[59] S.P.  Dom., James I., Vol.  CIII., No. 111.

[60] Coles’ MSS., Vol.  XXXIII., pp. 17, 18.

CHAPTER IX.

      “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
                                   Henry VI., 2, IV., 2.

Although Robert Wright was baptised in October, 1624, the date of his birth is uncertain.  He may have been born many months before his baptism; but his being christened at a private house rather points the other way.  Anyhow, proceedings were instituted against Sir Robert Howard and Lady Purbeck, long before the child was christened.  In The Diary of Archbishop Laud occurs the following entry for the year 1624:—­

“Januar. 21.  Friday. The business of my Lord Purbeck, made known unto me by my Lord Duke.”  This business of my Lord Purbeck may refer exclusively to his insanity, or reputed insanity; but it seems more probable that it has reference to the Howard-Purbeck scandal.

A letter[61] from the Lord Keeper, Williams, Bishop of Lincoln, to Buckingham, and written on 11th March, 1624, shows that the proceedings against Sir Robert Howard and Lady Purbeck were in full swing at that date.

“May it please your Grace,

“Sir Robert Howard appeared yesterday, and continues obstinate in his refusal to swear.  When we came to examine the Commission for our Power to fine him for his Obstinacy, we found, that Sir Edward Coke (foreseeing, out of a prophetical Spirit, how near it might concern a Grand-Child of his own), hath expunged this Clause (by the Help of the Earl of Salisbury) out of the Commission, and left us nothing but the rusty Sword of the Church, Excommunication, to vindicate the Authority of this Court.  We have given him day until Saturday next, either to conform, or to be excommunicated.  She hath answered wittily, and cunningly, but yet sufficient for the Cognisance of the Court:  Confesseth a Fame of Incontinence against her and Howard; but saith, it was raised by her Husband’s Kindred.  I do not doubt, but the Business will go on well; but (peradventure) more slowly, if Howard continue refractory, for want of this power to fine and amerce him.”

That Lady Purbeck “answered wittily,” or, as would now be said, “cleverly” in court, is not to be wondered at; for was she not the daughter of a father who had been the cleverest barrister of his day, and of a mother who was more than a match for that cleverest of barristers?

A couple of days later the same correspondent wrote[62] to the Duke:  “For your Brother’s Business, this is all I have to acquaint your Grace with:  Sir Robert Howard appeared, yesterday, at Lambeth, pretended want of Council (the Doctors being out of Town) desired respite until to-morrow, and had it granted by my Lord’s Grace.  Most men think he will not take his Oath at all; I do incline to the contrary Opinion, because, to my knowledge,