated, left London on the 10th January, and made his way to the North, where a royalist force was raised by Cavendish, Earl of Newcastle.

1 At this time Viscount Wentworth, created Earl of Strafford 1640, WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 73 On the 23rd April 1642 occurred the first act in the civil war. The King at the head of a strong body of horse arrived at Hull, which contained a large store of arms and ammunition, when the Governor, acting under the orders of Parliament, refused to open the gates to his Majesty, who was compelled to retire. Four months later he raised his standard on the tower of Nottingham Castle, the red battle-flag waving over it; this signal, derived from feudal times, was the summons of the Sovereign Lord to his vassals, to assemble and follow him to war. The Earl of Cleveland was now colonel of a regiment of horse, and although he is not named in the accounts of the , or in any of the earlier engagements between the Royal and Parliamentarian forces, it is probable he was not absent. The King having threatened London, took up his winter quarters at Oxford, and there continued, intervals with his army in the field excepted, until 3rd June 1644. Cleveland in the meantime shared the varying fortunes of the , and also as a Peer sat in the Parlia­ ment which the King convoked at Oxford in January 1644. His name, and that of his son Lord Wentworth, are attached to the letter addressed by fifty-.two Peers assembled at Oxford "to the Lords of the Privy Council and the Conservators of the Peace of the Kingdom of Scotland," protesting against the invitation made to them (the Scottish Council) by the Parliament at West­ minster, to send an army into England ; and " conjuring their Lordships to use their endeavours to prevent the effusion of Christian blood which must follow the inva- . sion."1 The remonstrance was of no avail; for very soon afterwards a Scottish army entered England.

1 Clarendon, Hist. of the Rebellion, iii., 288. L 74 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

In May 1644 the Parliamentarian army under the Earl of Essex and Sir William Waller advanced to invest Oxford; whereon, the Royalist force being insufficient to oppose the design, the King made his escape from the city on the night of the 3rd of June, and betook himself to his troops in Worcestershire. These were commanded by Lord Wilmot (afterwards Earl of Rochester), and the Earl of Cleveland led a brigade of horse. Clarendon first mentions him under date 29 May 1644, when with a party of 150 horse he executed a bold but hazardous surprise on the enemy at Abingdon. The Parliamenta­ rians, consisting of 1000 foot and 400 horse, were in the town when Cleveland dashed into it at the head of his troop, killed many of the enemy, their commander included, took some prisoners, and then, finding himself overpowered by numbers, effected his retreat with the loss of two of his officers and two troopers. This affair is characteristic of the Earl as a soldier; Clarendon, who relates it, describes him as "a man of signal courage, and an excellent officer upon any bold enterprise." Sir Philip Warwick, another contemporary, writes of him as "a nobleman of a daring courage, full of industry and activity, as well as firm loyalty, and usually successful in what he attempted." The King having united his forces found himself sufficiently strong to return towards Oxford; his move­ ments had been followed by Sir William Waller, and on the 29th of June 1644 a notable encounter took place, in which the Earl of Cleveland may be considered the principal figure. The village of Cropredy, from which the battle is named, is at the northern extremity of Oxfordshire, about four miles north of Banbury. By it flows the River. Cherwell which separated the two armies, both moving from Banbury northward, the Royalists on WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 75 the eastern bank, the Parliamentarians on the western. The King's forces, about 5500 foot and 4000 horse, are described as marching in three divisions, the van, the body, and the rear, the King being with the middle divi­ sion ; the rear, consisting of 1000 foot and two brigades of horse, was commanded by. the Earls of Northampton. and Cleveland. Thus moving the King received intel- ligence of a party of the enemy's horse two miles in front, advancing to join Waller; which to prevent, his Ma­ jesty's orders were given to the two forward divisions of tbe Cavaliers to quicken their march so as to cut off the approaching enemy. The order, apparently, had not been conveyed to the rear division, which consequently became detached to the extent of a mile; and of this derangement the Parliamentarian general resolved to take advantage. Throwing a strong body of his forces across the river at Cropredy Bridge, weakly defended by a party of the Royal horse, and another at a ford a mile below, he attacked the Royalist rear, attempting to cut it off effectually from the forward divisions, and thus in detail to destroy it. Cleveland at once saw the danger of the position, and boldly met it; in Clarendon's words, " It was no time to expect orders ; but the Earl led by his own great spirit, charged presently with great fury," and drove back the enemy. Then, having reformed his brigade, he perceived a second body, horse and foot, "advancing upon him, which he likewise did upon them with notable vigour; and having stood their musket and carbine shot, he charged them so furiously, being resolutely seconded by all the officers of his brigade, that he routed both horse and foot, and chased them with good execution beyond their cannon," which, numbering eleven pieces, were captured. The result was the com­ plete defeat of Waller's attack, the loss of his guns and 76 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

of his "general of ordinance," who with seven or eight other officers were made prisoners, and of two hundred men taken or left dead on the field; while the loss to Cleveland's brigade is given as three officers and four­ teen troopers. The narratives of this encounter differ in some particulars, but all agree in the distinguished part borne by Cleveland. 'rhe Earl was also prominent at the second battle of Newbury, four months after the Cropredy engagement. Here again by one of his brilliant charges, described by Lloyd as " charging through and through, the King of Sweden's way," he repulsed the enemy and saved the King's Guard, which had· been in much jeopardy; but his impetuosity carrying him too far, and his horse fall­ ing under him, he was taken prisoner. His capture on 27th October 1644 prevented his taking part in the civil war during the remaining years of Charles I. ; the interval was passed by him either as a prisoner in the Tower, or at liberty on bail. vVe learn of him in the Index of the Journals of the House of Lords, and in Whitelocke's Memorials; comparing these authorities the result is the following. In March 1645 the House of Commons requests the Lords that Colonels Stephens and Jones, prisoners, may be exchanged for the Earl ; but this the Upper House will not agree to. A little later the Lords grant him the liberty of the Tower, and permission to Lord Lovelace, his son-in-law, to visit him. In July 1646 the Lords send a message to the Commons desiring that the Earl have liberty upon his security, to go and see his lady for three weeks, she being sick; bail being given, he is released on his parole, and the leave is prolonged two months. At another time he has leave to visit his daughter, Lady Lovelace, for a week, and on another occasjon, in 1647, he is permitted WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 77 to go to Bath. In January 1648, on medical certificates of the ill-health of the Earl, by reason of his imprison­ ment, he is released on bail. Lloyd in his Memoirs has that the Earl took part in the rising of the Royalists in Kent and Essex which took place in the summer of 1648, and that he shared in the hardships of the besieged at Colchester. ~rhite­ locke, under date 19 August 1648, has: "They in the town [ ColchesterJ refused to exchange the Earl of Cleve­ land for one of the Committee." From this it may be understood-though it is scarcely clear-that the Earl was in Colchester; but he is not in the list of prisoners on the surrender of the place on 27th August. How­ ever that may be, he appears to have been in the Tower at the beginning of September, for on the 5th White­ locke notes that the Earl is granted his liberty for three months upon bail, to take the air in the country for his health. After this we lose sight of him. The King was now a prisoner in Caris brook Castle, his life approaching its tragic close. Cleveland appears at this time to have escaped to the Continent, where were gathered about Prince Charles the chiefs of the Royalist party, their cause for the while hopeless. The Earl is next heard of at Beauvais, in the spring of 1650 ; he is in the retinue of Prince Charles (or Charles IL), who is proceeding to Breda to meet the Commissioners from Scotland. Cleveland's temper and speech were probably on a par with his impetuous charging in battle, and what is said of him in a letter written from Breda 22nd April may be taken as charac­ teristic. He had been asked at Beauvais "if it were true that he had become a Presbyterian?" the question perhaps put in jesting allusion to the Scotch overtures, and the apparent readiness of the Prince and some of the 78 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. Cavaliers to accept them; but "the Earl answered, with an oath in his answer, that whosoever called him Presbyterian he would cane or beat him."1 In June 1650 Charles, having accepted at Breda the conditions of the Commissioners, one of which was to swear to the Covenant, came to Scotland, attended by the loyal officers and gentlemen of his retinue, Cleve­ land of the number. The Cavaliers, however, were not acceptable to the austere Presbyterians, and the Prince was desired by the Committee of Parliament, that according to an Act passed to the effect, certain noble­ men and gentlemen in his company should forthwith be removed out of the kingdom. A list was given of those to whom objection was made, and the Earl of Cleveland and his son Lord Wentworth were included ; those named were to be dismissed within eight days. Charles, entirely in the hands of his Scotch subjects or masters, and compelled to yield to this dictation, "is troubled at the motion made to him for the removing of many of his servants, many of whom are deserving persons, yet, considering that the motion comes from those that are authorized by the Kirk and Parliament, he is resolved to give full satisfaction in it." So in September 1650 Cleveland and Wentworth are with Lord Tullibardine, the place not stated. They had, however, rejoined the Prince or King-he had been crowned at Scone 1 Jan­ uary 1651-when in the summer of the year Charles at the head of 11,000 men entered England. His hopeless venture came to an end at Worcester, where, repeating his father's act at Nottingham exactly nine years before, he reared his standard. But to his summons there was little response, and Cromwell approached with an army

1 Gal. Clarendon State Fapers, ii., 54. WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 79 of 30,000. The battle of Worcester ensued on the 3rd September, the Royalists fought bravely, Cromwell re­ porting that "they made a very considerable fight with us for three hours' space," and that "indeed it was a stiff business"; the result, however, was the utter defeat of the Royal army. The last act in the fight was a gallant charge on the enemy in the streets of Worcester, led by Cleveland, the Duke of Hamilton, and other officers; it was at least serviceable to Charles in enabling him to leave the city and make his escape. Cleveland, when all was lost, avoided capture, but only for a time; having ridden "twenty-one days together on a trotting horse," he was taken by his pursuers at Woodcot in Shropshire, thence he was brought to Stafford, and thence to the .1 The Council of State at once determined to deal severely with the Earl; the Committee of Examinations were instructed to question him in regard to the part he had taken in the late "invasion"; and his committal to the Tower was on the charge of treason, in bearing arms against Parliament. On the 29th October the Council report to the House that the Earl of Cleveland (with others name~) is fit to be made an example of justice, and tried by the High Court of Justice. Lloyd writes of his "strange escape" from the court, attri­ buting this partly to the intercession of his daughter, Lady Lovelace, and partly to the temporary absence from the court of one of its members, an accident which gave to the President, Lord Mordaunt, a casting vote in

1 Boscobel, or the Complete History q_f the Most Miraculous Preser­ vation of King Charles II. (1743), p. 34. The twenty-one days could not have elapsed between his escape from Worcester and his capture at W oodcot; the battle was on the 3rd September, and the State Papers show that on the 13th he was a prisoner at Stafford. 80 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

the Earl's favour. The "escape " was from sentence of death, and went no further; he was kept as a close prisoner for five months ; afterwards, 16 February 1652, he was allowed the liberty of the Tower, and in this position continued upwards of four years. During this period an order of release for three months is granted to his petition, 20 July 1653, on the condition of his finding bail to the amount of £6000; but in this he apparently failed, for a fortnight later the order is suspended, and he is found in the list of prisoners 31 July 1654.1 The period of his release is uncertain. With the St1·afford Papers (Add. MSS. 31,146, f. 1), there is an order to Sir J obn Barkstead, Lieutenant of the Tower, dated 30 May 1656, for the Earl's release, on condition of his giving security for the surrender of himself ten days after summons. But the order evidently intended for the signature or seal of the Protector bears neither. It may be a transcript of the original, but the release of the prisoner even at this time is scarcely assured. It does not appear where the next four years were passed by the Earl, whether in confinement in England, or on the Continent with the Royalist exiles ; the State Paper:-J, so far as calendared, do not mention him again until the Restoration. To Lloyd we are indebted for the picture we have of him on the 29th May 1660, when "the King had his own again," and made his entry into London; then the old cavalier, "in his plain grey suit," was the leader of a bandofthreehundrednoblemen and gentlemen in the triumphal procession.2 The Earl was now restored to his position as Lord Lieutenant of his county, was made Captain of the Band of Gentlemen Pensioners, and Colonel of a Regiment of

1 Oal. State Papers, Domestic. 2 Lloyd's Memoirs. WENTWORTH OF NETTLES'l'EAD. 81

Horse. But his estate had been utterly impoverished; which partly, no doubt, is to be attributed to the sacri­ fices entailed by his devotion to the Royal cause, and the consequent sequestration of his property by Parliament; but also, in a great measure, to extravagance in his early career, of which, as before observed, there is too sure proof. N ettlestead, his ancestral inheritance, had been sold about 1643 to William Lodge, a citizen of London. His manors of Stepney and Hackney had been seized by the Parliament ; and although Stepney was restored to him, the property was rendered almost profitless by the mortgages upon it. The Toddington estate was in the same encumbered condition, and even the stately manor-house had been to a great degree denuded as far back as 1644 or perhaps earlier.1 It would seem, indeed, that after the Restoration his pay as Captain of the Guard of Pensioners, £360 per annum, formed the chief part of his income, and among other proofs of his em­ barrassment is his petition to the King, which, 22 April 1665, fa referred to the Lord Treasurer and others, for their consideration as to "what can be done for the honourable petitioner, who has deserved so eminently in the King's service." The Earl's estates and debts formed the subject of three Acts of Parliament. In the first Parliament of Charles II. (1660) an Act was passed to enable him to sell certain lands for the payment of his creditors; in 1666 there was another Act to extend time for redemption of mortgages ; and in 1690, many years after his death, a third Act was necessary "for continu­ ing and revising former Acts for the more effectual pay­ ment of the debts of the Earl of Cleveland and his son." It may be doubted, considering the impoverished

1 Add. MSS. 5491, £. 184. Sequestrations in co. Bedford. M 82 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. condition of his estate, whether his latter years were passed at Toddington ; his official position, however, as Lord Lieutenant of the county may at least have required his occasional residence there. The latest glimpse we have of him is in Evelyn's Diary, under date 4 July 1663; and the entry is sufficiently interesting to be given verbatim:-" I saw His Majesty's Guards, being of horse and foot 4000, led by the General, the Duke of Albemarle, in extraordinary equipage and gallantry, consisting of gentlemen of quality and veteran soldiers, excellently clad, mounted and ordered, drawn up in battalion before their Majesties in Hyde Park, where the old Earl of Cleveland trailed a pike, and led the right­ hand file in a foot company, commanded by the Lord Wentworth his son; a worthy spectacle and example, being both old and valiant soldiers. This was to show the French Ambassador, Monsieur Comminges, there being a great assembly of coaches, etc., in the park." In March 1665 _the Earl was afflicted by the loss of his only surviving son, Lord vVentworth, Colonel of the King's Guards, and commanding them at the parade above sketched by Evelyn. His career will presently have our attention. The old cavalier himself died two years later, 25 March 1667, having numbered seventy­ six years ; Lloyd says " he died in a good old age, to which much contributed the great habit he had got of taking much tobacco," noting in the margin "taking a hundred pipes a day, first used to it in Leagures" (? Ligoure, France). The phrase leaves it somewhat doubtful whether, in the opinion of the reverend author, the narcotic prolonged life or shortened it. It is not said that the Earl died at Toddington, and that scarcely seems probable, ten days having elapsed between his death and burial. His body, however, was laid in the WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 83 vault which he himself had made under the northern transept of Toddington Church, the register recording his interment about nine o'clock at night of the 4th April; to the same vault had preceded him his two wives, his son Lord Wentworth, and other children. His first marriage, to the daughter of Sir John Crofts, has been mentioned; we learn nothing of her ; she died 16 January 1638, happily before her husband became involved in the troubles of the civil war, having borne him six children, of whom one only, Anne, Lady Love­ lace, survived the Earl. His second wife, after a short interval of widowhood,1 was taken from the family of his kinsman Sir John Wentworth, Knight and Baronet, of Gosfield; she seems to have been living at Toddington in March 1644, during the absence of her lord with the Royal army, and then to have suffered the distressing visit of the Sequestrator of the Parliament by which the Earl had been declared a delinquent. The inventory of the furniture in the manor-house made on that occasion 2 has been preserved ; it notes that previously a great part of the goods had been carried to London, and then seized and sold for the use of the State; and that the Committee at Bedford, after hearing and considering the case of the Countess of Cleveland, had ordered that the value of the remaining goods should be "respited,'' and that the goods should not be removed until further order. The second Countess died 23 November 1651, probably at Toddington, as she was there buried; at the time of her death the Earl was a prisoner in the Tower; the issue of the marriage had been one daughter, Catherine, the wife of William Spencer of Cople, Bedfordshire, as shown in the Pedigree.

1 Dame Catherine Wentworth, mother of the second Countess, in her will dated 25 Oct. 1638, mentions her daughter as Countess of Cleveland. 2 Add. MSS. 5491, f. 184. Sequestrations in co. Bedford. 84 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

Jortratt.-Of the Earl of Cleveland there is a :fine picture by Vandyck, the present possessor of which is the Earl of Verulam. It is a full length, on canvas 82 ins. by 50 ins., painted in 1636, at the age of forty-four. The face is handsome, the hair falling be­ hind and a little over the forehead, slight moustache and "imperial"; the dress is black relieved by a white collar with scolloped border, and the ribbon of the Bath, the order, pendant on the breast, is covered by the left hand ; right arm bent, hand on the hip, palm upwards; breeches fastened at the knee, black hose and shoes; the background of trees and sky. Mr. Doyle gives an excellent sketch of the head in his Official Baronage. The picture was exhibited at South Kensington in 1866, and its photograph is in the collection preserved.

SIR THOMAS WENTWORTH, K.B., Lord Wentworth, Colonel of the Guards; born 1613, died (vita patris) 1665. Our attention hitherto has been confined to the chiefs of the N ettlestead Wentworths, not from any design thus to limit these narratives, but simply for the reason that other members of the family have not been sufficiently prominent to claim individual notice. The career of Lord Wentworth, the first Colonel of the Guards, requires, however, a special place, running as it does in some degree parallel with that of his father, the Earl of Cleveland, whom he would have succeeded as chief of the house had this not been prevented by his premature death. . He was born at Toddington, Bedford­ shire, at the beginning of 1613, his father's age at the time being scarcely twenty-two, a coincidence which suf­ ficiently accounts for their close association during much of their lives. At the age of twelve, on the occasion of the coronation of Charles I., 2 February 1625, he was made a Knight of the Bath, being certainly a very young recipient of the honour, although early knighthood was WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 85

not at the time unusual; James, Duke of York, was but nine when dubbed knight by the King his father. Turning to the Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, the earliest mention found of Lord Wentworth is in a letter bearing date 24 Februa,ry 1631. He is at the time a youth of eighteen, making hi8 first visit to the Continent, has been travelling in France, and carries this letter from Sir John Finet, his uncle by marriage, and at Court, commending him to the kindnesses of Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia, then residing at the Hague. A happy acquaintance appears then to have been made with the amiable lady, who bore as her soubriquet "the Queen of Hearts," for in her letters, many years later, she is cordial in her mention of Lord Wentworth. On his return home the young lord too evidently, as before noticed, fell into the loose and extravagant habits of the Court, and from the source of information above used it is learnt with regret that in June 1636 he was sent to the Tower by order of the Privy Council, and at the instance of the Lord Chamberlain, for intemperate language and duelling. This trouble occasioned a petition to the King from the Earl of Cleveland on behalf of his son, who, apparently, was then pardoned. It was in the year following, 1637, that the debts of the Earl and his son necessitated the arrangement involving the property to which reference has already been made. In 1638 a marriage was proposed between Lord Wentworth and Barbara, the daughter and heiress of Sir John Lambe, Dean of Arches, and later Chancellor to Queen Henrietta Maria. Drafts of the settlement (now with the State Papers) were drawn, which, so far as mentioning in detail the Earl's Middlesex and Bed­ fordshire property, may here be quoted. The Earl 86 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. proposes to bring into the settlement his lordships of Stebenhith [Stepney] and Hackney, with all his lands in those places, and also in Shoreditch, Holywell Street, Whitechapel, Stratford-le-Bow, Poplar, North Street, Lime Rtreet, Ratcliff, Olene [? Cleve] Street, Brook Street, Mile End, Bethnal Green, Old Ford, Westheath, Kingsland, Shaklewell, Newington Street alias Hackney Street, Clapton, Church Street, Well Street, Humberton [Homerton], Grove Street, Gouneston Street alias Mere Street, and Stebenhith Marsh; these in Middlesex. An alternate settlement names the Bedfordshire property, viz., Toddington Place, with the lordships of Toddington cum membris Tingrith, Dixwell, and Youngs, and all lands in the parishes and hamlets of Toddington, Chal­ ton, Herne, Sundon, W estoning, Tingrith, Eversholt, Milton Bryant, Hockliffe, and Ridgmont. The arrangements for the marriage were, however, broken off, either from failure of agreement as to the settlement, or it may have been from lack of love between the couple. Perhaps Sir John Lambe found that the value of the property proposed to be brought into the settlement had already been greatly impaired by mortgages, and that it was on this account he seems to have required as additional security even the contents of the manor-house. The latter proposal evidently irri­ tated the Earl, who, in a letter to Sir John, 5 February 1639, writes : " I have sent .you enclosed a note under my steward's hands, that it may help you to shorten our business when we meet. But for that proposition you spoke of yesterday, for assuring my household stuff, I desire to hear no more of it, for I will be at liberty." That the attachment, however, between the young people was not of a very warm nature may be judged by the correspondence preserved. WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD, 87

Srn JoHN LAMBE To HIS DAUGHTER BARBARA. June 17, 1639. I perceive my Lord Feilding [son of the Earl of Denbigh] has been with you, he is a noble worthy gent., whom Lord W [harton ?] had told you of before, so that he came not altogether unexpected to you. But to like or dislike, I leave to you, which you will do well not to defer too long, lest you stay to be the refuse and scorn of those who now desire you. For Lord Wentworth you know it [the match] is broken off with your own privity, and I shall account you lost if you have him. I hear that my lady, his mother, said that he had no great liking of you himself, but to give his father content. A.nd my Lord of Suffolk said, this day, to me, that Lord Went­ worth, as was avouched by a noble lady, had a letter or message from you, or perhaps from your comrade, to come down to marry you; but he swore he would not do it, and slighted you, as was said, with scorn enough. A.nd indeed the common talk now is of your forwardness, I do not say fondness, and his backwardness and refusal. Consider ":ell of it; it is not fit you bear both scath and scorn; my heart will not endure it ...... Lord W[entworth] must acknowledge, if he be in- genuous, your exceeding love and constancy to him, beyond measure, beyond reason, even to the near hazard of your utter ruin by the displeasure of your father. It [the matchJ breaks not off now on your part, nor your father's, bnt by most un­ reasonable terms on their part. There must be an end of things; there is neither reason, conscience, nor honesty, to make expectation to be endless, which if you would, I will not endure. What can be expected more of you than you have done and endured to and for him ...... Consider of it as a discreet woman, and let me know your answer by the next ...... God send you His grace, and me more comfort. Your loving father.

BARB.A.RA LAMBE TO HER FATHER, Srn JoHN LAMBE. July 1639. I have an extreme desire to see you for many causes, and I am so troubled, as I shall not be well till I am with you. There have been many professions and promises passed betwixt 88 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH,

Lord Wentworth and myself, which I beseech you forgive me, that I would fain, if I could, come off quietly and honestly from, before I enter too far into treaty with any other ; but I would not let Lord Feilding know so much. For Lord Went­ worth being at Chelmsford I cannot answer, because I am not certain; but for the other, if all the lords and ladies in England say it, yet I will assure you it is false, and I do assure you, out of my duty to you, I do not intend to marry him. I beseech you that you would not be distrustful of me, for then I shall be afraid ever to marry for fear my husband learn of you to be jealous of me ...... I do not doubt but you have heard tales enough, which when I come to town I shall show you to be false. [Endorsed by Sir John, "B. L. circa July 1639, from F eermg,. " E ssex. Jl Lord Feilding made his suit and was accepted, Miss Lambe evidently taking her father's advice, "not to defer too long." The marriage took place in the month following that in which her letter is dated; her fortune is reported as £50,000 in land and money, but she died in less than two years, 1 April 1641.2 Basil, Viscount Feilding,- succeeded his father as Earl of Denbigh in 1643; the father was slain "ex parte Regis," but the son fought in the army of the Parliament. Lord Wentworth's marrying was delayed many years. In the autumn of 1640 he was with the King's army at Berwick, opposing the advance of the Scots. He then commanded a troop of horse, and Si.r John Conyers writing to Lord Conway, 2 September 1640, refers to an engagement in which "three horses of my Lord Wentworth were killed by their cannon." In November of the same year he returned to Toddington, and thence went to London to take his place in Parlia­ ment. He had been returned on the 19th October 1640 as one of the two members for Bedfordshire; but 1 Gal. State Papers, Donie8tic. WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 89 about the same time was summoned to the House of Lords in his father's barony, and as a Peer took his seat 25th November. Thus, no doubt, he was present at the debate on the Earl of Strafford's attainder; we read in the Journals of his attendance having been excused on account of illness the day on which the Royal assent was signified, 10 May 1641. In August 1642, about the time the King raised his standard at Nottingham, Lord Wentworth joined Lord Goring at Portsmouth, where that General, after some hesitation, had declared for the King. If this was done at Wentworth's discretion, his choice must be considered to have been unfortunate; for, although the ability of Goring is recognized by his contemporaries, and his society said hy Clarendon to have been attractive, as a man of loose principle, and of self-indulgent and even intemperate habit, he was a bad example to any young officer who might serve with him. Wentworth, then a· man of nearly thirty, appears to have too readily followed the lead of his senior; and his career, which, for about three years and a half during the civil war, lay chiefly in the south-western counties, cannot be considered as either successful or creditable. From August 1642 to November 1645 he held subordinate command in the cavalry, generally perhaps under Goring; he was in the Cropredy engagement, 29 June 1644, the honours of which fell chiefly to his father the Earl of Cleveland, and prob­ ably also in the second battle of Newbury, 27 October 1644. In February 1645 Goring was sent by the King with a strong force of horse and foot into Hampshire, Wentworth evidently with him, and in May Goring had the full command of the Royal troops in the West. Charles, Prince of Wales, at that time a youth of fifteen, was for several months with these troops, and nominally N 90 THE FAMILY OF WEN'l'WORTH. their head, having as his principal officers Lords Hopton, Goring, Capel, Brentford, Colepepper, Wentworth, and Sir Richard Grenville. Among these jealousies arose, as was to have been expected considering the hasty muster of the forces and the almost haphazard appointment of the officers. In November 1645 Goring resolved to retire from his command, and to seek rest and ease in France, and this desire he expressed in a letter to the Prince of Wales conveyed to him at Totness by Went­ worth, whom the writer recommended as his successor in the command. Whether the Prince consented to the proposal or not appears doubtful; but Goring having departed, without even waiting the leave for which he had applied, Wentworth seems to have considered himself as chief of the forces, and let it be known forthwith that he should take orders from none but the Prince. To this the other Lords demurred, though at the same time their action, as represented by Clarendon and Bulstrode, 1 appears to have been temperate and judicious. Exeter, now threatened by the Parliamentary army under Lord Fairfax, had to be relieved, and the Royalist officers, although it was their opinion that Lord Wentworth had not the " interest, experience, and reputation" necessary in the leader charged with a design of so much import­ ance, yet wishing that he " should not suffer in his honour,'' desired that the Prince should himself take the command. Wentworth's bearing at this juncture was not to his credit; "he talked very imperiously and dis­ respectfully " in the council in presence of the Prince, who on the occasion seems to have acted with a firmness and judgment beyond his years, and to such good effect

1 Clarendon's Hist. of the Rebellion; and Memoirs and Reflections by Sir Richard Bulstrode, published 1721. WENTWORTH OF NETTLES1'EAD. that finally Wentworth submitted to his orders, which were that Lord Hopton should command the army, Wentworth the horse, and Sir Richard Grenville the foot. rrhis arrangement was made 15 January 16±6. But the Royal force at this time had become completely de­ moralized and unmanageable; the horse especially is described by Clarendon as " feared only by their friends and laughed at by their enemies, terrjble in plunder and resolute in running away" ; the fact, however, was that their subsistence depended upon forced contributions or "plunder." rrhe last encounter between the Royal army of the West, commanded by Hopton, and the Parlia­ mentary forces led by Fairfax, took place near Torring­ ton, Devon; Hopton's foot behaved well, but Went­ worth's horse refused the :fight. Utter defeat ensued, and very soon afterwards Fairfax, having followed the Royalists to Truro, proposed honourable and lenient con­ ditions of surrender; these, after a distracted council, were accepted, 14 March 1646, and thereon tlrn disband­ ment of the remnant of the Royal army followed. Prince Charles escaped to the Scilly Islands, and was there followed by his principal officers, Hopton, Went­ worth, Capel, and others ; thence, after three weeks of rough lodging and privation, they reached ,Jersey. The Prince remained three weeks in the island, and Wentworth, having in the meantime gone on to Paris, returned at the instance of Queen Henrietta Maria, with other Lords, to Jersey, for the purpose of attending Charles to Paris. This was at the end of June 1646, from which time for­ ward Wentworth continued with the Prince, forming one of the court in personal attendance on him during the years of his exile. Evelyn, who in July 1649 went to St. Germains "to kiss His Majesty's hand" (Charles II.), mentions Wentworth as being there. 92 THE FAMILY OF WEN'l'WORTH.

In January 1650 Charles was a second time in Jersey, Wentworth with him. 'l'he :Prince's intention was to have continued his journey to Ireland, with the object of placing himself at the head of the Royalists there; but report of Cromwell's success in quelling opposition caused him to abandon the design. While in Jersey the Prince received an envoy from Scotland with pro­ posals for his restoration, to consider which the Peers in his company, though all were not of his privy council, were invited; the Earl of Cleveland and Lord Wentworth were present at the consultation. It was arranged that Commissioners from the Scottish Parliament should be re­ ceived by Charles and his council at Breda; and there in the middle of March 1650 the meeting took place which (as related p. 78) resulted in the Prince's acceptance of the conditions imposed on him; Lloyd represents Wentworth as having prominently assisted in the negotiation. Charles's expedition to Scotland (where he landed 23 June, was proclaimed King 15 July, and crowned at Scone on the first day of 1651) was referred to when the career of the Earl of Cleveland had our attention. During the greater part of 1651 the lives of father and son ran together, they were no doubt associated during the inauspicious advance of Charles into England, and so continued until the defeat at Worcester; after which they were separated for at least five years. Cleveland, as we saw, fell into the enemy's hands, and remained in the Tower of London, or as a prisoner on bail, for several years. Wentworth's fortune was better ; he made his escape safely to the Continent, and at Paris, after many weeks, rejoined his Prince, whose adventurous escape out of England forms an interesting narrative. Charles reached Paris towards the end of October, nearly two m'.mths after the collapse of his enterprise at ""\Vorcester, WENTWORTH OF NE'l'TLESTEAD. 93 and remained at the French capital, surrounded by his court of cavaliers, two years and a half, a pensioner on foreign bounty, and enjoying the plflasuees oflife accord­ ing to his appreciation of them. Lloyd attributes to Lord Wentworth much diplomatic skill, his encomium in that particular being expressed in phrases now very quaint and intricate, the meaning, indeed, sometimes not very evident. The Canon says of Wentworth that he was "a Gentleman of a very strong constitution, and especially for despatch (much addicted to the foresaid herb [tobacco]), being very ready in our neighbours' and our own affairs, interests, intrigues, · strengths, weaknesses, ports, garrisons, trades, etc., continuing in His Majesty's service from the time he went with the Prince to the West, to his dying day. Scorning the civilities offered by the Parliament, as it was called, he repaired to his now Majesty to promote his overtures in France, Holland, and the fleet, when he was in the quality, which much became hin1, of Master of the Ceremonies, attending his Majesty throughout the Scottish treaty at Breda in a very useful way ...... At the battle of Worcester, whence escaping wonderfully, as his Majesty did, he served his Majesty in a well­ managed embassy in Denmark, where, besides present supplies for His Majesty, he made a league offensive and defensive between the Danes and Dutch against the English [Commonwealth]." In relation to this embassy there is much correspondence found in the Calendar of the Clarendon State Papers, beginning with a letter from "the King," dated Paris, 15 April Hi53, accrediting "Lord Wentworth, Gentleman of his Chamber, now going on a mission to the King of Denmark," and request­ ing assistance for him wherever he might pass on his journey. His instructions from Sir Edward Hyde- 94 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. afterwards Earl of Clarendon-have the same date; "after giving the King of Denmark an account of the present state of affairs, he is to press him to open his ports to all ships commissioned by the King of England, and to urge the States General to espouse the cause of the latter ; at the least he is to ask for assistance in arms and ammunition, and for leave to transport them. He is to make similar application to the Duke of Oldenburg and Holstein." "The King" himself writes to Lord Wentworth, 14November 1653, that" he is much pleased with his dispatches, he has behaved himself discreetly and dexterously; he will receive a small supply by this post;" the difficulty in regard to " supply " was constant with Charles. Monetary aid was probably obtained, but there is no evidence of other success ; Frederick III. of Den­ mark, acknowledging the letters of Charles received through Wentworth, writes, 12 November 1653, that" his not consenting to the proposals relating to Scotland is owing- to the difficulties of the times, and the primary regard due to the welfare of his own subjects." In January 1654 Wentworth is at Hamburg, thence he re­ turned to Paris, in April he is going to Flanders, and similarly in February 1655, doubtlessly employed in negotiations. Charles had removed from Paris to Cologne in the summer of 1654, and there indolently re­ mained until February 1656, when, receiving overtures of an alliance from Philip IV. of Spain, he moved to Bruges in Flanders; here a treaty was made in April 1656. By the treaty Philip was to allow Charles a pension, and to assist him with an army and transport for it to England; and Charles was to raise a certain number of troops of his own subjects in Flanders, which should be attached to the Spanish army there, and be equipped and paid by Spain until the time came for the WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 95 invasion of England. This treaty gave rise to the for­ mation in Flanders of the Royal Regiment of Guards, the raising of which is considered to have been the in­ ception of the standing army of England developed at the Restoration. The origin and history of the regiment has been exhaustively written by Lieutenant-General Sir F. W. Hamilton, from whose work is derived what now follows in regard to the regiment. As soon as Charles's ability to raise troops was known the many Royalist officers in exile repaired to him, to tender their homage and seek appointments in the regi­ ments about to be formed. Naturally the noblemen who had served the Royal cause during the civil war in England, and were now attached to the Prince's person, had their claims allowed. Lord Wentworth became Colonel of" His Majesty's Royal Regiment of Guards,'' the designation given to it by Charles himself; and, besides the Guards, an Irish regiment was formed which took its name from the Duke of Ormond, and one of Scots, commanded by the Earl of Middleton. James, Duke of York, had commanded an Irish regiment in the French service; now, an alliance having been made between Charles and Spain, the rival of France, the Duke was summoned to Flanders, and was followed by his Irish troops ; these constituted Charles's fourth regiment. Later two other Irish regiments were formed, thus rais­ ing the number to six regiments. The Guards, at first 400 strong, were at the beginning of 1657 quartered at Leuze, ten miles east of Tournai; the other five regiments were at different places; the whole force at this time numbering 2000 men. But the Spaniards had so badly met their engagements, and remittances for the support of the regiments came in so slowly, that they were with difficulty kept together; also they were but partially 96 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

armed and munitioned. In this condition of things any attempt on England was impossible; indeed it had become apparent that the object of the wily Spaniard in the treaty was not so much to assist Charles in the re­ covery of his kingdom, as to deprive the French of the Irish and Scotch regiments. The necessities of the six regiments having been relieved after the remonstrances of Charles, it was decided that they should act with the Spanish army of the Netherlands in defending Dunkirk and other sea­ ports against Cromwell, now allied with the French. By the middle of June 1657 Wentworth's Guards and the other British regiments, all united under the command of the Duke of York, assembled at Mons, there joining the Spanish forces commanded by the Marquis of Caracena, and a body of troops led by the Prince of Conde, now at enmity with France. The summer was consumed in ineffective marches and countermarches, and on the 11th November an attack was made by the Anglo-Spanish army on Mardyke, a place near Dunkirk, held by Cromwell's troops. The attack failed, and further operations were postponed until the next spring. The Guards wintered at Ouder­ kerk near Rotterdam, and in the spring were marched to Dixmude, some twenty miles east of Dunkirk. At ' the end of May the Spanish, Conde, and British troops, together 14,000, assembled at Ypres, and thence marched to the relief of Dunkirk, now besieged by the French under the command of Turenne, who, on the approach of the confederates, advanced to meet them with a somewhat superior force of French and Cromwell­ English troops. Thus in the battle which ensued at the Dunes, 14 June 1658, English fought against English, repeating on foreign soil the conflict of civil war. WENTWORTH OF NE'l'TLESTEAD. 97 Charles's regiments, including the Guards, were under the command of the Duke of York, the Cromwell­ English were led by Reynolds. The latter commenced the battle by an advance against the Spaniards, to the support of which came the Duke of York with the British force, including the regiment of Guards, or a portion of it. Not to enter into the details of the fight, it will here be sufficient to say that the Spanish, Conde, and British troops were driven from the :field with a loss of 1200 killed and 800 wounded. When the rout became general the Guards alone stood firm, refusing retreat or surrender until persuaded by 'rurenne's officers of the hopelessness of their position; then they yielded themselves prisoners on their own terms, viz., "that they should not be delivered up to their country­ men serving the Commonwealth, nor be stripped, nor have their pockets searched." Wentworth's nnme does not appear in General Hamilton's account of the engage­ ment, perhaps in consequence of his being with the Prince at Brussels. On the 3rd September of this year, 1658, the great Protector died, and during the ensuing winter Charles, with renewed hopes of obtaining his kingdom, was engaged in the reorganization of his regiments in Flanders. The Guards were quartered in detachments at Ghent, Courtray, and Antwerp; Wentworth was at the latter city in November and December, though as one of the principal members of Charles's council it may be supposed that the greater part of his time was spent at Brussels. But a year and a half had to pass before the hopes of the Royalists were to be realized, and during this interval Charles's personal troubles and the privations suffered by his regiments through want of supplies were very considerable; it is even said that the 0 98 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

Guards, latterly at Nivelles (seventeen miles south of Brussels), wanted the necessaries of life. The Spaniards and ]?rench made a treaty of peace in May 1659, and neither one nor other could be persuaded by Charles to assist him to recover his kingdom. At length, however, the conflict of parties in England which ensued when the great ruler had passed away, and the final decision of General Monk who had risen to the the position of dictator, produced the Restoration. The Colonel of the Guards doubtless was in the jubilant procession in which, as we haye seen, the old Earl his father had his place on entering London 29 May 1660. The regiment of Guards now formed part of the garri­ son of Dunkirk, and Wentworth's appointment as Colonel, bestowed by Charles as King de Jure, was now confirmed by him as King defacto. The Guards, how­ ever, were not brought to England until 1662, after the sale of Dunkirk; the year before Wentworth had been at that place, occupied with the reorganization of his regiment. After the Restoration he was occupied with his duties as a Privy Councillor and his military command; Evelyn, as before noticed, mentions him with the Guards on parade 4 July 1663. His position pecu­ niarily was greatly embarrassed by debt and the impoverished condition of his father's estate, the result of former extravagance, and of expenditure in the royal service. In November 1663 the King assists him with the "free gift" of £500; in the next year, 27 May, he writes to Secretary Bennet in reference to the continu­ ance of his pension "which His Majesty formerly promised him, it being his only subsistence, without which he must of necessity perish." On the 22nd February 1665 he attended a sitting of the Privy Council, at which the King and the Duke of WENTWORTH OF NETTLES'l.'EAD. 99

York were present, and four days afterwards died; the cause and manner of his death is nowhere explained; his age was but fifty-two. The King showed his regard for his loyal servant by undertaking the funeral expenses, in regard to which several accounts are preserved with the State Papers. The sum expended appears to have been £537 8s. 7d., besides the charges of the herald-at-arms; and included £50 for embalmment, £6 10s. for the coffin, and £323 13s. 5d. "for cloth delivered at ready money prices," probably for mourning cloaks and hangings. The obsequies took place at Toddington, where on the 7th March 1665 the body was deposited in the vault; the register of the parish thus records the interment: "Honoratissimus JJ. JJ. Thomas, Baro Wentworth prcenobilis viri Thomce Oleuice clerice filius solemniter sepultus erat (in crypta) p. R. Kearsley. Cubicularius erat et Oonsilarius serenissimo regi Carola secundo.'' The date of Lord Wentworth's marriage with Phila­ delphia Carey is nowhere stated, and cannot now be determined with any precision. He was a married man at the beginning of 1658, for in the Calendar of State Papers, which has served us so well in tliese narrations, there is a letter written by him from Middelburg in Flanders, 21 March 1658, in which he mentions his wife. This joined to the fact, afterwards to be noticed, that their only child was under age in 1677, leads to the con­ jecture that the marriage took place in 1656 or 1657. In March 1658 Lady Wentworth was in England, and thence writes to her husband of passing events there; in December of same year she is with him at Antwerp, then intending to return to England, and delayed by the frost. In August 1658 the Earl of Cleveland charged his estate with an annuity of £1200 to his son's wife in case she 100 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. outlived him, a fact-derived from an old paper, with the perusal of which and others I have been favoured by the present owner of the Toddington estate-that seems to point to the marriage as of recent occurrence. Lady Wentworth was the fifth of seven daughters of Sir Ferdinando Carey, the second son of Sir Edmund Carey, and grandson of Henry, first Lord Hunsdon; a complete pedigree of the family is found in vol. iv. of Nichols' Hera-ld and Genealogist. Sir Ferdinando had been distinguished for his services and sufferings in the siege of Bergen-op-Zoom, September 1622, where he was wounded in a remarkable manner, thus related in one of Howell's Familiar Letters, dated 3 Feb. 1623 :-" A gentlP-man came hither lately who was at the siege [ of BergenJ all the while, and he told me one strange passage, how Sir Ferdinando Carey, a huge corpulent knight, was shot through his body; the bullet entering at the navel and coming out at his back killed his man behind him; yet he lives still and is likely to recover." The knight, in fact, lived sixteen years after receiving this grievous and wonderful wound, and died in London, in the parish of St. Martin's in the Fields, administration being granted to his wife 25 May 1638. When met by Lord Wentworth, Philadelphia Carey probably resided in Holland,perhaps with her mother, who was the daughter of Sir William Throckmorton, Governor of Flushing when that place was in English hands as one of the " Cautionary Towns." Thus connected with Holland, Dame Carey, a Royalist, may have returned there with her daughters during the civil war in England; and Wentworth being at Middelburg, near Flushing, at the time of forming his regiment, may then have found his wife. That Philadelphia, Lady Wentworth, was born abroad appears in the fact that WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 101 she sought and obtained naturalization in England by Act of Parliament in 1662. On the death of her husband, the King granted her a pension of £600 a year, but Charles, always extravagant and needy, was a bad paymaster, and the poor lady had much trouble in get­ ting her annuity. Among the State Papers is her petition to the King, June 1665, "praying that the pension may be paid not from the Exchequer, where she will have great expense and endless solicitation, but from the Customs, of which she had hitherto found the bene­ fit," representing at the same time that this pension "is her only support, no benefit to herself or child being derived out of that which has only the name of the Earl of Cleveland's estate." Shortly afterwards she repeats her entreaties, for "the truth is she is starving." Matters, however, improved with Lady Wentworth, who appears to have shown considerable ability in the management of her resources ; for ten years after the Earl's death she is able to state that by her contrivance "many thousands of pounds have been spent and paid in discharge of the said Earl's debts, and some hundreds of His Majesty's subjects received the benefit thereof.''1 Indeed it may be judged that it was by her skilful management in reducing the encumbrances on the Toddington estate, that it was not sold to meet the claims of the creditors. The Lady Philadelphia survived her husband thirty­ one years, and her daughter, her only child, ten years. She resided, certainly for a time at least, at rroddington, and there is evidence also of her living at the Stepney manor house; that property, and also part of the rrod­ dington estate, she held by agreement for life. She presented to the rectory of Stepney 1 July 1681, and the manor remained in the Wentworth heirs until 1 Oase of Lady H. M. Wentworth, Brit. Mus. 1890, b. ii. 102 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

1720.1 Her death occurred 4 May 1696, and her burial took place at Toddington five days later. By her will she directed her executors to raise a monument "in the room over the vault,'' i.e. the north transept of Toddington Church, to the memory of her daughter, Lady Went­ worth, the same to cost £2000; the injunction appears to have been carried out, the memorial being a stately erection. Further, the will disposes of £12,000 in lega­ cies; it must be said, however, that their discharge seems to have been doubtful, for not only was the estate still encumbered, but litigation in regard to it ensued.

Uortrait,-Lieut.-General Sir F. W. Hamilton's Origin and History of the First or Grenadier Guards (1874) has a three­ quarter length portrait of Lord Wentworth, the first Colonel of the regiment, from a picture belonging to H. R. Clifton, Esq., of Clifton Hall, Notting·ham. It is inscribed, and has the date 1640, when Lord Wentworth's age was twenty-seven. The face is Jong, and in expression rather melancholy; the hair falls behind and a little over the forehead; scanty moustache and beard; lace collar falling over suit of armour; right hand on breast; left hand on hilt of sword. The name of the painter does not appear.

HENRIETTA MARIA WENTWORTH, Baroness Wentworth of N ettlested; born o. 1657, died 1686. This lady was the only child of Thomas, Lord Wentworth, Colonel of the Guards, and, on his decease in 1665, became the heiress of her grandfather, the Earl of Cleveland ; with the latter the Earldom died in 1667,

1 N ewcourt's Repertorium; and Lysons' Environs of London, Stepney.

WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 103 but the Barony was transmitted to the heiress. Lady Wentworth was remarkable for her beauty and grace, but is chiefly remembered by reason of the faithful though unwedded attachment which existed between her and the ill-starred James, Duke of Monmouth, the eldest natural son of Charles II. The year of her birth cannot be definitely determined. It has been shown that the marriage of her parents pro­ bably took place in 1656 or 1657, the earliest indication of it being found in a letter written by Lord 1'T entworth at Middelburg in Flanders, dated 21 March 1658, in which he mentions his wife, who, evidently in England, sends him news of what is passing there; it is not improbable, though only conjecture, that during the visit her daughter was born. After the Restoration and the return of Lord and Lady Wentworth to England, the latter's naturalization was attained by Act of Parlia­ ment; this shows that she was born abroad, and that although her parents were English she was held to be alien ; but no Act of Naturalization being found in reference to Henrietta Maria, it may be supposed that her birth was in England. Assisting the approximate deter­ mination of the year, there is a Parliamentary paper (Brit. Mus. 1890, b. ii.) entitled "The case of the Lady Henrietta Maria Wentworth, an infant, grandchild and heir of the Right Honourable the late Earl of Cleave­ land, and daughter and heir of Thomas Lord Wentworth, deceased, Humbly offered to the consideration of Parlia­ ment." The µaper-which has reference to the arrange­ ment of the debts on the estate-bears no date; but this is approximately derived from the text, which refers to an Act that had expired in 1670, "almost seven years since." Whence it follows that the case was brought before Parliament in 1677, at which time, as is stated, 104 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. the Baroness was yet a minor, and if she was then twenty years of age, or one year under age, her birth had been in 1657; but certainly it may have occurred a year or two later. The earliest years of Lady Wentworth were probably passed at 'foddington, although of this there is no positive indication; nevertheless it is evident that her mother's skilful management of the encumbered property, after the death of the Earl of Cleveland, allowed of their return to the manor, even had they not previously resided there. It had been well if the ability shown by the Lady Philadelphia in the liberation of the estate had been equally displayed in the guardianship of her daughter. 'l'he young Baroness is first heard of at Court in December 1674, her age then about seventeen, and she is taking part in a "masque" called " Calisto, or the Chaste Nymph," by John Crowne. 'I'he play is pre­ served in the British Museum, and with it "the names of those Great Persons who had part in the Representa­ tion," the list including "the Lady Henrietta Went­ worth," who personated "Jupiter in love with Calisto.'' The Princesses Mary and Anne of York, both afterwards Queens (then respectively twelve and nine years of age), Sarah Jennings afterwards Duchess of Marlborough, and other ladies of the Court also played ; and one of " the men that danced was His Grace the Duke of Monmouth." An epilogue was written by Dryden1 to be spoken by Lady Wentworth; it is not, however, that which accom­ panies Crowne's play. Evelyn, the diarist, went to see "the comedy" 15 December 1674, but does not name the performers. We may fairly conjecture that it was at this period

1 Dryden's Works, Sir Walter Scott's ed., 1821, x., 337. WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 105 the intimacy between Lady Wentworth and Monmouth, so disastrous in its results, had its origin.1 His age was then twenty-five, hers certainly not more than seventeen; and the introduction was ill-omened, for the handsome, fascinating, feather-brained Duke was already married, and so had been eleven years. At the age of fourteen, in order to secure for him a rich heiress, he had been wedded to Anne, Duchess of Buccleuch, and it was this immature, unreal wedlock, in which when but a mere boy he had been fettered, that at his last hour he pleaded in ex­ tenuatfon of his neglect of his lawful wife. There are materials only for an imperfect relation of the story of Monmouth and Lady Wentworth. Five years after her appearance in the Court play a letter, dated 30 January 1680, from Lady Sunderland to her brother Henry Sidney (afterwards Earl of Romney), tells of the hasty retreat from London into the country of Philadelphia, Lady Wentworth, with her daughter the young Baroness, the cause jestingly attributed to Monmouth.2 There can be no doubt that he followed the ladies to Toddington, and became an inmate of the mansion there; to this is witness the old plan yet preserved in the manor-house which shows the "Duke

1 In a volume of poems by Mrs. Cobbold, 1825, is one entitled The Lily of Nettlestead, in which is pictured " the Lily," Henrietta Maria Wentworth, as the young mistress in the house of her ancestors, receiving there, on return from the chase, her cousin Lord Lovelace and a stranger, who afterwards proves to be the Duke of Monmouth. The Duke quickly engages the lady's affection, and privately marries her. This is :fiction, and probably was not intended as fact; though as possibly misleading I refer to it. Nettlestead was sold by the Earl of Cleveland at least fourteen years before the birth of Lady Wentworth, and therefore it is quite improbable that the Hall was ever graced by the residence of Mrs. Cobbold's heroine. ~ Roberts's Life of the Duke of Monmouth, i., 83, and ii., 322. :e 106 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. of Monmouth's Parlor," the adjoining apartment being named the "Lady's Parlor." · To Toddington also Monmouth fled in June 1683, on the discovery of the Rye House Plot, in which his par­ ticipation was alleged, and which had as its object his succession to the throne, instead of the papist James, Duke of York ; the m;sassination of the King and the Duke is said to have been a part of the plot unknown to Monmouth and the Whig leaders. The King's favourite received his pardon in this matter ; indeed, the affec­ tionate forbearance of Charles to his son, who offended repeatedly, was wonderful. Soon again he became in­ volved, and in January 1684, to escape a writ of sub­ pama, he disappeared, and is next heard of at Brussels. Lady Wentworth followed him, both convinced that, though unrecognized by human laws, their union had the approval of heaven. Of their love and constancy one to the other there is no doubt; for his sake-as writes Macaulay, in allusion perhaps to a proposal of the Earl of Feversham-she had rejected a wealthy and appropriate alliance; and the latest words spoken by him expressed his entire devotion to her, and were fervent in her vindication. From Brussels they went to The Hague, where by the Prince and Princess of Orange they were received as persons of illustrious rank, and well would it have been if the Duke, following the advice of William of Orange, had cut himself adrift from all English political con­ spiracies, and as a soldier taken service in the army of the German Emperor ; or had he, as it is said his incli­ nation tended, retired into peaceful obscurity. His feelings at this or some similar epoch of his life, and probably when dwelling at Toddington, are expressed in the following poor rhymes taken from the " album " WENTWORTH OF NETTLES'l'EAD. 10'7 which, with probable truthfulness, is stated to have been found in his pocket after the flight from Sedgmoor. The lines are printed, with an interesting account of the capture of Monmouth, a description of the place where he lay hidden, and the subsequent history of the "album" found on his person, in Chambers's Edinburgh Journal, 19 January 1850 :- With joy we leave thee No slavery of state, False world, and do forgive Nor changes in our fate. All thy false treachery, From plots this place is free, For now we'll happy live. There we'll ever be; We'll to our bowers, We'll sit and bless our stars And there spend our hours, 'rhat from the noise of wars Happy there we'll be, Did this glorious place give We no strifes can see, (or Did us Toddington give) No quarrelling for crowns, That thus we happy live. Nor fear the great ones' frowns, But so it was not to be; Monmouth, the weak puppet of stronger minds, and influenced also, it is said, by the persuasion even of Lady Wentworth, who desired the elevation of her lover to the throne of England, was not long allowed to rest in happy retirement. His father, Charles II., died in February 1685, and the poor Duke, after long persistent instigation, reluctantly consented to hazard the fatal venture for the crown which cost him his life. A sad and miserable expedition it was that needed the very jewels of Lady Wentworth to defray its cost. The history of it, and the explanation of the means by which the cost was met, are found in the confession of Ford, Lord Grey, Monmouth's associate,1 who relates that, disappointed in the arrival of £6000 from England, the Duke borrowed the money from a Dutch merchant, "a great part of the goods made over 1 Secret History of the Rye House Plot, and of Monmouth's Rebellion, written by JJ'ord, Lord Grey, in 1685. 108 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

as security being my Lady Henrietta Wentworth's or her mother's." On a day towards the end of the month of May 1685 Monmouth and Grey, with eighty-three followers, set sail from Amsterdam in three ships; the munitions, according to Grey, consisted of 1460 suits of defensive armour, 100 muskets and "bandaliers," a small number of double carbines and pistols, four small field-pieces, 250 barrels of gunpowder, 500 pikes,and as many swords. The wind proved contrary, and eighteen days were occupied in the voyage from Amsterdam to Lyme in Dorsetshire. Here the expedition arrived on the 11th June; before nightfall the Duke's standard was set up in the market­ place and his Declaration read. The manifesto cut the ground from under his feet in case of failure, for it pro­ claimed James II. a usurper, the poisoner of his brother the late King, the conspirator against the Reformed Religion a.nd the rights of the nation; and it asserted Monmouth's legitimacy, and consequent right to be King of England. Failure after this meant death without greater mercy than he could have thought possible should be extended to him. At first a measure of success attended him, his eighty­ three followers were quickly augmented, so that the day after landing he found himself commanding 1000 foot and 150 horse ; and a few days later his force had so much further increased that the Duke of Albemarle, Lord Lieutenant of Devonshire, marching to meet him with 4000 of the trained-bands from Exeter, thought it prudent to avoid encounter and to retreat. Monmouth, elated, marched into Taunton on the 18th June, and there met with an enthusiastic reception from the Puritanic population, who strewed the streets with flowers and hung garlands from the windows. Even maidens of WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 109

good birth met the Protestant champion in procession to offer him standards embroidered by their own hands; one of these, indeed, called "the Golden Flag," dis­ played the royal initials J. R., which, although belonging to the sovereign on the throne, were certainly intended to represent his would-be supplanter. What wonder then if the weak head of poor Monmouth gave way, and that he allowed himself to be proclaimed King. But it was no more than a few days' triumph ; at Taunton it began, and there it ended. On the 22nd .June he set out for Bridgewater, and thence marched towards Bristol, his levies, mainly peasants, armed only with pikes and scythes, amounting to 6000. And now misfortune marched with him, nobles and gentlemen of the county disappointed him and held aloof; his character inspired no confidence, carried with it no augury of suc­ cess ; true, his courage in the field was undoubted, but his deficiency in the firmness and capacity required in a leader in arms against an established government was mistrusted. At Bristol the King's forces met the in~ surgents, who dared not face the royal troops, and marched away towards Bath. Monmouth now lost heart, saw that he was making no way, and that all his hopes of influential support were failing him. At Philips Norton, halfway between Bath and Frome, he again met royal troops led by his half-brother the Duke of Grafton; and here he gained an advantage which, had it been fol­ lowed up, might have become a victory, for the King's soldiers retreated; but a dreary wet night setting in, the motley, undisciplined host of insurgents melted away. At Frome he heard of the defeat and capture of the Duke of Argyle, whose expedition into Scotland had been made in concert with his own, and with the same object, the dethronement of the papist James. Utterly 110 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. dispirited by this news and his own failure, poor Mon­ mouth is said to have then meditated the abandonment of hif: rash and failing enterprise, and an immediate return to the Continent. The more resolute spirit, however, of his companions in rebellion forbids retreat, Monmouth as usual yields, and on the 4th July, with a broken and discouraged force, he is, for the second time, at Bridgewater, towards which place approach the King's troops led by the Earl of Feversham. The rebel leaders resolve to anticipate battle, and by a perilous night-march across Sedgmoor advance to attack the camp of Feversham at Weston Zoyland. Failure and defeat ensues; by a circuitous causeway route the royal camp is reached, only to find it defended by a wide and impassable dyke, which pre­ vents farther advance. The report of a pistol, acci­ dentally or treacherously fired, alarms and arouses the camp; the King's troops, soon formed in disciplined ranks, fire across the wide ditch ; the untrained horses of the rebel host take fright, become unmanageable, and confusion fol1ows. The sun now rising, the royal infantry in compact masses advance by the routes known to them, and attack the undisciplined insurgents, who, though bravely fighting with pikes and scythes-for the flight of the ammunition waggons had made all fire­ arms useless-are vanquished and slaughtered in great numbers; and the Kiri.g's Life Guards, scouring the moor, cut down the fugitives. The Sedgmoor rout of the insurgents took place in the early morning of the 6th July. Monmouth, Grey, and a few others fled that day and the next towards the New Forest, and until their exhausted horses had car­ ried them to Cranborne Chase in Dorsetshire ; there they dismounted and proceeded on foot. The unfortunate WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 111

Duke, skulking and concealed among the standing crops and in the ditches of a cultivated enclosure called "the Island," in the parish of Woodlands, Dorsetshire, evaded for awhile his pursuers; but on the morning of the 8th July, wretched and starving, he was discovered crouching in a ditch under an ash tree. When searched a few raw peas were found mingling in the pocket of his peasant's disguise with the George his royal father had given him when the petted darling of Whitehall ; he had also his watch, a purse of money, and the "album" or note-book before referred to, in which had been oddly gathered fragments of English History, songs, recipes, charms, prayers, and personal memoranda-a collection sadly indicative of its weak-minded possessor. The pri­ soner was taken to Ringwood, six miles from the field­ to this day known as "Monmouth's Close "-where he was discovered. Two days later he and his fellow-pri­ soner Grey, strongly escorted, set out for London.1 Yet a few days and he was in the presence of his merciless uncle James II.; the account of his abject humiliation and simulated repentance, how pinioned as he was he crawled on his knees to embrace those of the King, craving for pardon and mercy, is too well known. But when, all pleading for life in vain, he came to die on the scaffold he had recovered his manhood and com­ posure. Unwavering in his love to Lady Wentworth, he could not be persuaded by the clergy who were present that there was sin in his relations with her; they two had brought the matter before Heaven, and were assured of divine approval; she was his wife in the sight of God, not the Duchess wedded to him at an age so immature that he could not be held responsible for the formal 1 Macaulay's Hist. of England; Roberts's _life of D. of Monmouth; and Chambers's Edinburgh Journal, Jan. 19, 1850. 112 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. union. Lady Wentworth had been " the choice of his ripened years;" it was her influence that had reclaimed him from a licentious life, and to her he had been faithful; then, turning to the crowd surrounding the scaffold, he deprecated the scandal that had been raised concerning them, and, naming " the Lady Henrietta Wentworth," declared her to be " a lady of virtue and honour, a very virtuous and godly woman." All said, he calmly laid his head on the block ; the trial of his courage was extreme, for the unnerved headsman more than once missed his stroke; in his prolonged agony the face of poor Monmouth was raised reproachfully ; then again the head was bowed-and severed. · Where Lady Wentworth was at this hour is not clearly known. It seems most probable that, having remained in Holland when the Duke went thence to his destruction in May 1685, she did not return to England until the autumn of that year; for a messenger sent by her with a letter from Holland is said to have been arrested by the Mayor of Dover at the beginning of August. When she returned to Toddington, it was there, broken-hearted, to die. Nine months after the pitiful scene on Tower Hill, the poor lady, to whose wounded spirit the spring had brought no reviYal, faded away; and on the last day of April 1686 her body was borne from the mansion to the church, and there laid to rest in the sepulchre of her people. Her years could not have numbered more than twenty-nine, and perhaps not so many. A costly monument, provided by her mother's will, was raised over the vault, and, as Macaulay writes, she was long remembered by a simpler yet more touch­ ing memorial, her name carved by the hand of ·Mon­ mouth on an oak which grew, and still grows, hard by the Toddington mansion. WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD, 113

:@.ortraft.-A picture of Henrietta Maria, Lady Wentworth, was painted by Sir Godfrey Kneller. I have not been able to discover where it now is, but of the engraving in mezzotint by R. Williams there are existing several copies ; of that in the British Museum I give a reproduction by photography. There is also a small coarse engraving (Brit. Mus. and elsewhere) entitled "Henrietta Maria, Lady Wentworth. En­ graved from an original picture in the possession of Mr. Richard­ son. Pubd. August 1708, by W. Richardson, York House, No. 31 Strand;" in corner " P. Lely, eques, pinx} 167 5." It is a half-figure, hair in pendant curls, pearl necklace, hand on breast. This portrait has so little resemblance to that by Kneller that it can scarcely be thought to represent the same person; it appears also to delineate a lady of many more years than eighteen, which in 1675 was the age of Lady Wentworth.

THE SuccESSION TO THE BARONY OF W EN'l'WORTH OF N E'l'TLESTED.

On the death of Henrietta Maria Wentworth in 1686 the Barony passed to her aunt, Anne, Lady Lovelace, the only surviving daughter of the late Earl of Cleveland; and on her death, 7 May 1697, it was transmitted to her granddaughter Martha, the only surviving child of her son Lord Lovelace, deceased ; the Lovelace Barony had been inherited by a cousin male. The succession of Martha Lovelace to the Wentworth Barony appears, however, to have required special confirmation, and that it was not until after petition to Queen Anne and re­ ference to the House of Lords that her claim was allowed; the question being settled, she attended the coronation of the Queen as Baroness Wentworth of N ettlested. The Baroness married Sir Henry Johnson, Knight, M.P. for Aldborough, Suffolk, three or four miles froin which town was his seat, Friston Hall, inherited from Q 114 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. his father; several generations of the family had been of Aldborough, and Sir Henry had become w_ealthy as a shipbuilder at Poplar; he died 29 September 1719, and was buried in the Wentworth vault at Toddington. Of the marriage there was no issue, so that on the death of Martha, Lady Wentworth, in 17 45, the next heir to the Barony was Sir Edward Noel, Baronet, third in descent from Margaret Lovelace, daughter of the above Anne (Wentworth), Lady Lovelace; Margaret Lovelace having married Sir William Noel, Baronet, of Kirkby Mallory, Leicestershire. '.Dwo Noels in succession held the Went­ worth Barony, which, on the death, without issue, of the second in 1815, fell into abeyance between his two coheirs, viz., his sister Judith, wife of Sir Ralph Milbanke, and his nephew Nathaniel Ourzon, son of his deceased sister who had married Lord Scarsdale. The Barony remained in abeyance forty-one years, and in 1856 Lady Byron, widow of the poet, and daughter of the above Judith, Lady Milbanke, becoming the only heir on the death of Lord Scarsdale, the abey­ ance was terminated in her favour. Lady Byron, or more correctly Lady Wentworth of N ettlested, died in 1860, having outlived her only daughter Augusta Ada, wife of William King-Noel (Noel assumed), , and the Wentworth Barony then passed, in succession, to the two sons of the above Augusta Ada, Countess of Lovelace. The second son, Ralph Gordon Noel Milbanke (Milbanke assumed), now sits in the House of Peers as 12th Baron Wentworth of N ettlested, although in courtesy styled by his father's second title, Viscount Ockham. The succession to the Wentworth Barony is difficult to follow on account of the repeated failure of heirs male, and the change in surname adopted by those-or WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 115 by their fathers-who have inherited it in female descent. Lady Byron's father, Sir Ralph Milbanke, assumed his wife's family name, Noel ; , the poet, also took the name Noel, though practically the change has had no effect ; again, the Earl of Lovelace to his own patronymic King has added the Noel surname; and his son, the present Lord Wentworth, has by Royal License reverted to the surname Milbanke. The occurrence of Lovelace first as a family name, and afterwards as a title, also leads to perplexity. The succession will pro­ bably be best understood by reference to the Pedigree.

TRANSMISSION OF THE TODDINGTON ES'l'A'l'E. MarthaJohnson-nee Lovelace-Baroness vVentworth of N ettlested, inherited the Toddington estate as she did her title. She had also the Lovelace estate of Bradenham in Buckinghamshire, and appears to have there resided; not at the Toddington mansion, which, probably, was not inhabited by its owners after the death in 1696 of Philadelphia, Lady Wentworth, who seems to have had a life-possession of it. Sir Henry Johnson, the husband of the Baroness, had apparently the complete control of her property during bis life ; he is generally styled Sir Henry Johnson of Bradenham, which, and the marriage of his daughter at that place in 1711, is evidence that the family there resided. Eventually, and curiously, Toddington came again to the Wentworth family, not the N ettlestead branch, for it was extinct, but to the youngest offshoot from the parent-stem of Wentworth-Woodhouse, i.e. the lately established house of Stain borough, or Wentworth Castle, Yorkshire. The Baroness Martha was the second wife of Sir Henry Johnson, and by her he had no child ; but 116 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

by his first wife, Anne Smithson ( of the family to which some years later came the Earldom and Dukedom of Northumberland), he had had one daughter. This daughter, Anne J olmson, became in 1711 the wife of Sir Thomas Wentworth, K.G., Earl of Strafford (2nd creation), an eminent general and diplomatist, of Stain­ borough, co. York. The terms of the marriage settle­ ment were that Sir Henry Johnson and his wife the Baroness should enjoy the Toddington estate during their lives; that afterwards, if, as happened, they had no children, the Earl of Strafford should have it for life, with descent to his son in tail-male; and that, failing male succession, the estate should be shared in common by the Earl's daughters or their heirs. The Countess Anne (Johnson) was to have £200 per annum, derived from the property, during the Earl's life, and £1000 per annum if she survived him; by his will also she had a rent charge of £2000 on his Yorkshire estate.' 'rims the Countess was not heiress, as has been generally represented, though Toddington was to be the inheritance of her children. The Baroness Martha survived her husband nearly twenty-six years, and the Earl nearly six years, he therefore never held the estate; the Countess outlived the Baroness by nine years, but had only her rent charge. The successor in 1745, when the Baroness died, was William, the 4th Earl of Strafford (2nd Earl of the 2nd creation), who signalized his coming into possession by the demolition of the grand old mansion, and yet, not­ withstanding the ruthless act, was on his death in 1791

1 A.ct of 1795 for confirming the Partition of the Toddington Estate, in which the Marriage Settlement, Wills, etc., are recited. Private A.cts, Brit. Mus. WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 117 brought to 'l1oddington to be laid in the Wentworth vault with his parents. He had died childless, so that this and other estates (not that of Wentworth Castle, which went with the Earldom to his cousin) were divided among his three sisters, or their heirs, for only one sister, Lady Anne Conolly, survived her brother. By the A.ct passed in 1795 to confirm the partition it appears to have been as follows : 1. The Rt. Hon. Thomas Conolly, son of Lady Anne, widow of the Rt. Hon. William Conolly, and eldest sister of the late Earl of Strafford ( she was yet living, but had conveyed her share to her son), had the manor of Toddington, ad­ vowson of the church, the Manor Farm and the "mansion-house," i.e. the small portion of it which had been saved, and then occupied by Richard Atkins; 2. Richard William Howard Vyse, grandson of Lucy the second sister ( who had married Sir George Howard, K.B.), had the manors of Boughton and Pisford in Northamptonshire, the manor of Snape, and the mes­ suage or mansion-house called Friston Hall in Suffolk -the last two had descended from Sir Henry Johnson ; 3. Henry Vernon, son of Henrietta, or Harriet, the third sister (who had married Henry Vernon, Esq.), had the manor of Harlington, Old Park Farm, and Red House Farm; 4. Leveson Vernon, second son of above Hen­ rietta, had the manor of A.ldborough, and farms in parish of Friston, formerly the property of Sir Henry Johnson. A. few years later, i.e. in 1806, John Cooper, Esq., bought part of the Toddington estate, and in subsequent years reunited the portions into which it had been par­ titioned ; at the time of his purchase Viscount Howe, married to one of the sisters of the above Rt. Hon. Thomas Conolly, who had died s.p., had one of the divi­ s10ns. Mr. Cooper died in 1824, leaving as heiress his lll:5 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

only daughter, married to her cousin William D. Cooper, and the present proprietor is their son, Major William Cooper Cooper, F.S.A., Deputy-Lieutenant of Bedford­ shire, who filled the office of in 1867-1868.

TODDINGTON MANOR AND TODDINGTON PLACE. Toddington is entered in Domesday as Dodintone. It was then held from the King by the Norman Ernest de Hesding, and-according to Lysons, quoting Camden -remained with his descendants the Earls of Perche until 1216, when the Bishop of Chalons, being heir, sold the manor to William Marshall, . Not many years later, that is to say early in the reign of Henry III., Sir Paulin Peivre or Piper is found in posses­ sion. The origin of Peivre is obscure; Lysons is content to say that he was of mean origin, but generally he has been supposed to have had descent from Roger Pauper or de Paupere, natural son of Roger, , Lord Chief Justice and Lord Treasurer, who died in 1139. However that may be, Sir Paulin appears to have been a rich and eminent personage in the time of Henry III., when to his other possessions he added '1.1oddington, and there built the "palace" which continued to be the seat of his family for about two hundred years. It is from Mathew Paris and the Chronicle of Dun­ stable that information is derived conc~rning thfl Peivres; the account of the founder of the family afforded by Paris is sufficiently interesting to be quoted, using Dr. Giles's translation from the Latin. " On the 5th of June in this year [1251 J a learned knight, or knightly clerk [ miles literatus sive clericus militaris], named Paulinus Piper [in another place Peiure, i.e. Peivre], went the way of all flesh, in London; he was butler to WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 119 the King [ Regis dapifer ], and one of his chief coun­ sellors [ elsewhere senescallus regim su

1 F. A. Blaydes, Miscel. Gen. et Heral., N.S., iii., 434. WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 121

Henry Cheney, or Cheyne, was a man "of profuse ex­ penditure" (Nichols); Hasted says he was known as "The extravagant Lord Cheney." He sold his ancestral estates in Kent, and migrated to his mother's property at Toddington, preferring, it is said, the fine inland county of Bedford to the low-lying and sea-girt lands of Sheppey. His mother, "Dame .Anne Cheney," probably accompanied him to Toddington and witnessed the build­ ing of the grand mansion he there erected; she died on the 16th May 1561, and has her altar-tomb and effigy in the same south transept of the church which contains the memorials of the Peivres. The old "palace'' of the Peivres had had its day, and, not answering the demands of the Tudor times and of Henry Cheney, it was demolished by him and replaced, on the same site, as the discovered remains testify, by a more sumptuous edifice. 'rhis was completed, probably, by 1563, or at least was then in a fitting condition for the reception of Queen Elizabeth, who in that year, during one of her progresses, visited Henry Cheney in his new house, and there with her own hand dubbed him knight. As time went on his honours increased, though perhaps not his wealth; in 1572, 8 May, Sir Henry was summoned to the House of Lords by writ directed to "Henrico Cheney de Todington Chl'r ;" and in 1576 he had the honour, for the second time, of a visit from his sovereign.1 The remembrance of her Majesty's visits to the Manor House and the identity of the chambers she occupied were preserved in the names afterwards borne by the apartments; these in 1644 were described as the "Queen's Chamber and the Queen's In­ ward Chamber;" there was also "Leicester's Chamber," showing that the favourite Earl had been in attendance. 1 Nichols's Progresses, iii., 360; and Herald and Genealogist, ii., 136. R 122 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

Henry, Lord Cheney, died in 1587, leaving his widow Jane, the eldest of the many daughters of the first Lord Wentworth of N ettlested, and as there had been no issue the 'roddington property was settled on the natural heir of Lady Cheney, her great-nephew Thomas, 4th Lord Wentworth of N ettlested, afterwards Earl of Cleveland. Lady Cheney survived her husband twenty-seven years. During her widowhood the Manor House, for the third time, received the sovereign, now James I., who with his Queen were the guests of Lady Cheney in July 1608; a letter of the King's dated "Tuddington July 24," in reference to the repairs of St. Paul's Cathedral, is printed in Dugdale's History of St. Paul's, Ellis ed., p. 101. Lord Wentworth, the heir to his great-aunt, appears, as before noticed, to have resided at Toddington some years preceding her death, which occurred 16 April 1614. Lord Cheney's mansion, following that of Sir Paulin Peivre, has long since-now nearly a hundred and fifty years-been moved off the chessboard of human exist­ ence. Only a very scanty pictorial representation of it remains, yet with this and some mention in writings a fair conjecture of the building may be formed. A plan on a large scale was made of the estate by Agas in 1581, and on it is shown, in the fashion of the draftsmanship of the day, a bird's-eye elevation of the mansion, occupy­ ing on the plan about two inches square. This little drawing indicates, as we should expect, a Tudor edifice; it surrounds an open quadrangulm· court, and is flanked at the four angles by octagonal towers with conical summits. The principal front was to the south-east, and the line of this was broken by a projection in which was set the chief entrance to the mansion; this central por­ tion being also :flanked by towers similar to those at the angles of the building. 'fhe material generally was of WENTW'ORTR OF NETTLESTEAD. 123 red brick, the window-frames and mullions of stone, and among the usual Tudor features the beautiful chimneys which characterize the style were not wanting. These are mentioned in an old survey of the house made in 1719 and happily preserved; there were eight stacks, one was left standing when the mansion was demolished, and a sketch made of it early in the present century shows the spirals and other graceful varieties of form, which placed these necessary and homely accessories among the chief ornaments of Tudor houses. At a time for which evidence is wanting, considerable alteration was made in the building as left by Lord Cheney, chiefly perhaps externally, and in the south­ east or principal front. With the strange disregard to earlier architecture, that seems to have prevailed at all periods except the present, which, perhaps with too much truth, may be said ·to have no style of its own, the Tudor front on the south-east was taken down, and rebuilt in the " classic" form predominant in the time of the Stuarts. The drawing of this later front exists ; it is stiff and formal, its flatness scarcely relieved by a slight projection of the centre portion, in which the entrance of poor dimensions has its insignificance little redeemed by a Corinthian column on either side support­ ing a small pediment; nor is the monotony of the three files of rectangular windows atoned for by an open balustrade which at the roof crowns the fa9ade. The new elevation must indeed have been an unfortunate substitution for the old, and in painful antagonism with the Tudor architecture remaining. Of the apartments of Toddington Manor House, or Toddington Place, as it was called in the Earl of Cleve­ land's time, we are better informed then as to the ex_ternal appearance. 124 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

The old ground-plan, which Lysons saw at the beginning of the century,1 has been carefully preserved by the later owners of the manor, and remains mounted as in 1802 " on a fire screen," which is really, when un­ folded, a small writing table. From this plan is obtained the dimensions of the quadrangular mansion bui.lt round its central court. The south-east and north-west fronts were in length 208 feet, the south-west and north­ east fronts measured 158 feet ; the kitchen and offices formed a projection at the back, north-east angle; the four towers at the angles were of 17 feet diameter, each probably containing a staircase. The principal apart­ ments named on the plan, or in the survey of 1719 before mentioned, are the Great Hall, the Marble Gallery, the Great or Long Parlour, the Gilded Parlour, the Chapel, the Steward's and several other Parlours, and, most interesting of all, the Lady's Parlour, and the Duke of Monmouth's Parlour. rrhese and many other rooms were on the ground-floor, and within the square area on its north-east side is the Tennis Court. }7 rom the Great Hall ascended the Great Staircase lighted by the Lanthorn, and on the first-floor were found (this from the survey of 1719) the Long Gallery, the North Gallery, the Great Dining Room, the Great State Room, and many chambers; and above this floor there was another divided into numerous garret-rooms. In the survey from which many of the above names are derived those found in the inventory of 16442 do not appear; this may have been in consequence of the alterations the mansion had undergone. In the inventory, besides the Queen's apartments already referred to, we learn that Leicester's chamber was at the end of the Picture

1 Lysons's Bedfordshire, p. 143. 2 Add. MSS. 5491, f. 184. WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEA.D. 125

Gallery; and we are told also of My Lady's Chamber "hanged with five pieces of arras," My little Lady's Chamber, the Old Nursery, the Green Gallery, the Fencing Room, the Huntsman's Chamber, the Dining Room, the Great Parlour, and chambers with personal names; the Tennis Court is also mentioned, and the Chapel, which at the date of the inventory contained "two desks, one great Bible, and a cushion for the pulpit." M;uch of the furniture contained in the rooms had been removed before the making of the inventory of 164,.t, and that which remained scarcely claims mention. It has been said (p. 116) that William, Earl of Straf­ ford, on coming into possession at the death of Martha, Lady Wentworth, in 1745, demolished the grand old mansion ; he left only the great kitchen and some ad­ joining offices which might serve as the humble residence of his steward or tenant. The regret or indignation of the towns-people on the destruction of the building which had been the pride of their district was shown in a ballad of which a portion at least is yet remembered; the "uncouth rhymes" ran thus : " If Lord Strafford had never been born, Or in his cradle had died, The old Manor House would always have stood, And many a tree beside." In defence of the Earl, however, it may be said that he had found the mansion almost a ruin, and that at the time of succeeding to the Toddington estate he was engaged in building, at great cost, his northern seat, Wentworth Castle, which under his hands became one of the noblest mansions in the kingdom, and was intended to descend with the Earldom to his cousin; whereas having neither son nor daughter to inherit the Bedfordshire property it would on his decease be parti­ tioned, according to settlement, between the several 126 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. heirs of his sisters. Thus it could hardly have been expected of Lord Strafford to undertake the costly re­ storation of the Manor House, even had the expenditure been within the limit of his resources. Twenty-six years before the mansion came to this Earl, the survey of 1719 shows its condition to have been most dilapidated. The survey tells of great settle­ ment in walls and in stacks of chimneys; of " the two cupolas of the south-east front open and exposed to the weather; the frontispiece not finished, the stone pedi­ ment not put on, and other ornaments wanting; the stone [ or marble J gallery full of old stone and entirely unfinished, without floor, plastering, or door; main timbers shored, broken, and sunk; other timbers rotten and falling down ; wainscoting, doors, and door-cases wanting; many rooms without floors ; sash windows and glass defective; broken ceilings ; and the destruc­ tion or absence of stacks of lead pipes which had con­ ducted the water from the roof," these probably pillaged, and possibly converted into bullets during the civil war. The frequent recurrence of the word "unfinished" appears to indicate that the latest alteration of the mansion, that is, its partial transformation from Tudor to Classic, had never been completed. There is nothing to show that there had been any restoration of the edifice after 1719, when the survey revealed its ruinous condition; and having further suf­ fered, during a quarter of a century, the unchecked ravages of time and weather, the repairs necessary in 17 45 would almost have amounted to reconstruction. It is scarcely probable that the Manor House had been inhabited by its owners since the death of poor Henrietta Maria, Lady Wentworth. It may be conjectured that during her minority her mother, by whose able manage­ ment the property was relieved to a considerable degree WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 127 of its debt, had partially rehabilitated the mansion, which had suffered much rough usage and dismantlement during the civil war ; and that its restoration by Lady Philadelphia had thus rendered it capable of being tenanted with comfort and dignity at the period of the ill-omened visits of the Duke of Monmouth. That transient happiness with its tragical ending over, and the poor young Baroness carried to her tomb in Tod­ dington Church, her mother, the Lady Philadelphia, may have resided at the Manor House, occasionally at least, during the remaining ten years of her life; but after her death, in 1696, it is most probable the mansion had been abandoned by its owners, and hence its wretched condition twenty-three years later, in 1719. So "William, Earl of Strafford, whose defence has been attempted, removed the ruinous pile in 17 45, and for the next century, or nearly, the steward and tenant lived in the remnant that had been spared. In 1795, when the estate was partitioned between the coheirs of the late Earl, the tenant resident was Richard Atkins; his great­ granddaughter was living jn 1887, and the following hearsay of her childhood, evidently credible and certainly interesting, may here be quoted. She had heard that before the old mansion was pulled down it contained at one of its towers '' the Duke of Monmouth's rooms;" and that from the lower room, through the ceiling and flooring above, decayed, eaten by the rats, and partially removed, could be seen the contents of the upper chamber. It was told how here remained the Duke's bed, with its faded green velvet hangings and dust­ covered plumes, on it even remaining the counterpane black with age and damp; a weird and mournful relic of the past braveries, the blighted life of poor Mon­ mouth; .and recalling also the sad fate of her to whom 128 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. love for him brought a broken heart and an early grave. These rooms were doubtless at the south-west angle of the house where the old plan shows "the Duke of Mon­ mouth's Parlour," which by a staircase in the tower communicated with the chamber above; they are not mentioned in the survey of 1719, probably from having then been among the "several rooms about the house sealed up as could not be seen." As before said, Mr. John Cooper bought the estate in 1806 and subsequent years; he left what remained of the Manor House as he had found it, and died in 1824, leaving as his heiress his only daughter, married to her cousin William Dodge Cooper. By this gentleman the portion of the building which had been spared in 1745 was in 1842 transformed into the handsome and com­ modious residence now existing. All that remained was carefully preserved, and skilfully adapted to modern requirements. Lysons at the beginning of the century wrote: "Nothing now remains but the kitchen, which is remarkably spacious, having two fireplaces each 12 feet in width, and a few rooms fitted up as a farm­ ho.use." He makes one important omission, viz., that one of the four towers was still standing. The great kitchen has now become a very handsome dining-room, 39 feet by 26 feet, and with much good taste one of the old Tudor fireplaces has been strictly preserved; Lysons understates its capacity, it measures 17 feet in width and 5 feet in depth. Within this large space, which doubtless in the old times served for much massive cooking, is now placed a handsome open iron grate of Tudor character, sufficiently capacious to receive the blazing logs of winter; and within the wide and deep recess there is also ample ingle room for the guests, who seated within, enjoying the hospitality of a genial WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 129 host, may read the surrounding legend which contrasts the past with the present, "@Um

•• ~be jlflonmoutb ®ak," ~obbtngton jlflanor,

1890.

WENTWO~T:& OF N.ETTLESTE~]). 131

TODDINGTON CHURCH. The Gothic church is a large and handsome cruciform structure; its features generally are of the" Perpendicu­ lar " period, but " Early English " work appears in the acutely pointed arches sustaining the central tower, and in the porches. Without definite knowledge of its history, and simply taking the witness of the architecture, it may be assumed that the Peivres of successive genera­ tions were the builders of the church. The earliest portion was probably the work of Sir Paulin the founder of the family, and the latest that of Thomas the last of his name at Toddington, who died in 1429, leaving his heraldic coat on the shield borne by one of the eight carved angels with outspread wings, which as corbels support the handsome timber roof of the nave. The southern transept has always been, and continues to be, the chapel of the lords of the manor. Beneath its pavement their bodies have been laid to rest, and the raised platform at its eastern wall, with the double piscina at hand, tells of the altar at which, in pre­ Reformation times, masses were said for the repose of their souls. The Peivres have here, as before noted, their effigies on three tombs, two recessed in the south wall and the other placed by the west wall, all but slightly raised above the level of the floor. The matrix of a large brass now lost is known, from an armorial shield remaining, to mark the Broughton grave; of which family one at least, by his will, desired to be buried here. On the altar platform, after the Reformation, were raised the three tombs of the Cheneys; these have suffered greatly. The effigies were found by Lysons early in the present century "much mutilated, and lying on the ground mingled with the broken ornaments of the tombs 132 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. and the dung of birds and bats;" they are now replaced on squared masses built of the fragments of the former tombs, and when these have failed, of masonry. The oldest-or first in chronological order-of the Cheney or Cheyne tombs is that of Dame Anne Cheyne, the mother of Henry, Lord Cheney, who died in 1561. The table, on the southern side of the chapel, is in this instance entire,and in tolerably good preservation, but the effigy is much mutilated, the lower part of it gone. The inscription, which is nearly perfect, I take the liberty of copying-with those of the other tombs-from Mr. Blaydes's account : 1 "[Here lietJh Dame Anne Cheyne, Daughter and Heyre of sr John Broughton, Knight, Married to Sr Thomas [Oh8yne, K]night, L. Warden of the Cinq Ports, Treasurer of Her Majestie's Household, of the Order of the Garter, and one of Her Majestie's Privee Oounsell, who had but one chylde, the same beinge the Lord Henry Cheyne. And she died the 16th Day of Maie, The Thyrd yeare of Q. Elizabeth her raigne, Anno dni. 1561." At the end of the tomb is a shield of fifteen quarterings. Mr. Blaydes gives the blazons and the names of the families represented, viz., Broughton, Beard(?), Forster, Peyvre, Loring, Perrott, Bewpell, Bloyon, Stonham, Burgatt, Barnacke, Engayne, Noone, Denstone, and Wanton. The middle tomb is that of Henry, Lord Cheney, who died in 1587. The table is a mere mass of plaster­ covered masonry, and here again the lower part of the figure is gone, the part remaining is in armour ; the in­ scription has disappeared. The third tomb, that to the north, is for Jane, Lady Cheney, the Wentworth lady by whose marriage with Lord Cheney the Toddington estate came to her own 1 Miscel. Geneal. et Heral., N.S., iii., 434. WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD, 133 family. One side of the original marble table remams; it is handsomely carved in panels. The head end of the tomb is also preserved, and bears the inscription, which is perfectly legible. The figure remains, but is much worn away; of the head, which rested on cushions, very little is left. The inscription reads thus : " Here lyeth Da Jane, late Wife of sr Henrie Cheyne, Knight, La Cheyne of Todington, and eldest daughter of sr Thomas Wentworth, Knight, Lo. Wentworth and Lord Chamber­ laine to King Edward the sixt, who deceased the 16 daie of April A 0 Di 1614."

"Here lies my bodie corruption's bed, My soule by faith and hope to Heaven is led, Imprisoned by life, death set me free, Then welcome death, step to JEteruite."

The Earl of Cleveland commenced to bury in this chapel, and in it his two younger sons, William and Charles, had memorials which have disappeared. The Wentworth vault, in the northern transept, was probably made by the Earl in 1633, when he lost his daughter the Lady Maria, who died at the age of eighteen. Over the sepulchre, and against the western wall, is her handsome but much mutilated white marble monument, representing the young lady seated in a chair under a canopy, the drapery of which is held on either side by cherubs; a basket of needlework with the scissors, etc., is at her feet, and two small weeping figures are at the sides of the pedestal, on which is inscribed : "MARIA WENT­ WORTH Illustris: Thomre Comit" Cleveland Filia Prre­ mortua Prima, Animam Virgineam Exhalavit, Ianvar: An° Dni. MDCXXXII. .LEtat. sure xviii." The epitaph cannot be here omitted, although sometimes scarcely in harmony with present taste ; if, however, its metaphors 134 THE FAMlLY OF WENTWORTH, should provoke a smile, their eccentricities will be pardoned for the sake of the excellent young lady whose virtues they commemorate. "And here ye pretious dust is layde Whose purelie tempered clay was made So fine that it ye guest betray'd. " Else y0 soul grew so fast within It broke y 0 outward shell 0£ sinne And so was hatch'd a cherubim.

"Before a pious dutie shin'd To Parents, curtesie behinde On either side, an equall minde. "In height it soar'd to God above, In depth it did to Knowledge move, And spread in breadth in generall love. " Good to ye Poore, to Kindred deare, To Servants kinde, to Friendship cleare, To nothing but herselfe severe. " Soe though a virgin, yet a bride To everie grace, she justified A chaste poligamie, and dyed." In the same northern transept, and against its east­ ern wall, is the monument of Henrietta Maria, Lady Wentworth. It is a handsome renaissance design in white and grey-,veined marbles; the height twelve or thirteen feet. Upon the square pedestal or table stand angel boys on either side of a super-pedestal or altar, the panelled front of which is sculptured with the emblems of mortality, the scrolled upper part forming the basis for a classic urn, which, placed within a niche, becomes the centre of the design. The circular receding head of the niche is beautifully scollop-carved, and above this, suspended from a cherub-head, and pendant on each side of the niche, is gracefully festooned drapery. Hand- WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 135 some Corinthian columns flank the monument and support an entablature, of which the highest member is an elliptical arch divided in the centre, and thus leaving space for the crowning of the design, viz., the bust of the lady commemorated. The work is delicately executed, but, alas! it is now seen in a sadly dilapidated condition. Of the angel boys one is headless, and limbs of both have been broken off; while the bust which surmounted the memorial has been fractured and thrown down, the mutilated head now lying on the opposite monument! The present ruinous state of this fine work is indeed painful to witness. The inscription on the pedestal follows ; it com­ memorates not only Lady Wentworth, but also her parents and the Earl her grandfather; for besides the two memorials described there is none other. "Sacred to the Memory of the Right Honble the lady Henrietta Maria Baroness Wentworth, who died unmarried April y• 23'a 1686. She was sole Daughter & Heir of y• Right Honble Thomas Lord Wentworth, buried here the 7th of March 1664 [N.s. 1665] by Philadelphia his wife Dautr of S' Ferdinando Cary Knt who was interred near her Husband y" 9th of May 1696, And Grand 1 Daughter & Heir of the Rt Honb • Thomas Earl of Cleveland, Lord Wentworth of N ettlested &0 also buried here April the Mh 1667." Both transepts of the church, containing the Cheyne and Wentworth monuments, were for very many years en­ tirely neglected; this probably consequent on the absence of the owners of the manor, and also perhaps resulting from the general decay of the town, the population and activity of which have greatly diminished. Lysons's re­ marks, written in the first year of the century, in regard to the state of the tombs in the southern transept, have 136 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. been already quoted. " The northern transept," he re­ ports, "is not in a much better condition. The costly monuments .... are in a state little better than those of the Cheyneys ; the windows of the aisle being with­ out glass, and the roof much decayed, they are daily receiving fresh injury by being exposed to the ravages of the weather, and the depredations of children.'' Since that time the transepts have been repaired, and the church in general partially restored ; the roofs and windows now exclude the weather, and the mischief of uncultured humanity is no longer permitted. But little or nothing having been done towards the reinstatement of the monuments, their present sad condition appeals to the prompt attention of the living representatives and descendants of the Wentworth family. The floor of the northern transept, or Wentworth Chapel, is three feet above that of the church, so as to give height to the vault beneath. This, when opened in 1845, was occupied by thirteen coffins, which, from their plates remaining, and, when these were absent, from the registers, were proved to contain the relics of those members of the family whose names, as read in their last resting-place, will fitly terminate this account of the W entworths of N ettlestead and their kindred successors at Toddington. Many years earlier than 1845, probably in 1791, on the occasion of the funeral of William, fourth Earl of Strafford, a plan, yet existing, was made of the vault showing the position of the coffins; their order is seen in the following diagram, the figures prefixed to the names denoting the chronological order of the in­ terments. Since the plan was made one other coffin has been deposited, viz., that of the Lady Anne Conolly, sister of William, Earl of Strafford ; her burial is dated in the registers 28 February 1797. WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTEAD. 137 N.

1. Lady Maria Wentworth, 4. Col. Thomas Lord Wentworth, died 1633, ret. 18. died 1665, ret. 52.

3. Lucy (Wentworth), Countess 6. Henrietta Maria, Lady Went­ of Cleveland, died 1651. worth, died 1686, ret. c. 29.

5. Thomas, Earl of Cleveland, 7. Philadelphia (Ca1·ey), Lady died 1667, ret. 76. Wentworth, died 1696.

2. Anne (Crofts), Countess of 11. Anne (Campbell), Countess of Cleveland, died 1638. Strafford, died 1785, ret. 65. w. E, 9. Thomas, 3rd Earl of Strafford, 13. Lady Anne Conolly, died 1739, ret. 65. died 1797, ret. 85.

10. Anne (Johnson), Countess of Strafford, died 1754, ret. 70. 12. William, 4th Earl of Strafford, died 1791, ret. 69.

------Entrance. ______. s. It may here be added that N ettlestead Hall has had many owners since the Earl of Cleveland alienated it to William Lodge of London in 1645, or perhaps a little earlier. Lodge died in 1650 and his grandson in 1699; John Fuller of Ipswich held the property in 1704; William Bradley, who had married Fuller's daughter, appears in 1724 as lord of the manor. From about 1770 to 1813 the owner's name was Philipson; and in the latter year the purchaser was Mr. Lionel Henry Moore, who modernized and new-fronted the Hall, leaving it as partially seen in Davy's sketch of 1823 (p. 54). After Moore came Major Walker, from whom the property was bought in 1841 by Mr. Edward Snell, whose son Edward is the present proprietor. (Page's Supplement to the Suffolk Traveller, and Davy's M88.) 'l' ~tbigrtt of of j}tttlt%ttab. 1423 1. Roger Wentworth, Esq., of Nettlestead, co. Suffolk,=,=Margery, da. and heiress of Sir Philip Despenser, Knt. of Nettlestead, co. Suffolk, jure um. Younger son of John Wentworth, of North and .of Goushill, co. Lincolnshire (by Elizabeth, da. and heiress of Robert, Lord Elmsall, co. York, He died 21 October 1452, and was Tibetot, of Nettlestead), widow of John Lord Roos, slain in France 1421. She buried in the church, now demolished, of the Friars died 20 .April 1478, ret. 81, and by her Will directed her burial to be in the Minors (or Grey Friars), Ipswich. chapel of St. Margaret and St. Bernard, Queen's College, Cambridge. I I ! 13. Sir PhilipWentworth,-Mary, da. of Elizabeth, da.,Henry Went-,2. J oan,da,and heiress Thomas Wentworth, priest, Rector Knt., of Nettlestead, co. John, Baron and heiress of worth, Esq., of of Robert Fitz Simon of Barrow, co. Suffolk, 1474. 1Vicar Suffolk, Sheriff of cos. Clifford, of Henry How- Codham Hall, of North Sboebury, of Duxford, co. Cambridge, where Norfolk and Suffolk, Appleby, co. ard, Esq., of Essex; died 22 Essex, widow of is a brass to "Thom.as Wyntworth, 1447 and 1459. Knight _Westmore­ co. Norfolk. March 1482. Robert Tymperley. Viearius, ob. 21 Sep. 1489." of the Shire 1449, 1453, land and of 1459, In the army of Rkipton, co. King Henry VI. Attaint- York. Slain WENTWORTH~F GOSFIELD, WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE+ LOVELL, ed 1 Edward IV. Taken in France, CO, ESSEX. CO. OXFORD. prisoner at battle of 1422, Hexham. Executed 18 I I l May 1464. ? Bur. at Margaret W entworth=pSir William Hopton, Knt., of Swillington, co. York, and of Newsam Abbey, co. Lin- Westwood, co. Suffolk, Treasurer of the Royal Household. coln. Died in lifetime + of his mother, Margery, Elizabeth Wentworth=pJohn Calthorpe, son and heir apparent of Sir William Cal­ Lady Roos of Nettle- -f.-thorpe, Knt., of Ludham, co. Norfolk ; ob. vita patris. stead. Agnes Wentworth,Sir Robert Constable of Flamborough, York; d. 1488. + I I 3. Sir Henry Wentworth,,Anne, da. of Sir , Knt., of Brox- Margaret Wentworth, died1 Thomas Cot-IJoan, da. of Knt., of Nettlestead and bourne, and__9i,jia..wbridgeworth, co. Hert­ 28 April 1479, buried in ton, Esq., of Nicholas of Knaresborough, co. York. ford, who #died 1478. 2nd Wife, Elizabeth Landwade G'lmrch, where is Landwade, co. Sharpe. She Sheriff of cos. Norfolk and Lady Scrope, widow of Thomas, Lord the monument to her bus- Carob. ; died died 1496. Suffolk, 1482; Constable of Scrope, of Masham and Upsal, co. York, band and his wives. 1499. 2nd wife. Queenborough 1483. Sheriff and da. of John Nevill, Marquis of Mon­ of co. York 1490 and 1492. tagu. She died 1515, and by her wm Died August 1499; bur. at (proved 1521) directed her burial to be with Two Daughters. Newsam Abbey, co. Lincoln. her first husband at Blackfriars, London.

I I I I 4. Sir Richard Wentworth,-Anne, da. of Edward Went- Jane Went­ , Sir John Seymour, Knt., of Nettlestead, co. Suf- Sir James worth of Harston, worth, un­ died 1550; bur. with Knt., of Wolf Hall, folk. Sheriff of cos. Norfolk Tyrrell, Knt., co. Cambridge. mar. 1501. her husband in Great co. Wilts. Died 21 :md Suffolk, 1509 and 1517. of Gipping, Living 1501. Bedwin Church, Wilts. September 1536. Knight Banneret, 1512. At co. Suffolk. the battle of Spurs, 1513 ; at Master of the 1 I I I I Field of the Cloth of Gold, Horse to King Edward, Duke Thomas,Lord=4. Queen Queen Jane Seymour, Other 1520. Died 17 October 1528 ; Richard III., of Somerset, Seymour of Katharine 3rd wife of King Henry issue. bur. at Church of the Friars ex. 1502. Lord Protector, Sud!ey, K.G. Parr. VIII., and mother of Minors, Ipswich. K.G., ex. 1552. King Edward VI. A B I I Elizabeth Wcnt-=l. Roger Darcy of Danbury, Essex, Esquire of the Body to King Dorothy Went-=Sir Robert worth. Living Henry VIL ; died 1508. worth ; died be- Broughton, Knt., 15±2, as Countess 2. Sir Thomas Wyndham, Knt., of Felbrigg, Norfolk, Vice­ fore 1506. of Denton, co. 0£ Bath. Admiral, P.C.; died 1523. Suffolk ; died 3. John Bonrchier, Earl of Bath, Baron FitzWarine; died 1539. 1506.

! I I I I I I I 5. Sir Thomas Wentworth,,Margaret, el­ Philip Wentworth. Dorothy Wentworth.=,=Lionel Tollemache, Esq., of Helming- Knt. K11ighted at Roye, dest da. vf Sir ham, and of Bentley, Suffolk. Ances­ France, l523. Summoned Adri,in For­ Richard Wentworth. Itor of the Earls of Dysart; died 1576. by writ to Padiament as tescue, Knt., Baron Wentworth of of Stonor, co. Anne Wentworth. Thomasine Wentworth.=,=Richard+ Pinder (or Pounder) of Ipswich. Nettlested, 2 December Oxford, by + 152\J. P. 'J. and L01·d Cham- Anne Stonor, Elizabeth Wentworth. Margery Wentworth ;=,=ChriEtopher Glemham, Esq., of Glem- berlain in the reig·n of to whomLady d. 158.7 ; bur. at Little lham, co. Suffolk; died 1549. King Edwar,l VI.; died at Wentworth All living 1528, but Glemham, Suffolk. Westminster 3 March 1551; wascoheiress. of whom no more is ----~-----· 2. Francis Colby, son of John Colby of bur. in Westminster Abbey. known. j Brundish, Suffolk. Other issue. -LI 1546 11 T I I ·6. Sir Thomas Went-=Mary, da. .of Sir Henry Went-,Elizabeth Richard::;=Margaret John and James Went­ worth, Knt., 2nd John Wentworth, of worth of, Blak-1 Glemham. Went- I Roydon. worth, lost in the ship Baron Wentworth Gos!ield, Essex. She enham, Suffolk. worth. I " Greyhound," 1563. of Nettlested. Knt. died at. Calais, s.p. Ban. after battle of before 1558. I I I I I I I 1-' I Pinkey 1547. Deputy Thomas, Edward, Henry, Jane Went-=Walter Houghton Edward Went­ of Calais in the ,Anne, da. of Richard, Philip ; of these worth. of Kilthorpe, co. worth. reign of Queen Mary. Henry Wentworth nothing recorded. Rutland. Loni - Lieutenant of of Mount.nessing, Norfolk arnl tiuffolk, Essl'x, brother of l\fargery-William Page of I P.C. He is said to Sir John Went­ Framlingham, Elizabeth, da. of,Philip Wentworth of Ipswich; have rebuilt Nettle­ worth. She died Suffolk. 8ir . died 1583 ; bur. at Nettlestead. stead Hall. Died at 2 tieptember 1571, I his manor of Stepney, and w,is bur. in Roger W eutworth=r ... I near London, 13 Janu­ the church of John Wentworth and several daus., one of whom ary 1584. Stepney. 2nd wife. I mar. Browne of Leiston, Suffolk, and another mar. Katherine Wentworth. Bur. Pennington of London. C at Stepney 13 July 1577. D CJ DJ I I I I I I I i I Henry, Lord Cheney of Tod-=Jane Went- Margaret=l. John, Lora Williams DorothyTl. Paul Withypoole of ding:ton. Bedfordshire ; d. 1587, worth. Died Wentworth. of Thame, Oxford; died Wentworth. Ipswich; died 1579. R.p.: bnr. with his wife in 16Aprill614. 1559, s. Jl,1)1., ,f... Toddington Church, where 2. Sir Martin Frobisher, are their altar - tombs with =;=2. Sir William Drury, Knt., celebrated Naviga­ effigies. Knt., Lord Justice of tor ; died 1594. Ireland; died 157\l. John Poley of Bradley. Suffolk;,Anne Went­ I 3. Sir John Saville, Knt., d. 1/589; bur. with his wife I worth. Died -+-3. Sir James Croft, Knt., of Methley, co. York, at Bradley. 1575. 3rd son of Sir James Baron of the Exchequer ; .+- Croft, Knt., P.O. of Croft died 1606. Sir -Robert Wingfield, Knt., of=;=Cecily Went- Castle, co. Herefordshire; Letheringham, Suffolk. I worth. died 1624 . Elizabeth=,=1. John Cocke, of Little .+- Wentworth. , Stambridge, Essex ; died William Cavendish, of Grim-,Mary Went- Katherine Wentworth. } Living 1544_ 1574. ston Hall, Trimley St. Martin, I worth. Suffolk. Maro-e ry W-ent wor th , ? Died unmar. +2. Leonard Matthew. + 0 I 15Si I I ·7, William Wentworth,=Elizabeth, 2nd da. of Henry Wentworth, 3rd-Anne, da. of Sir Owen Hopton, Knt. Eliza-=Sir William died of the plague in William Cecil, Baron Baron Wentworth of Lieut. of the Tower of London. beth Hynde, Kut., the lifetime of his of Burghley,co. North­ Nettlested. Sat at trial tihe 2ndly mar., 1595, Sir William Went- of Mading­ father at Theobalds,co. ampton, Lord High­ of Mary, Queen of Scots. Pope, K.B. and Baronet, of Wrox­ worth. ley, co, Cam- Hertford, the residence Treasurer, K.G. She Died of the plague at ham, co. Oxford, afterwards Earl bridge. Died of Lora Burghlcy, 7 died April 1583; ? bur. the house of Sir James of Downe; he died 1631. 1606, sp. Nov. 1582, s.p.; bur. at St. Martin's, Stam­ Harrington, Exton or , next day in Cheshunt ford-Baron, co, North- Burley, co. Rutland, 16 1 Chnrch: ampton. August 1593. ..+-

I I I I 1617 .8. Sir Thomas Wentworth, K.B.,=,=Anne, da. of=r:Lucy, da. of Henry Went- Eliza­ Jane Went-=;=Sir John Finet, Kut., of 4th Baron Wentworth of Net- Sir John Sir John Went­ worth, Major­ beth worth. Died Soulton,WestOliff,co.Kent. tlested. Created Earl of Cleve- Crofts, Knt., worth, Bart., General in Went­ 18 July 1652; Ma~ter of the Ceremonies land, co. York, 7 February 1626. of Saxham, of Gosfield, co, the Army of worth. bur. in Wrox- to Kings James I. and Inheritea Toading:ton, co. Bed- co. Suffolk. Essex. She d, King Charles Died ton Church, Charles I. Died 12 July ford, 1614. Lord-Lieutenant of She died 16 23 November I. Died 1644. 1594. Oxfordshire. 1641 ; bur. at St. Martin's- co. Benford. Captain of His Jan. 1638 ; 1651; bur. in in-the-l<'ields, London. Majesty's Guard of Pensioners. bur. in Tod- ToddingtonCh., Born 15lll; died 25 March 1667; dingtou Ch. Bedfordshire. I I bur. in Todrlington Church. 1st wife. 2nd wife. John Finet, d.s.p. Five daughters.

E F'--j-,. 1 I I I I 1661 9. Sir Thomas Wentworth,,Philadelphia, da. WilliamWentworth, Anne Wentworth, Catherine Went-=William Spen- K.B. Summoned to Parlia- of Sir Ferdinando b. 1617; d. 1623. died inf. 1612. worth. She inherit- cer, of Rolands ment in bis father's Barony Carey, Knt., son ed Codbam Hall, Manor, Caple, co. 1640, as Lord Wentworth of Rir Edmund Charles Wentworth, MariaWentworth, the earliest posses- Bedford. Died of Nettlested. Colonel of Carey, and grand­ b. l 621 ; d. 1622. b. 1614: d. 1633; sion of the Went- 10 April 1686, the King's Guards. P.C. and son of 1st Lord Both bur. in Tod­ bu. at Toddington, worths of Essex ; s,p. ; bur. at Co- Gentle~an of the Bed- Hunsdon. He dington Church. where monument. died May 1670. ple with wife. chamber to King Charles II. died 1638. She Born 1613 ; died 7 March died 4 May 1696; 1638 J6n5, vitd patris; bur. in bur. in Todding- Anne Wentworth, succeeded her nie,ce Hen-,John Lovelace, 2nd Baron Toddin?ton Church. ton Church. rietta Maria as Baroness Wentworth of ILovelace of Hurley, co. Nettlested (6). Born 1623; died 1697. Berks; died 1670. I I I I I 10. Henrietta Maria Wentworth, John Love-=r=Margery, da. and Margaret-Sir William Anne Dorothy=Henry Baroness Wentworth of Nettle­ lace, 3rd coheiress of Sir Lovelace; d. Noel, Bart.. of Love- Love- Drax, sted (5), to which Barony she Baron Love- Edmund Pye, 1671, aged Kirkby Mal- lace; lace. Mer- succee,frd on death of her ?rand­ lace, of Hur- Bart., of Braden­ 27. Bur. in lory,co.Leices- died chant, father, Earl of Cleveland ; died ley, Berks; ham, co. Buck- Westminster ter; died 1675, un- of Lon- 23 April 1686; bur. in To,ldington died 1693. ingbam. Abbey. -oot. 33. mar. don. Church, where is her monument.

SUCCESSION TO THE BARONY OF WENTWORTH OF NETTLESTED. I I I Martha Lovelace, only=2. Rir Henry Johnson, Kat., of ]'riston Sir Tbomas=Anne, da. of Sir John Noel,-Mary, da. and surviving child and sole Hall, co. Suffolk, M.P. for Aldborou~h, Noel, 3rd Bt., Sir William 4th Bart.. of eobeiress of Sir heil'ofberfather. Sue- shipbuilder of Poplar: died1719,oot.60; of Kirkby - Whitlock of Kirkby 1fal- John C!obery, ceeded her grandmother hu. in the ·wentworth Vault, Toddington. Mallory, co. Henley-upon­ lory,co. Leices- Knt., of Win­ as Baroness Went- He man~ed, first, Anne, t. 31. 1751. and as heir to the \Vent- son, 1st Bart. of Stanwick, c0. York, worth Estates of Tod- which Sir Hugh was great-grandfather din?ton, de.; died 17 of Sir Hugh Smithson. 4th Bart., created July 1745. s.p.; bur. at Earl of Northumberland 1750; Duke, St.James', Westminster. 1766. =r GI H GI HI I 1111 I Anne ,Johuson, Coun- Thomas Wentworth, Baron Raby, created Sir C!obery Noel, 5th Bart., of Kirkby,Elizabeth, da. of Thomas tess of Strafford, mar. Earl of Strafford and Visct. Wentworth of Mallory, co. Leicester, High Sheriff of IRowney, Esq., of Oxford. at Bradenham. Died Stainborough and Wentworth Woodhouse, co. Leicester 1718; ,lied 1723, ret. 39. She

--, 1743 I 1835 1865 Henrietta Wentworth ;=r=Henry Vernon, Esq., of Hilton, co. Stafford; Augusta Ada,William King-Noel, 1st Earl of,Jane Craw­ died 1786. I died 1765. Byron. Born Lovelace, Viscount Ockham, Baron Iford, widow +. 1815. Died 27 King. Born 1805. Assumed, 1860, of Edward VERNON-WENTWORTH of Wentworth Castle, co. York. Nov. 1852. additional name Noel, by Royal Jenkins, Esq. Licence. ,+2nd wife. I I 1se9 1869 I 1880 Byron Noel King- Anne Isa-=pWilfred Scawen Fannie, da. of the,Ralph Gordon Noel Milbanke,=Mary Caroline, da. of Noel, BaronWent­ bella Noel I Blunt, Esq., of Rev, George Heriot IBaron Wentworth of Nettle- the Right Hon. James worth of Nettle­ King-Noel. Crnbbet, Sussex;. of Fellow Hills, Ber- sted (12). Assumed name Archibald Stuart­ sted (11); d. 1862. wick; died 1878. Milbanke 1861, by Royal Licence. Wortley. 2nd wife.

I I Judith Anne Dorothea Blunt, born 1873. Ada Mary Milbanke, born 1871.

WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD, ESSEX.

THE Suffolk Branch of Wentworth was no sooner esta­ blished than from it sprang its offshoot, the family of Essex, which, although far from taking an equal part with the house of N ettlestead in the annals of English History, is not entirely absent from them.

HENRY WENTWORTH of Codham Hall; died 1482. Roger Wentworth of N ettlestead, in his will (referred top. 4), mentions two of his three sons, Sir Philip and Henry ; they are simply named as executors, the pur­ pose of the testator being merely to designate the place of his burial, and to make bequests of money to the churches in his neighbourhood. The landed estate was the property of his wife, and was entailed on the heir, Sir Philip, and for the younger children, doubtless, provision had been made. The second son, Henry, would thus be provided with the means which enabled him to purchase, as is supposed from the coheirs of Coggeshall,1 the manor of Codham Hall, which lay in the parish of Wethersfield, Essex, three miles north of Braintree, and fourteen miles north of Chelmsford. Henry Wentworth also acquired property by his marriage with Elizabeth Howard, daughter and heiress of Henry, second son of Sir John Howard of Stoke­ N ayland, Suffolk, and uncle of the first Duke of Norfolk. This lady brought to her husband, beyond the handsome

1 Morant's Hist. of Essex, ii., 372. u 146 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. quartering of Howard in the Wentworth shield, the manors of Terrington-Howards, Terrington-St John's, and East Walton in Norfolk, and some manors in Suffolk. Moreover, after the death of Elizabeth Howard, Henry Wentworth again married an heiress, viz., Joan Fitz Simon, daughter of Robert Fitz Simon, and widow of Robert Timperley; her estate was far distant from Oodham Hall, though in the same county, i.e. at North Shoebury in the south-eastern angle of Essex. Of Henry Wentworth, beyond recording him as the first of his line, and the mention of his marriages, there is no more to add than that by his Howard wife he is shown to have had five sons and five daughters, but that only to his eldest son and successor, Sir Roger, is issue assigned ; and that by his Fitz Simon wife he had one son, Sir Nicholas, the founder of the Lillingstone Lovell Branch of Wentworth. The marriages of the daughters will be seen by reference to the Pedigree. Henry Howard died 22 March 1482, and was pro­ bably buried in his parish church at Wethersfield. The inquisition found mentions his property in Norfolk and Suffolk only: in NORFOLK, "Straunges maner. in Est­ walton, Tyryngton terr., Howard's maner. sive mess. ; " in SUFFOLK, "Caundish [Cavendish] maner., Poslynford maner., Clare honor. membr., Charles maner., Badley maner. membr."

Srn ROGER WEN'l'WORTH, KNIGH'l', of Codham Hall; born c. 1465, died 1539. Sir Roger, eldest son of Henry Wentworth, and second of the Essex house, added largely to the estate inherited from his father and mother, by his marriage with a great heiress. Anne his wife was the only daughter, by first WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD. 147 wife, of Humphrey Tyrrell of Little Warley, Essex, a younger son of Sir Thomas Tyrrell of Herons ; she was not a Tyrrell heiress, for her father had sons by a second wife. But his first wife, the mother of Lady Went­ worth, had been the heiress Isabel Helion, whose mother, Editha Rolfe, had likewise be~n a sole daughter and heiress ; so that by the marriage of Sir Roger the lands and escutcheons of Helion and Rolfe came to Wentworth, and also other lands and armorial bearings which Helion had derived from N ortoft and Swynburne, Swynburne from Botetourt, Botetourt from Gernon and Fitz Otho. This genealogical intricacy will, it is hoped, be made clear by reference to the Pedigree accompanying the armorial shield. The manor of Gosfield Hall alias Bellowes or Bell­ house, both names being those of early holders under the Veres, Earls of Oxford, had descended, through Helion, from Thomas Rolfe, Serjeant-at-Law, who died 1440, and whose tomb yet stands in Gosfield Church. It is probable that from very early times there had been a house on the manor, but Roger Wentworth, now the owner jure uxoris, apparently continued to inhabit Cod­ ham Hall, which he had had from his father, leaving to his son the change of residence which caused the family to be known as Wentworth of Gosfield. His life was not passed inactively on his estates. In 1483, the year succeeding the death of his father, he was elected Knight of the Shire ;1 the Parliament had been summoned in the name of the unfortunate boy-king, Edward V., but immediately on its assembling the throne was seized by the usurper Richard, and whether Roger Wentworth actually sat in Parliament cannot now be discovered. 1 Add. MSS. 19154 (Davy),£. 360. 148 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

In 1497 he was engaged in the suppression of the Comish insurgents risen in rebellion against the tax imposed by King Henry VII. to defray the cost of resist­ ing the recent invasion of the . Scots supporting the pretensions of Perkin Warbeck. The Cornish men, to the number of sixteen thousand, advanced towards London, demanding the punishment of the King's advisers ; they encamped at Blackheath, and on the 22nd of June (1497) came into collision with the King's army, the result being defeat and slaughter to the rebels. Roger Wentworth distinguished himself in the encounter, and was, with others, dubbed knight on the field, or soon afterwards.1 In 15 Henry VII. (1499-1500) Sir Roger served as Sheriff of Essex and Hertfordshire.2 In November 1501 he was one of the many knights deputed, with nume­ rous representatives of the nobility, to receive Katharine of Aragon at St. George's Fields, on her approach to London for marriage with Prince Arthur.3 In 1520 he was in attendance on the same lady as Queen of Eng­ land, at the Field of the Cloth of Gold, when, at Ardres near Calais, the Kings of England and France vied in ostentatious magnificence.4 In 1522 he was one of the company of knights who with nobles and bishops swelled the train of Henry VIII. at his stately reception of the Emperor Charles V. at Canterbury ;5 and in 1523 he appears to have been in the expedition to France commanded by Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk.B Afterwards, until the time of his death, I find no further

1 Metcalfe's Book of Knights, from Cotton MS. Claud. c. iii., f. 65. 2 Morant's Hist. of Essex, i., List of Sheriffs. 3 Ohrons. and llienis., Reigns of Rich. III. and Hen. VII., i., 410. 4 Ohrons. of Calais, 24. 5 Rymer's Fwdera, xiii., 768. 6 Brewer's Letters, etc., Reign of Hen. VIII., iii., 1371. WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD. 149 mention of him. His wife, who had so greatly added to his estate, died five years before him ; and his own decease took place 9 August 1539. Both knight and dame were interred in Wethersfield Church, where their stately altar-tomb yet remains. On its upper slab of grey marble are the recumbent effigies in alabaster: Sir Roger in helmet and armour complete, a wreath beneath his head, a supporting his feet; Dame Wentworth in her mantle, head-dress and veil, angels at her head; the hands of both in attitude of prayer. During the lapse of three and a half cen­ turies the tomb has suffered much by disturbance and mutilation ; when Gough described it1 in 1796 it was in the middle of the chancel; it is now on the north side. The inscription, on a brass fillet, once ran round the verge of the upper marble slab, it is now gone; around the tomb in panels were ten emblazoned shields, three on each side, two at each end; six have disappeared, and four remain, though not in their original positions. Formerly the heraldry, as given by Gough from Symond's Collections in the Heralds' College, composed a perfect history of descent and alliance. The shields were as follows, the description of the four remaining being underlined. At the head and feet of the knight's effigy were identical shields bearing the emblazon of Sir Roger, viz., WENTWORTH quartering HOWARD, and impaling his wife's arms, TYRRELL, with her proper quarterings, HELION, ROLFE, SwYNB"GRNE, and BoTETOUR'l'; one of these two shields remains. On the south or knight's side of the monument the three shields referred to his descent: 1, the coat of Henry, Sir Roger's father, viz., WENTWOR'l'H with crescent on crescent for difference, 1 Gough's Sepulchral Mons., ii., pt. 3, 274. 150 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. impaling HowARD, an ermine spot for difference : 2, the coat of Roger Wentworth of N ettlestead, grandfather of Sir Roger, viz., WENTWORTH impaling quarterly DESPENSER, TrnETO'l', BADLESMERE, and GousHILL : 3, Henry Wentworth's coat again, but now showing WE.NT­ WORTH quartered with DESPENSER, TIBETOT, BADLES­ MERE, and GousRILL, impaling HowARD as before. The shield last described was repeated at the head of the dame, while at her feet was the coat of her father, viz., TYRRELL with annulet for difference, impaling HELION quarterly with N OR'roFT, and below these, tierce in pale, SwYNBURN~;, BOTETOURT, and GERNON. On the north or dame's side of the tomb the three shields spoke to her descent: 1, was the coat of her grandfather on maternal side, viz., HELION quarterly with NoRTOFT, below, tierce in pale, SwYNBURNE, BoTE'l'OURT, and GERNON; impaling ROLFE: 2, SWYNBURNE impaling quarterly BO'l.'E'l'OURT and GERNON : 3, BoTE'l.'OURT and FITZ O'1.'HO quarterly impaling GERN0N. rrhat one of the four shields remaining should be that showing the Tyrrell impalement is a fortunate cir­ cumstance; for it determines beyond question that the monument was raised to Sir Roger Wentworth, not to his father Henry; although certainly the latter is com­ memorated, it being also very probable that his dust lies here. Gough in his text makes the mistake of assigning the monument to Henry Wentworth, but this he corrects in his index. Morant erroneously states that the tomb of Sir Roger and his lady is in Gos:field Church. Sir Roger Wentworth left four sons, of whom the eldest, Sir John; has his place in. these narratives as third chief of his house. Of the younger sons rather more is learnt than is usually the case. WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD. 151 Henry, the second son, was of Mountnessing, a place some twenty-three miles south-west of Gosfielcl, and seven miles south-west of Chelmsford. He had Mount­ nessing in right of his wife, Agnes Hamond, of a Kentish family ; he had likewise from his father, Cheswick Hall, in Chrishall parish, in the north-west angle of the county; and also described as "of Gosfield,'' he may have been the first Wentworth to reside there; the con­ jecture receives support from the parish register, in which the first entry of the family is the baptism of one of his sons 3 August 1545. This Henry, concerning whom we know no more, must have died (his burial is unrecorded) either shortly before or after the child's christening; for in January of the next year, Agnes, his widow, was remarried to William Wilford, probably of the family of Robert Wilford for whom there was for­ merly a memorial stone in Gosfield Church. Henry Wentworth is chiefly to be noticed because on the failure of his elder brother's issue it was his son who carried on the line of Wentworth of Gosfield; he had three other sons, one of whom was Peter Wentworth, clerk. This Peter was rector of Abberton and afterwards of Great Bromley, Essex, he was also chaplain to Lord Darcy, and rector, sine cura, of Gestingthorpe, the vicar­ age of which he held at the same time. He had the honour of preaching a sermon before the Court at Green­ wich, on the text," Be wise now therefore, 0 ye kings," etc. (Ps. ii. 10 and 11), and as his discourse was printed in 1587 it had probably met with approval.1 His will, proved 1599, is found at Somerset House (Kidd, 70), and is a good example of the country clergyman's will of that time. The third son of Sir Roger bore his name ; he had 1 Newcourt's Repertorium, ii., 3; and Wood's Fasti Oxonienses, 471. 152 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. land at Felsted, nine miles south-west of Gosfield, and had afterwards the manor of Bocking purchased from the Crown in 1544. He was the first of four generations of Wentworths seated at Bocking (three miles south­ west of Gosfi.eld) during a period extending over a cen­ tury. They do not claim notice beyond what is accorded to them in the Pedigree which follows that of the paternal house of Gosfield. The fourth son of Sir Roger was John Wentworth, junr., the practice of naming two sons alike being not uncommon at that time; he settled at Bumpstead­ Steeple, :Essex, ten miles north-west of Gosfield. Two daughters are given to Sir Roger Wentworth in the Pedigrees. It is scarcely probable that it was one of these who, at the age of twelve years, was the subject of a "miracle'' which had the full credence of the good and learned Sir , and which is recorded by him as having been" done in the face of the sun, before multitudes of people, and of undoubted proof." She is described as the daughter of Sir Roger 1'T entworth of :Essex, and having been "in a marvellous manner vexed and tormented by the devil," was brought and laid before the image of Our Lady at Ipswich, when, " in the sight of many people, though her countenance was grisly changed, her mouth drawn aside, and her eyes laid out upon her cheek, yet she, as well as all the remanent there, were in the presence of all the company restored to their good state, perfectly cured, and sud­ denly ."1 The only two daughters named of Sir Roger were married, and one of them had, successively, three hus­ bands; it would be interesting to kn.ow if the restored girl had lived to enter into the state of matrimony. 1 Turner's Hist. of Eng., x., 561, quoting More's Works; and Letter, " perhaps to Cardinal Wolsey," Harl. MSS. 651, £. 181. WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD. 153

Srn JOHN WENTWORTH, KNIGHT, of Gosfield; born 1494, died 1567. Sir John Wentworth, eldest son of Sir Roger, was probably with his father in attendance on Henry VIII. at the Field of the Cloth of Gold, in 1520 ; the Chroni­ cles of Calais do not give his name, but mention "Anne Wentworth, John Wentworth's wife," as one of the "noble women" in the Queen's suite.1 In 1521 he is found in a list of fifty gentlemen attending on Wolsey at Calais,2 probably on the occasion of the Cardinal's journey for the purpose of mediating between the rivals Charles V. of Germany and Francis I. of France. Again, 11 July 1527, "Mastar W entforthe " is one of the gentlemen-ushers of the great churchman, when landing at Calais3 he proceeded in great state to Amiens, to arrange a marriage between the Dauphin'and the Princess Mary of England. We may suppose from the above indications of his career that Sir John-who, however, was not a knight 4 until 1547, when he had reached the age of fifty-three - passed his younger days at Court ; and that not until arrived at mature years did he return to reside on his inheritance in Essex. His father's decease in 1539 placed him in possession of his ample estate, with which he incorporated, in 1544, the manor of W ethersfi.eld, adjoining Codham Hall, his residence; this neighbouring manor he obtained from the Crown in exchange for the · distant manor of East-Mersea, part of his mother's inheritance, on the sea-coast of the county.5

1 Ckrons. of Calais, 24; and Rymer's Fredera, xiii., 712. 2 Ckrons. 'of Calais, 24. 3 Ibid., 39. 4 Cotton MSS. Claud. c. iii., £. 158. "Knights of the Carpet." 5 Morant's Hist, of Essex, ii. X 154 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

As the estate of the Essex W entworths had now reached its full magnitude, it will be well here to enume­ rate the manors and parishes in which the lands lay, although to do this it will be necessary to quote the inquisition post m01·tem of the knight, the incidents of whose life are yet under our consideration. The names are written as in the inquisition, but as in it they are entered without regard to order, an attempt has been made to group them. CouN'l'Y OF EssEx.-In the immediate vicinity of Gosfi.eld, Harmours [Monthermers], Parkehall, Hodin­ ges als. Churchehall, Bellhouse, Sharlowes [Shardlowes], Aylewardes. Going northward from Gosfield towards the border of the county, Syble-Hynyngham als. Syble­ Heddingham, Maplested Magna, Maplested Pva., Over­ hall in Gestlingthorpe, Bulmer, Otten-Belcham, Belcham­ Williams als. Walter-Belcham, Pawles-Belcham, Borley, Foxerthe, Lyston, Pentlowe, Ovington, Ashen. East­ ward of Gos:field, Hawstide [? Halstead], Bewers [Bures], Withermoundeforde [Wormingford], Garner als. Garnon, Magna Horksley, Pva. Horkesley, St. Marie[?], Fordam. Westward of Gosfi.eld, W ethers:field, Codd­ ham oulde pke. et Coddham newe pke., Shalforde, Shornhall [Sherne Hall], Nicholls, Fynchingefelde, N ortofts, Magna Barde:filde, Pva. Bardfelde. Southward of Gos:field, Bovington, Bockynge, Pva. Reyne, Brantree [Braintree]. This list comprises forty-one manors or other tenures, and to it may be added from Morant's account Liston Hall, Biggs [ now Gos:field Place], and Morells, near Gosfi.eld ; Barkers or Bakers in W ethers­ field; Cornett or Cornish Hall in Finchingfield; Bump­ stead-Helion ; Cheswick Hall in Chrishall; and East Mersea exchanged for W ethers:field. 0oUN'£Y OF SUFFOLK.-Wiston or Wissington, Stoke WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD. 155 et N eylande, Overhall et N eitherhall in Poslingforde, Hunden, Standsfeild, Oaundishe [Cavendish] et Clare. Blomefield in Hist. of Norfolk, and Davy in his MS. Suffolk Collections, also name Houghton or Howton Hall, Impey or Quipey Hall, and Bulley Hall. OoUN'rY OF N ORFOLK.-The inquisition does not mention the Wentworth manors in this county ; they were Terrington Howards (or St. Clement's), Terrin~ton st John's, and East Walton. Although it is very probable that a house stood on the site of Gosfield Hall before the time of Sir John Wentworth, and that the old house had been occupied by Thomas Rolfe and others of Sir John's predecessors, there is very little room for doubt that he was the builder of the Tudor mansion a considerable portion of which yet stands. This indeed has been thought to date earlier, and possibly to have been reared in the reign of Henry VII., but there is twofold evidence showing the work to have been Sir John's. The resemblance in construction and material which the old work of the Hall bears to that of the later portion of the church, known to have been built by Sir John (the date 1561 having been visi­ 1 ble on a beam in the chancel until the last restoration ), may be considered as circumstantial evidence. Proof positive, however, is found in John Norden's valuable itinerary of 1594, before quoted in these pages. In" An Alphabeticall Table of the Howses [in Essex] having speciall names, And the present occupiers of them," he has '' Gosfeylde Hall buylt by Sr. Jo. Wentworth;" and again in" A Table of the Halls in Essex for the most parte which beare the names of the parishes wherein they are, wth most of the possessors of them," the itinerant notes " Gosfeylde Hall a proper howse buylte 1 Information from the Vicar. 156 THE FAMILY OF WEN'l'WORTH.

by Sr. Jo. Wentworth, sonne to S¥ Rog. Wentworth." 1 This surely is conclusive, for Norden in all probability saw the edifice while the work was yet fresh. Further we may conclude that by 1561 the mansion was completed, for in that year the knight was able to receive in it a visit from his sovereign. Thus we may safely conclude that Sir John moved from Codham Hall, the house of his father and grand­ father, to Gosfield; where, besides building his new mansion, he provided for his final resting-place "the Wentworth Chapel," as his addition to the parish church has ever since been known ; the distance between the old residence and the new was about two and a half miles direct. Sir John was twice Sheriff of the counties Essex and Hertford, first in 35 Henry VIII. (1543-1544), and for the second time in 1 Philip and Mary (1554-1555). In 1561, as said above, he was visited by Queen Elizabeth, who arrived from Helmingham, the seat of Sir Lionel Tollemache, 19 .August, and remained at Gosfield until the 21st, when she went on to Leighs to visit Lord Rich. Nichols's account of this progress quotes the expenses per diem; are we to infer that at this time the Queen paid the cost of her visits? If so, it is to be feared that so laudable a practice was not continued in later progresses, which are said to have entailed a heavy expenditure on Her Majesty's hosts. However that may be, we here find the expenses daily entered under the heads, " Dis­ pens., Buttil., Gard., Coquina, Pullia, Scuttil., Salsar., .Aula et Camera, Stabulum, Vadia, et Elimozina; " in plain English, Pantry, Buttery, , Kitchen, Poultry, Scullery, Salt-Meats, Hall and Chamber, Stable,

1 Essex described by Jo. Norden, 1594, ed. Camden Soc. WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD. 157

Vails or Presents, and Charity. And the totals at Gosfield were for 19 August £107 9s. llfd., and for 20 August £104 12s. lld. In 1566, the year before his death, Sir John was troubled with the custody at Gosfield of an illustrious state-prisoner, the Queen's cousin, Lady Katharine Grey, Countess of Hertford, and sister of poor Lady ,1 ane, "the ten days' Queen." Lady Katharine and Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford, had provoked the anger of Elizabeth by marrying without the Queen's consent, and both were committed to the Tower in 1561. In con­ sequence of the prevalence of the plague they were removed from the Tower by the Queen's order 21 August 1563, the Earl to the house of his mother in Middlesex, the Countess to Sir ,John Grey's house [Pirgo Jin Essex; and Sir John, her uncle, dying in November 1564, she was given in charge to Mr. Secretary Petre. Then in May 1566 the Queen commands Sir John Wentworth to take charge of the lady, and Sir John, whose letter is preserved with the State Papers, writes to the Council praying to be excused from the responsibility. But he was not relieved; for by a letter of 2 October 1567 the Queen directs Sir Owen Hopton (not then, but after­ wards, Lieutenant of the Tower), in consequence of the demise of Sir John Wentworth, to take in charge the Lady Katharine Grey, and to keep her from the access 1 of all strangers. . The interesting story of this per­ secuted lady has its proper place here only so far as it affected a Wentworth of Gosfield, but it may just be added, that after a sojourn of scarcely four months at Sir Owen Hopton's house at Y oxford in Suffolk, Lady Katharine died there, 27 January 1568. A mistake

1 Oal. State Papers, Domestic. 158 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH .. has been current as to the place of her death, which is said to have occurred in the Tower, but this is corrected by Charles Knight in his account of the circumstances; he quotes a letter from the Vicar of Y oxford showing that Lady Katharine's burial is recorded in the register of that parish, and that " her great chest with the royal arms of England may still be seen at Cockfield Hall. " 1 Sir John Wentworth's will is dated 8 October 1566. He desired to be buried forty-eight hours after his decease, if possible, and "in the tomb which he had already prepared in the north aisle of Gos:field Church." His commendable wish for speedy interment seems to have been strangely disregarded, or perhaps from some unforeseen cause it could not be fulfilled; however that may be, the inscription on the tomb states that he died 15 September 1567, and the register does not record his obsequies until a fortnight later, 1 October; he had reached the age of seventy-three years. The tomb is on the north side of the altar, under the arch between the chancel and the Wentworth Chapel or north aisle, and thus barely within the area defined by Sir John. His widow, who died eight years later, directed her burial to be "in the chancel of Gosfield Church, near her hus­ band;" and although the position of the tomb is here not fully described, it being now found in the chancel ( or between chancel and north aisle) would indicate that it has not been disturbed. The site is that so frequently occupied by "the founder's tomb," and it is the con­ jecture of the Vicar that the monument of Thomas Rolfe, the real founder of the church, which is now on the south side of the altar-i.e. in the south-east angle of the chancel-may originally have stood on the north

1 Knight's Popular Hist. of Eng., iii., 164. WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD. 159 side, the change of position having probably been made at the time the chancel was rebuilt by Sir John. The altar-tomb of Sir John and his lady has four panels on either side, with two at each end; the panels were formerly occupied by brass escutcheons, but of the~e only three now remain, one of which is represented in the accompanying plate, it being an extremely interesting and perfect example of heraldic record. The loss of the other shields is much to be regretted; nevertheless we are fortunate in having probably the most valuable; for two of them which show Wentworth quarterly of fourteen impaling Bettenham for Sir J olm's wife, thereby preserve unquestionably the identity of the tomb. As in the case of the monument at Wethersfield, so here; an inscription on a brass fillet formerly ran round the edge of the upper slab ; a portion of it remains, and fortunately the whole can be supplied from the MS. notes of Richard Symonds, taken in the reign of Charles I. ; for this, and much other information, I am indebted to the Vicar, the Rev. H. L. Elliot. The words under­ lined are those remaining.

1!?ttt l!>tt!J $it jfobn fflmtwortb, 1ltntgl)t, anlJ il!lamt «nnt bi~ wift wbitb ~atlJ $tr 3fobn lJq,arttlJ t!Ji~ prt~mt wodlJt t!)t xbtlJ lla!?t of $q,ttmbtr in tbt !?«e of ourt i.ortJ mtilxbii. '.anlJ tbt ~amt il!lamt :aunt lJq,arttlJ tbi~ wodlJt tbt lJa!?t of

The space for the latter date having been left vacant indicates that the monument was raised during Dame Anne's lifetime. "Anne Wentworth, John Wentworth's wife," men­ tioned in the Chronicles of Calais as attending on Queen Kathari:ue at "the Field of the Cloth of Gold" in 1520, 160 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. was the daughter of John Bettenham, the representative of an old Kentish family seated at Pluckley; their manor carried their name in the time of Hasted, and probably does so yet. She survived her husband eight years, and was buried in Gosfi.eld Church 30 November 1575. They had suffered misfortune in losing three of their four children ; the only son died young, and the shield on the tomb surmounted by an esquire's helmet evidently represents him (see plate). Of daughters there were three, but only one, Anrn~, the heiress, survived her father; Margaret died unmarried; and Mary, who married her kinsman, Thomas 2nd Lord Wentworth of N ettlested, died at Calais during the time her lord was Deputy there.

ANNE, LADY MALTRA VERS, of Gosfield ; born 1537, died 1581. The heiress was thirty years of age at the death of her father, and was at that time a widow,1 having lost two husbands. She had been married, April 1554, when scarcely seventeen to Sir Hugh Rich, second (or perhaps the eldest) son of Richard, Lord Rich of Leeze (Leighs), Lord Chancellor, and of unenviable memory as connected with the confiscation of monastic property, by which he had largely profited. Sir Hugh had been made a knight, in the Tower of London, at the coronation of Queen Mary, 1 October 1553,2 but his career prematurely closed the next year. He died 1 November 1554, and was buried at Gosfield in the Wentworth Chapel, where is his tomb near that of his father-in-law Sir John, on the north side of it, but a little westward. A portion of the inscription on

1 Inquis. p.m. of Sir John W. 2 Metcalfe's Book of Knights, 106. FRmI THE TOJVJB OF SIR JOHN WENTWORTH KNIGHT, IN GOSFIELD. CHURCH, ESSEX.

PEDIGREE SHOWING THE ALLIANCES THROU rrHE ARMORIAL SHIELD IN GOSFIELD CHURCH 0

Philip Despenser1 Margaret Goushill, 5 Bartholomew, Lord Badlesmere (son of Hugh, da. of Ralph Goushill died 1322. Earl of of co. Lincoln. T Winchester), died 1314. I I -r Philip Despenser,=,=J oan Le Strange. John, Lord Ti betot,,Margaret Badlesmere died 1350. I died 1367. I 7 ,____ _ -1 -i John Wentworth-y-Alice Philip Despenser,1 Margaret Robert, Lord,Margare of North Elmsall, I Bissett. of co. Lincoln, I Cobham. T.ibetot, of I Deincou co. York. 2 died 1400. N ettlestead. I I I John Wentworth,Agnes Dronsfield. Sir Philip Despenser of,Elizabeth Tibet of North Elmsall. I 3 N ettlestead, died 1423. I 6 I -i______, Roger Wentworth,Margery Despenser, 4 Henry Howard of Norfolk, uncle of N ettlestead, I Lady Roos, 1st Duke of Norfolk. died 1452. died 1478. --r I I I- Joan Fitz Simon, 2nd wife.,Henry Wentworth1 Elizabeth Howard, 1st wife. of Codham Hall, 8 I died 1482. + I I Sir Roger Wentworth, Kut., of Codham Hall, died 1539.--rAnne Tyrrell, died 15:: I I Sir John Wentworth, Knt., of Gosfield Hall, died 1567.,Anne Bettenham, died 1571 1 I + WHICH WERE DERIVED THE QUARTERINGS OF THE TOMB OF SIR JOHN WENTWORTH, KNIGHT.

John, Lord Botetourt, died 1324.::i=Maud Fitz Otho, da. of Thomas Fitz Otho, I Sir Jolhn Botetourt, died 1339. John Gernon of Essex. T T I I I -I Edmund N ortoft, Sir John Botetourt,J oan Gernon, T 1a I I . I I Henry Hehon.,Emma Nortoft. Sir Robert Swynburne::i=Joan Botetotirt, 10 of Little Horksley, Essex, I 12 died 1391. l~------1 -I- Thomas Rolfe of Gosfield, died 1440. John Helion.,A]ice Swynbume. T 11 I ______, I I I Editha Rolfe.,Jolm Helion of Bumpstead Helion, Essex, died 1449, 14 I C...... ------.. . . I Elizabeth Walwin, 2nd wife.,Humphrey Tyrrell1 Isabel Helion, 1st wife, 0£ Little Warley, 9 I Essex, died 1507. -+

Now.-The bold figures denote th~ order of the quarterings,

WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD. 161 the brass verge of the altar-tomb remains, and almost all that has been lost can be supplied from Symond's notes, though even in his day it was not perfect. It then read as follows, the words underlined yet remaining :

~ttt l!)ttf) $Uf ~tiut 3lt!'tbt, ibt!)gi)t, .... to $ttt Jlt!'tfJa:rtJ 3lt!?tfJt, lL-orlJt lt!'tfJt tuf)oe ma:r!)tlJ ~nnt tbt b'otugf)ter a:nb' a!)rt of Sur jfof)n DmttuortfJ 1.ftn!)gf)t iufJ!'tfJ fJa:!'b' Sur ]!!tiut b'!'tb' tuitf)out J1fJfJttt tf)t Jfrr~tt b'a:!)t of jl},obtmbtr in tf)t !'trt of oure lL,orb't @nt '1!'.f)ottfJ"' a:nb' Jf,ift ~unlJrtb' Jf!'ft!' aniJ Jfour.

The shields in the panels of the tomb have never been heraldically charged. Lady Rich did not long remain a widow, but her married happiness, again, was but of brief duration. Her second husband was Henry Fitz .Alan, Lord Mal­ travers, only son and heir-apparent of Henry the last Fitz Alan Earl of Arundel. He must have been a young bridegroom, and his abilities of remarkably early development, for when scarcely nineteen he appears to have been entrusted with a mission to Maximilian, King of Bohemia. It was while tmvelling that at Brussels he contracted a fever which speedily ended his promis­ ing career ; he died 30 June 1556, and was interred in the Cathedral of St. Gudule. In Tierney's History of Arundel (1834) we have fortunately the following description of young Lord Maltravers copied from a MS. (now at the British Museum) entitled "The Life of Henry Fitz Allen, last Earle of Arundell of that name," and supposed to have been written by the Earl's chaplain. "His only son, the Lord Maltravers (who in y 162 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. his tyme was worthely esteemed the paragon of this realme) not exceedinge the age of eighteen yeares, did excel in all manner of good learninge, in all activities on horseback and on foote, and in his behaviour was a most righte courtiour, who, beinge but of those yeares, was sente ambassadour to Maximilian, the Kinge of Boemia, into the lowe countrie, wheare, through a hot burninge fever, he ended his life." Tierney enumerates the portraits at Arundel Castle, which include a full-length picture of the young nobleman, painted at Brussels by Paul Vansomer. Lady Maltravers's second widowhood having lasted some years, she took a third husband; this time neither lord nor knjght, but her own steward or manager of her estate, William Deane. Morant calls him Lady Mal­ travers's "servant," probably meaning agent or steward; for by the county-historian's showing, Deane was of gentle blood, and came of a family once resident at Tunnworth, in the parish of Blackburn, Lancashire. Judging from the importance of his marriage, and the position thereby reached, his ability would appear to have been considerable. His advantages enabled him, in 1575, to purchase the manor of Dynes, about three miles from Gosfi.eld, in the parish of Great Maplestead; to which, a few years after the death of Lady Maltravers, he added two other manors, and built Dynes Hall. He married as his second wife Anne, daughter of Thomas Egerton of W allegrange, or Rynehill, Staffordshire, and on his death, 4 October 1585 (for he survived Lady Maltravers less than five years), he left a son and two daughters. His ~on, Sir John, was High Sheriff in 1610, and Dynes Hall descended to Anthony, William Deane's great-grandson, who sold it in 1653. Great Maplestead Church was the burial-place of the family, and contains WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD. 163 handsome monuments to Sir Drue Deane, grandson of William Deane, and to his wife. 1 Lady Maltravers received Queen Elizabeth at Gos­ field Hall 15 August 1579 ;2 Her Majesty was making one of her progresses among her faithful subjects, and came from Leighs, the seat of Lord Rich, to Gosfield, where she appears to have found her sojourn so pleasant as to prolong it five days; so at least says Morant's authority, though as much information is not given in Nichols's account. It was the Queen's second visit, for, as has been shown, she had visited Sir John, Lady Mal­ travers's father, eighteen years before, i.e. in 1561; "the Queen's Gallery" in the old portion of the Hall yet perpetuates the memory of the royal visits. The next year Lady Maltravers died; Morant gives the date as 5 December 1580, but perhaps it was a little later, for her burial entry in the Gosfield registers is not until 10 January 1580 (1581 N.s.); her age was no more than forty-three years and some months. In the register she is recorded as "Anna D'na Matravers uxor Will'mi IJeane armigeri." In addition to the possessions inherited from her father (see p. 154), she appears to have had in jointure of her first marriage Childerditch Hall and Tillingham Hall, in the south of Essex; and at her second marriage to have been endowed with certain manors or lands of the Arundel estate in Sussex, viz., Tortington, Chey­ neys, Wyschards, Hampton, Woodmancote cum North­ wood, Nutbeams, Woolbeding, and Gorings.3 The inqui-

1 Morant's Hist. of Essex, ii., 278. 2 Ibid., i., Colchester, 51; and Nichols's Progresses, ii., 286. 3 Blomefield's Norfolk, ix., 87. His account, however, is very confused, and the Sussex manors are stated to be in Essex. 164 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. sition includes also "Whittington College within the City of London." In her will Lady Maltravers expressed her desire to be burjed in the tomb of her first husband; the injunc­ tion was doubtlessly followed, but her name was not added to the inscription. She had no children.

JOHN WENTWOR'rH of Little Horksley, and of Gosfield ; born 1540, died 1588. The next heir to the estates was the eldest son of Henry Wentworth ofMountnessing (see p.151), who, on the death of his cousin Lady Maltravers, was living at Little Horksley, one of the Wentworth manors, but twelve miles from Gosfield, and on the border of the county, near Nayland in Suffolk. John Wentworth did not succeed to all the lands which had been in the possession of the W entworths before him, for Lady Maltravers, by indenture of 24 April 1577, had demised to Jerome Bettenham (of her mother's family) and James Walton the three manors in Norfolk which had come by her ancestress Elizabeth Howard, and some of the manors in Suffolk ;1 the default of an heir, in the direct line of succession, perhaps permitted this disposal. John Wentworth was made Sheriff of Essex (alone, Hertfordshire being now a separate jurisdiction) in 1581,s and beyond this there is nothing to record of him. He enjoyed his possessions but little more than eight years, and died at the age of forty-eight; his burial at Gosfield being dated 3 April 1588. He had married twice : first, Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Christopher Haydon of

1 Blomefi.eld's Hist. of Norfolk, ix., 87. 2 Harl. MSS. 259, £. 93. WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD, 165

Baconsthorpe, Norfolk ; she died some years before her husband succeeded to Gosfield: and secondly Dorothy, daughter of Sir Richard Southwell of Woodrising, Nor­ folk. This lady, who survived him, had the manor of Little Horksley in jointure,1 and apparently that of Wiston (or Wissington) in Suffolk; previous to marriage with Wentworth she had been the wife of Thomas Higgins of Norfolk, and in her second widowhood she married, for the third time, with Sir Edward Moore of Mellefont, co. Louth, Ireland, who was of a Kentish family seated at Benenden. Sir Edward bad been knighted for his military services in Ireland, and obtained the grant of the dissolved Abbey of Mellefont; his second son Gerald was created Lord Moore of Melle­ font in 1616 and Viscount in 1621, and his later descendants became Earls and Marquises of Drogheda, all which titles, with a barony of the United Kingdom, are yet in the family. Dorothy Wentworth was Sir Edward Moore's third wife, and he died before her. Dame Dorothy resided latterly at her jointure-manor of Little Horksley; she was living in 1609, and died before 1617, when Little Horksley was alienated by Sir John Wentworth; her gravestone is in the church there, and the inscription, or as much of it as can now be seen, reads thus: "Daughter to Sr Richard Southwell of Rasing Here lyeth Dame Dorothy first y• wife of Thomas Higgins of Norfolk Esqr and after y• wife of Iohn Wentworth of Gosfield Esqr and lastly y• wife and Wedowe of sr Edward Moore of Melyphant in Ierland and Knight who lived a long age and dyed much lamented." John Wentworth (the second) had by his first wife four sons ; and by Dorothy, his second wife, a son and two daughters. 1 Morant's Hist. of Essex, ii., 234. 166 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH,

JoHN WENTWORTH of Gos:field; born 1564, died 1614. Of the life of the third John Wentworth of Gosfield there are no more incidents to notice than there were in that of his father. His age on succeeding to the estate was about twenty-four, and yet a year later, 5 August 1589, the Deputy Lieutenants of Essex, engaged in taking musters, reported to Lord Burghley "their opinion that M' John Wentworth [ apparently of Gosfield] was a person not meet to be a captain of the lances."1 The nature of his disqualification at this time is not revealed, but between two and three years later, that is in the shrieval year 1591-1592, he was appointed sheriff of his county. 2 In 1597, September 27, he was elected -with William Petre-as representative of Essex in Parliament ;3 this assembly sat between three and four months, and as its chief work passed an Act for the systematic relief of the poor, a statute which approxi­ mated towards that passed in 1601, now considered as the foundation of English Poor Law. It was in the lifetime of the third John Wentworth that John Norden made his Essex itinerary before referred to (p. 155). He found in the possession of " Jo. Wentworth Es. Gosfeylde Hall, Liston Hall in Gosfeylde, Codham Hall, Lit. Horstley [Horksley] Hall, and "\Vethersfeylde Hall, an anc' decayde howse ; " and another John Wentworth, cousin of the master of Gosfi.eld, had Bocking Hall. . The subject of this notice did not live to be an old man, but died at the age of forty-nine; the Gosfield

1 Cal. State Papers, Domestic. 2 Harl. MSS. 259, Morant's List, and Gosfield Registers. 3 Members of Parliament, Official Return. WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD. 167 register dates his burial 11 February 1613 (N.s. 1614), but there is no memorial to him in the church. His marriage (at Stepney Church, 9 March 1581) with Cecilia Unton, daughter of Sir Edward Unton of Wadley, Berks, may almost be said to have connected him with the Royal House; for his wffe's mother was Anne, daughter of Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset, the Lord Protector, and widow of John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland. After the death of Wentworth, she married as her second husband Sir Edward Roby of Bisham, Berks, and was his third wife ; but this union was brief, she being again a widow at the time of her decease in 1618, five years only after Wentworth's death. She chose for her burial-place the Church of Aston Rowant in Oxfordshire, the reason for this appearing in the inscription on her tomb, which also, happily for the genealogist, records her marriages and her children ; 01ie daughter, however, is not named. The inscription runs thus: "Here lyeth buried La: Oicill Hobbee late before her death y" wife of S" Edwd Hobbee of Bisham Kt and formerly y" wife of Ihon Wentworth of Gosfielde in ye county of Essex Esqre by which saide former husband shee had and left issue sr Ihon Wentworth Kni : and Baronett, Dame Anne ye wife of S" Edwd Gastwieke of 1 Willington in y 0 county of Kent, Diana wife of Lewyes Bowles of Wallington in ye county of Hertf. Esqre and Katherine Wentworth unmarried. ye saide Lady Hobbee died ye Wh day of lune 1618 at Bisham afore­ saide in ye county of Berk. beinge a ,;;vidowe aged fiftie and seven yeres and desired to be buried in this place y" antient inheritance of y" U ntons her ancestor3 shee beinge ye daughter of Sir Edwd Unton and Anne

1 Sir Edward Gostwick of Willington, Beds. 168 THE FAMILY OF WEN'l:WORTH.

Countese of W arwieke daughter toy" Duke of Somerset." The daughter not mentioned in this inscription was Cecilia vVentworth, married in 1609 to Sir Thomas Finch, after­ wards Earl of Winchilsea.

Srn JORN w ENTWORTH, KNIGHT and BARONET ; , died 1631. The seventh and last chief of the Gosfield W entworths squandered his fortune, alienated his inheritance, a,nd in disaster terminated his line at Gosfield. The informa­ tion we have in regard to his career, though too imper­ fect to show clearly the origin of his misfortunes, is sufficient on which to base the conjecture, that at an early age introduced at Court, probably through his mother's connections, he contracted extravagant habits and a love of adventure, which speedily involved him in difficulties, and finally in ruin. The Gosfield registers do not record the year of his baptism, which we might have taken to be that of his birth; but as the baptism of William his younger brother occurred in 1588, preceded by that of a sister in 1585, we may not be wrong in thinking that Sir John was born about 1583. If the surmise be correct, his age was about twenty in 1603, when he formed one of the multi­ tude of knights created by the Scottish King James, on his progress southward to mount the English throne. The chronicler of the King's progress relates that on the 22nd of April " Sir William Pelham, High Sheriff of Lincolnshire, received his Highness [ coming from Newark-on-TrentJ being gallantly appointed both with horse and men, divers worshipful men of the same country accompanied him, who convoyed and guarded his Majesty to Bever [Belvoir] Castle, being the right WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD. 169 noble Earl of Rutland's, where his Highness was not only royally and most plentifully received, but with such exceeding joy of the good Earl and his honourab.le lady that he took therein exceeding pleasure. And he approved his contentment in the morning, for before he went to break his fast he made these knights whose names follow." No less than forty-nine gentlemen were dubbed knights by happy King James before he went to breakfast, and in the list of those honoured is named "Sir John Wentworth of Essex."1 The next year, 1604, February 20, Sir John bad license to travel for three years; what part of the world he visited we do not learn ; in 1609, July 25, he has a similar license, and for the same term. It does not appear, however, that he fully availed himself of the latter license for, in 1610 he was appointed a Gentleman of the Chamber to Henry Prince of Wales; and in 1611 he writes to the Earl of Salisbury, , begging to be appointed Groom in Ordinary to the Prince.2 In the same year, 1611, June 29, he was created a Baronet,3 the new dignity which King James had devised as a means of replenishing his treasury ; for the recipients of the honour, necessarily of good birth, and possessing a clear estate of £1000 a year, had to pay into the Exchequer a sum equivalent to three years' pay of thirty soldiers, at eightpence per day per man, nominally for service in the Province of Ulster, Ireland. The cost of a Baronetcy thus amounted to £1095, a much larger sum in Hnl than would now be represented by the same :figures. In 1610 appear the :first signs of Sir John's pecuniary 1 Nichols's Progresses of James I., i., 90, 93 n. 2 Cal. State Papers, IJomestia. 3 Nichols's Pro9resses of James I., ii., 425. z 170 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. difficulties, for in that year (8 J ac. I.) an Act was passed, not only "for enabling of the assurance of certain lands conveyed for the portions of three of the daughters of John Wentworth [ senior], and for confirmation of ce--;.tain other estates for life in other lands," but also " to enable Sir John Wentworth to sell lands for payment of his debts."1 This raising of money was perhaps pre­ liminary to the purchase of the Baronetcy, but there is also in it indication that Sir John was living beyond his means; that his foreign travels, and his life at an extra­ vagant Court, were gradually involving him in trouble, and that the disintegration of the estate had commenced even in the lifetime of his father. At the close of 1612 Sir John figures in the sump­ tuous funeral pomp of Henry Prince of Wales, whom living he had attended as one of his Gentlemen ; the mourners numbered 2000, and the Baronet was one of six who bore the canopy of black velvet over the representation of the deceased Prince.2 In 1616 Sir John, still at Court, got into trouble in connection with the proceedings relative to the foul and mysterious murder of Sir Thomas Overbury, in the Tower, at the end of 1613. The facts or suspicion in relation to the murder did not transpire until two years later, when the guilt was attached to the King's favourite, Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset, and to his Countess, the divorced wife of the Earl of Essex. Over­ bury had counselled Carr against the divorce and his intended marriage with the Countess, and thus roused her resentment ; but it is thought that there were other causes for the crime, and that the unfortunate knight

1 Index to Journals of House of Lords. 2 Nichols's Progresses of James I., ii., 498. WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD. 171 was murdered to prevent the disclosure of some secret wickedness of which even the King had knowledge. The Countess confessed her guilt, and the Earl, brought to trial, was convicted and sentenced to die; but this seems to have been arranged merely for the purpose of bringing them within the limits of the royal mercy, which, in a few days, was extended to both ; and as so often has happened, when wickedness has been done "in high places," the punishment fell on the poor tools of the chief criminals. Sir Jervis Elvis, Lieutenant of the Tower; Richard Weston, a warder ; and two other per­ sons implicated, were condemned and executed in October 1615; and a year later Sir John Wentworth and other persons of position were fined or imprisoned for having interrogated Weston on the scaffold in regard to the crime. Wentworth was fined £1000.1 We learn no more than this, and if Sir John's intervention, although unauthorized, had been simply for the purpose of eliciting a disclosure, which, to the defeat of justice, had been suppressed, it may even be said that there was merit in his offence. In June 1620 a regiment of 2200 men was raised in England to assist King James's son-in-law, Frederick, the Elector Palatine, in the recovery of his dominions, from which he had been driven by the Catholic Powers of Germany, whose resentment he had drawn on himself by rashly accepting, as a champion of Protestantism, the· crown of Bohemia. The expedition has been before referred to in these pages, when the career of the Earl of Cleveland had our attention (p. 64). Sir Horace Vere commanded the English force, divisions of which were officered by the Earls of Oxford and Essex; and among

1 Oal. State Papers, Domestic, and Camden's Annals, 645. 172 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. other leaders was Sir John vVentworth of Gosfield.1 The Earls led 250 men each, Sir John 200 men ; the complete list of the companies is found in Report 10, part 4 His­ torical MSS. Commission, p. 384. The expedition did not accomplish its professed object; the brave Vere main­ tained a hopeless contest against immensely superior forces for more than two years, and until summoned home in April 1623; but the Earls, and probably many other officers, appear to have returned after an absence of six months. A letter of 1622 among the State Papers, from Sir Thomas Wilson to the Earl of Salisbury, relates, with other news, that Sir John Wentworth and another are sent to gaol for murder; of this no explanation appears, but jt is to be feared that the Baronet is referred to. It was under date 17 May of this year, 1622, that he was compelled to " vest in trustees the manor of Gosfield­ Bellhouse" and other manors adjacent; and in the year following " a recovery was passed for the use of Sir John Garrard, Knight and Baronet ;"2 in other words, the possession of the Gosfield estate passed from the Went­ worths, with the exception of a few manors which had probably been settled on Lady Wentworth and her daughters. It is not very easy to gather from Morant's account which were these reserved manors, though it is clear that one of them was Codham Hall, the first manor , in Essex which had come into Wentworth possession; and that Wethersfield remained with Lady Wentworth, but for her life only. The reduction of the estate left by Lady Maltravers, which apparently began in 1610, had continued; Little Horksley had been sold in 1617, and probably about the same time the manor of Wiston in

1 Camden's Annals, 654. 2 Morant's Hist. of Essex, ii., 382. WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD. 173

Suffolk ; the other manors in Suffolk, and those in Nor­ folk, had, as we have seen, passed from the W entworths at the death of Lady Maltravers. We next hear of Sir John, in April 1623, being com­ missioned by the King to convey to the Marquis (after­ wards Duke) of Buckingham, then at Madrid with Prince Charles assisting the Prince's courtship of the Infanta, presents of jewels to be given away at their leave-taking. The jewels are thus described :-" A Ring of gold enamelled white, having a great rock-ruby in four claws. A Tablet of gold with the Infanta's picture, garnished fully on both sides with diamonds. A Clock [ or watch] of gold, garnished on the one side with letters of diamonds JJieu et Mon JJroit, and on the other side a cross of diamonds fully garnished, with a pendant of diamonds. An old Cross of gold set with fair diamonds of an old cut, four round pearls fixed, and a fair round pearl pendant. An old Jesus of gold, with a crown garnished all with diamonds on the one side."1 The jewels were delivered to Wentworth on the 16th April, and dated 10th May, there is a letter to Secretary Con­ way from Capt. Thomas Lowe, of His Majesty's Ship Antelope, saying that " he has taken Sir John Went­ worth and his servan.t on board, and will convey the ship with the horses to St. Andrea."2 This port may have been St. Andre on the Gironde, near Bordeaux, and the mention of horses seems to indicate riding after having landed; the distance thence to Madrid, however, was little short of four hundred miles, a very long and wearisome journey if undertaken on horseback. About the time of Sir John's setting out for Madrid there is a letter alluding to it, and adding that he and

1 Nichols's Progresses, etc., iv., 845. 2 Oal. State Papers, Domestic. 174 THE FA.MILY OF WENTWORTH.

Lord Vaughan had " lately turned Catholics, as will many more at the Infanta's coming." The general apprehension is here shown; the Infanta did not come, but her place was taken by a French princess with the result much as had been feared. In the spring of 1624 another expedition was formed for the recovery of the Palatinate, in which again the Earls of Oxford and Essex took part. Sir John Went­ worth also wished to join it, and it must be taken as a sad sign of his loss of reputation that the commanders declined to receive him into their regiments. In 1627 and the two following years the Baronet appears in the character of a privateer. War had broken out with France, and by order of 8th June the Council granted him the loan of a French prize, the Notre Dame, and a pinnace, St. Peter, for one year; and in a list of warrants for issuing letters-of-marque we find, under date 20 August 1627, Sir John Wentworth owner and captain of the Notre Dame de Grace of 160 tons, and St. Peter of 60 tons. But the poor Baronet's fortune at sea seems to have been no better than on land; in June 1628 he had made no capture from the enemy; the loan of the ships, however, is renewed to him for another year. Soon afterwards he was taken prisoner by the French, and lodged at Dunkirk, whence after awhile he made his escape. He did not lose his ships, for in January 1629 he petitions the king for the extended loan of them for two years, in order to make a voyage to the West Indies. The petition was granted him, but apparently without any successful result, and the next information we have is a warrant dated 2 July 1630 for the sale of the vessels. Then in the following November Sir John petitions the King that the £200 for which the Notre Dame had been sold be paid to him, WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD. 175 and the vessels restored to him, he givfog such satisfac­ tion to the buyer as the Commissioners for the sale of prize-ships shall think fit. The calendared State Papers, the chief source of our information, from this point are silent, and it is only known further that poor Sir John died in October 1631. The circumstances of his death and the place of his burial are undiscovered, but it can scarcely be doubted that to the end his career was attended by misfortune. His widow, Catherine, daughter of Sir Moyle Finch of Eastwell, Kent, survived him eight years. Of the remnant of the estate she had, by settlement for life, the manor of W ethersfi.eld ; and as on her death in the autumn of 1639 she was buried in Epping Church, ''in a vault under the communion table" (Register), it may be that latterly she resided with her daughter Cecily, Lady Grey, wife of William, Lord Grey of Werke, who had purchased Epping manor from his wife's uncle, 'rhomas Finch, Earl of Winchilsea. Lady Wentworth, by her will proved 28 September 1639, bequeathed £400 to be invested in land, forty shillings of the interest to be paid yearly for a sermon preached on the anniversary of her funeral, and the remainder of the interest to be given to the poor of Epping. Sir John had had a son, whose early death saved him from experiencing the deplorable result of his fath8r's disasters. Two daughters survived, Cecily, Lady Grey above mentioned, and Lucy, who in 1638 became the second wife of her kinsman, Thomas, Earl of Cleveland. Catherine, the only child of the Countess Lucy, inherited from her mother Codham Hall and its manor ; this, the earliest possession of the Essex Wentworths, having been reserved at the sale and dismemberment of the estate. The Lady Catherine, when about twenty-two 176 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. years of age, married in 1661 William Spencer of Rolands Manor, Caple, Bedfordshire ; they had no children. Lady Catherine living to be only thirty-one years of age, died in May 1670, and was buried in Cople Church ; William Spencer died 10 April 1686, and was interred with his wife. His heir, a nephew of the same name, sold Codham Hall, which has not since been re­ united to the Gosfi.eld estate. The old Hall is now a residence of moderate size, and of ordinary appearance, having in the long course of years been considerably remodelled; evidences of age and of former dignity are seen in the carving on the beams of the spacious entrance hall, a mantel piece in one of the bedrooms, and in other remnants of carved wood-work here and there about the house. The rural situation is picturesque, and at a short distance from the Hall are two cottages formed from the remains of a chapel, which Morant, in his history of the county, tells us was used for worship up to some time in the reign of Elizabeth; a piscina or ambry in the interior is witness to former sacred use. The manor of W ethersfi.eld, settled on Lady Went­ worth for life, passed at her death in 1639 to Hugh Hare, Lord Coleraine, who soon sold it; it also has remained apart from the Gosfield estate.

THE SUCCESSORS OF THE W ENTWORTHS AT GOSFIELD. On the downfall of Sir John Wentworth the Baronet, and the severance of his estate in 1622, Sir John Garrard, Knight and Baronet, of Lamer, Wheathampstead, Hert­ fordshire (son of Sir John Garrard, Knight, Lord Mayor of London in 1601) became the owner of Gosfi.eld Hall and the adjacent manors. Held by Garrard about seven WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD. 177 years the property was sold in 1629 to Lord Coleraine ; by which Irish nobleman, after five years, it was trans­ ferred, in 1634, to Thomas Allen, Esq., of Finchley. That gentleman retained it but three years, and from 1637 to 1653 it was successively in the possession of Anne, Viscountess Dorchester (widow of Paul, Viscount Bayning, and secondly of Dudley Carlton, Viscount Dorchester), and afterwards of her daughter Elizabeth Bayning, who married Francis Lennard, Lord Dacre; they, in 1653, conveyed the property to Thomas Grey, eldest son of William, Lord Grey of W erke, by Cecily Wentworth, one of the late Baronet's daughters. Thus after a lapse of thirty-one years part of the Wentworth estate returned to a descendant. Thomas Grey died the year after his purchase, leaving his pro­ perty to his father, Lord Grey, who bought other manors formerly Wentworth land, and dying in 167 4, appears to have left part to his son Ralph, and part to his daughter Catherine, wife of Charles North, Lord Grey of Rolleston. Ralph, Lord Grey, died the year after his father, leaving as heir his son, Ford Grey, the associate of the Duke of Monmouth in his rebellion, 1685 (p. 107), and who became Earl of Tankerville; he in 1691 united with his brothers in conveying Gos:field Hall and estate to Sir Thomas Millington, Knight, M.D., the eminent President of the College of Physicians. Sir Thomas Millington died in 1704, and was buried in Gos:field Church, to which he, or his son Thomas, pre­ sented one of the bells; it bears the name, and the date 1704. The second Thomas Millington was High Sheriff of the county in 1708, and M.P. for Great Bedwin, Wilts, in 1710. He died in 1714, s.p., leaving his estate here to his two sisters; they in 1715 sold it to John Knight, Esq., who the next year also purchased from AA 178 TRE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH,

William, Lord North and Grey, the portion of the former Wentworth estate, which that Lord had probably inherited through his mother, Catherine, Lady Grey, grand-daughter of Sir John Wentworth, Bart. Thus again, and finally, the descendants of Wentworth ceased to hold any remnant of the old estate. Mr. Knight, born 1683 at Weymouth, was educated at Oxford, entered of Gray's Inn, and was for some years Member of Parliament for St. Germans, Cornwall, and later for Sudbury, Suffolk; he also became Deputy Lieutenant for the county of Essex. His wife, widow of James Newsham, Esq., was sister to James Craggs, Secretary of State, temp. George II. :Mr. Knight took down the greater part of the old Hall, and rebuilt it in a nondescript manner untram­ melled by architectural precedent, and certainly not courting repetition; reference to the alteration will pre­ sently be made. He died in 1733, and was buried in Gosfi.eld Church, in a new vault which he had con­ structed under the western portion of the Wentworth Chapel lengthened for the purpose. Over the vault he made a Hall pew so singular and exclusive in character, that it claims notice. The floor being about four feet higher than that of the nave, the pew is reached by a flight of steps at its eastern end, and entered by a door of the ordinary hall-door type (a fan-light above and lights on either side), set in a solid party-wall; while communication with the church and congregation is by an arched opening extending part of the length only of this little apartment, the occupants of which may thus be seen or not according to will. The opening in front commands the pulpit, and Mr. Knight's costly and ostentatious monument occupies the back part of the'

pew, which, combined with the -vault beneath1 is thus WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD. 179 curiously adapted for the accommodation of the living and the dead. Mr. Knight having lost his only son (by a marriage prior to that with the sister of Secretary Oraggs) left the estate to his widow, who married as her third husband Robert Nugent, Esq., M.P., created in 1767 Baron Nugent and Viscount Clare, and in 1776 Earl Nugent, all in the Peerage of Ireland. Earl Nugent was a person of considerable abilities, and was known in his day as a poet and man of culture; he was also distinguished by his wealthy alliances. His :first wife was Lady Amelia Plunkett, second daughter of Peter, 4th Earl of Fingal; she died in 1731, a year after marriage, leaving a son who did not live to succeed his father. His second wife was the widow Knight, who in the obituary of the Gentleman's Magazine is said to have brought him £100,000 in money and estates; she died 1756. The third wife of Earl Nugent was Eliza­ beth, the widow of Augustus, 4th Earl of Berkeley (and daughter of Henry Drax, Esq., of Oharborough, Dorset­ shire), by whom also he acquired a considerable addition to his wealth; this Countess, the mother of his only surviving child, out-lived him, but a separation had taken place several years before his decease. The Earl is said to have done much towards the improvement of the mansion; indeed the obituary before quoted states it was rebuilt by him, and it is now scarcely possible to define the work attributable to him, and that which should be credited to his predecessor Mr. Knight; this will have our attention when more particular reference is made to the Hall. The Earl died in Dublin, 13 October 1788, at the age of seventy-nine; his body was brought to Gosfield, and laid in the vault made by Mr. Knight under the Hall pew in the church, although it appears from the obituary that he had 180 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. desired his burial to be at Stowe. He is commemorated by a tablet forming an addition to Mr. Knight's monu­ ment, as is also his only son, Edmund Nugent (by his first wife), who had been here interred seventeen years pre­ viously. His only surviving child, by the Countess of Berkeley, his third wife, was the Lady Mary, married to George, Marquis of Buckingham, who in 1775 had succeeded his uncle Earl Temple in his title and estate at Stowe, and in 1784 had obtained his Marquisate. Thus in 1788 George Nugent-Temple-Grenville, Earl Temple and Marquis of Buckingham, became the pos­ sessor of the Gos:field estate in right of his wife, Lady Mary Nugent; he also succeeded, by special remainder, to her father's Irish Earldom. The estate at this time was reputed to be of the annual value of £14,000; the personal fortune of Earl Nugent, nearly £200,000, was left to relatives of his own name. In 1807 the Marquis placed Gosfield Hall at the disposal of the exiled King of France, Louis XVIII., who resided here with his Queen and other members of his family about two years, and then removed to Hart­ well in Buckinghamshire, where he remained until the overthrow of Napoleon, in 1814, permitted his return to Paris. His residence at Gosfield, and his grateful recognition of the kindness of the Marquis of Bucking­ ham in placing the Hall at the disposal of the royal family of France, was commemorated by the erection in the grounds of a small stone altar, around which elms were planted by the royal hands. On the sale of the estate in 1825 by the Duke (son of the Marquis who died 1813), the memorial, with many other objects linked with the history of Gosfield Hall, was removed to Stowe, and re-erected on a small island formed in the grounds. Dr. Lipscomb, in his History of Buckingham- WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD. 181 shire, iii., 105, describes its situation, and translates the Latin inscription thus : " This place, by the generous munificence of George, Marquess of Buckingham, and of Mary Nugent his Marchioness, was inhabited, upon their first arrival in England, by Louis XVIII., King of France and Navarre; and by his nephew, Louis Anthony, Duke of Angouleme; and afterwards by their illustrious consorts, Maria Josepha Ludovica of Savoy, Queen of France and Navarre, and Maria Theresa of France, Duchess of Angouleme : the elms round this spot were planted by their own hands, as a memorial of their un­ ceasing gratitude, A.D. 1809." After the removal to Stowe, the lines following were added to the inscription: "Louis the King having been restored to the Throne of France; and Peace, by the blessing of God, to Europe; Richard, Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, removed from Gosfield this monument of the munificent and splendid hospitality of his Parents, and placed it amidst these scenes, surrounded by the memorials of his ances­ tors, A.D. 1825." The reason, conveyed by the last lines, for the transportation of the little memorial, must be considered valid; it is certainly intimately connected with the annals of the Buckingham family ; neverthe­ less, the loss to Gosfield of a memento of so much his­ torical, and at the same time of so great local, interest, cannot but be regretted. Before the sale of the P-state by the Duke of Bucking­ ham, the Hall was for some years inhabited by Colonel Thomas Astle, of the 4th Essex Local Militia, and Deputy Lieutenant of the County. He was the eldest surviving son of a distinguished father, Thomas Astle, Keeper of the Records, and famous for his acquaintance with historical manuscripts, of which a large and very valuable collection he bequeathed, on his death in 1803, 182 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

to the Marquis of Buckingham-from whom he had received valuable assistance during his career-for the nominal sum of £500. The manuscripts thus be­ queathed are said to have formed the bulk of the Ash­ burnam collection sold, 1879, to the British Museum for £45,000. Colonel Astle, as recorded on a tablet in the church, died in 1820 at Gosfield Hall, and was interred in a vault made at the east end of the Wentworth Chapel; here also, the next year, was laid his only son, killed by a fall from his horse. Mrs. Astle survived until 1861, and was buried outside the church, but near the closed vault; she had attained the age of ninety-six. The purchaser of the Gosfield estate from the Duke, in 1825, was Edward George Barna.rd, Esq., a ship-builder of Deptford, and M.P. for Greenwich. He died in 1851, and was laid in the vault under the Hall pew. The property had been heavily mortgaged by Mr. Barnard, and from the mortgagees the Hall and park were purchased in 1854 by Samuel Courtauld, Esq., crape manufacturer, of Halstead, who had previously acquired a large portion of the estate, the area of which is now stated to be about 2700 acres. Mr. Courtauld did much towards the inprovement of his mansion and estate; and having no surviving child at his death in 1881, divided his landed property between his two adopted daughters; his successor at Gosfield being Louisa Ruth Harris, the wife of Colonel Arthur Swann Howard Lowe ( deceased 1888), by whom she has two sons.

GosFIELD HALL. The building of Gosfield Hall has been referred to (p. 155), and it has been shown, on the evidence of John Norden, who must have seen the edifice when yet new, that Sir John Wentworth, the owner of the estate from NORTH-WEST FRONT.

WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD. 183 1539 to 1567, was the builder. This can scarcely be doubted, and indeed it can only have been from unacquaintance with N orden's record that another and earlier period has been assigned to the older part of the Hall. The peculiar absence of windows in the lower story has led to the conjecture, that this was designed with the object of defence in more turbulent times than those of Queen Elizabeth, and therefore probably in the reign of the first Tudor. But mere conjecture cannot weigh against the contemporary witness of Norden, and even were that absent, the similarity of construction between the north-west front of the Hall, and the later part of the church, known to have been built in 1561, would indicate that they date from the same period. The conclusion, however, is without prejudice to the probability that the Hall was raised· on the site of an older edifice. The accompanying view of the Hall, taken about 1870, is given in preference to later and better work of the photographer,1 for the reason that during the last twenty years the growth of ornamental trees has been such as now to obstruct a view of the full extension of the old front. This, from its age, and its association with the family which in these pages has our attention, is exceedingly interesting; and apart from such con­ siderations it is decidedly picturesque; but it can scarcely rank as an important or stately example of Elizabethan or Tudor architecture. The front represented in the photograph is in length 143 feet, its general width only 16 feet; the absence of windows on the ground floor will be noticed, and even those which appear are said in Brayley and Britton's 1 The regret must be here expressed that only an injured negative could be obtained. 184 THE FAMILY OF WEN'rWORTH. account, 1803, to have then been lately introduced ;1 the conjecture as to date, which this singular blankness gave rise to, has been mentioned, but probably it resulted merely from the caprice of the builder. The "clock­ front," as it is generally called, is still the principal or entrance side of the Hall; under the old Tudor arch the visitor has admittance ; and should he pass through, instead of entering the house by the doors right or left, he will find himself in the court, 100 feet by 78 feet, surrounded by all four wings of the quadrangular edifice. Here he will observe that the windows on every side are of similar character to those in the upper story of the old front. The material is a good red brick, and the window frames and mullions, though apparently of stone, are not so really; for being in a stoneless country, they are of brick skilfully chamfered, and covered with a cement, the hardness and durability of which is now scarcely if ever equalled. · It need scarcely be said that it is the old north-west wing which is associated with the visits of Queen Eliza­ beth; here a wainscoted gallery, 106 feet in length and but 12 feet in width, still bears her name; running along the old front, its windows are seen in the view given of the Hall. The three wings or sides of the house, rebuilt by Mr. Knight in the first quarter of the last century, had per­ haps no greater width than the one wing which yet exists unaltered; and it is supposed that there was no communication with the apartments except by passing through the suite. Crediting this, we readily understand

1 Beauties of England and Wales, v., 350. The account of Gos­ field Hall is accompanied by two good plates, from drawings by S. Prout, representing the North-West or Clock Front, and the Inner Court or Quadrangle. WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD. 185 the inconvenience of such an arrangement, and will admit the necessity of making the mansion more plea­ santly inhabitable. It could only have been pleaded that the architect should conserve wherever possible, and not unnecessarily destroy the old work before him; and this consideration does not appear to have been absent in Mr. Knight when he took in hand the reconstruction. He did not clear away all before him, as at his time was so often done in the rebuilding of English country-seats; he left intact one of the four sides of Sir John Went­ worth's house, and did not alter the aspect of the old court which it had surrounded. To get the necessary width for a passage of communication, and for enlarge­ ment of the apartments, he took down three of the exterior facades of the building, and rebuilt them for­ wardly, leaving the rear walls untouched. The new faces which he gave to the house are certainly not things of beauty which give joy for ever-they are styleless and out of harmony with the older building; but the archi­ tecture of Mr. Knight's time, the reigns of the first two Georges, was sadly debased, and at least it can be said for him, that-apart from the unattractive exteriors-he left internally a handsome and stately mansion. And here it should be observed that it is doubtful whether all the three fronts of the last century should be attributed to the one builder. Earl Nugent and his successors are all reported to have taken part in the alterations and "improvements; " but to distinguish the work of each appears now to be impossible. Cer­ tainly the white stuccoed front to the south-west does not seem to have been thus left by Mr. Knight, whose partiality for good red brick may be judged from its employment in the other facades. vVe are fortunate when interested in Gosfield Hall BB 186 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. to find that Horace Walpole visited it in Mr.-not then Earl-Nugent's time, and that in one of his numerous chatty letters he has recorded his impressions of the place. The letter is dated 25 July 1748, and omitting other matter runs thus: "I have been to make a visit of two or three days to Nugent..... I suppose you have heard much of Gosfield, Nugent's seat. It is extremely fashionable, but did not answer to me, though there are fine things about it. But being situated in a country that is quite blocked up with hills upon hills, and even too much wood, it has not an inch of prospect. The park is to be sixteen hundred acres, and is bounded by a wood of five miles round; and the lake, which is very beautiful, is of seventy acres, directly in a line with the house, at the bottom of a fine lawn, and broke with very pretty groves that fall down a slope into it. The house is vast, built round a very old court that has never been fine ; the old windows and gateway left, and the old gallery which is a bad narrow room, and hung wjth all the late patriots, but so ill-done, that they look like caricatures done to expose them, since they have so much disgraced the virtues they pretended to. The rest of the house is all modernized, but in patches, and in the bad taste that came between the charming, venerable Gothic, and pure architecture. There is a great deal of good furniture, but no one room very fine ; no tolerable pictures. Her [Mrs. Nugent's] dressing-room is very pretty, and furnished with white damask, china, japan, loads of easy chairs, bad pictures, and some pretty enamels. But what charmed me more than all I had seen is the library chimney, which has existed from the foundation of the house ; over it is an alto-r·elievo in wood, far from being ill-done, of the battle of Bosworth J?ield. It is all white except the helmets and trappings, WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD. 187 which are gilt, and the shields, which are properly emblazoned with the arms of all the chiefs engaged, and said to have been brought from the house of the De Veres at Bois. You would adore it. · We passed our time very agreeably; both Nugent and his wife are very good­ humoured, and easy in their house to a degree." The chimney-piece is more fully described in the Gentleman's Magazine, May 1812. '11he design is here said to have been in two "stories;" the first a square opening for the fireplace, on either side Ionic columns, these supporting an entablature adorned with much handsome carving of snakes, birds, fruit, and foliage. '11he Bosworth Field carving, measuring five feet ten inches by two feet, occupied the second "story;" and on pedestals at the sides were statuettes, two feet high, of Henry VII. and his Queen, the King in panoply of war and wearing the crown, the Queen also crowned bearing in her hands the sceptre and orb. The subject of the carving is minutely explained, the central of many figures being the victorious Earl and the vanquished usurper: "Henry appears to have just felled Richard to the ground where he lies prostrate 1and grasping his crown with both hands;" the article is signed " An Architect." There is also reference to the work in the Archmological Journal, 1855, Mr. Majendie at a meet­ ing of the Society of Antiquaries having produced some fine coloured drawings of it by John Carter. It is some­ what curious to read that at the meeting the carving was said to.have disappeared, and that inquiry as to its existence hacl been made without avail; whereas Lips­ comb, in his account of Stowe, had described its situa­ tion at that mansion. rrhe historian of Buckingham­ shire, however, took his description of Stowe and its works of art from. that published in 1838 by Calkin and 188 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

Budd, in which the position of the carving is said to be "over the door leading to the Manuscript Library." A fully reliable answer to a late inquiry has been, that it is at Stowe, "in the Gothic Library, over the door." The Bosworth Field carving was one of the many objects which, with the Louis XVIII. memorial, was lost to Gosfield Hall in consequence of its sale by the Duke of Buckingham in 1825. The removal of the portraits to Stowe, connected as they were with the ducal family, was only natural. In Calkin and Budd's catalogue (Brit. Mus.) these are named: "Sir Robert Rich, ob. 1581 [? Robert, 2nd Lord Rich, brother of Sir Hugh Rich who married Anne Wentworth, afterwards Lady Maltravers J ; Catherine Finch, wife of Sir John ·wentworth [Baronet] of Gosfield Hall, ob. 1639;" and as to these two portraits the question arises, Did they come from Gosfield, and had they been left there by the Wentworth family? The other pictures are associated with the successors of the W entworths, viz,, "Mr. and Mrs. Knight of Gosfield, with Mr. Newsham, whole lengths (Vanderbank, 1733); Anne Craggs [Mrs. Knight], whole length; Mrs. Knight of Gos:field, mother of John Knight, Esq. ; Mr. Newsham; Miss Newsham ; Robert, Earl Nugent, father of Mary, Marchioness of Buckingham (Gainsborough) ; George, Marquess of Buckingham, K.G., painted after death (Jackson); Mary Nugent, Marchioness of Buckingham, with her son the present Duke of Buckingham, when a child, whole length (Sir Joshua Reynolds); another of the Marchioness (Hoppner); Michael Nugent of Carlans­ town, father of Robert, Earl Nugent." With the minia­ tures are "John Knight, Esq., of Gosfield [two J; Mrs. Knight, afterwards married to Robert Nugent, created Earl Nugent [two]; Robert, Earl Nugent; John WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD. 189

[? James] Newsham, Esq., of Chadhunt, Warwick­ shire; George, Marquess of Buckingham; Mary Nugent, Marchioness of Buckingham [three]." As to the situation of Gos:field Hall exception must be taken to the description of Horace Walpole. The idea which prevails in regard to the county of Essex is that of flatness; and though people best acquainted with the county know of hills and dales in certain districts, yet even these may be surprised to read of Gos:field as " quite blocked up with hills upon hills, and with so much wood that it has not an inch of prospect." This description is erroneous ; the hills are to-day as they were a hundred and forty-two years ago, and their gentle undulations are only such as render the locality diver­ sified and beautiful. The woods certainly have been reduced since Walpole wrote; at the present time they are no more than the charming feature adorning all true English landscape; and neither hills nor woods obstruct fair prospects from Gosfield Hall. The park is a fine expanse of about 300 acres, oaks and elms of beautiful form and venerable age are its frequent ornament. Earl Nugent's magnificent project of 1600 acres of park-if not over-stated by Walpole­ was probably found impracticable; but his claim to the formation, or at least expansion, of the lake cannot be denied him. 'fhis, the great feature of Gosfield Park, is in length about three-quarters of a mile, varying in width, and- perhaps at its fullest covering nearly 70 acres. Park and lake had the commendation of Arthur Young, a recognised authority on farming and on the laying out of ornamental grounds. Writing in 1807, he says: "Gosfield, in my opinion, merits much attention from the circumstance of having been formed sixty years ago by the late Earl Nugent, before the spirit of 190 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

decoration took place; he did it himself. The lake is a happy effort, and just what [Lancelot] Brown would have executed, and the plantations are so disposed as to attract the eye in every direction; and were the hedges cleared of pollards for a few miles around the village, the woods would be seen in a very magnificent outline on every side" (.Agriculture of Essex, i., 43). This account does not convey the impression of a congested landscape, "without an inch of prospect," as described by the critic, Walpole, writing in the time of Earl Nugent, whose taste is here commended by Young.

GosFIELD CHURCH. The Church of St. Catherine stands on the borders of the park, and at a distance of a quarter of a mile from the Hall, with which it has direct communication by a footpath, the carriage road therefrom being circuitous. It is a modest Gothic church, and consisted originally of tower, nave, and chancel, to which Sir John Wentworth, c. 1561, added his chapel forming a north aisle, though not extending westward to the full length of the church. A tower of moderate height, but of somewhat narrow bulk, stands at the west. Of the structure there is no account previous to the time of Thomas Rolfe, Serjeant­ at-Law, and lord of the manor or manors, who died 1440, having founded a chantry here; he is, generally sup­ posed, indeed, to have been the builder of the church, the architecture of which corresponds to his period. When Sir John Wentworth moved from Codham Hall and made his home at Gosfield, he built his chapel and widened the chancel. His work is typical of the time at which he lived; Gothic invention had come to an end, its vitality was exhausted, and the five square windows added by Sir John are of domestic, not ecclesi- WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD. 191 astical order, being indeed of much the same pattern as he adopted in his house. The east window of four principal lights, and other four original windows remain­ ing in the nave, maintain the Gothic character of the church; they are generally filled with good modern stained glass, which, with the handsome fittings and the good order throughout prevailing, witness to the care bestowed on the sacred place. The Hall pew, which has much the appearance of a "private-box," is a deformity; there is little beauty of carving to recommend it, nor can there be much senti­ ment in favour of its retention. On the other hand, its removal would allow of the completion of the north aisle; and even the bringing of Mr. Knight's handsome though certainly ostentatious monument into more prominent view would not be a disadvantage; it being typical of its time, and its inscriptions forming an interesting page in the history of the parish. The altar tomb of Thomas Rolfe, from whom it must be remembered that Sir John Wentworth and his successors had descent and a great part of their inherit­ ance, now occupies the south-east angle of the chancel. It is remarkable chiefly for the brass effigy laid into its upper grey marble slab, representing the serjeant in his legal robes, and affording a very early illustration of such costume. A long rhyming inscription in Latin remains; it includes Rolfe's name and the date of his decease, 27 June 1440; and formerly, as noted by Symonds o. 1637, a label issued from the mouth bearing the words, "®ra pro mt $. 1itattrtna." The two Wentworth tombs are conspicuous; they are handsome and yet simple altar tombs, having on their marble tables no effigies; either of sculpture or engraved brass. In form and design, as is pointed out 192 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. by their guardian, the vicar, they appear to date a century earlier than the time which saw them made; they are not Elizabethan, and betray no sign of classic renaissance, but are Gothic, and thus in harmony with the oldest work in the church; this is well, though an early example of reproduction. The older tomb (if made soon after the burial of Sir Hugh Rich, who died 1554) is the fresher in appearance; the sculptured panels are sharper and less worn by age than those of the tomb of Sir John Wentworth, who died 1567. This might lead to the conjecture that Sir Hugh's memorial, though he died first, was the later constructed, and that it may not have been raised by his widow until after her father's death, and her succession to the estate. The better state of preservation is, however, more probably due merely to the superior hardness of the stone. The position of the tombs has been noticed; that of Sir Hugh Rich and Lady Maltravers, now standing isolated in the Wentworth Chapel, may have been moved at the time of making the vaults or other alterations in the chapel; but as far as can be judged Sir John Wentworth's tomb, on the north side of the altar, remains as it was originally placed, and as appears from his will he had designed. The inscription on both memorials, and the heraldry remaining on that of Sir John, has already had our attention (pp. 159-161). The Wentworths have no vault in Gosfi.eld Church, for such was not the usual mode of sepulture previous to 1614, when their interments here ceased. Fifteen members of the family have their burials recorded in the parish registers, and it is probable that others were unrecorded ; doubtless they were simply laid in their graves beneath the pavement of the chapel, where with the earth their dust now mingles. 1. Elizabeth, da. and heiress of Heury,Henry Wentworth of Codham Hall, co.=pJoan, da. and heiress of Robert Fitz Simon (or Fitz Howard of Terrington Howards, co. Essex, 2nd son of Roger Wentworth, Esq., Symond) of North Shoebury, co. Essex, and widow of Norfolk, second son of Sir John of Nettlestead, co. Suffolk; died 22 March Robert Timperley. She married as her 3rd husband Howard, Knt., and uncle of John, 1482; probably buried in Wethersfield Philip Lewes, or Lewis. 2nd wife. 1st Duke of Norfolk. 1st wife. Church, co. Essex. Note I.

I I I Margaret=pJohn Ashfield of Stow- Eliza-=pSir William Allington, Kut., of Horse- Sir Nicholas Went-lJane, da. of John Jocelyn Went- 1 langtoft, Suffolk. 1st beth Iheath, co. Cambridge. Slain at Bos­ worth, Kut., Chief of Hyde Hall, Sawbridge­ worth. husband. Went- worth Field 1485. 1st husband. Porter of Calais, of worth, co. Hertford. She worth;,+. Lillingstone Lovell, died 1569 ; bur. in Burn­ +,Edmund Wingfield, son died =pSir Wm. Cheyne, 2nd son of Sir John co. Oxford ; died c. ham Church, Bucks. of Sir John Wingfield 1528. I Cheyne of Fen-Ditton, Cam b. 2nd husb. 1553. . Note 2. of Letheringham, Suf­ + + Ifolk. 2nd husband. =Sir Robert Chamberlain. 3rd husband. WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL, +- CO. OXFORD. I I I I I I I I 9. SirRogerWentworth,=pAnne, daughter of Henry Wentworth; died 1511. Agnes=Robert Timperley of MargeryISir William Knt., of Codham Hall HumphreyTyrrell, Went- Barling, Essex; died Went- Waldegrave, andjw·e um. of Gosfield, of Little Warley, Thomas Wentworth, living 1511. worth. 1494, s.p. worth ; Knight, of Sheriff of cos. Essex and co. Essex, heiress d. 1540; Smallbridge, Hertford 1499. Died 9 of Helion, Rolfe, William Wentworth, living 1524. Mary,l. Thomas Timperley; bur. at Bures, co. August 1539; bur. in Swynburne, Bote­ Went- +,died 1505. Bures. Suffolk; d. the Church of Wethers- tourt, Gernon,etc.; Robert Wentworth; died 1551; worth. 1528. field, where is his altar died 1534; bur. buried at Gosfield. 2=Edward Harvey. tomb, with effigies. with her husband. 3=.... Paulet.

I I I I 3. Mary=Roger Wentworth,Alice, da. of John Wentworth,Jane, da. of Rich- Lora=l. Edmund Shaw. Margaret=John Ber- of Bocking, co. IWilliam (junr.) of Bump-1 ard Shordich of Went­ 2=.... Everard. Went- ney of 1st Essex; died 1557. Buckford. stead, co. Essex, Bexwell, Norfolk. worth. worth. Beedham, wife. 2nd wife. dead 1566. 3=Francis Clop­ Norfolk. + ton of Kedington, WENTWORTH+ OF BOCKING. WENTWORTH OF STEEPLE-BUMPSTEAD. co. Suffolk ; died .A. (See Pedigree following.) (See Pedigree following.) s.p . IA I I 152s 154s 3. Sir John Wentworth, Knt., of GosfieldlAnne, da. of John HenryWentworthof-:j=Agnes, da. and heiress of =r'William Hall. Sheriff of cos. Essex and Hertford Bettenham of Plnck- Gosfield and Jul'e Hamond of co. Kent, and of Mount-1 Wilford. 1544 and 1553. Entertained Queen Eliza- ley, co. Kent. f\he 1w).of Mountnessing, nessing, co. Essex ; ? buried in 2nd bus­ beth at Gosfield August 1561. Born 1494; died Nov. Hi75; bur. Essex; died c. 1545. Stepney Church 3 September 1:iH., band. died 15 September 1567; bur. in Gosfield with her husband in 1Yote 3. I Church, where is his altar-tomb. Gosficld Church. -+ I I I 4, JohnWent­ Mary=Thomas, 2nd Lord Weut­ Anne Wentworth, Lady=Sir Hugh Rich, Kut., son of Richard, Lorcl Rich; worth;died W ent- worth of N ettlested, Maltravers, Heiress of d. 1 Nov. 1554; bu. in Gosfield Uhurch with his wife. young; bur. worth; Suffolk, Deputy of Calais Gosfield, etc. Entertained 2=Heury Fitz Alan, Lord Maltravers, son and heir in Gosfield died at 1553-1558; Lord-Lieut. Queen Elizabeth at Gos­ Church. Calais of Norfolk and Suffolk : apparent of Henry, Earl of Arundel; died 30 June ueld Hall August 1579. 1556 at Brnssels; bur. in the Cathedral. Note 5. before died 13 January 1584: Born 1537 ; died 5 Dec. Margaret 1558, His second wife was 1580 (? vide p. 163), s.p. ; 3=William Deane, Steward to Lady Maltravers, Weut­ s.p. 1st Aune, da. of Henry bur. 10 January 1581 with and afterwards of Dynes Hall, Great Maplestead, worth;died wife. Wentworth of Mouut- her first husband, Sir Hugh Essex; died 1585. He mar., 2ndly, Anne, da. of unm.1553; nessiug, Essex. Vide Rich, in the Wentworth Thomas Egerton· of Rynehill, co. Stafford, widow buried at ,ut injl'a, Chapel, Gosfield Church, of .... Blythe, Clerk of tbc Council of York, and Gosfield. Note 4. where is their altar-tomb. had issue a son and two daughters. 11fo1'ant.

! I I 1562 4, Peter Wentworth, Clerk, Rector of Abberton, co. Essex, Anne Went-1 Thomas, 2nd Lord Wentworth Mary1 William Car­ 1578-91 ; Rector of Gestingthorpe, sine cura, 1582-1599. worth; died of Nettlested. Deputy of Calais, Went-1 dinall of Gt. Vicar of Gestingthorpe, co. Essex, 1588-1591 ; Rector of 2 September eto. Died 13 January 1584. His worth. Bromley, co. Great Bromley, Essex, 1581-1599; died 1599. Married 1571 ; l.,ur. first wife was Mary, da. of Sir Essex. Elizabeth Moore, and bad issue William, Southwell, in Stepney John Wentworth, Knt., of Gos­ ,-- Elizabeth, Anne, and Mary, all living in 1592, but of Ch., Middx. field. Vide 1d .mp1•a. Anne=Sir Clement whom nothing more is known. 2nd wife. Note 4. Cardi- Higham ~f nall. Barrow, Sufi', I I I _1565 4. Elizabeth, da. of=,=John Wentworth of Little-Dorothy, da. of Sir Riobard Thomas Went- Henry Went-,Jane, da, and co. Sir Christopher Horksley, co. Essex, and after- 8outhwell of Woodrising, co. worth, born worth. , heiress of Ed. Haydon (or Hey- wards of Gosfield, which be Norfolk, widow of Thomas 1545; died mund Al blaster Of don), Knt., of inherited on the death of his Higgins. 3rd husband, Sir 1565 ; bur. at ____1 Tendring, Essex. Baconsthorpe, co. cousin Anne, Lady 1foltravers, Edward Moore, Knight, of Gosfield. I . Norfolk. She died 1581; Sheriff of co. Essex 1581; Mellefont, Ireland. She was Alblaster Wentworth of Ipswich, 1573. 1st wife. born 1540; died 1588; bur. in living 1609; bur. in Chnrch born 1568. Admitted scholar Note 6. Gosfield Church 3 April 1588. of Little Horksley. 2nd wife. of Cambridge University 1585. B C l\ote 7. ~-----~I{E 10 I I I Margaret,Henry Went-=Anastacy, da. Rich­ Christopher Eliza- =Sir RobertNew­ EdwardWarner=,= Mary =Sir Thomas .... ; d. worth, Conn- of Wm. Hale ard St. Lawrence, beth comen, Bart., of of Mildenhall, I Went- Gee of Mil­ 1592; bu. sellor at Law; of Maldon, Es­ Went­ 22nd Baron Went- Mosstown, co. co. Suffolk; d. worth; denhall, at Gos- d. in St. Sepul- sex. She died worth. Howth; died worth; Longford, Ire- 14 May 1618. b. 1585; Knt. 2nd field. chre's Parish, 1634, oot. 88, 24 Oct. 1619. died land; diedl629. 1st husband. d. 1661. husband. Note 8. London, 1614. s.p. 2nd wife. Notes 6 and 9. 1627. 2nd husband. + 1,+. Note 10. ,-- Both bur. at All Saints, Maldon. Cecilia Wentworth,=Francis Mitchell of Theydon- born 1592. Gernon, Essex.

I 1s81 I I 5, John Wentworth of Gosfield, Sheriff,Cecilia, da. and coheiress of Sir Edward Unton, Knt., William Went­ Edward Went­ of Essex 1592; M.P. for Essex of Wadley, Farringdon, co. Berks. She mar., 2ndly, Sir worth ; d. 1588 ; worth; d. 1591; 27 Sept. 1597; born 1564; died 1614; Edward Roby, Knt., of Bisham, co. Berks; and d. 1618; bur. in Gosfield bur. in Gosfield bur. in Gosfield Church 11 Feb. 1614. bur. at Aston Rowant, co. Oxford, where is her monument. Church. Church. 1Yote 6.

I I I I I I I 160s 6. Sir John Wentworth,,Catherine,

1. Mary,da.=Roger Wentworth of Felsted, and after-,Alice, da. John Wentworth, jitni01·, of SteeplelJane, da. of Richard of.. . . wards of Bocking, co. Essex, which manor ofWilliam Bumpstead, co. Essex, fourth son of Sir Shordich of Bexwell, 1st wife. was in 1540 granted to him, bis wife Alice, Buckford. Roger Wentworth of Codham Hall, Essex. co. Norfolk. and their heirs, by the Crown, on the 2nd wife. Not living in 1566. suppression of the Priory of St. Saviour's [Christ Church], Canterbury, to which it bad belonged, the amount paid by Went- worth being £875 11s. 3d. He was third 1551 I son of Sir Roger Wentworth of Codham Thomas Silesden=Anne Wentworth ;TFrancisMannock of Gif­ Hall, who died 1539. He died 24 February of Finchingfield, mar. at Gosfield fords-Hall, Stoke-by­ 1557, and was buried at Bocking. Essex; died 1562. 26 October 1551; Nayland, Suffolk; died 1st husband. died 1610. 1590. 2nd husband. ,+. I I 7 9, JohnWent-]Elizabetb, da. Roger Par-=A n n e=Ricbard Henry Wentworth of Bump-,Elizabetb, da. of William Bend­ worth of of Sir Edward ker of Biggs Went- Upcber of stead. Mar., 2ndly, Margaret I!owes of Great Bardfield, Essex. Bockir)g, Cnpel, Knt., of Manor, Gos- worth. (?) Ded- • . • . He died 1590. Serjeant-at-Law. born 1536 ; Hadbam, co. field. 1st ham, co. died I Feb. Hertford. husband. Essex. I I 1604. 2nd hus­ William= .... Thomas Wentworth, John Wentworth, band. Wentworth. Abell. living 1590. living 1590, A B IA Bl I I I I I I I I I I a. Edward Went-,Bridget, da. of Anthouy A n n e=r=Rowland Elizabeth Margaret Mary Went- Thomasine worth of Bock- Maxey of Great Saling Went-1 Huish of Wentworth, Wentworth, worth, liv- Wentworth, ing, born 1573; Hall, and of Bradwell, worth; Sidbury, living 1590. living 1584. ing 1590. living 1590. died25Nov.1616. near Coggeshall, Essex. d.1620. co. Devon. Alice Went- Jane Went- Francis Anne Went- -+- worth, !iv- worth, liv- Wentworth, worth, liv- ing 1590. ing 1584. living 1582. ing 1590.

I i I I I I 4; Elizabeth,da.=r=Roger Wentworth,Elizabeth,da. Henry Anne= .... Capel, Edward =rCamilla, da. of Sir Eliza-=Thomas Ay­ of Sir Thos. of Bocking, born of Sir Robert Went­ Went- younger Went- Thomas Ayloffe, beth Ioffe of Gray's Eden,Knt., of 1597 ; died 1649. Barker of worth. worth. son of Sir worth of Knt., of Aveley, Went- Inn, 4th son of Sudbury, co. After his death the Grimston Gamaliel Bocking. co.Essex, by Maria worth. Sir William Suffolk. 1st estate passed to the Hall, Trimley John Capel. Guicciardine, his Ayloffe, Bt., of wife. Barker family. St. Martin, Went­ wife, of a Floren­ Braxted-Mag­ Suffolk. worth. tine family. na, co. Essex. I I I I I I 5. Mary= .... Susan Wentworth, Francis Wentworth, Dorothy Wentworth, Guicciardine Went-I Cecilia Camilla Wentworth. Andrews. living 1648. living 1648. living 1648. worth ; bur. at St. . ... Wentworth, Margaret's, West- born 1642, minster, 1710. living 1671.

I I I I I I Camilla Wentworth, born Edward Philip Maria Gnicciardine Maria Catherine A son, born Thomas Wentworth, and died 1679 ; bur. at Wentworth, Wentworth, born W entworth~born 1690. born and died 1693. Clapham, co. Surrey. born 1680. and died 1688. and died 1689.

I I I I 5. John Wentworth, Thomas Wentworth, Roger Wentworth, Elizabeth Wentworth ;=Thomas Darcy of Lincoln's Inn; died living 1648. living 1656. living 1648. died 1656. 1658; both bur. at Maldon, Essex. 198 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

NOTES TO THE PEDIGREE OF WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD.

1. Robert Fitz Symond, or Fitz Simon, is said in pedigrees of that -family (Harl. MSS. 1052, f. 122b; and 1169, £. 22) to have been of Amerden, near Windsor, Berks, a place I have not been able to identify. Morant, Hist. of Essex, i., 302, shows that he held in that county the manor of West Hall in the parish of North Shoebury, the manor of Mokking in the parish of Barling, and.. 200 acres of marsh in Paglesham and Little W akering. Morant also found that the Fitz Symond family held lands at North Shoebury as early as 1294. The inquisition of the estate of Robert Fitz Symond, 13 Edward IV. (1474), names his Essex lands as above; in Oxfordshire he had the manor of Lillingstone Lovell, this leading to the conjecture that his grandson, Sir Nicholas Wentworth, inherited part of that estate; in Norfolk he had the manors of Hunstanston and Walpole, and a marsh at the latter; in Northamptonshire a moiety of the manor of Irchester ; and in London messuages and tenements in St. Mary Fenchurch, St. Dunstan-in-the­ East, and in Pentecost Lane, St. Nicholas parish. His heir was found to be his daughter Joan, then twenty-two years of age, and therefore born in 1452. Joan Fitz Simon married thrice. Her first husband was Robert Timperley, whose origin is not evident; his descendants were for many generations seated at Hintlesham, Suffolk. By Timperley Joan had two sons, Robert and Thomas, both of whom married daughters of their mother's second husband, Henry Wentworth of Codham Hall, by his first wife, Elizabeth Howard. After Wentworth's death in 1482, Joan, then no more than thirty, married as her third husband Philip Lewes, or Lewis, whose parentage is not noted in the pedigrees which show the marriage (Harl. MSS. as above). Colonel Chester1 1 Wentworth Genealogy, by John Wentworth, LL.D., of Chicago, U.S.; the English portion was compiled by Colonel Joseph Lemuel Chester, LL.D., so well known for his indefatigable researches. WENTWORTH OF GOSFIELD. 199 has that the third husband of Joan Fitz Simon was Sir Richard Fitz Lewes of West Horndon, Essex, and that Joan surviving him proved his will 24 N overnber 1529; this, however, is not probable, there being nothing in the will to show who was this wife Joan, or Jane as also written. Sir Nicholas Wentworth in his will mentions his mother as Dame Jane Fitz Lewes, a proof of her third marriage, which in all probability was with the Philip Lewes (=Fitz Lewes) named in the pedigrees. The arms of "Fytz Lewes"-sable, on a chevron between three trefoils slipped argent a mullet for difference-impaling "Fytz Symon "-gules, three escutcheons argent-are tricked in Add. MSS. 4969, f. 24, as noted, temp. Elizabeth, in the church of Cavendish, Suffolk, by Harvey, Clarencieux King of Arms. As shown in the Pedigree, Henry Wentworth had by his second wife, Joan Fitz Simon, one son, Sir Nicholas, the first of the W entworths of Lillingstone Lovell, Oxfordshire. He inherited the Fitz Simon lands in Essex, if not all those in other counties, and on being dubbed knight in 1544 quartered the Fitz Simon coat-gules, three escutchr,ons argent-with Wentworth (Cotton MSB., Claud. c. iii., f. 138b; he is here called" Sr Nicholas Wentworthe of Essex"). The marriages of Joan Fitz Simon and their issues are best exemplified in form of pedigree : Robert Fitz Symond or Fitz Simon,.-Katherine, da. of Sir of North Shoebury, Essex; died 1474. _I Robert Manfield. I Elizabeth, da. of=rHenry Wentworth ofrJoan Fitz Simon,=,=Robert Henry Howard of Codham Hall, Essex; born 1452. 3rd bus- Timperley. Terrington Howards, died 1482. band, Philip Lewes, or 1st husbd. co.Norfolk. 1st wife. Lewis.

I I I I~---f-1 I Sir Roger Went­ Agnes Wentworth.= Robert Timperley; Sir Nicholas Went- worth of Cod­ died 1494, s.p. worth of Lilling­ ham Hall, and of stone Lovell, co. Gosfield, Essex ; Mary Wentworth.,=Thomas Timperley; Oxford ; died c. died 1539. Idied 1505. 1553. =;= =r -+- -+- + 2. John Jocelyn is generally described as of High Roding, Essex, and being a second son may have resided there before 200 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. acquiring, by purchase from his nephew, the ancient patrimony of Hyde Hall, Hertfordshire. The manor of High Roding (Rothing, or Roothing), and that of Davies, afterwards called Newhall Jocelyn, did not belong to the family until 1554, when they were purchased by Sir Thomas Jocelyn, brother of Lady Wentworth, John their father having died in 1525. 3. In London Marriage Licenses, edited by Mr. J osepb Foster from excerpts by the late Col. Chester, is found: "Henry Went­ worth and Agnes Hamond, anywhere in diocese, 25 Sept. 1528." And in the Stepney Registers : "The Rt. Hon. the Lady Agnes Wentworth, buried 3 September 1574," not 1576, as incorrectly quoted by Lysons in Environs of London. This lady whose burial is recorded may, not improbably, have been the widow of Henry Wentworth of Mountnessing. She had, secondly, married William Wilford, but he being also deceased, she, as the mother of Lord Wentworth's wife, may have been known as "Lady Agnes Wentworth." It appears natural that the old lady should have resi

Moore, Kt., of the City of London, and Dorothy Wentworth of Little Horkesley, co. Essex, widow of John Wentworth, Esq., late of Gosfield, Essex ; Gen. Lie." 8. What is here noted in regard to this Henry Wentworth is derived from Colonel Chester, who has, however, attributed the facts he discovered to a different Henry, viz., the son of Sir Nicholas Wentworth of Lillingstone Lovell, of which son nothing is known but his name. The facts appear more probably to pertain to the Henry of Gosfield, the names of whose wife and daughter, as found in the registers, are identical with those discovered by Colonel Chester. The entries in the Gosfield Registers are : " Margarita uxor Henrici Wentworth, gen. sepulta fuit 13 Martis 1591," and "Cecilia filia Henrici Went­ worth, generosis," baptized 1592. Morant, in Hist. of Essex, i., 337, recounts the charitable bequests of "Mrs. Anastatia, widow of Henry Wentworth, Esq., and sole daughter and heir of William Hale of this town [Maldon], Gent., that dyed 4 June 1634." 9. Sir Christopher St. Lawrence, before his succession as Baron Howth, was a Colonel of Foot, and was distinguished for his bravery at the siege of Kinsale and elsewhere. Lodge's Peerage of Ireland, iii., 200, incorrectly has his wife as " Eliza­ beth, daughter of Wentworth of Pickering in Yorkshire, Esq." 10. Sir Robert Newcomen, of a Lincolnshire family, was also a soldier. He was knighted in 1605, created a baronet in 1625, and settled in Ireland at Mosstown, near Kenagh (or Kenaught), co. Longford. Lady Howth was not his first wife. 11. Lady Wentworth's burial "in a vault under the com­ m.union table" is mentioned by Morant when writing of Epping, and on inquiry has been confirmed by the Vicar from the register, " 26 September 1639." See p. 17 5. 12. This marriage was celebrated privately at Gosfield Hall, as appears from the register, "D'nus Edwardus Gosticke miles duxit uxorem Annam Wentworth filiam Joh'is Wentworth armi. 11 ° die Aprilis clandestine in cedibus dicti Joh'is Wentworth. Thoma Banbridge p'b'tero dictum matrimon. celebrante 1608,"

DD

~tntwortb of 1. tlltng~tont l.,okltll, @,:fotll~b itt.

WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL, OXFORDSHIRE.

The position held in English History by the promi­ nent members of the Oxfordshire branch of Wentworth varies considerably from that taken by those of the houses of Suffolk and Essex. While these swam with the current, and won distinction in serving the existing order of things, they of the Oxfordshire house gained notoriety in battling against the stream, and in the contest for constitutional liberty. Whereas the W entworths of N ettlestead and of Gosfield were nobles, knights, and courtiers, they of Lillingstone Lovell were . Before entering on the biography of the family, the history, so far as it can be gathered of the manor with which they were connected, may not be considered un­ interesting.

THE MANOR OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. The manor and parish, in extent about 1300 acres, lies five miles north of the town of Buckingham, to the county of which name it naturally belongs ; but at the time of the W entworths the area was a detached portion of Oxfordshire, encompassed by Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire; the position, doubtlessly, having had an ancient territorial origin. In 1844 an Act was passed to abolish such like local anomalies, and Lillingstone Lovell became incorporated with Buckinghamshire. In the same county of Buckingham, moreover, there has been from the time of the Conquest, and probably earliei~, another Lillingstone, viz., Lillingstone Dayrell; but the distinction between the two places, lying as they 206 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. did in different counties, has been so clearly maintained that when found in the records no difficulty occurs in dis­ tinguishing them. The difficulty, however, which does exist lies in Lillingstone Lovell itself, and for the reason that from the same early date it appears to have con­ sisted of two manors, held in different hands. In Domesday Lelinchestane in Buckinghamshire, now Lillingstone Dayrell, is held by Hugh [ de BolebecJ of , Earl of Buckingham. On the other hand, Lillingestan in Oxfordshire, now Lillingstone Lovell, is held of the King by two tenants, Benzelinus and Richard Ingania [ or Engaine], each moiety answer­ ing for two and a half hides. The two moieties, after­ wards considered as manors, appear to have remained apart from that time until they were united in one estate by Sir Nicholas Wentworth. The attachment to the manors of the names of the owners was of course a necessity for the purpose of dis­ tinction. The Dayrells have been lords of the Bucking­ hamshire manor since the reign of King John to the present day, and the manor has borne no name but theirs; we may now lose sight of it as foreign to our subject. The two Oxfordshire manors held in several families have changed the nominal affix more than once, and this causes some difficulty of identification; to these Oxfordshire manors we now confine our attention. Of Lillingstone, Oxon, entered in Domesday as held from the King by two tenants, we learn no more for two hundred years, or nearly. Then, in 7 Edward l.=1279, the Rolls of the Hundreds record that Margaret de Anesi held two and a half hides in Lilligeston, com. Oxon; and as in the Norman survey the computation for each of the two divisions was two and a half hides, it is , evident that the lady held but one of them. I have not WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 207 discovered anything further about this Margaret, and can only surmise that she was a widow, and that the manor had been held by predecessors of her name, per­ haps for a considerable period, as it was called recur­ rently Lillingstone Dansey down to the time of Henry VIII. The family of Dansey, Daunsey, or Dauntesy was of Herefordshire and Wiltshire, but only in this instance, as far as known to me, is it found connected with Oxfordshire. Next it is learnt from the inquis. post mortem of John de Monte Alto, in 22 Edward l.=1294, that he had held the manor of Lillingestone Magna, Oxon; and dated the same year appears the inquisition of his wife Elena's estate, which includes the manor similarly designated. We have here another name, and also a difficulty in determining to which of the two manors the term "Magna" applied, for we remember that in Domesday they were equally returned as of two and a half hides each. The hide, however, had reference to cultivable land only, and it may fairly be surmised that in one moiety or manor of the Oxfordshire Lillingstone the extent of wood and pannage was in excess, and that consequently the gross area of the one was greater than that of the other. This may account for the use of "Magna" as a distinction; and the conjecture gains strength when in later times it is found, that one of the two manors which comprised the Wentworth estate had between two and three times the value of the other; the value, probably, being in proportion to the extent. It may just be added that "Magna" as applied to the Oxfordshire Lillingstone could not have been used com­ paratively with the Buckinghamshire Lillingstone, which was always, as it is to-day, much the larger. In 20 Edward III.=1347, the Lovell name is for the 208 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. first time found associated with Lillingstone. The Charter Rolls record that in this year William Lovell had a grant of free warren in Lillingston Damsye (sic), Oxon; he may therefore be considered to have been at that time lord of the manor. This William was not in the line of Lovell Barons, but in all probability was one of the same family which was seated at Minster Lovell in Oxfordshire ; the width of the county, however, lay between it and Lillingstone. But the tenure by Lovell of Lillingstone Dansey does not seem to have been protracted, for a few years later, i.e. 27 Edward III.=1354, the inquisitions show that ·Thomas de Feraijs ( = Ferrers) had had possession of Ley llingeston Dansy, Oxon; the name survived in "Ferris Wood" until Went­ worth times, if indeed it is not yet preserved. Our next information is that in 1 Richard ll.=1377, Lyllingstone Danseye, Oxon, was among the forfeited lands of Alicia Perrers, "the Lady of the Sun," who gained as­ cendancy over the old King Edward III. in his latter and weak years. After 1377 we learn no more until nearly a century has elapsed; then, in 13 Edward IV,=1474, Lyllyng­ ston Lovell, Oxon, maner. Lancastr. Ducat. membr. is in the inquisition of the lands lately held by Robert Fitz Symond. This to us is a very interesting fact, for Robert Fitz Symond was the grandfather, .on the maternal side, of Sir Nicholas Wentworth, and conse­ quently it must be thought that the knight had part of Lillingstone Lovell by inheritance, and not entirely by royal grant, as represented in the account given of the manor in Sheahan's History of Buckinghamskire, which omits mention of Fitz Symond's possession. That the partition of the Oxfordshire Lillingstone shown in Domesday Book had continued from the time WENTWOR1'H OF LILLrNGSTONE LOVELL. 209 of the Norman survey down to the advent of the Wentworths, is clearly seen in the inquisitions of that family. In these there is distinct mention of two manors, differently named, and held by separate tenures. One is referred to as Lillingstone Lovell, the lands of which had been "formerly called the King's Lands," reputed to pertain to the lordship of Morend, and held in capite of the King, by the sixtieth part of a knight's fee for all services. The other manor is called Lilling­ stone Lovell alias Lillingstone IJansey, and is held of the King as of his Duchy of Lancaster, by service of half a knight's fee. To the latter manor apparently refer all the six records which have been quoted from the Rolls and Inquisitions ; the first record defines a manor the computation of which is that of one of the moieties in Domesday, and belonging to Margaret de Anesi; the third, fourth, and fifth name the manor as Lillingstone Dansey, doubtlessly thus called after the De Anesi family ; the sixth refers to a manor " member of the Duchy of Lancaster," as is specified Lillingstone Dansey in the Wentworth inquisitions ; and Lillingstone Magna in the second record seems to apply to the greater manor of the two, which, as has been shown, was probably the same Lillingstone Dansey. If then all the references are to Lillingstone Dansey, in what hands had been Lillingstone Lovell or the King's Lands ? And here it must be observed that latterly at least both manors were called Lillingstone Lovell, Dansey as an alias being given to one of them. The name of Lovell found so firmly attached to the soil leads almost to the conviction that the family had a lengthened possession here, but for which documentary evidence has yet to be discovered; and possibly the answer E E 210 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. to the above question may be that the Lovells had the King's Lands manor; for this, however, there is nothing in the records to show. The grant of free warren in 1347 to WiHiam Lovell is the only mention of the family in connection with Lillingstone, and that referred to Lillingstone Dansey, which is shown to have been a few years later in other hands. Sheahan's History, before referred to, has that John, Lord Lovell, had the manor in 1431, though that baron was not born until 1432, and did not succeed William his father until 1454, his age being then twenty-two ( Dugdale and Nicolas). The inaccuracy of the date might be passed over, but when reference is made to the inquisitions p.m. of these lords, Lillingstone Lovell does not appear among the Oxfordshire manors of either; and although omission was possible, it seems scarcely probable that a manor held in capite, "anciently a part of the lands and possessions of the Ci·own," as related in the grant to Wentworth, should not have been men­ tioned. A proof advanced of the Lovell possession is that John, Lord Lovell, had a patent to be chief forester of Whittlebury or Whittlewood Forest1 in Northamp­ tonshire, which forest is in the vicinity of Lillingstone Lovell. But the patent of 1459, which Dugdale men­ tions in his account of the Lovell Barons, in all pro­ bability refers to Wychwood Forest in Oxfordshire, adjoining Minster Lovell the baronial seat, and thus very naturally the subject of the grant. The author of the Baronage, however, finding no county named in the patent (which I have examined) inaccurately supplied it as county Northampton ; and the modern writer, apparently thinking the mistake to have been in the

1 History, Gazetteer, and Directory of the County of O:t:ford, published by Robert Gardner, 1852. WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 211 name of the forest, has altered it from Wycbwood {in the original "Whichewode ") to Whittlebury. Hence for the Lovell possession of Lillingstone the patent affords no evidence. It is further added that the manor descended with the Lovell Barons until the lands were forfeited by the rebellion of Francis, the last Lord, who fell in 1487 at the battle of Stoke on Trent, supporting the pre­ tensions of Lambert Simnel against Henry VII. But again, in the inquisitions of the forfeited lands Lilling­ stone Lovell does not appear.1 Nevertheless, owing perhaps to the detached position of the manor, it may have been inadvertently omitted in the lists; and as the "King's Lands" in Lillingstone are not discovered to have been in other hands, the manor they constituted may have been held by Lovell. That the family, how­ ever, had not the whole of the Oxfordshire Lillingstone . appears in the fact that one of the two manors was found to have been in the possession of Robert Fitz Symond in 147 4, thirteen years before the confiscation of the Lovell estates. Thus it remains, in the absence of documentary evidence, that the best and indeed only testimony to the possession by Lovell of any part of Lillingstone is the name which has so long cleaved to the locality. 'fhere are yet a few incidents to be noticed in the history of the manor or manors. In Brewer's Letters and Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII. is noted the grant of a messuage with meadows, pastures, etc., with two cottages at Lyllyngston Dauncy alias Lyllingston Lovell, Oxon, to William 'l'yler [ to Henry VIII.], 29 October 1512. There is no mention 1 Inquisitions P. Records Office, Henry VIII., Bundle 1, Nos. 40, 97, 178. Also Ministers' Accounts, 1 Henry VII., No. 10. 212 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. here of a manor, but the messuage, etc., seems to have adjoined the land which had belonged to Fitz Symond; the name given to the locality, however, might apply to either manor; in later times there was a small freehold which was not included in the Wentworth estate. The grant to Tyler affords a little of the history of the land he acquired. It had formerly belonged to Walter Mauntell, and lately to Sir Richard Emson or Empson. Mauntell was of Nether Heyford in Northamptonshire; Empson, of Easton N eston in the same county, and (father of John, Duke of N orthumber­ land) were notorious as instruments of the avaricious Henry VII. in the robbery of his subjects under every legal pretext these lawyers could devise. Enriching their master, they took care to have their own share of the spoil, and as such it is probable that the Lillingstone land passed into the hands of Empson. But, on the death of the old King, and the accession of Henry VIII., so strong waxed popular indignation against the confis­ cating lawyers, that it could not be appeased even by the forfeiture of their ill-gotten property; their lives were demanded, and as the investigation of their real offence would have reflected on the late King, their master, a charge of high treason was fabricated, on which they were arraigned, found guilty, and executed, August 1510. In 1516, March 27, the manor of Lillingston Lovell, Oxon (evidently that known as the King's Lands), being in the hands of Henry VIII., was granted by him, with the castle and manor of Moresende, etc., in Northampton­ shire, to Thomas Parr, Knight of the Body, Matilda his wife, and their son William Parr (afterwards Marquis of Northampton), for the term of their lives ; the knight and his lady will be recognised as the parents of Queen WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 213

Katherine, the sixth wife of Henry VIII. Sir Thomas Parr died in 1518, and Dame Parr in 1532. Finally, many years before the death of William Parr, who appears to have resigned it, the same manor was, by royal grant dated 26 May 1546, conveyed to Sir Nicholas Wentworth, Knight. The "inventory of particulars " for the grant1 explains that the manor was that which had been held by the Parrs, and the grant itself, 2 in Latin, states that the manor of Lyllyngston Lovell with all its rights, members, and appurtenances, and a wood called "Ferys Woode " (referred to p. 208) containing 19½ acres, both anciently part of the Crown possessions, are granted by the King to Sir Nicholas Wentworth, Knight, in consideration of certain mes­ suages, lands, etc., in Towcester, Northamptonshire, transferred to the King, and of the sum of £18 13s. 4d. paid to the Treasurer of the Court of Augmentations. The same is to be held by Sir Nicholas and his heirs in oapite by the sixtieth' part of a knight's fee for all services. Thus the grant was not a gift ; Sir Nicholas in his will describes this part of his estate as the land in Lillingstone which he had " by exchange of the King's Majesty's fat her." The other manor, namely Lillingstone Lovell alias Lillingstone Dansey, which in 1474 belonged to Robert Fitz Symond, appears, as said before, to have been inherited by Wentworth from his mother Joan Fitz Symond, whose will or inquisition, were they discovered, would probably determine that more precisely; if it came not to Sir Nicholas by inheritance, there is nothing to show how it otherwise came into his possession. However that may be, the effect of the 1 Report 10 of Dep. Keeper of P. Records, p. 296. 2 Patent Rolls, 38 Henry VIII., Part 13. P. Records Office. 214 'rHE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. royal grant in 1546 was to make him lord of the _whole of the Oxfordshire Lillingstone, and to unite in one estate the two manors which from the Conquest to that time appear to have had different owners. Such is the best, although imperfect, account I can give of Lillingstone Lovell down to the time of the Wentworth possession.

SIR NICHOLAS WENTWORTH, KNIGHT, of Lillingstone Lovell; died c. 1553. Sir Nicholas was the younger son of Henry ·went. worth of Codham Hall, Essex (the first of the Essex or Gos:field Wentworths), and his only son by his second wife, Joan, the heiress of Fitz Symond. He had in­ herited his nwther's lands at North Shoebury, and besides this Essex property had, apparently by inherit­ ance, the manors or lands in Northamptonshire named in his will, and also probably by inheritance as above shown, the greater moiety of the Lillingstone Lovell estate in Oxfordshire. Of his early life I have found no trace, except his presentation to the rectory of Great Stambridge in 1533, a circumstance which seems to indicate his residence at W esthall, as the North Shoe bury manor was sometimes called, or at Mokking Hall in the neighbouring parish of Barling, Great Stam bridge being in the same vicinity. The cause of his going to Calais, or th,e period, does not appear. In his will (at Somerset House) he styles him­ self "Chief Porter of Calais," a well-known office of importance; his knighthood was received from King Henry VIII. in person, after the capture of Boulogne, 30 September 1544, on which occasion he had doubtless served with distinction. I 544•

QUARTERLY WENTWORTH AND FITZ SIMON, OVER ALL AN ANNULET FOR DIFFERENCE, IMPALING JOCELYN.

WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 215

The grant of the manor of LilHngstone Lovell, called "the King's Lands, in 1546, may mark his retirement from public service, for at that time he must have been at least sixty-four years of age, his father having died in 1482 ; and we may suppose that the remaining six or seven years of his life were passed at Lillingstone. That he built the Hall, though without proof, is probable; the evidence of his having lived here lies in the words of his will, "I, Nicholas Wentworthe, Knight, Chief Porter of Calais, late dwelling in the County of Oxford." He appears, however, to have retained his office at Calais until almost the close of his life, for in the Journal of Edward VI. we find, under date 24 September 6th year of his reign=] 552, "Sir Nicholas Wentworth was dis­ charged of the portership of Calais, and one Cotton was put into it. In consideration of his age the said Sir Nicholas Wentworth had a hundred pounds pension."1 Hayward also notes his retirement thus: "Sir Nicholas Wentworth was removed from being Porter of the Town [Calais] by reason of his old age, but had an hundred pounds yearly pension assigned him for his life."2 We have not the date of his death, which, however, probably occurred in 1553. His will is dated 7 February 1551, or 1552, N.s.; we know of his being alive in September of the same year, as he was then relieved of his Calais office; and in January 1554 his eldest son Peter was found in possession of the estates.3 These estates were in the counties of Essex, Oxford, Northampton, and Buckingham ; there was also property in the City of London. The following names of places occur in the will. In EssEx the manors of W esthall

1 Burnet's Hist. of the Reformation, Pocock ed., v., 85. 2 Hayward in Kennet's Complete History, ii., 321. 3 J ones's Index to Records. 216 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

and Mokinghalle; tenements called Motes, Babbis, and Stevens (in another place Taylers); three marshes termed Gardner's Marshe, On Marshe, and Orapnelles Marshe. · In OXFORDSHIRE the manor of Lyllyngstone Lovell, and " the lande in Lyllyngstone had by exchange of the King's Majesties father;" the distinction between the two portions of the property is here observable, as has been already noticed. In NORTHAMPTON SHIRE was the manor of Orchester [? IrchesterJ, a tenement called Mantelles (once, no doubt, belonging to the Mauntell family), and lands in Tossester [Towcester]. In BucK­ INGHAMSHIRE land in Stow and Lamport, and pastures called Torneacar, part of which were in Oxfordshire. The testator also names his manor of Howthleigh [Howleigh] in the parish of Rygatt [Reigate] in SURREY. " Wherof the JJuke of Norjfolk hath latly me deforsyd, and fm· the profyttes thereof receyed by the said lorde that last died, my Lady's grace his wief hath latly made me recompence in discharge of the soule of her late husbande, Trustinge also that my lordes grace that nowe is will restore the said manor in, tyme comynge in dis­ charge of his constience." This matter is partially explained in Manning and Bray's Hist. of Surrey, i., 277. The Duke of Norfolk, to whom pertained the moiety of How leigh manor in the parish of Reigate, had fallen into the disfavour of the capricious tyrant, Henry VIII., who sent him to the Tower, and seized his lands. Sir Nicholas Wentworth is not mentioned; but it is probable he had purchased Howleigh, which, with the other con­ fiscated lands, was restored to the Duke ( whose life had been saved by the tyrant's death) 4 Edward VI. Sir Nicholas had also land at Calais, purchased conjointly with his wife, to whom he leaves its disposal. His wife Jane if surviving him had, by the will, the WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE,, LOVELL. 217 use during her life of all the property, with exception of the Mantelles tenement and the land in Stow, Lamport, and Towcester. rl'he Essex property after the death of himself and wife was to pass to the use of his heir; and should there be no heir of his body then to his cousin Edward Tyrell of Beeches Hall, Essex; in default of heirs of Tyrell then to the heirs of Margaret Hunting­ don, whose daughters were married, one to his cousin William Mordant of Essex, and the other to his cousin Piares [? PiersJ of Cambridgeshire; failing all these then to his heirs general. Lillingstone Lovell and Torneacar pastures were to pass to his heir male, or in default to his heirs general. The Surrey manor of Howleigh, if recovered, to go to the use of his younger sons, Henry, Paul, and Francis, and ·their heirs, in default of which then to the uses and intents declared by the will of his mother "Dame Jane Fitz Lewes, whose soul God pardon." This evidence of the third marriage of Joan, or Jane, Fitz Simon with one of the Fitz Lewes family will be welcome to genealogists who have been perplexed on the subject; the mother of Sir Nicholas Wentworth had borne in succession, four surnames, viz., Fitz Simon, Timperley, Wentworth, and Fitz Lewes. If it should fortune after his death that his wife Jane should die before his son and heir apparent Peter Wentworth, or any other heir which Goel should provide, had attained full age, then his executors were to receive all the rents and profits of the estate until the heir should be twenty­ three years of age, and apply them to the preferment of his younger sons should any be living ; if not, then to the use of his unmarried daughters; and should there be none, then to the marriage portions of poor maidens [ and] mending of highways. The omission of the con­ junction causes the last clause to read oddly. F F 218 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

The manor of Lamport and other tenements in Bucks are left to his son Paul (afterwards of Burnham Abbey) and his heirs ; Henry his second son ( of w horn we know nothing certain) was to have for life the manor of Orchester [? Irchester], co. Northampton ; and Peter his eldest son and heir was to have the manor of West. hall, Essex, but only on condition of his not opposing the will in any way. Further concerning his goods and chattels, Jane his wife has all his household stuff, with all her apparel and jewels, also all his plate. Paul has £20; Henry £100 for his preferment; Francis his son, whom he intends "to make a prie8t," £40; "my sonne Boys [Edward Boys, Esq., of Fredvill, Kent, the husband of his daughter Clara] my coote [ coatJ of plate covered with tawney satten ;" Nicholas Bradley his godson 20s.; J olm Shep­ ard his servant 20s. To the repair of Lillingstone Church he gives 20s. To Peter his son two of his best gowns and a cassock of black velvet, and all his harness. He then appoints his wife as his executrix; and as executors Peter his eldest son, Edward Boys, Esquire, his son-in-law, and Paul his third son. His wife "incontinent ''-i.e. remarrying-after his death to enjoy all rents and profits of the land in Lillingstone which he had by exchange of the King's Majesty's father, in consideration of having resigned part of her jointure lands in Essex, viz., Motes, Babbys, and Taylers, to her daughter-in-law, his son Peter's wife. Finally he leaves to his wife the land he had purchased jointly with her at Calais "to do her will with." Sir Nicholas did not designate his burial-place, but was content to be buried "in some convenient ptace where my executors do' think most best to provide." The place most likely to be chosen was the chancel of WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 219

Lillingstone Lovell Church; but as he died a few years before the general institution of parish registers, those of this place, commencing in 1558, do not record his burial; the earliest entries evidently refer to his grandchildren. The wife of Sir Nicholas was of the family of Jocelyn of Hyde Hall, near , Hertfordshire, of which family are the Earls of Roden. She survived her husband about seventeen years, and as on her death in 1569 she was buried in Burnham Church, Buckingham­ shire, it may be conjectured that her latter years were passed with her third son Paul, who was of Burnham Abbey, and whose career will presently have our atten­ tion. The burial of " Dame Jane Wentworth ... wyfe to Si1· Nicholas Wentworth" is recorded on her son's monument, and in the parish register; it is much to be regretted that a like memorial does not exist of the knight her husband.

PETER WENTWORTH, Member of Parliament, of Lillingstone Lovell; born 1524, died 1597. The eldest son of Sir Nicholas was Peter Wentworth, a Member of Parliament, of the J>uritan party, and dis­ tinguished in the reign of Elizabeth for his courageous and persistent resistance to the Queen's despotic endeavour to control debate in the House and to repress liberty of speech. His boldness is remarkable at a time when the independence of Parliament was but imper­ fectly developed, and the majority of its members disposed .to submit to the dictation of the Sovereign. Peter Wentworth, in the long struggle he maintained against such restraint, stands in the foremost rank of Englishmen who have striven for, suffered for, and step by step achieved the honourable independence of Parlia- 220 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. ment, and the full establishment of constitutional libei'ty. He was about twenty-nine years of age when his father's death placed him in possession of the estates, and had reached forty-seven before he entered Parlia­ ment. These years we may, in the absence of information, suppose to have been spent at Lillingstone Lovell; but of his ho'rne life there we have scarcely any indication. His first election to Parliament was in 1571, when he sat for Barnstaple, Devon.1 That Parliament was short-lived, there had been none during an interval of more than four years, and the temper of this being determinedly adverse to the Queen's endeavour to limit its action and debate, and to the design of the Bishops to arrogate to themselves the control of religious matters, it was dissolved after scarcely two months of existence. Peter Wentworth had only been a fortnight in the House when he made his first speech in the debate on the privileges of the House, 20 April 1571. It is partially reported in D'Ewes's Journal: "Mr. Wentworth very orderly and in many words recalled the speech of Sir Humphrey Gilbert, not naming him ; he proved his speech to be an injury to the House, as showing a dis­ position to flatter and fawn on the Prince, comparing him to the chameleon, which can change itself into all colours save white, and entreating care for the credit of the House, the maintenance of free speech, and the reproval of liars." Finally, in true Puritanic language, he "inveighed greatly out of the Scriptures against liars, quoting the words of David, 'Thou, 0 Lord, shalt destroy liars.' " 1 Browne Willis's Notitia Parliamentaria, p. 80. The elections for the Parliament of 1571 are unaccountably omitted in the official return of Members. WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 221

Four days later he, Sir Robert Lane, his brother-in­ law, Sir Henry Gate, Mr. Henry Knolles, senr., Mr. Astley, and Mr. Sandys were appointed as a committee to wait on the (Parker), and to receive his opinion on the bill, then before the House, for the revision of the Book of Common Prayer. In this interview Wentworth appears to have been the chief spokesman, and what took place is thus related by him­ self in his famous speech made five years later, i.e. in the session of 1576. "I was, amongst others of the last Parliament, sent unto the Bishop (sic) of Canterbury for the Articles of Religion that then passed this House. He asked us why we did put out of the book the Article for the Homilies, Consecration of Bishops, and such like. ' Surely, sir,' said I, 'because we were so occupied in other matters that we had no time to examine them how they agr,eed with the Word of God.' 'What!' said he, 'surely you mistook the matter; you will refer yourselves wholly to us therein.' ' No ! by the faith I bear to God,' said I, ' we will pass nothing before we understand what it is, for that were to make you Popes. Make you Popes who list,' said I, 'for we will make you none ! ' And surely, Mr. Speaker, the speech seemed to me to be a Pope-like speech, and I fear lest our bishops do attribute this of the Pope's canons unto themselves, 'Papa non potest errare.'" The Parliament ofl571, the first in which Peter Went­ worth sat, was dissolved 29 May, after a session of eight weeks. The next election was in April 1572, when he be­ camerepresentativeof the borough of Tregonyin Cornwall. 'fhe Parliament summoned in 1572 had an existence of nearly eleven years; but during the eleven yeari four sessions only were held, averaging nine weeks each. Its first session lasted seven weeks, and in D'Ewes re- 222 'rHE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

port of it the only mention which occurs of Wentworth is his name in the list of the fourty-four Members of the Commons deputed to sit with twenty-one of the Upper House, in the Star Chamber, "to consult and deliberate upon matters concerning the Queen of Scots." There is no report of the transactions of this council or committee which sat at the time the Duke of Norfolk, found guilty of treasonable intrigue with the Scottish Queen, lay at the Tower awaiting his death warrant. From Went­ worth's allusion to this session in his speech of February 1576, it appears that the Commons then debated two bills for promoting the safety of the Queen of England, one at least of which was passed by the Houses, but to which Elizabeth withheld her assent. Parliament was prorogued 20 June 1572, and did not meet for its second session until after an interval of more than three years and a half, 8 February 1576. Of this period of Wentworth's retirement we should be glad to have some knowledge, but of his private life only one glimpse is afforded us; very interesting, how­ ever, it is, as showing him in his house at Lillingstone Lovell preparing to renew the contest for Parliamentary liberty, which he had initiated in the session of 1571. This one glimpse is given us by himself in his exam­ ination before the committee in 1576, when his great speech had got him into trouble. He then told his examiners how the speech had been thought out and written down two or three years before, and that whilst " walking in his grounds he had revolved and prepared it against that day;" that reflecting on the trouble into which it would bring him, and foreseeing that "it would carry him to the place whither he should now go," i.e. the Tower, he had weighed in his mind whether with a good conscience, and consistently with the duty of a WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 223 faithful subject, he might keep himself out of prison by forbearing to warn his Sovereign of the dangerous course she pursued, in prohibiting debate on subjects affecting her welfare and that of the nation? 'I1he answer of conscience was that he could not be a faithful subject if he had more consideration forJ1is own danger than that of his Sovereign; and so he "was made bold, and went forward."1 The speech was delivered on the first day of the session, 8 February 1576; it is fully reported by D'Ewes, and has been lately published in the Camelot Series; here it must necessarily be condensed, guarding, however, the quaint and Biblical language of the time in which it was delivered. It thus commences :- " Mr. Speaker,--! find in a little volume these words, in effect: 'Sweet is the name of Liberty, but the thing itself a value beyond all inestimable treasure.' So much the more it behoveth us lest we, contenting ourselves with the sweetness of the name, lose and forego the thing, being of the greatest value that can come unto this noble realm. The inestimable treasure is the use of it in this House." He then reminds the House that it is met for three special purposes; the first and principal to make and abrogate laws as may best promote the pre­ servation of the Sovereign; the second [ not reported]; the third to make and abrogate laws as may best serve the security and welfare of the realm. He thinks it is the part of the faithful-hearted subject to endeavour to remove all stumbling-blocks that may in any manner hindflr these good objects. He had never sat in Parliament but in the last [ April-May 1571], and in the last session [i.e., the first session of the present Parliament, May-

1 D'Ewes's Journal, p. 243. 224' THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

June 1572], at both of which times he saw the liberty of free speech so much and in so many ways infringed, and so many indignities offered to this honourable council that it grieved him in his love to his Sovereign and the State. To avoid the like he deems it expedient to show the advantages which free speech in Parliament brings to the Sovereign and the State. First, the pro­ motion of all that concerns the honour of God, and the removal of all that may hinder it. Secondly, that all faithful and loving subjects may bring forward what is profitable or in any way beneficial to the Sovereign and the State. Thirdly, that all that is perilous or hurtful to them may be prevented. Fourthly, that as by the darkness of the night the brightness of the sun showeth more excellent and clear; so may truth appear and conquer by the exposure of the falsehoods and sub­ tleties which shadow and darken it. Fifthly, that a wicked purpose may the easier be prevented when it is known. Sixthly, because an evil man can do the less harm when his design is known. Seventhly, that a good man will sometimes-in this place (for argument sake) prefer [bring forward] an evil cause so that a doubtful truth may be manifested, and evil prevented. He therefore concludes that in this House, which is termed a place of free speech, there is nothing so neces­ sary for the preservation of the Sovereign and the State as free speech ; and without this it is a scorn and mockery to call it a Parliament House, for in truth it is none but a very school of flattery and dissimulation, and so a fit place to serve the devil and his angels, and not to glorify God and benefit the Commonwealth. Now the impediments thereof [ of free speech], he, by God's grace and his little experience, will utter plainly and faithfully. He will use the words of Elcha, "Be- WENTWOR'l'H OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 225 hold I am as the new wine which has no vent, and bursteth the new vessels in sunder ; therefore I will speak that I may have a vent. I will open my lips and make answer. I will regard no manner of person, no man will I spare; for if I go about to please men, I know not how soon my Maker will take me away." Amongst other things, there were two very hurtful in the House. One-the rumour which ran about: "Take heed what you do; the Queen liketh not such matter; whoever preferreth it she will be offended with him;" or the contrary, " Her Majesty liketh such matter; whoever speaketh against it she will be much offended with him." The other-sometimes a message is brought to the House, either commanding or in­ hibiting, very injurious to the freedom of speech and consultation: "I would to God, Mr. Speaker, that these rumours and messages were burned in hell, for wicked they undoubtedly are, the devil is the first author of them ...... For if we have in hand anything for the advancement of God's glory, were it not wicked to say the Queen liketh it not, or commandeth that we shall not deal in it ?" Greatly were these speeches to her Majesty's dishonour, and it was hard to think that these things should enter into her Majesty's thought. Much more wicked were it that her Majesty should like or command anything against Goel, or hurtful to herself and 'the State. The Lord grant that this thing may be far from her Majesty's heart ! Here it might be objected, that if the Queen's Majesty have intelligence of anything perilous or beneficial to her Majesty's person or the State, would you not have her Majesty give know­ ledge thereof to the House, whereby her peril may be prevented, and her benefit provided for? God forbid! Then were her Majesty in worse case than any of her G G 226 THE :FAMILY OF WEN'l'WOR'l'H. subjects, and in the beginning of his speech he showed that to be a special cause of their assembling; his intent is that nothing should be done to God's dishonour, her Majesty's peril, or the peril of the State. But he shows that it is perilous always to follow the prince's mind, for the prince may favour a cause perilous to himself and the whole State, and then to follow the prince were to be unfaithful to God, the prince, and the State, for we are chosen of the whole realm, of a special trust and confid­ ence by them reposed in us, to foresee all such incon­ veniences. He that dissembleth to her Majesty's peril should be accounted a hateful enemy, for he giveth to her Mnjesty a detestable J udas's kiss; and he that con­ trarieth her mind [opposes her will] to her preservation, yea, though her Majesty should be much offended with him, is to be judged an approved lover. For "faithful are the wounds of a lover," saith Solomon, "but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful." Then follows the clear and perfectly loyal exposition of the Queen as head of the State, and the avowal that there was never a prince whose subjects had more cause heartily to love, by reason of her quiet government of them ; nor were there subjects with more faithful hearts than her Majesty had in that place. He next refers to the message sent down to the House in the last session, that it should not deal with matters of religion, except such as might be forwarded from the Bishops. Surely this was a doleful message, and as much as to say, "Sirs, ye shall not deal in God's causes; no I ye shall no wise seek to advance His glory I" .... God, even the great and mighty God, whose name is the Lord of Hosts, great in council, and infinite in thought, and who is the only good Director of all hearts, was the last session shut out of doors I But what WENTWOR'l'H OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 227 fell out of it forsooth? His great indignation was there­ fore poured upon this House; for he did put into the Queen's Majesty's heart to refuse good and wholesome laws for her own preservation, the which caused many faithful hearts for grief to burst out with sorrowful tears, and moved all Papists, traitors to God and her Majesty, who envy good Christian government, in their sleeves to laugh all the whole Parliament House to scorn. Should he pass over this weighty matter lightly ? Nay ! he would discharge his conscience and his duties to God, his prince, and his country. "So certain it is, Mr. Speaker, that none is without fault, no, not our noble Queen, sith then her Majesty hath committed great fault, yea, dangerous faults to herself." Love, void of dissimulation, would not suffer him to hide them to her Majesty's peril, but to utter them. to her l\fajesty's safety. It is dangerous in a prince unkindly to abuse his or her nobility and people; to oppose or bend herself against her nobility and people, yea, against most loving and faithful nobility and people. And could any prince more unkindly entreat, abuse, and oppose herself against her nobility and people than her Majesty did in the last Parliament? Did she not call us on purpose to prevent traitorous perils to her person [the Duke of Norfolk's connivance with Mary, Queen of Scots] and for no other cause ? Diel not her Majesty send us two bills, to make choice of that we liked best for her safety, promising her assent thereunto? And did ,ve not first choose one, and her Majesty refused it, yielding no reason ; nay, yielding great reasons why she ought to have yielded to it? Yet did we nevertheless accept the other [bill] and agree to make it law, and did not her Majesty in the en cl refuse all our travails? Is this a just recompense in our Christian Queen for our just dealings ? 228 111-IE FAMILY OF WEN1'WOR'rH.

Afterwards he refers to the action of the bishops in regard to the revision of the Prayer Book, and relates, as above quoted, his interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury, adding, "it is an error to think that God's Spirit is tied only in them [ the bishopsJ .... and the writ, Mr. Speaker, that we are called up by, is chiefly to deal in God's cause, that is our commission both from Goel and our prince, therefore to accept such messages [restricting delmte ], and to take them in good part, do highly offend Goel, and is the acceptation of the breach of the liberties of this honourable council. For is it not all one thing to say, 'Sirs, you- shall deal in such matters only,' as to say 'you shall not deal in such matters ?' and is as good to have fools and flatterers in the House as men of wisdom, grave judgment, faithful hearts, and sincere consciences ..... Wherefore Goel, for His great mercies' sake, grant that ·we may from henceforth show ourselves neither bastards nor dastards, but that as rightly begotten children we may sharply and boldly reprove the enemies of Goel, our princes, and the State, and so shall every one of us discharge our duties in this our high office wherein He hath placed us, and show ourselves haters of evil and cleavers to that that is good to the setting forth of God's glory and honour, and to the preservation of our noble Queen and Commonwealth, and for the advancement of justice." Lastly he censures the conduct of some Members in the last Parliament, and of some in the present House, ·who, right good men in other causes, had sat in [supported] an evil matter against ·which they had most earnestly spoken. He had been told that it was a con1mon policy [practiceJ in the House to mark the be-st sort [men] of the same, and to sit or arise with them. That same policy [practiceJ he would gladly banish from WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 229

the House, and have grafted in the stead thereof to rise or sit as the matter giveth cause. God misliked these two-faced gentlemen, and there were many eyes that would, to their great shame, behold their double-dealing. The speech thus ends, "Thus I have holden you long with my rude speech, the which since it tendeth wholly with pure conscience to seek the advancement of God's glory, our honourable Sovereign's safety, and to the sure defence of this noble isle of England, and all by main­ taining of the liberties of this honourable council, the fountain from whence all these do spring-my humble and hearty suit unto you all is to accept my good will, and that this that I have here spoken out of conscience and great zeal unto my Prince and State may not be buried in the pit of oblivion, and so no good come thereof." Courage, integrity, piety, and zeal for the public welfare are not more conspicuous in this speech than firm loyalty to the Sovereign. But the boldness of the language, in which Wentworth, while defending the privileges of the House, dared to impugn the Queen's interference and dictation, overstepped all customary limits. D'Ewes says that "the House, out of a reverent regard for her Majesty's honour, stopped his further pro­ ceeding before he had fully finished his speech." In fact, fearing the consequences which might ensue if these bold utterances did not meet with their disavowal, and desiring to avert the wrath of "the Imperial Lioness,"1 the House sequestered the courageous JVIem­ ber, and "presently committed him to the Serjeant's ward as prisoner, in order that he might be examined upon his speech, for the extenuating of his fault

1 Macaulay in review of Hallam's Constitutional History. 230 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. therein.'' A Committee, composed of all the Members of the House who were Privy Councillors, was appointed for his examination; this took place the same after­ noon in the Star Chamber, but not before Wentworth, who had declined the authority of his examiners, was assured by them that they sat as Members of the House of Commons and not as Privy Councillors. A lengthy examination ensued in which Wentworth ably supported the statements he had made ; and the next clay, the Committee having reported to the House, he was brought to the Bar by the Serjeant-at-Arms, and by the Speaker in the name of the House committed to the 'fower, "there to remain until such time as the House should have further consideration of him." He was imprisoned for a month, and then the Queen remitted her displea­ sure, and sent a message to the House recommending the discharge of the prisoner. This message is reported to have been "most thankfully accepted by the whole House," and thereupon "Mr. Peter Wentworth was brought by the Serjeant-at-Arms that attended to the House to the Bar within the same, and after some de­ claration made unto him by Mr. Speaker, in the name of the whole House, both of his own great fault and offence, and also of he}· Majesty's great and bountiful mercy showed unto him, and after his humble submis­ sion upon his knees, acknowledging his fault, and craving her Majesty's pardon and favour, he was received again into the House, and restored to his place, to the great contentment of all that were present." 'rlrns reports D'Ewes in his Journal; but though Wentworth may have regretted the vehemence of his language when referring to the Queen, and apologized according to the forms of the time, he could not have wished his speech unspoken; for said he to the Com- WENTWOR'l'Il OF LILLINGS'l'ONE LOVELL. 231 mittee at his examination, "The consideration of a good conscience and of a faithful subject did make me bold to utter it in such sort as your Honours heard; with this heart and mind I spake it, and I praise God for it, and if it were to do again I would with the same mind speak it again." That neither was his spirit broken, nor his resolution to claim the privileges of the House shaken, his action afterwards clearly shows. 'rhree days after 1Vent-worth's release from the 'l'ower, Parliament was prorogued, 15 March 1576, and was not again summoned until nearly five years had passed. 'rlie next session commenced 16 January 1581, and lasted two months; it had as its chief business the enactment of a statute to meet the attempt of Pope Gregory XIII., by means of the promulgation of a Bull, and a mission of Jesuits, to bring back the English nation to the Romish Church. Wentworth is mentioned as one of a Committee appointed " to consult of bills convenient to be framed to restrain evil affected subjects, and to provide that which may be requisite for the maintenance of the forces." The Act 23 Elizabeth was passed "to retain the Queen's Majesty's subjects in their due obedience," and made it a treasonable offence "to pretend to any power of absolving subjects from their obedience, or practising to withdraw them to the Romish religion; and all subjects thus willingly ab­ solved or withdrawn from their obedience were also to be deemed traitors." There were also heavy penalties imposed on all who said or attended mass, and on those who did not attend church. Wentworth is also named on a committee this session for the consideration of a bill in regard to the claim of Lord Zouch to a certain manor; on this committee was also "Mr. Cromwell," probably , Member for Bodmin, and 232 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. great-uncle of the Protector. The session of 1581 ended in March, and although this Parliament, which had been elected in 1572, did not meet again, it was not dissolved until April 1583. Peter ¥1 entworth did not sit in the next Parliament, which meeting in November 1584 was dissolved in September 1585. He was elected 26 October 1586 for the borough of Northampton, to be considered almost in his own neighbourhood; perhaps he had property there, as certainly he had in the county. In March 1587 he is again prominent in the House of Commons; eleven years had passed by since his bold reproof of the Queen's despotism had landed him in the Tower of London, and probably it was only owing to want of occasion, and the infrequency of sessions, that he had not revisited the same place; it was now soon evident that he had not abandoned his cause. The Parliament which met 29 October 1586, and sat until 23 March J 587, was summoned chiefly for the purpose of bringing before the Houses the proceedings against the Queen of Scots; her trial had taken place, and a verdict against her found four days previous to the meeting. On the 10th November a committee of both Houses declared the verdict just, and Elizabeth was petitioned that proclamation should be made of the judgment, and that further proceedings should be taken against the Scottish Queen; in plainer terms, that her execution should follow. For four months Parlia­ ment and the nation were kept in painful suspense by the hesitation of Elizabeth, but at length the death­ warrant was signed, and the poor Queen brought to the block 8 February 1587. Then the House of Commons, freed from the incubus of suspense, proceeded with their business, and Wentworth again came to the front. WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 233

On 27th February Mr. Cope1 "offered to the House a bill and a book;" the purpose of the bill .was to annul laws which concerned ecclesiastical government, and to establish a new form of common prayer which the book contained. '11he Speaker interposed to prevent the reading of the bill on the ground that the Queen had prohibited to the House the discussion of such matters; several Members, however,. desired that the bill might be read, and thus debating, the day passed. On that following the Queen required the attendance of the Speaker, who delivered up to her Majesty the bill and the book. Here was direct and arbitrary inter­ ference with the liberty of debate, and Wentworth's resolution was quickly taken to meet it. At the next sitting, on the 1st March, he handed to the Speaker a list of eight questions, relating to the privileges of the House, which he desired should be read. '11he Speaker requested him to defer the motion until the Queen's pleasure should be known in respect to the bill and the book; but Wentworth would not consent to the post­ ponement, and required the reading of his questions; whereon the Speaker replied that he would first peruse them, and then do what was fit. The matter ended thus: "These questions Mr. Puckering [the Speaker] pocketted up and showed Sir Thomas Heneage [ of the Privy Council, afterwards Vice-Chamberlain], who so handled the matter that Mr. Wentworth went to the Tower, and the questions not at all moved." The questions which the Member for Northampton would have put to the House are given in full by D'Ewes; Hallam thus condenses them : "Whether this Council be not a place for any member of the same here as-

1 Anthony Cope, M.P. for Banbury; Baronet 1611. H H 231 THE FAMILY OF WEN'[WORTH. sern bled, freely and without controllment of any person, or danger of laws, by bill or speech to utter any of the griefs of this commonwealth ·whatsoever, touching the service of God, the safety of the Prince and this noble realm? 1Vhether there be any council that can make, add, or diminish from the laws of the realm, but only this eouncil of Parliament ? Whether it be not against the orders of this council to make any secret or matter of weight, which is here on hand, known to the Prince or any other, without consent of the House? Whether the Speaker may overrule the House in any matter or cause in qnestion? Whether the Prince and State can continue and stand and be maintained, ·without this council of Parliament, not altering the government of the State?" The very foundations of the constitution and of our national liberty lie in these questions. 'The foundations had been laid long beforA the days of Elizabeth, but the structure upon them had not at that time been fully reared and consolidated. The day after Wentworth's committal, Mr. Cope and three other Members who had supported him were examined before the Council, and sent also to the Tower. Two days later Sir John Higham moved: "For that divers good and necessary Members of the House were taken from them, a Petition should be made to her Majesty for their restitution to the House." This motion was opposed by Sir Christopher Hatton, the Vice­ Chamberlain, who said that if the gentlemen had been comrn.itted for mattets within the compass of the House, then there might be a petition; but if not, that then they should give occasion to her Majesty's further dis­ pleasure. Therefore he advised delay until they should hear more; and touching the book and the petition [i.e., the bill which had accompanied the book] he said that WE.N'l'WOR'l'H OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 235

her Majesty, for divers good causes best known to her­ self, had thought fit to suppress the same without any further examination thereof, and yet he conceived it very unfit for her Majesty to give any account of her doing8. Strype's opinion is that the Members were imprisoned "for encroaching upon the Queen's title and prerogative as supreme governor in causes ecclesiastical, and inter­ meddling with matters touching the Church, which her Majesty had so often inhibited." (Life of Whitgift, i., 488.) On 13th March Mr. Cromwell (p. 231) moved for a - committee of Members who were also Privy Councillors, and others, to confer concerning those gentlemen, Mem­ bers of the House, lately committed to the Tower. The committee was ap1Jointed, but D'Ewes records no more on this matter. He reports, however, that on the day Parliament was dissolved, 23 March 1587, "a Bill for the Queen's Majesty's most gracious, general, and free· pardon " was sent down from the Lords to the Com­ mons, which the lower House passed and returned to their Lordships; we may suppose, therefore, that at this time Peter Wentworth and the other committed Members regained their liberty, after an imprisonment of three weeks. A new Parliament ·was called to meet 12 November 1588, and the borough of Northampton made no change in the choice of its representatives. Wentworth's name, however, does not appear in the reports of this House of Commons, which, sitting soon after the defeat of the Spanish Armada, voted large subsidies for a war of defence against Spain, and having existed four months and a half, was dissolved 29 March 1589. Again occurred a long interval, nearly four years, without any meeting of national representatives; and on 236 THE FAMILY OF WEN'l'WORTH.

19 February 1593 the eighth Parliament of Elizabeth met at ,v estminster, the borough of Northampton having again elected Peter Wentworth. 'I1he Queen was now in her sixtieth year, and in the thirty-fifth of her reign, yet the momentous question of the succession to the throne remained undetern1ined. Early in her reign, as was most natural and necessary, the subject had claimed the attention of Parliament, but Elizabeth had arbitrarily forbidden the discussion; and notwithstanding that her prohibition had met with very decided opposition from the House which sat twenty-seven years before the time at which we are arrived (in which opposition Paul Wentworth, the younger brother of Peter, had borne a principal part), the Queen's commands had controlled Parliament, and her successor was still unnamed. Thus it had become urgent that the question should again be brought for­ ward, although the sure consequence to its mover and supporters woulcl be the Queen's displeasure and the penalty attending it. The duty, however, was accepted by vVentworth, "the unconquerable Peter Wentworth" as Hallam at this time calls him; yet he was now in his seventieth year, and n1ight well have left the brunt of the battle to a younger nian. Elizabeth appears to have had some intimation that matters of a nature objectionable to her might be intro­ duced in this House; for iu answer to the customary petition for liberty of speech the reply of Lord Keeper Puckering (formerly Speaker) in the Queen's name was: " Privilege of speech is granted, but you must know what privilege you have ; not to speak every one what he listeth, or what cometh into his brain to utter; but your privilege is, aye or no. Wherefore, Mr. Speaker, her Majesty's pleasure is, that if you perceive any idle WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 237 heads, which will not stick to hazard. their mvn estates ; which will meddle with reforming the Church, and transforming the Commonwealth; and do exhibit any bills to such purpose; that you receive them not until they be viewed and considered by those who it is fitter should consider of such things, and can better judge of them." (D'Ewes's Journal.) N otwithstancling the Queen's despotic message, on 24th February, a few days after the House had met, Wentworth and Sir Henry Bromley delivered a petition to the Lord Keeper, desiring " the Lords of the Upper House to join them of the Lower in imploring her Majesty to entail the succession of the Crown, for which they had already prepared a bill." Of all prohibited subjects this was the most unpalatable to the Queen, and very soon her indignation was made evident. The offending Members were at once summoned before Vice­ Chamberlain Heneage, and ordered not to appear in Parliament, but to remain at home in their lodgings. On the following day they were brought before the Privy Council, and were examined by Lord Treasurer Burghley, Lord Buckhurst, and the Vice-Chamberlain,

"who treated them very< favourablv,V but at the same tirn1e acquainted them that her Majesty was so highly offended, that they must stand con1mitted." Wentworth was sent to the rrower, Sir Henry Bromley, and two other Mem­ bers concerned in drawing the petition, to the Fleet Prison. (D'Ewes's Journal.) On the 10th March, that is after the offending Mem­ bers had been a fortnight imprisoned, it was moved that the House be suitors to her Majesty to set them at liberty;. but the motion was opposed by all the Privy Councillors in the House, who argued "that her Majesty had committed them for reasons best known to herself, 238 THE FAMILY OF WEN'rWORTH.

and that for them to press her in that suit, was but to make their case the worse." Nor had Elizabeth's re­ sentment abated a month later when, 10th April, she dissolved this Parliament, for we read in a letter of Anthony Bacon, dated 16 April 1593 : " Divers gentle­ men that were of the Parliament, and thought to have returned into the country after the end thereof, are stayed by her Majesty's conimand, for being privy, as it is thought, and consenting to Mr. Wentworth's matter." (Birch's Memoirs, i., 26.) Thus for the third time Wentworth found himself in the Tower of London, his liberty sacrificed in the cause of the public weal; and on 26th February 1593 com­ menced the long last term of his imprisonment that terminated only with his death, at the end of four years and five months. He remained to the last, however, "unconquerable,'' nor did his resolution falter in the endeavour to save his country from the peril which he believed was involved in the unprovided succession to the throne. To this purpose he wrote from the Tower several "treatises" on the very subject for interference with which he was suffering durance; these still sur­ vive, and are comprised in what is now a quaint little volume, of which a copy is found in the British Museum. The first part of the little book is entitled: ".A Pithie Exhortation to Her Ma/estie for establishing her suc­ ces8or to the Crowne. Whereunto is added a Disconrse containing the .Author's opinion of the true and lawful successor to Her .1/aJestie. Both compiled by Peter Wentworth, Esquire. Imprinted H>98." 'l1lie second part is named ".A T1·eatise containing JJfr. Wentworth's Judgment concerning the pP.rson of the frue and lawfull s1tccessor to the Realmes of England and Ireland," etc. " Jfade two years before his death, bztt pubUshed a year WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 239 ajter his death for the publicke bene.fite of this Realr;_ie. Irnp1·inted 1598." The period at which the Pithie Exhortation to Her MaJesty was written is not so evident as that of the " Treatise" concerning the Succession to the Realms which on its tiUe-page is said to have been "made two years before his death," therefore in 1595. The "Ex­ hortation" may have been written before his committal to the Tower in February 1593, and possibly when pre­ paring to bdng forward the subject in Parliament which got him into trouble; for in the Treatise (p. 3) he refers to the humble petition [pel'baps the Exhortation], which in the conscience of my bounden duty to Goel, her Majesty, and my Country I did exhibit to her High­ ness, and for which I now patiently suffer." Further he adds that Lord Burghley " affirmed at the council­ table that he had three several times perused his book and found nothing but what he thought to be true;" and here it is more probable that he refers to the Council by which he vrns committed to the '11ower, than to anotlrnr before which he might afterwards have been brought and recommitted. In the latter case it would be thought that he had regained his liberty for a time, but this is opposed to his reference to an unbroken period of cap­ tivity in a letter to Sir Robert Cecil, which will be noticed in its proper place. We learn, however, from himself (Exhortation, p. 109) that at one time he was lodged as "a prisoner in the Gate House at Westminster," and that there he received an Objection to his Exhortation .and answered it; so that it seems the whole period of his imprison­ ment was not passed in the Tower, without indeed the visit to the Gate House preceded the committal to the chief State prison. This much is learnt from two lists 240 TilE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. of prisoners contained in the State Papers, that he was in the Tower 14 April 1594, and 12 January 1596 (N.s.); on the second occasion he is named among those "who have the liberty of the 'l'ower." There are·extant several letters from Peter Went­ worth to Lord Burghley, by the tenor of which it may be judged that at one time at least, if not to the end of his life, he enjoyed the friendship of the Lord Treasurer whose connection with the Wentworths by the marriage of his daughter must be remembered (seep. 49). Among the State Papers three letters are calendared; the first, dated 9 May 1590, "laments his Lordship's displeasure and heavy countenance so long continued towards him, and desires to be reconciled, and to be received into his favour, urging him to seek the favour of God in the preservation of his Church and People." The second letter, dated three days later than the above, expresses "grateful thanks for his Lordship's courteous and gentle letter," and concludes by offering him "his true and faithful heart in the Lord." The third letter, dated 27 September 1591, is on the Succession subject, showing that it had occupied the mind of the writer during an interval when no Parliament was sitting·; it is, indeed, probable that at such time the Exhortation may have been composed, and perhaps even perused in manuscript by the Lord Treasurer. The old statesman's opinion of Wentworth's book, as expressed at the council-table, was referred to above; "he had three several times perused it, and found nothing but what he thought to be true and was assured would at last come to pass; but her Majesty had determined that the ques­ tion should be suppressed as long as she lived." Thus it seems there was no difference of opinion between them on the urgency of settling the Succession; Burghley, WENTWORTH OF LILLINGS'l.'ONE LOVELL. 241 however, deemed it impolitic and useless to oppose the arbitrary Queen's determination to shelve the question; whereas Wentworth's sense of duty would not suffer him to remain silent, and forced him to brave the storm. Among the Hatfield manuscripts are two letters from Wentworth in the Tower to Sir Robert Cecil, Secretary of State, second son of Lord Burghley, and afterwards Earl of Salisbury. The first letter, dated 15 July 1597, abbreviated reads thus: "I am advertised by the Countess of Warwicke of your honourable favour towards me in furthering my libertye.... I have ac­ cording to your pleasure sent your Honour the names of those that I desire to make my abode withall, and allso of those friends whome I greatelye desire to see, namelye, the Earle of Kente, the Lorde Saynt John of Blentushoe [Bletsoe J : [ those J with whom I doe most chiefiye desire to remayne, M" Litton, my sonne Boyse [Sir Edward Boys of Fredvil, Kent], my sonne Fleetwoode at Wygan [this connection undiscovered], my sonne Stricklande at Yastthrope [Walter Strickland, Esq., of Boynton, York], Sir William Lane at Horton [his first wife's nephew], Sir Anthony Cope, my sister Wentworthe at Burnham [ widow of his brother Paul]." The second letter is dated a fortnight later, 29 July 1597, that is to say, three months and a half before the writer's death. He relates that he has been four years and twenty-four weeks in prison, in consequence of his earnest and hearty desire to preserve the kingdom from irremediable peril; he prays for his release on favour­ able conditions, pleads his sickness from want of air, exercise, and liberty, is persuaded that it would pity his Honour's heart to see his weakly sickness, and entreats his compassion in regard of his old years, being above seventy-three. Finally, he beseeches God to bless the I I 242 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

Secretary with a daily increase of His knowledge and peace, a well-spring of life to avoid the snares of death. But this last appeal for liberation, irresistible as it may seem to us, was denied; the obdurate Queen dis­ played the cruelty of her Tudor race; and Wentworth remained a prisoner until death released him. Nor had he more than a very few months to wait after making the petition above quoted; his decease occurred, as is accurately ascertained from the inquisition of his pro­ perty, 10 November 1597. In his Treatise (p. 92) he wrote: '' I am grieved to think or to talk of this lamentable subject [the unsettled Succession], it may please God that I shall not live to see it debated;" and the editor of the little volume adds in the margin: "So it pleased God to call him to His heavenly kingdom in the time of his imprisonment in the Tower, where he was committed." Thus died Peter Wentworth in the Tower of London, not in his home at Lillingstone Lovell, the comforts of which in his old age be had sacrificed by his faithful­ ness to the cause he had adopted. Of his burial no record has come to light ; it is registered neither at the Tower nor at Lillingstone Lovell. His wife Eliza beth Walsingham, sister of Sir Francis the eminent minister, had shared his captivity and died in the Tower ; her interment in the Chapel of St. Peter is registered 21 July 1596. She was his second wife, and the mother of his many children. His first wife (by whom a daughter only) had been Letitia Lane, daughter of Sir Ralph Lane by his wife Maud Parr, first-cousin to Queen Katharine. Thus it will be seen Wentworth had connection with the Court; that he derived any advan­ tage from it, however, is doubtful. Possibly Walsingham WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 243 may have at one period mitigated the Queen's wrath towards his brother-in-law, but the minister died three years before Wentworth's last committal to the Tower; and on the other hand Elizabeth's displeasure may have been increased by finding an opponent where she may have looked for a courtier. It is a matter of regret, that although learning as much of the political life of Peter Wentworth as from the meagre Parliamentary reports of his time could be expected, we are almost without any traces of his private life. It would have interested us much to learn some­ thing of him at Lillingstone Lovell; but it is only left to us to conjecture, that the many frequent and lengthy intervals which occurred between the sessions of Par­ liament were passed on his estate. The only one glimpse, given to us by himself, has already been quoted; how, walking in his grounds, he had thought out his great speech of 1576; and how, having written it, he had weighed in his mind the penalty of delivering it against the faithful discharge of a public duty dictated by his conscience. The parish registers of Lillingstone Lovell during the period covering his life appear to be very imperfect; so that even the indications they might have afforded us of family events are wanting. Of his chil­ dren, at least numbering eight, there is but this one record in the baptismal register: "1558, Natalis Christ­ iance Wentworth ;" while in the burials there are but three Wentworth entries in the sixteenth century, viz., Katherine 1558, Christiana 1567, and Henry 1569. These three were probably children of Peter Wentworth, though the last may have been his brother, the second son of Sir Nicholas, of whom nothing certain is learnt beyond the provision for him in his father's will. Peter Wentworth's will is not found, but the inquisi- 244 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. tion of his property is preserved, thus reversing the circumstance as it regards his father Sir Nicholas, whose will we have, but not the inquisition. The post mortem document was referred to on p. 209, where it was shown that Lillingstone Lovell originally consisted of two manors held by different tenures, and that the distinc­ tion was maintained after the union of the two manors in the same estate. The inquisition, made at the City of Oxford, 1 September 1599, mentions the two Lillingstone manors in Oxfordshire, and lands adjoining in Buckinghamshire; the property held by Sir Nicholas in Essex, inherited from his mother, appears to have been sold by his son Peter; Morant found it in other hands in 1574. Lands in Buckinghamshire named in this inquisition, and not in the will of Sir Nicholas, are Hybarne, or Heybarne, Fields, and Linshire, in the Parish of Lillingstone Dayrell ; Hollenden, or Holling­ den, in Leckhampstead Parish. The document gives us distinctly the date of Peter Wentworth's decease, 10 November 39 Elizabeth [1597], and states it to have occurred at the City of London, i.e., in the Tower.

PAUL WENTWORTH, Member of Parliament, of Burnham Abbey, Bucks; born 1534, died 1594.

Paul Wentworth, another Puritan, was the third son of Sir Nicholas, and thus a younger brother of Peter Went­ worth, whos·e story we have just concluded. From the indications we possess of his character, it may be thought that the younger man was the more forward and impul,. sive, of greater severity, and perhaps of narrower tolera­ tion-than his elder brother. And yet though both were distinguished in the contest for Parliamentary privilege, WENTWORTH OF' LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 245 and in courageous resistance to Elizabeth's despotic endeavour to diminish or limit it, the steady persistence of the elder, extending even to the sacrifice of personal liberty, seems to have exceeded that of the younger. Paul was junior by ten years, yet entered Parliament eight years sooner than his brother; his age at the time was thirty, whereas Peter did not enter the arena of politics until he was forty-seven. This circumstance seems to argue an earlier readiness for a public career, a more impulsive energy in the younger brother; yet he retired from Parliamentary life many years before the death of the elder. The bachelor period of Paul Wentworth's life-he was twenty-nine when he married-was probably passed at Lillingstone Lovell; by his father's will he had the manor of Lamport (probably Lamport in Stowe) and other tenements in the neighbourhood, though in Buck­ inghamshire. As late as September 1565, nearly two years after his marriage, in a writ addressed to the Sheriff of Essex, the two brothers are named together, "Peter Wentworth, Esq., and Paul Wentworth, gentle­ man, of Lyllyngston Lovell, co. Oxon ;"1 and perhaps it was Paul's residence there which led to his election for the neighbouring borough of Buckingham in January 1563. In the same year he strengthened his connection with Buckinghamshire by his marriage, taking as his wife, at Burnham Church, 26 November 1563, Helen, the widow of William Tyldsley, the first lessee of the Jands of Burnham Abbey after its suppression. His wife's maiden name was Agmondesham, a somewhat awkward surname identical with the ancient name of Amersham the Buckinghamshire town, formerly a

1 Hist. MSS. Com. Report 10, pt. iv., p. 472. 246 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. borough. The family of Agmondesham, or in the abbreviated form Aunsham or Awnsham, was seated at Heston in Middlesex ; another branch was at East Horsley, Surrey ; John Agmondesham was in the Parliament of 1586 as Member for Lostwithiel, a Cornish borough; and Richard Awnsham, probably of the Heston family, was the father of Paul Wentworth's wife, as appears in his monumental inscription. By his marriage with the widow Tyldsley he acquired the unexpired lease of the Abbey land, which circum­ stance led to his removal from Lillingstone Lovell to Burnham, either immediately on his marriage or soon afterwards. 'rhe first baptism in his family which the parish registers record is that of his daughter Anne, 16 September 1565, but previously there is the burial, 4 September 1564, of Francis Wentworth, who may have been his infant son, if not, as Colonel Chester thought, his younger brother. Mr. Cole, the antiquary, who was Vicar of Burnham from 177 4 to 1780, has in his notes relating to the Abbey (MSS. xxxii. 38b) : "Paul Went­ worth, gentleman, came here to reside about 1574, and turned the Nuns' Hall, which was open to the tiles, into a smaller room, and made chambers over it." If it was not until 1574 that he made his abode at the Abbey, he must previously have lived about ten years in the town of Burnham; it was certainly in 1574 that he obtained a new lease of the crown property in his own name, for twenty-one years. His Parliamentary life now claims attention; as we have seeµ, he was returned for Buckingham in January 1563. It was in the session of that year that the double question of the Queen's marriage and the succession to the throne was first introduced into the House of Com­ mons, and a petition thereupon presented to her Majesty, WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 247 who showed her di~like to the subject, and gave an evasive answer couched in the uncomplimentary phrases usual to her when irritated. She doubted not the grave heads of the House had reflected that the matter being so weighty was not forgotten by her; and desired that the younger heads should take example by the ancient. The session lasted three months; and Parliament, pro­ rogued 10 April 1563, did not again meet until 30 Sep­ tember 1566, the interval thus extending over three years and a half. In the session of 1566 the objectionable subject was not allowed to sleep, and a second petition to the Queen was moved that she should declare her successor; whereon one of the Privy Council said that her Majesty had expressed her good intentions towards marriuge, and therefore that the House should wait the issue, and not intermeddle with the matter of the succession. These remarks, though probably dictated by the Queen, did not satisfy the House, the discussion was continued, and the royal answer to a petition on the subject made by the Lords, in which her Majesty absolutely refused to make any declaration as to her successor, further pro­ voked the bolder members, who found a spokesman in Paul Wentworth. On 11 November D'Ewes in his Jou,rnal reports: "Paul Wentworth, Burgess of the House, by way of motion desired to know whether the Queen's command and inhibition, that they should no longer dispute of the matter of succession, were not against the liberties and privileges of the House?" Thereon followed a debate, which commencing at nine o'clock in the morn­ ing continued until two in the afternoon, and then "because the time was far spent" the discussion was adjourned until the next morning. It may here be re- 248 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. marked in passing the very different hours kept by the House at that time to those now employed; and also the change of opinion in regard to the protraction of debate. The next day at nine of the clock the Queen commanded the attendance of the Speaker, who on his return to the House announced the special command of her Highness that there should be no more discussion on the succession subject; but that if any Member were not satisfied, and had anything further to advance, that he should come before the Privy Council and there explain it. No other debate on the matter at this time is reported, but that the Queen's command was not con­ tentedly received appears in the fact. that a fortnight later her Majesty sent a message by the Speaker revok­ ing the order. The Journalist at this point quaintly remarks: "Her Majesty having found by experience that the desire of the House of Commons, in that great business touching the declaration of a successor in case she should die without issue, was, like other passions, more easily calmed and quieted by following than resist­ ing, did now at length remit unto them that freedom of speech and liberty of discussion which they had formerly made use of without any such allowance [permission], and by that means did sooner satisfy their discontent, and procure . their silence, than by any former secret diversions [instructions to Privy Councillors] and open inhibitions." 'fhe gracious message seems indeed to have had so conciliatory an effect on the House that for the remainder of the session they forbore to use their freedom, and the subject was not again broached. On the day Parliament was dissolved, 2 January 1567, her Majesty "mildly reproved" the Commons " for busying themselves in the session with matters which did not at the time appertain unto them," but "concluded with WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 249

comfortable words, and commanded the Parliament to be dissolved." Paul Wentworth · was now released from Parlia­ mentary duties, nor during a space exceeding five years did they again claim his attention. He did not sit in the two months' Parliament of 1571, in which his elder brother Peter had his first seat, nor did he return to the House until May 1572. We may now go back with him to Burnham, and gather what little we can in regard to his life there. As before observed, his settling at Burnham was either at the time of his marriage with the widow Tyldsley in November 1563, or soon afterwards. Mr. Cole, however, appears to be correct in representing that he did not make the Abbey his residence until 1574, when he obtained in his own name the lease which up to that year he had held in right of his wife. Thus for ten or eleven years he may have lived in the town of Burn­ ham, perhaps in the house which had been Tyldsley's; here probably were born the elder of his eight children; and hither he brought his mother, the widow of Sir Nicholas, who died there and was buried in Burnham Church 26 August 1569. The same year was made memorable to him by another event. At the beginning of October he had the Queen's command to receive into his house an illustrious prisoner, the Duke of Norfolk, who had been arrested for intrigue with Mary, Queen of Scots. The Duke was on his way from the North to answer before the Council the charges laid against him; and was brought from St. Alban's to Burnham in the custody of Edward Fitz Garrett, Lieutenant of the Guard of Pensioners. Haynes, in his Burghley State Papers (p. 539), gives the following :~ KK 250 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

"Minute of the Queen's Majesty's Letter to Mr. Edward Fitz Garrett to conduct the Duke of Norfolk to Mr. Went­ worth's house at Burnham, "Trusty and well-beloved, we greet you well. When by our Letters sent by you to the Duke of Norfolk, we willed him to make his repair hither, we now have determined that he shall, before he come hither, resort to the house of Paul Wentworth at Burnham, and there remain until our further pleasure be known, and so we will that you shall declare unto him; and accordingly yon shall conduct him thither, and there remain with him until you receive. from us or our Council further order. Given under our Signet.

"Instructions to Sir Henry Nevill, Knight, appointed to take charge and to attend upon the Duke of Norfolk. "You shall repair to the house of Paul Wentworth at Burnham, and there at the coming of the Duke of Norfolk you shall let him . understand that our pleasure is he shall remain in a lodging provided for him, without conference with any person without your knowledge, until our further pleasure known. · " You shall also take such ord.er for the removing from him of such company of his servants, and suffer no more to wait upon him than as our Council shall appoint and inform you. "You shall with all good diligence, having thereto the assistance of Paul Wentworth, see that no manner of letters or messages be brought to the Duke, nor sent from him: but if any shall be attempted to the contrary, you shall stay the same to your power, and give knowledge thereof to us or to our Council, and procure the attemptors to be ta.ken. ".A.s for other things requisite for you in this charge to understand, you shall upon your demands be therein sa.tisfied by our Council from time to time."

No dates accompany these instructions, and we con-• sequently do not gather how long the Duke was detained at Wentworth's house, but apparently only a few days. The Calendar of State Papers, Domestic,· under date WEN'.1.'WORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 251

8 October 1569, has the Queen's directions to Sir Francis Knollys, Vice-Chamberlain, to repair to the Duke of Norfolk, and to conduct him to the Tower; and Sir Henry Nevill is to assist and have charge of him. The Duke was lodged in the Tower on the 11th October, and there continued a prisoner until the 4th August following, when he was released; but a year later, having again become involved, he was recommitted to the TowP-r 7 September 1571, tried and condemned 16 January 1572, and, after several revocations by the Queen of her warrant, executed on the 2nd June. In April 1572 Paul Wentworth was elected to re­ present the Parliamentary borough of Liskeard in Cornwall; Peter, his elder brother, being at the same time elected for Tregony, another Cornish constituency. It is not evident what influence they possessed in a county so remote from their own; possibly as Puritans they may have been more acceptable there than nearer home. The Parliament elected in 1572 had a pro­ tracted existence of eleven years, but, as before shown, sat a very small portion of that time. Of Paul Went­ worth we find no report in the Journal of D'Ewes until 21 January 1581 ; then "Mr. Paul Wentworth made a motion for a public fast and daily preaching ; the fast to be appointed upon some one certain day, but the preaching to be every morning at seven of the clock, before the House did sit; so that they beginning their proceeding with the service and worship of God, He might the better bless them in all their consultations and actions." Sir Francis Knollys, Treasurer of the Queen's House­ hold, opposed the motion; Mr. Thomas Cromwell ( see p. 231) and other Members supported it; the result on division being 115 for, and 100 against. It was then 252 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. ordered " that on Sunday 29th January as many of the House of Commons as could conveniently do so, should meet in the Temple Church, there to hear preaching and to join in prayer, with humiliation and fasting, for the assistance of God's spirit in their consultations during this Parliament, and for the preservation of the Queen's Majesty and her realms." CBut before the appointed Sunday the Vice-Chamberlain came down with a mes­ sage from the Queen expressing her astonishment at the " rashness " of the House in disregarding her Majesty's express commandment very lately delivered to them by the Lord Chancellor in the name of her Highness. The Queen claimed the right of appointing fasting and prayer, and reproved the House for taking this upon themselves. Nevertheless she accepted their zeal, duty, and fidelity towards religion, and the safety of her person; and declared further, to the great joy and comfort of the House, that her Majesty of her ines­ timable and princely good, love, and disposition, and of her most gracious clemency, although regarding their offence as a rash, unadvised, and inconsiderate error, yet interpreted it as having proceeded from zeal, and not from any wilful and malicious intent. The Queen also considered that the error had partly its cause in her own lenity towards the brother [Peter WentworthJ of the man that had brought forward the motion, who in the last session [ of 157 6, fl ve years sinceJ was by the Rouse for just causes apprehended and committed, but by her Majesty graciously pardoned. The House humbly received the royal reprimand, and having tendered their submission to the Queen, she most graciously accepted the same, and by her Vice­ Chamberlain signified her wish that the House should not interpret her disapproval to have had reference to WEN'l'WORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 253 their desire for fasting and prayer, but to the manner in which they had presumed to appoint a· public fast with­ out her order and privity, and therein had intruded upon her authority ecclesiastical. This session came to an end two months later, and although the same Par­ liament nominally existed another two years, it did 1fot again meet; it was dissolved 9 April 1583, and with it terminated Paul Wentworth's Parliamentary career. Of the remainder of his life very little is gathered. His lease of Burnham Abbey, first obtained in 1574, was renewed 22 March 1587 (1588 N .s.) for twenty-one years,1 and with that he appears not to have rested content, for with the Hatfield manuscripts there is a letter from him to the Queen, dated in 1589 (1590 N.s.), praying for a further and longer lease, and reminding her Majesty of the confidence she had shown in him by committing the Duke of Norfolk to his charge at Burn­ ham. The note of the Queen's reply is at the foot of the letter : "Her Majesty most princely calling to mind the long and dutiful service of this suppliant, her High­ ness' servant, his loyal care, trouble, and charge, at the committing of the late Duke of Norfolk to his house, most graciom,ly did consent,'' etc. The Queen appa­ rently had forgotten and forgiven Paul's obnoxious motion in Parliament nine years before (p. 251), however much it had at the time offended her. 'rhe last renewa,l of the lease, 14 July 1590, was for thirty-one years. 2 His adaptation of the ancient domestic buildings of the Abbey as his residence we have lP-arnt (p. 246) from Mr. Cole, though he does not give us the source of his infor­ mation; and visiting the scanty vestiges of the old religious house-the church of which Mr. Cole supposes

1 Patent Rolls, 30 Eliz. 2 Cal. State Papers, Domestic. 254 '!.'HE FAMILY OF WEN'l'WORTH. to have been demolished "at first," that is immediately after the dissolution-traces yet appear of Paul vY ent­ worth's residence. The old conventual names still cling to the ruined chambers now serving the purposes of a farmstead; such are the " Long Chamber, the Lady Chapel, and the Refectory;" while the "Nuns' Hall" made habital)le by Wentworth, though now open to and indeed part of what is yet known as the "Still Garden," has in its one remaining wall an ample and handsome fireplace, which originally of "Early English" date (as shown in the capitals of the shafts on either side) appears to have undergone an Elizabethan transfor­ mation.1 The present dwelling-house was built between fifty and sixty years since. · .At Burnham .Abbey Wentworth had about 243 acres of land, a great portion of which was wood. In the same county of Buckingham he had-as shown by the inquisition p.m.-a freehold of about 140 acres, held in capite of the Queen, at Hogshaw, about eight miles south-east of Buckin~ham, and pasturage for 320 sheep on the Copsley Hills in Claydon. The Hogshaw land apparently had been conveyed to him in 1576 by Sir Robert Lane (of Horton, Northamptonshire), the brother of Peter Wentworth's first wife. His will shows that he had also leasehold property at Ohelmscote in the parish of Soul bury, Bucks; at Clewer Court, Berks; and at .Abbot's alias St. John's Ripton, Huntingdon-

1 A view of the buildings taken in 1689 (?) accompanies an account of the Abbey by Dr. Lee in the Building News of 8 ,June 1888. The view is interesting as showing the remains of the convent adapted to the purposes of the residence which preceded that now existing. The Eeoords of Buckinghamshire, 1879, published by the Archreological Society of Bucks, also contains an account of the .Abbey by myself, with sketches by the late Reverend Bryant Burgess. WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTON E LOVELL. 255 shire. In his hands also were leases of the " rectories or parsonages " of Burnham and Dorney. Paul Wentworth's epitaph in Burnham Church de­ scribes him as "a zealous professor of the truth, and an earnest detester of all superstitions." His religious character is shown in his motion for a public fast and daily sermons to be preached in the House of Commons; and as a detester of superstitions unwelcome proof is found in the State Papers. Dated 26 January 1584 there is an "Inventory of the books and other Popish relics found in the house of Mistress Hampden of Stoke in the county of Buckingham, and carried away from thence by Mr. Paul Wentworth." This no doubt was done under legal warrant, and at a time when the national feeling set very strongly against the Roman Catholics on account of the recent attempt of the Pope, by means of a mission of Jesuits, to persuade the Queen's subjects from their allegiance to her as a heretic. Consequently very severe statutes had been made against Papists, and in this year 1584 all Jesuit and other priests were ordered to leave the kingdom within forty days on pain of being adjudged traitors. We cannot but deplore that a Wentworth should have been concerned in the persecution of a Hampden, as the above note too surely indicates; it must, however, be borne in mind that an act, which may now seem to us attributable to a contemptible intolerance, was at the time believed to be dictated by zeal for righteousness. Paul Wentworth died 13 January 1594 N.S. in his sixtieth year, and was buried in the chancel of Burnham Church, where, on the north wall over against his grave, is his handsome mural monument of varied marbles. 'l'he inscription reads thus: " Here lyeth buried the Body of Paule Wentworth, 256 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

Esquier, sonne of Sir Nicholas Wentworth, Knight; he dyed the 13 of January 1593 beinge in the 60 yeare of his Age, and as he lived most Christianlike, so he dyed most comfortably, strong in Faith, stedfast in Hope, fervent in Love, a zealouse Professoure of the Truth, and an earnest Detestor of all Superstitions. He took to wife Hellen Daughter of Richard Aw'sha, who was before wife to William Tildsley, Esquier, and had issue by her 4 Sonnes & 4 Daughters; the names of his Sonnes weare Frances, Paule, Peter and William : Frances dyed in his childehode, and lieth here buried : his Daughters wear Anne, Hellen, Elizabeth, & Mary: Anne marryed to Norton Knatchbull Esquier dyed & lyeth also here buried; Helen the second Daughter nowe Wife to William Day Esquier. " Here lyeth also the Body of Dame Jane Went­ worth Mother to the same Paule Wentworth & wife to Sir Nicholas Wentworth, whose bodies are here to expect a joyful resurrection." The monument not only records the Puritan's piety and his detestation of superstitions, but also his gentle descent, which is exhibited in a shield of fifteen quarter­ ings surmounting the memorial. It is the only heraldic record we have of the Lillingstone Wentworths, except the arms tricked by the heralds in the Visitations of Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire; indeed there is no other monument belonging to the family, the church at Lillingstone Lovell having none, though there the suc­ ceeding Creswell-Wentworths are commemorated. The crest above the shield is the griffin passant, argent, and below the inscription there is an additional shield showing Wentworth impaling erm-ine, on a canton sable a fl.eur-de-lis or, with the name "Aunsham pro Amundeshamalias Agmundesham. Anno Domini, 1593.''

FROM HIS MONUMENT IN BURNHAM CHURCH, BUCKS.

c.,_ .JI.,·

.Ar

..... l' * l" Gu.. Sa. ~-' -S~~ * * ~#'~i;~ ·>,- :+: 0 4? ~,.... ,,... _;,,___ f\;1_~ or ~3 * * or Sa, A., 43> 00 tq~) ~·. ~ ' * * * .,.,.,,.. ~-----" * *

1. WENTWORTH. 2. DESPENSER. 3. CLARE. 4. GOUSHILL. 5. POYNTON. 6. OYRY. 7. CAMOYS. 8.. TIBETOT. 9, CHAWORTH. 10. BADLESMERE, 11. FITZ SIMON AND MANFIELD. 12.? COLVILLE. rn. A.BBERBURY. 14.? SWINFORD. 15, CHAMBER: WENTWOR'fH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 257

The accompanying plate represents the fifteen coats, to which the remarks following apply.

REMARKS AS TO THE QuARTERINGs IN TRE ARMORIAL SHIELD ON THE MONUMENT OF PAUL WENTWORTH IN BURNHAM CHURCH, Bucn:INGHAMSHIRE. The sequence of the first ten coats is similar to that of the shields tricked in the Visitations of Oxfordshire 1574, and of Buckinghamshire 1575 and 1634 (Harl. MSS. 1556 and 1533); except that in the Visitations three of the old Yorkshire quarterings-Woodhouse, Pollington, and Bissett--occur imme­ diately after Wentworth. 2. DESPENSER.-The bend is here charged with three escal­ lops instead of the mullets which generally distinguish the Despe~ser coat as quartered by Wentworth. The Despenser coat, with three escallops on the bend-and also a crescent in chief-for difference, is .borne by the existing noble house of Spencer. The mullets and escallops are equally differences, the bend in the original coat being uncharged. 3. CLARE.-The position of Clare in this and other Went­ worth shields is shown to be erroneous by Mr. Gage in Hist. of Thingoe Hwndred, Suffolk, p. 4. The error evidently arose from taking the first of the four consecutive Philip Despensers of Goushill and Gedney, co. Lincoln, as son of Hugh De­ spenser, junr., who married Eleanor Clare, grand-daughter (through her mother Joan of Acre) of King Edward I.; whereas Mr. Gage satisfactorily shows that the above Hugh and Philip were brothers, and both sons of Hugh Despenser, senr., Earl of Winchester. But although the Wentworths of Nettlestead, of Gosfield, and of Lillingstone, could not cor­ rectly quarter Clare after Despenser, they had the right to the coat, with proper difference, after Badlesmere, by reason of descent from Margery, Lady Badlesmere, daughter of Thomas Clare (brother of Gilbert, Earl of Gloucester), and one of the three coheirs of her nephew Thomas Clare. Thus, in Paul Wentworth's shield a.t Burnham, Clare should be the 10th quartering, :not the 3rd. 5. PoYNTON .-This coat is generally ascribed by the H_eralds LL 258 THE FAMILY OF WEN'.rWORTH, to Poynton, but sometimes to Fitz Warine. The uncertainty seems to have arisen from the identity or similarity of the arms ascribed to these families, ancl from the fact that Goushill, or Gousell, had alliances with both. Hawise Fitz Warine, how­ ever, was not an heiress, and, consequently, could not transmit the arms of her family. The Poynton family is found in Lincoln­ shire as early as the reign of Henry II. ; they were of Freiston near Boston, and of Canwick close to Lincoln ; and had, with other property in the same vicinity, lands at Poynton, in the parish of Sempringham (about 12 miles S.E. of ), which descended through Goushill and Despenser to Went­ worth. In the Rolls of the Hundreds (vol. i., p. 259), under date 3 Edward L (l 27 5), Petrus de G ousil is said to be the heir of Alexander de Pointon, at Pointon. Further, the MS. of William Holman of Halstead, c. 1720, in the Colchester Museum (which MS. is supposed to have been used by Morant in his History of Essex), states "Gousell de Gousell married the dau. and heir of Poynton in the county of York, and had Giles Gushill, married Eminentia dr. of Fulk de Oyry Ld. of Gedney in Lincolnshire, they had Peter Goushill, who married Ela. dr. of Sir Ralph Oamois," etc. This, an

. . . . Goushill of Gonshill, co. Lincoln.=,=.... da. of (?) Alemander Poynton of Poynton, etc., co. Lincoln. .------'I 5 Giles Gonshill of Goushill, etc.,Eminentia, da. of Fulk de Oyry of Gedney, etc., co. Lincoln. ,------'[ 6 I Peter Goushill, "heir of Alexander Poynton"; died 1285.,Ela, da. of Ralph Camoys of cos. Surrey, Oxford, etc. ,------'' 7 I Hugh Despenser, sen.,,Isabel, da. of William de Beau- Ralph Goushill of Gons-,Hawise, da. of Fulk Robert de,Eva, da. and Earl of Winchester; Ichamp, Earl of Warwick, and hill, co. Lincoln; born I Fitz Warine of Wan- Tibetot; heir of Pain died 1326. widow of Patrick Chaworth. 1273 ; died 1295. I tage, Berkshire, and died 1298. Chaworth. Whittington, Salop. 9 I I ~,------Philip Despenser oflMargaret, da. and heir=John de Roos; Pain de,Agnes, da. of Bartholomew,1 1\fargery, da. of Thomas Goushill and Ged- of Ralph Goushill of died 1338, s.p. Tibetot; William, Lord Lord Badles-1 Clare, and coheir of her ney, co. Lincoln ; Goushill, etc. 4 2nd husband. died Roos, of Ham- mere ; died nephew Thomas Clare. died 1314. 2nd son. · 1314. lake, co. York. 1321. 3

Philipi Despenser of Gous h ill and ,Johanna Le John,I Lord Tibetot ;=,=Margaret,I sister and co h e1r. Fitz Simon ?=Colville? 12 _Gedney, co. Lincoln; died 1350. IStrange. died 1367. Iof Giles, Lord Badle ere. 10 Fitz Simon 1=Abberbury. 13 I I Philip Despenser of Goushill and,Margaret Robert, Lord Tibetot ;,Margaret, da. of William, Fitz Simon ?TSwinford ? 14 Gedney, co. Lincoln; died 1400. I Cobham. died 1372. ILord Deincourt. ------I I ! Sir Philip Despenser of N ettlestead, Suffolk ;=,=Elizabeth, da. and coheir of Robert, John Fitz Simon,Mary Chambers. died 1423. I Lord Tibetot of Nettlestead. ,-- 8 I------~' 15 Roger Wentworth of Nettlestead,,Margery, da. and heir of Sir Philip Robert Fitz Simon of North,Katharine, da. of Sir co. Suffolk; died 1452. / Despenser; widow of John, Lord Roos. Shoebury, Essex; died 1474. j Robert Manfield. . 2 11 I I ,-- Sir Philip \Y entworth of Elizabeth, da. and heir of Henry Howard,=rHenry Wentworth of=,=Joan, da. and heir of Robert Nettlestead ; died 1!64. uncle of John the first Duke of Norfolk. I Codham Hall, Essex; IFitz Simon; widow of Robert T J st wife. died 1482. 11 Timperley. 2nd wife. +. I Sir RogerI Wentworth of Gosfield Sir Nicholas Wentworth of Lillingstone Lovell,=,=Jane, da. of John Jocelyn of Essex; died 1539. co. Oxford ; died 1552 or 1553. IHyde Hall, co. Hertford. T +. I I NoTE,-The bold figures denote the order Peter Wentworth, M.P., of Lillingstone Paul Wentworth, M.P., of Burnham Abbey, of the q uarterings. Lovell, co. Oxford; died 1597. 1 co . .Bucks ; died 1594. 260 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

In his will Paul Wentworth bequeaths his plate, jewels, leases, goods, chattels, and ready money to "Ellen," his dear and loving wife; she is to have all profits of the leases for life ; Paul his eldest son, heir to the land at Hogshaw, was to succeed his mother at Burnham Abbey, and in the leases of Chelmscote and the rectories of Dorney and Burnham. His second son Peter was eventually to have the residue of the lease of Clewers Court, Berks ; and to his third son William was to come the lease at Abbots Ripton in Huntingdonshire. Thus he provided for his three sons, and to his unmarried daughters, Elizabeth and Mary, he bequeathed £400 and £300 respectively. The executors appointed are his trusty and loving friends, Rt. Hon. John Lord St. John [ of Bletsho, co. Bedford], Edward Boys [his brother-in-law, or nephew, of Fredville, co. Kent], Norton Knatchbull [his son-in-law, of Mersham, Kent], and three others; each of them to have £5 "to buy rings withal, or else what so they shall think good, for a token or remembrance." '!1he witnesses to his signature are Norton Knatchbull, \Valter \Ventworth his nephew, and three others. Helen, the widow, smvived her husband twenty-one years, and continued to live at Burnham Abbey; there she made her will 24 August 1615, and there shortly after she died, for the will was proved 8 N ovembRr of the same year by her sons Peter and William. Doubt­ less she was buried according to her expressed desire. by her husband, "in the chancel of Burnham Church, there to remain until the resurrection;" but the entry has been omitted in the registers. The preface of the will is peculiarly solmnn : " Sett in order thyne house for thou shalt dye. Jesus mercy ! Yea Jesus mercy, for my synnes are greate and manye ! WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 261

In the name of God, Amen. I Hellen W entworthe of Burnham Abbey in the parish of Burnham in the countie of Buck widdowe, beinge jn the tyme of the makinge hereof in good and perfect rnemorie (thankes be given to God for it), Oallinge to mynde the certaintie of deathe and the uncertaintie of the tyme thereof, doe first revoke hereby all former wills," etc. Her children are all named ; they had been provided for by their father, and their mother now makes a few special bequests to them. To Paul, the eldest son, the wedding ring where­ with she was married to his father, "and so may God bless him with that he hath already, for he hath had more by me than all the rest;" to Peter, her second son, she leaves her "greate bedstead of armes together with all the furniture belonginge to it;" William, her third son, and his brother Peter are residuary legatees; her daughter, Helen Daye, and her grandchild, Anne Wood­ forde, are to have her wearing apparel; and to each of her many grandchildren she gives £10. Among the poor of Burnham and Dorney £10 is to be divided; ten shillings is to be given to each of the women that should attend on her body; and with her gold chain the exe­ cutors, her sons Peter and William, are to pay the expenses of her burial. Of the sons of Paul Wentworth nothing is learnt later than 1615, the year in which their mother died. 'rhe lease of Burnham Abbey obtained in 1590 for thirty-one years probably terminated unrenewed in 1621. Sir Henry Vane had it in the reign of Charles I., and during the course of the next two centuries it passed through many hands, until its sale by the Crown in 1832. Among the State Papers there is a report, dated 21 July 1603, from Henry, Paul, and Peter Wentworth, at Burnham Abbey, as to the speeches of a page in the 262, THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. household of the French Ambassador showing the King of France unfriendly towards King James. Paul and Peter were certainly the sons of the late Paul, and Henry, as named first, was probably a senior kinsman, though his identity cannot be determined ; it is scarcely probable that he was the uncle of the younger men, viz., Henry, the second son of Sir Nicholas, who if then living would have been far advanced in years. Of the date 1615 there exists a little manual of devotions, quaint from its age, but excellent. It is entitled, " The Miscellanie, or a Eegistrie and Methodi­ call Direction of Orizons ;" and is dedicated to the King by "His sacred Majesty's most loyal, true-hearted sub­ ject, Paule Wentwourth." The author of the little volume may well have been the eldest son of Paul of Burnham Abbey, as his religious training would naturally have inclined him to such a work. Of Anne, the eldest daughter of Paul Wentworth, a touching record remains in the chancel of Burnham Church, where on her grave is a brass inscribed:­ Knatchbulli conjux, W ontworthi septima proles, Tempora post vitre bis duodena sure, Anna immaturo commisit membra sepulchro, Et quo nupta fuit mense, sepulta fuit. Of which the rendering may be permitted-" Knatch­ bull's wife, Wentworth's seventh offspring, After twice twelve years of her life,· Anna resigned her members to an untimely grave, And in the month she was wedded, was she buried." This Anne seems to have been the eldest child, the word "septima" being, apparently, an error ; she is the first child on the baptismal register-16 September 1565-and the first named of the fom daughters recorded in the monumental inscription. She was married to WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 263

Norton Knatchbull, Esq. (knighted 1604), of Mersham, Kent, and as she died in October 1591-the burial date is 19 October-her age was then twenty-six, so that "bis duodena " in the inscription is not to be taken as precise. Her husband married a second time, but left no issue; he died 1536. Over the inscription, on a brass shield, is the coat of Knatchbull, viz., three cross-crosslets :fitchee in bend between two bendlets, a crescent in the sinister chief, impaling Wentworth, viz., a chevron be­ tween three leopards' faces.

NICHOLAS W EN'l'WORTH of Lillingstone Lovell, and of W olston, co. Warwick; born 1561, died 1613.

Nicholas, the eldest son of Peter, succeeded him in the possession of Lillingstone Lovell ; he had ten years previously married Susanna Wigston, a coheiress, and through her ultimately acquired an estate at Walston, near Coventry, Warwickshire. He does not seem to have been in any way distinguished, and it may be that with his father's misfortunes before him, he abstained from politics and public life. He was twice married, and there is indication that his first period of wedded life was passed at Lillingstone Lovell, and the second at Walston. Two of his children were baptized at Lilling­ stone, and there Susanna his first wife died; whereas three of his daughters were married from W olston, and there he himself, at the age of fifty-two, died and was buried. His second marriage, with Thomasina, daughter of Thomas Wendy of Haslingfield, co. Cambridge, has been omitted in the Wentworth pedigrees, but is evident in those of Wendy (Harl. MSS. 1043, 4962, 6769) ; the settlement made on the occasion of the marriage is 264 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. quoted in the inquisition p.m. of his property, causing that, document to be of unusual length. It is in the inquisition that his first wife is said to have died at Lillingstone Lovell, the date not given; and it states that the second marriage took place at Haslingfield 20 November 1608. There was no issue of this union, so that a possible collision between the claims and inte­ rests of half-brothers was happily averted. Curiously enough _the second wife's brother, Francis Wendy, married one of his sister's step-daughters, Elizabeth vVentworth, at W olston 19 February 1610. 'l'here is little either in the will of Nicholas Went­ worth or in the inquisition which calls for particular attention. A few names on both estates may be interest­ ing to any one familiar with the districts. On the Lillingstone estate are named the Ox-pasture, Bradley's Field, Magna Debden, Parva Debden, Lords Fields, Windmill Fields, Home Field, Maplestocking, and Lovells Wood. Parts of the W olston estate are Perrie Mill, Dovehouse Close, Mill Hooks, Grove Meadow, lands in Brawne or Braunden, Pinley, and a tenement in Brinklow called Monks Riding. Perrie Mill and its land was held of the King as of his manor of East Greenwich, in free soccage, not in capite. By what tenure the other places were held was unknown. The executors of the will are William Fowkes and the testator's brothers, Thomas and Walter Wentworth. Thomas Wentworth, whose career we shall next notice, held land on lease at Lillingstone Lovell. Walter Wentworth sat for Tavistock in the Parliament which had a short existence towards the end of 1601 ; but not being mentioned in the reports, he does not claim a special notice. He was of Castle Bytham, Lincolnshire, where once was seated the Colville family represented(?) WENTWORTH OF. LTLLINGSTONE LOVELL. 265

in Paul Wentworth's quarterings 0>t Burnham; I have not, however, been able to trace the connection. Walter's wife was Mary Hampden, aunt of John Hampden, the Patriot; their only son died sine prole.

THOMAS W.ENTWORTH, Member of Parliament, Recorder of Oxford; born c. 1567, died 1628.

A younger son of Peter Wentworth was better known than his elder brother Nicholas. Thomas vVentworth was of University College, Oxford, au

" The Office and Duty of Executors," long, and perhaps even yet, regarded as a. standard law-book, and of which the fourteenth edition was published as lately as 1829. In 1604 he entered political life, and was elected by the citizens of Oxford as their representative in Parlia­ ment. This Parliament had a nominal existence of nearly eleven years, but, like that of equal duration in the reign of Elizabeth, was employed but a small portion of that long interval. It was distinguished by its steady persistence in maintaining its rights against a foolish King, who was so ill-acquainted with the English monarchy as to believe his prerogative to be absolute, and that Parliament had only such powers as were derived from and granted by himself. Yet the House of Commons, throughout this reign, was not more dis­ tinguished by its steadfast resistance to the pretensions of James I., than by its rn.oderation, patience, and respect for the person of the King ; and in this temper the Member for Oxford, following the example of his father and uncle in the Parliaments of Elizabeth, showed no deficiency. The reports, however, of Par­ liamentary proceedings derived from the very imper­ fectly kept journals of the House, and unsupplemented by Sir Symonds D'Ewes as in the last reign, are very meagre; hence it is but little we get of the speeches of rrhomas Wentworth. Cobbett's Parliamentary Hi.

" England and Scotland were una et alia respublica, Scotland aliena respublica." The Scottish nation ac­ knowledged no crown, no king, no sovereignty but that of Scotland; and the English people none but that of England; no alteration had been made by the coming of King James. If there were two regalities, how could there be one kingship ? If the Scots were to be natural­ ized, many precautions would be necessary in reference to ecclesiastical, territorial, and commercial matters; and the subject would demand most careful consideration by a committee. The session ended in July 1607, and the House did not again meet until after the lapse of two years and a half. In September 1607 Thomas Wentworth, who had now been for many years a Bencher of Lincoln's Inn, became Recorder of Oxford, and this office he held during the remainder of his life. Wood's account of him as Recorder is very unfavourable, but this perhaps was only natural in the author, prejudiced, as he is said to have been, in favour of absolute kingship, and with a decided leaning towards Popery. In his A.thence he does not even spare the upright and excellent Clarendon; and thus assuredly he cannot be expected to favour Thomas Wentworth of a Puritan family, who contended for the liberties of Parliament against the despotic efforts of the King to suppress them. rrhis biographer says of Wentworth that in Parliament he "showed himself a troublesome and factious person," and that as Recorder "he behaved himself so turbulently, that at length being notoriously known to be a most mali­ cious and implacable fomentor and author of divers troubles between the University and City, he was by the prime magistrate of the said University, with the con­ sent of the Convocation, discommoned in 1611; and at 268 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

the same time it was decreed that he should be regis­ tered to all prosperity 'pro irifensissimo et inimic-issimo viro Unive1•satii Oxon.' After he had continued dis­ commoned for two whole years or more, he was upon his earnest desire restored ; but being of a restless spirit he returned to his former trade [becan1e again em­ broiled]; whereupon his friends persuading him to leave Oxon for a time to prevent his utter ruin, he retired to a market town called Henley in Oxfordshire." 'rhis is one view of the matter, and an imperfect one, for we- do not even get the cause of quarrel; without "hearing the other side" we can form no judgment; and yet a divergence of opinion between the University magnates and Thomas Wentworth may readily be understood. With his constituents, at least, he appears to have continued on good terms, for by them he was no less than seven times returned to Parliament, and there repre­ sented them during the long period of twenty-four years. But, as said before, it is little we learn of his action in the House of Commons. In Pa1·liamenta1·y History, compiled from the journals of the House, there is no mention of Wentworth in the account of the session of 1610, and yet it is evident in the Calendar ~f State Papm·s that he had been prominent. A letter dated 2 December 1610, written on the eve of the prorogation, states that King James "is dissatisfied with the reasons given by the Council against the punishment of the offensive speakers in Parliament, and he had desired to know what evidence Queen Elizabeth had when she punished this Wentworth's father, and why he should be tied to other formalities than she was." The struggle had continued against the King's despotism; the House had disapproved of proclamations which he desired should take the place of statutes passed by Parliament, WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 269 and of impositions arbitrarily placed on merchandise ; these with other grievances had been made the subject of a petition, pending the King's compliant answer to which, the subsidy he sought remained unvoted. ·went­ worth had evidently spoken boldly, and had narrowly escaped imprisonment. An interval of rather more than three years passed without a Parliament, and then a new assembly met in April 1614. James had summoned it merely to supply his necessities by the grant of a subsidy; but again the Commons were inflexible that redress of grievances should precede supply, and after a session of two months the King angrily dismissed them. This time four mem­ bers who had especially offended his Majesty were arrested and imprisoned ; Wentworth was one of the four. We learn of his offence from the State Papers, not from Pa?'liamenta1'y History, which has no mention of the circumstance. Dated 26 May 1614 there is a letter which shows that a debate had taken place on the subject of impositions, and that Wentworth had pointed out that the like had caused the Spaniards the loss of the Low Countries, and the French the murder of their kings. A second letter, dated 16 June, ten days after the dissolution of Parliament, written by Sir Ralph Win wood, evidently a courtier, states that the impositions had been the great grievance, that the King's messages had been thought to abridge the liberty of the House, and that some seditious speeches had made the King impatient, and caused him to dismiss the House; further that four of their tribunes-W cntworth named as one of them-·had been sent to prison. A third letter, a fortnight later, says that Wentworth is detained only to satisfy the Spanish Ambassador; ancl yet another letter, with date 21 January 1615, states Wentworth's punish- 270 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

ment to have been "for unseemly language against the late King of France." The cowardly deference of King James to the foreign powers had no doubt much to do with the arrest of the Member for Oxford, who, as we have seen, had attributed the misfortunes of Spain and France to the impositions or taxes laid on their people. Again a long interval, this time six years and a half, without a Parliament. The next assembled at West­ minster in January 1621, and had an existence of rather more than a year, during which the Houses sat-in two sessions-about eight months. rrhe King's object, as formerly, was to obtain supplies, and the disposition of the Commons was again to urge the redress of grievance, especially the waste of the Crown revenue on the King's favourites, the prodigality of his Court, and the evil of monopolies. rrlie House of Lords investigating the abuses of a patent for gold and silver thread granted to a certain Sir Giles Mompesson, desired to examine on oath Members of the Lower House; Wentworth is men­ tioned as objecting to this, or rather he shows that the two Houses constituting one body, a sworn examination by one House of Members of the other would not be proper. He is not again mentioned until the second session in December, when he speaks in reference to a proposed petition to the King against the growth of Popery, and entreating that Prince Charles, the heir to the throne, should marry one of his own religion, it being feared that the King was secretly negotiating the mar­ riage of his son with the Spanish Infanta. Wentworth's opinion is very temperately expressed to the effect that the King should not be pressed to declare his intentions, and that the petition should only indicate the cause of the anxiety of the House, "leaving it to his princely consideration, without desiring to know his purpose WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 271 therein.'' James, however, was highly incensed when he heard of the proceedings, and sent a violent letter to the Speaker commanding the House not to meddle in matters which touched his government and the mysteries of state. This letter led to a debate of considerable length on the privileges of Parliament, and the Member for Oxford is twice reported; first, as "very moderate" proposing "to seek forth some precedents to see whether we have gone beyond our reach or no," and on another occasion saying that " he never yet read of anything that was not fit for the consideration of a parliament, and if there be a negative bound, or ne plus ultra set in any matter of parliament, then he wishes it may be known, that we may know our bounds." On the last occasion-18 December ]621-he spoke immediately after his kinsman Sir Thomas Wentworth, afterwards Earl of Strafford, who at that time supported the popular cause. The very imperff'.ct journals have not furnished Pctrliamentary History with any other report, even as meagre as has been quoted, of Thomas Wentworth's speeches. Yet that he was not silent in later years is learned from the State Papers. In February 1624 a Parliament met under better auspices; the ma-rriage negotiations with the Court of Spain had failed, and all England rejoiced in relief from the anxiety which had been suffered. War with Spain was even welcomed, and in that dirction £300,000 was voted for the recovery of the Palatinate, of which dominion the King's son-in-law had been dispossessed by the Catholic Powers. In a letter of 23 March 1624, referring to transactions in the House of Commons, "Mr. Wentworth,an honest lawyer," is mentioned as - having spoken in favour of the breach with Spain. No more is learnt of him in the House, 272 THE FAMILY OF WEN1'WORTH. although he sat in the three first Parliaments of Charles I., and represented the City of Oxford at the time of his death, which occurred in March or Apiil 1628, very shortly after his last election. Anthony ·wood, as before quoted, wrote in 1691 of this Wentworth that "he showed himself to be a trou­ blesome and factious person in Parliament." A century later Mr. Cole, the antiquarian Vicar of Burnham, de­ scribed Peter and Paul Wentworth, father and uncle of the Recorder of Oxford, as " very busy and factious Puritans in the House of Commons against the King and the Bishops" (MSS. xxxii. 10). "Factious" has ·been a favourite epithet of reproach bestowed on reformers by those to whom they have been odious as the disturbers of existing order; indeed, it amounts to a truism to say that the action of public men is appreciated according to the political leaning of their critics. Hallam con­ siders Peter Wentworth, one of these "busy and factious Puritans," to have been "the most distinguished asserter of civil liberty in the reign of Elizabeth" ( Constitutional History, ed. 1854, Puritans 191). It is not improbable that this eminent historian may have had terms scarcely less honourable for the son of Peter Wentworth, and we of the present day would probably accord greater defer­ ence to his judgment than to that either of Anthony Wood or Mr. Cole. The author of the .A.thence Oxonienses is not sup­ ported in his remarks on the bearing of the Member for Oxford in Parliament by the reports we have of him; whereas he terms him "troublesome and factious" the reports describe him as "very moderate," and the above brief abstracts of his speeches represent him as conciliatory. Certainly his courage in asserting the privileges of the English Parliament caused his arrest by WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 273 the would-be despot King James; but here he trod in the footsteps of his father, in whose honours as a patriot he may claim to share. Thomas Wentworth found his wife in the neig;hbour­ hood of Lillingstone Lovell; she was Dorothy, daughter and coheir of Thomas Keble of N ewbottle, co. North­ ampton, and by her he appears to have had seven sons and two daughters. The eldest son Thomas followed the profession of his father, and was also of Lincoln's Inn; but his life was short, and though twice married be left no child ; the registers of Bexley, Kent, show his burial there, 18 September 1638, and that of his wife "Margaret," 12 August 1636.

PETER WEN'l'WORTH, D.D., Dean of Armagh; born 1601, died 1661. This is the only one of the Recorder's many sons who claims a special notice ; and for what we learn of him we are again indebted to the author of the Athenm Oxonienses. He matriculated at Oxford 13 March 1618, was of Magdalen Hall, and afterwards a fellow of Balliol College; his career at the University is readily followed in Mr. Clark's excellent edition of the RegiRters, wherein we find that his first degree, B.A., was taken in 1621, and his last degree, D.D., in 1633. At Oxford he appears to have resided nineteen years, that is until 1637, when he received his church appointment; his license to preach was granted in 1632, and in the Calendar of State Papers, under date · 12 July 1634, he is named as one of the inceptors in questions of theology, civil law, and philo­ sophy about to be discussed. Thus it may be concluded that Dr. Wentworth had attained a position of dignity at his University, that he had found himself in harmony N N 274 · THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. with the spirit of the place, and' had not walked in the ways of his father, who, it will be remembered, had been in opposition to the authorities, and had suffered punish­ ment nt their hands. Indeed the Doctor appears as an exception in his family; his political sympathies, as far as can be judged, being given to the Court. rrhus in 1637 he was considered by his eminent kins­ man, Lord Wentworth, later Earl of Stafford, now Lord Deputy of Ireland, as fit to be preferred to the Deanery of Armagh in Ireland. vVith the Strafford Letters (ii., 100) is a lengthy epistle, dated 28 August 16;37, from Archbishop Laud at Croydon Palace to the Lord Deputy at Dublin, which, referring to a variety of sub­ jects, contains the paragraph following : " The Dean of Armagh (for so you say now Dr. Wentworth is) will I hope do very well, and not need much direction, yet for that which he may need. Your Lordship has done very well to fasten him upon my Lord of Derry; for as for some others which you speak of, certainly they do not only sing the psalms after the Geneva tune, but expound the text too in the Geneva sense, at least so far as they possibly venture upon it; and your Lordship knows I ever said so much, and have had too good cause to know it. But these things and many others must be passed over, or there will be no peace." From this we gather that the new Dean was a high churchman, and as such acceptable to Laud. Dr.Wentworth held his preferment about four years and a half; but on the breaking out of the rebellion in Ulster, October 1641, after the death of the Earl of Strafford, the Dean, like many o~.hers, had to fly for his life, and thus only escaped the terrible massacre of the English settlers which ensued. On his return to Eng­ land, to compensate, doubtless, for the loss of his Irish WENTWORTH OF LILLINGS1'ONE LOVELL. 275 appointment, he was made Archdeacon of Carlisle. But times became extremely difficult for divines of the school of Laud, and the fortunes of Carlisle must have rendered impossible there the residence of Dr. Wentworth. The city, after enduring for nine months the dire miseries of a siege, surrendered in June 1645 to the Parliamen­ tarian forces, and -continued to be held by them until the Restoration, during which long interval the cathedral was in great part destroyed. 'I1lms the ex-Dean could have profited little by his second appointment. We have from Anthony Wood that he lived obscurely during the Commonwealth, though from documents with the State Papers it is learnt that he had charge of the parish of Buriton, Hampshire, in January 1658, when the Council of State approved of an order for severing Petersfield Chapelry from that parish, "but not to im­ peach the settlement on Dr. Peter Wentworth, present minister of Buriton ;" and another order relating to the matter is dated 12 August of the same year. Wood also says that at the Restoration, reinstatement in his former deanery, or an Irish bishopric was offered to him, but he declined to return to Ireland, and accepted only the rectory of Haseley in Oxfordshire. The next year he died at Bath, 22 July 1661, and was buried in the Abbey Church, where his grave in the north aisle is, or was, marked by the following inscription '' on a brass plate fastened to a freestone lying on the ground on the left side of Bishop Montagu's monument: Petrus Went­ worth, S. T.P. Patriciorum proles, doctrince maritus, Summus Hybernice Decanus, Anglice prceconum p1·imus, etc., ob. 22 Jul. 1661."1 He left an only son, 'rhomas, whom his cousin Sir

1 Miscel. Gen. et Heral., N.S., iv., 71. Some words are abbrevfated. 276 THE FAMILY OF WENTWOR1'H.

Peter Wentworth by his will appointed heir at Lilling­ stone Lovell; but the design appears to have been frus­ trated by the young man's early death.

Sm, PETER WENTWORTH, K.B., M.P., of Lillingstone Lovell, and of Wolston, co. Warwick; born 1592, died 1675.

The fourth chief of the Lillingstone W entworths was Sir Peter, Knight of the Bath, the eldest son of the second Nicholas ; and as his christening was at W olston (where, as has been shown, his father had by his marriage acquired an estate) we may conclude that he was there born; his age at the time of his father's death was rather over twenty-one. From the little that can be gathered it appears that his earlier life was spent at Wolston, and that he did not reside at Lillingstone Lovell until he had fully reached maturity, that is to say, not much sooner than 1635, when his age ,vas forty-three. But he had been to Court, where, at the coronation of Charles I., 2 Feb­ ruary 1626, he was made a Knight of the Bath; there also, as is learnt from a letter to be presently quoted, he had been engaged in courtly attendance on ambas­ sadors, and had accompanied the "great embassy" of the late Duke of Buckingham, though whether to Spain or France we do not learn. Thus in the first half of his career we may rank him as a Royalist, if indeed it be not incorrect to date thus early the division of the two great parties which later became so strongly and disastrously marked. In 1635 he was made High Sheriff of Oxfordshire, the appointment indicating that that year found him resident in the county at his Lillingstone Lovell seat. WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 277

In the autumn of this year he was charged as Sheriff with the unwelcome and onerous duty of assessing and collecting the odious " Ship-money" tax, which the second despotic Stuart bad recourse to rather than submit to the lawful raising of revenue by Parliament. We find in the Calendm· of State Pape1·s that on 15 November 1635 Mr. Secretary Nicholas reported that Sir Peter Wentworth had assessed the required sum [ £3500] and had appointed collectors who had brought in £400; and by 10 January the sheriff had paid in £600 and levied about £1000 more. In proof, how­ ever, of the difficulties whiqh attended the collection, Sir Peter reported that certain petty-constables refused to assess the inhabitants of their towns, or to give him their names, and he desired that these officers might be sent for in terrorem. Then, dated 11 February 1636, is a "receipt for c£1600 paid by Sir Peter Wentworth, Sheriff of co. Oxford, in part of £3500 ship-money charged upon that county by writ of August last." Happily for him his year of office had now expired, and· dated a day later there is a long letter from him as "late Sheriff of co. Oxford" giving an account of his stewardship and his difficulties. He hopes that neither his Majesty or the Board will disapprove of his service in the business of ship-money. It was his hard hap to be made sheriff under more dis­ advantages than had ever fallen to any one, especially that which had relation to his Majesty's service, in which he had constantly attended upon extraordinary ambas­ sadors, and had not declined appearing in expensive employments, as in that great embassy of the late Duke of Buckingham and others, to his very great charge, his estate being very weak, there having been two parts of three sold away in two descents, he also being in debt 278 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. near upon three years' revenue, and having bad very great loss by fire both this year and last, and besides a great part of his house fallen and falling down, as also great suits arising this very year. All which he offers as great disturbances in his Majesty's service. He is a mere stranger in the county where he was made sheriff, and has had strong opposition in this service, having been constrained not only to assess several hundreds, but all the towns of some of them, as also the several in­ habitants of many of these towns, to his excessive trouble, and has been exceeding careful to compose all differ­ ences and complaints of partiality which came swarming in upon him, which might have •hindered his Majesty's service. Notwithstanding all which difficulties, and the great trouble of executing the writ for the three forests in Oxfordshire, he has yet collected and paid to Sir William Russell £1600, all at his own cost. From this letter we have set before us not only the difficulties which occurred in enforcing and collecting the King's hated imposition, but also gather some facts in Sir Peter's personal history. These are his having been engaged at Court in the reception of foreign envoys, that he had taken .part in an embassy of the Duke of Buckingham and consequently had been put to great expense, which had fallen the more heavily upon him owing to his estate having been diminished by his two predecessors, his father and grandfather, chiefly perhaps by the sale of the old Fitz Simon property in Essex. Further that his expenditure had left him considerably in debt; that, moreover, he had suffered loss by fire and the fa1ling down of great part of his house, either at W olston or Lillingstone ; that he had the misery of law-suits; and finally we learn that he was a mere stranger in Oxfordshire, and are thus brought to the WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 279 conclusion, above expressed, that shortly Lefore the year of his shrievalty he had trarnsferred his residence from Wolston to Lillingstone Lovell. It is evident in the 8fote Papers that Sir Peter's trouble in regard to the ship-money did not wholly cease on the termination of his year of office ; there are letters in regard to the col­ lection of arrears in which it appears, however, that he had declined to take part. It is not surprising as time went on, the King with infatuation pursuing his arbitrary course in defiance of a constitution which had been the growth of centmies, that the loyalty of Sir Peter Wentworth chilled, and that his sympathies were gradually borne to the popular side. After the long interval of nearly twelve years' illegal government without the meeting of a Parliament ( except an abortive session of three weeks in the spring of 1640), that called the Long Parliament was summoned to meet 3 November 1640. Sir Peter did not sit in it during its first year, his election for 'l'amworth, a borough partly in Warwickshire and partly in Stafford­ Rhire, took place 18 December 1641. The House was then engaged with the impeachment of his illustrious kinsman the Earl of Strafford, and in Parliamentary History Sir Peter's name does not appear until after the Bill of Attainder had been carried. Then "Sir Peter Wentworth" is seventeenth in the list of fifty-six members that voted in the Earl's favour, whose names as "Straffordians, Betrayers of their Country,'' were posted up in Old Palace Yard by the excited and angry mob, as before related, p. 72. Other Wentworths having had their parts in the un­ happy contest which ensued between King and Parlia­ ment, our attention has already been directed to that time; here we have simply to notice the part taken by 280 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH,

Sir Peter. It is evident that on entering the House of Commons, or at least very soon afterwards, he ranged himself on the Parliament side; and that the King noted his defection with great displeasure is shown by the royal proclamation made at York in June 1642, on the outbreak of the civil war. Charles, then desiring to conciliate his subjects and to win adherents, proclaimed a full and absolute pardon to all except twelve persons, one of the excepted being Rir Peter Wentworth. ( Calen­ dar of State Papers, Domestic.) Very little, however, is gathered from Parliamentary History in regard to his action in the Honse; the earliest mention found is in the Calendar of the Proceedings of the Committee for the .Advance of Money, where his appointment as one of this l;>ody is recorded 2 May 1643. On the 25th of September same year he was one of the two hundred and twenty-eight members who took the oath to maintain the " Solemn League and Covenant," of which the most important article was "the preserva­ tion of the liberties of Parliament, and the King's person and authority." Of his speeches no report is found until the debate of 7 June 1648, at which time the contest was far spent, and the tragic event which signalized its close fast approaching. 'l'he King was now a prisoner at Caris­ brook, and Parliament had become divided into two parties, the "Presbyterians" and the "Independants" or Army party. The section first named, fearing the domination of the other, inclined to renewed negotiation with the King; this the Independants opposed, it having five months previously been voted that there should be no further treaty. The ascendency of the two parties alternated, and in June 1648 the Presbyterians, being in greater strength than their opponents, proposed that WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTON.E LOVELL. 281

eleven members who, in the previous year, had been impeached and deprived of their seats for "assisting the King in the late unnatural war," should be reinstated. This the Independants strongly resisted, and Sir Peter, on that side, met the argument drawn from the case of Henry Marten [ afterwards a "regicide "J who, five years· previously, had been expelled and committed to the Tower for a speech reflecting on the King and Royal Family, and had afterwards [ though not for more than a yearJ been re-admitted to the House. rrhe position of affairs, Sir Peter showed, was very different in 1648 to what it had been in 1643. " Mr. Marten had been expelled for words spoken against the King which every man's conscience told him to be true, but spoken un­ seasonably, when the King was in good strength; and the words, whether true or false, being in strict law treasonable, the House, especially the lukewarm men, considering the doubtful issue of the war, committed him lest the House should come within the compass of high-treason for connivance. The commitment had been a prudential act, though contrary to justice and to the godly and honest part of the House. But afterwards, the King growing weaker and the Parliament stronger, the House restored Mr. Marten, and thought fit to set every man's tongue at liberty to speak truth even against the King himself; and now every day words of a higher -nature are spoken against him by the well­ affected and godly in the House." This is interesting as marking the change which the events of five years had wrought. In August 1643, when Marten had been expelled, the civil war had scarcely reached its height, the result was uncertain, success sometimes attending the Royalist arms, at others those of the Parliament, the King held his Court at Oxford. Now at the end of 0 0 282 THE FAMILY OF WEN"rWORTH.

1648 he was a prisoner at Oarisbrook, the Parliament had triumphed, and, after more than five years of civil warfare, fruitless negotiation, and double-dealing on the King's part, had resolved and voted that no further overtures should be made or received. On that point, however, the Presbyterians and Independants, as has been said, were at variance when Sir Peter Wentworth spoke and with his party opposed the reinstatement of Members whose loyalty to the Parliament cause was doubted. The Presbyterians, however, on this occasion carried their motion. Sir Peter is also reported as speaking, 4 August 1648, on a motion declaring the Prince of Wales a rebel and a traitor, which he supported on the ground that the Prince had encouraged the Scots io invade England in support of the King, and had openly declared for them in the letter which he had written to the authorities of the City of London. At the end of this year the Independants backed, or perhaps urged, by the army, took matters into their own hands, and assented to the forcible expulsion, by the flagrant proceeding called "Pride's Purge," of about - one hundred and sixty of their Presbyterian opponents. The action of Sir Peter at this crisis does not appear, though certainly he belonged to the section of Parlia­ ment unhandsomely nicknamed the Rump, which by violent and illegal means had virtually seized the government. There is, however, nothing to show that he sat in the House during the momentous proceedings which immediately followed the expulsion of the Pres­ byterians. It may have been that, like Sir Henry Vane, a prominent member of the same party, he retired to his estate; certain it is that when the Independants advanced further, and resolved to bring the King to WENTWOR'l'H OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 283

trial, although the name of Sir Peter Wentworth was placed on the list of the one hundred and fifty Members appointed for "the hearing, trying, and judging of Charles Stuart," he took no part in the proceedings. It would appear that at one time Sir Peter had intimate relations with , if credit may be allowed to information which I derive from the notes of the late venerable Rector of Lillingstone Lovell, most kindly lent to me. He writes, that in 1784, at the _death of Sir Peter's third successor at that place, "many letters found amongst Mr. Wentworth Creswell's papers, from Cromwell to Sir Peter Wentworth, were at that time taken to London under the idea that much curious and valuable information might be obtained from them relative to the times they were written in." 'rhis hear­ say noted down more than fifty years ago seems worth recording; possibly in an age fruitful in the discovery of "historical manuscripts," these letters, if they exist, may yet be brought to light. During the Commonwealth Sir Peter took an active part in public affairs, indeed it may be said in the government of the country, so responsible were the functions invested in the Council of State to which he was appointed. Parliamentary History notices his election in February 1650, and as this was the second year of the Council, which was appointed annually, it may be that ·w entworth had hesitated to take office. That he became one of the principal members of the Council, to which he was thrice re-elected, appears from the nature of the business in which he shared; this we get in the Calendar of State Papers. He was of the Committees following: that for the Government of Ireland; that which had the direction of the Mint; that for considering the business of the iron works in 284 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH. the Forest of Dean; that which attended to the Ord­ nance; that appointed to confer with the officers of the Army; that selected to confer with the French envoy; that deputed to confer with the Lord Mayor "con­ cerning the guns in the magazines of the City, and to tell him that for present necessity the Council desires them to be delivered to the Ordnance officers, to be tlisposed to the public service." He was also of the Admiralty Committee, and of the Council for Foreign Affairs, being in the last associated with John Milton, then Secretary for Foreign Languages, to whom as his " worthy and very friend " his regard is shown by a testamentary bequest presently to be noticed. In 1653 the Council of State, and the Parliament from which it was chiefly drawn, had become repugnant to Lord General Cromwell and the Army. They were accused of seeking their own ends, and especially by a bill for " a new representation in Parliament," of aiming at the. perpetuation of their powers; for although by the bill many new Members were to be elected, all then sitting were to remain. The bill was on the point of being passed, 19 April 1653, when the General and his officers determined forcibly to defeat it by putting an end to the Parliament. 'fhe story of the violent pro­ ceeding which ensued is so well known that reference to it here is made only for the reason that Sir Peter Wentworth was one of the dramatis personce in the scene. Late at night Cromwell with some of his officers and a detachment of soldiers went to the House; the men were left in the lobby, the General entering took his place, and remained silent until the question that the bill be passed was about to be put. Then he rose and made a speech in which "he loaded the Parlia­ ment with the vilest reproaches, charging them not to WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 285 have a heart to do anything for the public good, told them that the Lord had done with them and had chosen other instruments for carrying on his work that were more worthy. Then," continues the narrative, "Sir Peter Wentworth stood ·up and said this was the first time he had ever heard such unbecoming language in Par­ liament, and it was the more horrid in that it came from their servant, whom they had so wholly trusted and obliged." Here he was interrupted by Cromwell, who strode into the middle of the House exclaiming, "Come, come, I will put an end to your prating. You are no Parliament; I say you are no Parliament; I will put an end to your sitting. Call them in! Call them in." Whereupon entered Colonel Worsley with two files of musketeers; the Members were expelled, the "bauble" removed, the chamber locked; and one of the last voices heard in deprecation of the conduct of the dictator had been that of Sir Peter Wentworth. After this event he appears no more in the annals of Parliament, although his name is in the list of Members of the old Long Parliament which met in May 1659 after the deposition of Richard Crom.well. In August 1655 he opposed the assessment, which he held to be illegal, made on his Warwickshire property for the maintenance of the Army; for refusal his goods were distrained, and he was summoned before the Council, when apparently the matter was arranged. Nothing appears to show the part he took at the Resto­ ration; he was then well advanced in life, and all that is learnt of him is, that at the beginning of 1660 he was engaged in stocking his park at Lillingstone Lovell with deer from the adjacent Whittlewood ( or Whittle­ bury) Forest. Two orders from the Council to the ranger of the forest are found with the State Papers, 286 THE FAMILY OF WEN'rWORTR. each time '' to deliver ten brace of deer to Sir Peter Wentworth, to stock a park enclosed by him." He died at Lillingstone 1 December 1675, at the advanced age of nearly eighty-four, and was buried in the chancel of the church. To this Le Neve in his Pedigree of Knights adds the date of his burial as 21 December; it is entered in the parish registers, but with omission of the date. The church contains no monument to Sir Peter, though his memory is perpetuated by his charitable bequests to the poor of the parish, and to those of W olston. Sir Peter never married ; nevertheless the desire is apparent in his will that his name should not fail at Lillingstone and W olston. He had once intended that the reversion of his property should be to his kinsmen, Sir William Wentworth of Ashby-Puerorum, co. Lincoln (who fell at Marston Moor, 1644), and Sir George Wentworth, both brothers of the famous Earl of Straf­ ford. But probably on account of after estrangement from these Royalists be revoked that settlement, and provided that after the death of Paul his brother, Thomas his cousin, only son of Dr. Peter Wentworth, should have Lillingstonc Lovell; and that his nephew Samuel Dilke (son of Sybil Wentworth) and his heirs, taking the name of W entwortb, should succeed to the Wolston property. The first of these two appointed heirs appears, as before noticed, to have died early, and J olm Creswell, great-nephew of Sir Peter, succeeded to the Lillingstone Lovell estate. The legacies in Sir Peter's will are very many, roughly counted they number sixty, and are thus dis­ tributed: twelve to relatives or kinsmen, twenty-nine to servants, and nineteen to friends, ten of whom are ministers of religion. 'rhe total amount thus willed is WEN'l'WORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 287

£4435, which, it need scarcely be said, constituted a much heavier charge on the estate two hundred years ago than the same figures would now r~present; indeed it is evident from the will of Sir Peter's successor that the great number of legacies ha,d proved a serious encumbrance, and that they had not been wholly dis­ charged eleven years later. In an old bachelor's establishment the housekeeper is necessarily an important person, and Hester Alnut's discharge of her duties had evidently been highly appreciated by her master. She was bequeathed an annuity of £50 charged on land in Lillingstone Lovell and Leckhampstead; "a half-dozen of silver spoons, one of my silver cans weighing about 20 oz., four of my best silver tumblers, two little trencher silver salts, two silver porringers, a silver salt with studs at Wolston, two of my silver trencher plates whereof I have four dozen, my little silver bowl, two silver fruit-dishes, my great looking-glass which hangs up in my chamber, my whole case of drawers there made use for my wearing linen, my bedstead and bedding in my chamber with the counterpart (sic), one pair of sheets, my two chairs and one stool in the same chamber, and also my cup­ board which joins to my bed, my ivory picture which hangs up at the lower end of my dining-room, ~1, little cellar of glasses of red leather gilt, Mr. Baxter's Saints' Rest, the book called The Morning's Exercise at Orip­ plegate, the sum of £150, two of my best milch cows, all my gowns, and a gelding worth £10." His other servants were also well remembered, having specific gifts of money, "cast apparel," and a mourning cloak and suit, or a mourning gown, to each ; there was also a distribution of good books among them, such as The Farewell Sermons of the late London Ministers, Books 288 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

of Sermons preached before one or both the Houses of Parliament, Sir Richard Baker's Book on the Lord's Prayer, and the book called Aggravation of Sin. The poor of Lillingstone Lovell had £100, the poor of Walston £120, and £300 was to be invested for the apprenticeship annually of four poor young people, alternately of the two parishes. Among legatees are his nephew Samuel Dilke [his successor at vVolston after his brother PaulJ and Fisher Dilke son of Samuel, his niece Elizabeth vVilloughby and her six daughters, his nephew Creswell, his nieces Susanna and Anne Ayloff, his kinsmen Walter Strickland, Sir William Strickland, Knight and Baronet [ who is to have his best silver basin of about 83 oz.], John Boys of Fredvill, Kent, .... Swann in Sutton's Hospital, and Dr. Henry Wilkinson, lately canon of Christ Church, Oxford. There are also bequests to Dr. Obadiah Crew late of Coventry, Dr. Brian Bate of Coventry, Mr. Norton lately schoolmaster at W olston, Dr. Wilde late rector of Aynoe [Aynho], Mr. Burrowes late rector of Oosbrooke [? Cosgrove], co. Northampton, Mr. Welles late minister in Banbury, Mr. Hodges once minister of Soldurne, Captain Bacchus of Staffordshire, Mr. Henry Gellibrand parson of Lillingstone Lovell. Then there is his bequest to Milton, "Alsoe I give to my worthy and verie friend Mr. John Milton (who writt against Salmatius) one hundred pounds." Salmasius, properly Saumaise, had written a vindication of · Charles I. which had called forth Milton's Defensio pro Populo .A.nglicano. Another worthie and verie learned friend, Mr. Needham, commonly called Dr. Needham, had £50; and the last bequest is £10 to Timothy T--, the parish clerk of Lillingstone Lovell. The executors are ·w alter Strickland and John Swinfen; the "overseers " of the will Sir William Strickland and Edmund West. WEN'l'WORTH OF LILLINGSTON.E LOVELL. 289

~orttait.-A well-painted, life-size, three-quarter portrait of Sir Peter Wentworth is in the possession of the Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke, Baronet, to whom it came after many vicissitudes. The note-book of the late Rector of Lilling­ stone Lovell has an interesting memorandum in relation to the picture, which it may be well here to quote verbatim. "A portrait of Sir Peter Wentworth, in his robes of a Knight of the Bath, purchased at the sale [ of the contents of the Hall J after the death of Major Drake in 1788, is suspended at thi.c; time [1838] in one of the lower rooms at the White Hart Inn in Buckingham. It was purchased by Mr. Rox of Buckingham for a guinea, and has been (as I am told) for some yeats the property of a club of tradespeople of the town, who regard him as the founder of their society. The painting is extremely good, but it is cruelly mutilated about the face and hands." To this, written half a century ago, there is to be added that in late years the picture found its way to a furniture dealer's at Newport Pagnell, and was there discovered and purchased by a member of the Dilke family, from whom it passed to its· present owner. Sir Peter is represented as well advanced in years, yet not deficient in vivacity; the face is full and healthy in colour; the hair white and plentiful, surmounted by a black skull-cap. The Rector's account is not correct is describing the robe as that of the Bath; it is a sombre gown of Puritanic fashion, relieved by a large and square white embroidered collar falling deeply in front, and a red gleam below the collar may, with some little assistance of. imagination, be thought to in­ dicate the ribbon of the Bath.· Sir Peter's portly figure is seated in an arm-chair, the crimson covering-of which gives to the picture the warmth made requisite by the sombreness of the costume; white embroidered linen cuffs at the hands add also to the relief. I had hoped to present my readers with this portrait in photograph, and to that end obtained the kind permission of its owner; but the refusal of the old picture to lend itself to the modern art obliges me now to apologize for the absence of a promised illustration. p p 290 THE FAMILY OF WENTWOR'rH.

PAUL WENTWORTH of Lillingstone Lovell, and of W olston; born 1600, died 1690. This Paul Wentworth, who at the age of seventy­ five succeeded bis brother Sir Peter at Lillingstone Lovell, was also an old bachelor. Of him there is no other record beyond that of his baptism and burial at Lillingstone. He held the property :fifteen years, and died at the age of ninety 26 February 1690. In him terminated the male line of the Wentworths of Lilling­ stone Lovell, and as Paul was the last of his generation the estates passed to the heirs of bis deceased sisters, Lillingstone to Creswell, W olston to Dilke. His will disposing of the property ( notwithstanding the disposition made by his brother), and conferring many legacies, is of considerable length. The young Thomas Wentworth, son of Dr. Peter, whom Sir Peter had made heir to the Lillingstone estate, having died, John Creswell of Purston, great-nephew of the testator, now becomes heir; and although by the elder brother's will his nephew Samuel Dilke was to have succeeded to the Warwickshire property, and he was still living, yet his son Fisher is now the appointed heir. An interesting indication in the will is that of the intimacy of the Lillingstone family with the Yorkshire W entworths. This also had appeared in the will of Sir Peter, who, as has been shown, had formerly made an arrangement in .favour of his Yorkshire kinsmen. Paul reverts to his brother's rescinded intentions, and leaves the reversion of Lillingstone Lovell, in case of failure of issue in Creswell and Dilke, to Sir Wm. Wentworth of Wakefield (son of Sir William of Ashby-Puerorum, and nephew of Thomas, the· famous Earl of Strafford), for life, and afterwards to his sons and their heirs successively, vi~. WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 291

Paul, Peter (afterwards of Henbury, Dorset), Thomas (afterwards third Earl of Strafford), and William. The names of two of these suggest that they were called after their Lillingstone kinsmen; to :Paul, who was the youngest, and who appears to have died young, his aged namesake left a legacy of £1000, one of £500 to his brother Peter, and to their father Sir William £100, as well as money due to him from William, second Earl of Strafford. The legacies number about forty, the amount to be distributed over £3000, and as the lands in Lillingstone Lovell, Lillingstone Dayrell, and Leckhampstead, are now put into the hands of the executors for ten years for the discharge of such debts and legacies of Sir Peter as re­ mained unpaid, as well as those of the present testator; and as it appears that £.1000 had been borrowed on mortgage by Paul from a Mr. Salathiel Lovell of North­ ampton (the name in connection with the locality ·is curious), the increased burthen placed on the property by the new legacies cannot but have been vexatious to the heir John Creswell. The legatees, his relatives, are, besides the Yorkshire W entworths above named, his niece Susanna Ayloff, widow, and her children ; his niece Sara Stuart; his cousin W el bore, widow, and her daughter; his cousins Mary, Susanna, Sarah, and Sibella Creswell; his nephew Samuel Dilke the elder, of Haselour, near Lichfield ; Samuel Dilke the younger; his cousin Thomas Dilke; the children of Samuel Dilke the elder, by his second wife; his cousin W elbore's two sons; and his cousin Elizabeth Sarjent. Other legatees are Dr. Connant of Northampton; Peter 'Whalley of Cogenhoe; Robert Ives of North­ ampton,-the last two being his executors; Francis 292 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

Swinfen of Salop ; and his Chaplain Jonathan ? J ues. 'fhe legacies are all in money, the only exception being his "best piece of plate" to Lady Wentworth, wife of Sir ·william of Wakefield. Charitable be_quests are made to the poor of Lil­ lingstone Lovell, W olston, and Marston, and of four parishes in the town of Northampton. Provision of £5 a year is made for a schoolmaster at W olston out of cer­ tain tithes granted to the minister, who is annually to preach a commemoration sermon. All the testator's servants are to have half a year's wages. Paul Wentworth expressly enjoins, that such of the sons of John Creswell of Purston, to whom the Lilling­ stone lands might come by virtue of his will, should write himself by the name of Wentworth alias Creswell. This injunction was strictly fulfilled. The like con­ dition in regard to the W olston property is not imposed by Paul; but Sir Peter's will has the proviso that Fisher Dilke and the heirs male of his body, within three months after the estate shall come to him or them, shall alter and change his and their surname Dilke, and be called for ever thereaft8r in all grants, deeds, writings, eta., by the surname of Wentworth and not of Dilke. The condition was observed by the family until the sale of the Walston estate in the last century, when the surname of Dilke -was resumed, Wentworth being retained as prefix. The Right Hon. Sir Charles Went­ worth Dilke, Baronet, is the seventh in direct descent from Fisher Dilke (of Shustoke, Warwick) and Sybil Wentworth, married at Walston 3 April 1618. W olston manor has for many years belonged to the Wilcox family, now represented there by Charles Walford Wilcox, Esq., J.P. Rowland Wilcox married Susanna Wentworth at Walston 7 October 1612, and,_ according WENTWORTH OF -LILLINGSl'ONE LOVELL. 293 to the inscription on the monument of his son-in-law John Creswell in N ewbottle · Church, co. Northampton, was of Lilbourne in that county. He appears to have left daughters only, as Mrs. Creswell is stated to have been his coheir; her son, as shown, inherited Lillingstone Lovell.

THE WEN'l'WORTRS alias CRESWELLS of Lillingstone Lovell, 161:J0-1784, and their Successors. 'rhe Wentworth name was handed down for nearly another-century at Lillingsfone Lovell, for the heir John Creswell, as bound by the will of his great-uncle, assumed the name of Wentworth. Creswell was a family which had been long seated at Purston in the Parish of N ewbottle, Northamptonshire, about fourteen miles west of Lillingstone. Susanna Wentworth, sister of Sir Peter and Paul, seventy-seven years before the succes­ sion of her grandson to the estate, had been married in W olston Church to Rowland Wilcox; their daughter Elizabeth had married John Creswell of Purston, and tlrnse were the parents of the heir. Of the Wentworths alias Creswells-thus generally on their monuments and in the registers, but on their coffin-plates simply Wentworth, as in the neighbourhood, apparently, they were known-there were three seated successively at Lillingstone Lovell. The first enjoyed his inheritance but seven years, and was in 1697 gathered to his fathers in N ewbottle Church, where is his me­ morial. rrhe second, of the same name, held the estate sixty-two years, died in 1759 at the age of eighty-two, and was buried in the church of Lillingstl)ne Lovell, where he and others of his family have monuments. He left no surviving child, and had to select for his heir one .of three nephews, which choice was attended with diffi- 294 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

culty ; for it has come down that the nephews were dissipated young men, that two of them wore, on account of their characters, rejected by their uncle, and that the . third and youngest succeeded only by the concealment of his irregularities. This nephew, William Creswell Wentworth, had the estate twenty-five years, and was High Sheriff of Buckinghamshire in 1768; the inscrip­ tion on his monument in the church states tl1at he was "beloved and respected by his neighbours and servants, and died lamented by them all," but the report survives that his extravagance involved him in trouble, which brought him prematurely to his grave. He died in 1784, leaving no child, so that with him terminated at Lillingstone the line of Wentworth alias Creswell, which had had possession ninety-four years. By his will, his brother-in-law Major Francis Drake had the estate for life, but enjoyed it four years only; his tablet in the church records his death in 1788 at the age of sixty­ eight, when, according to the will, the property passed to a child four years old, cousin of the testator, the Hon. Edward Mainwaring Onslow, third son of the second Earl of Onslow. The estate was now neglected, the fine timber cut down, and, ultimately, the old mansion was dismantled and demolished, part of the materials being carried to the house then building at Wicken Park, and part used in a house at Buckingham. In 1821 the estate, which in­ cluded the whole parish of Lillingstone Lovell-except the glebe of forty acres, a small freehold of twenty acres, and seven of wood-with land in the parishes of Lilling­ stone Dayrell and Leckhampstead, was sold by the Hon. Edward Onslow to James Boyle Delap, Esq., of Stoke Park, Guildford, Surrey, and now belongs to his great­ nephew of the same name, who resides on other pro- WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 29 5 perty in co. Donegal, Ireland. The tenant at Lilling­ stone Lovell occupies a modern residence, built of th' materials which had formed the outbuildings of the Hall, near the site of which it stands. I do not know that there exists any dra\O\'ing of the now vanished Hall. Happily, however, an inventory made in 1600 on the death of Paul Wentworth preserves the names of the apartments, and even a list of the furniture they severally contained. The valuable note­ book of the late Rector having afforded me a copy of this inventory, its insertion here seems recommended, not only because of its Wentworth interest, but as typical of the country mansion two hundred years ago.

A. TRUE INVENTORY of all the Goods, Chattels, and Cattel of P.A.uL WENTWORTH, of Lillingstone Lovell in the County of Oxon, Esquire, deceased; taken, valued, and appraised the 7 day of March 1689 [1690 N.s.J by us whose names are hereunto subscribed. £ s. d. His wearing apparel 50 0 0 Ready money in the house 309 16 11 In ms LODGING CH.A.MB],]R, A bed and bedding, chaires; cheste of drawers, table, and other furniture 9 0 0 In THE NEXT CH.A.MEER. A high bed, and joundle bed, bedding, chaires, stools, and other small things there . 6 11 0 In Mr PrnnocK's CHAMBER. A bed, bedding, table, and other things there 4 5 0 In THE NEXT CHAMBER, A. bed and bedding with double vallence, table, hangings, lookinge glasse, and other things there 9 18 0 In Mr• HESTER'S CHAMBER, A. bed, bedding, cheste of drawers, side cupboard, a presse, hangings, lookinge glasse, and other things there • 7 18 0 296 THE FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

In THE PASSAGE ROOM. An old presse, and an old £ s. d. cheste 5 0 In THE l:iT ROOM ~'ROM ye PASSAGE. .A. table, a chaire, and other lumber 10 0 In THE OoACHMAN's ROOM. .A. bed and bedding, and a trunke . 1 5 0 In THE MArns' ROOM. .A. bed and bedding, and other small things there 2 10 0 In THE CouRT CHAMBER. .A. bed with double val­ iance, and double curtaines, 4 pieces of tapes­ try hangings, cheste of drawers, and glasse . 75 0 0 In THE CHAMBER WITHIN THE LAST. .A. canopy bed, old hangings, and other small things there 2 5 0 In THE TWO-BED CHAMBER. .A. worsted rug 1 10 0 In THE PASSAGE NEXT THE DINING RooME. Two cheRtes of drawers . 2 10 0 In THE SATTIN CHAMBER. .A. bedd and bedding, 5 stooles, and a great chaire, table, 4 pieces of tapestry hangings, a looking-glasse, and other things 25 13 0 In THE GREATE CH.AMBER OVER THE PARLOUR. .A_ bedd and bedding, 5 pieces of hangings, chaires, table, carpet, looking glasse, cheste of drawers, and other things there, and also the greate clocke . 89 13 0 In THE lsT GARRET. Lumber there 3 0 In THE 2ND GARRET. , .A. bedd and bedding, a table, 2 chaires, a stoole, and other things there 3 16 0 In THE 3trn GARRET. .A. bedd and bedding, a table, 6 chaires, and a stoole 6 18 0 In THE IRONING ROOME. Two tables, a beater, 2 old chestes, 2 old trunks, an old bed and bedding . 3 5 0 In THE DINING RooME. .A. table, 2 side tables, a carpet, a couch, 10 gilt leather chaires, 2 gilt leather stools, 5 green chaires, 4 green stools, 13 cushions, a horse, and a looking glasse 8 7 0 In THE WITHDRAWING RooME. 2 armed cane WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 297

chaires and 4 small ones, a table, a cheste of £ s. d. drawers, hangings, chimney piece, and other small things there . 8 7 0 In THE PARLOUR. A table, 2 side tables, a couch, a looking glasse, chaires, stands, and other things there 11 16 0 In THE WITHDRAWING RooME. 6 chaires, 3 stooles, a couch, hangings, and landskip 2 10 0 In THE SMOKING RooME. 7 leathern chaires, 2 tables, and a forme 1 6 0 In THE HALL. A long table, 4 :fformes, and 2 old andirons and :£fender, and other things there . 17 0 In THE W .A.SHOUSE. A malt mill, furnace, 4 formes, a churne, 3 washwoods, 2 tubbs, and other lumber there . 4 3 0 In THE DAIRY. Dressers, shelfes, cheese-presse, 2 churnes, 2 kivers, bucketts, and other lumber there 2 0 0 In THE DAIRYM.Arn's CH.AMBER. A bedd and bed­ ding, 2 :fformes, 2 chaires, and an old trunke . 2 2 0 In THE CHEESE CHAMBER. Cheese boards, racks, and other lumber . 12 0 In THE BEERHOUSE. A :£furnace, mashing vatte, coller [? cooler J, and 3 other vattes, and other , brewing vessels, and other lumber there 20 0 0 In THE BuTLER's CHAMBER. A bedd and bedding, 1 chaire, and an old presse, and other lumber there 4 0 0 In THE .APPLE MILL RooME. An apple-mill, presse, chaire, and other lumber there 1 10 0 In THE KITCHEN. A turnspit jack and weight, grate, racks, ffender, 6 spitts, 2 dripping­ frames, 2 warming pannes, stone mortar, 3 fowling gunnes, a carbine, one brace of pis­ tolles, 5 dozen of plates, a lead weight of about 116 lbs., :£frying pannes, bucketts, 10 brass candlesticks, peuter cisterne, potte brass 104 lbs., kettles and other soft brasse 168 lbs., Q Q 298 THE FAMILY OF WENTWOR'l'H.

peuter that was weighed 444 lbs., and the £ s. d. other lumber there 41 11 6 In THE LARDER. A leaded salting trough, shelves, safe, and dresser 2 0 0 In THE PASTRY. A still, pastry shelves, and other lurn her there . 3 12 0 In THE STABLES, YARDS, and BARNES. A crimson velvet saddle, horsecloths, 2 cow bells, 3 sad­ dles more, 2 paire of holsters, a,nd 2 cote horsecloths 4 14 0 2 coatches and harness for 4 horses 36 0 0 2 g·reate hogges and 5 stores 9 0 0 A rolle, 2 waggons, and 2 cartes 16 0 0 Gears. 6 0 0 Pease, oatse, and barley 15 0 0 Horses 70 0 0 fframed hovell, and muck in ye yard 3 0 0 21 sheepe . 11 0 0 7 cowes 21 0 0 In THE CELLAR and BUTTERY. 22 Hoggesheads and 6 roundlettes, a table, forme, napkin­ presse, safe, and cheste . 6 15 0 In THE STUDY. A scrutore, table, chaire, drawers, bookes in and belonging to the study, an iron cheste, and a box 50 0 9 Linen 25 0 0 Glasse pottes, earthenware, 2 china dishes, and 9 cuppes 1 15 0 In Mr JuEs STUDY. A cupboarde, table, chaire, and stoole 8 0 5 quarters of malte and an old garner . 4 10 0

Summe total 1166 5 6

The pictures are not yet valued, nor the unpaid rents, which must be added. The latter clause is very disappointing, as the enu~ meration of the pictures would have much interested us. WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 299

Of the old mansion's pleasure-grounds we read of one feature in the Natural History of Oxfordshire (1705) by Dr. Robert Plot, Professor of Chemistry and Keeper of the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford. He writes : "Of unusual trees now cultivated in Oxfordshire ... . such are the fir trees and the lesser mountain-pines ... . as I met with at the Right Worshipful Sir Peter Went­ worth's at Lillingston Lovell, where there are three walks of firs, most of them twenty yards high." These stately trees may have flourished a century later, but it is now long since they were laid low ; and of Lilling­ stone Hall, its gardens, lawns, and plantations, but scant vestiges are now discerned. A more fitting reference to what has passed away cannot be made than by again quoting from the note-book of the late venerable Rector, the Rev. William Lloyd, who died in 1889, after having worthily filled his office for the very long period of sixty-three years; the generous loan of his manuscript I cannot sufficiently acknowledge. He thus writes: "But few traces remain of the seat and grounds of the W entworths. The_ hollows left in the soil point out the situation of the house; the terrace-walk may still be traced; the fish-ponds remain unchanged; and here a~d there a straggling ornamental tree, which has escaped the destroying axe, causes the reflecting mind to regret deeply the ruthless destruction which has so altered the face of the parish. Some fruit trees-old, decayed, and fruitless-are still attached to what was once a garden­ wall, now a meadow boundary; and the park-wall is still kept up, though the area is much divided, and in part broken up by the plough." Since this was written in 1836 another half century has passed by; and to-day the relics are fewer, the traces still more indistinct. ~tl:ltgrte of ~tnt\tlortb of iLtlltng~tont JLobtll; to. ®J:forb.

1. Sir Nicholas Wentworth, Knt., Chief Porter of Calais,=,=Jaue, da. of John Jocelyn of Hyde Hall, Sawbridgeworth, co. Hertford, youngest son of Henry Wentworth, Esq., of Codham Hall, and sister of Sir Thomas Jocelyn, Knt., of New Hall Jocelyn, High Roding co. Essex. Knighted at Boulogne by King Henry VIII. (or Roothing), co. Essex, and later of Hyde Hall; ancestors of the Earls of 30 September 1544 ; obtained a manor at Lillingstone R()(l.en. She died August 1569, and was buried in Burnham Church, co. Lovell by King's grant 26 May 1546 ; died 1552 or 1553; Buckingham, its there recorded on the mural mouument of her third son will proved 24 June 1557. Paul Wentworth, Esq., M.P., of Burnham Abbey.

I I 1563 I I 2. Henry 3. Paul Wentworth of Burnham=,=Helen, da. of Richard Agmondes­ 4. Francis Clara,Edward Boys of Fred­ Wentworth. Abbey, Bucks, M.P. for Bncking- ham of Heston; Middlesex, and Wentworth. Wentworth. vill, in Nonington, co, Note 2. ham 1563-67, and for Liskeard widow (2nd wife) of William Note 3. Kent; Sheriff of Kent 1572-1583; b. 1534; d. 13 Jan. Tyldsley of Burnham. She died 1577; dietl 1599. 1594; bur. in Burnham Church. 1615 ; bur. in Burnham Church.

I I I I I 1591 I 11 w· Francis ·wentworth, born 1556 ; died inf. William Went-,.... Anne vVent-=Sir Norton Helen, 111iam Day. worth, born Winsor. worth, born Knatchbull, Wentworth. j Paul Wentworth, born 15fi8; living 1615. 1576; living 1565 ; died Kt., of Mers• ,f.- 1615. 1591 ; bur. ham, Kent. Elizabeth,Robert Wood­ Peter Wentworth, born 1574; living 1615. at Burnham. He married W entworth. I ford. 1st wife. thrice, but - ,f.- I I I I d. s.p. 1636. Mary,.... Barowes. John Wentworth. Winsor Wentworth. Margaret Wentworth. Mary Wentworth. Wentworth. I + I !2. Elizabeth, da. of William Walsingham, and sister of Sir Francis-Peter Wentworth of Lillingstone Lovell,,Letitia, da. of Sir Ralph Walsingham, Secretary of State to Queen Elizabeth, and widow born 1524; M.P. for Barnstaple 1571, for Lane, Knt., of Horton, (2nd wife) of Geoffrey Gate, or Gates, of Waltham, Essex, 2nd Tregoriyl572-83,forNorthamptonl586-93; Northampton, by Maud son of Sir Geoffrey Gates of High Easter, Essex ; she died died in the Tovyer of London 10 November Parr, first cousin of in the Tower of London, and was buried at the Chapel of 1597 ; no record of his burial. Queen Katharine Parr. St. Peter ad Vincula 21 July 1596. 2nd wife. _____ 1st wife. Note 1. j Matilda Wentworth, ? died young. I I I I I I t578 \- 3. Walter Went-{Mary, da. Christianit Wentworth, born 1558; Chris-=,=John Amyes Franccs Walter Mary,=Sir Edward worth of Castle of Griffith died 1567. tiana lof Stottes­ Went- Strickland Went-1Boys, Knt., Bytham, Lincoln- Hampden W ent- den, Salop. worth ; of Boyn- worth; of Fredvill, shire; M.P. for of Great Katharine Wentworth, died 1558. worth. Note 6. died ton, York ; died Kent ; died Tavistock 1601; ·Hampden, Both bur. at Lillingstone Lovell. 1636. died 1636. 1616. 1635. died 1627. Bucks. Note 5. 1 -+- I I Samuel Wentworth of Gray's Inn; died 1638, s.p. Mary Wentworth=Jolm Browne. A I 15s7 I a. Nicholas Wentworth of Lillingstone Lovell, and Wolston, Warwick, Susanna, da. and Thomas Wentworth, Dorothy, da. and CO• born 1561; died 10 April 1613; bur. in Walston Church. His 2nd wife coheir of Roger b. c. 1567; Recorder heir of Thomas was Thomasina, da. of Thomas Wendy of Haslingfield, co. Cambridge, Wigston of Wol- of Oxford, 1607-28; Keble of New bottle, and sister of Francis Wendy, who married Elizabeth Wentworth, ut infra. ston, Warwick. M.P.forOxford 1604- co. Northampton. . Xote 4. 1628; died 1628.

I I 1622 ~,------~-----, I 1s1s 1 1 4. Sybil Went-=j=Fisher Dilke SarahWent- Anne=,=John Welbore ·.... =Thomas Wentworth of=? Margaret, sister of Sir worth, died lof Shustoke, worth; died Went-1 of Foxton, Johnson, Lincoln's Inn; died 16 John Wentworth (alia,, before her co. Warwick; unmar.1667. worth. Cambridge. 1st wife. September 1638; bur. Quainford)ofSomerley- husband. died 1660. -1'- at Bexley, Kent, s:p. ton, Suffolk; died 1636; Note 7. bur.at Bexley.2nd wife. WENTWOR'l'H-+­ DILKE, BARONETS.

I I I I I I I I 162s Peter Wentworth, D.D.; DeanlEliza- George Wentworth. Henry Wentworth. Christian Wentworth. Mar-=Anthony Saun­ of Armagh 1637; Rector of beth garet ders, D.D., of Great Haseley, Oxford,. 1660; , . . . Paul Wentworth. Walter Wentworth. Elizabeth Wentworth. Went- Pangbourne, died 1661; bur. in . worth. Berks. Note 9. I I Thomas Wentworth. Elizabeth Wentworth, died young. Note 8.

I I I 1609 I 1612 4, Sir Peter Wentworth, KB., of Lilling­ Paul Wentworth of Lilling­ Elizabeth W ent-lFrancis Wendy Susanna=,=Rowland stone Lovell, and of Walston, co. Warwick; stone Lovell, and Wolstou, worth, living at of Haslingfield, Went- Wilcox of Sheriff of Oxfordsbire 1635; M.P. for 'ram­ heir to his brother Sir Peter :· Sutton, Bedford- co. Cambridge, worth. LHbourne, worth 1641-53; born 1592; died December born 1600; died 1690; bur: sbire, a widow, andofLincoln'R co. North­ 1675; bur. in Lillingstone Lovell Church. in Lillingstone Lovell Church. 1622. Inn, London. ampton. -+- \B fflenttuort'b alias ~n~tutU. Richard Cresswell of Purston in Newbottle, co, Northampton; died 1627. IB T I I 7 I 6 • Elizabeth, da. of Rowland,John Creswell of Purston, Eliza-=John Wheatly Dorothy=Thomas Went. Mary.=William Levinz Wilcox of Lilbourne, co. co. Northampton, born beth of Banbury, Ores- w-0rth of Lill- Ores- of Evenly, co. Northampton, by Susanna, 1612; died 1654 ; bur. in Cres- co. Oxford. well. ingstone well. Northampton. da. of Nicholas Wentworth Newbottle Church, where well. Note 10. Lovell. of Lillingstone Lovell. is his monument.

I I I I I I I 6. John Wentworth al-ias Creswell=j=Catherine, da. of Elizabeth=John Wel- Anne Creswell, ,Susanna Cres- Sarah Creswell, of Purston, and of Lillingstone Edwar,l Bentley Creswell, bore of living 1654. ' well; d.1710; living 1681. Lovell, which he inherited on the of Kington, co. born 1638; Foxton, bur. at New­ death of his great-uncle Paul Warwick : died died 1712 ; co. Cam- Mary Creswell, bottle. Sybil Creswell, Wentworth, when he assumed 1725; bur. with bur. in bridge. living 1681. living 1681. name and quartered arms of Went- her husband in New bottle worth; born 1648; died 1697; Newbottle Ch., Church. bur. in Newbottle Church, where in which is her is his monument. monument.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I '7. Penelope, da,=j=J ohn Wentworth alias Cres-=Ann, da. of Paul Creswell, born William,... , . Elizabeth Cres­ MaTy Creswell, of Sir Roger well of Lillingstone Lovell, co. William 1683 ; died 1728; Creswell, well, born 1679. born 1685. Cave, Bart., Oxford; born 1677; died 11 Johnson of bur. in Lillingstone born of Stanford, October 1759, s.p.s.; bur. in Aldborough, Lovell Ch., where is 1689; Jane Creswell, Anne Creswell, co. Leicester; Lillingstone Lovell Church, co. Suffolk; his monument. living born 1680. born 1692. shediedl726; where is his monument, and shed. 1757; 1759. bur. in Lill- that of his first wife. Dying bur. in Lill­ Francis Creswell, Susanna Cres­ Alice Creswell, ingstone Lo- without issue, he, by his will, ingstone born 1684. well, born 1681; b. 1696 ; d. inf, veil Church. left his estates to bis nephew, Lovell Ch. died 1733. 1st wife. William Wentworth alias 2nd wife. Charles Creswell, Thomas Cres­ Creswell. born 1686; died inf. well, b. 1690. I s. WenJworth Wentworth alias William Wentworth alias Creswell of Lillingstone Lovell; High Sheriff=Eleanor, da. of John Creswell; died young, 1719 ; of Buckinghamshire 1768; died April 1784, s.p. He and his wife bur. in Clarke of Daventry, bur. in Lillingstone Lovell Lillingstone Lovell Church, and have monuments there. He left his estates to Northampton. She Church. his brother-in-law Major Francis Drake for life, with remainder to his first- died 1768. cousin Hon. Edward Mainwaring Onslow, 3rd son of 2nd Earl of Onslow. WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 303

NOTES TO THE PEDIGREE OF WENTWORTH OF LILLINGSTONE LOVELL. 1. The :first marriage of Elizabeth W alsingharn is generally omitted in Wentworth pedigrees, but appears in that given Harl. MSS. 1556, f. 177, where Sir Henry Gate is shown as her first husband. That the name should be Geoffrey Gate, or Gates, is evident in the pedigrees of that family, Harl. MSS. 1169, f. 64; 1487, f. 238; 1560, f. 269; Harl. Soc., xxi., 65. 2. Of Henry, second son of Sir Nicholas, nothing more than his name appears in the pedigrees; he is also mentioned in bis father's will (seep. 218). Col. Chester (see footnote, p. 198) says that he became a counsellor-at-law, and died in St. Sepulchre's parish, London, 1 January 1613-14, having by a first wife Mar­ garet, a daughter Cicely. This, however, appears to me, from identity of names, to refer to a Henry of Gosfield (see Note 8, p. 201). In the Lillingstone Lovell registers a Henry is buried in 1569, who may have been son or grandson of Sir Nicholas. Also among the State Papers information sent to the Council, 21 July 1603, is signed by a Henry Wentworth, who is associ­ ated with Paul and Peter, sons of Paul of Burnham Abbey. Henry as signing first was probably senior to the other two, and possibly may have been their uncle, who if alive would then have been more than seventy years of age ; considering which circumstance, however, I am inclined to think the signa­ ture that of some other senior kinsman, perhaps the lawyer of the Gosfield house above referred to. 3. Francis, fourth son of Sir Nicholas, was intended by him to be a priest (seep. 218), but, as Col. Chester says, there is no evidence of his having so become; the genealogist thought that a burial register at Burnham, 4 September 1564, had reference to this Francis; the burial, however, may have been that of the first-born child of Paul Wentworth. · 4. The second marriage of Nicholas Wentworth, not gener­ ally noticed in Wentworth pedjgrees, is referred top. 263. 5. The earliest entries in the registers of Lillingstone Lovell refer to these children. 6. A pedigree of Amyes appears in The Genealogist, ii., 271. 304 'l'H E FAMILY OF WENTWORTH.

7. This Thomas Wentworth's marriages are imperfectly noted in the Oxfordshire Visitation Pedigree, Harl. MSS. 1556, f. 177. The "Wentwortbs" of Somerleyton, Suffolk, have given trouble to genealogists; their right name seems to have been Quamford, Quanford, or Quainford ; no connection with the family whose name they assumed is apparent; and they bore arms entirely differing from those of Wentworth. Davy (Add. MSS. 19154) gives a pedigree of Wentworth alias Quam­ ford of Somerley, but no marriage with Thomas Wentworth appears in it. Sir John Wentworth of Somerleyton, Sheriff of Suffolk in 1619, is often mentioned in Cal. 8tate Papers, Dom.; Davy's pedigree shows him to have had a sister Margaret, who married William Freston of Mendham, Suffolk, and as Freston died 1621 his widow may have remarried with Thomas Went­ worth, whose burial is on the registers of Bexley, Kent, 18 September 1638, his wife "Margaret" having been there interred 12 August 1636 (Genealogist, N.S., i., 225). - 8. Thomas, son of Dr. Peter Wentworth, was intended by his cousin Sir Peter to have succeeded to Lillingstone Lovell, but this his early death, apparently, prevented. See pp. 275, 286. 9. The license for this marriage is found in the Harleian Society's Publications, xxvi., 192. 10. The Pedigree of Creswell in Baker's History. of North­ amptonshire-used in tha_t part of the foregoing pedigree which relates to the W entworths alias Creswells-bas this marriage. It appears to me erroneous, though it is just possible that Thomas Wentworth, Recorder of Oxford, whose wife Dorothy Keble died before him, may have secondly married Dorothy Creswell.

CORRIGENDA. Page 3, line 33,for Scroop, read Scrope. 7, ,, 14,for Syneflete, read Swyneflete. " 24, ,, 19,for Olaudins, read Claudius. " 25, ,, 29,for Bolyn, read Boleyn. " ,, ll8, ,, 7,for Ernest, read Ernulf. IN DEX.

The letters N., 0., B., S., L., and Y., after the name Wentworth, denote the branch of the family to which the individual belonged. whether of Kettlestead, of Gosfield, or either of the two subordinate branches of Gosfield, viz., Bocking and Steeple Bumpstead, of Lillingstone Lovell, or of Yorkshire. The Pedigrees are thus referred to: Ped. N. for Pedigree of Wentworth of Nettlestead; Ped. G., Ped. B., Ped. S., and Ped. L., respectively for the other branches above named. But reference, generally, is made to the Pedigrees only in the case of names which do not appear elsewhere in the Volume. Married ladies are indexed under both maiden and marriage names, the paginal reference accompanying the latter, with which the maiden names appear in parentheses. v. is used for vide.

Abberbury, family, 258, 259. Ayloff, Anne, 288. Abberton, 151. ,, Susanna, 288, 291. Abell, Ped. S. Ayloffe, Camilla, Ped. B. Abingdon, 74. ,, Elizabeth (Wentworth B.), Ped. B. Ager, Sir Anthony, 43. ,, Thomas, Ped. B. Agmondesham, family, 245, 246. ,, arms, 256. [ L. Babington conspiracy, 59. ,, Helen, v. Tyldsley, and Wentworth Bacchus, Captain, 288. Albemarle, Duke of, 82, 108. Bacon, Anthony, 238. Alblaster, Jane, i'. Wentworth 0. Badlesmere, 54, 55, 259. Allen, Thomas, 1 77. Banbury, 74. Allington, Elizabeth (Wentworth 0.), Barker, Elizabeth, v. Wentworth B. Ped. G. ,, Sir Robert, Ped. B. ,, Sir William, Ped. G. Barkstead, Sir John, 80. Amsterdam, 108. Barling, 198, 214. Amyes, John, Ped. L. Barnard, Edward George, 182. ,, Christiana (Wentworth L.), Ped. L. Barnstaple, 220. Anesi, Margaret de, 206, 209. Baronetcy, cost of, 169. Anne Boleyn, Queen, 25, 26. Rarowes, .... , Ped. L. ,, of Cleves, Queen, 26. ,, Mary (Wentworth L.), Ped. L. Antwerp, 97, 99. Barrow, 8uffolk, 7, 23. Argyle, Duke of, 109. Bate, Dr. Brian, 288. Armagh, Deanery of, 274. Bath, Earl of. v. Bourchier. Arundel, Earl of, 161. Bayning, Elizabeth, Lady Dacre, 177. ,, manors in estate of, 163. Beauvais, 77. Ashfield, John, Ped. G. Bellot, Thomas, 49. ,, Margaret (Wentworth 0.), Ped. G. Belvoir Castle, 168. Astle, Colonel Thomas, 181. Bendlowes, Elizabeth, i•. Wentworth S. ,, Thomas, Keeper of the Records, 181. ,, William, Ped. S. Astley, Mr., 221. Bennet, Secretary, 98. Aston Rowant, 167. Bentley, Catherine, v. Creswell. Atkins, Richard, 117, 127. ,, Edward, Ped. L. Awnsham, v. Agmondesham. Benzelinus, 206. RR 306 INDEX.

Bergen-op-Zoom, 100. Burnhan Rectory, 255, 260, Berkeley, Countess of, 179. Burrowes, Mr., 288. Berney, John, Ped. G. Byng, Earl of Strafford, Ped. N. ,, Margaret (Wentworth 0.), Ped. G. Byron, Anne Isabella (Milbanke-Noel), Berwick. 37, 69, 88. Lady Byron, 114. Bettenham, Anne, v. 'Wentworth 0. ,, Augusta Ada, Countess of Love­ ,, Jerome, l 64. lace. 114. ,, John, 160. ,, George Gordon, Lord Byron, 114. Biggs, manor, 154. Bytham, Castle, 264. Blackheath, battle of, 148. Blakenham, Great, 61. Calais, 40-46, 153, 160. ,, Little, 7, 23, 61. Calisto, a Masque, 104. [Ped. N. Illunt, Lady Anne Isabella Noel (King­ Calthorpe, Elizabeth (Wentworth N.), Noel), Ped. N. ,, John, Ped. N. ,, Judith Anne Dorothea, Ped. N. Calverley, Sir William, 16. ,, Wilfred, Ped. N. Cambriclge University, 4, 6, 36. Bocking, 152, 166, Ped. B. Camoys, Ela, 259. Bohemia, Elizabeth, Queen of, 85. Campbell, Anne, v. Wentworth, Anne, ,, Frederick, King of, 6J, 171. Countess of Strafford. Bolebec, Hugh de, 20G. [and 161. Canterbury, Archbishop of, 25, 221, 228. Botetourt, 55, 147, li50, Ped. between 160 Capel, Anne (Wentworth B.), Ped. B. Bourchier, Earl of Bath, 39, Ped. N. ,, Sir Edward, l'ed. B. ,, Elizabeth ('Nentworth 1Y.), .Ped. N. ,, Elizabeth, v. Wentworth B. Bowles, Lewis, 167. ,, Sir Gamaliel, Ped. B. Boys, Clara (Wentworth L.), 218. ,, Lord, 90, 91. ,, Edward, 218, 241, 260. Caracena, Marquis of, 96. ,, John, 288. Cardinall, Mary (Wentworth 0.), Ped. G. ,, Mary (Wentworth L.), Ped. L. ,, William, Ped. G. Bradley, William, 137. Carey, Sir Ferdinando, 100, 135. Bradston, quartering, ,,5. ,, Philadelphia, v. Wentworth X. Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, 22, 24, 148. Carlisle, City of, 275. Breda, 77, 78, 92. Carr, Robert, Earl of Somerset, 170. Brentford, Lord, ~o. Cave, Penelope, v. Creswell. Bridgewater, 109, 110. ,, Sir Roper, Ped. L. Bristol, 109. Cavendish, manor, 146, 155. Bromley, Great, 151. ,, Earl of Newcastle, 71, 72. Bromley, Sir Henry, 237. ,, Mary (Wentworth N.), Ped. N. Broughton, family, 120. ,, William, of Grimston Hall, Ped. N. ,, Aune, v. Cheney. Cecil, Elizabeth, v. Wentworth N. ,, Dorothy (Wentworth N.), Ped. N. ,, Sir Robert, 239, 211. ,, Sir Robert, Ped. N. ,, William, v. Burghley, Lord. Browne of Leiston, Ped. N. Chamberlain, Elizb. (Wentworth 0.), Bruges, 94. Ped. G. Brussels, 97, 106, 161, 162. ,, Sir Robert, Ped. G. Buccleuch, Anne, Duchess of, 105. Chambers, Mary, 268, 259. Buckford, Alice, v. Wentworth B. Charles I., King, 66-77, 279-283. ,, William, Ped. B. ,, II., 77, 78, 92-97, 107. Buckhurst, Lord, 237. ,, V., Emperor, 21, 148, 153. Buckingham, 245. Chatham, manor, 7, 23, 61. ,, Earl of, 206. Cha worth, Eva, 259. ,, Duke of, 65, 173, 180, 227. Che]mscote, 253, 260. ,, Marquis of, 180, 183, 189. Cheney or Cheyn_e, tombs, 132,133. [132. ,, Marchioness, 180, 188, 189. ,, Anne (Broughton), Lady, 120, 121, Eullinger's Sermons, 47. ,, Henry, Lord, 62, 121-123, 132. Bumpstead Helion, 154. ,, Jane (Wentworth N.), Lady, 6l, ,, Steeple, 152. 122, 132. Burghley, Lord, 45, 49, 57, 237-240. ,, Sir Thomas, 120. Buriton, Rants, 275. Chester, Col. Joseph L., 198, 200, 246. Burley, Rutland, 60. Cheswick Hall, 151, 154. [G­ Burnham Abbey, 245, 246, 253, 254, 261. Cheyne, Elizabeth (Wentworth 0.), Ped. ,, Church, 219, 255, 260, 262. ,, Sir William, Ped. G. INDEX. 307

Clare, family, 54, 55 note, 257, 259. Creswell, Wentworth alias, John, 290, Clarendon, Earl of, 74, 89, 267. 292, 293, Ped. L. Clarke, Eleanor, v. Qreswell. ,, Penelope (Cave), Ped. L. ,, John, Ped. L. ,, William, 293, Ped. L. Clarke's JRst. of Ipswich, 57. Crew, Dr. Obadiah, 288. Claydon, 254. Croft, of Hereford, 59. Clement VII., Pope. 25. ,, Sir .James, Ped."· Cleveland, Earl of, v. Wentworth N., ,, Margaret (Wentworth N.), Ped. N. Thomas. Crofts, Anne, v. Wentworth N., Countess Clewer Court, 254, 260. of Cleveland. Clifford, John, Lord, 12, Ped. N. ,, Sir John, 63, 83. ,, Mary, 12, Ped. N. Cromwell, Mr., 231, 235. Clobery, Sir John, Ped. N. ,, Oliver, 78, 79, 96, 283-285. ,, Mary, v. Noel. ,, Richard, 285. Clopton1 Francis, Ped. G. Cropredy, battle of, 74-76, 89. ,, Lora (Wentworth G.), Ped. G. Curzon, Lord Scarsdale, 114, Ped. N. Cobbold, Mrs., 105 note. ,, Sophia (Noel), Lady Scarsdale, Cocke, Elizabeth (Wentworth N.), Ped. N. Ped. N. ,, John, Ped. N. Codham Rall, 145, 154, 156, 166, 175, 176. Dacre, Elizabeth (Bayning), Lady, 177. Coggeshall, coheirs, 145. ,, Francis Lennard, Lord, 177. Colby, Francis, Ped. N. Dansey or Daunsey family, 207. ,, John, Ped. N. Darcy,Elizabeth (Wentworth 1Y.), Ped, N. Cole the Antiquary, 246, 249, 253, 272. ,, ,, (Wentworth 0.), Ped, G. Colchester, 7 7. ,, Lord, 38, 151. Colepepper, Lord, 90. ,, Roger, Ped. N. Coleraine, Hugh Hare, Lord, 176, 177. ,, Thomas, Ped. B. Colville, 259, 264. Day, Helen, 256, 261. Conant, Dr., 21. ,, William, 256. Conde, Prince of, 96. Deane, William, 162, 163. Conolly, Lady Anne(Wentworth Y.), 117, De la Pole, 55. 136, 137. Delap, James Boyle, 294. ,, Rt. Hon. Thomas, 117. Denbigh, Earl of, 87, 88. ,, Rt. Ron. William, 117. [N. Despenser, 2, 54, 55, 150, 25 7, 259. Constable, Agnes (Wentworth N.), 6, Ped. ,, Hugh, 2, 257. 259. ,, John, 6. ,, Margery,'!:. Roos, Lady. ,, Sir Robert, 6, Ped. N. ,, Philip, 2, 3, 5, 257, 259. Conway, Lord, 88. D'Ewes's Journal, 230, 237 et seq. Conyers, Sir John, 88. Dijon, 45. , Cooper, John, 117,128. Dilk:e, Sir Charles W., 35,289, 292. ,, William Dodge, 118, 128. ,, Fisher, 290, Ped. L. ,, Major William Cooper, 118, 129. ,, Samuel, 286, 290, 291, Ped. L. · Cope, Sir Anthony, 233, 234, 241. ,, Sybil CW entworth L.), 286, 292. Caple, Bedfordshire, 83, 176. ,, Thomas, 291. Copsley Hills, 254. Dokett [Duckett], Andrew, 6. Corbet, Elizabeth, v. W"ntworth N. Dorchester, Anne, Viscountess, 177. ,, Sir Richard, Ped. N. Dorney, rectory, 255, 260. Cotton, ...., 215. Downe, Earl of, 60, 62. ,, Joan (Sharpe), Ped. N. Drake, Major, 289, 293, ,, Margaret (Wentworth N.), Ped. N. Drax, Henry, Ped. N. ,, Sir Thomas, Ped. N. · Drury, Margaret (Wentworth N.), Ped. N, Council of State, 79, 283, 284. ,, Sir William, Ped. N. Courtauld, Samuel. 182. Dudley, Sir Ambrose, 39. Craggs, Anne, v. Knight and Nugent. ,, Lord Guildford, 39. Cranmer, Archbishop, 25. ,, John, Earl of Warwick, 39. [212. Crapnelles Marsh, 216. ,, Duke of Northumb., 39, 167, Creswell, Wentworth alias, 256, 293. Dunes, battle of, 96. ,, Anne (Johnson), Ped. L. Dunkirk, 96, 98, 174. ,, Catherine (Bentley), Ped. L. Dunstanburgh Castle, 11. ,, Eleanor (Clarke), Ped. L. Duxford Church, Wentworth brass, 7. ,, Elizabeth (Wilcox), 293, Ped. L. Dynes, manor, 162. 308 INDEX.

East Mersea, 153. 154. Gate or Gates, Geoffrey, Ped. L., 303. Easton Neston, 212. ,, Sir Henry, 39, 221. Eden, Elizabeth, v. Wentworth B. ,, Sir John, 39. Edward IV., King, 11, 13, 14. Gate House, WestminstP.r, 239. v., 22, 147. Gedney, manor, 2, 7, 23, 259. ,, VI., ,, 17, 29-33, 36-39. Gee, Mary (Wentworth G.), Ped. G. Egerton, Thotnas, Ped. G. ,, Sir Thomas, Ped. G. Elizabeth, Queen, 45, 48, 59, fiO, 219-253. Gellibrand, Henry, 288. ,, ,, visits of, 121, 156, 163. Gernon, 55,147,150, Ped. between 160, 161. Elvis, Sir J er-vis, 171. Gestingthorpe, 151, 154. Empson, Sir Richard, 212. Gilbert, Sir Humphrey, 220. Engaine, Richard, 206. Glemham, Christopher, Ped. N. Epping, 175. ,, Margery (Wentworth N.), Ped. N. Eric, Prince of Sweden, 48. ,, Elizabeth, v. Wentworth N. Essex, Earl of, 64, 65, 171, 174. Goring, Lord, 89, 90. Evelyn's diary quoted, 82, 91, 98. Gosfield, 147, 154, 176-182. Everard, .... , Ped. G. ,, Church, 156, 158-160, 190-192. ,, Lora (Wentworth 0.), Ped. G. ,, Hall, 155, 166, 182-190. [182. Exeter, Marquis of, 26. ,, Successors of Wentworths at, 176- Gostwick, Anne (Wentworth 0.), 167, Fairfax, Lord, 90, 91. 201. Feilding, Lord, 87, 88. ,, Sir Edward, 167, 201, Ped. G. Felsted. 151. Gou.shill or Gou.sell family, 258, 259. Ferrers; Thomas, 208. ,, manor, 2, 7, 23. Ferris Wood, 208,213. ,, Margaret, 2, 259. Feversham, Earl of, 3, 106, 110. Grafton, Duke of, 109. Field of the Cloth of Gold, 21, 148, 153. Gregory XIII., Pope, 231. . .!<'inch, Catherine, v. Wentworth G. Grenville, Sir Richard, 90, 91. ,, Cecilia (Wentworth G.), Countess Grey of Werke, Cecily (Wentworth 0.), of Winchilsea, 168. [175. Lady, 175, Ped. G. ,, Thomas, Earl of Winchilsea, 168, ,, Ford, Lord, 107-111, 177. ,, Sir Thomas, 33, 34. ,, William, Lord, 175, 177. Finet, Jane (Wentworth N.), Ped. N. Grey of Wilton, William, Lord, 40-44. ,, Sir John, 85, Ped. N. Grey, Henry, Earl of Kent, 65. Finland, John, Duke of. 48. ,, Lady Jane, 38-40. Fitz Garrett, Edward, 249. ,, Lady Katharine, 157, 158. J<'itz Lewes, Jane (Fitz Simon), 217. ,, Sir John, 157. . , Sir Richard, 199. Grey Friars, v. Friars Minors . Fit,z Otho, 147,150, Ped. between 160, 161. "Greyhound" ship, loss of, 33, 48. Fitz Symond or Fitz Simon, Joan, 1,. Guards, Regiment, 82, 95-98. Wentworth L. Guicciardine, Maria, Ped. B. ,, Katherine (Manfield ), 199, 259. Guise, Duke of, 43, 44. ,, Robert, 198, 208, 213. Guisnes, 40-44. Fitz Warine, Hawise, 258, 259. Fleet Prison, 237. Hackney, 30, 60, 61, 67, 81, 86. Fortescue, Sir Adrian, 20, 32, 33. Hague, The, 85, 106. ,, Margaret, v. Wentworth 1Y., Mar- Hale, Anastatia, v. y,,r entworth C. garet, Lady. Hall Pew, Gosfield Ch., 178, 191. Francis I. of France, 21, 153. Hallam, Constitutional Hist., 233, 272. Frederick III. of Denmark, 94. Hamilton, Duke of, 79. Freston, William, 304. ,, Lieut.-Gen., History qf Regiment of Friars Minors or Grey Friars, Ipswich, Gua·!'d,,, 95. 4, ii, 22, .56. Ramlake, now Helmsley, 3. Friston Hall, 113, 117. [N. Hamond,.Agnes, v. Wentworth G., Agnes. Frobisher, Dorothy (WentworthN.), Ped. Hampden, Griffith, Ped. L. ,, Sir Martin, Ped. N. ,, Mary, v. Wentworth L. Fuller, John, 137. ,, Mistress, 255. Hare, Hugh, Lord Coleraine, 176, 177. Garrard, Sir John, 172, 176. Harnehall, quartering, 55. Gate or Gates, Elizabeth. (Walsingham), Harrington, Sir James, 60. Ped. L., 303. Haseley, Oxon, 275. INDEX. 309

Hatton, Sir Christopher, 234. Johnson, Anne (Smithson), Ped. N. Haydon, Elizb., v. Wentworth 0. [161. ,, Sir Henry, 113-117, 137. Helion, 55, 147, 149, 150, Ped. betwemi 160, ,, Martha (Lovelace), Baroness Went­ Heneage, Sir Thomas, 233, 237. worth,.113-115. Henry VI., King, 8-11. ,, William, Ped. L. ,, VII., HS, 212. [212. [159. ,, VIII., 19-21, 25, 26,148,153, Katharine of Aragon, Queen, 25, 148, 153, ,, II., ,, of France, 41. Katharine Parr, Queen, 212, 242. Heretics, trial and execution of, 27-29. Keble, Dorothy, v. Wentworth L. Heriot, Rev. George, Ped. N. ,, Thomas, 273. Hertford, Seymour, Earl of, 157. Kent, Earl of, 65, 66, 241. Hesding, Ernulf de, 118. King-Noel, William, Earl of Lovelace, Hexham, battle of, 12. 114, 115. Heyford, Nether, 212. ,, Anne Isabella, v. Blunt. Higgins, Dorothy (Southwell), 165. ,, Augusta Ada (Byron), Countess of ,, Thomas, 165. Lovelace, 1 I 4. Higham, Sir Clement, Ped. G. ,, Byron, Baron Wentworth, Ped. N. ,, Sir John, 234. ,, Jane (Jenkins), Countess of Love­ High Roding, 199, 200. lace, Ped. N. Roby, Sir Edward, 167, 200. ,, Ralph, v. Milbanke. Hodges, Mr., 288. King's Lands, manor, 20fJ, 211, 215. Hogshaw, 254, 260. Kirkby, quartering, 55. Holland, quartering, 55. Knaresborough, co. York, 16, 17. Hopton, Anne, v. Wentworth N. Knatchbull, Anne (Wentworth), 256,262. ,, Margaret (Wentworth N.), Ped. N. ,, Norton, 256, 260-263. ,, Sir Owen, 60, 157. Knight, Anne (Oraggs), 178, 188. ,, Sir William, 60. ,, John, 177-179, 184, 188, 191. ,, Lord, 90, 91. Knolles, Henry, 221. Horksley, Great, 154. .':Znollys, Sir Francis, 251. ,, Little, 154, 164, 165, 166, 172. Houghton, Walter, Ped. N. Lamb, Judith, v. Noel. Howard, Elizabeth, v. Wentworth G. ,, William, Ped. N. ,, Sir George, 11 7. Lambe, Barbara, 85, 88. ,, William, Lord, 40. ,, Sir John, 85-88. Howe, Viscount, 117. Lamport, 216-218, 245. Howleigh, Surrey, 216. Lane, Letitia, v. Wentworth l,, Howth, Christopher, Lord, 200, 201. ,, Sir l(alph, 242. Huish, Anne (Wentworth B.), Ped. B. ,, Sir Robert, 221, 254. ,, Rowland, Ped. B. ,, Sir William, 241. Hull, 73. Laud, Archbishop, 67, 274. Huntingdon, Margaret, 217. Leckhampstead, 244, 287, 291, 294. Hyde Hall, 200, 219. Leonard, Matthew, Ped. N. ,, Sir Ed ward, 93. Levinz. William, Ped. L. Hynde, Elizabeth (Wentworth N.), 52. Lewes [Fitz-Lewes], Philip, 198. ,, Sir William, 52. Lillingstone Dansey. 207-213. ,, Dayrell, 205, 206, 244, 291, 294. Inglethorpe, quartering, 55. ,, Lovell, 205-214, 279, 285-299. Ipswich, 4, 5, 12, 22, 28, 56, 57, 152. ,, Magna, 207. Irohester, 198, 216, 218. Liskeard, borough, 251. Ives, Robert, 291. Liston Hall, 154, 166. Litton, Mr., 271. James I., 122, 168, 265, 271. Lloyd, Rev. William, 299. ,, II., 108, lll. Lloyd's Memoirs, 63-65, 77, 80, 82, 93. Jennings, Sarah, 104. Lodge, William, 81, 137.' Jersey, 91, 92. Louis, XI. of France, 14. Jewels sent to Madrid, 173. ,, XII. of France, 19. [181. Jocelyn, Jane, 1'. Wentworth L. ,, XVIII. of France, at Gosfield, 180, ,, John, 199. Lovelace, Anne (Wentworth N.), Lady, ,, Sir Thomas, 200. Baroness Wentworth, 76, 79, 83, Johnson, Anne, Countess of Strafford, v. 113, 114. Wentworth Y. ,, Dorothy, Ped. N, 310 INDEX.

Lovelace, John, Lord, 76, 105 note, 113. Molines, Lord, 12. ,, Margery (Pye), Ped. N. Mompesson, Sir Giles, 270. ,, Margaret, v. Noel. [ worth. Monk, General, 98. · ,, Martha, •r: Johnson. Baroness Went­ Monmouth. Duke of, 103-112, 127. ,, \Yilliam, Earl of, 114, ll5. [114. Monmouth Oak, 112, 130. ,, Augusta Ada (Byron), Countess of, Monmouth's Close, lll. ,, Jane (Jenkins), Countess of, Ped. N. Monmouth's Parlour, 106, 124, 128. Lovell, Lords, 210, 211. Montagu, or Mbntacute, Lord, 12, 17. ,, William, 208, 210. ,, quartering, 55. Lowe, Col. Arthur Swann Howard, 182. Monte Alto, Elena, 207. ,, Louisa Ruth (Harris), 182. ., John, 207. Lyme, Dorsetshire, 108. Monthermer, quartering, 55. Montmorency, Constable, 41. Macaulay, quotations, 111, 112,130,229. More, Sir Thomas, 152. Machyn's Diary ,, 31, 33, 45. Moore, Dorothy (Southwell), Lady, 165. Madrid, 173. ,, Sir Edward, 165, 200. Maltravers, Anne (Wentworth G.), Lady, ,, Earls and Marquises of Drogheda, 47, 160-164, 192, 200. 165. ,, Henry, Lord, 161, 200. ,, Lionel Henry, 137. Manfield, Katherine, v. Fitz-Symond. Mordaunt, Lord, 59, 79. ,, Sir Robert, 199, 259. Mor1,imer's Cross, battle of, 11. Mannock, Anne (Wentworth S.), Ped. S. Motto of Wentworth, 24, 52, 54. ,, Francis, Ped. ti, Mountnlilssing, 150. Mansfeldt, Count, 63, 65. Mowbray, Lady Anne, 14. Mantelles, 216, 217. Musselburgh, 37. Maplestead Magna, 154, 162. ,, Parva, 154. Needham, Dr., 288. Margaret of Anjou, Queen, 8, ll, 12. Nettlestead, 2-7, 22, 61, 81, 137. Marlborough, Duchess of, 104. ,, Church, 56. Marten, Henry, 281. ,, Rall, 53-56. Mary I., Queen, 38-45. ,, " Lily of," 105 note. ,, (Tudor) "the French Queen," 25. Nevill, Elizabeth, v. Scrope. ,, Queen of Scots, 36, 49, 58-60, 222, ,, Earl of Warwick, 10, 11. 227, 232, 249. ,, Sir Henry, 250, 251. ,, Princess, afterwards Mary II., 104. ,, Marquis of Montagu, 12, 17, 33. Matthew, Elizabeth (Wentworth 11":), ,, quartering, 55. Ped.N. Newbottle, 292, 293. ,, Leonard, Ped. N. Newburn, rout, 69. Mauntell, Walter, 212. Newbury, battle of, 76, 89. Maxey, Bridget, v. Wentworth B. Newcastle, 12, 69. Maximiliar,,, King of Bohemia, 161. ,, Earl of, 71, 72. Middleton, Earl of, 9i5. Newcomen, Elizabeth (Wentworth G.), Milbanke, Ada Mary, Ped. N. Ped. G. ,, Fannie (Heriot), Lady Wentworth, ,, Sir Robert, 201, Ped. G. Ped. N. Newsam Abbey, 5, 6, 12, 56. ,, Mary(Stuart-Wortley), Lady Went­ Newsham, James, 178, 188. worth, Ped. N. Noel, Anne (Whitlock), Lady, Ped. N. ,, Ralph, Baron Wentworth, 114. ,, Sir Clobery,Ped. N. Milbanke-Noel, Anne Isabella, v. Byron. ,, Sir Edward, Baron Wentworth, 114. ,, Sir Ralph, 114. ,, Elizabeth (Rowney), Lady, Ped. N. Mile End, 49. ,, Sir John, Ped. N. Millington, Sir Thomas, 177. ,, Judith (Lamb), Lady Wentworth, ,, Thomas, 177. Ped. N. Milton, John, 284, 288. Margaret (Lovelace), Lady, 114, Miracle at Ipswich, 152. Ped.N. Miscellanie, o,· a Registrie and Methodi­ ,, Mary (Clobery), Lady, Ped. N. call Direction of O,•izons, by ,, Sophia, v. Curzon, Ped. N. Paul Wentworth, 262. [201. ,, Sir Thomas, Ped. N. Mitchell, Cecilia (Wentworth G.), Ped. G. ,, Sir Thomas, Baron Wentworth, ,, Francis, Ped. G. Ped.N. Mokking, manor, 198, 214, 216. Norden, John, quoted, 155, 182. INDEX. 311

Norfolk, Duke of, 10, 26, 48, 49, 220, 227, Philip II. of Spain, 41. 249-253. ,, IV. of Spain, 94. North, Charles, Ld. North and Grey, 177. Philipson, ...., 13 7. ,, William, ,, ,, 178. Pilgrimage of Grace, 26. Northampton, borough, 232, 235, 236. Pinder or Pounder, Richard, Ped. N. ,, Compton, Earl of, 75. ,, Thomasine (Wentworth ,'~), Ped. N. ,, Parr, Marquis of, 39, 45. Pinkie, battle of, 37. Northumberland, Earl and Duke of, 38, Pithie Exhortation to He1· Mafestie, by 39. 167. [161. Peter Wentworth, 238-240. Nortoft, 35, 147, li50, Ped. between 160, Plunkett, Lady Amelia, 1 79. N ortofts, 154. Poley, Anne (Wentworth S), Ped. N. Norton. Mr., 288. ,, .fohn, Ped. N. rG0, 62. Nottingham Castle, 73, 78, 79. Pope, Anne (Hopton), Countess of Downe, Nugent, Anne (Craggs), 179, 186, 188. ,, Sir William, Earl of Downe, 60, 62. Edmund, 180. [ of. Portraits of Wentworth family, reference ,, Mary, ·v. Buckingham, Marchioness to, 18, 3,,, oO, 52, 84,102, 113, 23l!. ,. Robert, Earl, 179, 188, 18H. ,, at citowe, ISS. Portsmouth, 89. OJfice and Dnty of Executors, by Thomas Poynton manor, family, and quartering, Wentworth, 2fi6. 7, 23, o+, 2i57-259. Oldenburgh, Duke of, 9-l. Pride ·s Purge, 2R2. Onslow. Hon Edward M., 29-l. Puckering, Lord Keeper, 23/l. Orange, Maurice, Prince of, 63, 64. P.:irston, 292. ,, William, Prince of, !06. Pye, Sir Edmnnd, .Ped. N. Orchester (?) Irchester, 216, 218. ,, Margery, v. Lovelace. Ormond, Duke of, 95. Oxford, 73, 265-267. Quainford, Wentworth alia.~, Sir John, ,, University, 265-268, 273. 304. ,, Earl of, 15, 26, 28, 48, 64, 65, 147, Qneenborough Castle, 15. 171, 17+. Queens' College, Cambridge, 4, 6. Overbury, Sir Thomas, 170. Oyry, family and arms, 258, 259. Reynolds, General, 97. Rich, Anne (Wentworth0.), 1,. Maltravers. Page, Margery (Wentworth ,1':), Ped. N. ,, Sir Hugh, 160, 161, 192. ,, William, Ped. N. ,, 'Lord, 156, 160, I 63. Palatinate, 64, 171, 174, 271. Ripon, 69. Palmer, Sir Thomas, 39. Ripton Abbots, 254, 260. Paris, 92, 94. Rochelle, La, 6.'i. ,, Matthew, quoted, ll8, 119. Roden, Earls of, 219. ,, quartering, 55. Rolfe, Editha, 147, Ped. between Hi0, 161. Parker, Archhishop, 221, 228. ,, Thomas, 14 7, 155, Hi8, 190, I 91. ,, Anne (Wentworth B.), Ped. B. ,, quartering, 55, 147, 150. ,, Roger, Ped. B. Roos, John, Lord, 3. [53. Parliament, 70-73, 166, 219-238, 246-249, ,, Margery (Despenser), Lady, 1-7, 13, 251-253. 266-272, 279-285. ,. [Thomasj, Lord, 12. Parr, Queen Katharine, 212, 242. Rown,ey, Elizabeth, v. Noel. ,, Marquis of Northamp., 39, 45, 212. ,, Thomas, Ped. N. Maud, 2-!2. Rump Parliament, 282. ,, Sir Thomas, 212. Roydon, Margaret, v. Wentworth N. Paston Letters, quoted, 9, 10. Russell, Sir William, 278. Pedigrees, v. List of, xv. Rye House Plot, l 06. Peivre, Sir Paulin, family and tombs, 118-121, 131. St. Albans, battles of, 9, 11. Pelham, Sir William, 168. St. Germains, 91. Pennington, .... , Ped. N. i:lt. John, of Bletsho, Lord, 241, 260. Pensioners, Guard of, 80, 81. St. Lawrence, Christopher, Lord Howth, Perche, Earls of, 118. 200, 201. Perrers. Alicia, '· Lady of the Sun," 208. ,, Elizabeth (Wentworth 0.), 200. 201. Petersfield, 275. St. Quentin, siege of, 41, 42. · Petre, William, 16G. i:lalmasius [Claude], 288. Philibert, Duke of Savoy, 41. Sandys, Lord, 59. 312 INDEX.

Sandys, Mr., 221. Strickland, Walter, 241, 2lii8. Sarjent, Elizabeth, 291. ,, Sir William, 288. [148. Saunders, Anthony, D.D., Ped. L. Suffolk, Duke of, 15, 22-25, 38, 39, 48, 63, ,, Margaret (Wentworth L.), Ped. L. Surrey, Earl of, 15, 16. Saville, Dorothy (Wentworth N.), Ped. N. Sussex, Earl of, 39. ,, Sir John, Ped. N. Swann, ..... , 288. Saxham Parva, 63. Swinfen, Francis, 291. Saye, Anne, v. Wentworth N. ,, John, 288. ,, Sir John, 17, Ped. N. Swinford, quartering, 258, 259. Scarsdale, Nathaniel Curzon, Lord, 114. Swynburne, 147, 149, 150, Ped. between Scilly Islands, 91. 160 and 161. Scrope, Henry, Lord, of Masham, 3. Symonds, Richard, 159, 161, 191. ,, Thomas, ,, 17. ,, Elizabeth, Lady, 17. Tamworth, borough, 279. Sedgmoor, 110. Tankerville, Ford Grey, Earl of, 177. Seymour. Edward, Duke of Somerset, Taunton, 108, 109. 36-38, 167. Terrington Howards, and St. John, 155. ,, Edward, Earl of Hertford, 157. Theobalds, 49, 50. ,, Queen Jane, 17, Ped. N. Throckmorton, Sir William, 100. ,, Sir John, 17, Ped. N. Tibetot or Tiptoft, 2, 54, 55, 150, 259. ,, Katharine, i•. Grey. Timperley, Agnes (Wentworth 0.), 199. ,, Margery (Wentworth N.), 17. ,, Joan (Fitz Simon), 19_9. ., Thomas, Lord, ,, Mary (Wentworth 0.), 199, Sharpe, Joan, v. Cotton. ,, Robert, 146, 198, 199. Shaw, Edmund, Ped. G. ,, Thomas, 198, 199. ,, Lora (Wentworth 0.), Ped. G. Tobacco smoking, 82, 93. [112. Ship-money, 277. Toddington, 34, 62, 67, 81, 86, 104-106, Shoebury,North, 146,198,214. ,, Transmission of estate, 115-118. Shordich, Jane, v. Wentworth G. ,, Manor and Place, 118-130. ,, Richard, Ped. G. ,, Church, 131-137. Silesden, Anne (Wentworth S.), Ped. S. Tollemache, Dorothy (Wentworth N.), ,, Thomas, Ped. S. Ped. N. Smithson, Anne, v. Johnson. ,, Lionel, 156, Ped. N. ,, Hugh, Ped. N. Torrington, 91. Snell, Edward, 137. Towcester, 213, 216, 217. Somerset, Duke of, 36-38, 167. Tower of London, 45, 76-80, 92, 120, Soulbury, 254. 157, 230-244. Southampton, Earl of, 65. Towton, battle of, 11. Southwell, Dorothy, v. Higgins, Went­ Tregony, borough, 221. worth 0., and Moore. Truro, 91. ,, Sir Richard, 165. Turenne, General, 96. Spanish Armada, 235. Tyldsley, Helen (Agmondesham), v. Spencer, arms, 257. Wentworth L. ,, Lady Catherine (Wentworth N.), ,, William, 245, 249, 256, 83, 176. Tyler, William, 211. ,, William, 83, 176. Tyrrell, Anne, v. Wentworth N. Spurs, battle of, 20. ,, ,, v. Wentworth G. Stepney, 30, 60, 61, 67, 81, 86, 101. ,, Edward,217. [and161. ,, Church, 51. ,, Humphrey, 147, Ped. between 160 Stambridge, Great, 214. ,, Sir James, 22. Stonor, family, 32, 33, 55. ,, quartering, 55, 149, 150. Stow or Stowe, 180,216,217,245. [137. Strafford, Anne (Campbell), Countess of, Untun, Cecilia, v. Wentworth 0. ,, Anne (Johnson), Countess of, 116, ,, Sir Edward, 167. 137. [279. Upcher, Anne (Wentworth B.), Ped. B. ,, Thomas, Earl of, 70-72, 89,271,274, ,, Richard, Ped. B. ,, 3rd Earl of, 116, 137. ,, William, 2nd ,, 291. Vane, Sir Henry, 261, 282. ,, ,, 4th ,, 116, 125-127, Vernon, Henrietta (Wentworth Y.), 117, 136, 137. ,, Henry, 117. ,, Byng, Earl of, Ped. N. ,, Leveson, 117. INDEX. 313

Vernon-Wentworth, 35, 52, Ped. N. Wentworth (N.), Catherine (Finch), 175, Vyse, Richard Wm. Howard, 117. 201. UV:), Cecily, v. Wingfield. Wakefield, battle of, 1 I. ( G. ), Cecilia, v. Mitchell. Waldegrave, Margery (Wentworth G.), ,, ,, (Unton), 167,200. Ped. li. ( G.), Cecilia, v. Finch. ,, Sir William, Ped. G. " ,, ,, 1.,1. Grey. Wales, Arthur, Prince of, 148. (L.), Clara, v. Boys. ,, Charles (I.), Prince of, 173. (N.), Dorothy, ~'. Broughton. ,, Charles (IL), Prince of, 89-91, 282. " ,, v. Tollemache. ,, Henry, Prince of, 63, 169, 170. ,, ,, v. Withypoole, Walker, Major, 137. Frobisher, and Saville. Waller, Sir William, 74, 75. ( G.), Dorothy (Southwell), Walpole, Horace, 186, 189. 165, 201. Walsingham, Elizabeth,'"· Wen.tworth L., (L.), Dorothy (Keble), 273. and Gate or Gates. " (N.), Edward, Ped. N. ,, Sir Francis, 50, 59. 242. (B.), ,, Ped. B. Warner, Edward, Ped G. (l"V:), Elizabeth, v. Calthorpe. ,, Mary (Wentworth G.), Ped. G. " (Nevill), i:,ady Warwick, Earl of, 10, 11, 38. Scrope:' 17. Welbore, John, 291, Ped. L. (N), Elizabeth, v. Darcy, ,, widow, 291. " Wyndham, and Bourchier. Welles, Mr., 288. (N.), Eliz::,beth (Glemham), Wendy, Francis, 264. Ped.N. ,, Thomas, 263. (11~), Elizb. (Corbet), Ped. N. ,, Thomasina, v. Wentworth L. " v. Cocke and Wentworth ( G.), Alblaster, Ped. G. " Matth~~­ (N.), Agnes, v. Constable. (1Y.), Elizb., (Cecil), 49, 50. ,, ( G.) ,, (Hamond), 51 " 'V. Hynde. [199. note, 55, 151, 200. " (0.), ,, (Howard), 145, ( G. ), Agnes, v. Timperley. [B. " ,, ,, i·. Allington, " (B.), Alice (Buckford), Ped. " Cheyne, and Chamberlain. " ( G.), Anastacy (Hale), 201. ( G.), Elizb. (Haydon), 164, " (11~),Anne (Saye), 17, Ped. N. " 200. " ,, ,, (Tyrrell), 22, ,, ,, ( G.), Elizb., v. St. Lawrence ,, ( G. & N.) ,, (Wentworth), and Newcomen. Lady, 51, 55. (B.), Elizb. (Capel), Ped. B. (l"V:), Anne, v. Poley. ",, (Eden), " ,, ,, (Crofts), Coun­ (Barker), tess of Cleveland, 63, 83, 137. " v. Ayloffe, (N.), Anne (Hopton), Lady, " ,, t•. Daicy, ,, " 60, 62. " cs.J, ,, (Bendlowes), Ped. S. (l1~), Anne, v. Lovelace. " (L.), ,, (Walsingham), 242. " (Y.), ,, (Johnson), Coun­ " v. Woodford. " tess of Strafford, 116. ,, ,, v. Wendy. (Y.), Anne, v. Conolly. (L.), Francis, 218, 246. " ( G.), ,, (Tyrrell), 146. ( Y.), Sir George, 72, 286. ,, ,, (Bettenham), 153, (B.), Guicciardine, Ped. B. " 159. " (L.), Helen (Agmondesham), ( G.), ,, i·. Rich and Mal­ 241, 245, 246, 256, 260. " travers, Lady. (217.), Henrietta Maria, Bar­ ( G.), Anne, v. Gostwick. " oness, 102-113, 135, 137. " (B.), ,, v. Capel. ( Y), Henrietta, v. Vernon. " ,, ,, v. Huish. ,," (N.), Sir Henry, 5, 13-18, 56. " ,, ,, v. Parkerand Up- ,, Henry of Blakenham, " cher. " Ped. N. [Ped. N. (S.). ,, "· Silesden and (N.), Henry, Major-General, " Mannoc;k. [B. " (N.), Henry, 3rd Lord, 51, (B.), Bridget (Maxey), Ped. " 57-61. ,, Camilla (Ayloffe), ,, (G.), Henry,of CodhamHall, ",, (N.), Catherine, v. Spencer. 4, 7, 145, 146. s s 314 INDEX.

Wentworth (G.), Henry, of Mountnes­ Wentworth (L.), Mary (Hampden), 265. sing, 51, 55,150,164,200. ,, Sir Nicholas, 206, 213- (G.), Henry, of Tendring, 219. Ped. G. (L.), Nicholas, 263-265. ( G.), Henry, Counsellor at ,, Paul, M.P., 218, 236, Law, 201, Ped. G. 244-263. (S.), Henry,1 of Bumpstead­ " (L.), Paul, jr., 261, 262. Steeple, Ped. S. ,, Paul, 28!!. (L.), Henry, of Lillingstone- ( G.), Peter, clerk, 151, Lovell, 218, 243, 262. (L.), Peter, M.P., 217-244. (l(), Jane, 1,. Finet. " jr., 260, 262. ( G.), ,, (Alblaster), Ped. G. " ,, D.D., 273-276. (L.), ,, (Jocelyn), 200, 216, ,, Sir Peter, M.P., 72, 276- 2HJ, 249, 256. [S. " 289. (S.), Jane (Shordich), Ped. (N.), Philadelphia, Lady, 99- (G.), Joan(FitzSimon), 146, " 105, 127, 135, 137. 198, 213, 214, 217. (N.), Sir Philip, 4, 7, 8-12, 56. ( G.), Sir John, 153-160, 163, " Philip, of Ipswich, 56. 182, 190, 192. Sir Richard, 18-24, 56. ( G.), John, 164-165, 200. " Richard, Ped. N. ,, 166-168, 200. ,, ,, Roger, 1-7, 56. ,, Sir John, Bart., 64, ( G.), Sir Roger, 146-152. " 168-176. [B. (B.), Roger, of Bocking, 151, (B.), John, of Bocking, Ped. Ped. B. . . (S.), John, of Bumpstead, (L.), Samuel, Ped. L. 152, Ped. S. [Ped. L. " ,, Susanna, v. Wilcox. c1liqs Quainford, Sir John, " ,, Susanna (Wigston), " John, of Chicago, LL.D., 198. " 263. ,, (L.), Letitia (Lane), 242. (L.), Sybil, v. Dilke. (G.&N.),Lucy (Wentworth G.), " (N.), Thomas, priest, 6, 7. Countess of Cleveland, 83, " ,, Thomas, 1st Lord,24-35, 137, 175. " ,, Thomas, 2nd Lord, (1"¥.), Margaret, v. Cotton. " 35-53. " ,, ,, 1,•. Hopton. (.LY.), Thomas, Earl of Cleve­ " (Fortescue), land, 61-84, 92, 99, 122, 133, Lady, 32'. [Ped. N. 135, 137. (.LY.), Margaret (Roydon), (N:), Thomas, Lord, Colonel ,, ,, v. v\T illiams, " of the Guards, 67, 73, 82-102, " Drury, and Croft. 133, 135, 137. " ( G.). Margaret, 1,. Ashfield (Y.), Thomas, 1st Earl of and Wingfield. " Strafford, 70, 72, 271, 27 4, " ( G.), Margaret, t'. Berney. 279. (L.), v. Saunders. (Y.), Thomas, 3rd Earl of " ,, ,, (Wentworth " Strafford; 116, 137, 291. " ·al'ic1s Quainford), Ped. L. (L.), Thomas, Recorder of " (.LY.), Margery (Despenser), " Oxford, 264-273. Lady Roos, 1-7, 13, 53. (L.), Thomas, of Lincoln's " ()\':), Margery, v. Seymour. " Inn, 273. ,, ,, v. Glemham. (L.), Thomasina (Wendy), " ,, ,, v. Page, " 263. " (G.), ,, t'- Waldegrave. (L.), Walter, 260, 264, 265. " (.LY.), Lady Maria, 133, 137. " (N.), William, 49, 50. ,, Mary (Clifford), 12, " (L.), ,, 260, 261. " Ped. N. " (Y.), Sir William, of Ashby " (.LY.), Mary, v. Cavendish. " Puerorum, 286, 290. ,, ( G. &.LY.), ,, Lad;r, 51, 55, l 60. (Y.), Sir William, of Wake­ ,, (G.), ,, v. T1mperley. " field, 290-292. ,, ,, v. Cardinali. (Y.), William, 2nd Earl of ,, v. Warner and Gee. Strafford, 291. " (L.), v. Barowes. (Y.), William. 4th Earl of " ,, _1'- Boys. " Strafford, 116, 125-127, 137. " INDEX. 315

Wentworth ( Y.), family of Stainborough Wigston, Roger, Ped. L. or Wentworth Castle, 115, ,, Susanna, v. Wentworth L. 125. Wilcox, Rowland, 292, 293. (N.), arms, 23, 35, 53, 55. ,, Susanna (Wentworth L.), 292,293. ( G.), 149, 150, 159. Wilde, Dr., 288. ( L. ), ,, 256-259. Wilford, Agnes (Hamond), 51, 151, 200. (.'17:), crest, 23, 24, 35, 53. ,, William, 51, 151, 200. (G.), ,, v. Plate facing Wilkinson, Dr. Henry, 288. 160. Williams, John, Lord, Ped. N. [Ped. N. (L.), ,, 256. ,, Margaret, Lady (Wentworth N.), (,Y.), motto, 24, 52, 54. Willoughby, Elizabeth, 288. ",, (N.), estates, 6, 22, 30, 60, 86. ,, Lord, 65. ( G.), 154, 163. [264.. Wilmot, Lord, 7 4. (L.), ,, 215, 244, 254, Winchilsea, Finch, Earl of, 168, 175. (1Y.), tombs, 133, 136. [191. Wingfield, Sir Anthony, 38. ( G.), 149, 159, 160, ,, Cecily (Wentworth 1Y.), Ped. N. (L.), ,, 255. ,, Edmund, Ped. G. (iY.), vault, 133, 136, 137. ,, Sir John, ,, al'ias Creswell, v. Creswell. ,, Margaret (Wentworth G.), Ped. G. Barony, succession to, 113- ,. Rir Robert, Ped. N. 115. Winwood, Sir Ralph, 269. [Ped. N. Baroness, Anne, v. Lovelace. Withypoole, Dorothy (Wentworth N.), ,, Martha, v. Johnson. ,, Paul, Ped. N. Baron, Sir Ed ward Noel, 114. Wolsey, Cardinal, 153. [292. ,, Sir Thomas Noel, Walston, manor, 263, 264, 276-279, 290, Ped. N. [114. Wood, Anthony, Athenm Oxonwnses, 2fi5- Baroness, Anne, Lady Byron, 267, 272-275. Baron, Byron King-Noel, Wood-carving, 129, 186-188. [260. Ped. N. . Woodford, Elizabeth (Wentworth L.), ,, Baron, Ralph Milbanke, 114. ,, Robert, Ped. L. Westhall, manor, 198, 214, 215. Worcester, battle of, 78, 79, 92, 93. Westminster Abbey, ,n, 32, 56. ,, Earl of, 20. Weston, Richard, 171. Wroxton, Oxon, 62, 63. ,, manor, 63. Wychwood Forest, 210,211. [N. Weston Zoyland, 110. Wyndham, Elizb. (Wentworth 1Y.), Ped. Wethersfield, 153,151,172,176. ,, Sir Thomas, of Felbrigg, Ped. N. ,, Church, 146, 149. Whalley, Peter, 291. York, Duke of, 8-11, 14, 96-99, Whitlock, Anne, t·. Noel. Yoxford, 157, 158. ,, Sir William, Ped. N. Whittlewood Forest, 210, 285. Zouch, Lord, 231.

London: Mitchell and Hughes, Printers, 140 Wardour Street, W.