. Its springs are said to have been
discovered by Lord North in 1606; and the fortunes of the place were
firmly established by a visit paid to the springs by Queen Henrietta
Maria, acting under medical advice, in 1630, shortly after the birth of
Prince Charles. At this date there was no adequate accommodation for the
royal party, and Her Majesty had to live in tents on the banks of the
spring. An interesting account of the early legends and gradual growth
of Tunbridge Wells is to be found in a guide-book of 1768, edited by
one Mr. J. Sprange.

The elderly man who proposed to Dorothy was Sir Justinian Isham, Bart.,
of Lamport in Northamptonshire. He himself was about forty-two years of
age at this time, and had lost his first wife (by whom he had four
daughters) in 1638. The Rev. W. Betham, with that optimism which is
characteristic of compilers of peerages, thinks "that he was esteemed
one of the most accomplished persons of the time, being a gentleman, not
only of fine learning, but famed for his piety and exemplary life."
Dorothy thinks otherwise, and writes of him as "the vainest,
impertinent, self-conceited, learned coxcomb that ever yet I saw."
Peerages in Dorothy's style would perhaps be unprofitable writing. The
"Emperor," as Dorothy calls him in writing to Temple, may feel thankful
that his epitaph was in others hands than hers. He appears to have
proposed to her more than once, and evidently had her brother's good
offices, which I fear were not much in his favour with Dorothy. He
ultimately married the daughter of Thomas Lord Leigh of Stoneleigh, some
time in the following year.

Sir Thomas Osborne, a Yorkshire baronet, afterwards Earl of Danby, is a
name not unknown in history. He was a cousin of Dorothy; his mother,
Elizabeth Danvers, being Dorothy's aunt. He afterwards married Lady
Bridget Lindsay, the Earl of Lindsay's daughter, and the marriage is
mentioned in due course, with Dorothy's comments. His leadership of the
"Country Party," when the reins of government were taken from the
discredited Cabal, is not matter for these pages, neither are we much
concerned to know that he was greedy of wealth and honours, corrupt
himself, and a corrupter of others. This is the conventional character
of all statesmen of all dates and in all ages, reflected in the mirror
of envious opposition; no one believes the description to be true.
Judged by the moral standard of his contemporaries, he seems to have
been at least