<183>In the spring of 1618, just about the time that Raleigh returned from his disastrous voyage, a little book was published which 1618.The Peacemaker.bore the name of The Peacemaker.[320] It is anonymous, but the style of the greater part of it resembles that of Andrewes, though it has passages inserted in it by other hands, one of them having perhaps been written by the King himself. As it bears the royal arms, it may fairly be regarded as James’s manifesto. It recites the blessings of peace.
“Let contention,” cries the author, “enjoy — without joy — large empires; here we enjoy our happy sanctuary. It was born with him; he brought it with him after five-and-thirty years’ increase, and here hath multiplied it to fifty with us: O blessed jubilee, let it be celebrated with all joy and cheerfulness, and all sing — Beati Pacifici.”
England and Scotland were now at one, Ireland was at peace. “Spain, that great and long-lasting opposite, betwixt whom and England the ocean ran with blood not many years before, nor ever truced her crimson effusion; their merchants on either side trafficked in blood — a commerce too cruel for Christian kingdoms — yet we shake hands in friendly amity and speak our blessing with us — Beati Pacifici.”
<184>To England came the nations of the Continent in search of mediation. “Denmark and Suevia; Suevia and Poland; Cleves and Brandenburg; have not these and many more come to this oracle of peace, and received their dooms from it? If the members of a natural body by concord assist one another; if the politic members of a kingdom help one another, and by it support itself, why shall not the monarchial bodies of many kingdoms be one mutual Christendom; if still they sing this blessed lesson taught them — Beati Pacifici?”
Here doubtless was James’s ideal, the higher side of the unhappy Spanish treaty. Yet the writer could not be without misgivings. Was it true, he asks, as men said, that the age was deteriorating. If it was so, it was not because peace had been substituted for war. If drunkenness and all its evil train of sins had taken possession of the land, these were not the consequences, but the professed enemies, of Peace.
With all men a long distance separates the ideal from the actual, and in James that distance was unusually great. He could conceive the grandeur of the victories of peace though he knew not how to win them. His easy nature had nothing in it of the heroic tinge. His intellectual capacity, considerable as it was, was led captive by his personal affections, and his innate indolence of disposition. The extraordinary fondness which he displayed for Buckingham was not likely to be helpful to the cause of peace.
The two or three years which had elapsed since the sudden rise of Buckingham had witnessed many changes of his fickle nature, according as he was Buckingham’s vacillations.driven this way or that by the shifting breezes of his personal vanity. After placing his first step on the ladder of fortune by the help of the men who were most noted for their opposition to Spain, he was soon found co-operating with Gondomar to forward the Spanish alliance. A few months later he seemed likely to ally himself again with Coke and Winwood, only to fall back under the spell of Gondomar’s influence; and now once more he was drifting away from his moorings, and men began to think that he would finally cast in his lot with the adversaries of Spain. If there was one object upon <185>which he was especially bent, it was upon having the credit of filling every office under the Crown with his own creatures. But the process of waiting for vacancies was a slow one, and there was a body of men high in office who were by no means ready to truckle to the favourite. The members of The Howards.the Howard family were not possessed either of commanding abilities or of any great influence in the country, but they filled the most important posts in the state. One Howard, the Earl of Nottingham, was Lord High Admiral. Another Howard, the Earl of Suffolk, was Lord High Treasurer. The Treasurer’s son-in-law, Lord Knollys, who had recently been created Viscount Wallingford, was Master of the Wards. One dependent of the family, Sir Thomas Lake, was Secretary of State; and another, Sir Henry Yelverton, was Attorney-General.
It was as a counterpoise to the influence of this great family that Buckingham had been originally brought before the notice of the King. Opposed by Buckingham.To the anti-Spanish party at Court, and to the great body of the nation, the Howards were odious, as being all more or less openly Catholics at heart, and as giving their undisguised support to the marriage with the Infanta. For all this Buckingham cared but little. But he cared very much that a body of men, whose connection with his old rival Somerset was fresh in his mind, should retain the favour of the King, and should show him, by word and look, as he jostled with them at the Council table, and at Whitehall, that they knew that they did not owe their influence to his recommendation.
James had not long returned from Scotland before open war was declared between Buckingham and the Howards. During the winter, Monson at Court.either Suffolk, or as is more probable, his domineering Countess, was looking about for another Somerset, who might supersede the favourite in the good graces of the King. One young man after another was selected, for his pleasing face and engaging manners, to be thrown in James’s way. At last the choice of the party fell upon the son of Sir William Monson. They made the poor lad wash his face with curds every morning, to improve his <186>complexion, and hopefully waited for the result. In so doing, they showed themselves completely ignorant of James’s character, of which persistency in affection was one of the most notable points. Nor was the choice which they had made a wise one. Only two years before, the youth’s father and uncle had been imprisoned, nominally on account of their supposed complicity in the Overbury murder, but in reality because Sir William at least was known to have received a pension from Spain. James, too, in spite of the respect which he felt for Gondomar, had no mind to throw Buckingham over for the sake of a nominee of Philip. He accordingly sent Pembroke to young Monson, to tell him that ‘the King did not approve of his forwardness. His father and uncle had been not long since called in question for matters of no small moment, and his own education had been in such places and with such persons as was not to be allowed of.’[321] One more attempt was made by Monson’s friends to win the game which they had lost. On Easter-day he was sent to receive the Communion from the hands of Archbishop Abbot, in order to prove that he was not a Catholic. Often as the holy bread and wine have been prostituted to serve personal and political ends, they have been seldom, if ever, made use of for a more degrading object. It is satisfactory to know that nothing was gained by those who stooped to such a profanation.[322]
James was not slow in letting it be known that he still reposed unlimited confidence in Buckingham. In April, he granted him The Prince’s feast.the lease of the Irish customs, at a rent low enough to enable him to put two or three thousand pounds a-year into his pocket.[323] Two months later <187>the King seized an opportunity of declaring his feelings in a more open manner. There had been a boyish quarrel in a tennis court between the favourite and the Prince of Wales, and hard words had been freely exchanged between them. James enforced a reconciliation; and, as a pledge of its continuance, Buckingham gave a magnificent banquet, which was called the Prince’s feast. The entertainment took place at Wanstead, an estate which had been successively granted by Elizabeth to Leicester and Mountjoy, and which had recently been given by James to Buckingham in exchange for land not worth a tenth part of its value.[324] As soon as the feast was ended, the King stepped up to the table at which the ladies were seated, and drank the health of the whole Villiers family. “I desire,” he said, “to advance it above all others. Of myself I have no doubt, for I live to that end; and I hope that my posterity will so far regard their father’s commandments and instructions, as to advance that house above all others whatever.”[325]
Buckingham now found himself strong enough to carry the war into the enemy’s quarters. In those times it was easy enough Charges against Suffolk.for anyone to bring charges against any officer of the Crown, which would be very difficult to refute. For the income, even of the most guarded official, was derived from sources which it was impossible to defend on principle, and it was rarely, if ever, that any official was so guarded as not sometimes to overstep the limits recognised by the practice of the day.
To charges of this kind Suffolk was peculiarly open. Through the whole of his life, his great difficulty had been his avaricious and intriguing wife, by whom he had been dragged into his connection with successive Spanish ambassadors. In every action of his life he was contented to follow submissively in her wake: for he was an easy-tempered man, and it was <188>generally thought that if he had been unmarried, he would have fulfilled the duties of his office honestly enough to have retained the white staff till his death.
Buckingham and his friends took care to let the prevalent rumours reach the ear of the King. James, being informed that June.The King hears that Lady Suffolk takes bribes.Suffolk never made any payment out of the Treasury till a bribe had been given to the Countess, despatched Lake to bid the Lord Treasurer send his wife out of town. On this Lady Suffolk retired to her husband’s magnificent seat at Audley End, which according to popular rumours had been built with Spanish gold; but she was soon weary of the seclusion of the country, and found her way back to London. When James heard of her return, he flew into a passion, and said that if Suffolk did not send her back again he would have her carted out of town, like the vilest of her sex. Lake, who was present, reported what had happened to Suffolk, and James, having heard that his hasty words had been repeated, Lake endangered.rated the Secretary soundly for betraying his secrets. Lake knowing that he was out of favour, as a dependent of the Howards, cast himself at Buckingham’s feet, assuring him that he had had nothing to do with bringing Monson to Court, and offering him 15,000l. to procure his restoration to favour. His anxiety was the greater as he heard that Carleton had got scent of his threatened disgrace, and had been permitted to come over from Holland to sue for the post which was likely to be vacated by his dismissal from office. Finding that Buckingham turned a deaf ear to his entreaties, he betook himself, as a last resource, to Lady Compton, and the proffered bribe was in all probability transferred to her pocket. At all events she took up his cause; and, on July 10, Buckingham told him that he was ready to listen to his explanations. Three or four weeks later his submissive behaviour had, to all appearance, replaced him in the good graces of the favourite, and Carleton was ordered to return to his post at the Hague.[326]
<189>Before Lake was thus taken back into favour his great patron had irremediably fallen from power. On July 18, a secretary of Suffolk’s son-in-law, Wallingford, was detected in robbing his master. To save himself, he directly accused the Lord Treasurer himself of bribery, and also of various malpractices in which Lady Suffolk and Sir John Bingley, one of the July 19.Suffolk deprived of the Treasurership.officials of the Exchequer, had taken part. His assertions must have been supported by evidence of greater weight than his own; for, on the very next day, Suffolk was called upon to resign his staff, and the Treasury was immediately put into commission. The new commissioners, Bacon, Abbot, Andrewes, Naunton, Coke, and Greville, were ordered to examine into the state of the finances, and to report upon the grounds which existed for prosecuting Suffolk.[327]
It was only for a short time that Lake escaped from being involved in the shipwreck of his patron’s fortunes. Unfortunately for him, he was already involved in a quarrel with the Cecils, who were at this time deep in the confidence of Buckingham. Lord Roos, the grandson and heir of the Earl of Exeter, was married to the Secretary’s daughter early in 1616. He was a dissolute and heartless youth, and both Lady Roos and her mother, Lady Lake, were alike artful and unprincipled women. The marriage had not lasted a year 1617.Quarrel between Lord and Lady Roos.before husband and wife were at open war. The ostensible cause of the quarrel was, like that which had separated Coke and Lady Hatton, a question of money. Roos had mortgaged his estate at Walthamstow to his father-in-law, and Lake proposed that the lands should be altogether made over to his daughter’s separate use. If Roos is to be believed, the Secretary took full advantage of his official position to force the bargain upon him. When he was making preparations for his embassy to Madrid, he found that no money could be obtained from the Exchequer, and it was intimated to him, that unless he made the required provision for his wife, he would have to meet the expenses of <190>his mission out of his private purse. Rumour went further, and it was said that he was told that, unless he yielded, Lady Roos would apply for a divorce on the same grounds as those which had caused so much scandal in the case of Lady Essex.[328] Intimidated by the threats held over him, the frightened young man gave way, and before setting out for Madrid he commenced taking the legal steps which would in time lead to the conveyance of the property to his father-in-law.[329]
Before the bargain was completed, the Earl of Exeter stepped in. His consent was in some way or other required, and 1617.Insult to Lord Roos.this he refused to give. Lord Roos duly returned from Spain, but there were no signs that the Walthamstow lands would ever pass into the hands of his wife or her family. The Lakes were furious. At the instigation of her brother Arthur,[330] Lady Roos sent a message to her husband, who was now living apart from her, asking to see him, in order that she might return with him to his house. Upon his arrival at her father’s door, he was attacked by Arthur Lake, at the head of a number of his servants, and was hustled back into his coach. Mortified and insulted, he was forced to return alone.[331]
Yet, in spite of the reception which he had met with, not many weeks passed before he was again living with his wife at His flight to Rome.his grandfather’s house at Wimbledon. Whatever may have been the secrets of his married life, it is plain that he was almost driven mad by the united efforts of his wife and her mother. The most horrible charges were kept hanging over his head, and he was told that, if he refused to do as he was bidden, they would be brought publicly against him. At last he could bear it no longer. Five months after his return from Spain, he slipped away from his tormentors, and, with letters of introduction from the Spanish ambassador <191>in his pocket, made his way to Rome in the character of a convert.[332]
Next to her husband the person whom Lady Roos hated most was the Countess of Exeter, the young wife of her husband’s aged grandfather, Charges against Lady Exeter.by whose influence the Earl had been led to put a stop to the conveyance of the Walthamstow estate. Elated with the success of her secret insinuations against her husband, Lady Roos now began to charge him openly with an incestuous connection with his grandfather’s wife. As if this were not enough, she added that Lady Exeter had attempted to poison her, in order to conceal her guilt.[333]
It seems as if Lady Roos was unable to check herself in her career of invention. In her haste to heap charges upon Lady Exeter’s head, she added the improbable story that, by threats of disclosing what she knew, she had brought the Countess to acknowledge, in writing, the truth of her guilt in every particular; and she even produced a paper to this effect, which she asserted to be in Lady Exeter’s handwriting. To this she added another, bearing the signature of Luke Hatton, a servant of the Countess, in which his mistress was accused of an attempt to poison Sir Thomas Lake as well as his daughter.
Such charges, reiterated as they were by the whole Lake family, could not be allowed to pass unnoticed. Lady Exeter 1618.Star Chamber proceedings.appealed to the King for justice, and it was agreed that the quarrel should be fought out in the Star Chamber. Deposition after deposition was taken, with the uniform result of leaving Lady Roos’s case blacker than it was before. It was proved that the confession said to have been written by Lady Exeter, and the paper to which Luke Hatton’s signature was attached, were both of them forgeries. It fared still worse with Lady Roos’s attempt to add weight to her own unsupported evidence. Her maid, Sarah Swarton, had been induced by her to swear that she had been placed behind the hangings at Wimbledon, to witness the <192>scene in which Lady Exeter acknowledged her guilt. James, who prided himself upon his skill in the detection of imposture, took her down to Wimbledon, and ordered her to stand in the place in which she said that she had been stationed by her mistress. To her discomfiture, it was found that the hangings scarcely reached below her knees, so that it was impossible that she should have remained concealed in such a position.
An attempt to prove that Lady Exeter had written to Lord Roos in unbecoming terms broke down no less completely. It was far from conclusive that one witness said that he had once seen such a letter amongst some old papers in a trunk, and that another said that he had carried about a similar letter in his pocket, and had finally used it to light his pipe. Further investigations into the charge of poisoning only served to prove that there was not one word of truth in the matter.
From these inquiries the character of Sir Thomas Lake did not come out scathless. It appeared that at the time when his daughter was Behaviour of Sir Thomas Lake.seeking for evidence against her enemy, he had sent for a certain Gwilliams, and had committed him to prison. His own account of the matter was, that he had done so because he had been unable to extract from him information about the flight of Lord Roos. Gwilliams, however, said that Lake had examined him about Lady Exeter’s conduct, and that Lady Roos had offered him a bribe to accuse the Countess, and had pressed him to sign a folded paper, the contents of which he had not been permitted to see. It was to his refusal to comply with these demands, that he, naturally enough, attributed his imprisonment. By-and-by, it came out that Hatton also had been imprisoned by Lake, and he too stated that his misfortunes were due to his refusal to join in the accusation against Lady Exeter.
James, who seems to have wished to see fair play, was anxious to obtain Lord Roos’s own testimony. He accordingly offered him Death of Lord Roos.a pardon for leaving the realm without licence, on condition of his immediate return. Before the offer reached him he had died at Naples. Rumour attributed his death to poison, but such a rumour was too <193>certain to spring up to merit attention in the absence of all corroboration.[334]
It was not till February 13, 1619, that the cause was ready for sentence. James himself came down to pronounce with his own lips 1619.The sentence.the award of the Court. Sir Thomas and Lady Lake, with their daughter, were condemned to imprisonment during pleasure, and to pay fines, which, together with the damages awarded to Lady Exeter, amounted to more than 20,000l. Lake’s eldest son, who had put himself prominently forward as the accuser of the Countess, was called upon to pay upwards of 1,600l., and Sarah Swarton, if she persisted in denying her imposture, was to be whipped, and branded on the cheek with the letters F.A., as a false accuser, after which she was to be sent back to prison for the remainder of her life.
Of the guilt of Lady Roos and her maid there could be no doubt whatever. Nor was it possible to acquit the Secretary himself of blame. How far was it just?Whatever may have been the real history of the imprisonment of Gwilliams and Hatton, he had certainly lent his name to the circulation of his daughter’s libels, and that too in spite of a warning from the King, that he would do better to use his influence to induce her to withdraw them.[335]
It is more difficult to say what was the precise guilt of Lady Lake. In giving sentence, the King compared her to the serpent in Paradise, whilst he ascribed the part of Eve to her daughter, and that of Adam to her husband. But the general opinion of the day threw the chief blame upon the younger lady; and not only did Lady Lake herself protest in the strongest possible manner that she was guiltless of the subornation of witnesses, or of the forgery itself, but whatever evidence has reached us favours the theory that she was herself deceived by her artful daughter.[336] The most probable explanation is, that <194>at the time of her quarrel with her husband, Lady Roos’s prurient imagination brought before her mind the chief incidents of the Essex divorce, and that she wove them into a story which imposed upon her mother, and which was intended to impose upon the rest of the world.[337]
Almost immediately after the sentence had been passed, it was intimated to the prisoners that they might at any time obtain pardon Confessions of the condemned persons.by acknowledging the justice of their condemnation. Sarah Swarton was the first to give way. The prospect of the pillory and the whipping was too much for her. She confessed her own guilt, throwing the whole blame upon Lady Roos, and exonerating as much as possible Sir Thomas and Lady Lake. Her punishment was accordingly remitted, and, at the end of a few months, she was set at liberty.[338] On June 9, Lady Roos confessed, and was allowed to leave her prison. Not long afterwards her father was released, and after some delay made his submission in due form. His wife was less yielding, and it was only after more than two years’ hesitation that she could be brought to make even a formal acknowledgment that she had been in any way in fault.[339] The whole fine was not exacted, but Lake had to pay 10,200l. into the Exchequer in addition to the damages to Lady Exeter.
Immediately after the sentence had been delivered the Secretary was called upon to resign his office. His successor was Sir George Calvert, an industrious, modest man, who might <195>be trusted, like Naunton, to do his work silently and well, and who, in former times had been one of Salisbury’s secretaries. His opinions fitted him to be the channel of communications which could not safely be entrusted to one who looked with extreme favour upon the Continental Protestants; for though he was anything but a thoroughgoing partisan of the Spanish monarchy, yet he had no sympathy whatever with those who thought that a war with Spain was for its own sake desirable.
Both Lake and Suffolk had woven the net in which their own feet were entangled. It was more difficult to get rid of 1618.Dismissal of Wallingford.Suffolk’s son-in-law, the Master of the Wards. Wallingford’s character was without a stain. When, at the time of the Overbury murder, Mrs. Turner was flinging out the fiercest charges against everyone who was connected with the house of Howard, she paused at the name of Wallingford. “If ever there was a religious man,” she said, “it was he.”
Wallingford’s one unpardonable fault was the part which he had taken in the introduction of young Monson to Court. In the war of lampoons which was waged between the two factions into which the Court was divided, Lady Wallingford had taken an active part, and she had not spared her sister, Lady Salisbury,[340] who, if report was to be credited, had rewarded the guilty passion of Buckingham with her favours, and who had now joined her foolish husband and her sprightly paramour in their attack upon her own relations. It was not difficult to shock James with the stories which were told him of Lady Wallingford’s biting tongue. Sending for the Master of the Wards, he told him that he did not wish to be any longer served by the husband of such a wife. At first Wallingford refused to give way, and courted inquiry into his conduct.[341] It was not without difficulty that he was at last induced, in spite of his wife’s opposition, to resign his office, upon a promise of compensation for his loss.[342]
<196>It was impossible that the official changes should stop here. Serious attention was now at last being paid to the state of the finances. Amongst 1617.State of the finances.those who raised their voices the loudest on the side of economy, Bacon was always to be found. Immediately after his restoration to favour on the King’s return from Scotland in 1617, he had drawn James’s attention once more to the condition of the Exchequer.[343] Yet, bad as things seemed to be, there were not wanting signs that the worst was past. For the first time since James’s accession it was possible to prepare an estimate in which the regular and ordinary expenses of the Crown would be met by the revenue, and though, when the irregular expenditure for which no provision had been made came to be added to the amount, there would probably be a deficit of eighty or a hundred thousand pounds, even this was an immense step in advance. The improvement was owing in part to the increased economy of the King, but still more to the marvellous elasticity of the revenue — an elasticity which was the more satisfactory as it was produced not by the imposition of new taxes, but by the increasing prosperity of the country, and by the rapid growth of trade. Spaniards who had seen England complained bitterly that the wealth to which the greatness of Lisbon and Seville had been owing was now flowing into the Thames.[344] The receipt-books of the Exchequer told a similar tale. The great customs, which at James’s accession had produced less than 86,000l., were now leased for 140,000l. The wine duties had risen from 4,400l. to 15,900l., and all this without laying a single additional penny upon the consumer.
Yet, though the prospect was more hopeful than it had been, the immediate difficulties were by no means light. The actual deficit for The City loan.the past year had reached 150,000l. The deficit for the ensuing year would probably reach 100,000l. The money obtained by the sale of the cautionary <197>towns had all been spent, and a loan of 100,000l. which the city of London had, not without difficulty, been induced to advance in the spring, had also been swallowed up. The actual condition of the Exchequer was well represented by a caricature which appeared about this time in Holland, in which James was portrayed with his pockets turned inside out, and which bore the sarcastic inscription:— “Have you any more towns to sell?”[345]
If it had been difficult to persuade the City authorities to promise a loan, the collection of the money had been still more difficult. Difficulty of its collection.It had been left to the Government to compel individual citizens to pay their quota, and not a few resisted the demand. One man, named Robinson, utterly denied that he was bound to lend his money against his will. The Council could do nothing with him, and sent him down to the King, who had already crossed the border, on his return from Scotland. Robinson was unlucky enough to find James in a bad humour, as he had expected to find at Carlisle money with which to pay the daily expenses of his journey; and it was not till he had advanced thirty miles beyond that city that he met the treasury escort, carefully guarding a cart, in which was a bag containing no more than 400l. Lake was directed to expostulate with the officials in London upon the smallness of the sum; but he was met with the pertinent question:— “If your wants are so great now what will they be after your return?” Nettled by a question to which it was impossible to reply, James visited his displeasure upon Robinson, and, finding him still obstinate, ordered him to follow his train on foot to London.[346] We are not told whether the sturdy citizen continued resolute in face of the unusual exercise thus suddenly required of him in the month of August.
The recollection of the examination of the cart on the Cumberland road had, no doubt, as much effect upon James as Bacon’s more serious admonitions. His debts now amounted <198>to 726,000l.,[347] and unless reforms were speedily effected, they would soon be Proposed retrenchments.altogether beyond his control. Accordingly he wrote to the Council, telling them that he had determined to abate all superfluous expenses, and to dismiss all unnecessary officers. It was for them to tell him how this was to be accomplished. They might cut and carve at their pleasure. He did not want an answer in writing. What he asked for was immediate action.[348]
The councillors were delighted with the letter. They determined to strike whilst the iron was hot. Officials were summoned from all quarters, and were directed to make reports on the branches of the expenditure with which they were practically acquainted. Pensions were suspended and curtailed, and there seemed to be at last a chance that James would be able to pay his way.
Yet with all this zeal, it may be doubted whether the efforts of the Council would have been crowned with success if it had not been for The new officials.the assistance which they received from a new class of officials who were now rising into the places hitherto occupied either by great nobles or by great statesmen. These men were men of business, and they were nothing more. Accustomed to dependence from their first entry upon public life, they cared little or nothing for politics, and they made it the main object of their activity to promote the interests of the King. The increasing subserviency of the Privy Councillors was in itself an evil of no light importance. But there can be no doubt that in matters of administrative detail, James was far better served at the end of his reign than he had been at the beginning.
Of the new men the foremost was undoubtedly Lionel Cranfield. He had begun life as a London apprentice. With his Lionel Cranfield.handsome face and ready wit, he had won the affections of his master’s daughter, and had started in trade upon his own account with the 800l. which he received as her marriage portion. Not long afterwards the City was <199>agitated by a dispute concerning the proper manner of raising the money required for the establishment of its colony at Londonderry. The Court of Aldermen proposed that each of the City companies should take upon themselves an equal share of the expense. Naturally enough, the smaller and poorer societies objected to the scheme as essentially unfair. The question was referred to the Privy Council, and Cranfield was selected as the spokesman of the Mercer’s Company, of which he was a member. He had a good cause, and he was sure to make the most of it. When he came away, he had not only been successful in carrying his point, but he had left upon all who heard him a deep impression of his ability.
When Cranfield is next heard of, he had taken part, together with several other merchants, in a contract for the purchase of He comes under the notice of the King.a large quantity of land, which the King had been obliged, by his necessities, to sell. One day, as the contractors were consulting on the best means of making a profit by their bargain, Cranfield told them that he knew that Northampton, who was at that time at the height of his influence, wanted to purchase a small portion of the land; and he advised them, if they wished to consult their own interests, to make him a present of it. It is probable enough, that in this politic proposal he may have given good advice to his companions. It is certain that he could not have done better for himself. Northampton, who had not forgotten his appearance before the Council, introduced him to the King as a young man of promise. From that moment his fortune was made. He was never without constant employment. After Salisbury’s death, financial knowledge was rare at the Council table, and Cranfield’s services were invaluable. He was knighted by James in 1615, and was appointed Surveyor-General of the Customs. In such an occupation he displayed both zeal and honesty. His City experience stood him in good stead in enabling him to detect the malpractices of the officials.[349] He had a thorough knowledge of business, and an unwavering determination not to allow the King to be cheated. <200>Tradesmen, who had made a handsome profit, and more than a handsome profit, out of the earls and barons with whom they had previously had to do, were taken aback when they were called upon to deliver their accounts to a man who knew to a farthing what was the wholesale price of a yard of silk, and who was as deeply versed as they were in the little mysteries of the art by which a short bill might be made to wear the appearance of a long one. But here the praise due to him must stop. He was a careful and economical administrator; but he was nothing more. Of general politics he knew nothing, and on the higher question of statesmanship there was neither good nor evil to be expected from him.
In carrying out the proposed reforms, the foremost place was occupied by Cranfield. He had a hard fight to put down 1618.Reforms in the Household.the abuses which were swarming about him. The Household was one mass of peculation and extravagance; and from the officers, whose perquisites were threatened, he was sure to meet with the most unrelenting opposition. Yet, in spite of all that they could do, he succeeded in effecting an annual saving of no less than 23,000l.
From the Household, Cranfield turned his attention to the Wardrobe. The mastership was in the hands of Hay, and it may well have seemed to be a hopeless task to introduce economy into an office presided over by such a man. Yet it was difficult to get rid of him. He was a Privy Councillor, and high in favour with the King. There was no likelihood that a quarrel would spring up between him and Buckingham. He cared nothing for political influence, and the amiability of his temper was such that he never quarrelled with anyone in his life. Though he had been admitted to the King’s confidence when Buckingham was a child, he had never taken the slightest umbrage at the sudden rise of the new favourite.
Only a few months had passed since the fascination of his manners had secured him 1617.Hay’s courtship.the love of Lucy Percy, the sparkling and attractive daughter of the Earl of Northumberland. In the course of his wooing he had invited her to be present at one of those splendid <201>entertainments which have given such a questionable celebrity to his name. Doubtless there was no delicacy which art or nature could provide wanting to tempt the palates of his guests. It is not unlikely that on this occasion he may have displayed that particular form of extravagance by which he obtained considerable notoriety amongst his contemporaries. The invention of the double supper was peculiarly his own. When he wished to show more than ordinary hospitality, the guests were invited to take their seats at a table covered with a profusion of the most exquisite cold dishes. But before they had time to fill their plates, the servants hurried in and, snatching the food from before their faces, as if it had been unworthy of their acceptance, replaced it by an array of hot dishes. It is seldom that a man who is guilty of such extravagance as this is not a fool. Yet Hay, though he was right in not pressing into offices which would have called for the exercise of the higher intellectual powers, had all those qualities which fit their owner to shine in society.
On this evening the guests may have been well satisfied with their entertainment, but the master of the house was deeply disappointed. Difficulties in his way.Lucy Percy, for whose sake the festivities had been arranged, did not make her appearance; and as, in a few days, Hay would be obliged to attend the King on his journey to Scotland, he had lost his chance of seeing her for many months. It was not long before he learned the cause of the lady’s absence. She had accompanied her sister, Lady Sidney, to visit her father in the Tower. To the pride of the old English nobility, Northumberland joined a special contempt for the King’s Scottish courtiers, which he perhaps derived from the recollections of the old border feuds, in which his ancestors had taken so conspicuous a part. He had, therefore, set his face against the marriage. As soon as his daughter rose to leave him, he turned to Lady Sidney, and told her to send him one of her sister’s servants, as he should be glad of Lucy’s company a little longer. “I am a Percy,” he said, by way of explanation, “and I am not fond of Scotch jigs.”[350] Before long, <202>however, he learned that it was not easy to keep out love by bolts and bars. He was indiscreet enough to allow his daughter to fall in Lady Somerset’s way, from whom she received every encouragement to stand out against her father. Finding his admonitions thrown away, he at last allowed his daughter to return to her mother at Sion House, first taking care to inform her that, if she married Hay, she must not expect a portion. Perhaps he thought that this would be enough to cool the ardour of a Scotchman. If so, he was disappointed. Hay was far too careless of money to be stopped by an obstacle of such a nature.
Hay’s courtship was characteristic of the man. He was as ardent in love as in all other pursuits; and as soon as he returned to England His marriage.he took a house close to Sion House, so as to be able to spend day after day in the society of his betrothed. But though Lady Northumberland was very well pleased with the attentions of her future son-in-law, she altogether declined to allow him to take his meals in her house. The humble fare, she said, which was good enough for the Percys, was not sufficiently refined for him. When, therefore, the hour arrived at which the household was summoned to dinner or supper, the disconsolate lover was driven out of the house, with orders not to return till the meal was over.[351] After a few months this inconvenient arrangement came to an end. The marriage was solemnised on November 6, in the presence of the King and of a brilliant assembly of courtiers.
It was evident that such a man was ill-placed in the Mastership of the Wardrobe, an office in which economy was imperatively demanded. 1618.He resigns the Wardrobe.Yet when it was first proposed to Hay to resign he refused to do so, and it was only with difficulty that he was finally induced to retire upon receiving a compensation of 20,000l.,[352] to which, if report is to be trusted, was added 10,000l. paid, <203>according to the custom of the time, by Cranfield,[353] who was nominated as his successor.[354] It was not long before the savings which were realised under the management of the new Master showed that the 20,000l. had been profitably spent. Hay was further consoled by the higher title of Viscount Doncaster.
Of still greater importance was an investigation, which was at last commenced in earnest, into the condition of the navy. For this purpose The Navy Commission.a commission was appointed, of which Cranfield was a member, but in which, overburthened as he was with other business, the chief part of the labour fell upon Sir John Coke, a man by no means deficient in administrative capacity, though without any pretensions to statesmanship. The appointment of this commission was a sore blow to Nottingham. The Lord High Admiral had succeeded in setting aside the report of the commission of 1608, and in preventing altogether the appointment of a fresh commission in 1613. But it was impossible for him to resist inquiry any longer. The expenses of the navy were growing with unexampled rapidity, and as its expenses increased, its efficiency declined.
After a full investigation, the commissioners sent in their report. Of the forty-three vessels of which the navy was nominally composed, Report of the Commissioners.nearly half were utterly unserviceable, and were with difficulty kept from sinking by incessant repairs, without the slightest prospect that they would ever again be fit for sea. So far from its being a matter of surprise that so much money had been spent, the only wonder was that far more had not been swallowed up in the bottomless gulf of the Admiralty administration. The whole department was utterly without organization. It sometimes happened that extensive works were taken in hand at the dock yards, and that after large bodies of labourers had been engaged, it was discovered that the proper officers had either <204>neglected to provide the necessary materials, or had been left by their superiors without the money with which to purchase them. Everything else was in equal disorder. Unsound timber had been paid for as if it had been in the best condition. Far higher prices had been given for stores than any private purchaser would have cared to pay. Incorrect entries in the books were of frequent occurrence. Occasionally when ships had been ordered round to Deptford for repairs, it was only after the expense of moving them had been incurred that it was discovered that they were so rotten that it was not worth while to spend any more money upon them. The root of the evil lay in the appointment of officers at high salaries, who did little or nothing, whilst the inferior officers who did the work were left either to plunder the Crown or to starve. In fact, this part of the report only expresed in sober and official language what was perfectly well known to everyone who lived near the dockyards. Long afterwards Bishop Goodman used to tell how a friend with whom he was walking at Chatham drew his attention to the stately mansions which had sprung up like mushrooms round the yard. “All these goodly houses,” he said, “are built of chips.” The explanation of the riddle was that the chips were considered to be the perquisite of the officials.[355]
To their report the commissioners appended a calculation that for some years past the average annual expenditure on the navy Proposals for the increase of the Navy.had been no less than 53,000l. They added that they were themselves ready to meet all necessary expenses, and to build ten new ships within the next five years without exceeding 30,000l. a-year. The navy would then consist of thirty large vessels, besides a few smaller craft. It is true that the number of vessels left by Elizabeth had been forty-two. But the tonnage of the fleet of 1603 had been only 14,060, whilst 17,110 tons would be the measurement of that promised by the commissioners.[356] Nor were these mere words, to be forgotten as soon as <205>the momentary purpose of displacing Nottingham was accomplished; for when the five years came to an end, it was found that all the promises of the commissioners had been fulfilled.
After these exposures it was impossible for anyone who bore the name of Howard to remain longer at the Admiralty. Already Negotiation with Nottingham.at the beginning of the year it had been proposed to Buckingham that he should take the place of the old man whose administration had been so disastrous. At that time he hung back and pleaded his youth and inexperience.[357] But after the report of the Commissioners it was evident that a change was necessary, and he gave way before the flattering solicitations of those who told him that his influence with the King would be the best guarantee for the good administration of the navy. At first it was arranged that he was merely to have the reversion of the post. But it was soon found that this would hardly meet the necessities of the case. The reforms which the Commissioners had suggested called for immediate action, and the old Admiral naturally resented a proposal that the commission by which his official conduct had been condemned should be reappointed as a permanent body, with the scarcely concealed object of taking the administration of the dockyards out of his hands.[358] A middle course was accordingly hit upon. Buckingham was to be co-admiral with Nottingham, leaving to the old sailor the dignity of the office, whilst performing himself its functions in person or by deputy. This arrangement, however, was never carried into effect. Nottingham had at last the good sense to resign a post for which he was altogether unqualified. A pension of 1,000l. a year was assigned him by the King, and Buckingham, who added a sum <206>of 3,000l. as an additional compensation to his predecessor, became Lord High Admiral of England.[359]
The immediate result of Buckingham’s instalment in office was the reappointment of the Navy Commission as a permanent board.[360] Buckingham Lord High Admiral.Buckingham was as unlikely as Nottingham had been to trouble himself with details about dockyard expenditure. But whilst Nottingham would neither do the work himself, nor allow anyone else to do it for him, Buckingham had not the slightest objection to letting other people toil as hard as they pleased, provided that he might himself enjoy the credit of their labours.
Buckingham was every day acquiring a firmer hold upon the mind of James. A year had not passed since the introduction of Monson to Court 1619.Growing influence of Buckingham.before he saw all his rivals at his feet. With the single exception of Yelverton, not a Howard, or a dependent of the Howards, remained in office. Buckingham was no longer the mere favourite of the King. He was the all-powerful minister, reigning unchecked in solitary grandeur.
Yet, however much the change is to be attributed to Court intrigue, it must not be forgotten that it was something more. It was Administrative reforms.a blow struck at the claim to serve the State on the ground of family connexion. It was an attempt to secure efficiency of administration by personal selection. And though the evil which would accompany a change made in such a way was likely to outweigh the good which it brought, there is no doubt that from this time the King was better and more economically served than he had ever been before. At Michaelmas, 1617, it was thought a great thing that there was likely to be a balance between the ordinary revenue and the ordinary expenditure. At Michaelmas, 1618, the new Commissioners of the Treasury looked forward to a surplus of 45,000l., with which to meet unforeseen <207>expenses. Meanwhile, the Household, the Treasury, the Wardrobe, and the Admiralty had been subjected to sweeping and beneficial reforms. Everywhere retrenchment had been carried out under the influence of and with the co-operation of Buckingham. It is no wonder that the King learned to place implicit confidence in his youthful favourite, and to fancy that he had at last discovered that of which he had been in search during the whole of his life — the art of being well served, without taking any trouble about the matter himself.
When, therefore, those who were jealous of Buckingham’s sudden rise remonstrated against the almost royal power which had been placed in his hands, they only wasted their words. It had been expected that, upon his promotion to the Admiralty he would at least have resigned the Mastership of the Horse, and some of those who had calculated their chances of succeeding to the vacancy hinted pretty intelligibly to the King what their opinion was. James contented himself with composing some Latin couplets to the effect that, as in the classical mythology Neptune, who presided over the sea, was also celebrated for his horses, it was unreasonable to object to the continued supervision of the new Admiral over the royal stables.[361]
On one point alone James consented to make some concession to the opinion of his courtiers. Buckingham himself, Lady Compton raised to the peerage.arrogant as he was, and ready to take offence at the slightest disrespect shown to himself, was still distinguished by the kindly and forgiving disposition which, at his first appearance at court, had won all hearts. But his greedy and unprincipled mother was altogether unbearable. It was perhaps at this time that the story sprung up that Gondomar had written home to say that he had more hope <208>than ever of the conversion of England, since he found that there were more prayers and oblations offered to the mother than to the son.[362] In the preceding autumn she had been created Countess of Buckingham, on which occasion she had caused considerable amusement by her refusal to share her honours with the husband whom she despised. It is probable that her new dignity made her more offensive than ever, as James requested her to keep away from Court, and told her that her meddling with state affairs could only be injurious to the prospects of her son.[363]
A few days before Nottingham’s removal from office,[364] James at last made up his mind to take proceedings in the Star Chamber Star Chamber proceedings against Suffolk.against the late Lord Treasurer. He had always been friendly to Suffolk, and he would gladly have spared him the pain of the exposure; but it was necessary, as he told those who pleaded in his behalf, to prove to the world that he had not taken the staff away without reason.[365] An information was accordingly filed against him, in which the Countess and Sir John Bingley were included. The trial dragged its slow length along, and it was not till October, 1619, that the case was ready for a hearing.
According to the charge brought against him, the Treasurer had paid away money without demanding proper accounts from those who received it; The case against him;he had been careless or corrupt in allowing the King to be cheated in a bargain relating to the Yorkshire alum-works; he had kept for some time in his own hands a sum which ought to have been paid immediately into the Exchequer; and he had taken bribes for doing that which should have been done as a mere matter of duty.[366] The evidence before us is hardly sufficient to enable <209>us to say how far these charges were brought home to him. He may have been wilfully corrupt; and against Lady Suffolk.more probably he was only lax in his interpretation of official rules; but whatever may have been the extent of Suffolk’s own guilt, there can be no doubt as to his wife’s criminality. The counsel employed by her must have been hard put to it before they allowed themselves to startle the ears of the judges with the trash which they imported into the defence. They actually urged on her behalf, that she could not have been guilty of extortion, as she had only taken bribes in her capacity of wife of the Earl of Suffolk, and not in her capacity of wife of the Lord Treasurer. After this incomprehensible argument, the lawyer to whom she had entrusted her cause proceeded to quote from the civil law a text to the effect that judges might, without impropriety, receive xenia, or free gifts. Bacon, taking up the word in the sense of new year’s gifts, which it had gradually acquired, said, with a smile, that new year’s gifts could not be given all the year round. Unfortunate as the lawyers had been in their general argument, they were still more unlucky in their attempts to rebut particular charges. One of the strongest pieces of evidence against the defendants was a direct statement made by Lord Ridgway, that, during the time that he had been Vice-Treasurer of Ireland, he had never been able to obtain the money needed for the public service unless his demand was accompanied by a bribe to Suffolk. Suffolk denied having ever received anything from Ridgway, except a gold cup which had been sent him as a new year’s gift; and the probability is that the money had found its way into the pockets of the Countess, as her counsel could find nothing better to say on her behalf than that Lord Ridgway was a noble gentleman, who might say or swear what he pleased. Bacon, who looked with special horror upon any attempt to intercept the supplies needed in Ireland, and who was of opinion, as he expressed it, that ‘he that did draw or milk treasure from Ireland, did not milk money, but blood,’[367] thought that the farce had gone on long enough, and stopped <210>the speaker by telling him that it was at all events not the part of a nobleman to tell lies.[368]
As soon as the pleadings came to an end, the Court proceeded to judgment. Coke, who never knew what moderation was, The sentence.voted for a fine of 100,000l. on the Earl, and of 5,000l. on Bingley. Against such an outrageous sentence, the milder Hobart raised his protest, and succeeded in carrying with him the majority of the Court. The fines actually imposed were 30,000l. on Suffolk, and 2,000l. on Bingley. All the three defendants were also sentenced to imprisonment during the King’s pleasure.
Neither Suffolk nor his Countess remained long in the Tower; after ten days’ imprisonment, both were set at liberty.[369] They at once Its gradual relaxation.applied to Buckingham for his good word with the King for the remission of their fine, and Buckingham, who was never backward in lending a helping hand to a fallen enemy, if he found him ready to acknowledge his supremacy, promised to assist him. The application would probably have been immediately successful if the overcautious Earl had been willing to trust to it entirely. When, however, the officials of the Exchequer went to his great house at Audley End, they were told, in answer to their inquiries for property upon which to raise the fine, that the house had been stripped of its furniture, and the estate itself conveyed to trustees. Indignant at the trick, James threatened Suffolk with a fresh prosecution, and ordered him to require his sons to resign their places at Court.[370] It was only after repeated supplications for forgiveness that James relented and agreed to remit his fine, with the exception of 7,000l. which he wanted in order to enable him to pay Lord Haddington’s debts.[371]
<211>If Buckingham had raised himself in James’s favour by the reforms to which he had lent his countenance, he had gained Bribery at Court.no credit with the nation. It was well enough known that Suffolk and Lake differed from other officials mainly in having been found out. A blow had indeed been struck at the peculation which directly menaced the economy and regularity of the service of the Crown, and there would probably be more regard paid in future to the King’s interests. But as no attempt had been made to distinguish between lawful and unlawful payments, the root of the evil had remained untouched. As long as Buckingham occupied the position which he did, any such step was absolutely impossible. It was not exactly that offices were set up for sale to the highest bidder; whenever a vacancy occurred in a post of any importance, an attempt was almost invariably made to select, if not the fittest person amongst the candidates, at least the person who appeared to James and his favourite to be the fittest. It not unfrequently happened that a rich man who offered a large bribe was rejected, and a poor man who offered a small bribe, or no bribe at all, was chosen. It was thus that Bennett’s attempt to seat himself in Chancery as Ellesmere’s successor,[372] and Ley’s attempt to become Attorney-General after Bacon’s promotion, had failed.[373] Upon Winwood’s death, Lord Houghton had offered 10,000l. for the Secretaryship, and Houghton was the one amongst the candidates who had no chance whatever.[374] Of mean, grasping avarice Buckingham never showed a trace; but he allowed it to be understood that whoever expected promotion on any grounds must give him something for his trouble in recommending him. Nor did the mischief end here; around the great man grew up a swarm of parasites, who, like Endymion Porter, amassed wealth as brokers of their patron’s favours. That all things were venal <212>at the Court of James, was soon accepted as a truism from the Land’s End to the Cheviots.
Nor was this the worst. Though to pay a sum of money to a favourite for his patronage, is a degradation to which no man of Favouritism.sensitive conscience will stoop, men of worth and ability might have been found to submit to the imposition, if they could have preserved their independence after they had once been raised to power. That which more than anything else drove the talent of the rising generation into opposition, was the persuasion that no man who served the Crown could ever be anything more than a tool of Buckingham. He must not merely be prepared to conform at any moment to the sudden caprices of the youthful upstart; he must publish his subservience to the world, and must appear in public with the gilded badge of slavery upon him. By such a system, James might perhaps find himself served by excellent clerks, but he would have no statesmen to consult.
No better example can be found of the dangers to which a courtier’s life was exposed than that furnished by the experience of Cranfield. Example of Cranfield.With the exception of Bacon, no man in England had rendered greater services to the Crown. Nor had those services been forgotten. In September, 1618, he had been appointed Master of the Wardrobe; in the January following, he was chosen to succeed Wallingford, as Master of the Wards.[375] Next month his name appeared first among the Commissioners of the Navy.[376] He was looking forward to a seat in the Privy Council, and no one could deny that his promotion would be conducive to the interests of the King. On April 24, he was in full expectation of being summoned on the following day to take his seat at the Board. The summons did not arrive. Suddenly a cloud had come over his prospects, which nothing but an act of baseness could remove.
As usual, Buckingham’s mother was at the bottom of the mischief. The success which had attended her attempt to <213>procure a wife for Sir John Villiers had not been lost upon the veteran schemer. What was the use of having a son in high favour at Court, if he could not find a rich husband for all the portionless young girls amongst his relations? There were men enough coming to him every day to ask for promotion. Let them be told that it was an indispensable qualification for office to marry a kinswoman of the House of Villiers.
To this comfortable family arrangement James made no difficulty in lending his name, and Cranfield was selected as the man His marriage.upon whom the experiment was first to be tried. He was now a widower, and with his abilities, and with the favour of Buckingham, he was sure of promotion, and of sufficient wealth to make him a desirable husband. It was therefore intimated to him, that if he expected any further advancement, he must marry Lady Buckingham’s cousin, Anne Brett, whose fortune consisted in her handsome face and her high kindred.[377] There was, however, an obstacle in the way; Cranfield had been paying his addresses to Lady Howard of Effingham, the widow of Nottingham’s eldest son.[378] The lady cannot have been young, but she would have been a splendid match for the City merchant; and whether it was love or ambition which tempted him, Cranfield was loth to take a wife at another man’s bidding. For some months he struggled hard for freedom; but at last he gave way, and before the end of the year it was known that he had become a member of the Privy Council, and the accepted lover of Anne Brett.[379]
Bad as this system was, yet, as far as the higher offices were concerned, it was not without a check. It would be ruinous to <214>entrust the Exchequer to men who were ignorant of the rudiments of finance, or to Sale of honours.place upon the Bench a lawyer who had never held a brief. But there was no limit, excepting that of good feeling and propriety, imposed upon the creation of titles of honour. Everybody with a certain amount of money thought himself good enough to be a baron or an earl; and James, forgetting that, by flooding an hereditary house with new creations, he would make two enemies for every friend that he gained, fancied that the more barons and earls he created, the greater would be his influence in the House of Lords. At all events, he would find in the purses of these ambitious men the means of replenishing his own, and of rewarding the needy courtiers who complained that since the fashion of economy had been set, he had nothing left to give away. Just as, after Salisbury’s attempt to introduce order into the finances, courtiers had asked for a recusant to squeeze, instead of petitioning for a grant of lands or of money, so now that the negotiations for the Spanish marriage had made it more necessary to be careful of the feelings of the Catholics, the demand for a recusant was superseded by the demand for a baron.[380] The person whose request was granted immediately looked about for some one who was ready to pay him the sum which he chose to ask. As a matter of course, unless he had been singularly unfortunate in his selection, the nomination was accepted, and a new member was added to the peerage.
A good example of the way in which James disposed of the <215>highest honours may be found in the creation of four new earls 1618.The four Earls.in the summer of 1618. Lord Lisle, the brother of Sir Philip Sydney, became Earl of Leicester, and his appointment was attributed not so much to his late services as commander of the garrisons of the cautionary towns, as to the recommendation of the Queen, whose chamberlain he was. Lord Compton, the brother of Lady Buckingham’s husband, appears to have bought his promotion to the earldom of Northampton from the King or from the favourite. About the motives which led to the elevation of the other two there is no mystery whatever. The King wanted money with which to defray the expenses of his annual progress, and he preferred the sale of two peerages to the loss of his hunting. For 10,000l. a-piece Lord Cavendish and Lord Rich exchanged their baronies for the earldoms of Devonshire and Warwick. So little shame did James feel about the matter that he actually allowed the greater part of the price to be entered in the receipt-books of the Exchequer.[381]
There was something peculiarly disgraceful in the promotion of Rich. If there was one thing upon which James prided himself, Rich’s speculations in piracy.it was his hatred of piracy. At the very moment at which the new earl’s patent was being sealed, the King was planning an attack upon Algiers, and was preparing to bring Raleigh to the scaffold. Yet Rich had done coolly and deliberately what was far worse than anything perpetrated by Raleigh under the strongest possible temptation. With him piracy had degenerated into a mere commercial speculation. In 1616, he had fitted out two vessels under the flag of the Duke of Savoy, and <216>had sent them to the West Indies, from whence, after a cruise of eighteen months, they had returned laden with Spanish treasures.[382] Nor was his son, the inheritor of his title, and the future Lord High Admiral of the Commonwealth, any better. In conjunction with a Genoese merchant, residing in London, he despatched two piratical vessels to the East. Their first act was to attack a rich junk belonging to the mother of the Great Mogul. If it had not been for the fortunate interposition of the fleet of the East India Company, which came up before the contest was decided, the result of Rich’s selfish enterprise would have been the closing of the busiest marts in India to English commerce.[383]
Soon after his return from the progress of which the expenses had been paid by the sale of these peerages, an opportunity was The Recordership of the City.afforded to James of considering how far his system of government was likely to secure popularity. Besides the offices which were directly at his disposal, there were a large number of appointments which were filled by election. Of all such elections, there were few which would better serve as a test of national feeling than those in which the merchant princes of the City took part.
The Recordership of London was in the gift of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen; but of late years it had almost invariably been Candidatures of Whitelocke and Shute.bestowed at the recommendation of the King. Such, however, was the growing unpopularity of the Court that, upon the occurrence of a vacancy, some of the aldermen formed the design of vindicating the freedom of election by choosing a candidate of their own. They fixed upon Whitelocke, whose services rendered in the <217>debates on the Impositions in 1610 and 1614, would be likely to conciliate in his favour the greater number of the electors.
Whitelocke’s success would have done no great harm to the Government; but James had not forgotten the reluctance of the City magistrates to punish the rioters who had assaulted the house of the Spanish Ambassador, and he had made it a point of honour that no one who had not secured the good word of Buckingham should carry the election. Buckingham had already declared in favour of Shute, one of the least reputable of his followers. No time was lost. The late Recorder, Sir Anthony Ben, had died on a Saturday, and on Sunday morning The King’s interference.the citizens who attended the service at St. Paul’s saw the Chief Justice of England busily engaged with unseemly haste in canvassing the aldermen before they had time to leave the church. On Monday Shute presented himself before the electors, with a letter from James. He was told that when the last Recorder was chosen, the King had promised to write no more such letters; and that he must not forget that, having formerly been outlawed, he was himself disqualified from holding the post. Mortified at the rebuff, he hurried back to Court, threatening the city with the vengeance of his royal patron.
As soon as James heard of the reception which his candidate had met with, he sent for Bacon, and asked him how he came Remonstrance of the Aldermen.to support Buckingham’s recommendation of such a man? Bacon, seldom in haste to spy out defects in any follower of Buckingham, replied that what had occurred was merely the result of factious opposition. As soon as he had left the King, he sent for some of the aldermen, and asked them what objection they could possibly have to Shute? To his astonishment, they replied that he had no right to ask any question of the kind. If his Majesty wished to interrogate them, they were ready to answer; but they declined to reply to anyone else. They accordingly chose a deputation to lay their objections before the King.
As soon as the aldermen were admitted, Buckingham, who was standing by, tried to pass the matter off. It was a pity, he said, to be hard upon a man because he had committed a fault <218>in his youth. “Not at all,” was the reply; “he has been outlawed no less than fifteen times.” There was no answering this, and Buckingham was silenced for a moment. But he quickly recovered himself, and whispered a few words in the King’s ear. When this by-play was at an end, James turned to the aldermen and told them that he did not wish to break their privileges, but that he should consider it a personal favour if they would pay some attention to his recommendation. If they really objected to Shute, they could say nothing against Robert Heath, who was an honest man and a sound lawyer.
Heath was, indeed, no less dependent upon Buckingham than Shute; and of all the lawyers of the day there was none in whose Heath becomes the Court candidate.constitutional theories a larger place was assigned to the prerogative. But there was nothing to be said against his moral character, and it was therefore no longer possible to raise any personal objection to the King’s nominee. The question was reduced to a simple issue. By choosing Whitelocke, the electors would be protesting against what was practically a violation of the freedom of election. By choosing Heath, they would maintain that good understanding with the Government which was in many respects so essential to their interests. Again and again the aldermen attempted to escape from the dilemma. They begged the King to allow them that liberty of choice to which they were entitled by their charter. Every plea was met by the answer, that no compulsion would be used, but that the King expected them to vote for Heath.
As soon as Whitelocke was informed how strongly the King objected to his election, he declared his intention of The election.withdrawing from the contest. He knew that he was especially obnoxious at Court, and he therefore thought that his name would be a bad rallying point for the friends of liberty of election. His supporters immediately determined to transfer their votes to Walter, the man who, nearly two years before, had been fixed upon by the almost unanimous voice of his profession, as best qualified to be Yelverton’s successor as Solicitor-General. In spite of Walter’s refusal to accept the nomination, his supporters resolved to go <219>to the poll. When the day of election arrived, it was found that of the twenty-four who were present to give their votes, eleven declared for Walter, whilst thirteen recorded their names in favour of Heath.[384] A victory of this kind was equivalent to a defeat. If James had been capable of taking warning, he would have seen that so slender a majority, obtained by such means, indicated a state of feeling into the causes of which he would do well to inquire.
[320] Of the two editions represented in the Museum library, the first bears the date of 1618. As, however, the King is spoken of as having reigned only fifty years in Scotland, it must have been sent to the press before July 28.
[321] Chamberlain to Carleton, Jan. 3, Feb. 21, 28, 1618, S. P. Dom. xcv. 5, xcvi. 23, 37.
[322] Chamberlain to Carleton, April 10, S. P. Dom. xcvii. 13.
[323] Salvetti, in his News-Letter of April 8, says that the rent was 5,000l. and the revenue twice as much. But it appears from the indenture between the King and Buckingham (May 23, 1618, Close Rolls, 16 Jac. I. Part 16), that the rent was 6,000l. and half of the remaining revenue. If we take Salvetti’s estimate of the profits, Buckingham would make about 2,000l. by the bargain. In 1613 the customs had been leased for 6,000l. without any mention of half the surplus (Grants to Ingram and others, July 23, <187>1613, Patent Rolls, 11 Jac. I. Part 2). So that Buckingham does not seem to have made more out of the customs than any other patentee would have done.
[324] Salvetti’s News-Letter, July 2⁄12.
[325] Lorkin to Puckering, June 30, Harl. MSS. 7002, fol. 410.
[326] Gondomar to Philip III., July 5⁄15, Simancas MSS. 2598, fol. 76. Salvetti’s News-Letter, May 28⁄June 7, June 4, 11, 18⁄14, 21, 28, July 2⁄12, July 28⁄Aug. 7.
[327] Camden’s Annals.
[328] Chamberlain to Carleton, June 4, 1617. Roos to the King, June 1, 1618. S. P. Dom. xcii. 61, xcvii. 89.
[329] Feet of Fines. Manor of Walthamstow, Essex. Trin. Term. R. O.
[330] So at least Lord Roos firmly believed.
[331] Gerard to Carleton, June 4, 1617, S. P. Dom. xcii. 62.
[332] Chamberlain to Carleton, Jan. 3, 1618, S. P. Dom. xcv. 5.
[333] The main facts of the story may be clearly made out from the Abstract of proofs, &c., S. P. Dom. cv. 81, 82.
[334] Roos to the King, June 1. S. P. Dom. xcvii. 89. Lorkin to Puckering, July 14, 1618, Harl. MSS. 7002, fol. 414.
[335] Lorkin to Puckering, Feb. 16, 1619, Goodman’s Court of King James, ii. 176.
[336] From the deposition of Mary Lake (S. P. Dom. cv. 82), it appears <194>that when on one occasion Lady Lake visited her daughter, Lady Roos pretended to be ill and took to her bed. This must have been to make her mother believe the story of the poisoning which she had just invented. Lady Lake’s protestation of her innocence will be found in a letter to Lady Exeter in Goodman’s Court of King James, ii. 196.
[337] The poison Lady Roos said she had taken was roseacre, and the ground upon which she threatened her husband with a divorce was precisely the same as that with which Essex was got rid of.
[338] Chamberlain to Carleton, Feb. 27, July 31, 1619, S. P. Dom. cv. 143, cix. 161, Council Register, June 27, 1619.
[339] Submission of Lady Roos, June 19. Chamberlain to Carleton, July 15, 31. Submission of Sir T. Lake, Jan. 28, 1620; Submission of Lady Lake, May 2, 1621, S. P. Dom. cix. 99, 133, 161; cxii. 43; cxxi. 5.
[340] Chamberlain to Carleton, March 27, Dec. 19, 1618, S. P. Dom. xcvi. 87.
[341] Lorkin to Puckering, Oct. 20, 1618, Harl. MSS. 7002, fol. 418.
[342] Digby to Buckingham, Dec. 1, 1618, S. P. Spain.
[343] Memorial in Bacon’s Letters and Life, vi. 254.
[344] “Es cierto que desde las pazes acà ha crecido el comercio de solo Londres mas de treinta millones,” i.e. by 7,500,000l. Gondomar to Ciriza, Nov. 11⁄21 1619, Simancas MSS. 2599, fol. 206.
[345] Lovelace to Carleton, March 11, 1617, S. P. Dom. xc. 113.
[346] Lake to Winwood, Aug. 16. Winwood to Lake, Aug. 20, 1617, S. P. Dom. xciii. 25, 31.
[347] The Council to the King, Sept. 27, 1617, S. P. Dom. xciii. 99.
[348] The King to the Council, Nov. 21, 1617, Bacon’s Works, ed. 1778, iii. 354.
[349] Goodman’s Court of King James, i. 296.
[350] Chamberlain to Carleton, Feb. 22, March 8, 1617, S. P. Dom. xc. 79, 105.
[351] Chamberlain to Carleton, Aug. 9, 1617, S. P. Dom.
[352] Contarini to the Doge, July 23⁄Aug. 2, 1618, Venice MSS. List of Payments, S. P. Dom. cxvi. 122.
[353] Salvetti’s News-Letter, Aug. 27⁄Sept. 6, 1618.
[354] Appointment of Cranfield, Sept. 12, 1618, Patent Rolls, 16 Jac. I., Part 21.
[355] Goodman’s Court of King James, i. 53.
[356] Appointment of the Commission, June 23, 1618, Patent Rolls, 16 Jac. I., Part 1. Report of the Commissioners, and other papers, S. P. <205>Dom. c. 2; ci. 2, 3. The number of vessels is taken from the last-quoted document, which seems to give the final determination of the Commissioners.
[357] Harwood to Carleton, Jan. 8, 1618, S. P. Dom. xcv. 8. The King’s Speech in opening the Parliament of 1621.
[358] Salvetti’s News-Letter, Oct. 9⁄19, Nov. 6⁄16, 1618.
[359] Commission to Buckingham, Jan. 28, 1619, Patent Rolls, 16 Jac. I., Part 17. Rushworth, i. 306, 379. Chamberlain to Carleton, Feb. 6, 1619, S. P. Dom. cv. 83.
[360] Commission to Cranfield and others, Feb. 12, 1619, Patent Rolls, 19 Jac. I., Part 3.
“Buckinghamus, Io! maris est præfectus, et idemQui dominatur equis, nunc dominatur aquis.Atque inter Superos liquidas qui temperat undasNeptunus, celeres et moderatur equos.Ne jam displiceat cuiquam geminata potestasExemplum Superis cum placuisse vident.”
Salvetti’s News-Letter, Nov. 20⁄30, 1618.
[362] Wilson in Kennet, ii. 728.
[363] Salvetti’s News-Letter, Nov. 20⁄30, 1618. Chamberlain to Carleton, Feb. 6, 1619, S. P. Dom. cv. 83.
[364] Chamberlain to Carleton, Jan. 16, 1619, S. P. Dom. cv. 41.
[365] E. H. [i.e. Elizabeth Howard, Lady Howard of Walden] to the King, Cabala, 234.
[366] The fullest account of the trial is in Cæsar’s notes, Add. MSS. 12,497, fol. 69–74, 77–92. Compare the Answer of the Earl of Suffolk, and the State of the Proceedings, S. P. Dom. cxi. 17, 18.
[367] Bacon to Buckingham, Oct. 27, 1619, Letters and Life, vii. 53.
[368] Locke to Carleton, Nov. 6, 1619, S. P. Dom. cxi. 8.
[369] Naunton to Carleton, Dec. 3, 1619, S. P. Holland.
[370] Goring to Buckingham, Nov. 16, Dec. 13, 1619, Harl. MSS. 1580, fol. 411. Suffolk to the King, Cabala, 334. Edmondes to Carleton, Jan. 25, 1620, S. P. Dom. cxii. 35.
[371] Chamberlain to Carleton, July 27. Woodford to Nethersole, Aug. 3, 1620, S. P. Dom. cxvi. 48, 59. It appears from the receipt books of the <211>Exchequer that only 1,397l. was raised upon Suffolk’s lands, whilst 2,000l. was paid out to Haddington. Docquet, Sept. 21, 1620, S. P. Dom. The remainder of the transaction may have been managed privately.
[372] Gerard to Carleton, March 20, 1617, S. P. Dom. xc. 135.
[373] Whitelocke, Liber Famelicus, 56.
[374] Sherburn to Carleton, Nov. 7, 1617, S. P. Dom. xciv. 11.
[375] Appointment to Cranfield, Jan. 15, Patent Rolls, 16 Jac. I., Part 21.
[376] Commission to Cranfield and others, Feb. 12, Patent Rolls, 16 Jac. I., Part 3.
[377] “Cranfield’s favour at Court is now almost as little as before it was great, and will hardly come from this low ebb to a high flood, until he will be content to marry a handsome young waiting woman, who hath little money but good friends.” Brent to Carleton, May 29, S. P. Dom. cix. 59.
[378] Chamberlain to Carleton, Feb. 6, S. P. Dom. cv. 83. Buckingham may, perhaps, have looked upon a marriage with the widow of a Howard as a defection from his standard.
[379] Nethersole to Carleton, Feb. 6, S. P. Dom. cxii. 20. For some reason or other, the marriage did not take place till Jan. 11, 1621.
[380] It may be as well to point out in this case that a mistake is often made by otherwise well-informed writers in the inference which they draw from the fact that a baronet has had his creation money returned to him. An author sometimes has, or thinks he has, ground for supposing that some person was engaged in a Court intrigue. He knows that he became a baronet about the time, and finds in the Exchequer books that his money was repaid. This is enough. The man, it is taken for granted, must have been in unusually high favour, and his connection with the intrigue in question is then almost taken for granted. A little further examination would, however, show the evidence to be worthless. In the latter years of James every baronet received back his money. Whether it remained in his pocket, or was privately transferred to that of some courtier, is more than I or anybody else can say.
[381] Receipt books, Aug. 8, 1618, June 29, 1619. Salvetti (News-Letter, July 23⁄Aug. 2, 1618) says that Devonshire and Warwick each paid 10,000l. The receipt-books only give 8,000l. as paid by Warwick, and 10,000l. by Devonshire. It is more likely that the remaining 2,000l. was paid privately than that any difference was made in the price of the two earldoms. Salvetti adds, that Northampton’s creation was at Buckingham’s request. According to Contarini the King got 150,000 crowns from the three. I have endeavoured to reconcile the difference, by suggesting the possibility that Northampton’s money stuck in Buckingham’s pocket.
[382] Contarini to the Doge, May 21⁄31, 1618, Venice MSS. Desp. Ingh. Stith, in his History of Virginia, i. 531, seems to refer to the same voyage, though there is a confusion in his narrative between the two Earls of Warwick.
[383] Pring to the Company, Nov. 12. Monox to the Company, Dec. 28, 1617, E. I. C. Orig. Corr. Court Minutes of the E. I. C., Feb. 24, 1618. Chamberlain to Carleton, Jan. 2. Smith to Carleton, Jan. 7. Wynn to Carleton, Jan. 28, 1619, S. P. Dom. cv. 2, 3, 67. Salvetti’s News-Letter, March 11⁄21, 1619.
[384] Whitelocke, Liber Famelicus, 63.