s,
or much to this effect is the uttermost I can remember that passed at
ye time."

Buckingham had evidently felt some scruples about meddling with the
Black Art, and had consulted Laud on the question. It is also pretty
plain that Laud was anxious not to offend Buckingham, yet, at the same
time, wished to guard against any possibility of being accused of
approving, or even of conniving at, witchcraft. These notes occur in a
"draft of a speech, in the handwriting of Bishop Laud, and apparently
intended to be addressed to the House of Commons, by the Duke of
Buckingham. It has not been found that this latter speech was ever
actually spoken."

So far as accusations against Lady Purbeck of witchcraft were
concerned, Buckingham must have found that he had no case; for, in a
letter[77] to Carleton, written on 12th March, 1625, Chamberlain says
that the charge of sorcery had been dropped; but that Lady Purbeck was
to be prosecuted for incontinency. He adds that Sir Robert Howard was
a close prisoner in the Fleet in spite of the advice given by the
Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General three weeks earlier--and
that Lady Purbeck was a prisoner at Alderman Barkham's, had no
friends who would stand bail for her, and was asking Buckingham to
let her have a little money with which to pay her counsel's fees.
Eleven days later Chamberlain again wrote[78] to Carleton, saying that
Lady Purbeck was acquitting herself well in the Court of High
Commission; that a servant of the Archbishop's had been committed for
saying that she had been hardly used, and that she called this man one
of her martyrs. He also states that Sir Robert Howard had been
publicly excommunicated at St. Paul's Cross, for refusing to answer.

How long the delinquents were kept in captivity is very doubtful.
Little else is recorded of either of them during the next two years;
but, at the time of their trial in 1627, they would seem to have been
at liberty. The reason of this long interval between the trial in the
Court of High Commission in 1625 and that before the same Court in
1627 seems inexplicable.

FOOTNOTES:

[61] _Cabala_, p. 281.

[62] _Cabala_, p. 282.

[63] _S.P. Dom._, James I., Vol. CLXXXII, No. 79.

[64] _S.P. Dom._, James I., Vol. CLXXXIII, No. 41

[65] Innocent Lanier was one of the King's musicians.

[66] _MSS. of the House of Lords_, 228, 30th April, 1675. _Hist. Com.
MSS._, Ninth Report, Part II., p. 50.

[67] _S.P. Dom._, James