“Your father Savile is gon into Kent to his daughter Salley, the day before his goings I met him and wisht him to applie the Lady Hatton, whom he had alredy visited but moved her in nothing because the time was not fit but she meant to do yt before he went.  Some whisper that she is alredy ingaged and meanes to employ her full force strength and vertue for the L. Hawton or Hollis, who is become her prime privie Counsailor and doth by all meanes interest and combine her with the Lady of Suffolke and that house.  A man whom Sir Edward Cooke can no wayes indure, and from whose company he wold faine but cannot debarre her.”  Obviously a very sufficient reason for liking him and espousing his cause.

Lady Elizabeth had fairly outwitted her husband; but, as will presently be seen, she had not yet quite done with him.  Another account of her liberation is to be found in Strafford’s Letters and Despatches:—­[38]

“The expectancy of Sir Edward’s rising is much abated by reason of his lady’s liberty, who was brought in great honour to Exeter House by my Lord of Buckingham, from Sir William Craven’s, whither she had been remanded, presented by his Lordship to the King, received gracious usage, reconciled to her daughter by his Majesty, and her house in Holborn enlightened by his presence at dinner, where there was a royal feast:  and to make it more absolutely her own, express commandment given by her Ladyship that neither Sir Edward Coke nor any of his servants should be admitted.”

Here is another account[39] of the same banquet, as well as of one given in return by Buckingham’s mother, who was still hoping that Lady Elizabeth would increase Sir John Villiers’ allowance:—­

“The Lady Hatton’s feast was very magnificall and the King graced her every way, and made foure of her creatures knights....  This weeke on wensday [Lady Compton] made a great feast to the Lady Hatton, and much court there is between them, but for ought I can heare the Lady Hatton holdes her handes and gives not” (The original is much torn and damaged here) “out of her milke so fouly [fully] as was expected which in due time may turn the matter about againe....  There were some errors at the Lady Hatton’s feast (yf it were not of purpose) that the L. Chamberlain and the L. of Arundell were not invited but went away to theyre owne dinner and came backe to wait on the King and Prince:  but the greatest error was that the goodman of the house was neither invited nor spoken of but dined that day at the Temple.”  Camden’s account of this dinner (Ed. 1719, Vol.  II., p. 648), although very abrupt, is to the point:  “The wife of Sir Ed. Coke quondam Lord Chief Justice, entertained the King, Buckingham, and the rest of the Peers, at a splendid dinner, and not inviting her husband.”

In a letter to Carlton[40] John Pory said of this dinner:  “My Lo.  Coke only was absent, who in all vulgar opinions was there expected.  His Majesty was never merrier nor more satisfied, who had not patience to sit a quarter of an hour without drinking the health of my Lady Elizabeth Hatton, which was pledged first by my Lord Keeper [Bacon] and my Lord Marquis Hamilton, and then by all the gallants in the next room.”