whose confession had yet to be proved a genuine document. This individual, who was in a humble rank of life, as may be supposed, was happily found, and, on being shown his written confession, declared the whole deed to be a forgery and a lie from beginning to end. The case was now got ready for the Star Chamber. "The cause between Lady Exeter and Sir Thomas Lake fills 17,000 sheets of paper," wrote Sir Wm. Smithe to Carleton.' It must be recorded in Sir Thomas Lake's honour that when the King, who saw very well how the trial would end, advised the Chief Secretary to leave his wife and daughter to the law, and not put his name to the cross-bill, Sir Thomas nobly replied that he could not refuse to be a father and a husband, so he cast in his lot with his worthless family and awaited the results. The Countess of Exeter versus Lady Lake and Lady Roos; Sir T. Lake and family versus the Countess of Exeter, and Luke Hatton versus Lake and ' Roos. Luke Hatton had filed a bill against the Lake family for forgery and false swearing. "Coronell Citcill (sic) was yesterday with the King about Luke Hatton's bill," wrote Philip Mainwaring to Lord Arundell, which proves that Edward Cecil took an active part in the prosecution of his family's slanderers.

This mighty cause came on for trial early in February, 1619, in the Star Chamber, the King being present. The Countess of Exeter was accompanied to the Star Chamber by thirty coaches filled with ladies, so great was the sympathy felt for her. The trial was a foregone conclusion, and though it lasted five days, there was no doubt as to the ultimate result. Lady Lake and Lady Roos were proved to have forged Lady Exeter's hand to a counterfeit

1 October 2, 1618.-S. P. Dom.

2 November 22, 1618. See Lodge's Illustrations of British History, iii. p. 293.

document. Sarah Swarton was proved to have perjured herself, and Luke Hatton proved that at the time he was stated to have been employed by Lady Exeter to poison the Lakes, he was in Somersetshire. The whole plot was laid bare to public view, and the King passed sentence on the guilty parties, comparing Lady Lake to the serpent, Lady Roos to Eve, and Sir Thomas. Lake to Adam.1 Sir Thomas Lake and his wife were each fined £5,000 and a sum of £4,000 to the Countess, as damages; £500 also to Luke Hatton for compensation. The Chief Secretary was deprived of his office and sent to the Tower with Lady Lake and Lady Roos, until they pleaded guilty and made their submission to Lady Exeter, craving her pardon. Sarah Swarton was ordered to be whipped, branded with the letters F.A., signifying "False Accusation," and to be imprisoned in Bridewell for life.2

As is very often the case the least guilty suffered most. Sir Thomas Lake was mulcted altogether of nearly £30,000. He lost his good post and suffered a long imprisonment in the Tower. Lady Roos, the primary cause of all this trouble, got off very easily. She is said to have confessed her share in the plot before the trial was over, whereby she escaped severe punishment, and though imprisoned in the Tower with her parents, it was not for long, as she laid open the whole villainy to the King a few weeks after, and, having made her submission to the Countess and craved her pardon, was set at liberty. "Lady Roos is detested for betraying her parents," wrote Chamberlain to Carleton.3 Yet she was but a girl of nineteen, it must be remembered,

1 Sir T. Wynne to Carleton, February 14, 1618-19.-S. P. Dom.

2 Sarah Swarton made a full disclosure of her share in the plot, and declared Lady Exeter to be innocent. Chamberlain to Carleton, February 27, 1618-9.-S. P. Dom.

3 Chamberlain to Carleton, June 26, 1619.-S. P. Dom.

and was under the influence of a bad mother. Whatever her conduct had been she found no difficulty in finding a gentleman to take her for better for worse two years after.1 Her mother preferred imprisonment to making her submission to her enemy, and her worthy husband was kept in prison in consequence. He is said to have employed his spare time in sawing wood.2 Falling into bad health, he was at length released from the Tower, and, on making his submission to the Countess in the Star Chamber, was pardoned. This was in January, 1620. Lady Lake was let out of prison on bail some months after, but refusing to make her submission to the Countess and confess her guilt, was sent back to the Tower. The following letter from Lady Lake to the Countess, shows us what an undying hatred the former bore to the latter, and how she still adhered to her wicked libel ::

LADY LAKE TO THE COUNTESS OF EXETER.

"MADAM, now after all this busines in which you have had to much glorye, cast your eyes upon the *134. Psalme, there you shall finde what God is, no place nor thought hid from him, hee can looke where mens iudgments can not looke, and his records must remaine vpon the fyle for ever, his lawyers will not receave bribes nor bee corrupted, these exhibits cannot be stolen in boxes; to conclude, for this time I wish my submission coulde make you an innocent woman, and wish you as white as a swan, but it must be your own submission unto God, and many prayers and teares and afflictions, wch seeinge you have none outwardly examine your harte, and thinke on tymes past, and remember what I have written you heretofore. The same I do now againe, for I yet nothinge doubt, but that although the lo. Roos was sent away and is dead, yet truth lives and Gods glory will appeare in his good time, and if you

1 Lady Roos married secondly, in 1621, George Rodney, Esqr, and died, in 1630, aged 30. She was buried at Stoke, in Somersetshire. Cecil pedigree, Blore's Rutlandshire.

2 Chamberlain to Carleton, July 15, 1619.-S. P. Dom.

flatter your sealfe other, it will fayle you, and this businesse will never have end till you and I meete in the presence of the King's Majestie wch hath byn often my humble suite. Although I can not yet obtaine it, yet I hope ere you and I parte this worlde I shall, yf not I will leave that testimony as shall make all the worlde to see that I die Gods servant, to whose Justice I comend my selfe;

"9 November, 1620.

"To the Countesse of Exeter."1

"MARY LAKE.

End. "The Lady Lake's letter to the Countesse of Exeter concerninge her submission, wch shee refusinge in michaelmas terme last, beinge brought in to the Star Chamber, was sent agen to the Tower.

"Returne this by the next bearer, or by new years daye at furthest, if ould bicknor comes up."

It was not until May, 1621, that Lady Lake brought her haughty spirit to make submission to the Countess of Exeter, whom she had so deeply wronged. "Lady Lake, after many shifts, is at last driven to a complete submission," wrote Chamberlain to Carleton, and the next and last notice we have of this obdurate woman is that she was released and pardoned. Thus ends the story of one of the most scandalous libels of a scandalous age. It only remains to add, that though Sir Thomas Lake was deprived of his Secretaryship, being succeeded by Sir George Calvert, he was restored to the King's favour, which he

1 Harl. MSS., 4762. f. 115.

' Chamberlain to Carleton, May 2, 1621.-S. P. Dom. Locke to Carleton, May 5.-S. P. Dom.

⚫ Sir George Calvert was born at Kipling, in Yorkshire, and was educated at Trinity College, Oxford. Having served as Under Secretary to Sir Robert Cecil for some years, was made by him one of the Clerks of the Council. Knighted in 1617. Succeeded Sir Thomas Lake as Chief Secretary, February 15, 1619, which post he held until latter end of 1624, when he was obliged to resign, being too much devoted to Spanish interests. He was, however,

never really had lost, and his family became a very distinguished one in after generations.

SIR EDWARD CECIL TO SIR D. CARLETON.

"MY LORDE.

66

As there is not any servant his Excle hath that more hartily congratultes his successe against the enemies of that state, then my selfe, so for my faithfull respect and service both to his Excie and the state, I must never give way to anything that is thus opposite either to him or it. Therefore I can not but let y' lo. know that I have received a letter from Utenbogaert,' dated the 30th of Septem. but not from any plase named (and never any before), wherein he desiers mee to bee a suiter to his Maie for his safe conduct hither into England, and for the protection of his aboade heere without being subiect to pursuite; it is somewhat strange to mee, considering what disgrase I have received from that faction. And beside this were to doe a good office for one of the confederacy, booth against the Person of his Excle, the union of the provinces, and the Peace of the Church, anie of woh three, shall all wayes bee sufficient to make mee account no mann my friend that should goe about to seeke such an office at my handes. And I have reiected it as an unworthy motion, wch I intreat y' lo. to lett

allowed to dispose of his place to Sir Albert Morton for £3,000. Created Baron Baltimore, February 16, 1624-5. Obtained a grant of Maryland in America, from Charles I., for him and his heirs for ever. Lord Baltimore died April 15, 1632, and was succeeded by his son, Cecil, as 2nd Baron Baltimore. The title became extinct, in 1771, on the death of Frederick, 7th Baron.

1 Uytenbogaert was for some years the most popular preacher at the Hague, and on very friendly terms with Prince Maurice and his stepmother, Louise de Coligny, widow of William the Silent. When he fell into disfavour, he was accused, as well as his friend Barneveld, of accepting Spanish bribes and plotting his country's downfall. A number of his letters have been published by the Historical Society of Utrecht-(Historisch Gezelschap gevestigd te Utrecht-1863, &c., 8°). From a letter of Archbishop Abbot's to Carleton from Croydon, July 29, 1619, it is evident the Primate of England shared in the anti-Arminian feeling, as he says:-"The magistrates must be severe with the Arminians, who are pertinacious and exasperated. . . . Utenbogardt has secret conferences with the Jesuits. He always sought the applause of men rather than that of God."-S. P. Dom.