might have
been Lord Chancellor. As it was, he incurred the whole odium of having
sold his daughter, while his wife, who had gained the credit of
protesting against that atrocious bargain, quietly pocketed its price
in the coin of royal favour. Lady Elizabeth not only embroiled her own
family, but also brought discord about her affairs into the family of
another, as may be inferred from the following letter:--[41]
"Elizabeth, Lady Hatton, to Carleton.
"MY LORDE,
"I understande by your letter the quarrell of unkindness betweene
yourself and your wife, but having considered the cause of the
difference to proceed only from your loving respect shewne towards me,
I hope that my thankfulle acknowledgements will be sufficient
reconcilement to give you both proceedings for the continuance of your
wonted goode wille and affectione ... even though I understande by
your letter you thinke women to be capable of little else but
compliments. Wherefore to express a gracious courtesie for your
kindness as in the few wordes I am willing to utter you may assure
yourselfe yt my desire is to remayne
"Your assured loving Frend
"(Signed) ELIZA HATTON.
"HATTON HOUSE
"_20th March 1618._"
One naturally wonders whether, if Carleton showed this letter to his
wife, it would tend to heal "the quarrell of unkindness" between them,
or to make it worse. Which effect was intended by the writer of the
letter is pretty evident. This little epistle might have been written
by Becky Sharpe.
FOOTNOTES:
[32] _Coles' MSS._, Vol. XXXIII. p. 17.
[33] _Coles' MSS._, Vol. XXXIII., p. 17. (Brit. Museum MSS. No. 5834.)
[34] Longmans & Co., 1811.
[35] _S.P. Dom._, James I., Vol. XCIII., No. 114, 6th October, 1617.
[36] _S.P. Dom._, James I., Vol. XCIII., No. 158, 31st Oct., 1617.
[37] _S.P. Dom._, James I., Vol. XCIV., 15th November, 1617.
[38] Vol. I., p. 5.
[39] _S.P. Dom._, James I., Vol. XCIV., No. 30, 15th November, 1617.
Chamberlain to Carleton.
[40] _S.P._, XCIV., No. 15.
[41] _S.P. Dom._, James I., Vol. XCVI., No. 69.
CHAPTER VII.
"What is wedlock forced, but a hell? "--_Henry VI._, I., v., 5.
Little is recorded of the early married life of Sir John and Lady
Villiers. Before it began they had both been mere pawns in the game,
and pawns they remained for a good many years afterwards. If before
her marriage the career of Lady Villiers had lain
|