for mercy, he reminded his sovereign that his royal father stood sponsor for him at his baptism, and also that his (Lord Cobham's) father had suffered imprisonment for James's mother. This plea seems to have prevailed. Cobham appears to have been a man of no decision of character, and to have been rather led into evil through the machinations of others, than from his own deliberate choice. His steward Mellows, who was admitted too much into his master's confidence, ungratefully turned it to his disadvantage, and became his accuser and betrayer,

William, the son of the above Lord Cobham's brother, whose life had been forfeited, becoming heir to his uncle, was by royal favour restored in blood, but yet not to enjoy the title of Lord Cobham. From this William the estates, &c., came to bis son, Sir John Brooke, knight, who being so distinguished for his loyalty to the unfortunate Charles I. was, by the King's letters patent, bearing date at Oxford, January 3, 1644, called to the honour and dignity of Lord Cobham, but dying childless the title failed with him. It was this John Brooke, Lord Cobham, of whom tradition relates, that, following up, perhaps too tenaciously, the advantages which his proprietorship of this manor gave him over a vast tract of uninclosed land, he so over-stocked the common, as nearly to exclude all other land owners in the parish, and almost compelled them to surrender to him six hundred acres of land, at the eastern extremity of the fen, in lieu of his common rights.

In a mansion, formerly standing south of the village, which judging from appearances, must have been a residence of commanding aspect, lived the above Lord Cobham, whose widow was the last occupier there. It is not correctly ascertained whether or not this Lady Cobham died here, neither can it with certainty be said when the hall was taken down; but from a monumental inscription in Surfleet church, where