they take it to heart, and will require reparation of the wrong, seeking both from

ingenuity in the Duke of Buckingham that satisfied him of his innocency; therefore he had just cause to conceive that this information of theirs proceeded rather from malice, or some political ends, than from truth; and, in regard they would not produce the authors of so dangerous treason, they made themselves to be justly thought the authors of it, and therefore, though he might, by his own Royal justice and the law of nations, punish this excess and insolence of theirs, and high wrong they had done to his best servants, yea, to the Prince his Son, for through the sides of the Duke they wounded him, in regard it was impossible that such a design should be attempted without his privity, yet he would not be his own judge herein, but would refer them to the King their master, whom he conceived to be so just that he doubted not but he would see him satisfied, and therefore he would send an expresse unto him hereabouts to demand justice and reparation. This businesse is now in agitation.”—Like many others of the Epistolæ Ho-elianæ, this letter bears marks of improvement and embellishment at the time of the publication, and this is unequivocally detected in Mr. Secretary Conway being styled Lord, an honour at which he did not arrive until March 1624-5. The facts, however, which it relates, are probably but little inaccurate; since Howel had doubtless notes and a good memory to serve him. Arthur Wilson, in his Life of King James, has copied from Howel's narrative, and he adds that the King, at his next interview with Buckingham after the Jesuit Maestro had been with him, used these remarkable words: "Ah! Steiny, Steiny, wilt thou kill me? The Duke, struck into an astonishment with the expression, after some little pause collected himself, and with many asseverations strove to justify his integrity, which the good King was willing enough to believe."-Bp. Hacket, in his Life of Archbishop Williams, pp. 195–200, gives a very detailed account of the same occurrences. On this some remarks have already been made in p. 961. It commences by quoting a letter of Sir Walter Aston from Madrid to the Duke of Buckingham, in which he says: "The Marquis of Ynojosa hath lately adverticed hyther that he hath severall times desired to have private Audience with his Majestie, and hath not been able to procure any but what your Grace assists att." This letter, which is preserved in Harl. MSS. 1580, is dated Jan. 22, O. S.; and that the fact was notorious in London as long before as Dec. 6, has appeared in Mr. Chamberlain's letter in p. 945. "But," says Hacket, "after the Parliament had sate seven weeks, that Marquess, with Don Carlos de Coloma, came adventurously to Whitehall, and outreached the spies that watched them; for, while Don Carlos held the Prince and Duke with earnest discourse, Inojosa put a paper into the King's hand, and made a sign with a wink of his eye that his Majesty would thrust it into his pocket, which was done and not discerned." After detailing the contents of the paper, Hacket goes on to say that the King complied with the Ambassadors' wishes expressed at the postscript, that he should see their Secretary Don Francisco Carondelet, "which was performed by the Earl of Kelley, who watched a fit season for Francisco at one time, and for Padre Maestro the Jesuit at another; who told their errand so spitefully that the King was much troubled at their relations." This is also confirmed by Mr. Chamberlain in his letter of April 10 (see p. 970). "And no wonder it was," continues the Bishop, that his Majesty "was abused awhile, and dim-sighted with the character of jealousie, for the Parliament was about to land him in a new world, to begin and maintain a war, who thought that scarce any mischief was so great as was worth a war to mend it ;-wherein the Prince did deviate from him, as likewise in affection to the Spanish

Common Lawyers and Civilians, from Sir Robert Cotton and other antiquaries, precedents of what hath or may be done in like cases?."

On the fifth of May, says Archbishop Laud in his Diary, being "Wednesday, Ascension-eve, the King's Speech in the Banquetting-house at Whitehall to the Upper House of Parliament, concerning the hearing of the Lord Treasurer [Middlesex]'s cause, which was to begin the Friday following. This day my Lord Duke of Buckingham came to town with his Majesty sick, and continued ill till Saturday May 22."

On the seventh, the King knighted, at Greenwich, Sir Walter Roberts of Glassenbury in Kent 3⁄4. ́··

I

By patent dated May 11, Sir William Brereton, of Brereton in Cheshire, Knight, was created an Irish Baron by the title of Lord Brereton of Leighlin in the County of Carlow 4.

Alliance, but otherwise promised nothing but sweetness and obedience. He stuck at the Duke most of all, whom he defended in part to one of the Spanish Ministers, yet at the same time complained that he had noted a turbulent spirit in him of late [as he certainly must have done, if he saw the letter printed in p. 968], and knew not how to mitigate it. Thus casting up the sum, he doubted it might come to his own turn to pay the reckoning. The setters on expected that their pill could not choose but have a most violent operation; and it wrought so far, that his Majesty's countenance fell suddenly, that he mused much in silence, that he entertained the Prince and Duke with mystical and broken speeches, from whence they gathered that all was not right, and, questing for intelligence, they both heard that the Spanish Secretary and the Jesuit Maestro had been with him." Hacket then introduces (out of its place) the singular story which has been noticed in p. 961; and afterwards a long conversation which he says took place between the Prince and the Lord Keeper in the House of Lords, and which, if it were actually matter of fact, and not a poetical flight, would certainly be very curious. The aim of the whole is to attribute to the politic management of the Lord Keeper Williams the total discomfiture of the Spaniard's plot, which really seems to have been accompanied by a full forgiveness of Buckingham on the part of the King.

See before in pp. 95, 101, mention of similar applications to Sir Robert Cotton on other occasions of difficulty. Birch's MSS. (Brit. Mus.) 4174.

: Eldest son of Sir Thomas Roberts, of that place, Baronet, of whom before in p. 610. Sir Walter succeeded him in that title; and was succeeded by his grandson Sir Howland.

✦ Sir William Brereton, the representative of a branch of the family of Venables, who took the name of Brereton from the estate bestowed on them soon after the Conquest, was baptized at that place, Feb. 6, 1550. In 1586 he erected the magnificent mansion which yet remains a striking monument of his taste and splendour. Mr. Ormerod adds a tradition (clearly unfounded) that Queen "Elizabeth is said to have laid the first stone of the mansion, and to have honoured the proprietor with another visit after its completion." Sir William twice served Sheriff for Cheshire in 1582 and

...

1

On the 13th of May, Mr. Chamberlain wrote to Sir Dudley Carleton : "The Duke of Buckingham hath been sick about this se'nnight of a fever, the jaundice, and I know not what else; so that besides other physic he hath been thrice let blood at least. Yet the world thinks he is more sick in mind than body; and that he declines apace. The King was with him on Saturday night from Greenwich; and as I hear dealt earnestly to reconcile him and the Earl of Bristol, of whom we hear little since his coming, but that he was willed to keep his house, but had otherwise gracious messages from his Majesty. He carries himself boldly, and it is said there is a Commission appointed to examine his business, for into the Parliament it must not come, because the Prince hath shewed himself a party.

"The King came this way to Greenwich on Ascension-eve, and made a speech to the Lords in favor of the Lord Treasurer, as is conceived; though some say it was so ambiguous that it might receive a contrary construction, for it began with mercy, and ended with judgement. It is apparent the King took off a great deal from him, and laid it upon himself."

On the 18th, 19th, and 23d of May, the King knighted, at Greenwich, Sir William Roberts, of Wilsdon in Middlesex 2, Sir John Brereton, of Brereton in Cheshire 3, and Sir Martyn Lumley 4, the Lord Mayor of London.

1612. His Lordship died in 1631, aged 80, and (his son Sir John, of whom below, having died before him,) was succeeded by his grandson William, with whose grandson Francis, the fifth who enjoyed this Barony, it became extinct in 1722. See Ormerod's Cheshire, vol. III. pp. 48, 5S. 'Birch's MSS. (Brit. Mus.) 4174.

Sir William Roberts resided at Neasdon in the parish of Wilsdon, and, as Noble presumes in his Lives of the Regicides, was an officer in the army. He was one of the Commissioners appointed to try King Charles the First, but he did not accept the office. He was, however, an active partisan of Cromwell, being Knight of the Shire for Middlesex in the Parliament which gave the Usurper the title of Protector; and was afterward called by him to the Upper House. He acquired large estates from the ecclesiastical lands, by the resignation of which at the Restoration he must have been much impoverished. The family were, however, so far received into favour that his son of the same name was created a Baronet, Nov. 8, 1661. Mr. Noble says that Cromwell's Lord was the first Baronet; but this is improbable, and the more so because he is not styled Baronet, as his son and grandson are, in the Wilsdon parish register. He was buried there, Sept. 27, 1662. His son Sir William died in 1687 and his grandson, also Sir William, in 1698. With the latter the Baronetcy seems to have expired. See Lysons's Environs of London, vol. III. p. 622.

3 Fourth but eldest surviving son and heir apparent of the new Lord Brereton noticed above. Sir John was now in his 34th year, and died in his 39th, Dec. 31, 1629, leaving his son William to inherit his grandfather's title. 4 See p. 976.