his mission out of his private purse. Rumour went further, and it was said that he was told that, unless he yielded, Lady Roos would apply for a divorce on the same grounds as those which had caused so much scandal in the case of Lady Essex.1 Intimidated by the threats held over him, the frightened young man gave way, and before setting out for Madrid he commenced taking the legal steps which would in time lead to the conveyance of the property to his father-in-law.2

1617. Insult to Lord Roos.

Before the bargain was completed, the Earl of Exeter stepped in. His consent was in some way or other required, and this he refused to give. Lord Roos duly re turned from Spain, but there were no signs that the Walthamstow lands would ever pass into the hands of his wife or her family. The Lakes were furious. At the instigation of her brother Arthur,3 Lady Roos sent a message to her husband, who was now living apart from her, asking to see him, in order that she might return with him to his house. Upon his arrival at her father's door, he was attacked by Arthur Lake, at the head of a number of his servants, and was hustled back into his coach. Mortified and insulted, he was forced to return alone.1

His flight to
Rome.

Yet, in spite of the reception which he had met with, not many weeks passed before he was again living with his wife at his grandfather's house at Wimbledon. Whatever may have been the secrets of his married life, it is plain that he was almost driven mad by the united efforts of his wife and her mother. The most horrible charges were kept hanging over his head, and he was told that, if he refused to do as he was bidden, they would be brought publicly against him. At last he could bear it no longer. Five months after his return from Spain, he slipped away from his tormentors, and, with letters of introduction from the Spanish ambassador

1 Chamberlain to Carleton, June 4, 1617. Roos to the King, June 1, 1618. S. P. Dom. xcii. 61, xcvii. 89.

2 Feet of Fines. Manor of Walthamstow, Essex. Trin. Term. R. O. So at least Lord Roos firmly believed.

* Gerard to Carleton, June 4, 1617, S. P. Dom. xcii. 62.

1618

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE LAKES.

191

in his pocket, made his way to Rome in the character of a convert.1

Charges

Next to her husband the person whom Lady Roos hated most was the Countess of Exeter, the young wife of her husband's aged grandfather, by whose influence the Earl against Lady had been led to put a stop to the conveyance of the Exeter. Walthamstow estate. Elated with the success of her secret insinuations against her husband, Lady Roos now began to charge him openly with an incestuous connection with his grandfather's wife. As if this were not enough, she added that Lady Exeter had attempted to poison her, in order to conceal her guilt.2

It seems as if Lady Roos was unable to check herself in her career of invention. In her haste to heap charges upon Lady Exeter's head, she added the improbable story that, by threats of disclosing what she knew, she had brought the Countess to acknowledge, in writing, the truth of her guilt in every particular, and she even produced a paper to this effect, which she asserted to be in Lady Exeter's handwriting. To this she added another, bearing the signature of Luke Hatton, a servant of the Countess, in which his mistress was accused of an attempt to poison Sir Thomas Lake as well as his daughter.

Such charges, reiterated as they were by the whole Lake family, could not be allowed to pass unnoticed. Lady Exeter

1618. Star Chamber

appealed to the King for justice, and it was agreed that the quarrel should be fought out in the Star proceedings. Chamber. Deposition after deposition was taken, with the uniform result of leaving Lady Roos's case blacker than it was before. It was proved that the confession said to have been written by Lady Exeter, and the paper to which Luke Hatton's signature was attached, were both of them forgeries. It fared still worse with Lady Roos's attempt to add weight to her own unsupported evidence. Her maid, Sarah Swarton, had been induced by her to swear that she had been placed behind the hangings at Wimbledon, to witness the 'Chamberlain to Carleton, Jan. 3, 1618, S. P. Dom. xcv. 5.

2 The main facts of the story may be clearly made out from the Abstract of proofs, &c., S. P. Dom. cv. 81 82.

scene in which Lady Exeter acknowledged her guilt. James, who prided himself upon his skill in the detection of imposture, took her down to Wimbledon, and ordered her to stand in the place in which she said that she had been stationed by her mistress. To her discomfiture, it was found that the hangings scarcely reached below her knees, so that it was impossible that she should have remained concealed in such a position.

An attempt to prove that Lady Exeter had written to Lord Roos in unbecoming terms broke down no less completely. It was far from conclusive that one witness said that he had once seen such a letter amongst some old papers in a trunk, and that another said that he had carried about a similar letter in his pocket, and had finally used it to light his pipe. Further investigations into the charge of poisoning only served to prove that there was not one word of truth in the matter.

Behaviour of

From these inquiries the character of Sir Thomas Lake did not come out scathless. It appeared that at the time when his daughter was seeking for evidence against her Sir Thomas enemy, he had sent for a certain Gwilliams, and had Lake. committed him to prison, His own account of the matter was, that he had done so because he had been unable to extract from him information about the flight of Lord Roos, Gwilliams, however, said that Lake had examined him about Lady Exeter's conduct, and that Lady Roos had offered him a bribe to accuse the Countess, and had pressed him to sign a folded paper, the contents of which he had not been permitted It was to his refusal to comply with these demands, that he, naturally enough, attributed his imprisonment. Byand-by, it came out that Hatton also had been imprisoned by Lake, and he too stated that his misfortunes were due to his refusal to join in the accusation against Lady Exeter.

to see.

James, who seems to have wished to see fair play, was anxious to obtain Lord Roos's own testimony. He accordingly offered him a pardon for leaving the realm without licence, on condition of his immediate return. Before the offer reached him he had died at Naples. Rumour attributed his death to poison, but such a rumour was too

Death of
Lord Roos.

1619

SENTENCE ON THE LAKES.

193

certain to spring up to merit attention in the absence of all corroboration.1

1619.

The sentence.

It was not till February 13, 1619, that the cause was ready for sentence. James himself came down to pronounce with his own lips the award of the Court. Sir Thomas and Lady Lake, with their daughter, were condemned to imprisonment during pleasure, and to pay fines, which, together with the damages awarded to Lady Exeter, amounted to more than 20,000l. Lake's eldest son, who had put himself prominently forward as the accuser of the Countess, was called upon to pay upwards of 1,600l., and Sarah Swarton, if she persisted in denying her imposture, was to be whipped, and branded on the cheek with the letters F.A., as a false accuser, after which she was to be sent back to prison for the remainder of her life.

Of the guilt of Lady Roos and her maid there could be no doubt whatever. Nor was it possible to acquit the Secretary himself of blame. Whatever may have been the How far was it just ? real history of the imprisonment of Gwilliams and Hatton, he had certainly lent his name to the circulation of his daughter's libels, and that too in spite of a warning from the King, that he would do better to use his influence to induce her to withdraw them.2

It is more difficult to say what was the precise guilt of Lady Lake. In giving sentence, the King compared her to the serpent in Paradise, whilst he ascribed the part of Eve to her daughter, and that of Adam to her husband. But the general opinion of the day threw the chief blame upon the younger lady; and not only did Lady Lake herself protest in the strongest possible manner that she was guiltless of the subornation of witnesses, or of the forgery itself, but whatever evidence has reached us favours the theory that she was herself deceived by her artful daughter.3 The most probable explanation is, that

Roos to the King, June 1. S. P. Dom. xcvii. 89. Lorkin to Pucker. ing, July 14, 1618, Harl. MSS. 7002, fol. 414.

"Lorkin to Puckering, Feb. 16, 1619, Goodman's Court of King James, ii. 176.

3 From the deposition of Mary Lake (S. P. Dom. cv. 82), it appears

VOL. III.

at the time of her quarrel with her husband, Lady Roos's prurient imagination brought before her mind the chief incidents of the Essex divorce, and that she wove them into a story which imposed upon her mother, and which was intended to impose upon the rest of the world.1

of the condemned

persons.

Almost immediately after the sentence had been passed, it was intimated to the prisoners that they might at any time Confessions obtain pardon by acknowledging the justice of their condemnation. Sarah Swarton was the first to give way. The prospect of the pillory and the whipping was too much for her. She confessed her own guilt, throwing the whole blame upon Lady Roos, and exonerating as much as possible Sir Thomas and Lady Lake. Her punishment was accordingly remitted, and, at the end of a few months, she was set at liberty. On June 9, Lady Roos confessed, and was allowed to leave her prison. Not long afterwards her father was released, and after some delay made his submission in due form. His wife was less yielding, and it was only after more than two years' hesitation that she could be brought to make even a formal acknowledgment that she had been in any way in fault. The whole fine was not exacted, but Lake had to pay 10, 200l. into the Exchequer in addition to the damages to Lady Exeter.

3

2

Immediately after the sentence had been delivered the Secretary was called upon to resign his office. His successor was Sir George Calvert, an industrious, modest man, who might

that when on one occasion Lady Lake visited her daughter, Lady Roos pretended to be ill and took to her bed. This must have been to make her mother believe the story of the poisoning which she had just invented. Lady Lake's protestation of her innocence will be found in a letter to Lady Exeter in Goodman's Court of King James, ii. 196.

The poison Lady Roos said she had taken was roseacre, and the ground upon which she threatened her husband with a divorce was precisely the same as that with which Essex was got rid of.

2 Chamberlain to Carleton, Feb. 27, July 31, 1619, S. P. Dom. cv. 143

cix. 161, Council Register, June 27, 1619.

Chamberlain to Carleton,

3 Submission of Lady Roos, June 19. July 15, 31. Submission of Sir T. Lake, Jan. 28, 1620; Submission of Lady La' e, May 2, 1621, S. P. Dom. cix. 99, 133, 161; cxii. 43; cxxi. 5,