<375>The promise made at the adjournment that the penal laws should be put in execution, was a symptom of a change which was July 11.Meaning of the promise to execute the penal laws.coming over the minds of the King and his minister. It was easy to suppose that, because the Commons cared a great deal about repressing the Catholics, they cared for very little else, and that if only the penal laws were put in execution the House, at its next meeting, would make no more difficulty about supply. Nor was Charles, in consenting to this course, doing any violence to his own wishes. Ever since Buckingham had reported the failure of his mission in France, there had been growing up at Court a carelessness about the value of the French alliance, and an increasing belief that England was being sacrified to the separate interests of Louis.
To these political grievances was added a personal grievance still more irritating. The dream of domestic happiness which had June.Charles’s domestic troubles.floated before Charles, in after life the most uxorious of husbands, was vanishing away. The dispute about the precedence of Madame St. Georges had embittered the early days of his married life. Other troubles were not long in coming. Henrietta Maria was impetuous and indiscreet. “The Queen,” wrote one who had seen her, “howsoever little of stature, is of spirit and vigour, and seems of more than ordinary resolution. With one frown, divers of us being at Whitehall to see her, being at dinner, and the room somewhat overheated with the fire and company, she drove us <376>all out of the chamber. I suppose none but a Queen could have cast such a scowl.”[623] It was a scowl which her husband sometimes experienced as well as her courtiers. He did not pay much respect to her priestly attendants. When she heard mass he directed that no Englishman should be present.[624] After the Royal pair had been a few days at Hampton Court, a deputation from the Privy Council was sent to instruct the Queen about the regulations which the King wished to be observed in her household. “I hope,” she replied, pettishly, “I shall have leave to order my house as I list myself.” Charles attempted to argue the point with her in private, but the answer which she returned was so rude that he did not venture to repeat it to her own mother.[625] She regarded herself as in a foreign land, in which everyone was at war with her. Even the exhortations of Richelieu’s kinsman, the Bishop of Mende, who had accompanied her as the head of her train of ecclesiastics, could not induce her to treat the highest personages of the English nobility with common civility.[626]
Such a misunderstanding between a spirited child and a punctilious young husband ten years older than herself, is only May.The English Catholics.too easy to explain. Nor was the Queen without reason for complaint. She had come to England in the full persuasion that her presence would alleviate the lot of the English Catholics. She had scarcely set foot in the island when she learned that the orders which were to have saved them from the penalties of the law had been countermanded. Is it not probable that if the secrets of those early days of married life could be rendered up, we should hear of the young wife’s stormy upbraidings of the man who had beguiled <377>her into taking upon herself the marriage vow by promises which he now found it convenient to repudiate?
At all events the French ambassadors, Chevreuse and Ville-aux-Clercs, who were in England on special business, protested loudly. Difficulty of satisfying the French ambassadors.At first they received nothing but evasive answers. A few days after Parliament met, they were asked to allow the King to hold out hopes to his subjects that he would put the laws in execution, and to shut their eyes if sentence were passed on one or two Jesuits, on the express understanding that the sentence would not be carried into execution.[627] At last the time was come when the fulfilment of Charles’s contradictory promises was demanded of him. He would soon find that he must either break his word to his Parliament or his word to the King of France. For the present a way was found by which the difficulty might be postponed for a little time. Effiat was about to return to France, July 12.Liberation of priests.as well as Chevreuse and Ville-aux-Clercs. James had been in the habit of allowing foreign ambassadors who took leave of him to carry with them large numbers of priests on the understanding that they would not return to England. In imitation of his father’s practice, Charles now directed the Lord Keeper to seal pardons for the priests in confinement at the time. Williams, however, objected, and it was only by the King’s special command that the pardons were issued. That command was given at the Council held on July 10 to decide upon the adjournment of the Houses.[628] The way was thus cleared for the announcement made the next day, that the laws would be put in execution. Though there was no real contradiction between the issue of pardon for past offences and the intention to carry out the law in the future, the sight of so many priests coming out of confinement, without any word of explanation being given, was likely to throw doubt on the honesty of the governing powers.
The impossibility of reconciling engagements made in opposite directions weighed no less heavily on Charles in the <378>matter of the squadron which had been fitted out for the April.The ships for Rochelle.service of the King of France. As early as April 11 the ‘Vanguard’ and her seven consorts had been ready for sea,[629] but delays had supervened. As soon as the captains and owners of the merchant vessels discovered that May.Reluctance of the captains to take part in the enterprise.they were to be employed against Rochelle, they hung back and did their best to find excuses. One of the captains, Sir Ferdinando Gorges, who was to go as Pennington’s Vice-Admiral, kept away from the rendezvous till the end of May, and was only compelled by threats of imprisonment to take his place with the others.[630]
The exact part taken by Charles and Buckingham in the affair must always be matter for conjecture. It is probably true that Part taken by Charles and Buckingham.when the contract was signed by which the merchant ships were offered to Louis for service against anyone excepting the King of England, the owners had been quieted by assurances that they would not have to fight against the French Protestants.[631] At all events, on May 18 May 18.Pennington told that he would not have to fight the Protestants.Sir John Coke was employed to write to Pennington to that effect, and this letter of Coke’s may be fairly taken as embodying the sentiments of the Lord Admiral, who was already in France wth the object of inducing the French Government to make peace with the Rochellese, and whose habit it was to regard as absolutely certain anything which he had strong reasons for desiring. That it would be to his interest that there should be no fighting at Rochelle there could be no doubt whatever. He was still looking hopefully for French co-operation, if not in his projected attack on the Flemish ports, at all events in some way or other in the Continental war. His original plan had been to lend the ships for the purpose of an attack upon Genoa, and nothing would now please him better than to see the original project reverted to. Still the <379>fleet had been offered to the French to be used against all enemies, and Charles found himself, as he had found himself in the matter of the English Catholics, in a strait between two engagements.
To find an issue from this entanglement Charles had recourse to that double-dealing which was characteristic of him whenever he was driven into a difficulty. Through Conway he conveyed orders to the fleet to get ready instantly for sea. Through Coke he intimated to Pennington that he was not to give his ships up to the French till he had used them to convoy the Queen to England.[632] His intention was doubtless merely to delay the delivery of the vessels till he heard what turn Buckingham’s negotiation had taken.
When Buckingham learned in France, that, though Louis would not join England openly in the war with Spain, he had despatched a messenger to offer peace to the Huguenots, there seemed June 9.The ships under Pennington sail for Dieppe.no longer any reason for delay. On June 9 Pennington sailed with his eight ships. On the 13th he was at Dieppe. Pennington was an honest sailor, sympathising doubtless with June 13.He finds his instructions unintelligible.the unwillingness of the captains to fight against Protestants, but anxious, above all things, to carry out his instructions. His main difficulty was to know what his instructions were. He knew that by the contract he was bound to serve against the Huguenots if the French Government ordered him to do so. He knew that by Coke’s letter he was prohibited from doing anything of the sort. When he arrived at Dieppe <380>he found that every Frenchman whom he met told him that his ships were wanted for an attack upon Rochelle. In the midst of these distracting uncertainties he resolved firmly that he would not allow the command of the squadron to slip out of his hands. When, therefore, he was requested by the French authorities to take three hundred soldiers on board the ‘Vanguard’ and two hundred on board each of the smaller vessels, he Refuses to admit French soldiers on board.flatly refused compliance. His orders, he said, authorised him only to take the French Admiral on board his own vessel, ‘with such convenient train as’ he was able to accommodate, and not to admit into the merchant ships more than ‘half of the numbers of each ship’s company.’[633]
Possibly these orders had been given by Buckingham to enable him to retain a hold upon the vessels. The French, however, The French try to get the ships into their power.refused to accept them on such terms. They had by this time learned enough of the temper of the English sailors to discover that, except under compulsion, they would never fight against their fellow-Protestants. Officers and seamen alike, including Pennington himself, had spoken out their minds on this. The French ministers finding that they could not have their way, wrote to their ambassadors, who were still in England, to urge Buckingham to alter his instructions.[634]
With Pennington there was nothing to be done. Montmorency, the Admiral of France, came in person to Dieppe to use his influence. Pennington told him that, though he was ready to obey orders from his own Government, he would not go an inch beyond them. June 27.The fleet returns to England.He soon conveniently discovered that it was impossible to remain much longer in an open roadstead exposed to the violence of the winds. At midnight on June 27, the whole fleet weighed anchor and took <381>refuge in Stokes Bay, leaving it to diplomacy to settle what was next to be done.[635]
Charles’s first impulse was to assert that Pennington had been in the right, and even to suggest that the ships were not Remonstrances of the French ambassadors.bound to fight against Rochelle;[636] but it was impossible for him to maintain this view of the case in the face of the French ambassadors, who knew perfectly well that, whatever the letter of the contract might be, there had been a full understanding that the ships were originally offered with the object of overcoming the resistance of the Huguenots. The conclusion was a hard one for him to accept. His feeling that the French had duped him was growing stronger. Just after Pennington arrived in England, however, news reached Charles which promised better things. Gondomar, June 26.Negotiations between Louis and the Huguenots.who had visited Paris on his way to Brussels, had taken his leave on the 26th without venturing to make any direct overtures to the French Government, and on the same day the deputies of the Huguenots, who had come to treat for peace in consequence of the negotiations opened whilst Buckingham was in France, were formally received by Louis. To Lorkin, who after the return of Carlisle and Holland represented Charles in France in the inferior capacity of agent, the French ministers spoke in the most friendly terms. “Peace will be made,” said Richelieu; “assure yourself of that.” “If only the King of England,” said another of the French ministers, “will show that he means to assist the King against his rebels, peace will soon be made.”[637]
According to Richelieu, therefore, a mere demonstration against Rochelle in order to help on that pacification which he and Charles alike desired, was all that was intended. Charles, obliged to trust him to some extent, and yet unwilling to trust him altogether, tried to steer a middle course. He informed Pennington, through Conway, that his proceedings had been <382>well received on the whole, but that he had been wrong in July 3.Pennington’s further orders.divulging the secret that his instructions bound him not to fight against the Protestants. As this had given rise to fresh demands, he must return to Dieppe, and take sixty Frenchmen on board the ‘Vanguard,’ and fifty on board each of the other vessels. He was then to sail against any enemy pointed out to him by the King of France.[638]
As the number of Frenchmen thus allowed to be taken on board was very similar to that to which the French authorities had Fresh objections of the French.already taken objection, renewed protests were made by the ambassadors. At last, on July 10, the day which the Council resolved to promise the execution of the penal laws, Conway sent a warrant to Pennington to deliver over the ships to the French, and to take on board as many Frenchmen as the King of France might order him to receive.[639]
As far as words could go the question might be regarded as settled. It may be that Charles trusted for the moment to Richelieu’s assurances that there would be no war with the Protestants; but there were those at Court who were not inclined to put too much trust in the word of the French minister. On the 11th July 11.Statement of the case by Sir J. Coke.Sir John Coke forwarded to Conway, with evident approval, a protest from the captains and owners of the merchantmen. The French, according to this protest, had threatened to take possession of the ships, and to place the English sailors under French martial law. “And lastly,” they said, “for serving against them of our religion, it is very well known that our seamen generally are most resolute in our profession; and these men have expressed it by their common petition that they would rather be killed or thrown overboard than be forced to shed the innocent blood of any <383>Protestants in the quarrels of Papists, so as they will account any commandment to that end to be in a kind an imposition of martyrdom.” Nothing could come of it, as Coke thought, but a quarrel between the two nations, “to which,” he said, “if we add the discouragement of our party at home and abroad, the late murmuring against it in Parliament, and the open exclaiming made in the pulpits that this taking part against our own religion is one chief cause of God’s hand that now hangeth over us, we can hardly balance these consequences with any interest or assistance we can have from the French.”
The difficulty, Coke proceeded to show, lay in the King’s promise and in the terms of the contract. It might be argued, he said, that the prohibition to serve against his Majesty included a prohibition to serve against the French Protestants who were his Majesty’s allies. But Remedy proposed by him.it would perhaps be better to order Pennington to comply with the French demands, taking care, however, to instruct him that if he could not ‘presently obey this direction by reason of any interruption whatsoever,’ he was to ‘acquaint his Majesty therewith, that he’ might ‘give order to remove if, and so take away all excuse for not accomplishing the intended gratification of his dear brother the French king.’ In plain English, if the men were mutinous, Pennington was to represent his difficulties to the King. This would take up time, and it would be possible to spin matters out by retorting upon the French that they had not made their payments at the proper day, and had not kept their part of the contract. The blame would thus be thrown upon the French. “Only,” added Coke, “some care would be taken after his Majesty’s letters written, that Sir Ferdinando Gorges, who … purposeth to go aboard his ship to the rest of the fleet, may receive some directions for the carriage of their answers, that Captain Pennington by the unexpected style of his Majesty’s letters may not be surprised.”[640]
It is hardly likely that Coke would have made so startling a suggestion unless he had been well aware that Charles was longing to be off his bargain. That it was well received is <384>evident. But it was perhaps thought too hazardous to entrust either The proposal considered at Court.Pennington or Gorges with the secret, and at all events a more suitable person was at hand. Edward Nicholas, the Lord Admiral’s secretary, was one of those useful men who are intelligent, busy, and subservient. July 15.Mission of Nicholas.To his pen we owe much information on the debates in the Parliaments in which he sat. When Coke was removed to another sphere, the business of the Admiralty — accounts, orders, information — all passed through his hands. He was now selected as the fittest instrument for a delicate mission, as likely to say and do no more than was necessary, whilst his official position would raise him above suspicion.
Apparently the next move involved a complete surrender to the French. Effiat, who was now leaving England, was to pass Orders for the surrender of the ships.through Dieppe on his way home. A letter was written to Pennington by Buckingham, ordering him to take the ships to Dieppe and there to give them up to the French, allowing them to ‘put into them so many men as they shall think good, and dispose of them as’ the King of France might direct. He would receive in return security from the French for the restitution of the value of the ships in case of their coming to harm,[641] security which, as Nicholas thought, would be entirely valueless, seeing that it could not be enforced by anything short of war.[642]
Buckingham, accompanied by Nicholas, went to Rochester to confer with the French ambassadors about the security to be July 16.Buckingham at Rochester.given to the owners. He did his best to play a double part. To the Frenchmen he was all courtesy, and offered to do his best to satisfy them.[643] At the same time he warned the shipowners not to ‘deliver over their <385>ships unless they had security to their content.’[644] If, however, Buckingham counted on any dispute between the shipowners and the French on this score he was disappointed. Security was offered to which neither he himself nor any of the shipowners took exception.[645]
When Buckingham had first arrived at Rochester he had reiterated his orders to Pennington to deliver up the ships at Dieppe.[646] July 18.Resistance of the crews.The reply which he received must have sounded like music in his ears. Pennington was as Stokes Bay with the ships. The captains were away at Rochester with the Duke, and their crews refused to stir till their captains returned. If they would not come, Pennington wrote, he would obey orders, and go with only the ‘Vanguard,’ though by doing so, he and his ship’s crew would be as slaves to the French. The business was too difficult for him to understand, and he hoped a more competent person would be sent to take his place. “Moreover,” he added, “your Grace may be pleased to take notice that I have a strange uproar in my ship amongst my own company upon this news of going over again, I having much ado to bring them to it, though I keep all from them, and make them believe we go over upon better terms than formerly.”[647]
Pennington’s request to be relieved from his troublesome command was at once refused. Buckingham had taken his course, and before he left Rochester to return to the Court, Nicholas had been despatched to Dieppe with secret instructions.
The instructions, as Nicholas set them down long afterwards, were as follows:—
“To employ my best endeavour to hinder or at least Secret instructions to Nicholas.delay the delivery of the ships to the French, but therein so to carry myself as that the ambassador might not discern but that I was sent of purpose, and with full <386>instructions and command, to effect his desire and to cause all the ships to be put into his hands.”[648]
On the 19th news arrived from France that terms of peace had been agreed on between the King and the Huguenots. Upon this July 19.News of peace in France.Buckingham wrote to Nicholas acquainting him with what he had heard, and enjoining upon him the duty of doing all that Effiat might ask, though he expressed a hope that the French would no longer need the ships.[649]
The next day Buckingham had changed his mind. It may be that he wished to wait yet a few days, to see if the news was July 20.Secret message to Pennington.really true. Pembroke, who had been taken into his confidence, despatched the following message to Pennington:—
“That the letters which Captain Pennington sent the Lord Duke of Buckingham’s grace, to himself and the Lord Conway, was the best news that could come to the Court, and that the King and all the rest were exceeding glad of that relation which he made of the discontent and mutinies of his company and the rest; and that if such a thing had not fallen out, they should have been constrained to have sent him advice to have brought such thing to pass. If the French should accept of the service of that ship alone without the rest, that he should carry it on fairly with them,[650] but still to keep himself master <387>of his ship, and if they proceeded so far as to offer to take the possession of her, that A mutiny to be got up if necessary.then his men should take him prisoner and bring away the ship: and that the said Captain Pennington might believe him that he had thus much to deliver, it being the King’s will and the rest,[651] that it was far from them that any of his ships should go against any of the Protestants.”[652]
If Pennington had before been anxious to surrender his command, what must have been his feelings when he received instructions in this underhand manner to get up a mutiny on board the King’s ship entrusted to his charge?
Pennington, when Pembroke’s message reached him, was once more at Dieppe with the ‘Vanguard,’ having crossed the Channel July 21.Pennington again at Dieppe.in spite of the murmurs of his men. A day or two later he was followed by the merchantmen, as soon as their captains came on board.[653] When the ‘Vanguard’ arrived, Nicholas was already in the town with Effiat. Pennington who, although he had not been informed of the real nature of Nicholas’s mission, was ready to fall back upon any excuse which would cause delay, discovered that he had not sufficient warrant to deliver up the ships. He even refused at first to come on shore to confer with Effiat, and said that he could do nothing till he had fresh authority ffom England. Nicholas then took up his cue. He wrote to Pennington remonstrating with him, and July 22.arranged with Effiat to send to England for peremptory orders to the captains to surrender the ships. Much to his disappointment, Effiat <388>would not allow him to go on board.[654] At last Pennington consented to land and to confer with Effiat, and in spite of the jealousy of the Frenchman, who did his best to prevent any communication between him and Nicholas, Nicholas contrived to whisper a few words of warning to him, bidding him take heed that he had sufficient warrant for delivering up the ships. He had but a letter from Conway, and, in such a case, the King’s signature to a warrant might fairly be demanded.[655]
Nicholas’s next step was to address a letter to the officers and crew of the ‘Vanguard.’ Would they or would they not either Appeal to the crews.deliver up the ship, or receive three hundred Frenchmen on board?[656] The answer was contained in a note from Pennington. “I pray,” he wrote, “let me entreat you July 23.Mutiny beginning.to come aboard, for my people are in a mighty mutiny, and swear they will carry me home perforce. I know your words will do much amongst them, and I have a great desire to give satisfaction to my Lord Ambassador, so far as I may with safety of my life.”[657] Upon this appeal Nicholas was permitted to go on board. Alike in the ‘Vanguard’ and the merchant ships he met with opposition. The crew of the ‘Vanguard’ would take on board 150 unarmed Frenchmen, would carry them to England, ‘and there leave the ship to them, so as they may have a good discharge.’ The captains of the merchantmen objected to the security agreed upon Double language of Nicholas.at Rochester, and said that they could not deliver the ships till this point had been better arranged.[658] Nicholas, in fact, had made use of this visit to do his master’s bidding.[659] To Pennington he repeated the warnings <389>which he had addressed to him on shore. With the captains he held two languages. Whenever Frenchmen were present, he charged them to give up the ships at once. Whenever he could <390>speak with them alone he charged them to do nothing of the sort without better warrant.
After this Effiat had but little chance of getting possession of the ships. Nicholas continued to summon Pennington to Continued resistance.do his duty and to surrender the vessels; but as he had previously warned him not to take account of anything which he might write to please the French, his words naturally produced no effect. Pennington excused himself on the ground of the notorious disaffection of his crews. If that were all, Effiat replied, he would place four hundred Frenchmen on <391>board to put down the mutiny.[660] As soon as the sailors heard of the threat, they took the matter into their own hands and stood out to sea. “And when,” wrote Pennington, “I demanded their reason, July 25.The ‘Vanguard’ puts to sea.they told me that they had rather be hanged at home than part with your Majesty’s ship upon these terms. Yet, however they did it without acquainting me, I must confess I knew of it and did connive, otherwise they should never have done it, and I live. For I had rather lose my life than my reputation in my command.”[661] The merchant ships remained at Dieppe, but their captains still refused to surrender them to the French.[662]
Charles and Buckingham had therefore, at whatever expense to their own honour, succeeded in staving off the immediate surrender of the ships.[663] At last it seemed that the object of all this trickery was within their grasp. The Prospects of peace in France.news from France had been growing brighter as each despatch arrived, and there was every reason to believe that the ships might now be safely delivered up without risk of seeing them employed against the Protestants of Rochelle.
The plea which Buckingham had put up for peace had been seconded by the Constable Lesdiguières, who was in command of June.the French force which had gone to assist the Duke of Savoy in his attack upon Genoa. Lesdiguières, who knew that it was hopeless to attack Genoa without the command of the sea, longed for the presence of the ships which <392>had been seized by Soubise, reinforced if possible by Pennington’s English squadron, which had been originally destined for that service.[664] At the French Court, however, there was a strong party which urged Louis to finish with the Huguenots now that he had a chance, whilst the French clergy were ready to offer large sums in support of the holy war.
Richelieu himself wavered — perhaps because he saw that if he was to keep his hold upon the mind of Louis, it was necessary for him Richelieu and the Huguenots.to appear to waver. In the beginning of May he had declared that it was impossible to wage war with Spain and the Huguenots at once, and had recommended, though in a somewhat hesitating tone, that peace should he made with Spain, and that the Huguenots should be compelled to submission. In June, when there was a prospect that the Huguenots might be brought to acknowledge their fault, he urged that they should be satisfied as far as possible; but that Fort Louis, at the mouth of the harbour of Rochelle, which had been kept up in defiance of the express words of the last treaty, should not be razed, on the ground that if the fort were destroyed it would look as though the King had granted to rebellion what he had refused to do at the humble petition of his subjects.[665]
On June 25 the Huguenot deputies arrived at Fontainebleau, and threw themselves at the feet of the King. If they could The Huguenot deputies at Fontainebleau.obtain the concessions which they considered indispensable for their security, they were quite willing to accept them from the Royal favour. Their demeanour seems to have made a favourable impression on Richelieu. If the Royal authority was to be acknowledged as the source of all that was conceded, he would no longer bar the way to peace. In a splendid argument, he urged the advantages of making peace at home and of confirming the religious toleration granted by the Edict of Nantes, in order that France <393>might turn her whole attention to war with Spain.[666] Difficulties hindered the final arrangement of peace for some days. At last came news that Soubise had inflicted some loss upon the French admiral who, with the aid of twenty Dutch ships, was guarding the entrance to the harbour of Rochelle. The party of resistance at Court found that to overpower the great seaport was July 15.Terms of peace agreed on,not so easy as they thought, and, on July 15, the conditions of peace were mutually agreed on. A form was drawn up in which the King was to engage, out of his Royal goodness, to dismantle Fort Louis within a year. and sent to Rochelle to be ratified.As the deputies had no power to conclude the peace themselves, the conditions were at once forwarded to Rochelle for ratification.[667]
Such was the news which had reached Buckingham on the 19th, and had caused him for a moment to think of July 19.Effect of the news on Buckingham.ordering the delivery of the ships.[668] A few days later, Lorkin was able to send better news still. A council had been held at Fontainebleau, and it had been resolved to declare open war against Spain, and to encourage the Duke of Savoy to attack the Milanese. In order that there might be no further danger of disturbance at home, couriers had been despatched to the French commanders in the south of France to order them to abstain from all acts of hostility as soon as the treaty had been ratified by the Huguenots.[669]
That the ratification would follow seemed hardly open to <394>doubt. At all events neither Charles nor Buckingham doubted it. A formal order was issued to Pennington to take back the ‘Vanguard,’ and to July 28.Final orders to Pennington.deliver up the fleet at once, and Buckingham gravely informed him that the King had been extremely offended at his previous delay. A private letter from Pembroke explained the mystery. “The King,” he wrote, “is assured that war will be declared against Spain for Milan, and the peace is made in France for the Religion. Therefore his pleasure is that you peremptorily obey this last direction without reply.”[670]
Pennington had at last got orders which he could understand. On August 3 he was again at Dieppe, and on the 5th the ‘Vanguard’ was placed in Effiat’s hands. Sir Ferdinando Gorges, who was in command of one of the merchant ships, continued to refuse to deliver his vessel till better security for its value had been given, and sailed for England in defiance of Pennington and Effiat alike. The other six captains submitted more readily. If, however, the French got the ships they did not get the men. One only of the whole number consented to accept a service in which they expected to be employed against their fellow-Protestants, and it was believed in England that that one was not long afterwards killed by the accidental explosion of a gun.[671]
Buckingham therefore had reason to flatter himself that when Parliament met at Oxford he would be able to give a good account of Pennington’s fleet. If he could not openly declare the means by which he had kept it so long out of the hands of the French, he could point to the fact that it had not been surrendered till peace had been secured. When the news came that France was at open war with Spain, and that the English vessels were on their way to Genoa, there would be <395>little disposition to inquire too narrowly into the original engagement by which the ships had been offered to the King of France.
As far, therefore, as their foreign policy was concerned, Charles and his minister had some ground for the expectation that their proposals would meet with more favourable consideration than July 30.The English Catholics.they had met with at Westminster. But what was to be done about the English Catholics? The engagements which Charles had severally taken to the King of France and to his own Parliament were so flagrantly in contradiction with one another, that no double-tongued Nicholas could by any possibility help him out of this difficulty. The advice given by Williams was, that, seeing that promises had been made to Louis, Charles should announce to the Commons that the execution and relaxation of the penal laws was entirely a matter for himself to judge of.[672] It is just possible that if Charles, with a really effective French alliance to fall back on, had been able to inform the Houses at the same time that peace had been made in France with the Huguenots, and that there would be no longer any persecution of the Protestants there, he might have stood his ground, even with the House of Commons. On the other hand, if he put the laws in execution to please the Commons he would give deadly offence to Louis, and would probably render all active French co-operation impossible.
By this time the members of the House of Commons were unwillingly preparing to make their way to Oxford. The temper Aug. 1.Reassembly at Oxford.in which they were did not bode much success to the experiment which Charles was about to try. Even the difficulty of obtaining lodgings in a strange place was raised to the dignity of a practical grievance. History was ransacked for instances of unlucky Parliaments which had met at Oxford, whilst no one seems to have thought of the glories of that great assembly which gave birth to the Provisions of Oxford. Worse than all, the plague was already breaking out <396>in town, and there were not a few who shrank from facing that fell disease at a distance from their homes, and in the midst of a population swollen by so great a concourse.[673]
[623] Meade to Stuteville, July 2, Court and Times, i. 39.
[624] ——— to Meade, June 24, ibid. i. 33.
[625] Instructions to Carleton, July 12, 16, 26, Ludlow’s Memoirs, iii. 305.
[626] “Il seroit apropos que la Reine traita le Roi et les grandes de l’état avec plus de courtoisie, n’ayant personne de quelque qualité que ce soit à qui elle fasse aucun compliment, c’est ce que nous ne pouvons gaigner sur elle, et que peut-être les lettres de la Reine Mère gaigneront.” Deciphered paper from the Bishop of Mende, enclosed in a letter from Ville-aux-Clercs, Aug. 15⁄25, King’s MSS. 137, fol. 52.
[627] Chevreuse and Ville-aux-Clercs to Louis XIII., June 23, 27⁄July 3, 7.
[628] Hacket, ii. 14.
[629] Effiat to Ville-aux-Clercs, April 11⁄21, Harl. MSS. 4579, fol. 57.
[630] Conway to Coke, May 21 (?), S. P. France. Council Register, May 29, 31.
[631] This was stated by Glanville in his speech at the impeachment of Buckingham.
[632] “His Majesty hath been much moved at the delays of Sir F. Gorges, and because it will be the utter overthrow of the voyage if it be not gone away presently, his Majesty hath commanded me to will and require you by all means to hasten it away, or else show the impossibility of it.” Conway to Coke, undated, but written on May 20 or 21, S. P. France.
“Nevertheless, having received a command from his Majesty by Sir J. Coke to detract the time as much as I could for the wafting over of the Queen, for which service I was appointed, though with privacy, I could not depart without a discharge of that command.” Pennington to Conway, May 22, S. P. Dom. ii. 83.
[633] Pennington to Pembroke, June 15, S. P. Dom. iii. 71. Pennington to Coke, June 15, Melbourne MSS.
[634] D’Ocquerre to Pennington, June 21⁄July 1, S. P. France. D’Ocquerre to Ville-aux-Clercs, June 20⁄30, Harl. MSS. 4597, fol. 198.
[635] Pennington to Buckingham, June 28; Pennington to Coke, June 29, Melbourne MSS.
[636] Chevreuse and Ville-aux-Clercs to Louis XIII., June 27⁄July 7, ibid. fol. 207.
[637] Lorkin to Conway, June 28⁄July 8 S. P. France.
[638] Conway to Pennington, July 3, S. P. Dom. Addenda.
[639] Ville-aux-Clercs and Chevreuse to Buckingham, July 7⁄17; the same to Louis XIII., July 9⁄19, Harl. MSS. 4597, fol. 207 b, 218 b; Conway to Pennington, July 10; Pennington to the King, July 27, S. P. Dom. v. 33, 132.
[640] Coke to Conway, July 11, S. P. Dom. iv. 40.
[641] Buckingham to Pennington, July 15, S. P. Dom. iv. 59.
[642] This does not seem conclusive, as it might be given through an English capitalist. But the objection shows what another of Buckingham’s entourage thought of the surrender of the ships. Nicholas to Buckingham, July 16, ibid. iv. 58.
[643] Chevreuse and Ville-aux-Clercs to Louis XIII., July 17⁄27, Harl. MSS. 4597, fol. 220.
[644] Statement by Nicholas, 1626 (?), S. P. Dom. xliii. 43.
[645] Burlamachi to Effiat, July 19, S. P. France.
[646] Buckingham to Pennington, July 16, S. P. Dom. iv. 67.
[647] Pennington to Buckingham, July 18, S. P. Dom. iv. 78. Pennington to Coke, July 18, Melbourne MSS.
[648] Account by Nicholas of his employment, S. P. Dom. xxvii. 111. This and the statement formerly quoted were probably drawn up at the time of the Duke’s impeachment in 1626. We have a letter written by him to Pennington, May 6, 1626, S. P. Dom., Addenda, corroborating these statements, and valuable as appealing to Pennington’s knowledge of the truth. See p. 388, note 6.
[649] “I having received advice lately from Lorkin that peace is concluded between the Most Christian King and those of the Religion, it may be the Marquis d’Effiat, upon hearing of the same, will easily put an end to all these questions, having not the use expected.” Buckingham to Nicholas, July 19, S. P. Dom. iv. 80.
[650] In the MS. we have — “to have brought such thing to pass if the French should accept of the service of that ship alone without the rest, and that he should carry it on fairly with them.” The slight alteration above makes sense of it.
[651] Of Buckingham, Conway, &c., I suppose.
[652] Message sent from Pembroke by Edward Ingham, S. P. Dom. iii. 120, undated, and calendared June 1 (?) but the date is approximately fixed by the mention of that ship alone, as coming soon after Pennington’s letter of July 18. The following letter from Pembroke to Pennington (S. P. Dom., Addenda), written on the 20th, gives it to that day: “I must give you many thanks for your respect to me in so freely acquainting me with all particulars that have happened this voyage. You shall receive directions by this bearer from his Majesty and my Lord Admiral how to carry yourself in this business, which I know you will punctually obey. From me you can expect nothing but assurances of my love,” &c.
[653] Pennington to Nicholas, July 21, S. P. Dom. iv. 97.
[654] Pennington to Nicholas, July 21; Nicholas to Pennington, July 22; Nicholas to Buckingham, July 22, S. P. Dom. iv. 97, 100, 104, 105.
[655] Account by Nicholas of his employment, 1626 (?), S. P. Dom. xxvii. 111.
[656] Nicholas to Pennington and the Ship’s Company, July 22, S. P. Dom. iv. 102.
[657] Pennington to Nicholas, July 23, S. P. Dom. iv. 110.
[658] Answers to Nicholas, July 23, S. P. Dom. iv. 102; S. P. France.
[659] When Buckingham was accused the next year of giving up the ships, Nicholas, who seems to have been quite proud of his part in the transaction, wanted to tell the whole truth. On the 6th of May, 1626, he wrote to Pennington (S. P. Dom., Addenda) — “The Vanguard and the six <389>merchant ships are come to Stokes Bay, but you are to satisfy the Parliament by whose and what warrant you delivered them up to the French. The masters of the merchants’ ships have some of them said that it was by my Lord’s command, and by reason of threatening speeches which I used to them by order from my Lord, but this will be, I doubt, disproved by many witnesses, and by some of them when they shall speak on their oaths. It is true that, before the Ambassador or his people, I did often charge them aloud to deliver them over according to my Lord Conway’s letter and the King’s pleasure; but I fell from that language when we were private with the masters; and you may remember how often I told you I had no warrant or order from my Lord for delivery over of those ships, and though I did not wish you to go over into England, yet I think you may well remember I told you, you had not warrant, nor could I give you any to deliver them, and that my Lord was absolutely against the delivery of them. But I pray keep it to yourself until you shall be called on oath and have leave from the King to declare that I told you I came over rather to hinder than further the delivery or loan of those ships.”
In the statement already quoted, Nicholas writes, after giving the substance of his instructions:—
“Accordingly when the Vanguard came into the road of Dieppe, and that Captain Pennington sent for me to come aboard, I acquainted the Ambassador with it, and told him if I went to the Captain, I made no doubt but to persuade him to come ashore with me, notwithstanding he was — as the Ambassador had complained to me — so obstinate that he refused to come out of his ship to the Duke de Montmorency, who importuned him there by many kind invitations and noble messages; but the Ambassador would not permit me to go aboard, but commanded me to write to Captain Pennington to come ashore, which I did as pressing as the Ambassador desired, which took effect. When he was come, the Ambassador interposed still between us, so as I could not have a word in private with him, but was forced to let fall a word now and then as I purposely walked by him, to bid him look well whether he had sufficient warrant to deliver the ships: which I did lest the Ambassador, by importunity or artifice, showing a letter under his Majesty’s hand to the French King, which was much more effectual than the warrant from my Lord Conway, should draw a promise or engagement from the Captain to deliver the ships before I should have opportunity privately to advertise him to beware how and on what warrant he did surrender the fortresses of the kingdom into the hands of a foreign prince; for if the Ambassador should have found him more averse than before, it would have given his Lordship just occasion<390>to be jealous of the intent of the instructions I had received from my Lord. And the Captain kept himself very warily from any engagement, and craved time to speak with the other captains and his company before he could promise anything, and so got leave to return to his ship.
“Afterwards I seemed not forward to go aboard to him, though I much desired it, till the Ambassador wished, and, indeed, pressed me to go and use means to work him and the rest of the captains to effect his desire, and to deliver over the ships with all speed.
“I told Captain Pennington, as soon as I came aboard his ship and had an opportunity to speak privately with him, that I thought the warrant from the Lord Conway which he showed to me, and whereof I had before seen a copy, was not sufficient for the delivery of the ships.
“In all the time of my negotiating this business, I never plainly discovered to Captain Pennington what mine instructions were, because I saw he was of himself unwilling to deliver up the ships, and after I had told him I had no warrant for the delivery of them to the French, he was as adverse in it as I could wish him.
“I told him also I was by the Ambassador pressed often to write what I intended not, and therefore desired him not to be moved with whatsoever letters he should receive from me touching the delivery of the ships until he spake with me. My Lord, after I went over, never wrought (? wrote) to Captain Pennington or myself, but in every material and pressing point concerning delivery of the ships, his Lordship referred us to the instructions his Grace had given me for that service; and when the Captain came to demand a sight or knowledge of my instructions to warrant the surrender of the ships, I told him I had none.
“If I used any pressing course or language to the masters of the ships, it was either in the presence of the Ambassador, or some such of his servants as he sent aboard with me, or else when I perceived them far enough from yielding, thereby the better to disguise and keep unsuspected my instructions.” — S. P. Dom. xxvii. 111.
[660] Nicholas to Pennington, July 24; Answer from Pennington, July 24; Demands and Answers on board the Vanguard, July 24; Nicholas to Pennington, July 25; Pennington to Nicholas, July 25; Nicholas to Buckingham, July 25, S. P. Dom. iv. 106, 115, 117, 119, 120, 122.
[661] Pennington to the King, July 27, S. P. Dom. iv. 132.
[662] Demands of Gorges and the Captains, July 27, S. P. France.
[663] When the first news of the difficulties at Dieppe reached Charles, he told Conway to inform Buckingham that he had nothing to change in his former orders. “I must,” wrote Conway, “in the duty I owe your Grace say that there is not anything so tender, and to be so dear to you, as the avoiding of that scandal, offence, and hazard of extreme inconstancy, as if his Majesty’s ships should fight against those of the Religion.” Conway to Buckingham, July 25, S. P. Dom., Addenda.
[664] Lesdiguières to Louis XIII., June 2⁄12, S. P. France.
[665] The two discourses are printed by M. Avenel (Lettres de Richelieu, ii. 77, 98). They are assigned by him to the beginning of May and the middle of June.
[666] The anonymous discourse, which is evidently Richelieu’s, is now placed at the beginning of July, 1625 (S. P. France). A translation with notes will be found in the Academy for 1874.
[667] Lorkin to Conway, June 28, July 15, S. P. France. All this is completely ignored in Richelieu’s Memoirs.
[669] Lorkin to Buckingham, S. P. France. There is no date, but it was received on or just before July 28. See Pembroke to Pennington, S. P. Dom., Addenda. The date of July 18 is given in an incorrect copy, S. P. Dom. iv. 134. Lorkin’s informant was the Abbot of Scaglia, the Savoyard ambassador in Paris. I have no doubt of the truth of the story, though, as I have said, Richelieu chose to ignore it all, simply, I believe, because he did not like to acknowledge having furthered a negotiation which afterwards came to nothing.
[670] The King to Pennington, July 28; Buckingham to Pennington, July 28, S. P. Dom. iv. 136, 137. Pembroke to Pennington, ibid. Addenda.
[671] Pennington to Nicholas, Aug. 3; Gorges to Buckingham, Aug. 5, S. P. Dom. v. 7, 10; Effiat’s receipt for the Vanguard, Aug. 5; Agreement for the six ships, S. P. France.
[672] Hacket, ii. 17. See also the brief of depositions against Williams, June 16, 1637, S. P. Dom. ccclxi. 101.
[673] Eliot in his Negotium speaks of cases of the plague as already occurring when the Houses were adjourned at Westminster. But the King on the 4th of August expressly stated that this was not the case, and the way in which he ran away from Whitehall may be taken as good evidence that for his own sake he would not fix upon an infected place in which to meet Parliament. On the 5th Whistler said there had then been only six deaths; a small number if the plague had been there more than three weeks.