keeping. At the time when she quitted him, Sidney was heard to say, "Let whoever will have her, she is already sped." King James also tells us, that she gave birth to an infant so soon after her intercourse with his brother, that the world never doubted whose offspring it was. This child was the Duke of Monmouth. According to James, the real parentage was so suspicious, that "when he grew to be a man, he very much resembled the colonel both in stature and countenance, even to a wart on his face." The fact is corroborated by Evelyn, who especially mentions the resemblance which Monmouth bore, in after life, to his mother's first paramour, Colonel Robert Sidney. James freely admits in his Memoirs that Mrs. Walters was "very handsome," adding that, "though she had not much wit, she had a great deal of that sort of cunning which those of her profession usually have." In 1649, we find the correct and high-minded Evelyn travelling with her in Lord Wilmot's coach from Paris to St. Germain's. In recording the circumstance, Evelyn merely speaks of her as a "brown, beautiful, bold, but insipid creature." It was certainly a strange companionship. The probability is that the philosopher pitied the courtesan, and that the courtesan laughed at the philosopher.

According to Lord Clarendon, during the absence of Charles on his expedition into Scotland she conducted herself with such extreme indiscretion, that on his return the following year, after his defeat at Worcester, he refused to have any further commerce with his beautiful mistress. "She tried in vain," says Lord Clarendon, "all her little arts, and endeavoured to persuade Dr. Cousins that she was a convert, and would quit her scandalous way of life; but had at the same time a child by the Earl of Arlington, who grew up to be a woman, and was owned by the mother to be hers, as

like the Earl as possible." This daughter was evidently Mary Walters, who became the wife of William Sarsfield, Esquire, of Ireland, and afterwards of William Fanshaw, Esquire.

That Charles, as Lord Clarendon would lead us to suppose, broke off all commerce with his mistress at this period, is undoubtedly not the fact. There are some curious letters in Thurloe's State Papers, which prove that, even as late as 1656, six years afterwards, he still continued to supply her necessities; that he still watched over the actions of his early mistress with a deep interest; and apparently that she still maintained no slight degree of influence over his heart. Moreover, they afford an insight-amounting almost to a painful interest-into the history of her character and career.

The following are extracts from two letters of Mr. Daniel O'Neile to Charles the Second, relative to his unhappy mistress. The first is dated the Hague, 8th February, 1656: "I have hitherto forborne giving your Majesty any account of your commands concerning Mrs. Barlow; because those that I employed to her, brought me assurances from her, she would obey your Majesty's commands. Of late I am told she intends nothing less, and that she is assured from Cologne your Majesty would not have her son from her. I am much troubled to see the prejudice her being here does your Majesty, for every idle action of hers brings your Majesty upon the stage; and I am no less ashamed to have so much importuned your Majesty, to have believed her worthy your care. When I have the honour to wait upon your Majesty, I shall tell you what I have from a midwife of this town, and one of her maids, which she had not the discretion to use well after knowing so much of her secrets." *

* Thurloe's State Papers, vol. i. p. 683.

The next extract is from a letter dated the 14th of the same month. "I had," says O'Neile, "the opportunity to save her from public scandal at least. Her maid, whom she would have killed by thrusting a bodkin into her ear as she was asleep, would have accused her of miscarrying of two children by physic, and of the infamous manner of her living with Mr. Howard; but I have prevented the mischief, partly with threats, but more with one hundred gilders I am to give her maid. Her last miscarriage was since Mr. Howard went, as the midwife says to one that I employ to her. Dr. Rusuf has given her physic, but it was always after her miscarrying; and though he knew anything, it would be indiscreet to tell it. Therefore I would not attempt him, and the rather, that I was sufficiently assured by those that were nearer. Though I have saved her for this time, it's not likely she'll escape when I am gone; for only the consideration of your Majesty has held Monsieur Heenuleit and Monsieur Nertwick, not to have her banished this town and person, and by sound of drum. if your Majesty would own this positive command to deliver him unto whom your Majesty will appoint. I know it from one who has read my Lord Taaffe's letter to her of the 11th, by this last post, that he tells her, your Majesty has nothing more in consideration than her sufferings; and that the next money you can get or borrow, shall be sent to supply her. While your Majesty encourages any to speak this language, she will never obey what you will have; the only way is to necessitate her, if your Majesty can think her worth your care.

country for an infamous Therefore it were well, child, to send her your

* Thurloe, vol. i. p. 684.

The fact is not impossible that the catastrophe actually happened to this beautiful creature, which had been anticipated by O'Neile, and that she was ignominiously expelled by the States. At all events, within the period of four months, we find her in London, having in the mean time paid a visit to Flushing. She had no sooner set foot in England-where she arrived with her brother, a Mr. Howard, and Ann Hill her maid-than she was taken into custody by order of Cromwell, and sent to the Tower. The examination of Ann Hill took place upon oath, on the 26th June, 1656. She deposed,-" that she was servant to Lady Walters, in Holland, about seven months; that the same lady came lately out of Flushing, hiring a boat to bring herself, two, children, Mr. Justus Walters her brother, and Thomas Howard, gentleman of the horse to the Princess Royal, at the Hague; that she had often heard that her lady had one of the said children by Charles Stuart, and that the said lady had no other means to maintain her but that she hath from the said Charles Stuart, although she lived in a costly and high manner; and that her brother swore to the said informant, the said lady had been lately with the King, meaning Charles Stuart, a night and day together."*

At another examination, which took place on the 2nd of July following, we find Hill further deposing, on the authority of Mrs. Walters herself,—" that the very same night in which she came from Antwerp to Brussels, Charles Stuart came thither, whereupon this informant asked her in these words, 'Did your honour see him?' to which she answered, 'Yes, and he saw your master too '-meaning one of her children, who is usually called

* Thurloe, vol. v. p. 160.

master. And this informant saith she knows not who came with the said lady into England besides Justus Walters and Thomas Howard, and saith that she heard the said lady and her brother confer together about a necklace of pearl, which the lady intimated to him she had bought; and that they discoursed it must have cost about 15007. That she heard the said lady say, she had bespoke a coach, and that she would have it lined with red velvet, and have gold fringe on it within three weeks; and said, although they lived but closely in their lodgings, yet very plentifully in clothes and diet, and had a coach to attend them continually from week to week." Almost penniless himself, and surrounded by starving followers, how astonishing that Charles should have found the means and the conscience, to lavish such large sums and unmeaning luxuries on an abandoned woman and false mistress!

The unfortunate girl was subsequently herself subjected to an examination, in which she acknowledged that she had formerly had a child by Charles. This child she declared was dead; accounting for the two who were still alive, by declaring they "were by a husband in Holland, who was also dead." * On being further questioned, she stated that she had left Flushing about three weeks; that she had not seen the King for two years; that she had accidentally fallen in with Howard at Flushing; and that her object in visiting England was to recover 15007. a-year, which had been bequeathed her by her mother. According to Anthony Wood, she continued in the Tower from the commencement of 1656 till July in that We have seen, however, that she did not arrive in England till about the middle of June; consequently her imprisonment must have been of a short duration.

* Thurloe, vol. v. p. 169.

year.