THE VILLIERS.—(THEIR RISE.)
WE are among a new race at last, a family who though aristocrats pur sang have that originality which it is the curse of aristocracies to lack. Pedigree does not destroy character, or character would not be so bizarre among Jews and Kings, but great property seems to steady its possessors too much, to indis- pose them too entirely towards experiments in life. There is no family in our long list with which we can compare the Villiers, for the light-hearted, light-principled Poitevins and Gaston who were the favourites of the Plantagenets, and who were not exactly the people the morose Norman nobles and their priests have chosen to depict them, founded nothing. They resemble rather some families in France, say the Richelieus, in which many and great capacities were wasted for want of some great idea, some governing habit or thought. Squires of some degree for ages, the Villiers suddenly emerged as courtiers, favourites, conspicupus statesmen, and as such they have remained, never obscure, never belonging to the class Englishmen regard with pride, but marked for generations by their accomplishments, their profligacy, and a certain profuseness of expenditure. They have had half a dozen peerages, but the very memory of the Lords of Purbeck, and Coventry, and Daven- try has disappeared, and they have now but two, one of which, however, seats two brothers in the Cabinet. Their pedigree is a good one, being traceable fairly up to Henry III., perhaps to the first Plantagenet. Their name occurs in documents of the time of the Conqueror, but there is nothing to connect this family in lineal descent with its possessors. The family claim to belong to the race of Villiers in Normandy, from which sprang Pierre de Villiers, Grand Master in the reign of Charles VI., and Jacques de Villiers, Provost of Paris and Mareschal of France, in the same period, and they may be so descended, but there is no proof of the fact. The first man of any mark undoubtedly belonging to their line is ALEXANDER DE VILLia.s.s, who in 1235 paid one mark for half a knight's fee, which he held under the Countess of Chester in BROOKSBY, Leicestershire, towards the marriage of the King's sister. His eldest son, who succedeed him at Brooksby, and at Rigsby, in Lincolnshire, was Sir Richard, who fought with Edward I. in the Holy Land, and assumed with reference thereto the Cross of St. George and five escal- lop shells as his arms, which are the present Jersey arms. His grandson, Sir Francis de Villiers, was with Edward III. in his wars, and is styled by him after his death " of cherished memory." His brother Geoffrey, who continued the line at Brooksby, was one of the Knights of the Shire for the county of Leicester in the 26th of Edward III. In the reign of Henry VII. Sir John Villiers of Brooksby fought with great bravery at the battle of Stoke against the Earl of Lincoln and Lambert Simnel, and in the 6th of that reign was esquire for the body to the King. He was Sheriff of Lincolnshire and Warwickshire, and made a Knight of the Bath at the marriage of Prince Arthur in 1501, and died in 1506. His eldest son, Sir John, who served as Sheriff for Leicester- shire and Warwickshire in Henry v.m.'s reign, settled the manors of Brooksby, Howby, and Siwolby on himself in tail male, and in default on his brothers in succession. His Lincolnshire property he left to his daughter. He died in December, 1544. His next brother, George, died in August, 1546, possessed of the above entailed property and of the manor of Burstal. He left a son, who died unmarried in 1558, and a daughter who died without issue, so that Thomas, the third brother, succeeded in the family property, who leaving only a daughter, the entailed property came to William Villiers, his brother, who married the heiress of Richard Clarke, of Bucks. He died in November, 1558, and by the inquisi- tion taken after his death it appears he died possessed of Brooksby, Howby, and 40 messuages, 20 cottages, 20 toffs, 2 water-mills, 1,000 acres of land, 500 of meadow, 2,000 of pasture and other lands, &c., in Brooksby, Howby, and Siwolby, in Leicestershire, with the advowson of the churches of Brooksby and Howby, left by his father, and entailed as before said, and, under the settlement of his uncle Christopher, the manors of Kelby and Great Bowden, and lands in Harborough. His son and heir, Sir George Villiers, was Sheriff of Leicester- shire in 1591, and was knighted. He died January 4, 1606, having married first Audrey, daughter and heiress of William Sanders, of Harrington, in Northamptonshire, by whom he had three daughters and two sons, Sir William Villiers, and Sir Edward Villiers, President of Munster, and ancestor of the Viscounts Grandison and of the Earls of Jersey and Claren- don. The second wife of Sir George Villiers was Al ary, daughter of Anthony Beaumont, of Glenfield, Leicestershire, a lady of good family, but who being without means had been brought up in a dependent position in the family of a wealthy branch of the Beau- mont& She afterwards was created Countess of Buckingham, and died in April, 1632. By her Sir George Villiers left a daughter, Susan, married to William Feilding, Earl of Denbigh—ancestor of the present Earl—and three sons, John, created Baron Villiers of Stoke and Viscount Purbeck, June 19, 1619 ; George, the cele- brated Duke of Buckingham ; and Christopher, who on Septem- ber 24, 1623, was created Baron of Daventry and Earl of Angle- sea, and whose son, Charles, second Earl of Anglesea, died without issue in 1659.
It will be most convenient to dispose first of those branches of the family of Sir George Villiers which have died out. Sir George left his principal property in Leicestershire to his first wife and her issue, and the tithes of Cadewell and Wikeham in the same county to his sons by his second wife and their heirs male, with remainder to his own right heirs. His eldest son by the first mar- riage, Sir William Villiers, who succeeded him at Brooksby, was Sheriff of Leicestershire in the 6th James I., and was created a Baronet July 19, 1619. His baronetcy became extinct on the death of his grandson, Sir William Villiers, Bart., February 27, 1711, who had sold Brooksby to Sir Nathan Wright, the rest of his property passing to his two nieces. The history of the branch of John Villiers, eldest son of the second marriage of Sir George, and elder full-brother of the Duke of Buckingham, is remark- able in the extreme. This John, we have said, was created Viscount Purbeck. He was twice married ; first to Frances, daughter of Sir Edward Coke, by his second wife, Lady Hat- ton ; and secondly, to a daughter of Sir Thomas Slingsby, of Yorkshire. His first wife was accused of adultery with Sir Robert Howard, and being separated from her husband, gave birth to a son (in 1624) at Somerset House, who bore at first the name of Robert Wright. She was proceeded against for adultery in the High Commission Court, as well as Sir Robert Howard. Laud pronounced sentence against both, and ordered the lady to perform public penance, to avoid which she concealed herself. In 1640 Sir Robert Howard obtained a judgment of 5001. against Laud for his sentence on him. There can be no doubt the whole matter had assumed a public character, in which the Villiers' interest was promoted by the Court against the popular Sir Edward Coke's daughter. Lady Purbeck was cast off by her
husband, but was never divorced, and her son, consequently, being born in wedlock, remained legally legitimate. This Robert was a man of strange unsettled ideas, brought up as a Roman Catholic, and, while still under age, entering the Royal army in the com- mencement of the Civil Wars, had for his gallantry the com- mand of a regiment of dragoons given to him. But in 1645 he abandoned that cause, came in to the Parliament quarters, and obtaining a certificate as to his religious faith from Mr. Mar- shall, the Minister, professed strong anti-Royalist sentiments, extending to republicanism. He married, in November, 1648, Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of Sir John Danvers, brother of Henry, Earl of Denby (of that family), one of the High Commis- sion Court on Charles I., and Robert Villiers himself publicly applauded the execution of the King. He professed the greatest hatred to the family of the Villiers, and took the name of Danvers instead. He seems, however, never to have quite cleared up his position either as to politics or religion, and when he obtained a seat in Richard Cromwell's Parliament of 1659 for Westbury, in Wilts (as was alleged, by gross bribery and tricking), a petition was presented against his sitting in the House on the ground of his being a Papist and a Cavalier. In the investigation before the House which ensued he equivocated and contradicted himself and the proved facts so grossly that he was expelled. Ludlow says this was done by the " Court " party to revenge the similar ex- pulsion of one of the Republican party. The first Lord Purbeck, his nominal father, died in 1657 ; but Robert Danvers refused to assume the title, and destroyed the enrolment of the patent of peerage. In 1660, when he was called to his place as a peer, he denied the peerage, and said the King had given him leave to levy a fine of it. But in 1678 the Lords, after argument of the case, declared the surrender illegal. He retired first to his estate of Siluria, in the parish of Knighton, Radnorshire, and afterwards to France, to avoid his creditors, and died at Calais in 1675. He left two sons, Robert and Edward. Robert, third Viscount Purbeck, laid claim to the title of Earl of Buckingham (but the patent to his great- grandmother was only for life), and married Margaret, widow of Lord Mu-sherry, and daughter of the Earl of Clanriearde, with whom he obtained the estates of Tunbridge and Somerhill, in Kent,—but he wasted all his property, a family habit for generations, and retiring abroad to avoid his creditors, was killed in a duel at Liege in 1684. He left a son John, who was educated at Eton, fell into debauchery in that place, and associated with gamblers. He cohabited early in life with Frances, the widow of Mr. Heneage, of the well-known Lincolnshire family of that name, and afterwards married her for her large jointure, having spent his own fortune entirely on her. He petitioned the King in 1720 for the Earldom of Buckingham, but died in 1723, leaving only two daughters, who had followed their mother's example and fallen into the lowest grades of profli- gacy. One of them died in 1786 in an obscure lodging in London. Edward Villiers, second son of Robert Danvers, entered the army and obtained a company of foot. He married respectably and died in 1691, leaving a son George, educated at Westminster School and Christchurch, who went into the Church, claimed the Earldom of Buckingham, the will o' the wisp of his race, unsuc- cessfully, and left a son George, who died without issue in 1774, another son, who died single, and a daughter who married Dr. John Lewis, Dean of Ossory, and their son assumed the name of We now come to George Villiers, second son of Sir George Villiers, of Brooksby, and the celebrated favourite of James I. and Charles I., who built the fortunes of all his brothers. We need do little more than refer to the leading points in his career, as his life forms a part of our national history, and as such is familiar to every one. He was born at Brooksby, August 28, 1592, and lost his father when he was between thirteen and fourteen years of age. His mother being then left with a small jointure, and three sons and a daughter to support out of the comparatively slender pro- vision made for them by their father—the family estates passing to the sons by the former marriage—resolved to prepare her second and favourite son George for a career at Court, and accordingly, while neglecting altogether all regular solid education for him, took care that he should be trained in all the brilliant and showy accom- plishments of the day, both mental and bodily. She then sent him to complete this sort of education in foreign travel. On his return from abroad—with 501. a year as his sole provision in life—le started on his eventful career. In the beginning of August, 1614, when he was just completing his twenty-second year, George Villiers first presented himself before the King at Apthorpe. The beauty of his personal appearance was through- out his life the theme of admiration, not only of courtiers but of grave scholars and antiquaries, and the fascination of his manners, at this time remarkable for their modesty as well as grace and courtesy, won all who approached him. No wonder, then, that King James was strongly attracted by him, and there was a large party at Court who were eagerly desirous of putting him forward as a rival to the reigning favourite, Carre, Earl of Somerset. James was getting tired of Caere, who had become gloomy, morose, and insolent since the death of Overbury in the Tower, but he dared not at first throw off the old yoke. He had also an odd and characteristic system of never admitting any one to the place of favourite without the previous assent and application in their favour of the Queen, so that in case of her becoming jealous of them he might be able to retort on her that they were recom- mended by her. It was necessary therefore to gain the Queen, and this was done with some difficulty by Archbishop Abbot, who thought to raise up a Protestant champion in place of the Spanish Carre in the person of young Villiers, little foreseeing he was preparing in so doing his own downfall. At last, after a curious Court intrigue, the cause of Villiers triumphed. He was made Gentleman of the Bedchamber, was knighted, and had a pension given him of 1,0001. a year.
Somerset's fortunes were now rapidly sinking, but James, ever timid,—and much in his old favourite's power as to State, if not other secrets,—is said to have made one attempt at least to try andsoothe Somerset's angry jealousy. He ordered Villiers to wait on his rival, and request him to take him under his protec \ on. " I will none of your service " was the old favourite's reply, " and you shall none of my favour. I will, if I can, break your neck, and of that be confident." But the discovery that Overbury had been murdered by the Countess, if not by the Earl of Somerset, gave the coup de grace to the latter's fortunes, and secured the rising influence of Villiers. On the 3rd January, 1616, he was made Master of the Horse, and supported by Abbot and the anti-Howard party, and encouraged by the sympathy and advice of Bacon, the new favourite was fairly established at Court. On the 27th August, 1616, he was raised to the peerage as Baron Whaddon (in Bucks) and Viscount Villiers. It was at first intended to give him, along with these titles, the castle and estate of Sherborne, in Dorsetshire, forfeited by Somerset's attainder, and worth 32,0001. But Villiers declined this estate, to which clung the old curse of the Bishop of Salisbury, which was popularly said to have brought misfortune or death successively to King Stephen, the Montacutes, the Protector Somerset, Sir Wal- ter Raleigh, Prince Henry, and Carre, Earl of Somerset. On Villiers refusing the fatal gift it was offered to Sir John Digby, afterwards Earl of Bristol, who accepted without scruple, and the troubles which befell him and his son, Lord Digby, are matters of history. Two lines of Digbies, possessors of it, have become extinct, a third has just entered on possession. Villiers benefited by this refusal, for he got instead of Sherborne lands to the value of 80,0001. The great lordship of Whaddon, which had fallen to the Crown on the attainder of Lord Grey de Wilton, formed the principal part of this grant. On January 5, 1617, he was made Earl of Buckingham ; on January 1, 1618, he was further made Marquis of Buckingham ; and on January 30, Lord High Admiral ; and shortly after Chief Justice in Eyre of the forests and parks south of the Trent, Master of the King's Bench Office, High Steward of Westminster, and Constable of Windsor Castle. Buckingham's rise had not been favourably viewed by Prince Charles at first, and the favourite not showing proper ob- servance of him the Prince took a great dislike to him ; but the King succeeded in removing this, and Buckingham soon became the confidant of Charles's youthful excesses, and at length his bosom and inseparable friend, the only one whom Charles ever admitted to that position. As he gained a firmer position with the Prince he began to neglect and browbeat the old King, and his manners acquired a strange mixture and interchange of insolence and rapacity with that inherent good-nature and generosity which were natural to him. His reckless expenditure and gross sensuality soon became notorious, but he still showed generally great frankness in his friendships and enmities, and at times the remains of a more noble spirit. But everything gave way more and more to his increasing greed and selfishness, so that even the frankness of his disposition, with his other finer qualities, became at length obscured by it. His power over Charles became marvellous, and his adroit- ness in managing him shows that he possessed talent enough and cleverness enough if he chose to exercise them. He was naturally very courageous, but he lost by degrees that sense of personal honour and reputation which could alone raise his indifference to danger above a mere physical quality. The Spanish 70- 0,0 00
riage-trip, into which he persuaded the Prince, was one of • self-willed acts, entered on solely for his own personal inter and the indulgence of his own personal vanity, by display- ing himself as the confidant of the heir to the Crown in the face of the Spanish Court and the futare Queen. His quarrel there with the Spanish favourite, and the underhand and deceptive part which he and Charles played both with the Spanish Court and the English nation, are well known. During his absence the King had been persuaded to create him Earl of Coventry and Duke of Buckingham, May 18, 1623, and on his return he was made Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports and Steward of the manor of Hamp- ton Court. But the King had now a secret wish to get rid of him, though he was afraid to take the step, and Buckinghata, supported by Charles, set him at defiance and treated him with gross neglect and indignity. He had formerly secretly joined the Prince in re- commending severe measures against the popular leaders in Parlia- ment, but he now made great promises to them, and set the House of Commons in motion to break the treaties with Spain and bring on a war. In vain the King remonstrated ; he had to give way, and to sacrifice also his minister Middlesex to the vengeance of the Commons and the private resentment of the favourite. When Charles, however, became King all this changed. Buckingham no longer cared to play the game of popularity, and was anxious to get a plea for breaking with the popular leaders, and escaping from the fulfilment of his promises to them. Such a plea he got up by persuading the King to suddenly demand fresh supplies after a subsidy had been voted and graciously accepted. Two Parliaments were thus summoned and dissolved, in the second one Buckingham being himself impeached. Meanwhile he had first offered English ships to the French King to reduce the French Huguenots, and afterwards quarrelling with Richelieu, who resented his making love to the young Queen of France, the Duke brought on a war with that country, and commanded and failed most ignominiously in the Rochelle expedition. The third Parliament which the King and he were then obliged to summon carried the Petition of Rights, and during the recess between its two sessions, on August 23, 1628, the Duke of Buckingham was assassinated by John Felton, an old soldier who had private injuries to resent, but who was animated by the general public hatred of the Duke which had for some time placed his life in imminent jeopardy. Of his public career more need not be said. His private life was most abandoned, even if we refuse credence to the worst reports respecting him, which were cir- culated all the more readily from the bitter hatred borne to him by the people. The single excuse for his life is that he belonged to a race in whom profligacy, expenditure, and insolence rose to a point which betrayed a touch of hereditary insanity, very marked in some of the Duke's proceedings. He married in 1626 Lady Catharine Manners, daughter and heiress of Francis, Earl of Rutland, and by her had one surviving son (another was born after his death) and a daughter, Mary, who by patent, August 31, 1627, had the title of Duchess of Buckingham limited to her in default of issue male of her father. She first married Charles Lord Herbert, son and heir of Philip, Earl of Pembroke and Mont- gomery ; secondly, James Stuart, Duke of Richmond and Lennox ; and thirdly, Thomas Howard, brother of the first Earl of Car- lisle, but she had no children. The sons were George and Francis, the former of whom succeeded as second Duke of Buckingham, and was the well-known companion and minister of Charles H.
Previous page
