Now, whatever might be the supposed indignation of Elizabeth against her dying cousin, Lady Nottingham, it is clear that as the real offender was Lord Nottingham, he would naturally have more than shared in her displeasure; and it is very improbable that a fortnight after the Queen had shaken the helpless wife on her death-bed, the husband, by whose authority the offence was committed, should have continued in undiminished favour. The relationship between Lady Elizabeth Spelman and the Countess of Nottingham might give some weight to her as an authority for this story, had there been any reason to suppose that it had been handed down as a family tradition; but this does not appear to have been the case, for it was evidently unknown to her great grandfather, the Earl of Monmouth, the brother of Lady Nottingham and of Lady Scrope. The existence of the ring would do but little to establish the truth of the story, even if but one had been preserved and cherished as the identical ring; but as there are two, if not three, which lay claim to that distinction, they invalidate each other's claims. One is preserved at Hawnes, in Bedfordshire, the seat of the Rev. Lord John Thynne; another is the property of C. W. Warren, Esq.; and we believe a third is deposited for safety at Messrs. Drummonds' Bank. The ring at Hawnes is said to have descended in unbroken succession from Lady Frances Devereux (afterwards Duchess of Somerset) to the present owner:

Louisa Thomas, second Viscount Weymouth, whose second son, Henry Frederick Thynne, became heir to his uncle, Earl Granville.*

The stone in this ring is a sardonyx, on which is cut in relief

* Vol. ii. p. 183.

a head of Elizabeth, the execution of which is of a high order. (Vol. ii. p. 183.) That the ring has descended from Lady Frances Devereux affords the strongest presumptive evidence that it was not the ring. According to the tradition, it had passed from her father into Lady Nottingham's hands. According to Lady Elizabeth Spelman, Lord Nottingham insisted upon her keeping it. In her interview with the Queen, the Countess might be supposed to have presented to her the token she had so fatally withheld; or it might have remained in her family, or have been destroyed; but the most improbable circumstance would have been its restoration to the widow or daughter of the much injured Essex by the offending Earl of Nottingham. The Duchess of Somerset left a 'long, curious, and minute will, and in it there is no mention of any such ring.' (Vol. ii. p. 183.) If there is good evidence for believing that the curious ring at Hawnes was ever in the possession of the Earl of Essex, one might be tempted to suppose that it was the likeness of the Queen to which he alludes in his letters as his 'fair angel.'

It was when setting out on his expedition to Spain (1597) that he thus expresses his passionate gratitude to the Queen for the gift of her likeness: Most dear Lady,-For Your Majesty's high and precious favours. . . . but above all other, for 'Your Majesty bestowing on me that fair angel which you sent to guard me; for these, I say, I neither can write words to express my humble thankfulness, nor perform service fit to acknowledge such duty as for these I owe. Sandwich, June 25th.' (Vol. i. p. 414.) And again: If I could express my 'soul's humble, infinite, and perfect thankfulness for so high 'favours as Your Majesty's five dear tokens, both the watch, the thorn, and, above all, the angel which you sent to guard 'me, for Your Majesty's sweet letters indited by the spirit of 'spirits; if for this, I say, I could express my thankfulness, I 'would strain my wits to perform it. Portland Road, 6th July.' (Vol. i. p. 419.)

At the time of Essex's disgrace, after the proceedings in the Star Chamber, and when still under restraint at Essex House, he again alludes to this precious gift from the Queen :

To mediate for me to Your Majesty, I neither have nor would have any; but to encourage me to be an unfortunate petitioner for myself, I have a lady, a nymph or an angel, who, when all the world frowns upon me, cannot look with other than gracious eyes, and who, as she resembles Your Majesty most of all creatures, so I know not by what warrant she doth promise more grace from Your Majesty than I without your own warrant dare promise to myself. *

Had Essex possessed at this time any ring or token which, by presenting, could have entitled him to a restoration to favour, it seems most improbable that he should have kept it back, and yet alluded to this likeness of the Queen, whose gracious eyes encouraged him to be a petitioner for himself. The whole tone of this letter is, in fact, almost conclusive against the possibility of his having in his possession any gift of hers endowed with such rights as that of the ring which the Countess of Nottingham is supposed to have withheld.

The space allotted to the biography of the third Earl of Essex seems hardly sufficient to do justice to a life so replete with domestic misfortunes, with military employment abroad, and with active participation both in military and civil affairs at home.

Robert, third Earl of Essex, was born in 1591; and was, therefore, about ten years old at the time of his father's execution. He was educated at Eton and at Merton College, Oxford. James appeared anxious to acknowledge the obligation of the services tendered to him by the late Earl by bestowing particular notice on his son. He was sent for immediately on the King being proclaimed to come to Essex House, and was placed about the young Prince of Wales as a sharer both in his studies and his amusements. According to the custom of those times, at. the very early age of fifteen he was married to Frances Howard, daughter of the Earl of Suffolk, a young lady of great beauty, and about a year or two younger than himself. The crimes and misfortunes that attended this ill-fated marriage must have tended to create in his mind an early distaste for the Court, and probably occasioned much of his time to be spent in foreign service, or at his family seat at Chartley. Some years later (1629-30) he married Miss Elizabeth Paulet, daughter of Sir William Paulet, of Edington; but that marriage also ended unhappily. There is not sufficient evidence to determine whether the circumstances connected with his former union had rendered him morbidly suspicious on the subject of female virtue, or that he had really cause to be dissatisfied with the conduct of Lady Essex; but at the end of five or six years they were separated, the lady having given birth to one son, who died an infant. Family ties brought Essex into close connexion with those who saw, with uneasiness and disapprobation, the dangerous exercise of arbitrary power which Charles I. struggled to maintain against the growing demands of his Parliament. The Earl of Southampton was his near relation, the Earl of Hertford had married his sister; and it is supposed that till shortly before the civil dissensions between Charles and his Parliament broke out

into actual warfare, Lord Essex's political views were much in accordance with theirs. Lord Essex's skill and activity as a commander, and his straightforward conduct throughout that splendid failure, Charles' invasion of Scotland, have been faithfully commemorated by Clarendon. The Earl of Essex merited 'well,' he says, throughout the whole affair, and had never 'made a false step in action or counsel.** Nor, indeed, was his conduct on that occasion by any means the only instance in which the great historian has taken delight in dwelling on the praises of Lord Essex and the errors of the King in neglecting his services. Clarendon has been often reproached with blindness to the merits of all who did not espouse the royal cause; but his estimate of Lord Essex's merits and character affords a striking instance of candour towards an adversary whom he regarded as a most effective enemy to the King's success. Indeed, it is to be questioned whether the reader might not draw from the perusal of his works a more favourable opinion of Lord Essex's conduct and abilities than from the biography now published. The political bias of Captain Devereux's mind, without making him unjust to the parliamentarian commander, has chilled all enthusiasm for his subject; he apologises for the side he espoused, he feels but little satisfaction in his faithful adherence to those from whom he accepted an important trust, and he takes no pride in his successes. In the cold and meagre account of the famous relief of Gloucester, we hardly recognise the brilliant exploit which Clarendon has given in greater detail, and which he has commemorated as an action performed by him with incomparable conduct and courage; in every part whereof very much was to be imputed to his own personal virtue; and it may be well reckoned among the most soldierly 'actions of this unhappy war.'† Lord Essex's distrust of the King rendered him implacable towards Strafford. The Earl of Bedford, Lord Hertford, and Mr. Hyde had in vain represented to him that it would be more expedient not to press to the last extremity against Strafford; and in Essex's reply, that stonedead hath no fellow,' we see the first symptom of a division of opinion between him and those with whom he had hitherto thought and acted. When the King wisely sought for a while to conciliate by office those who, in the language of the present day, might be termed the leaders of opposition, Lord Essex became Chamberlain in place of Lord Pemberton; and it was thought,' says Clarendon, this extraordinary grace to the

6

'most popular person of the kingdom would have had a notable 'influence upon the whole party.'*

6

The manner in which that staff was afterwards rudely taken from him, and the evil consequences of the King's conduct, are thus estimated by Clarendon. There is great reason to believe,' he says, that if that resolution the King had taken had not been too obstinately pursued at that time, many of the 'mischiefs which afterwards fell out would have been prevented; ' and without doubt, if the staff had remained still in the hands of the Earl of Essex, by which he was charged with the defence and security of the King's person, he would never have been 'prevailed with to have taken upon him the command of that 'army which was afterwards raised against the King, and with 'which so many battles were fought. And there can be as little 'doubt in any man who knew well the nature and temper of that time, that it had been very difficult, if not utterly impossible, 'for the two Houses of Parliament to have raised an army then, if the Earl of Essex had not consented to be the general of that 'army.'

On the 12th of July, 1642, it was resolved that an army should be raised, and that the Earl of Essex should be their general, with whom they would live and die; and that a petition should be sent to his Majesty, of which the object was to be reconciliation and the prevention of civil war. The King replied by a proclamation to suppress the rebellion of Robert Earl of Essex, and an offer of pardon to such as laid down their arms within six days. Lord Essex accepted the command of the Parliamentary army; and on the 9th of September set out from Essex House, attended with great solemnity, to the outskirts ' of the city, by the trained bands and by many members of both 'Houses.'†

Before passing judgment upon Lord Essex's decision in favour of the party he espoused, every candid man will be inclined to ask himself what he would have done under similar circumstances? Lord Essex fought to limit but yet to retain the monarchical form of government; he made war upon the undue prerogatives of the Crown, but not upon its existence; he looked upon war as the last resource for determining constitutional differences, not as the means of obtaining power and victory over a foe that was to be humiliated; his position was rendered the more difficult during his command by the change of opinion