HERBERT, William (c. 1624-96)

The date of Herbert’s birth is unclear. His parents married in 1622 and his sister was born in November 1623. Arch. xxxix. 469. If a reference to him being 67 in September 1691 is correct, he was born in 1624 or 1625. The conversion of his parents to Catholicism was followed in February 1638 by an unsuccessful attempt by the lord chamberlain, Philip Herbert^†, 4th earl of Pembroke, a distant relative, to press Charles I into having Herbert raised as a Protestant. CP, ix. 646. Herbert was out of England between 1644 and 1649, travelling with his father in Europe.

Powis succeeded to the title in January 1667, and took his seat in the Lords on 23 Oct. On 4 Nov. he was appointed to a subcommittee of the committee for privileges considering the precedency of foreign (that is Scottish and Irish) nobility. When the report of the subcommittee was read on 21 Nov., Powis seems to have offered some more material for consideration. On 9 Dec. he was named to a further subcommittee to prepare a declaration and address to be offered to the committee. PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/2, pp. 27, 31, 33. On 15 Nov. 1667 he informed the committee appointed to consider the practices used to avoid the act restraining the import of foreign cattle, that ‘divers gentlemen in Wales, who being coalminers’ sent coal into Ireland and carried back Irish cattle. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, p. 206. Powis was an opponent of Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, and protested against the Lords’ decision on 20 Nov. 1667 not to commit the former lord chancellor on a general charge. He attended on 42 days of the session, before its adjournment on 19 Dec., just over 82 per cent of the total and was named to ten committees.

Powis was present when the session resumed on 6 Feb. 1668. On 4 Mar. the House was informed that his servant, John Williams, had been arrested at the suit of Alexander Wood and detained a prisoner in the gaol of the sheriff of Shropshire, despite the fact that he had produced a protection from Powis. This being contrary to the privilege of Parliament and inconvenient for his business at the assizes, his release was ordered. On 2 May Powis chaired the committee of petitions. PA, HL/PO/CO/7/3. Powis had attended on 59 days of this part of the session (89 per cent) and been named to 14 committees.

Powis was absent when the 1669 session commenced on 19 Oct., and on the 26th he was excused attendance on health grounds. He first attended on the 26 Nov., being present on 11 days (31 per cent) of the session. He was present when the next session opened on 14 Feb. 1670 and attended on 38 days (just over 90 per cent) of the session before its adjournment on 11 Apr. He was named to 18 committees and was an active committee member, chairing the bill to prevent the stealing of children (29 Mar.), and chairing (28 Mar.) and reporting (29 Mar.) from the committee on the bill for ascertaining the measures of corn and salt. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, p. 322. On 20 July he attended a meeting at the treasury board to consider the petition of the bishop of Derry, and the vexed question of fee farm rents and the renewal of corporation charters in Ireland. CTB, iii. 487.

Powis was absent when the session resumed on 24 Oct. 1670, first attending on the 31October. He attended on 117 days (94 per cent) of this part of the session. He was named to 38 committees, chairing (2, 13, 14 Dec.) and reporting (14 Dec.) the committees on the Worcester gaol bill; chairing (20, 27 Jan., 1 Feb. 1671) the bishops of Bangor and St Asaph lead mines bill, and reporting it (26 Jan., 8 Feb.); chairing the committee for the relief of poor prisoners (31 Jan.); chairing (1 Feb.) and reporting (15 Feb.) the bill to prevent delays in extending statutes, judgments and recognizances; chairing Booth’s estate bill (3 Mar.), and reporting it (9 Mar.); chairing an additional bill to ascertain the measures of salt and corn (18 Mar.), and reporting it (21 Mar.); and chairing the bill for paving London streets (18 Apr.), and reporting it (19 April). PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 365, 391-2, 406-7, 409, 422, 429, 455.

Powis was present when the next session began on 4 Feb. 1673. He attended on 37 days (97 per cent) of the session before the adjournment on 29 Mar. He was named to 15 committees. He also attended when the session was resumed and Parliament prorogued on 20 Oct. 1673, and three of the four days of the session of October-November 1673.

Powis attended only the first six days of the 1674 session, 7-14 Jan., 16 per cent of the total and was named to two committees. On 8 Jan. the Lords had addressed the king to remove papists from London and its environs, to which the king assented on the 14 January. On 12 Jan. the House ordered all its members to take the oaths of allegiance, most of them doing so on 13 and 14 Jan., but Powis was not among them. Powis was, nevertheless, created an earl on 4 Apr. 1674 and introduced as such at the prorogation on 10 Nov. between his uncle, William Craven, earl of Craven, and Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey.

Powis was present on the opening day of the session of April-June 1675, on 13 April. On that day he appears to have been the only Catholic to have followed the lead of Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury, in the debate on the address in opposing thanks in general for the king’s speech, although he did not join the protest. Bulstrode Pprs. 284. During this session Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds), listed Powis as a supporter of the non-resisting test. Powis attended on 36 days of the session (88 per cent), and was named to two committees. On 29 Apr. he was one of a number of lords noted as having not taken the oaths of allegiance, and although a group of peers duly took the oath on 3 May, he did not. He was present when the session of October-November 1675 opened on 13 October. On 20 Nov. 1675 he voted for the address to the king requesting the dissolution of Parliament. He attended on each of the 21 days of the session, and was named to four committees.

Powis was present when the 1677-8 session convened on 15 Feb. 1677. He attended on 48 days (98 per cent) of the session before the adjournment on 16 Apr., missing only one day (21 Feb). He was named to 37 committees, reporting from the committees on the bill for the preservation of fish (23 Mar.) and for taking affidavits in the country (7 Apr.). Shaftesbury described Powis as doubly vile and a papist, although this appears to have been altered to both vile and worthy.

Powis was present on each of the five days that Parliament sat from 21-28 May 1677. He did not attend the adjournments of 16 July or 3 Dec., but was present when Parliament was adjourned on 15 Jan. 1678 and when it resumed on 28 January. In this part of the session he attended on each of the 60 days (97 per cent) of the session and was named to 16 committees. On 8 and 19 Mar. 1678 he was named to manage a conference on the bill for the better regulation of fishing in several rivers. On 19 Mar. the House was informed that John Evans, a servant of Powis, and the receiver of his rents, had been detained a prisoner in Montgomery County gaol, contrary to the privilege of Parliament. Those arresting him were required to appear at the bar to answer the breach of privilege and Evans ordered to be discharged. When the House was informed on 30 Apr. that the persons concerned refused to obey the orders of the House, the serjeant-at-arms was ordered to arrest them and bring them before the bar to answer for their contempt. On 4 Apr. Powis voted Philip Herbert, 7th earl of Pembroke, guilty of manslaughter.

Powis was present on the opening day of the session of May-July on 23 May 1678, when the order for the detention of those imprisoning Evans was reissued. On 22 June three of the men were released from custody by the House but a fourth man, Gerrard Herbert, was said to have, in justification of his offence, uttered words derogatory to the authority of the House, whereupon he was committed to the Fleet prison. After the intercession of Powis, he was released on 3 July. On 1 June Powis reported from the committee for the Severn fisheries bill. On 11 and 12 July he was named to manage a conference on the bill for burying in woollen. He was present on 41 days of the session (95 per cent) and was named to 16 committees.

According to his own testimony, Powis left Powis Castle on 1 Oct. 1678 and arrived in London on the 5 October. HMC 13th Rep. VI, p. 15. He was present when the session began on 21 Oct., but only attended on the first four days, seven per cent of the total. He was named to three committees. On 25 Oct. lord chief justice Scroggs informed the House of the arrest of Powis and four other Catholic peers, upon the testimony of Titus Oates, and that he had been committed to the Gatehouse.

In his account of the alleged plot, delivered to the House on 31 Oct. 1678, Oates claimed that Powis was to have been lord treasurer if their scheme had succeeded, that he had 300 men ready to act and was prepared to risk his ‘life and fortune’ in the plot. Following a petition from Powis on 19 Nov., Arthur Capell, earl of Essex, reported to the House on 26 Nov. that nothing had been found among his papers relating to the plot and that they had been restored to him. HMC Lords, i. 24. Richard Vaughan on 3 Dec. 1678 informed the Lords that letters had passed between Powis and his daughter, Lucy, who was a nun in France. On 4 Dec. a true bill against Powis and his fellow prisoners was found by the grand jury at Westminster. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 85. On 5 Dec. Powis and the other four Catholic lords in the Tower were impeached by the Commons, charged with treason and other high crimes and misdemeanours. Miles Prance’s examination before the council on 24 Dec. was laid before the Lords on the 26th, in which he claimed that Powis was to be one of those in command of the rebel army.

When the next Parliament met, the Commons revived the impeachment and on 7 Apr. 1679, presented the Lords with articles of impeachment against Powis and the other ‘popish lords’. On 8 Apr. the Lords ordered that Powis and the others were to have legal counsel to plead for them in matters of law. Powis was brought before the bar of the House on 9 Apr., where the articles of impeachment were read and the House ensured that all the indictments relating to the case were brought under the cognizance of the Lords by a writ of certiorari. Powis entered his plea in writing to the Lords on 16 Apr. 1679, proclaiming his innocence. On 23-24 Apr. the Commons declared his answer to be ‘argumentative and evasive’, whereupon on 26 Apr. Powis reaffirmed his innocence in the Lords. On 6 May 1679 the Commons informed the Lords that they were ready to make good their articles, but there were further delays and Parliament was prorogued on 27 May, before any trials could begin.

Meanwhile, the countess of Powis attempted to help her husband by becoming involved with an informer, Thomas Dangerfield, and a Catholic midwife, Elizabeth Cellier, in the promotion of the so-called ‘Meal-Tub Plot’. Although Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough, and James Stuart, duke of York, believed their story, when Dangerfield realized that the scheme might backfire, he revealed the conspiracy. Kenyon, Popish Plot, 216-17. As a result Lady Powis was taken into custody in the Tower on 4 Nov. 1679 and not released until 12 Feb. 1680. Francis Aungier^‡, earl of Longford [I], complained on 9 Nov. 1679 of the damage done to the king’s affairs by the ‘madness and folly’ of Lady Powis and the other ‘intriguing ladies’. Bodl. Carte 243, f. 406.

Powis was still in custody in the Tower when the next Parliament opened on 21 Oct. 1680. With the focus of the impeachment proceedings on the trial of William Howard, Viscount Stafford, the House merely continued to collect evidence against Powis. On 28 Oct. 1680 Edward Turbervill testified that Powis’s chaplain, Father Morgan, had said that the ‘kingdom was in fever, but he doubted not but blood-letting would restore it to its health’. Turberville also testified to witnessing Roger Palmer, earl of Castlemaine [I], saying mass in Powis’s lodgings in Vere Street, Westminster. On 12 Nov. 1680 the Lords ordered that each of the impeached peers be kept separately from each other ‘as persons impeached and committed for high treason by law ought to be’. Dangerfield gave his testimony to the Lords on 15 Nov. 1680, in which he blamed Lady Powis and the lords in the Tower for instigating the ‘contrivance’ of the Presbyterian plot. Hatton Corresp. (Cam. Soc. n.s. xxii), 200. In December 1681, the Middlesex grand jury found a bill against Powis for recusancy. CSP Dom. 1680-1, p. 607; HMC 10th Rep. IV, p. 174.

Powis remained in custody until after William Petre, 4th Baron Petre’s death in January 1684. He was then bailed on 12 Feb. in recongizances of £10,000 plus four sureties of £5,000 each. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 300-1; HMC Portland, iii. 377. His sureties were provided by Peterborough, Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk, Henry Somerset, duke of Beaufort, and Thomas Herbert, 8th earl of Pembroke. HMC Lords, i. 45. Powis’s fortunes took another downturn on 26 Oct. 1684 when his house in Lincoln’s Inn Fields ‘that was very richly beautified’ together with ‘all his papers’ was destroyed by fire, his losses variously estimated at £20-30,000. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, ii. 491; HMC Lords, i. 314; Herbert Corresp. ed. W.J. Smith, 300-1; Wood, Life and Times, iii. 115.

The accession of James II produced a more favourable context for Powis and his fellow Catholic peers. On 13 May 1685, writs of certiorari brought the recognizances of Powis and the other imprisoned peers before the Lords on the first day of the Parliament. On the opening day, 19 May 1685, Powis, Arundel and Bellasis duly appeared and presented a petition requesting that as the testimony of Oates had been discredited, they should be discharged. On 22 May the House annulled the order of 19 Mar. 1679 continuing their impeachments. On 25 May, the attorney general informed the House that the king had directed him to enter a nolle prosequi upon the indictments against the three peers, whereupon the Lords ordered their bail to be discharged. CSP Dom. 1685, pp. 152, 63. He was formally discharged on 1 June but as a Catholic he remained excluded from the House. On 5 June the House gave a first reading to the bill for rebuilding his house in Lincoln’s Inn Fields. It was reported from committee by Robert Bruce, earl of Ailesbury, on 19 June and passed later that day. It made rapid progress through the Commons, being reported from committee on 24 June by Ailesbury’s son, Thomas Bruce, styled Lord Bruce, later 2nd earl of Ailesbury.

Powis played an increasingly visible role as an adviser to the king. In March 1686 James II granted him a special dispensation allowing him to remain in the royal presence without taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy. Ibid. 1686-7, p. 68. On 18 June Powis, Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, and James Hamilton, styled earl of Arran [S], the future 4th duke of Hamilton, dined with lord chancellor George Jeffreys, Baron Jeffreys, a meeting ‘much observed because these were thought to be of the different factions’. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iii. 149. Powis was one of the beneficiaries of the decision on the dispensing power in Godden v. Hales: on 17 July he was sworn a member of the Privy Council. TNA, PC 2/71, p. 300.

In his role as a councillor, Powis became a conduit to the king for dispensations from the rigours of the penal laws, and other favours. In about July 1686 Sir William Williams^‡, the erstwhile Speaker of the Commons who was facing financial ruin for his part in publishing Dangerfield’s Narrative, wrote of Powis’s ‘late and prevalent intercession for me in my distress hath not only procured me ease in my fine’, but also hope of his ‘help to confirm his majesty’s gracious inclinations to have the proceedings of the earl of Peterborough against me stayed’. NLW, Wynnstay family and estate, C32, Williams draft n.d. to Powis. In August 1686 Powis introduced some Anabaptists from Tewkesbury to James II in order for them to present a petition for relief from the penal laws. In October Powis was enlisted by Sir John Baber to press Richard Baxter’s case in cabinet for his release from imprisonment. Powis agreed to present a petition on Baxter’s behalf to the Privy Council and to engage others to support it. In January 1687 Powis was reported to have said that he ‘would give his best assistance to any that were oppressed or otherwise injured to have them relieved if they made application to him’, and especially if they had ‘suffered upon scruple of conscience or dissatisfaction in point of religion’. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iii. 234-5, 238-9, 270, 352; Calendar of the Correspondence of Richard Baxter, ed. N.H. Keeble and G.R. Nuttall, ii. 277-83.

There was also the prospect of James II appointing Powis to high office. In the second half of 1686 there were rumours that he would replace Henry Hyde, 2nd earl of Clarendon, in Ireland; he was the candidate of those Catholics opposed to the more extreme measures advocated by Richard Talbot, earl of Tyrconnel [I], such as the repeal of the act of settlement and the displacement of Protestants from the civil administration. Ailesbury later claimed that he had advised the king to send Powis to Ireland as lord lieutenant instead of Tyrconnel, but had been told that Powis had ‘a weak head’ and was not the man for the job. Kenyon, Sunderland, 141-4; Ailesbury Mems. i. 148. Likewise, in July and October 1686 there were rumours that Powis would replace Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester as lord treasurer; at the end of December he was rumoured to be one of the commission likely to take over from him. Verney ms mic. 636/41, E. to Sir R. Verney, 7 July 1686, [?Dr H. Paman], to Verney, 14 Oct. 1686; Clarendon Corresp. ii. 25; HMC Rutland, ii. 111; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iii. 346; Wood, iii. 206. In November 1686 Powis was fully engaged in the debates in the committee of council appointed to inspect the composition of local benches of magistrates; in Herefordshire he promised to support the inclusion of John Scudamore^‡, 2nd Viscount Scudamore [I], against the objections of Beaufort. TNA, C115/109/8899; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iii. 294-5; J. Miller, Popery and Politics in England, 209. In January 1687 he was added to the commission of the peace for Middlesex. CSP Dom. 1687-9, p. 345.

In March 1687 Powis was promoted to a marquessate. On 28 Apr. 1687 Morrice’s Ent’ring Book incorrectly included him in James II’s commission to prorogue Parliament. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iv. 37. In July a warrant was issued to dispense Powis as custos of Montgomery from taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy. CSP Dom. 1687-9, p. 23. In September 1687 he was reported to have replaced Derby as lord lieutenant of Cheshire, but a commission was not issued until February 1688. Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 42, f. 296; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iv. 122; CSP Dom. 1687-9, p. 146. In November 1687 he had been appointed one of the commissioners to inspect and regulate corporations with a view to purging them of those who opposed the repeal of the Test Act and the penal statutes. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 420-1; LJ, xiv. 388; Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 22, f. 77. Powis was perceived as a supporter the policies of James II, specifically the repeal of the Test Act, being listed as a Roman Catholic on four such lists in 1687-8. In February 1688 he received a dispensation to act as lord lieutenant of Cheshire and in April one to act as steward of the royal manors in Wales. HMC Lords, ii. 302-3. In January 1688 Powis was rumoured to have been appointed lord lieutenant of Sussex, although he was actually given power to act as the deputy of Viscount Montagu whilst he was abroad. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 428; Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 43, f. 13; Duckett, Penal Laws, 14; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iv. 215; CSP Dom. 1687-9, p. 131. In April it was reported that he had postponed a visit to his lieutenancy, following Bath’s unsuccessful trip into the West Country. Add. 34510, f. 110.

On 4 May 1688 he was present when the council agreed to the order for the declaration of indulgence to be read in churches. NLW, Coedymaen mss, I, 40. On 8 June he was present when the order was given to prosecute the Seven Bishops and signed the warrant. Ibid. I, 45; Bodl. Carte 76, f. 28. However, he was one of those moderate Catholics of ‘large estate and great influence’, who hoped to persuade James II’s to take a moderate course over the seven bishops. Add. 34510, f. 123. Indeed, in verse at the time he was described as ‘mild and moderate’. POAS, iv. 226. Later that month he provided ‘30-40 dozen bottles of wine’ to celebrate the birth of the Prince of Wales. Verney ms mic. M636/41, newsletter, 12 June 1688. In July 1688 he was one of the lord lieutenants sent a letter asking them to assist James II’s electoral agents in their area. CSP Dom. 1687-9, p. 239. A draft letter exists in which the bailiff and burgesses of Bishop’s Castle express their gratitude to Powis for his great help in their recent troubles, presumably over the surrender of their charter in 1688. Salop Archs., More pprs. 1037/22/32. At the beginning of September Powis was still active in the committee regulating corporations. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iv. 306. Indeed, Sir John Reresby^‡ was informed by Powis that he would be assisted in his campaign for a parliamentary seat, the king having given orders to the ‘lords for purging corporations’. Reresby Mems. 508.

Following the Dutch invasion, Powis was entrusted with the care of the Prince of Wales. Powis and his wife, who was the governess of the prince, were in attendance on the infant prince at Portsmouth on 26 Nov. 1688. On 7 Dec. Powis then accompanied the prince back to London. Powis and his wife then ‘fled away’ with the prince and the queen to France. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iv. 356, 449; HMC Dartmouth, i. 225. All this activity left Powis in an exposed position during the revolution. His house was attacked on 12 Dec. but escaped destruction, according to some because of his reputation for moderation, but mainly owing to the diligence of the trained bands. Kingdom Without a King, 81-82; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 486. Indeed, it may also have been saved because it was earmarked for occupation by William’s supporters, a paper being fixed it on 13 Dec. allocating it for the quarters of Charles Powlett, styled earl of Wiltshire, the future 2nd duke of Bolton, or Henry Booth, 2nd Baron Delamer. Verney ms mic. M636/43, J. to Sir R. Verney, 13 Dec. 1688.

With James II now installed at St Germain, on 12 Jan. 1689 Powis was created marquess of Montgomery and duke of Powis in the Jacobite peerage, ‘the first act of the great seal since his majesty quitting the kingdom’. HMC Portland, iii. 425. He accompanied James II to Ireland, where he served as a privy councillor and was often seen at Dublin Castle. HMC Finch, iii. 425. While in Dublin Powis officiated as lord chamberlain and helped to finance the funeral of Thomas Cartwright, bishop of Chester, at Christ Church, Dublin. HMC Lords, ii. 189, 230; Ath. Ox. iv. 255. Following the defeat at the battle of the Boyne in July 1690, Powis returned to France with James II. HMC Finch, ii. 337, 356.

As a consequence of Powis’s open adherence to the Jacobite cause, according to Roger Morrice on 16 Apr. 1689 it was moved in the Commons that his estate might be seized and given in recompense to peers like Ormond who had suffered losses in Ireland. Morrice, v. 91. He was named in the bill attainting those in rebellion, which passed the Commons in July 1689 and which was still under discussion when Parliament was adjourned on 20 Aug. 1689 and fell at the prorogation in October 1689. HMC Lords, ii. 228. Several other attainder bills were promoted during 1689-91 but failed to pass. Meanwhile, at the sessions of oyer and terminer for City of London on 9 Oct. 1689 Powis was indicted for high treason and levying war in Ireland. The indictment was removed to king’s bench, where he was outlawed and his estates consequently forfeited to the crown. Outlawry also amounted to attainder and thus to the loss of the peerage. Add. 28085, f. 218; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 550; Add. 70312, Visct. Montgomery’s petition, 21 July 1705. Powis was excepted from the act of grace in May 1690. Beds. Archives, L30/8/31/1; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, v. 444; Wood, iii. 331.

The forfeited Powis estates were said to be worth £10,000 per year. Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 349; HMC Lords, iv. 65-66. Their disposition was, however, complicated by the claims of Powis’s son, William Herbert, styled Viscount Montgomery and eventually 2nd marquess of Powis. Montgomery claimed that Powis had transferred his estates into trusts and was thus only a tenant for life. A debt trust created on 8 Dec. 1688 had placed the lands in trust to Beaufort, Pembroke, Sir Edmund Wiseman and Richard Hughes, for the payment of debts, but was widely seen as fraudulent. Mont. Colls. xi. 367-8. In addition the lands were subject to the terms of Powis’s marriage settlement of 20 Nov. 1654 and that of Montgomery, 22 May 1685. Ibid. xi. 367. Montgomery’s claims were supported by the trustees and a series of legal battles in Exchequer between William III and Powis’s trustees and his son. In the course of 1692 parts of the Powis estate were awarded to William III. Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 444, 475-6; iii. 470, 472; iv. 148. Then in 1695 parts of the Powis estates in Northamptonshire and Montgomeryshire were granted to William Henry Van Nassau Van Zuylestein, earl of Rochford. CTB, 1693-6, p. 1054. Further grants were made in 1696 so that by 16 May 1696 it was stated that all Powis’s real and personal estate, except Powis House, had been granted to Rochford. Arch. Cambrensis, ser. 3, v. 286; Herbert Corresp. ii. 45.

Powis died on 2 July 1696 after breaking a vein in riding from Boulogne to St Germain. Top. and Gen. iii. 28. Mary of Modena at least felt the loss keenly: ‘my partner has lost a most honest, zealous servant, and I a most faithful friend’. Mont. Colls. xix. 83-84. As his peerage was extinguished by his outlawry, his son could not succeed as 2nd marquess of Powis until he obtained a writ of error overturning the outlawry in 1722. Four of Powis’s daughters married into the Catholic aristocracy, while a fifth, Lucy, became prioress of an English Augustinian convent at Bruges. Recusant Hist. xxvi. 89.