gratified her aged eyes by at least a rough sketch of his eulogy, which described her as:

"She that in her younger years

Matched with two great English peers;
She that did supply the wars

With thunder, and the court with stars."

A sugared definition which, for once, was true. Her existing descendants number, through her son, the second Earl of Essex, the Dukes of Buccleuch and Buckingham, the Marquises of Aylesbury and Townshend, the Earls of Cardigan and Ferrers. Penelope's harvest of titles gives the names of the Duchies of Montrose and Manchester, the Marquisate of Anglesey, the Earldoms of Galloway, de Grey, Ripon, the Barony of Kensington. The name of Penelope's only sister, the hot-tempered Dorothy Percy, trails an even more brilliant array of titles the Dukedoms of Somerset, St. Albans, Devonshire, Marlborough, Newcastle, Northumberland; the Earldoms of Ashburnham, Fitzwilliam, Egremont, Spencer, Beverley, Carnarvon, Bessborough, Romney, Ducie; the viscounty of Strangford; the baronies of Churchill and de L'Isle.

It must be noted that with Charles Blount's death the Earldom of Devonshire lapsed, since it could not be conferred on the illegitimate heir to his substance. It would certainly have been a master stroke, and have crowned the triumph of Robert Rich, if the title, now wrested from the Blounts, had been conferred on him in place of the much-desired Earldom of Clare. But this would certainly have raised a storm and made a very bad impression on society. The prize fell instead to William Cavendish, Bess of Hardwick's favourite son.

And so farewell to Penelope and her people, to the lady of the honey-coloured hair, the flashing black eyes,

Let this remaining

the skin of cream and carmine. fragment of her chief lover's elegy at the pompous hands of Samuel Daniel bring gentleness to criticism, even as it tendered her, in the last months of her life, dignity and consolation; for it lifts at last the love of this man and woman beyond contempt:

and

"Summon Detraction to object the worst
That may be told, and utter all it can;
It cannot find a blemish to be enforced
Against him, other than he was man,

And built of flesh and blood, and did live here
Within the region of infirmity,

Where all perfections never did appear
To meet in anyone so really

But that his frailty ever did bewray
Unto the world that he was set in clay.
And gratitude and charity, I know,

Will keep no note, nor memory will have

Of aught but of his worthy virtues now,

Which still will live; the rest lies in his grave."

As also in hers. But it is impossible to imagine her beauty shut under heavy sods. It escapes from them pursues the eyes of the mind continually. For me she walks ever in a rose-garlanded pleasaunce at noon, a rustling, laughing, fragrant presence, eternally youngrich in every detail, as the punsters assured her. What need of a painted canvas taken from the life, when we have Sidney's whole gallery of portraits stained with colours as rich and strong as those of the Paul Veronese whom he met, and in whom he delighted before his travelling days were done?

APPENDIX

BIRCH MS. 4149-ECCLESIASTICAL CAUSES

A DISCOURSE of marriage written by the Earl of

Devonshire in defence of his marriage with the

Lady Rich, written in Anno 1605.

As God in himself and of himself is infinite in his being, so he is in his attributes, his wisdom, his power and his goodness, out of which goodness (the nature whereof is to communicate itself with others) as it pleased him by his wisdom and power to create the world for man and both for his glory, so was it answerable to the same, to direct and make his own works to the two ends for which it was created, whereof having created man with a purpose in him and in his posterity to be served, as in his wisdom he saw that it was not good, for that end, that man should be alone, so did he create him an assistant or helper, like unto himself, which was the woman, and to them both he prescribed a rule, how in the vocation to the which he had called them they should best serve him. The law of God, though in itself it be eternal and like unto himself in purity, who is infinitely pure, yet whatsoever doth want, doth in some sort work according to the capacity of that wherein it doth want, and therefore where we are to consider what is lawful, we are not to search into the absolute will of God, which is infinite and infinitely pure, but to be directed by so much of his will as he hath pleased to reveal unto us, the which he hath sufficiently done unto us in his word, and in those impressions of nature, which, although by our fall they are

blotted, yet are they not utterly defaced in us, which impressions of nature, although they be not sufficient to lead us to one true end, yet in them is there nothing contrary to the word of God, nor in the word of God is there nothing contrary to them.

So as to be resolved of the nature of the bond of marriage and of the mutual duties incident thereunto, because it is both a sacred and civil contract, we must have recourse especially to the word of God, the law of nature, and so much of the law of the country, wherein we live, as is not contrary to the word of God or the law of nature; for human laws in things that are otherwise indifferent do impose a duty in conscience to observe them. But if they be contrary to the word of God or law of nature, we are bound with patience to suffer the penalty, but not in conscience to obey the law. But in case of marriage, at the least concerning the lawfulness thereof, it seemeth here in England that Jus Poli and Jus Fori are all one, for by a statute in 33 of H. 8, which remaineth still in force, all marriages (are) pronounced lawful, that are contracted between lawful persons and by the same act all persons are pronounced lawful that be not prohibited by God's law to marry notwithstanding any statute or act to the contrary. In the question therefore whether it be lawful for two between whom a marriage was lawfully contracted and consummated, after a sentence of divorce to marry with another, both parties, between whom the first marriage was, being then alive, it is only necessary to see whether by the word of God it be prohibited to marry as this case standeth, for otherwise the marriage is lawful.

In which consideration is nothing to be alleged but the word of God, although the laws of nature, nations and the judgments of the learned men may be considered towards the interpretation of so much of the word of God as shall be produced to the purpose. To determine this matter it is first fit to be handled,

Y

Το

whether a marriage lawfully contracted and consummated may be by any means utterly dissolved and the bonds untied during the lives of both the parties, which were first married. Now, since therein we are to be resolved by the word of God Christ who is the living word and the word of life doth such (sic) direct us, where we must begin, and that is in the beginning and first institution of marriage, where he saith "But from the beginning it was not so." The first institution was by God in Paradise and between the first man and the first woman in the state of perfection. The final end was (because it was not good for man to be alone) that he might have a help fit for him. The efficient cause was the consent of both parties, wherein it is said, when God had made the woman, and brought her to the man he said, "This now is bone of thy bones and flesh of thy flesh." The matter and essence of marriage is the faster adhering which is expressed in these words: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh."

The rule of marriage out of this instruction is concluded by the word and wisdom of God to be this: "Let no man therefore put asunder, whom God hath coupled together." There is no doubt but the Contract de Jure ought never to be broken, and that their offence is heinous and not to be excused that do break it, but the question is whether de facto it may be broken, because the rule is: "Let no man put asunder, whom God hath coupled together." We may as well conclude that no man may kill, because the rule is thou shalt not kill, in which case as the magistrate may both kill an offender and justly kill him, yet is it not to be said that he but Justice killeth him and the offender is guilty of his own death and not the magistrate. So, if two that are married shall, contrary to the ends and causes of marriage, instead of comfortable helps, become continual torments unto each other, instead of mutual consent do live in continual and unconsionable contention, and instead of being one