15 Radford, 1890, p. 80. There is some uncertainty of the exact date of their marriage, some quoting October, others December, but they were certainly married in the autumn of 1628.
Chapter Six
A Marriage Under Fire
In May 1630, Mary gave birth to a son, baptised Richard Grenville, in the church at Tavistock.1 The baptism ceremony must have been quite a spectacle. Edward Courtenay, the youngest son of Sir William Courtenay, attended the church to represent Mary’s cousins, and to explain, in no uncertain terms, to Sir Richard that his newborn son could never have any claim to the Fitz estates.
Lulworth Castle, home of Theophilus Howard.
Sir Richard of course flew into a rage at the news; he attacked Edward and they fought. In the midst of the brawl, Sir Richard and Edward Courtenay were dragged away by officers of the law, and imprisoned in the Gatehouse in London, subject to a formal investigation by the King’s Privy Council.2 The arrest was ironic, considering Sir Richard had been recently appointed a justice of the peace.
George Cutteford appears not to have been involved in the debacle. He was, during 1630, working as an attorney for the Court of the Stannaries, probably pleased to have found regular employment away from the intrigues of the Fitz estates. It was possible though that Sir Francis Courtenay, as the new Lord Warden of the Stannaries, had offered George Cutteford the position.3 It would not be long before George was drawn back into the battles at Fitzford – and into a furious assault on his own life.
Sir William Courtenay, then seventy-seven years old, journeyed to London to support his son Edward at the hearing, but the trial became too much for the old man, and Sir William died in June 1630. Strangely, the co-trustee of the Fitz estates, William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke, died the same year, aged just fifty years old. The Pembroke title passed to William Herbert’s brother, Phillip, who was a friend and ally of Richard Grenville. Suddenly ownership of the Fitz estates was within Grenville’s reach.
The investigation into the battle between Sir Richard and Edward Courtenay was then delayed while Edward and his family arranged for Sir William’s body to be transported back to Powderham Castle. Sir Richard was forced to languish for months in the horrific cells of the Gatehouse prison, under the orders of his arch-enemy Sir Theophilus Howard, a senior figure in the Privy Council.4 Edward was released from the Gatehouse, by the same Privy Council, probably in June 1630, to attend his father’s funeral, but returned to London for the hearing.
Sir Richard Grenville then tried to have Edward Courtenay murdered. Edward petitioned the Privy Council to complain that Sir Richard, still incarcerated, had hired men to have him killed.
In November 1630, as Edward described in detail, he was heading home to his lodgings, passing between the two gates at Whitehall, when half a dozen men attacked him; one of them he recognised as a kinsman of Sir Richard Grenville. Edward was sure they had meant to murder him, though he seems to have valiantly fought them off. He accused Sir Richard of attempted murder, and two of the assassins admitted to Lord Sheriff Fulford that Sir Richard had hired them to that purpose. The Privy Council, which included the Earl of Dorset5, issued yet another warrant for the arrest of Sir Richard Grenville.
This is the earliest evidence that Sir Richard was prepared to hire thugs to commit murder on his behalf, an ominous warning of his future actions. Sir Richard was not released until 23 December 16306, having spent seven long months in gaol.
While Sir Richard remained locked up in London, Mary appears to have taken her own revenge against the Courtenays. It is not known how, but suddenly the Court of Wards were made aware of the existence of her son George Halse, now eight years old and living still with Ann Halse, probably at Kenedon.
George Halse was declared to be the son of the late Sir Charles Howard and therefore the true heir to the Fitz estates. However, as a minor he came under the protection of the Court of Wards – who could now, as they had done with his mother, auction him off to a new guardian. As was usual practice, the boy was taken away from his adopted family at Kenedon, and into care in London while the matter was addressed and a guardian appointed.
The Courtenays must have been horrified. Sir William was dead; young Edward’s life was being threatened by Sir Richard Grenville, and now they were faced with the prospect of losing the Fitz estates to the Howard family. The Howards themselves were ignorant of the boy’s existence, and certainly were surprised to discover Sir Charles had had a son.
Robert Howard, a younger brother of Theophilus, had inherited Clun Castle in Shropshire after the death of his elder brother Charles and was shocked when, in 1631, the Court of Wards sued him for the return of the Clun estates – which they said now belonged to some previously unknown nephew.7
The Howards knew that George Halse was illegitimate; Sir Charles had been out of the country for eighteen months before the boy was born. Robert Howard tried to reclaim the Clun Estates, on the grounds of George Halse’s illegitimacy, but, as Robert did not know who the child’s real father was, the Court of Wards would hear none of it. Robert must have been furious, as of course he himself had been prosecuted and imprisoned by Sir Edmund Coke for adultery with Sir Edmund’s daughter Frances, yielding an illegitimate child. Now, here was his sister-in-law’s illegitimate son taking Robert’s inheritance away from him!8
How did the Court of Wards discover George Halse? There are a number of possible scenarios. Perhaps Mary or George, resentful of the interference of the Halses, finally decided they wanted their son back with them after so many years apart. Perhaps George Cutteford accidentally informed his friend the Earl of Dorset that he had a son called George Halse. Dorset and his cousins the Howards were still struggling financially, and Halse’s claim to the Fitz estates was a welcome opportunity, as it could be argued that George Halse was in fact Charles Howard’s son. It was to everyone’s benefit to keep Richard Grenville away from the Fitz fortunes, and an heir to Charles Howard was an unexpected solution. Perhaps Sir Richard had discovered there was another son and, in an attack on the Courtenays, announced the boy’s existence to the Privy Council – though this might have disinherited his own child, so it seems unlikely. There is no evidence to prove the events and motivations that led up to the ‘outing’ of George Halse. But George Cutteford quite brilliantly manipulated the events to his own benefit.
The Court of Wards seemed not to have questioned why the boy was hidden away, though the fact that his new stepfather was in the Gatehouse for maliciously injuring the boy’s relatives gave them a good idea of the circumstances. George Halse obviously needed the protection of a fine, upstanding – and preferably wealthy – citizen, to remove him from the violence of the Grenvilles and the scheming Courtenays.
The Court of Wards saw saving George Halse as its duty, and George Cutteford helpfully had just the guardian in mind. Cutteford himself could not afford to buy the boy and Mary’s finances were either entailed away or suffering from outstanding debts. However, there was a rich man he could trust to take care of his son (for a large fee) – the man was called Sir Francis Trelawney.
Historians describe the life of George Halse as tragic9; taken from his parents at birth to live with distant relatives; purchased at eight via the Court of Wards and placed into the care of a complete stranger. But George Halse’s life was not so tragic, for Sir Francis Trelawney was no stranger. Trelawney was related to a very successful Plymouth merchant and Cornish landowners, many of the family rich and powerful, some MPs in Plymouth, all linked by marriage to the families of Sir Francis Drake and Sir John Hawkins10, wealthy and notorious men.
Francis Trelawney was a respected justice of the peace, and an affluent man, and married into the Seymour family (whose influence over the court of Henry VIII had brought them great renown).11 Trelawney’s purse was vast; he was known to loan thousands of pounds to his relatives12; and his charity appeared endless. All in all, he was a good man and a good friend to George Cutteford. Where the money came from is unclea
r; a loan here, another there. George probably mortgaged Walreddon itself to raise the huge sums involved.
Of course, it helped that Sir Francis Trelawney was also the brother-in-law of Sir Francis Courtenay. Their wives were sisters, both daughters of Edward Seymour.13 The arrangements were made with Sir Francis Trelawney, who knew full well that the boy was the illegitimate son of George Cutteford. Most people in the Tavistock area would have known the truth, and yet nothing was said; nothing was mentioned to Sir Richard when he did eventually come home. The people of Tavistock appear to have kept the secret quite safe, and supported George Cutteford in his plans for his son.
Previously it was thought that George Halse was sent off to some stranger14, but that was the genius of George Cutteford’s solution. His son became hidden in plain sight. For the plan was not to sell his son off to just some other guardian – the plan was to bring his son home.
You have only to look at a map of the area around Tavistock to realise the beauty of the new arrangements. Sir Francis’s main residence at the time was Venn House, located in the small village of Lamerton, just north-west of Tavistock. His fine estate bordered the Fitz estate, while Walreddon was just a little further south across the river Tavy; neither more than half an hour’s ride away from Trelawney’s estate. George Halse moved in next door. He would never live far away from his mother again for the rest of his life. George Cutteford, with Mary’s help, had played the Court of Wards at its own game, and brought his son to his own door.
Fortunately, it seems the arrangements for George Halse’s guardianship were finalised before Sir Richard was released from the Gatehouse prison, leaving Sir Richard unaware that the heir to the Fitz estates was living just next door. Finally released in December 1630, Sir Richard returned to Fitzford embittered by the Courtenays’ treatment of him, raging against his persecutors, the Earls of Suffolk and Dorset on the Privy Council. Sadly for Mary, he took out his terrifying rage on her.
Their marriage had never been free from problems. In November 1629, Grenville had begun a series of lawsuits, trying to relieve them of Mary’s outstanding debts to the Court of Wards.15 Mary’s chief creditor was George Cutteford and Sir Richard was determined to prove that George had obtained the lease to the Walreddon estates by dishonest means.
Having someone like Cutteford as a neighbour must have been galling to a man like Sir Richard, proud of his own heroic status and heritage. Cutteford was the son of a humble sailor; a mere attorney with a Puritan background, educated in charitable schools and never reaching university. Sir Richard does not seem to have suspected that George Cutteford was his wife’s former lover – he was just the steward, after all.
However, Sir Richard was suspicious of George and Mary’s friendship and, on his return from the Gatehouse prison, believed that they had conspired together to mislead him into signing the agreement, which left him and his newborn son without income or status. He was right to be suspicious – he certainly had grounds to be paranoid – but his behaviour did nothing to support his cause.
In 1631, Sir Richard broke into Walreddon and stole away Cutteford’s documents pertaining to Mary’s finances, probably including the agreement and Cutteford’s claim to Walreddon. Reading the small print – and these documents were ludicrously complicated – Sir Richard finally realised how precarious was his own financial situation, and how guile and lies had caught him.
When George Cutteford met with Grenville to request the return of his papers, Sir Richard threatened George’s life, probably at sword-point, and George was forced to retreat for his own safety.16
Mary would face the consequences of Sir Richard’s anger alone, but Sir Richard would be surprised by the strength of her reactions. She resented Sir Richard’s behaviour towards Cutteford and was outraged at Richard’s conduct. In papers later presented to the Court of High Commission during her request for a separation it was reported that he called his wife a whore, publicly denouncing her as such before justices of the peace. Of all the insults to a woman of the time, ‘whore’ was the worst.17
Richard imprisoned Mary in a small corner of Fitzford, refusing her any say over the running of the house or the estate, and instead putting his aunt, Catherine Abbott, in charge of the household, while he claimed all the rent from the tenants for himself. Mary was forced to appeal to the courts for money for her living expenses.
When Mary refused to speak to Richard, he tried to suffocate her; he ordered the servants to burn horse hair, wool, feathers and the parings from horses’ hooves, forcing the smoke into her chambers through a hole in the kitchen wall. On another occasion, Sir Richard broke down her door, sword in hand, and threatened her life. Subsequently, Mary became pregnant; their second child, Elizabeth, was born sometime around October 1631, though there is no record of her baptism.18 Richard refused Mary a midwife of her own choosing, despite her protestations, and the entire affair suggests that he forced himself upon her. Mary would never be much of a mother to Elizabeth, having no regard for the child and refusing to see her even in later life; this suggests that Mary was still haunted by the violence surrounding her conception.
While Mary was pregnant, she stole the key from Sir Richard’s closet19 and when she refused to return it, he grabbed her petticoat, gave her a black eye and threw her to the ground. In his defence, Sir Richard declared to the court that she had locked him in his closet, and, after breaking free, he had hit her in retaliation. She had, he said, called him terrible names: ‘an unseemly fellow’ and ‘a poor rogue’20; and would sing lewd songs to provoke him, proclaiming he was not worth ten groats when he married her, and shouting that she had good friends in London who would come to her aid. On his leaving once for business, she had wished that ‘the devil and sixpence go with him, and so he shall lack neither money nor company.21
Sir Richard advised the court that he suspected his wife was committing adultery, as she would travel away from home without servants, having told him that she loved other men better than him – including, heaven forbid, George Cutteford. In fact, she was probably travelling secretly to visit her son, George Halse, living at that time with Sir Francis Trelawney just up the road in Lamerton. It is doubtful she was continuing her relationship with George Cutteford, who was reconciled with his family at Walreddon.
Her good friends in London did come to her aid. While Grenville was busy suing the Earl of Suffolk, Theophilus Howard, for payment of the widow’s jointure owing to Mary, Mary in turn became friends again with the Howard family, who gladly supported her case for a separation from Sir Richard. The Howard-Grenville feud raged on.
By the autumn of 1631, Mary was in fear for her life. George Cutteford probably helped her to get word of her situation to Theophilus Howard, who then initiated her request for a separation from Richard. The Howards sent a servant called Francis Taylor to escort Mary from Fitzford to London for the hearing.
Mary was pregnant with Sir Richard’s child Elizabeth at the time. It is uncertain where Elizabeth was born, as there is no mention of her birth in the Tavistock records. The child could not have been born before September 1631, so it is possible Mary was already in London, but the court proceedings describe Mary and Richard having terrible arguments over the choice of midwife for the birth. Soon after, the baby Elizabeth is mentioned as a resident at Fitzford. The most feasible scenario is that Mary gave birth to Elizabeth at Fitzford. Her post-child-birth ‘veiling’ must have hidden a few bruises. Theophilus Howard’s servant then arrived at the house, probably aided by George Cutteford, and with a warrant to have Mary removed. They may have had to wait until Mary was fit to travel.
On receiving the warrant, Grenville flew into a rage – but in the chaos they managed to get the veiled Mary to a horse and away. She would have said a hurried goodbye to her newborn daughter and her little boy. It is most likely that, with roads so difficult, they took Mary to a boat, down the rivers to Plymouth harbour and, after bidding Cutteford farewell, she set sail for London.
So Mary found herself living with Theophilus Howard in London, having left her two young children at Fitzford in the care of Sir Richard Grenville’s Aunt Catherine. Having fought so long for her claim to the Fitz estates, Mary must have found it galling to leave.
Meanwhile, George Halse, now nine years old, may have remained at Lamerton with his new guardian, though George Halse/Howard next appears in London some time later. It is possible Mary took him with her, with Cutteford smuggling the boy to Plymouth to travel with his mother. Her eldest daughter, Mary, whose father was Charles Howard, was then about seventeen and probably already married. She became Mary Vernon, already living in London. The Vernons were an old established family, who could trace their lineage back to the time of William the Conqueror. It is not certain which of the many Vernons Mary married, but she was at one time recorded as Mary Vernon of Islington, and there is a Vernon Square still in Islington, probably once the location of the Vernon’s London residence. Mary Howard’s eldest surviving daughter had married very well indeed.
Mary Howard’s departure was far from the end of the matter. When the servant removed her from Fitzford, Sir Richard, in front of many witnesses, passionately denounced Theophilus Howard with the words, ‘Tell him he is a base lord and hath used me basely, and he shall know as much’.22 Theophilus Howard took the matter to the Star Chamber, who declared that Sir Richard’s slander had ‘touched the highest blood in the kingdom.23
On 3 February 1632, the Star Chamber fined Sir Richard £8,000 for his insults: £4,000 to be paid to the King, the rest to Theophilus Howard. Grenville was incarcerated in the Fleet Prison in London. The Star Chamber was legendary for its severe penalties for seditious libel against ministers of the Crown. As well as being a member of the King’s Privy Council, Theophilus Howard was the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports24, having been appointed to the post after the assassination of the Duke of Buckingham. The Star Chamber was not impressed by slander against one of their own.
The Devil Comes to Dartmoor Page 9