a poet in chancery: edward benlowes

A Poet in Chancery: Edward BenlowesAuthor(s): Harold JenkinsSource: The Modern Language Review, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Jul., 1937), pp. 382-393Published by: Modern Humanities Research AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3715915 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 16:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Modern Humanities Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend accessto The Modern Language Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.31.195.33 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 16:59:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mhra

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3715915?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


A POET IN CHANCERY: EDWARD BENLOWES

IN expatiating on the joys of a life of retirement, Edward Benlowes finds that a man who will improve his state by the cultivation of his mind is careful, among other things, to shun 'Prolixer Law-suits'.1 It is one of the several ironies of circumstance which the biography of this poet exhibits that Benlowes was subsequently to be involved in prolonged litigation. The Chancery records of this litigation are of considerable interest and throw light on a period of Benlowes' life of which hitherto

very little has been known. They are also the fullest evidence that we have, outside his published work, of the poet's character. Studious, re-

tiring, essentially kind-hearted, with none of the world's cunning, he was

easily imposed on in matters of business. He was too generous, but also too weak, to drive hard bargains; yet, like many another weak-willed man, he could occasionally display the most stubborn and illogical ob-

stinacy, compensating for a lack of assertiveness by an unwavering pas- sive resistance.

Benlowes was concerned in two long legal squabbles-one against Nathan Wright, the purchaser of his estates, and Benjamin Wright, his son; the other against his own manservant, John Schoren. He first appears in Chancery in 1657, but the causes of the trouble go back many years.

Benlowes belonged to the landed gentry; he had inherited estates in

Finchingfield and Great Bardfield and the surrounding part of Essex worth over a thousand pounds a year. Following the traditions of his

family, he was educated at Cambridge and Lincoln's Inn. Subsequently he spent some years in foreign travel. It was while he was travelling on the Continent round about 1630 that he first met Schoren, a Dutchman and a printer, in Brussels; and he was led to engage him as his servant. Schoren's story is that he was inveigled from his trade by Benlowes' fair promises; but Schoren is always plaintive, and from what one gathers of the subsequent relations of master and man, it seems possible that the persuasion was on Schoren's side. But Benlowes certainly found Schoren useful for his knowledge of languages, and they travelled together for two years. Benlowes then became dangerously ill with smallpox in Venice, and Schoren claims that his care and industry were largely responsible for his master's recovery. Benlowes was duly grateful and took Schoren

1 Theophila, xIII, stanza 17.



HAROLD JENKINS

back with him to Brent Hall, his house in Essex, where, reposing fullest confidence in him, he made him his bailiff. Schoren collected the rents of the estate and had charge of all buying and selling.

At some time Benlowes was moved to settle upon Schoren an annuity of twenty marks (?13. 6s. 8d.), a grant which was to be the cause of much trouble later on. Twenty marks a year was the amount of Schoren's

wages, but this sum seems first to have been secured to him by an annuity about 1635. The reasons and conditions upon which the annuity was given are fiercely contested. Benlowes says that he was inspired merely by charity, but Schoren indignantly denies this, claiming that the annuity was a just reward for his faithful service and that Benlowes was merely fulfilling promises to requite him for his good works. It is clear, however, that the annuity was granted after some importunity from Schoren, and that Benlowes at length acceded to Schoren's request from his great joy at Schoren's conversion to Protestantism.

Upon his return from abroad Benlowes had forsaken the traditional Catholicism of his family to become an ardent Protestant. The prosely- tizing fervour which afterwards marked him made Schoren its first object. Benlowes 'did earnestly solicit and much importune him', and took great pains in instructing him in Protestant doctrine. Eventually he succeeded -if not in converting Schoren, at least in bribing him. Schoren allowed himself to be convinced 'outwardly' after he had received from Benlowes several good sums of money and the promise of the annuity. Benlowes, in the simplicity of his mind and his eagerness to get a convert, and with unbounded confidence in Schoren, seems not to have doubted his sin-

cerity. According to Benlowes himself the annuity was only payable as

long as Schoren conformed to the doctrines of the Church of England, though Schoren denies that this proviso was ever made. But at any rate Schoren was a good Protestant for a time. Benlowes, however, habitually easy-going in money matters, seems to have allowed the annuity to fall into arrears. With negligence on his side and grasping dishonesty on

Schoren's, there was ample scope for future disputes. By about 1641 Benlowes' debt to Schoren, for wages and for money

lent, seems to have amounted to a considerable sum,1 and on 17 January 1641/2, if Schoren is to be believed, Benlowes gave his bond for ?84. 18s.

Shortly afterwards Schoren absconded with some of Benlowes' moneys. The annuity then lapsed and Benlowes held himself, in consequence of Schoren's embezzlement, absolved from all claims upon him. That, I

1 Schoren puts it at about ?120. But subsequently he talks of a debt of ?50, while the amount guaranteed by the bond was only ?44. 18s.

383



A Poet in Chancery: Edward Benlowes

think, is the explanation of his repudiation of his debt to Schoren and of his assertion that Schoren, as the collector of his rents, had had ample opportunity to pay himself, and in fact had paid himself, all that was

owing to him. And it also seems to explain why Schoren afterwards dated the bond much later, making it appear that it was given him after, not

before, he absconded. About 1644 or 16451 Schoren reappeared at Brent Hall and begged to

be allowed to re-enter Benlowes' service. He was then in great poverty and Benlowes, in re-engaging him, was partly moved by pity. But he was glad also to have the protection of Schoren in the troubled times of civil war and to have someone who would take charge of his household affairs and relieve the cares of his bachelor existence. Schoren was now married, and, with a panegyric on his wife's abilities as a housekeeper, he persuaded Benlowes to engage her too. The two of them were therefore installed at Brent Hall, and Benlowes, trustful as ever, allowed Schoren full control of his estates. Schoren was also useful, through his skill as a printer, in Benlowes' artistic pursuits. He helped in painting and gilding and with the rolling press that was used to take copies of engravings. In 1646 Benlowes, by means of an indenture, renewed Schoren's annuity.

Benlowes, a staunch supporter of the King in a county strongly Round-

head, was at this time in some fear of the depredations of the Parlia-

mentary troops. On one occasion he entrusted to Schoren's keeping the sum of ?30. This was never repaid. Schoren claimed that ?17 of it had been stolen out of his chamber window by a carpenter who lodged in the house. Benlowes seems to have believed this tale at first, but afterwards he thought that Schoren had himself appropriated the money. Later on Benlowes and Schoren both took an active part in the Civil War, and

during this time Benlowes again neglected the payment of the annuity. With the Parliament's formidable demands in taxation and with the

subsequent decimation of Benlowes' estates as a penalty for his de-

linquency in supporting the King, the Civil War was a severe drain on Benlowes' finances. A further calamity befell him in 1653, when Brent Hall was burnt down. Left without a country residence, he went to live for a time in London. A few things had been saved from the fire, in-

cluding household goods, corn, cattle, and a 'brass blunderbuss of good value'. Schoren was commissioned to sell these and Benlowes asserted that they realized over ?100; but Schoren never produced any particulars

1 The dates of many incidents are confused. The litigants not only contradict one another, but sometimes contradict themselves. In his bill of 1662 Benlowes says nothing of having employed Schoren twice, but telescopes the two series of events into one.

384



HAROLD JENKINS

of the sale and Benlowes received none of the money. Schoren himself had lost all his personal effects in the fire and with them the deed of his

annuity. But Benlowes confirmed the annuity and gave his bond for

?200, dated 6 April 1655, vouching for its payment. According to Ben- lowes there was also an oral agreement that all previous debts between himself and Schoren should be cancelled.

At this time Benlowes was involved in financial transactions of much more consequence than his dealings with Schoren: he was engaged first in mortgaging and then in selling his whole family estates. His reputation for lavish generosity was undoubtedly well-founded, and the elaborate and expensive production of his Theophila in 1652, when he was already getting into financial straits, bears some testimony to the careless ease with which he spent money. But the chief cause of his financial distress must have been the Civil War, with the burning down of his country house as an unpleasant aggravation of his difficulties. By 1654 he had debts approaching ?3000. In this year a marriage was arranged between his niece Philippa and Walter Blount of Mapledurham, and it fell to Ben- lowes to provide her marriage portion. This he did with characteristic

liberality in a sum of ?6000. In order to raise it and to pay off his debts he borrowed ?9000 from Robert Abdy and William Meggs, mortgaging to them the whole of his Essex estates.1 Benlowes' brothers were all dead and there was no possibility of keeping the estates in the Benlowes'

name; so shortly afterwards, in order 'to take off that heavie burthen of interest and Taxes wch eate vpp neere vppon the whole rent', he decided on absolute sale, and was brought into touch'with Nathan Wright, of London. He had to borrow ?500 from Wright to pay off interest on the

mortgage before he could get the title-deeds of the estates for Wright's inspection, but on 3 March 1655/6, the mortgage was transferred to

Wright2 as a preliminary to his buying the estates outright. He was to view the premises and approve the purchase by 20 April, and was to pay eighteen times the annual rental of the estates.

So far the transaction was going well, and Benlowes determined to make the best bargain he could. He realized that many of his lands were underrented and he sought therefore to make leases more favourable to himself in order to increase the purchase price. Samuel Benham, of

Grays' Inn, who acted for him in this affair, was down at Brent Hall two months on end, and eventually the rents were raised in all by ?100 a year. But the business was evidently mismanaged, for before the new leases

1 Close Rolls, 1654, Part ix (16). See also a fine, Common Pleas, 25 (2)/550 A. 2 Close Rolls, 1655, Part xxIv (13).

M. L. R. XXXII 26

385




could be signed the tenants got to know that the estates were about to

change hands, and, apparently not enjoying the prospect of Wright as a landlord, withdrew from their contracts. Benlowes accused Wright of hardness and threats; he was certainly a shrewd man of business, with whom Benlowes was bound to get the worse of any bargain. Having frightened the tenants out of their contracts, Wright had an excellent excuse for disapproving of the purchase, and proceeded to avail himself of it. Benlowes was now in an awkward situation. He had got his estates 'soe secured and intangled' to Wright that to attempt to find another

purchaser was out of the question, and the interest on the mortgage was

rapidly mounting up. So he had to make concessions. He agreed to ad- mit the old scale of rents as the basis of the valuation, and to accept, for

everything save one farm, seventeen instead of eighteen times the annual value. His assiduous efforts to increase the rental of the estates had therefore done much more harm than good.

It was not until 11 May 1657 that the necessary indentures were signed. The purchase price had then been fixed at ?15,315. But the matter was

by no means settled, for the estates were heavily encumbered and the two could not agree on the amount of compensation which should be allowed. It was extremely difficult to get Benlowes to give any satisfactory account of the encumbrances: finding Wright a grasping customer, he was already adopting a policy of obstruction. Wright made various appointments with Benlowes at the chambers of Edward Harries (or Herries) in Lincoln's Inn, but each time Benlowes either failed to appear or else postponed making any lucid statement. Accordingly Wright brought a suit in

Chancery, asking that Benlowes should be made to give full details of all encumbrances still in existence. For the various charities imposed upon the estates by his famous ancestor, Sergeant William Benlowes, Ben- lowes offhandedly referred Wright to the Sergeant's will, but he made a full statement of the encumbrances which he himself had imposed. Some of these illustrate his generosity to his tenants. There was, for example, a farm worth about ?7 a year which a certain John Harvey was to enjoy during his life at the yearly rent of one shilling and some 'foule'.

It took Benlowes seven months to put in his answer to Wright's bill, and there was then further dispute about the compensation to be allowed for the encumbrances now that these had once been stated.

Dilapidations were also an important item; Benlowes insisted that repairs had already cost him 'a very good sum of money', while Wright alleged that the farms and houses were 'ruinous and in greate decay'. Wright paid over several sums of money, but before any settlement had been

386



HAROLD JENKINS

reached, on 11 March 1657/8, he died. The dispute continued with his son

Benjamin (afterwards Sir Benjamin), who inherited the estates, and who was even more reluctant to pay than his father had been.

One of the encumbrances was Schoren's annuity, which had been made

chargeable on Benlowes' lands in the parish of Great Bardfield. Benjamin Wright was anxious that this should be once and for all removed. So Benlowes offered Schoren ?100 in full settlement of his claims on the estate; but Schoren, urged on by his implacable wife, peremptorily turned down the proposal. He also began to get restive about the arrears of his annuity. He first sued Benlowes in an action entered in the Wood Street Counter upon the bond which Benlowes had given him as far back as 1642. On 15 December 1657, Benlowes was arrested at his lodgings in London-in St Paul's Churchyard, where he had gone to live after the sale of his estates-and was taken to the Mitre tavern in Wood Street. Instead of pleading that this debt had been wiped out by the oral agreement of 1655, he foolishly boasted to the sergeant's yeoman who attended him at the Mitre that he could please himself whether he paid Schoren or not, since he knew that Schoren could not produce the bond. Schoren alleged that he repeated this boast at a meeting in the chambers of Mr Harris1 in Lincoln's Inn. Schoren did, however, produce a bond; but Benlowes promptly denounced it as a forgery. Schoren then abandoned his suit-tacitly, it would seem, admitting the forgery-but only to bring the matter into Chancery. He now claimed that the bond had been lost, and Benlowes thereupon denied that there had ever been a bond, ridiculing the accusation made by Schoren that he had got possession of it by a trick and wilfully destroyed it.

The case dragged on a long time and meanwhile Schoren's annuity led to further complications. It still had to be paid out of the estates and was

paid by Benjamin Wright until 1660, when Wright suddenly stopped it. And Schoren had no more success than Benlowes in his attempts to ex- tract money from him. It seems plain that Wright had made up his mind not to pay out anything at all until all claims upon the estate should be

finally agreed. Benlowes, kept waiting for his money, was also getting disgruntled.

Ultimately he entered a bill in Chancery on 26 November 1661. He contended that Nathan Wright had obtained the estates for at least ?5000 less than their true value; and even on 'the hard termes' upon which

Wright had 'wrested' them from him there still remained over ?3000 to

1 No doubt the Edward Harries who had acted in the dispute between Benlowes and Nathan Wright in 1657.

26-2

387




pay.1 And he contested Benjamin Wright's claim to deduct for repairs and encumbrances at 'his owne vnreasonable Termes'.

Benlowes' fortunes had indeed undergone a serious change in the last ten years. Having given Philippa her portion, having paid off his debts and satisfied the interest on loans and mortgages, he had now parted with his estates and had actually received into his own pocket less than ?2000. And of this he had spent ?500 to relieve the estates of an annuity he had granted to Elizabeth, widow of his brother William, and had also removed some smaller encumbrances. And he had then the additional satisfaction of finding that even lands which he had intended to keep for himself when the rest of the estate was sold were being held by Wright, who was unjustly receiving from them rents of ?37 a year. With no rents now coming in, his principal assets at this time seem to have been his claims on Wright and his expectation of the gratitude of his niece and her husband.

It was not until fifteen months after Benlowes had entered his suit that

Wright put in his answer. The matter was then referred to arbitrators, who on 5 June 1663 awarded Benlowes ?990. That represents a fairly liberal deduction for the encumbrances; but, even so, Wright placed every possible obstacle in Benlowes' way and only ?290 was paid. Things were further complicated by some new debts contracted by Benlowes. He owed ?166 to Thomas Colwell and ?171 to Edward Nash, who joined in

suing him in the Lord Mayor's Court in London on 5 December 1663.2 Benlowes seems by now to have adopted a stubborn policy of paying nothing to any one until forced. Colwell and Nash complained that he 'had & did obscure and abscond his person and Concealed his Estate' so that they 'could not in any wise speake with him.. .or take any legall course against him or his Estate'. Despairing of ever getting anything from Benlowes, they sought to get satisfaction from Wright, out of the ?700 which Wright still owed Benlowes. But Benlowes was at the same time attempting to recover the full ?700 himself, and Wright, assailed on both sides, sought relief in Chancery in May 1664.3

1 The actual amount appears in Sir Benjamin Wright's bill of 1664. It was ?3315. 2 In spite of an exhaustive search among the extant files of the court I have been unable

to trace any record of this case, and cannot therefore surmise what this debt may have been for.

3 He offered to pay Benlowes if he were granted an indemnity against Benlowes' creditors, and on 10 June 1664 he obtained an injunction staying the legal proceedings of Colwell and Nash. There for the moment the matter seems to have rested. But in 1666 Wright swears to having paid ?690 of the sum awarded to Benlowes, and must therefore have paid out in the meantime another ?400. This was the precise amount that Colwell and Nash were suing him for; so it looks as if their claim ultimately succeeded, while Benlowes again got nothing.

388



HAROLD JENKINS

During all this time Schoren's Chancery suit made no progress; but Schoren himself was by no means quiescent. He sued Wright by a bill entered in Chancery on 28 May 1661, demanding the payment of his

annuity, but he had to drop his proceedings through lack of funds. He could not produce the original deed securing the annuity upon the Great Bardfield property-it had been destroyed in the Brent Hall fire-and fell back therefore on his second security, the bond of ?200 given him by Benlowes in 1655. He sought to recover the value of this bond by an action in the Court of Common Pleas in the Michaelmas term of 1662. Benlowes promptly brought a suit in Chancery (21 November 1662) to try and stop him. He acknowledged the bond of 1655, but insisted that Schoren had since then forfeited his claim to the annuity by reverting to Catholicism. Benlowes had continued to pay it nevertheless; for to what

may have been a sense of duty towards Schoren and a susceptibility to Schoren's persuasions was added another motive-that of fear. Although his estates had been decimated because of his support of the King in the Civil War, he was afraid that further penalty might be exacted if Schoren informed against him. There is no evidence that Schoren attempted to blackmail him in this way, but all Schoren's dealings show him to have been quite unscrupulous, and Benlowes' fear at least suggests that there were threats.

Benlowes contended, then, that he was not bound to continue the annuity after Schoren's apostasy, and that in any case Schoren's first claim was upon the estates, which now belonged to Wright. The Court overruled these objections, but decreed that Benlowes' bond need not be forfeit if the annuity was paid up to date. Benlowes paid up and on 8 July 1663 obtained an injunction barring Schoren's action in the Common Pleas.

Benlowes was by this time quite disillusioned about Schoren and

thoroughly hostile to him. Having succeeded in frustrating his activities in the Common Pleas, he determined to try and check him in Chancery too. He brought a second suit against him on 25 November 1663, contending that when he had confirmed Schoren's annuity with the ?200 bond in 1655 their oral agreement had effectively annulled all outstanding debts. He sought therefore to stay Schoren's proceedings upon the bond of 1642. He also sued for the money which Schoren had obtained from

selling the goods from the Brent Hall fire, but which had never been handed over. Earlier he had been anxious not to have recourse to law, but having been brought into the courts by Schoren, he decided to retaliate. Schoren, however, successfully pleaded the Statute of

389




Limitations; for it was now over six years after the sale of the goods for which Benlowes was seeking an account.

The rest of the dispute underwent a very tortuous journey through the courts, attended by many legal quibbles on both sides. The whole litigation is an excellent example of the law's delays and of the steadfast de- termination of the parties to obstruct each other as much as possible. Schoren's counsel had sought to discredit Benlowes' suit by submitting that his bill of complaint contained scandalous matter. He had also held that there was nothing for Schoren to answer beyond what had been answered to Benlowes' suit of the previous year, and had entered a plea and demurrer. This was dismissed, but had to be twice reheard because first one side and then the other was not represented in court. Eventually, on 12 May 1664, it was referred for decision to one of the Masters of the Court.

In spite of all his efforts, Benlowes was not successful in stopping Schoren's Chancery action. The case was argued in court on 17 June 1664, six years after Schoren had entered the suit. Benlowes had failed to prove that there had been an oral agreement in 1655 annulling previous debts, and Schoren's claim for the forfeiture of the bond for ?84. 18s. obviously held good, therefore, if it could once be proved that the bond had ever existed. It was decided that this was not an issue for

Chancery, the court of equity, and the case was dismissed. But Schoren appealed and got a rehearing after having paid Benlowes' costs. Again Chancery declined to judge the issue, but referred it to a court of common law. By now it was evidently thought that a little despatch would be advisable, and it was arranged that the case should come before the Lord Chief Justice Bridgman at his next sitting. After a long debate of counsel he gave his verdict in favour of Schoren, and Chancery then ordered Benlowes to pay the amount of the bond plus the costs of the case. Costs were assessed and a final award for the sum of ?157. Os. 6d. was made on 15 April 1665.

But the case was by no means ended. Whereas Benlowes had in his earlier dealings been weak and too susceptible to Schoren's importunity, he now became adamant, though hardly more business-like. Although Schoren had obtained his decree, Benlowes obstinately refused to pay. By now he had left London and had gone to live at Mapledurham with his niece Philippa and her husband.l In their house he did 'so abscond

1 So, while it is certainly odd to find that Walter Blount made no provision for Benlowes in his will, Anthony a Wood's charges of ingratitude are not entirely just. Exactly when Benlowes went to live at Mapledurham cannot be ascertained. He could still describe himself as 'of London' in November 1663.

390



HAROLD JENKINS

himself' that Sarah Schoren and others whom she employed were unable to serve him with copies of the Chancery orders. A writ of execution was followed by a proclamation, but Benlowes still made no attempt to pay, and on 9 February 1665/6 a subpoena was issued commanding him to

appear in court. This also was ignored. Schoren was now dead, but his wife pursued the case relentlessly.

Despairing of ever getting money out of Benlowes, on 13 February she

opened proceedings against Sir Benjamin Wright, whom she recklessly accused of conspiring with Benlowes to withhold the money from her.

Wright, of course, could not be held liable for sums owed by Benlowes before 1657, when Nathan Wright bought the property; and he claimed that even after that the payment of the annuity was Benlowes' re-

sponsibility.1 Wright, however, still had moneys belonging to Benlowes: of the ?990 awarded to Benlowes by the Chancery court in 1663, ?300 was still unpaid. Therefore, since Benlowes could not be got to pay, it was ordered on 21 May 1666 that Wright should pay Mrs Schoren out of this ?300. But Benlowes persisted in thwarting Mrs Schoren to the utmost and was quick to intervene. On 4 July his counsel, Peck, showed that Benlowes had paid the annuity up to the time of Schoren's death and

argued that the Court's award to Schoren of ?157. Os. 6d. was not

chargeable upon Wright's lands, since it had nothing to do with the

annuity, but was due upon Benlowes' personal bond given for arrears of

wages. He therefore objected to the order allowing Mrs Schoren to be

paid out of the money which Wright owed Benlowes, and the order was rescinded. But Benlowes was warned that, if he continued to show con-

tempt of all the orders of the court, the ?300 in Wright's hands would be

sequestered in order to satisfy Mrs Schoren. It may have been this further legal development which brought Ben-

lowes to London, for he was seen in Whitefriars about 6 or 7 July. But he speedily went back to his seclusion at Mapledurham, and on 2 August, when Mrs Schoren attempted to serve him with a writ of execution, he refused to see her unless she would first promise that she had nothing against him. She knew that he was in the house, and 'he kept himselfe in a Roome the doore being made fast'. Her persistence eventually suc-

ceeded, but when on 7 AuguSt there was a further order of the Court she had no hope of repeating the achievement. Seeing that Benlowes 'doth

very much secret himselfe in the said howse and is very hard to bee 1 The position seems to have been that Benlowes had either to keep up the annuity him-

self or else pay Wright compensation for it; and although Wright had been allowed compensation, Benlowes subsequently preferred the other alternative, intending to recover from Wright the amount allowed in compensation.

391




spoaken withall', the Master of the Rolls has to consent on 11 August fpr this new writ to be merely left at the house instead of being served on Benlowes in person. It was delivered on 19 August; but Benlowes still held out. On 6 October the Sheriff of Middlesex reported that an attach- ment with proclamation had had no effect. According to the usual pro- cedure a Commission of Rebellion was next appointed and this also failed to lay hands on Benlowes. A sergeant-at-arms was then commanded to

apprehend Benl'owes so that he might answer his contempt of court; but the sergeant too had to confess on 16 November that Benlowes 'doth soe hide and abscond himselfe that he cannot be found'. The order was then

given for the sequestration of Benlowes' personal estate. Benlowes had succeeded in holding up the progress of the law for about

six months. And that, no doubt, gave him considerable satisfaction. For he was undoubtedly convinced that Schoren, after his repeated dis-

honesty, had morally no claims upon him. But the ultimate result was the same. Out of the ?300 which Sir Benjamin Wright still owed Ben-

lowes, ?157. Os. 6d. was to be taken to pay Mrs Schoren according to the

Chancery award, as well as ?41 to satisfy her costs in the later stages of her legal proceedings. In addition, Wright was given leave to recoup himself for the expenditure to which he had been put. There can have been little left of the ?300. What pleasure Benlowes had in opposing the Schorens to the end had to be dearly bought.

Benlowes' large fortune had now disappeared. The disposal of his estates had ultimately provided little beyond Philippa's portion. By 1661 the net receipts of Benlowes himself had been under ?1500,1 and since then he had received a mere ?690, of which ?400 was presumably taken by his creditors Colwell and Nash.2 And his own expenses during ten years of litigation must have been very considerable. While his ad- ventures in the law had not been of his own seeking, they undoubtedly resulted from a thorough mismanagement of his business dealings, even

though one may feel that in the Wrights he met with rather cunning and

exacting customers and that in Schoren he had a particularly un-

scrupulous servant. He allowed both Nathan Wright and Schoren to secure the better bargaining position, apparently without realizing the

power he was giving them or ever dreaming that they would use it. He allowed Schoren to badger him into establishing an annuity upon him; and while Schoren was as astute as he was plausible in always obtaining a tangible security for every promise or obligation, Benlowes on his side seems to have been easily contented with a sort of gentleman's agree-

1 Cf. above, p. 388. 2 Cf. above, p. 388 n. 3.

392



HAROLD JENKINS 393

ment. He allowed his estates to become so entangled that Nathan Wright could dictate his own terms of purchase, and he then parted with them before, instead of after, any agreement had been reached about the de- ductions to be made for encumbrances. Yet even the grossest mismanagement can hardly have merited Benlowes' unhappy fate. With the deaths of Philippa and Walter Blount he was left, pathetically enough, with little other than the consolation of his own maxims, so largely expressed in

Theophila, upon the vanity of all worldly things. His sense of this vanity, his studies, his religion, were henceforth his only consolations until he died in 1676 in the most abject poverty.'

HAROLD JENKINS. JOHANNESBURG.

1 The following are the relevant Chancery suits: (1) Collins 140/147. Nathan Wright v. Edward Benlowes, etc., 1657. (2) Whittington 71/87. John Schoren v. Edward Benlowes, 1658. (3) Bridges 629/64. John Schoren v. Benjamin Wright, 1661. (4) Bridges 444/123. Edward Benlowes v. Benjamin Wright, etc., 1661. (5) Reynardson 31/14. Edward Benlowes v. John Schoren, 1662. (6) Collins 28,11. Edward Benlowes v. John Schoren, etc., 1663. (7) Bridges 44/89. Benjamin Wright v. Edward Benlowes, etc,, 1664. (8) Collins 28/75. Sarah Schoren v. Benjamin Wright, 1666.

There are depositions for Nos. 2 and 6: C 24/835, 896. The following also relate to these actions:

Affidavits: Decrees and Orders: Trinity, 1663, Nos. 312, 454, 505. 1660 B fol. 586. Michaelmas, 1663, Nos. 831, 832, 851. 1661 A fol. 572. Hilary, 1664, Nos. 167, 770. 1662 A fols. 330, 623, 731, 856. Easter, 1665, No. 337. 1663 A fols. 169, 206, 274, 410, 421, 563, Easter, 1666, No. 552. 572, 721, 751. Trinity, 1666, Nos. 833, 860, 861, 862. 1663 B fols. 378, 431, 760, 874, 880, 882, Easter, 1667, No. 256. 883, 979.

1664 B fols. 170, 215, 269, 270, 373, 473, 570, 626.

1665 B fols. 125, 222, 308, 316, 433, 561, 609, 631.

1666 B fols. 25, 53, 540, 689.



a poet in chancery: edward benlowes

Documents