<304>It was not only in Ireland that the language of the recusants alarmed James. In England, John Owen, a Catholic of Godstow, Owen’s case.used expressions to the effect that it was lawful to kill the King, being excommunicate. These words appear to have meant that it was lawful to kill the King, if he were excommunicated. Bacon held that the words were treasonable, as the very fact of putting such an hypothesis was evidence that the speaker assigned to the Crown a position of subordination to the Pope.[517] The judges of the King’s Bench were consulted,[518] and were equally clear that the words used amounted to treason. But, much to Bacon’s annoyance, though Coke came to the same conclusion with himself, he ariived at it by a different road. He argued that there was nothing hypothetical in the words at all; but that, as the Pope was accustomed once a year to include, under a general excommunication, all Calvinists, together with other heretics and schismatics, the King was undoubtedly an excommunicated person, and Owen’s expression amounted to a direct assertion that it was lawful to kill him. Bacon, who had always an eye to the political consequences of a legal opinion, felt that it <305>would never do to use such an argument publicly in court. If it should be generally understood that the King had been excommunicated by the Pope, the risk of assassination would be considerably increased. In spite of all that Bacon could do, however, Coke refused to give up his opinion, and in delivering his sentiments at the trial, he defended the legality of the proceedings on the ground which alone appeared to him to render them justifiable. But, whatever may have been the difference between the views of the Attorney-General and those of the Chief Justice, the prisoner reaped no benefit by it. The jury brought in a verdict of Guilty, without troubling themselves about the arguments by which their verdict could be sustained,[519] and sentence of death was passed in due form. No steps, however, were taken to carry it out. Owen remained in close confinement for more than three years, when he was liberated at the request of the Spanish Ambassador, on condition of leaving the country.[520]
Undeterred by the mutterings of discontent to which the collection of the Benevolence had given rise, the Government, anxious to Commission for compounding for fines on buildings.escape at any cost from its financial difficulties, had recourse to means which were not likely to increase its popularity in the City of London. The King’s proclamation, by which he had hoped, in 1611, to restrain the increase of buildings in London and Westminster, had not been attended with any effect. He now determined to make one more effort to check what was considered to be the over-population of the capital. In October, 1614, an order was issued to the aldermen of London, and to the justices of the peace in the neighbouring counties, to report on the condition of the buildings.[521] In the following May a commission was issued to the whole of the Privy Council, to whom some of the judges and other persons of note were joined.[522] They were to summon before them all persons who <306>had built new houses, or who, in rebuilding old ones, had constructed the fronts of wood, and to fine them for their offences. The same fate was to overtake those who had let part of their houses to lodgers, if they had not done so previously to Michaelmas, 1603. The obloquy which James brought upon himself by this attempt to help out his exchequer by such means was enough to induce him to issue a proclamation, two months later, in which he declared that he had never thought of his own profit, and that, in order to prove the sincerity of his statement, he had consented, not, as might be supposed, to remit the fines, but to give a positive and final order that nobody should build any more houses; in which case there would, of course, be no fines to levy.[523] The sum obtained by the Commission had been no more than 4,000l., an amount which can hardly be regarded as sufficient to counterbalance the irritation which was caused by the mode in which it was obtained.
On the same day as that on which the aldermen and justices were required to report on the growth of London, a letter was addressed by 1614.Oct. 16.The brewers.the Council to the Lord Mayor, requiring him to examine into the progress of an evil of an equally alarming description. It had reached the ears of the Government that the brewers of London were in the habit of brewing exceedingly strong beer, and thereby of breaking the laws which had been made for the purpose of preventing the unnecessary consumption of barley.[524] The Lord Mayor was to examine into the facts, and to make a report to the Council. This, however, was not the only point on which the Government was brought into collision with the brewers. The money owed for two thousand casks which had been taken for the King’s household was still unpaid, and it was rumoured that there was an intention of laying an imposition of twopence a barrel upon beer. In these straits, the brewers discovered in the charter of the city of London a clause by which they were, as they fancied, exempted from purveyance, and on the strength of this they demanded immediate payment of the <307>debt owing to them. The Council sent Bacon to prove to them that the King was not bound to pay ready money for any article above the value of forty shillings, and at the same time declared explicitly that the rumour of the intended imposition was a mere fabrication. The money owed should be paid immediately, and similar debts should in future be met at the close of every year.[525] With this the brewers were obliged to be content, and they were also forced to enter into bonds of 100l. each, that they would in future brew beer sufficiently weak to please the Lords of the Council.[526]
The dissolution of Parliament, and the consequent failure to bring supplies into the Exchequer, were certain to diminish any weight which The question of Cleves and Juliers.James might otherwise have had in his interference with the conflict which seemed to be on the point of breaking out on the Rhine. There can be little doubt that the Spaniards were emboldened by the attitude of the House of Commons. As soon as the news of the dissolution reached Brussels, the agent of the English Government found himself in the midst of politicians who confidently predicted the speedy outbreak of a rebellion in England,[527] and though the event proved that they had miscalculated the extent of the national spirit of endurance, they would not be wrong in concluding that James would, at such a moment, find it impossible to send an army into the Duchies.
Some weeks before Spinola entered the disputed territories, James had sent Wotton to the Hague, in the hope of being able to Wotton’s negotiations.settle the question by negotiation, and even after the invasion had taken place, he continued to direct him to do what he could to bring the quarrel to an amicable termination. The Treaty of Xanten.Conferences were held at Xanten, at which the English and French ambassadors appeared as mediators. An arrangement was at length <308>come to on November 2, 1614, by which the two rivals agreed to share the revenue and other advantages of the government between them, but to make a division of the territory, which should be valid till some final decision should be taken.[528]
It was not without difficulty that the claimants had been induced to submit to these stipulations. But a still greater obstacle arose Difficulties between the Dutch and Spaniards.as soon as it was proposed that the Dutch and Spanish troops should evacuate the Duchies. Spinola proposed that both parties should agree never to enter them again. Maurice, who was afraid that the Elector of Brandenburg might be attacked by the German Princes of the Catholic League, could only be brought to declare that he would never return so long as the Treaty of Xanten was maintained intact. To make matters worse, Spinola received an order from Spain to hold Wesel until the King had made up his mind whether he would give his consent to the observance of the treaty or not. The conferences broke up, and the two armies remained face to face, each occupying the ground upon which they stood.
During the whole of the early part of the following year, James was labouring indefatigably to find some form of agreement which would 1615.Renewed negotiations.satisfy both parties. At last he obtained the assent of the Archduke to a form which permitted the Dutch to enter the territories in the event of war breaking out.[529] To this the States-General demurred. They wished a clause to be inserted which would enable them to pass through the Duchies, in case of an attack being made upon their other German allies. Here James refused to support them. To him it was a mere question of regulating an ordinary dispute relating to a definite portion of <309>territory. To them it was only a part of the great quarrel which must sooner or later be brought once more to the arbitration of war. Between the two Governments, therefore, there was no possibility of agreement. The Dutch retained their hold upon the fortresses which were garrisoned by their soldiers, and kept the road to Germany open. James, Recall of Wotton.after fruitless attempts to persuade them that they were unreasonable and in the wrong, withdrew his ambassador, in order to bring these fruitless negotiations to a close.
Unfortunately, the question of the evacuation of the fortresses on the Rhine was Commercial rivalry between England and Holland.not the only subject upon which a disagreement existed between the two Governments, at a time when it was above all things desirable that a good understanding should be maintained between the leading Protestant powers.
The claim which had been put forward by the English to the exclusive right in the Northern whale fishery could not possibly The whale fishery.be acknowledged by the hardy Dutch sailors who had spent their lives in battling with the Polar seas. It was evident that, unless concessions were made, a collision would, sooner or later, ensue.
It was of still greater importance to settle as speedily as possible the disputes which had already begun to arise out of The East India trade.the lucrative commerce of the East Indian seas. That commerce had, for almost the whole of the sixteenth century, been a monopoly in the hands of the Portuguese. But with the absorption of Portugal in the Spanish empire, and with the growing weakness of Spain itself, the thought of disputing this monopoly occurred to the merchants of other nations. In 1595, Dutch ships made their way round the Cape, and by degrees the Portuguese found themselves supplanted in their most valuable commercial stations. In 1602, the great Dutch East India Company was formed by the union of the smaller associations by which these original enterprises had been undertaken. Their ships were fitted out for fighting as well as for conveying merchandise. The Portuguese, emboldened by their long supremacy in those seas, had rendered themselves obnoxious to many of the native princes <310>by their overbearing demeanour. The Dutch skilfully availed themselves of this feeling, and constituted themselves the protectors of the natives. In this way they easily obtained permission to erect their factories, and even induced the sovereigns whom they had defended to enter into contracts with them, by which they engaged to sell to them alone the most valuable produce of their territories. By these means the whole of the commerce of the finer spices which were produced in the islands of the Eastern Archipelago fell into their hands. What this trade was worth may be imagined from the fact that in 1602 an English vessel brought a cargo of cloves from Amboyna, which sold for more than twelve hundred per cent. upon its cost price.
In 1599, a handful of London merchants applied to Elizabeth for permission to trade to the East Indies. At first she turned 1599.The English East India Company.a deaf ear to their request, as the negotiations at Boulogne were in progress, and she was unwilling to do anything which might bring her into additional antagonism to the Spanish Government. But as soon as her hopes of peace were at an end, she expressed her readiness to listen to their proposals, and in the following year she 1600.granted them the charter which they desired. The English East India Company, thus founded, pushed on in the track of the Dutch sailors who had preceded it in those seas. Factories at Acheen and Bantam.Neglecting the great country with which its future history was to be indelibly associated, its first factories were erected at Acheen in Sumatra, and at Bantam in Java. It was not till 1608 that the agents of the Company reported that the cloths and calicoes of Hindustan were in request in Sumatra and Java, and suggested that if factories were established at Cambay and Surat, they might get into their hands the trade between the islands and that part of the continent. In 1612, 1612.Trade with Surat.some English ships, which, in an attempt to act upon this suggestion, were engaged in opening the trade at Surat, were attacked by an overwhelming force of Portuguese, who were unwilling to tolerate the presence of intruders on a coast which they had so long looked upon as <311>their own, and which they overawed by means of a succession of fortified posts dependent upon the chief station at Goa. In spite of the superiority of numbers, however, they were doomed to disappointment. The English vessels, after a hard struggle, succeeded in driving off the enemy. The natives here, as everywhere else, looked upon the Portuguese as oppressors, and, in consequence of their victory, the English had no difficulty in obtaining permission to establish a factory at Surat.
In the following year one of the factors of Surat travelled to Ahmedabad. On his return, he reported that it would be advantageous The factory at Surat.to open a direct trade with the markets in the interior, and recommended that a resident should be sent from England, who might obtain the necessary facilities from the Mogul Emperor.
The person selected for this novel enterprise was Sir Thomas Roe. Like Sir Henry Neville, he was one of those men who, Sir Thomas Roe.if James had been well advised, would have been the very first to be selected for high office. In 1609 he had made a voyage to Guiana, and had sailed the broad waters of the Amazon. In 1614 he had taken his place in the House of Commons, and had given a firm but loyal support to the principles of Sandys and Whitelocke. He was thus admirably qualified to act with that body of men who were prepared to stand as mediators between the past and the future, and to show that the loyalty and patriotism of the Elizabethan age were not incompatible with the growing spirit of independence with which the nation was pervaded.
With the dissolution all hopes of usefulness for him at home were at an end, and we may well believe that he now looked without dissatisfaction 1615.His embassy to Agra.upon the distant and perilous employment which was proposed to him. He left England in the spring of 1615, and upon his arrival in India made his way without delay to the court of the Emperor Jehanghir at Agra. During his stay there he forwarded several wise suggestions to the Company. He advised them not to attempt to become a political power, or to waste their money, like the Portuguese, in building forts and batteries. <312>This advice was undoubtedly the best which could be given at the time. His advice to the Company.As long as the whole of Northern India was in the hands of a powerful Sovereign, it was better that a body of traders should be able to show that they trusted implicitly to his protection. With that protection they were unable to dispense, as it would be hopeless for a handful of foreigners to attempt to maintain themselves in a corner of the empire by force of arms. The time when anarchy and weakness made a different course advisable had not yet arrived.
In the same spirit, the Ambassador pointed out that his own mission was altogether a mistake. What was needed was a native resident who would represent their wishes in the same way as the wishes of any other body of traders might be brought before the Emperor. The authority with which a representative of the King of England was obliged to speak only made it more difficult to obtain privileges for those who, after all, were only merchants exercising their avocation on sufferance.[530]
This extension of their trade did not, however, compensate the Company for the loss of their commerce with the Spice Islands, of which 1611.The Company dissatisfied with the loss of the spice trade.they had been deprived by the encroachments of the Dutch. It was in 1611 that the English East India Company first laid its complaints before the Government. Their Dutch rivals had taken possession of all the posts which were most advantageous for trade, and their armed vessels and the fortifications which they had erected were sufficiently powerful to keep the English at a distance. Salisbury immediately forwarded to Winwood the complaint which had been laid before him, and directed him to lay it before the States-General.[531] The reply of the States was conciliatory, and promises were made that orders should be sent out to the Dutch merchants to desist from their proceedings. This was very well as far as it went; <313>but it was exceedingly problematical whether such orders would meet with obedience on the other side of the globe.[532]
In the meanwhile a proposal was made by the Dutch for an amalgamation of the two Companies.[533] This proposal proving distasteful to the English, commissioners, of whom the celebrated Grotius was one, were sent over to London in the spring of 1613.[534] The negotiation came to nothing; but towards the 1614.end of the following year James determined to take it up again, and accordingly directed Clement Edmondes, the Clerk of the Council, together with two other commissioners, to betake themselves to the Hague, to treat upon the disputed points, under Wotton’s superintendence. At the same time they were ordered to try to come to some terms on the subject of the disputed fishing-grounds.
The commissioners arrived at their destination on January 20, 1615. The discussions were carried on till the beginning of April, 1615.Negotiations at the Hague.when the negotiations were finally broken off. The English began by demanding that the principle of freedom of trade should be at once accepted, as the starting-point of the deliberations. The Dutch replied that they had been at considerable expense in equipping fleets, by which the seats of the spice trade had been cleared of the Portuguese, and that the native princes who had been succoured by them were under contract to furnish the produce of their territories exclusively to them. It was not fair, therefore, that the English should share in the benefits which others had gained only after a considerable expenditure of men and money.
Upon this the English professed their readiness to bear their fair share in the defence of the islands against the Spaniards and Portuguese. This, however, was not sufficient for the Dutch. They declared plainly that the only condition on which the English could be admitted to an equality with Holland in the spice trade was an engagement to join in an aggressive warfare upon Spain, at least beyond the Cape. <314>When the Eastern seas were swept of every remnant of Portuguese commerce, then the English and the Dutch might jointly exercise as complete a monopoly in the East Indies as that which was claimed by Spain in the West. To this proposal the English Commissioners gave a decided negative. The negotiations on this important question having come to an end, no attempt was made to continue the discussion which had been already commenced on the subject of the fishery.[535]
This constant bickering between the English Government and the States-General could not fail to exercise a favourable influence upon 1614.that understanding with Spain which was growing up partly by reason of James’s dissatisfaction with his last Parliament, but still more through his belief that the Spanish monarchy was the chief conservative power in Europe. Yet in spite of the overtures which he had authorised Sarmiento to make shortly after the dissolution, he had not decided to break with France. In July, 1614, he was delighted to hear that Suarez’ book had been publicly burnt in Paris, and there were some who thought that the news had something to do with the tardy instructions given in the course of that month to Edmondes to return to his post as ambassador in France[536] in order that he might lay before the Queen Regent the English counter-proposals on the marriage treaty, which he had brought over in February.[537] To these, however, James received no immediate answer, and as the autumn drew on he was told that it was impossible to consider the subject until after the conclusion of the expected assembly of the States-General.
The fact was that the Queen Regent had no longer any heart for the English alliance. It would, perhaps, be unfair to say that she allowed the English proposals to be listened to simply in order to content the Princes of the Blood, and the other great <315>nobles who were dissatisfied with the Spanish marriages. She, no doubt, knew very well that it was advisable, for the interests of France, not to put herself unreservedly in the hands of Spain; but, at all events, it is plain that her sympathies were not with England.
It would be impossible to play this double game much longer. The States-General, which met in October, could hardly be dissolved without forcing her to declare her policy.
It is a strange and instructive contrast which meets the eye of anyone who glances over the records of those two assemblies which The States-General.met on either side of the Channel in the course of the same year. In Westminster, the Commons called upon the House of Lords to assist them against the King. In Paris, the Third Estate called upon the King to assist it against the other two. On both sides of the Channel justice was on the side of the representatives of the people. But whereas in England the House of Commons represented the force as well as the rights of the nation, in France the Third Estate was powerless unless the Sovereign would lend it the strength of that organization which he alone could give. Between it and the privileged orders there was a great gulf, which it was in vain to attempt to bridge over. One day an orator from amongst the Third Estate spoke of the other orders as the elder brethren of the family to which his own class belonged. The nobles and the clergy shrank back with horror at the profanation, and the boy-King was brought down in state to bid the Third Estate ask pardon for the insult which it had offered.
There was not one of the points upon which the Third Estate insisted to which James, if he had sat upon the throne of France, would not have given his hearty concurrence. These men would have made Louis XIII. a king indeed. They called on him to withdraw from the nobility the pensions which were wrung out of the people, to take his stand against the encroachments of the Papal power by imposing an oath of allegiance, and to withdraw from the clergy certain privileges which were oppressive to the people. It was all in vain. The Regent had taken her side. Her son should be King of the nobles and the priests; he should not be the King of the <316>people. The last States-General of monarchical France were dismissed abruptly, but not before the ominous words had been heard, ‘We are the anvil now; the time may come when we shall be the hammer.’
The hesitation of the French Court could not fail to drive James in the direction of Spain. Spain was indeed quite ready Dec.Sarmiento’s view of the Spanish marriage.to welcome his overtures provided it was not required to bind itself too strictly. ‘Supposing,’ wrote Sarmiento in December, 1614, ‘that what this King offers and capitulates in favour of Catholics is to be carried out immediately, and the Lady Infanta will not be given up for years, it is to be hoped that, during this time, the Catholic religion will have become so powerful in this country, and everything which at present is unsatisfactory will have improved so much that His Majesty will be able to act with all security, and that afterwards it might be that the Prince himself may wish to see Spain, and go to be married there, and hear mass and a sermon in the Church of Our Lady of Atocha.’[538]
Ignorant of these far-reaching plans Digby started for Madrid. He had not been there many days before he showed that Digby at Madrid.he was by no means inclined to be the humble servant of the King of Spain. When the articles were laid before him, there was scarcely one against which he had not some objection to raise, and it was not till some months had passed that he agreed to forward them to England. Even then the negotiations were not to be considered as formally opened. Until James had given his consent to the articles, the negotiation with France was not to be broken off, and all that passed between Lerma and Digby was to bear an unofficial character.
Sarmiento knew that, if Digby proved adverse, he would be able to fall back upon Somerset. It was in the autumn of 1614 <317>that the influence of the Scottish favourite reached its highest point. Somerset’s influence with the King.As Lord Chamberlain he was in constant attendance upon the King, and though he had not the official title of Secretary, he was treated as a confidential adviser far more than Winwood, through whom the correspondence with the ambassadors ostensibly passed. In spite of all his frivolity, there was something not altogether despicable in Somerset’s character. Although he took care to fill his own pockets with the money which was offered to him by men who wished to obtain the King’s consent to their wants, at least no public scandal is to be traced to him. We never hear of any attempt, on his part, to interfere with the due course of the law, or to obtain assignments of duties upon commerce. In his dealing with his dependents, he frequently displayed a generosity for which we are hardly prepared. But his connection with the Howards ruined him. The most respectable members of the Privy Council — Ellesmere, Pembroke, and Worcester — began to look upon him not merely as an upstart, but as a man who was prepared to influence the King in favour of their rivals.
All this time, the attention of all who hated Somerset was turned upon a young man who had lately made his appearance at Court. First appearance of Villiers.It was at Apthorpe, in the beginning of August 1614, that George Villiers first presented himself before the King. He was of singularly prepossessing appearance, and was endowed not only with personal vigour, but with that readiness of speech which James delighted in.
He was a younger son, by a second marriage, of Sir George Villiers, a Leicestershire knight of good family. His mother, Mary Beaumont, was not inferior by birth to her husband, but in early life she had occupied a dependent position in the household of her relation, Lady Beaumont of Coleorton.[539] <318>When she became a widow her means were once more straitened, and she was burdened with the charge of providing for a family which consisted of three sons and a daughter. George, her second son, was her favourite, and she determined to educate him for a courtier’s life. As far as solid intellectual training was concerned, she did nothing for him; but she used every means in her power to perfect him in all external accomplishments.
When James first saw him he was in his twenty-second year. It was an anxious moment both for his mother and himself. If he did not succeed in impressing the King in his favour, no other career was open to him. Almost the whole of his father’s property having descended to the children of the first marriage, all his fortune amounted to a miserable 50l. a year, and his education had unfitted him for any of the ordinary means of raising himself in the world.
Fortunately, however, for him, at least as far as his more immediate prospects were concerned, James seems to have He comes to Court.liked him from the first, and, if he did not himself invite him to Court, was by no means displeased to see him there. According to one account the early favour which James showed to Villiers was the result of a compact between himself and Somerset, who thought that if the King sometimes treated the young Englishman with civility, it would shut the mouths of those who alleged that he sacrificed himself to Scotchmen.[540] Those, however, who wished ill to Somerset, soon took him in hand, and instructed him how to gain the ear of the King. Sir John Graham, one of the Gentlemen of the Privy Chamber, gave him a piece of advice which he accepted without difficulty. He was attached to the daughter of Sir Roger Aston, and it is said that she would have been his wife if he had been able to scrape together the little sum which her parents required before they could prudently consent to the marriage. Graham advised him to think no more of entangling himself in such a manner at the very beginning of his career. This advice he determined to take. <319>If he felt any compunction at the step, he managed to conceal it from the knowledge of the world.
In November, the supporters of Villiers were in hopes of obtaining for him a post in the bedchamber. Somerset, however, remonstrated, and the King, who appears to have formed no intention of deserting his old favourite, gave the place to one of Somerset’s nephews.[541] Villiers was obliged to content himself with the inferior position of a cup-bearer.
It was apparently a month or two after this that James began to take umbrage at Somerset’s behaviour. Somerset’s Somerset’s behaviour to the King.position had, no doubt, long been a trying one. It is plain from the manner in which the King is referred to in the letters which Overbury wrote from the Tower, that even at that time Somerset had no respect whatever for his patron. He had already accustomed himself to look upon the King’s company as a necessary evil, which must be endured on account of the benefits which were to be obtained through the Royal favour. He now became aware that there was a powerful league formed against him. He heard men muttering that one man should not for ever rule them all. Villiers’ presence provoked him, and he treated him with studied insolence. As if it were not enough that he had alienated the affections of all excepting the family of the Howards, he now proceeded to do his best to offend the King. He seems to have thought that James was a mere plaything in his hands. He disturbed him at unseasonable hours by complaints of the factious conduct of his enemies. He even had the audacity to accuse the King of being in league with those who had combined to ruin him, and used language towards his sovereign, ‘in comparison’ of which, as James told him, ‘all Peacham’s book’ was ‘but a gentle admonition.’
Somerset had made a great mistake. If he had played his cards well 1615.The King’s expostulatory letter.he might have maintained his position, at least till some unexpected event revealed the mysteries of the Tower. But James was not likely to submit to be bullied by one whom he looked upon as the work of <320>his hands. He wrote to his favourite an expostulatory letter, which is perhaps the strangest which was ever addressed to a subject by a sovereign.[542] As for the factions, he wrote, of which Somerset complained, he knew nothing of them, and he certainly should refuse to give heed to any accusations against him proceeding from such a quarter. He had done all that was in his power to prove that his confidence was undiminished. He had made Graham, who had incurred Somerset’s ill-will, feel his displeasure.[543] He had admitted Somerset’s nephew to the vacant place which he demanded for him, though even the Queen had begged him to give it to another. He now told him that his behaviour was unbearable. His affection for him was great, but he would not be forced any longer to listen to the abusive language with which he had been wholly overwhelmed. Let Somerset only deal with him as a friend, and there was nothing which he was not ready to grant him. But he was resolved not to put up with his present behaviour any longer. He concluded by reminding him that he and his father-in-law were in such positions that all suits of importance passed through their hands, so that they had no real reason to be discontented.
What was the immediate result of this letter we do not know. On March 7, we find the King at Cambridge, which he visited The King’s visit to Cambridge.to do honour to Suffolk, who had, upon the death of his uncle Northampton, been elected Chancellor of the University. Even in the midst of these festivities, signs were not wanting of the mutual hostility of the factions by which the Court was distracted. Suffolk, who entertained the company, had not thought proper to invite the Queen to partake of his hospitality, and it was noticed that not a single lady accompanied the Court who was <321>not in some way or another connected with the Howard family.[544]
The combination thus formed against Somerset was too general to be explained by merely political considerations. Somerset, however, The Savoy war.knew that the enemies of Spain formed its main strength. For some little time James had been giving ear to those who urged him to oppose Spain on the Continent. For three years the Duke of Savoy had been engaged in a war in which he had stood up against the whole force of the Spanish monarchy. In spite of frequent defeats, Charles Emanuel was still unconquered. The English and French Governments agreed in advising him to make peace with his formidable enemy. When some of the French nobles prepared to raise a force to support him in case of the failure of the negotiations, the Regent took measures to prevent a single man from leaving France for such a purpose. James, on the other hand, sent the Duke 15,000l., a large sum for him to provide out of his impoverished treasury.[545]
Somerset knew that he must put forth all his influence to defeat the combination formed against him, and that in striking for Spain he was in reality striking for himself. He was suspicious of Digby, whom he regarded as in compact with his opponents, and whose despatches may very possibly have contributed to make James look doubtfully on the prospects of the projected marriage. Somerset, therefore, pressed James to take the main course of the negotiation out of the hands of the ambassador, and to place it in his own, and James weakly conceded his request.
In consequence of this resolution, Sarmiento was, about the middle of April, surprised by a visit from Sir Robert Cotton, the antiquary. Cotton told him that he was sent by the King and Somerset, who both wished to see the negotiation in other hands than those of Digby. The ambassador, he said, was in correspondence with Abbot and Pembroke; and much mischief <322>would ensue if he were to let them know that the King had decided to accede to the demands of Spain. James had therefore resolved to authorise Somerset to treat secretly, if only assurances were given that Philip would not expect such concessions on religious matters as he could not grant without risk to his kingdom or his life.[546]
Though Somerset’s enemies can have known nothing with certainty of his relations with Sarmiento, his leanings towards Spain Intrigues against Somerset.can hardly have been kept secret. They had long been on the watch for an opportunity of supplanting him, and they instigated the Archbishop to do his best to procure the assistance of the Queen. Abbot had good cause to wish for Somerset’s disgrace. Not only had the favourite’s connection with the divorce case indelibly impressed itself upon his memory, but he justly regarded his friendship with the Howards as an act of treason to the great cause of Protestantism which he himself so heartily supported. In his eyes, and in the eyes of the malcontent Privy Councillors who acted with him, the substitution of Villiers for Somerset was not a mere personal question. No doubt Villiers, to all appearance, was tractable enough, and his affability was in strong contrast to Somerset’s arrogance. But the chief point of difference was this, that while Somerset acted as a man who had been selected by the King at a time when he was distrustful of his Council, Villiers, having achieved his position by the aid of the principal Councillors, would, as they fondly hoped, be content with maintaining a good correspondence between the Sovereign and his ministers.
At first Abbot did not find the Queen so willing to forward his scheme as he had expected. She had indeed no love for Somerset, but April.Abbot obtains the Queen’s assistance.neither was she likely to look with favour on a nominee of Abbot and the Protestants. She knew her husband’s character well enough to assure Abbot that he was only preparing a scourge for himself. James would never allow a successor of Somerset to occupy any other position than one of complete dependence <323>on himself, and he was certain to teach him to ride rough-shod over those through whose countenance he had risen to power.
In spite of these warnings, Abbot persisted in his entreaties. He knew that the Queen’s intervention was indispensable, for it was one of James’s peculiarities that he would never admit anyone to his intimacy who had not previously secured the Queen’s good word, so that if she afterwards complained of the person whom he had advanced, he might be able to reply that he had owed his preferment to her recommendation.
The Queen at length withdrew her opposition. On the evening of April 23, she pressed her husband to confer on Villiers April 23.Villiers made Gentleman of the Bedchamber.the office of Gentleman of the Bedchamber. Outside the door were Somerset on the one hand, and Abbot and his friends on the other, all anxiously waiting for James’s decision. Somerset, who felt that his high position was at stake, sent a message to the King, imploring him at least to be content with conferring on Villiers the inferior office of Groom of the Bedchamber. Abbot sent a counter-message to the Queen, pressing her to insist on the higher post. At last James gave way to his wife’s entreaties, and Villiers received the appointment for which the Queen had originally asked. The new Gentleman of the Bedchamber was also knighted, and endowed with a pension of 1,000l. a year.[547]
The favour shown to Villiers did not necessarily imply any cooling of James’s affection to Somerset. Somerset may have shown May.James reads the articlesof the Spanish treaty.signs of ill-temper, and James may have seized the opportunity of giving a warning which might have more effect than the letter which he had addressed three months before.[548] Some little time after this scene Digby’s despatch, giving an account of the articles, arrived in England. It was the first time that James had seen the Spanish demands formally set down on paper. He was asked to stipulate that any children that might be born of the marriage should be baptized after the Catholic ritual by a Catholic priest, that they should be educated by their mother, and that if, upon coming of age, they chose to adopt their mother’s religion, they should <324>be at liberty to do so, without being on that account excluded from the succession. The servants attached to the Infanta’s household, and even the wet-nurses of the children, were to be exclusively Catholics. There was to be a public chapel or church April.open to all who chose to avail themselves of it. The ecclesiastics attached to it were to wear their clerical habits when they appeared in the streets; and one of their number was to exercise jurisdiction over the Infanta’s household. Finally, the execution of the penal laws was to be suspended.
Anything more fatal to the domestic peace of the Prince, and to the popularity of the monarchy, it is impossible to conceive. Mischief contained in them.Charles was required to admit into his home a wife who would never cease to be ostentatiously a foreigner, and to parade her attachment to a foreign Church, and her devotion to a foreign sovereign, before the eyes of all men. A religion which England had shaken off was to be allowed to creep back upon English soil, not by its own increasing persuasiveness, or by the growth of a more tolerant spirit in the nation, but by the support of a monarch whom, of all others, Englishmen most cordially detested. We have ourselves seen two great nations engaged in an arduous war rather than suffer a third Power to establish a religious protectorate over an empire which was not their own. All that, in our own days, was refused by England and France to Russia in the East, James was required to concede to Spain in the very heart of England.
The King’s first impulse was to scribble down some notes on the side of the paper on which the articles were written, which, James disposed to refuse assent.if they had been converted into a formal reply would have been equivalent to a declaration that he meant to throw up the negotiation altogether.[549] These notes were by no means deficient in that shrewdness <325>which was characteristic of the man. He was as fully convinced, he wrote, of the truth of his own religion, as the King of Spain could be of his; and he intended to educate his grandchildren in the doctrines which he himself professed. He was, however, ready to promise not to use compulsion, and would engage that, if they became Catholics by their own choice, they should not be debarred from the succession. The laws of England enjoined obedience to the King, whatever his religion might be. It was only by the Jesuits that the contrary doctrine was maintained. The servants who accompanied the Infanta might be of any religion they pleased; and, as to the wet-nurses, it would be better to leave the selection of them to the physicians, who would be guided in their choice by the health and constitution of the candidates rather than by their religious opinions. The Infanta might have a large chapel for her household, but there was to be no public church. The permission to the clergy to wear their ecclesiastical habits in the streets would cause public scandal. As to the remission of the penal laws, it would be time enough to consider the point when everything else had been arranged.
It does not need much seeking to discover the causes of James’s hesitation to accept the Spanish proposals. But, as usual, personal interests combined with general ones in influencing his mind. During the first half of May, in which James had these articles before him, he was discussing with his lawyers the preparations for Owen’s trial, which ultimately took place on May 17. These discussions had brought vividly before his mind the danger of assassination, and for the time he was completely unnerved. He slept in a bed round which three other beds were arranged to serve as a barricade, and when he moved from place to place, he drove at as rapid a pace as possible, surrounded by a troop of running footmen who were directed to hinder any attempt to approach him.[550] It is therefore no wonder that at such a moment James should have taken fright lest the strength to be gained by the alliance with Spain should prove to his son’s advantage rather <326>than to his own. Charles, he fancied, supported by the King of Spain, and by the English Catholics, might be persuaded to head a rebellion against his father. He saw his own dethronement in the future, and he pictured himself an old and worn-out man, reduced to end his days in a dungeon, of which his son and the wife with whom he was about to provide him would keep the keys. It would be well if this were all. For, as he was heard to say, a deposed king might easily be murdered even by his own children. On another occasion he pointedly asked Sarmiento what possible motive Charles V. could have had for abdicating in favour of his son; and the tone in which he asked the question convinced the Spaniard that he had not the slightest inclination to follow the Emperor’s example. At other times James pointed more reasonably to the more probable danger of the increase of power which the English Catholics would obtain through the support of Spain.[551]
James did not always talk like this. There was a conflict in his mind between fear of his own subjects and a desire to obtain the support of the King of Spain. The prospect of obtaining a French princess was less hopeful than it had been, and before the end of May James learnt that the Regent’s answer to his last proposals was such as, in his eyes, was equivalent to a refusal.[552] At last, about the middle of June, his irresolution came to an end, and he sent to tell Sarmiento that, if some slight modifications were made in the articles, he would be ready to take them for the basis of the negotiation.
The messenger who brought the news to Sarmiento was again Sir Robert Cotton. He was mad with delight, he said, at having been June.Sir Robert Cotton.made the channel of such a communication. At last, he added, a prospect was opened of his being able to live and die a professed Catholic, as his ancestors had done before him. As soon as Sarmiento heard this, he rose from his seat, and caught the bearer of the <327>welcome tidings in his arms. The time would come when Cotton would find in his parchments and precedents that his ancestors had been distinguished for other things besides their attachment to the Church of Rome. But for the present he was taking a part over which, in later life, he probably cast a discreet veil in his conversations with the parliamentary statesmen. The man who was to be the friend of Eliot and Selden now assured the Spanish Ambassador that he was a Catholic at heart, and that he could not understand how a man of sense could be anything else.[553]
On July 3, Cotton re-appeared. The King, he said, had ordered the July 3.Somerset to conduct the marriage treaty.negotiations with France to be broken off. If Sarmiento had a commission from the King of Spain to treat, he would give a similar one to Somerset.[554]
It is evident that Somerset was still high in James’s favour, though he was unable to have everything his own way. He was a mark for the hostility of all who despised him as a Scotchman, and hated him as a favourite. This sense of insecurity made him querulous and impatient, and he continued to vent his ill-humour upon the King. James marked his displeasure by refusing to gratify his wish to retain in his own hands the Wardenship of the Cinque Ports, which, after Northampton’s death, Somerset’s requests refused.had been provisionally entrusted to his care, and on July 13 he conferred it upon Lord Zouch, who had not even asked for the appointment. To Somerset’s urgent entreaties that the vacant office of Lord <328>Privy Seal might be given to Bishop Bilson[555], James refused to give an immediate reply, and when the spoiled favourite took offence he answered in a manner which shows that, if there was a quarrel between the two men, it was not on the King’s side that it arose. “I have been needlessly troubled this day,” wrote James, “with your desperate letters; you may take the right way, if you list, and neither grieve me nor yourself. No man’s nor woman’s credit is able to cross you at my hands if you pay me a part of that you owe me. But, how you can give over that inward affection, and yet be a dutiful servant, I cannot understand that distinction. Heaven and earth shall bear me witness that, if you do but the half your duty unto me, you may be with me in the old manner, only by expressing that love to my person and respect to your master that God and man crave of you, with a hearty and feeling penitence of your bypast errors. God move your heart to take the right course, for the fault shall be only in yourself; and so farewell.”[556]
James knew well enough that, in the position which Somerset held, he could not sink into the merely faithful subject. It went to his heart to have to bear the ingratitude of one for whom he had done so much. Yet, if he expostulated in private, he still hoped for the best, and openly maintained the arrogant upstart against his ill-willers. Somerset’s temper was thoroughly roused. About this time, according to a story which has not come down from any good authority, James directed Villiers to wait upon Somerset, and to request him to take him under his protection. “I will none of your service,” was the short and hasty answer, “and you shall none of my favour. I will, if I can, break your neck, and of that be confident.”[557]
Provoking as Somerset’s conduct had been, James could not bear to abandon him to the vengeance of his opponents. Knowing, as he did, that he had done many things for which <329>he might be called in question, he directed Cotton to draw out Somerset prepares a pardon for himself.a pardon which might cover the greatest number of possible offences, and this pardon, by the King’s direction, was sealed with the Privy Seal. Yelverton, however, who as Solicitor-General was called on to examine it, refused to certify its fitness for passing the Great Seal, as including offences for which pardons were not usually granted, and his contention appears to have been supported by the Chancellor.[558]
Upon this, Cotton was directed by Somerset to draw up another pardon, still more extensive, which he framed after the model of that which had been granted to Wolsey, in the reign of Henry VIII. Stress was afterwards laid upon the fact that amongst the crimes which were mentioned occurs that of being accessory before the fact to murder.[559] The answer which he then gave was in all probability true — that he had left these details to the lawyers.[560] It is hardly likely that, if he had been really guilty of murder, he would have allowed nearly two years to slip by without procuring a pardon, on some pretence or another.
However this may have been, Ellesmere refused to pass the pardon under the Great Seal, telling Somerset that he would July 20.Ellesmere refuses to pass it.inform the King and the Council of his reasons for holding back. At a meeting of the Council, held in the King’s presence on July 20, Somerset pleaded his own cause in words which, it is said, had been prearranged by James. He declared that it was only on account of the malice of his enemies that he had asked for a pardon at all. If the Lord Chancellor had any charge to bring against him, let him bring it at once. As soon as Somerset had ended, James ordered silence. Somerset, he said, had acted rightly in requesting a pardon. In his own lifetime Somerset would have no need of it, and he wished them all to undeceive <330>themselves if they thought otherwise, but he wished that the Prince, who was standing by, James orders Ellesmere to seal it.might never be able to undo that which his father had done. “Therefore, my Lord Chancellor,” he ended by saying, “seal it at once, for such is my pleasure.”
Ellesmere threw himself on his knees, asking if the King wished Somerset to be allowed to rob him of the jewels and furniture committed to his charge, as it was stated in the pardon that he was to give no account of anything. If the King ordered him to seal the pardon, he would do it, provided that he had first a pardon for himself for doing so.
On this James angrily rose. “I have ordered you to pass the pardon,” he said, as he left the Council Chamber, “and pass it you shall.” The pardon not sealed.Yet, in spite of his indignation, it was difficult to fix James in any resolution. As soon as he left the Council, the Queen, together with Somerset’s other enemies, urged all that could be said against the pardon. James could not make up his mind to resist them, at least for the present. He had fixed that day as the beginning of his progress, and he was in a hurry to be once more in the midst of the enjoyments of the country. He left Whitehall without coming to a decided resolution.[561] It was perhaps in order to make amends to Somerset for his failure to support him to the end that, ten days afterwards, Bishop Bilson, though he did not obtain the Privy Seal, was, avowedly at the favourite’s recommendation, admitted to a seat in the Privy Council.[562]
[517] That Bacon retained his opinion on this subject is plain from his language in relating Sir William Stanley’s case: ‘History of Henry VII.’, Works, vi. 151.
[518] The King suggested that they should be consulted separately, as in Peacham’s case; but Bacon told him that it was unnecessary, as the case was so clear.
[519] Bacon to the King, Jan. 27, and Feb. 11, Letters and Life, v. 100, 118. State Trials, ii. 879.
[520] Pardon of Owen, July 24, 1618, S. P. Sign Manuals, ix. 45.
[521] Council Register, Oct. 16, 1614.
[522] May 15, 1615, Pat. 13 Jac. Part 1.
[523] July 16, Proclamation Book, S. P. Dom. clxxxvii. 44.
[524] Council Register, Oct. 16, 1614.
[525] Council Register, Dec. 4, 1614. The story of the imposition is given by Chamberlain in a letter to Carleton of November 24. Perhaps it originated in a proposal for a composition for purveyance, such as had been by this time pretty generally adopted in the counties.
[526] Council Register, Feb. 16, March 26, 1615.
[527] Trumbull to Winwood, June 30, 1614, S. P. Fland.
[528] Dumont, Corps Diplom. v. part ii. 259.
[529] Bentivoglio, Relationi, 186. Wotton’s correspondence, Aug. 1614 – Aug. 1615, S. P. Hol. The form proposed was, ‘Et promettons en oultre que les dicts gens de guerre ni aucuns dependants de nous ne rentreront à l’advenir dans les dicts pays pour y prendre aucune place soubs quelque nom ou pretexte que ce soit, sy non en cas qu’iceulx pays vinssent à tomber en nouvelle guerre ouverte ou invasion manifeste soit facte sur aucun de nos amis dedans les dicts pays.’ — Add. MSS. 17, 677, I. fol. 51 a.
[530] Bruce’s History of the East India Company; Mill’s History of British India.
[531] Petition of the East India Merchants, Nov. 1611, S. P. East Indies, No. 591. Notes of negotiations, 1613, S. P. Hol.
[532] Winwood to Salisbury, Jan. 31, 1612, S. P. Hol.
[533] Winwood to Salisbury, March 10, 1612, S. P. Hol.
[534] Negotiation, March 23 – April 20, 1613, S. P. East Indies, No. 643.
[535] Despatches and negotiations of Clement Edmondes, passim. Feb. 4 – April 18, 1615. S. P. Hol.
[536] Sarmiento to Philip III., Oct. 17. Simancas MSS. 2591, fol. 99.
[537] Instructions to Edmondes, July 1614, S. P. Fr. Amongst other things James said that the Princess should be allowed private worship, although he did not doubt that she would soon be induced to conform to the Church of England.
[538] Sarmiento to Lerma, Dec. 7⁄17, Madrid Palace Library. I owe my knowledge of the documents quoted from this library, and from the Madrid National Library, entirely to the transcripts of Mr. Cosens. I have also been allowed to look over his transcripts of Simancas MSS., some of which I had not met with in the course of my visits to the Spanish archives.
[539] Wilson calls her ‘a young gentlewoman of that name allied, and yet a servant to the lady’ (Kennet, ii. 698), which is more probable than that she was a kitchen maid at her future husband’s own house, which is Roger Coke’s story. Weldon calls her (Secret History of the Court of James I., i. 397) ‘a waiting-gentlewoman;’ if she had really served in a menial office, he would hardly have lost the opportunity of saying so.
[540] Somerset to Lerma, May 6⁄16, 1613, Madrid Palace Library.
[541] Chamberlain to Carleton, Nov. 24., 1614, S. P. Dom. lxxviii. 61. Printed with a wrong date in Court and Times, i. 350.
[542] James to Somerset. Halliwell, Letters of the Kings of England, ii. 126. The date of this letter is probably about January or February, 1615. The reference to Peacham’s book makes it necessarily later than Dec. 9, 1614, and it must have been written before April 23, 1615, when Villiers was made Gentleman of the Bedchamber, as, after that, his appointment would have been expressly referred to as a grievance.
[543] No doubt as being a friend of Villiers.
[544] It was on this occasion that the play of Ignoramus was acted, which gave such offence to the lawyers. Chamberlain to Carleton, March 16, Nichols, Progresses, iii. 48.
[545] Edmondes to Winwood, April 14, S. P. France.
[546] Sarmiento to Philip III., April 18⁄28, Simancas MSS. 2593, fol. 67.
[547] Abbot’s narrative in Rushworth, i. 456.
[549] A translation of these notes will be found in the paper in vol. xli. of the Archæologia already referred to. I have no direct evidence of the time when they were written; but the internal probability is very great that they were the result of the shock occasioned by the first reading of the articles.
[550] Sarmiento to Lerma, May 6⁄16, Madrid Palace Library.
[551] Sarmiento to Lerma. May 6⁄16, Madrid Palace Library. Sarmiento to Philip III.; Sarmiento to Lerma, May 20⁄30, Simancas MSS. 2593, fol. 89, 91. Francisco de Jesus, App.
[552] Answer of Villeroi, May 14⁄24, S. P. France.
[553] Quotation from Sarmiento’s despatch of April 18⁄28, in Archæologia, xli. 157. Sarmiento to Philip III., June 22⁄July 2; Francisco de Jesus, App. In a pamphlet published in 1624, there is a passage which shows that there were many Catholics amongst Cotton’s friends. In it Gondomar is made to say: — “There were few Catholics in England of note from whom … I wrested not out a good sum of money. Sir R. Cotton, a great antiquary, I hear, much complaineth of me, that from his friends and acquaintances only I got into my purse the sum, at the least, of 10,000l.” The second part of the Vox Populi.
[554] Sarmiento to Philip III., July 16⁄26.
[555] Chamberlain to Carleton, July 15, Court and Times, i. 364.
[556] The King to [Somerset], Halliwell’s Letters of the Kings, 133. The date must be between July 13 and 19, during which time the King was at Theobalds.
[557] Weldon, Secret History, i. 407.
[558] It is to Yelverton that the refusal is ascribed in Cotton’s examinations, Cott. MSS. Tit. B. vii. 489, and in the narrative of the trial printed by Amos, 156. Other accounts ascribe it to the Chancellor.
[559] To poisoning, according to the report of the trial (Amos, 151), but this is certainly an embellishment of the speaker or reporter.
[560] Amos, 108.
[561] Sarmiento to Lerma, July 29⁄Aug. 8, Madrid Palace Library, Oct. 20⁄30, Simancas MSS. 2594, fol. 40.
[562] Council Register, Aug. 30; Carew Letters, 15.