<215>Henry Rich, Viscount Kensington, had arrived in Paris on February 15, charged with a confidential mission. Without making any absolute overtures, Feb. 15.Kensington in Paris.he was to sound the disposition of the French Court towards a marriage between Charles and the Princess Henrietta Maria, the youngest sister of Louis XIII. Unlike his elder brother, the Earl of Warwick, the speculator in buccaneering adventures in the reign of James and the pious Lord Admiral of the Commonwealth, Kensington had been fitted by nature to gain in the drawing-room the success which was denied him in the senate and the field. Without force of character or intellectual ability, he had early taken his place in that train of flatterers whose ready services were so pleasing to Buckingham, and were of so little value in the hour of trial; and it was to the satisfaction which he had thus given to his patron that he owed his high position at Court, his peerage, and at last his selection as messenger of love to the French Princess.
Kensington’s journey was extremely well-timed. Louis had at last taken alarm at the position which Spain and the allies of Spain La Vieuville’s ministry.occupied on his frontiers. The proud flag of Philip waved from the Netherlands in the north, over an almost uninterrupted series of fortifications, through the Palatinate, Franche Comté, the Milanese Duchy, Naples, Sicily, and Sardinia, to the spot where the Pyrenees lower their crests as they sink towards the waters of the Atlantic. Behind this martial barrier was now arising once more the shadowy form of the old Empire which had been <216>quickened into life by the successes of Spinola and Tilly, and which was now in close alliance with the Spanish monarchy. Louis had felt that it was no longer a time to be guided solely by his religious instincts. Devoted Catholic as he was, he was a still more devoted Frenchman, or rather, it would perhaps be more correct to say, he was still more devoted to the maintenance of his own authority, in which, for him, the interests of France were comprehended. Yet though Louis was by no means a cypher in French politics, he was too sluggish and unfamiliar with business to trouble himself with the actual direction of affairs. A minister he must have who would be content to carry out his master’s plans, except so far as he might be able to mould them in accordance with his own. He now announced the change which had come over him by dismissing his former ministers who were on friendly terms with Spain and the Emperor, and by calling to his councils the Marquis of La Vieuville, who was pledged to pursue a different course.
With the higher political questions which were likely to arise out of this change, Kensington had neither the authority nor the desire to meddle. Kensington’s success at Court.Easy and graceful in his manners, he had little difficulty in winning his way amongst the ladies and gay gentlemen of the Queen Mother’s court. Mary de Medicis, at this time under the guidance of the sagacious Richelieu, at once treated the handsome Englishman as a friend. She gladly caught at the idea of making her daughter Princess of Wales, especially as she hoped by this means to obtain a cessation of the persecution of the English Catholics, and thus to do more for her Church than Philip of Spain and his sister had succeeded in accomplishing. Her feeling was shared by her son, and Kensington was able to send home the most glowing description of his reception at Paris. Though he was told that there could be no serious negotiation till his master had openly broken with Spain, nothing was left undone to give him confidence in the eventual success of his mission. With the Queen Mother he was soon at home, chattering gaily in broken French, and whispering airy compliments in the ears of the ladies around her. The day after his arrival he was able to report that he had seen the Princess, a quick, <217>bright-eyed girl in her fifteenth year. “My Lord,” he wrote to Buckingham, “she is a lovely sweet young creature. Her growth is not great yet, but her shape is perfect.” She had seldom, he had been informed, ‘put on a more cheerful countenance than that night.’ “There were some,” he added, “that told me I might guess the cause of it.”
Of soft glances and merry speeches Kensington was an apt reporter. It was not long before he had to turn his attention to Kensington’s ideas about the alliance.more serious work. Ill-advised as any marriage with a Roman Catholic could not fail to be, in the existing state of English public feeling, both James and Buckingham wished this marriage to be at least the seal of an effectual military alliance, and they expected to proceed simultaneously with the two negotiations. Kensington soon made himself the mouthpiece of the French court in advising the contrary course. “For I doubt,” he wrote, “whether it may not be thought a little dishonourable for this king to give his sister conditionally that, if he will make war upon the King of Spain his brother, we will make the alliance with him. … But if we fall speedily upon a treaty and conclusion of a marriage, the which will find, I am persuaded, no long delays here, neither will they strain us to any unreasonableness in conditions for our Catholics, as far as I can find; then will it be a fit time to conclude a league, the which they will then for certain do when all doubts and fears of falling off are by this conjunction taken away.”[361]
It was truly a golden prospect, but even to Charles it did not seem quite satisfactory after his experience in Spain. The Prince wished the general league of friendship to precede the negotiation of the marriage treaty.[362] Kensington characteristically replied by assuring Charles that all would come right in the end, by praising the Princess, <218>who was ‘for beauty and goodness an angel,’ and by recounting how she, having borrowed a miniature of the Prince which hung about his neck, ‘opened it with such haste as showed a true picture of her passion, blushing in the instant of her own guiltiness.’[363]
All this was very delightful to a lover, but it would not go far to help on the political alliance between the two kingdoms. Sir Edward Herbert, April 13.Herbert’s opinion on the policy of France.who had returned to France as ambassador after the death of Luynes, and who knew the country too well to be deceived by the gossip of the Queen Mother or the blushes of a girl of fourteen, formed an opinion very different from that of Kensington. The object of the French, as he thought, was to make themselves arbiters between England and the House of Austria; he therefore advised his master to bring them ‘to some real and infallible proofs’ of their intention to assist England ‘in the recovery of the Palatinate, at the same time or before’ the marriage treaty was discussed. Otherwise they would ‘want no excuse to keep themselves in peace of neutrality.’ Herbert was the more confirmed in this view of the case by his knowledge that Louis was anxious to send a diplomatic agent named Marescot to the Elector of Bavaria. So unpalatable to the French King was the remonstrance made against this proposal by the ambassador, that means were taken to induce James to recall him; and, in fact, the letter ordering him to return home had been already despatched before his last note of warning reached England.[364]
Herbert had been guilty of seeing too clearly where the real difficulty lay. Whatever interest Louis had in the matter lay in opposing Was France likely to help in Germany?Spain, and Spain alone. As a devout Catholic he would naturally wish to confine his operations in Germany within the narrowest possible limits. To send an embassy to the Elector of Bavaria was precisely the step likely to be taken by a man in his position. The victories of Tilly and the League would have been positively gratifying to him if they had merely resulted in the depression of <219>Protestantism and could have been dissociated from the formidable growth of the Spanish power. To join James in driving out Catholic rule and Catholic worship from the Palatinate might possibly be regarded by Louis in the light of a political necessity, but it would never be considered by him as desirable in itself. The overtures which had been made to James in vain through Prancesco della Rota, were certain to be acceptable to Louis, as by placing the education of Frederick’s children in Maximilian’s hands, they would, if adopted, almost inevitably lead to a rivalry between the Bavarian and the Austrian families.
Nor was the divergence of the views of the two kings about the Palatinate the only difficulty in the way of a cordial co-operation between France and England. The French anxious about the Valtelline.Louis had a Palatinate of his own in the Valtelline, that long and narrow valley which, stretching from the Lake of Como to the Tyrolese mountains, offered the only way of communication by which Spanish armies could pass from Italy into Germany without encroaching upon the possessions of states more or less openly hostile. This territory was now in the grasp of Spain by a very questionable title. The Roman Catholics, who formed almost the entire population, had been treated with extreme harshness by the Protestant Grison Leagues, the masters of the whole valley. In 1620 the people of the Valtelline rose against their oppressors, massacred the few Protestants upon whom they could lay their hands, and called the Spanish governor of Milan to their help. In spite of the remonstrances of France, the Spaniards took the aggressive and carried fire and sword into the heart of the Grison mountains. At last a league of resistance was formed between France, Venice, and Savoy, and in the spring of 1623, Spain nominally relinquished its authority over the Valtelline and entrusted the valley to the Pope. Spanish garrisons, however, still occupied the principal fortified posts, and the King of Spain refused to withdraw them unless the right of passage through the Valtelline were secured to his soldiers by treaty. In 1624 matters were still unchanged, and French politicians were looking forward to a war for the recovery of the Valtelline as eagerly as English politicians were looking forward to a war for the recovery of the Palatinate. <220>Here at least there was no risk that success would be attended with any danger to the interests of the Roman Catholic Church.
If the Palatinate were reconquered by the German Protestants, even with French aid, it would be very difficult for Louis to secure the priests of his religion in the hold which they had taken upon the country. If the Valtelline were reconquered by the petty Grison states with the help of France, Venice, and Savoy, it would be easy enough for those who gave the assistance to take effectual steps for the cessation of persecution for the future.
Here then, as Herbert perceived, and Kensington did not perceive, lay the danger in the course which the English Government Danger of too close an alliance with France.was bent on pursuing. The general direction of the policy of the two countries was the same, but the secondary objects at which they aimed were different. It was a case in which England had every reason to keep up a good understanding with her powerful neighbour, but in which an attempt to form too close an alliance would almost inevitably lead to mutual irritation, if not to an open breach.
Unhappily, great as was the difference of character of the three men at the head of affairs in England, they were all equally sanguine that Expectations in England.others would do that which they wished them to do. The hesitating James, the reticent Charles, the hasty Buckingham, had no idea that they were in any respect unreasonable in asking the French Government to do precisely that which they wanted done, in the precise way in which they thought best. The French, on their part, nourished the deception. They too had their own ends to serve, and in the eagerness with which the English Court was seeking their friendship they saw a ready means of gaining their objects whilst giving as little as possible in return.
To France then, for the present, the German war was secondary to the project for the recovery of the Valtelline. All that was French view of the war in Germany.wanted in Germany was to create a disturbance which would be sufficient to prevent the armies on the Rhine from coming to the help of the Spanish forces in the Italian valley. When the Valtelline was recovered, <221>then, and not before, would be the time to consider what was to be done in Germany.
To anyone with an eye to see, it was obvious, from the shape which the first project of French co-operation with England took, that Mansfeld in Holland.nothing more was meant. If there was a man in Europe who was unfit to stand at the head of any serious movement in Germany, that man was Mansfeld. That unscrupulous adventurer knew how to plunder friend and foe better than he knew how to conduct war. By the Catholics he was regarded with a well-deserved ferocity of hatred, whilst all Protestants who had anything to lose shrank from him as they would shrink from the plague. He had not even the merit of success. To send Mansfeld into Germany was to invite defeat by the provocation which his mere presence would give.
Early in the spring, Mansfeld was once more in Holland, looking out for an employer. The great German war, for a moment, had sunk down into quietude, and it seemed as if the Emperor’s authority would be acknowledged from the North Sea to the Alps. At this moment Du Maurier, the French ambassador in Holland, advised Mansfeld to go to France. His visit to France.Upon his arrival Louis, for form’s sake, refused to see him, but he sent to tell him that he might be employed in an attack upon Franche Comté in order to divert the Spanish troops in the Netherlands from sending reinforcements to the Valtelline.[365] As soon as Mansfeld’s assent was gained he was sent over into England to persuade James to take upon himself a share of the expenses of the undertaking. As the reconquest of the Valtelline would have an appreciable effect in diminishing the power of the House of Austria, it cannot be said that the scheme was one of purely French interest, but it was certain that neither James nor the English Parliament would contemplate with satisfaction such a use of English troops or of English money.
The difficulties in the way of the French alliance were not <222>confined to these military questions. On April 5, when the Commons April 5.Charles’s pledge about his marriage.sent up to the Lords their petition against the recusants, Charles went out of his way to swear that, ‘whensoever it should please God to bestow upon him any lady that were Popish, she should have no further liberty but for her own family, and no advantage to the recusants at home.’ It would seem that the enforcement of the laws against the English Catholics was, in Charles’s mind, a policy likely to be entirely unobjectionable to the French king, whose alliance he was courting.
On April 14, Mansfeld arrived in London. By the Prince he was eagerly received. He talked confidently of seizing Franche Comté and April 14.Mansfeld in England.then falling upon the Austrian lands in Alsace and Swabia.[366] Apartments were assigned to him in St. James’s Palace, the very room being given him which had been prepared for the Infanta. Whenever he appeared in the streets the people followed him with shouts of applause. On the 16th April 16.he was taken to see James at Theobalds. He touched the heart of the old King by the fluency with which he spoke of the recovery of the Palatinate as a thing not so very hard to be accomplished. If his Majesty, he said, would give him 10,000 infantry and 3,000 horse, six guns, and 20,000l. a month, he would need no more. With such a force he would levy contributions to make up all deficiencies. France, Venice, and Savoy would assist, if it were merely on account of the interest which they took in the Valtelline, but it was absolutely necessary that a commencement should be made in England.[367]
James was evidently pleased. The Palatinate, he repeated for the hundredth time, must be recovered, whatever its recovery might cost. But April 18.Engagement with him.he had not abandoned his usual caution. He entered into an engagement to furnish Mansfeld with the thirteen thousand men, and the 20,000l. a month for which he asked, but he <223>accompanied his engagement with a declaration that his promise April 25.would only be valid if the King of France would entrust the German commander with a similar force. The joint army would then be used ‘for the recovery and recuperation of the Palatinate and the Valtelline.’[368]
On the 25th Mansfeld left England. The few days which he spent in London had been passed in a whirl of popularity. Mansfeld leaves England.Men pressed forward to have the honour of touching the edge of his cloak; the Archbishop of Canterbury received him as he stepped out of his boat on the Surrey side of the Thames, and the Earl of Carlisle conducted him in state as far as Rochester.[369]
Mansfeld was able to take with him the news that preparations for war were being carried on in earnest in England. On the 15th, April 15.English preparations for war.the day after his arrival, Commissioners had been at last appointed to treat with the Dutch about sending troops to their assistance. On the 18th orders had been given to fit out twelve ships of April 18.the Royal Navy.[370] On the 21st a Council of War had been appointed, and the names of its members were such as to give every assurance that its deliberations would be conducted with ability. April 21.The Council of War.Lord Grandison, who, as Sir Oliver St. John, had crowned a long military career by services as Lord Deputy of Ireland; Lord Carew, the Master of the Ordnance, and former President of Munster; Lord Brooke, the Fulk Greville of Sydney’s days; Lord Chichester, the soldier and statesman; Sir Edward Conway, Sir Edward Cecil, Sir Horace Vere, Sir John Ogle, and Sir Thomas Button, formed a group which comprised all the available military knowledge of the time, whilst Sir Robert Mansell held a high place amongst those who were acquainted with maritime affairs.[371]
<224>Against the policy which was indicated by these measures, the Spanish ambassadors struggled with all their might. On the 20th, April 20.Message of Lafuente to James.Lafuente had another audience at Theobalds, at which neither the Prince nor Buckingham was present. The message which he carried was such as has seldom been presented by the ambassadors of a nominally friendly state. He had to say that the house in which Inojosa and Coloma resided was carefully watched, so that no visitor dared to enter it. It was useless for them to ask for an audience, as they were never allowed to see his Majesty except in the presence of the Duke. James’s own subjects regretted to see him thus reduced to a mere shadow, and the most important affairs of state submitted to the judgment of a Parliament of which many members were mere boys, and of those who were of full age many were men of low estate. Constantly James’s name was being used in support of designs of which he heartily disapproved, and in opposition to designs of which he heartily approved. Men turned from the King to the Prince, as to the rising sun.
Then came a graver charge against Buckingham. The Electress Palatine had proposed to him that her eldest son should marry his daughter. In this way, he might hope that, if Charles remained unmarried, his own grandchild would be King of England. With this prospect before him, he intended to frustrate Charles’s marriage with a French Princess, as he had already frustrated his marriage with a Spanish Infanta. The declaration which had been made by the Prince at Buckingham’s instigation, that he would allow no toleration except to his wife and her household, had already made it impossible for the King of France to consent to give his sister where conditions so debasing were to be enforced.
Lafuente next proceeded to a long impeachment of Buckingham’s conduct. He told how he had borne himself in Spain with insolence both to the Prince and to the King; how he had introduced light women into his apartment in the Palace itself, and close to the rooms occupied by the Prince; how, after his return, he had revealed to members of Parliament the secret of the treaty for the partition of the Netherlands, <225>and of the oath taken by the King and Prince to obtain within three years from the Parliament an Act confirming the liberty of conscience promised to the Catholics.
If James wished, continued Lafuente, to discover the truth of these charges, he had better begin by dissolving Parliament. Its members were Puritans, and as such they wished to be without a king, whilst the Catholics were always loyal subjects.
James replied that he was ready to forbid Buckingham to be present when the ambassadors next waited on him. Lafuente was quite right about the Puritans. They loved parity, not purity. He would never take money from the Commons on the condition that he was to persecute the Catholics. He would rather dissolve Parliament and send it to the devil. As for the charges against the Duke, he doubted whether they were really true.[372]
Either from the vacillating weakness which had now become part of his nature, or from the natural recoil from the evident over-statement by Lafuente of his case against Buckingham, James acted in a way which must have caused grievous disappointment April 23.Answer to the recusancy petition.to the ambassadors. On the 23rd, in answering the Commons’ petition against the recusants he expressed himself favourably to the request laid before him. He considered himself unfortunate, he said, to need a spur to do that which his conscience and duty bound him to do. His heart had bled when he had heard of the increase of Popery. If he had known any way better than another to hinder its growth he would have taken it. Yet he had abstained from persecution, nothing being more likely to increase a religion. He was now ready to banish the priests, and to direct the judges to put the penal laws in execution. His subjects should be forbidden to frequent the houses of foreign ambassadors, or to bring up their children in the Roman Catholic faith. As for the request that no immunity for the English Catholics should be included in any treaty for his son’s marriage, he heartily assented to it. “Now,” he said, “for the last part of your petition. You have therein given me the best <226>advice in the world; for it is against the rule of wisdom that No condition for the Catholics to be in the treaty.a king should suffer any of his subjects to be beholden and depend upon any other prince than himself; and what hath any king to do with the laws and subjects of another kingdom? Therefore assure yourselves that, by the grace of God, I will be careful that no such condition be hereafter foisted in upon any other treaty whatsoever; for it is fit that my subjects should stand or fall to their own lord.”[373]
James most likely meant all this at the time. The increase which had lately taken place in the numbers of the Catholics, and April 24.His answer received as satisfactory.which was doubtless in the main to be attributed to the readiness with which timid or half-hearted converts declare themselves as soon as persecution has ceased, was as formidable to him as it was to the House of Commons, and he was especially disinclined to make concessions to France after his past experience of the Spanish treaty. His answer was generally regarded as satisfactory, his adoption of his son’s promise about the French marriage treaty being especially grateful, though most of those who heard him would have been better pleased if he had announced that there would be no French marriage at all. ‘In a wondrous fine speech,’ Eliot proposed that the thanks of Parliament should be given to the King and the Prince; and, though the motion was not adopted, the House gave a practical form to Eliot’s expression of feeling by pushing on the Subsidy Bill as fast as possible.[374]
Between his Parliament and his own conscience, James was ill at ease. Scarcely had he thrown himself, as it would seem, entirely April 22.James wishes to know more of the charges against Buckingham.into the hands of the Commons, when he sent to the Spanish ambassadors asking them to come to him at Theobalds. At this audience, which took place on the 24th, Inojosa repeated the statements made by Lafuente, and added that Buckingham had conspired with Parliament to dethrone the master to whom he owed everything, in case of his refusal to <227>make war upon Spain.[375] If the King wished to test the truth of the assertion, let Buckingham’s friends be asked, upon their oath, whether he had not made the proposal in their hearing.
Words so confidently spoken could not fail to make an impression upon the King. As soon as Inojosa left him he Buckingham’s ill-humour.set out for Windsor, stopping at St. James’s on his way, where Charles came out to meet him with Buckingham at his side. The tears stood in James’s eyes as he repeated what the Spaniard had said. The accusation, he added, was so distinct that Buckingham ought to clear himself, if he could. Charles accompanied his father, but Buckingham, though invited, remained behind. He must have justice, he said, against his slanderers. Till his innocence had been acknowledged, Windsor was no place for him. He would rather betake himself to the Tower, and deliver himself up as a prisoner.[376]
Inojosa next, at James’s request, sent him a paper containing the substance of the charges which had been brought by Lafuente. Further statement by Inojosa.He admitted that they were ‘not such as could be made to appear by legal and judicial proofs.’ Men, he said, were too much afraid of Buckingham to tell the truth. Then followed a long tirade against the misdeeds of the favourite, which, even if it contained no exaggeration, was entirely irrelevant to the point at issue.[377]
<228>Inojosa had not improved his position. On May 2 the members of the Privy Council were called upon to answer a May 2.The Privy Council summoned.series of interrogatories which had been prepared in order to sift the matter to the bottom. One by one the councillors swore that they had never heard any traitorous expression proceed from Buckingham’s mouth. Inojosa’s attempt to conjure with the wand of Gondomar had failed entirely. When he came the next day to present his letters of recall, James refused to accept them. He must see him again, he said, before he left England. Some who were present hinted that there were precedents for calling ambassadors to account before the House of Lords; but to these rash advisers James turned a deaf ear. Such precedents, he answered, had been found to cut off his mother’s head. He would not, however, let the Spaniard go till he had inquired whether his conduct was approved of by his master. Inojosa complained in vain of the treatment to which he was subjected. James told him that he must cither prove his case or acknowledge his accusation to be false.[378]
Inojosa’s information was believed at the time to have been derived from Middlesex, who was supposed to have hazarded this Middlesex supports the Spaniards.desperate step to save himself from ruin.[379] Of the five Privy Councillors who in the beginning of the year had taken the most determined stand against a breach with Spain, Lennox was dead; Williams had made his peace with Buckingham; Arundel, though doubtless holding the same opinion still, was maintaining a prudent silence; Calvert was only waiting for a fit opportunity to declare himself a Roman Catholic, and to retire from public life; whilst <229>Middlesex stood alone in attempting to stem the torrent. To an economical administrator of the finances Buckingham’s lavish expenditure could never be congenial. The Lord Treasurer, whose business it was to think how money could be saved, had often winced under the pressure put upon him by the Lord Admiral, whose pleasure it was to think how money could be spent. Unless men were much mistaken, he had attempted, just as the Prince was starting for Madrid, to supersede Buckingham in the Royal favour with the help of his brother-in-law, Arthur Brett. The young man had been ordered to travel on the Continent, and a seeming reconciliation had been effected. Now Buckingham’s enormities had reached their height. Before the eyes of the minister, who had built up a surplus out of a deficit by the unremitting labour of years, a war with Spain opened visions of distress which were not to be counterbalanced by any prospect of national glory. He had no faith in the popular belief that the certain expenditure might easily be recouped by the capture of Spanish treasure-ships. Whilst Buckingham and the Commons were discounting the chances of the future, the old City merchant expressed his doubt of the value of the security offered.
To the Prince, Middlesex had given special offence. When the question of the Spanish marriage was being considered after Charles’s return from Spain, all the other councillors who objected to seeing it broken off, qualified their opinions by saying that, if the Prince had taken any dislike to the person of the lady, it would be a sufficient reason for putting an end to the engagement. Middlesex alone expressed himself otherwise. Whether his Highness, he argued, wished to marry the Infanta or not, it was his duty to do so ‘for reason of state and the good that would thence redound to all Christendom,’ for ‘he supposed that the Prince ought to submit his private distaste therein to the general good and honour of the kingdom.’ ‘Whereupon,’ said Williams, who told the story long afterwards, ‘the Prince bid him judge of his merchandises, if he would, for he was no arbiter in points of honour.’[380]
Middlesex, however, had the King’s ear. If James listened to <230>Lafuente or to Inojosa, if he sunk back from time to time into dislike of war, Arthur Brett in England.Buckingham attributed it all to Middlesex. Before the end of March the return of Arthur Brett to England brought matters to a crisis. Buckingham resolved that Middlesex and the King should be separated.
In a moment, charges sprang up against the Lord Treasurer, whose economy had made him many enemies, and who had Charges against Middlesex.doubtless committed some faults. He had been harsh and imperious in his bearing, and had neglected on some occasions to observe the due formalities of his office. In taking care of his master’s fortunes he had not forgotten to think of his own; and at a time when the practice of high officials was very loose, he had probably done enough fairly to expose himself to the charge of malversation.
As it had been with Bacon, so it was now with Middlesex. Many things said against him were exaggerated. Some of his actions might be palliated, as being in accordance with the usual practice. Some things which formed the subject of accusation were even to his praise. But after all allowances have been made, there remains enough to show that he had done things which he ought never to have done.[381]
On April 15 the charges against Middlesex were laid before the Peers by Coke and Sandys. In Bacon’s case complaints by individuals April 15.His impeachment.had merely been sent up for investigation. This time the Commons took a higher tone. Reviving in all its fulness the old practice of impeachment, they asked for justice as the grand jury of the <231>nation, ‘the inquisitors-general of the grievances of the kingdom.’
Although the Treasurer showed no lack of courage during the long inquiry, it was in vain that he fought his accusers point by point. On May 13 May 13.Sentence against him.sentence was delivered against him. He was to lose all his offices, to be incapable for the future of holding any office in the State, to be imprisoned in the Tower during the King’s pleasure, to pay a fine of 50,000l., to be prohibited from taking his seat in Parliament again, or from coming within the verge of the Court.[382]
Whatever may be thought of the special faults of Middlesex, the practice of bringing criminal charges against men whose chief offence The King’s opinion.lay in their political convictions might easily lead to the grossest abuses, and could scarcely fail to turn to the damage of the heedless young men who had been the main instigators of the proceedings. To the old King their conduct appeared as foolish as it was unintelligible. “You are a fool,” he said bluntly to Buckingham; “you are making a rod with which you will be scourged yourself.” Turning to his son, he added a special word of warning. “You will live,” he said, with prophetic sagacity, “to have your bellyful of impeachments.”[383] Before the trial was at an end Buckingham was prostrated by a severe illness, but Charles took up the cause with characteristic impetuosity. Again and again he thrust himself forward in the debate, ever painting the character of the friend of Spain in the blackest colours.[384]
Middlesex had been thus removed from the King’s side, but a greater, more persuasive counsellor than Middlesex was at hand. March.Bristol’s return.When Bristol was recalled from Spain, it was only by pawning his plate that he was able to obtain the means needed for his journey. He was coming in the most dangerous of all tempers for Buckingham; full of the conviction that he had been hardly dealt with, and yet with all his irritation mastered by the most complete <232>self-control. All he asked was the fulfilment of a promise which James had given him never to condemn him without first hearing what he had to say. He had no intention of throwing himself into opposition, open or secret. Like Bacon he held that the King’s resolution, whatever it might be, was to be accepted as final.
That James should grant a hearing to Bristol was the last thing of which Buckingham would approve. If once the two men were Buckingham’s designs against him.brought together, there would probably be an end of the King’s new anti-Spanish policy, and Buckingham’s own insolence and folly at Madrid would be revealed on more credible evidence than that of the Spanish ambassador. Buckingham’s first thought, therefore, was to send Bristol to the Tower. He talked over the plan with April.Pembroke and Hamilton, but neither Pembroke nor Hamilton, opposed as they were to Spain, would hear of so ill-advised a measure. Buckingham accordingly persuaded James to issue an order to Bristol to place himself in confinement in his own house. Yet, though James suffered himself to be persuaded to exclude Bristol from his presence, May.He is confined to his house.he had no intention of placing his faithful servant under permanent restraint. Some little inquiry there must be, for form’s sake, and then he should be taken into favour. Meanwhile James hopefully busied himself in bringing Buckingham to lay aside his rancour.
Bristol was a difficult man to deal with in this manner. If at any time he had chosen to acknowledge that everything done by himself had been wrong, and that everything done by Buckingham had been right, he would probably have been welcomed, like Weston and Williams, amongst the Duke’s train of penitents. But to this he refused to stoop. He would hold his tongue if the King pleased, but unless he were convinced, he would never admit himself to have been in the wrong. Loyalty to his sovereign ceased to bind him when he was required to prove it by declaring that to be true which he believed to be untrue.
Bristol accordingly asked for a trial in Parliament, such as that which had been fatal to Middlesex. The session, however, <233>was nearly at an end, and James, who shrank from exposing him to his political opponents, resolved to refuse his request, and for a little time longer to leave him under restraint.[385]
That the session must end before the great business of the day, the French negotiations, could be seriously entered upon, The Monopoly Act.was tacitly admitted at Court. One result of the alliance between Buckingham and the Commons had been the production of a large amount of legislation on matters of everyday importance. No statute had come into existence for fourteen years, and it was understood that James was willing to give his assent to the passing of many Bills which has been prepared, in 1610 and 1614, with the object of limiting the prerogative of the Crown in pecuniary matters. Above all, the question of the monopolies was by this time ripe for legislation. The Lords were ready to withdraw their objection against tying the King’s hands for the future, upon which the Monopoly Bill of the last session had been wrecked, and the Commons, on the other hand, agreed to except from the operation of the Bill some of the principal monopolies already in existence.
Great as the importance of this Act has been, it cannot be said to have been founded on any principle not recognised before. That a monopoly Changes effected by it.for a limited time should be granted to those by whom new processes of manufacture were introduced had long been accepted as the general rule. The great change effected was the rendering the rule more definite, and the entrusting its application to the Common Law Judges, who would be far more likely than Privy Councillors or Commissioners to apply a strictly judicial solution to any question which might arise, without being drawn aside by political or economical considerations.
On the question of impositions the Commons had maintained a discreet silence, although there had been debates on commercial matters which might fairly have suggested it to them.[386] Under these circumstances it might have been <234>expected that the King and the Lower House would have parted in kindness. But Impositions not touched on.James was no longer in a kindly mood. He had parted with some of his prerogatives, and he knew that he had been little better than a cypher in the resolutions which had been taken. On May 28, after May 28.The grievances.listening with composure to the grievances presented to him, he answered that his lawyers must consider them before he could give a reply. Then he began to scold the House for the Bills which they had laid before him, in so exasperating a tone that the Commons refused to enter the Royal Speech on their journals.
The next day Parliament was prorogued to November 2. James had fresh criticism for the Bills presented for his consent. May 29.Prorogation of Parliament.He made merry over one, for ‘the better observance of the Sabbath,’ as allowing ‘no recreation to the poor men that labour hard all the week long, to ease themselves on the Sunday,’ and he entirely refused to pass the Bill for enforcing more strictly the penalties on recusancy. He then proceeded to express his annoyance at the impeachment of Middlesex, which he had not been bold enough to prevent. It was for him, he said, to re-examine the evidence, and to remit the penalties if he saw fit. No one in future was to complain in Parliament of any of his servants, without first asking his leave. He was master in his own household, and was well able to redress any grievance arising from the conduct of his Ministers.
It was not by words unaccompanied by deeds that the rising power of Parliament was to be James threatens to amend the Subsidy Bill.beaten back. For the present, however, all questions about the extent of the prerogative were subordinate to the great question about the management of the war. At the <235>beginning of his speech James had protested that he had never ceased to care for the Palatinate, and had assured the Houses that if they met again with the same resolution as they had cherished in the past session, it would be the happiest Parliament known in history. Before he ended he remembered that he had attempted in vain to induce the Commons to insert into the Subsidy Bill a clause naming the recovery of the Palatinate as one of the objects of the grant.[387] Whereas, he said, they ‘had made the preamble without his advice, and so as it might be prejudicial to him for some reasons of state, he must be forced to alter it, and set his marginal note upon it.’ At this extraordinary and Dissatisfaction of the Commons.unexpected declaration the usual respect for the Royal person was for an instant forgotten, and those who where present gave vent to their dissatisfaction in murmurs and gesticulations. “Thus,” wrote an eye-witness of the scene, “parted we from his Majesty, with much more discontent and fear of the success of this Parliament than when we came together at the beginning with hope of a good and happy prosecution.”[388]
The session which thus came to an end was one of no slight importance in the development of our Parliamentary constitution. Headed by the Prince of Wales, the House of Commons appeared suddenly to have become the first power in the State. What was wanting to it was the virtue of self-restraint which springs from experience, and that knowledge of the limitations of power which is seldom acquired except by those who have a practical acquaintance with the handling of affairs. Leaders who could teach them how to walk warily amongst the pitfalls around them these men had none, and it was only too probable that before long they would visit with a just retribution those who had flattered their weaknesses and abused their confidence.
The dissatisfaction of the House with James’s last speech was not entirely justified by his Proceedings against Bristol.subsequent acts. His intemperance was always greater in word than in action. The Subsidy Act was left untouched; and Middlesex, though his fine was subsequently reduced to <236>20,000l., never saw the King’s face again. Nor did James, in presence of the opposition of his favourite and his son, venture to admit Bristol to his presence. Both Buckingham and Charles, indeed, were preparing future difficulties for themselves by their conduct towards the man whose influence with the King they most dreaded. July 10.Questions put to him.A long series of interrogatories was sent to Bristol, bearing on the whole of his past diplomacy. Bristol answered them all with care. He was able to show that on all doubtful points he had acted by his master’s orders, and that he had given such advice as he believed at the time to be the best for the King’s service. Many of the Commissioners appointed to conduct the investigation expressed themselves fully satisfied, and James at last sent word to Bristol that he was now ready to see him.
An interview between Bristol and the King was the very thing to which Buckingham most strongly objected. Hinting that Buckingham suggests a compromise.there were further questions still to be put, he made use of the delay thus obtained to convey a suggestion to Bristol that he should surrender his Vice-Chamberlainship, and retire to his country-house at Sherborne, on the condition that all further proceedings against him should be dropped. Buckingham little knew the character of the man with whom he was dealing. Bristol’s reply was that, if Buckingham suggests a compromise.his honesty and fidelity were declared to be unquestioned, he was quite ready to acknowledge that he might have erred from weakness or want of ability. If not, he was ready to answer any further questions that might be sent to him. “For,” he wrote, “in matter of my fidelity and loyalty towards his Majesty, the Prince, and my country, I hope I shall never see that come into compromise, but shall rather lose my life and fortunes than admit the least stain to remain upon me or mine in that kind.”
Bristol’s position was logically unassailable. If he was supposed to have done anything worthy of punishment, let his case be investigated. Bristol at Sherborne.If not, why was he under restraint? Though Buckingham could not answer an argument like this, he could continue to act in defiance of it. Bristol was left at Sherborne untried and uncondemned. If he came into <237>the King’s presence he might say things about the Prince’s visit to Madrid which would not conduce to raise Buckingham in his master’s opinion. But, to do Buckingham justice, it was not mere personal enmity by which he was actuated. If Bristol was to be kept at a distance, it was that James, and England through James, might be kept from falling back into the evil Spanish alliance. Even when Buckingham was engaged in an apparently personal quarrel, he had often great public ends in view. The interests of his country were so completely bound up in his mind with his own preferences and jealousies, that he came to think of himself and England as inextricably combined.
The disregard, not only of legal forms but of common justice, which had been shown in Buckingham’s treatment of Bristol, 1620.The English and the Portuguese in the East.marked another proceeding in which the King had to take a far more active part, and for which no pretext of public good could be alleged. In the far East as in the far West, it was almost, if not quite, impossible to bring the relations between European merchants under the laws which regulated commerce in the settled societies of Europe. In pursuit of the dazzling prize the subjects of each nation struggled and fought with their rivals, careless of treaties made at home. An attempt made by the English East India Company in 1620 to open a trade with Persia had been met with fierce opposition from the Portuguese subjects of Spain established at Ormuz, who regarded the whole commerce of 1621.that part of the world as their own. The English, beaten at first, had returned with superior forces, and had established a station at Jask. The report of the prowess of the new-comers was not thrown away upon the Shah, who had a quarrel with the Portuguese. He assured the English merchants that he would not allow them to place a 1622.Capture of Ormuz.bale of goods on board their ships unless they would join him in an attack upon Ormuz. With real or affected reluctance, they consented, and Ormuz was soon reduced to capitulate.[389]
<238>To the complaints of the Spaniards, preferred whilst the Prince was still at Madrid,[390] James does not seem to have paid much attention; but 1623.April.Spanish complaints.there was another side of the question to which he was more alive. Sending for the governor of the East India Company, he told him that it would be a graceful act to make a present to Buckingham in his absence for his services in the negotiation July.The East India Company’s present to Buckingham.with the Dutch of the year before. The Company, thus urged, and considering that ‘this business of Ormuz may find a strong opposition,’ voted 2,000l. for the purpose.[391]
When Buckingham returned, with his heart full of ill-will towards all Spanish subjects, there was of course no thought of satisfying the Portuguese; but, His claims against the Company.much to the surprise of the Company, the Duke began to make claims upon them on his own account. The machinery of the Court of Admiralty was put in motion to collect evidence that by the capture of Ormuz and by the seizure of Portuguese vessels in the East, they had realised, or ought to have realised, 100,000l. — a calculation which, as far as can be at present ascertained, appears to have been grossly exaggerated.[392] As soon, however, as the preliminary inquiry was complete, Buckingham claimed 10,000l., a tenth of the sum named, as due to him as Lord High Admiral, as though the captures had been made by privateers sailing under ordinary letters of marque in European waters.
The Company was at first disposed to resist the Duke’s claim. They obtained a legal opinion to the effect that, as no letters of marque had been granted, no tenths were due; but they were ‘not willing to contend with my Lord.’ What to do they hardly knew. A petition was drawn up, and then abandoned as likely <239>to give offence. At last a committee was appointed to remonstrate as cautiously as possible.[393]
It was dangerous to remonstrate, however cautiously, with Buckingham. The day after his interview with the committee he March 1.Stay of the East India fleet.drew the attention of the House of Lords, on behalf of a committee of which he was the reporter, to the fact that the Company’s fleet was about to sail to the East Indies, and proposed that it should be detained for service against Spain. On the same day a similar motion was made in the Commons by Sir Edward Seymour, a member who was supposed to possess the confidence of Buckingham.
A deputation from the Company at once waited on the Duke. He received them graciously, and assured them that the stay of the ships had not originated with him. ‘Having heard,’ he said, ‘the motion with much earnestness in the Upper House of Parliament, he could do no less than give the order.’ He would only be too happy to advocate their cause with the Lords, and would, upon his own responsibility, allow the ships to drop as far as Tilbury.[394]
It is possible that the first suggestion that the fleet should be arrested had proceeded from some independent member of the Lords’ Committee; but March 10.The Company charged with piracy.the coincidence of the motions in the two Houses made it hard to persuade the Company that this was the case. A few days later Buckingham struck another blow in the quarrel. To the argument that no tenths were due because there had been no letters of marque, the rejoinder was easy, that if there had been no letters of marque there had been an act of piracy. A suit was accordingly commenced against the Company in the joint names of Buckingham and the King. The damages were <240>laid at 15,000l., and that too without prejudice to further claims.[395]
In vain the Company begged for mercy. “Did I deliver you,” said James, “from the complaint of the Spaniards, and do you return me nothing?” March 22.He demands 20,000l.He was no tyrant, and they might have the benefit of the law if they pleased. But if they did not wish to try their case against him, he must have 10,000l. for himself, as well as 10,000l. for Buckingham. James’s dilemma.To justify his demand he proceeded to propound a dilemma. The goods, he said, were taken either justly or unjustly. If unjustly, the whole was forfeited. If justly, the Lord Admiral’s tenth must be paid. Apparently the inference was that the Company was to pay the King on the ground that the goods had been taken unjustly, and Buckingham on the ground that they had been taken justly.
The Company was in great straits. Their ships were still under embargo in the Thames. A few more days’ delay would lose them the monsoon, and ruin their prospects for a year. Necessity had no law, and 10,000l. was offered to the King ‘to shut up all businesses.’
With this offer James was not satisfied. He said that he must have as much for Buckingham. There was nothing for it The money paid.but to submit. The whole 20,000l. was paid, and the fleet was allowed to sail. It seemed, as some one observed at the Company’s meeting, as if ‘ships stayed upon pretence of state might be released for money.’[396]
<241>Such was the mode in which Buckingham, this time with the full co-operation of the King, exercised the duties of his office. Something, no doubt, was to be said against the Company on every count. The siege of Ormuz and the capture of the goods was an act of violence. The ships sailing to the East Indies might doubtless be called upon before they went to contribute their fair proportion to the defence of the realm. That which admits of no justification is the way in which every argument was pushed just so far as suited the immediate purposes of the men in power and no farther. There was enough legality about the capture to extort one sum of money; enough illegality to extort another. The Portuguese, who were the main sufferers, were never thought of, save that the English ambassador was directed to inform the Government at Madrid that the assailants at Ormuz had acted under compulsion from the Shah.[397]
It was only by coming to some understanding with the other European powers for a territorial limitation between the 1623.The Dutch in the East.trading grounds of the various nations, that such collisions as that which had taken place at Ormuz could be avoided for the future. Further to the east the experiment of a close combination with the Dutch, which had been tried under the treaty of 1619,[398] was already breaking down. Never had the feeling between the merchants of the two nations been more embittered than it was when they were bound to live at the same ports, and to share between them the same commerce in certain fixed proportions. As the most numerous and powerful body, the Dutch treated the English with studied unfairness, and the English gave vent to their feelings in such language as men are wont to use when they discover that they are being cheated.
Early in 1623 the slumbering hatred burst into a flame. <242>The castle of Amboyna, the main seat of the clove trade, was guarded by the Dutch with peculiar jealousy. The English factory was only permitted to establish itself outside the fortifications; and a body of Japanese soldiers in the Dutch service was equally excluded. Feb. 11.The massacre of Amboyna.On the night of February 11, however, one of the Japanese approached the Dutch sentinel, and asked some questions about the state of the defences. He was at once seized and put to the torture. In his agony he confessed that his countrymen designed to surprise the castle. They, too, were tortured, and declared, or were made to declare, that the English were privy to the conspiracy. A drunken English surgeon, also under torture, acknowledged the truth of the charge. Nine other Englishmen, almost the whole of the English population of the town, were next subjected to the most horrible torments, and six others, residing at more distant stations, were subsequently dealt with in the same barbarous manner. As might have been expected, some of them gave way before their tortures, and confessed anything that was required of them. In the end ten of the sufferers were set aside for execution, and were beheaded without further evidence.[399]
News in those days was long in reaching England from the East. The massacre of Amboyna remained unknown till May 1624. The news received in England.At the meetings of the East India Company the tale gave rise to the greatest indignation. The story, as it was received from the Dutch, was in the highest degree incredible. The whole English population inculpated amounted to no more than twenty men, who were hardly likely, in the face of past experience, to attempt to right themselves against the overwhelming forces of their opponents. But the case of the Company against its Dutch rival did not end here. Even if the unfortunate men had been guilty of all that they had admitted under torture, the governor of Amboyna would not have been justified in touching a hair of their heads. By the treaty of 1619, all disputes between the nations were to be referred to the mixed Council of Defence; and, if they could not be settled in this way, were to be referred home for negotiation <243>between the two Companies, or, in the last resort, for negotiation between the two Governments.[400]
There has seldom been a moment in our history when such an outrage would not have roused England from one end to the other. Comparative apathy in England.When, however, the news arrived, the nation was in no mood to listen to charges against the enemies of Spain. At first, indeed, there seems to have been some little excitement, but it quickly died away.[401] The time had not yet come when the commercial differences with the Netherlands would seem greater than the religious differences with Spain; and by the middle of July revenge for the massacre of Amboyna appears to have been no longer thought of by the mass of men.
The King was more deeply affected by the sad story than anyone else. He was the author of the treaty which, by bringing his subjects July.James demands justice.into such close neighbourhood with the Dutch, had made the massacre possible. He now told Caron, the Dutch ambassador, that, if justice were not done by August 12, he would take his own measures to enforce it.[402]
Yet how was England, at such a moment, to quarrel with her neighbours in Holland? The alliance with the Dutch had been the corner-stone of the policy of the House of Commons, and, though James was unwilling to limit the war within the narrow bounds which seemed sufficient to the Lower House, he had fully accepted its designs, so far as they went. On May 19 an order had been given to equip thirty merchant vessels in addition to the twelve ships of the Royal Navy which <244>were already in an advanced stage of preparation.[403] As soon as Parliament was prorogued, the negotiation with the Dutch Commissioners June 5.Treaty with the Dutch.was taken up warmly, and on June 5 a treaty was signed by which England agreed to pay, for two years, a body of six thousand volunteers to be sent over to aid the States-General in defending their independence.[404]
James seemed to be going on fairly in the way in which Buckingham would lead him, and there is no reason to suppose that he was in any way half-hearted in what he was doing. Yet he was less able than ever to perceive the necessary consequences of his actions; and he thought that he could send troops to the aid of the Dutch, and fit out his navy, without breaking absolutely with Spain.
The Spanish ambassadors could not see things in this light. Coloma protested warmly against the levies, as an Coloma’s protests.infraction of existing treaties. On the other hand Inojosa intimated that he had fresh proposals to make about the restitution of the Palatinate. He was told that James would not see him, but that he might tell his secret to any Privy Councillor he chose. Inojosa refused to address himself to anyone but the King; upon which he was informed that the sooner he and Coloma left England the better it would be. Coloma replied that he was under orders to remain till his successor arrived. Inojosa was only too glad to escape. There were fresh insults in store for him. No carriages were provided to June 26.Inojosa leaves England.take him to Dover. Even his request for the protection of a Royal ship against the Dutch cruisers was refused, and it was only after a delay of some days that he was allowed to take his passage in one of the merchant vessels which had been recently taken into the King’s service, and which was consequently entitled to carry the Royal colours. On the day of his departure James wrote to complain to Philip of the conduct of his ambassadors, requesting that they might be punished for their misdemeanours.[405]
<245>Coloma had indeed a thankless task in remaining in England. Every day some new cause of offence was brought before his notice. Bickerings between England and Spain.At sea, so at least it was believed in England, Spaniards were already engaged in plundering English vessels. In Spain an embargo had been laid upon the goods of English merchants, and their ships were being confiscated, on the charge of having Dutch goods on board. Nearer home the Dunkirk privateers were making prize of English vessels engaged in trade with Holland; and, pushing up towards the mouth of the Thames in search of their enemies, had committed hostilities as high as Queenborough. Nor was it only from private and unauthorised attacks that danger was apprehended. A large fleet was fitting out in Spain, the destination of which was carefully concealed.[406] Part of The Dunkirk ships in the Downs.this fleet, however, was placed by accident in the hands of the English Government. A squadron setting out from Dunkirk, to join the rendezvous in Spain, was chased by the Dutch, and four of its galleons took refuge in the Downs. Although James refused to treat them as enemies, he refused to accede to Coloma’s request that he would grant them the usual privileges of neutrality, and allow them Oct. 2.Three of them escape.to sail with the advantage of two tides.[407] For three mouths the weary crews waited for deliverance till the equinoctial gales at last set them free. Putting to sea in the height of the tempest, three of the ships succeeded in regaining Dunkirk. The fourth was attacked by a Dutch vessel, and blew up, together with its assailant.[408]
Short, therefore, of an actual declaration of war with Spain, Buckingham had succeeded in carrying James with him in the fulfilment of the programme laid down in the Subsidy Act. The <246>levy of troops for the Dutch and the equipment of the fleet had received prompt attention. The repair of the forts and June.The programme of the House of Commons carried out.the sending of reinforcements to Ireland waited only till money came in. Even the King’s hesitation to declare war against Spain was at this time ascribed by one who had good opportunities of knowing the truth, not so much to any hankering after his old alliance with Philip, as to his high estimate of the risks of such a war if it were entered upon without allies. “The King,” wrote Nethersole a fortnight after the prorogation, “is resolved not to break with Spain, nor to give them any occasion to break with him, until he be secure that France will join very close with him, and other Catholic Princes and States which have the same interest against the greatness of Spain; as being of opinion that all the Protestants in Europe would be too weak a party to oppose it, and that if they should join against Spain without the drawing of other Catholic princes into the action, it would be understood to be a war of religion, which would leave no Catholic prince neuter, but cause them all to join with Spain.”[409]
No one who has seriously studied the course which history took during the next quarter of a century will be inclined to doubt Policy of James.the wisdom of James’s hesitation. The power to which he was opposed was too firmly rooted in the ideas of men to be overthrown by such means as seemed sufficient to the House of Commons. Protestantism could only defend itself by ceasing to be aggressive, and by appealing to the political sympathies of Catholic States. The policy of James was in the main the policy which, in after years, crowned Richelieu with glory. Yet to the one man it brought nothing but defeat and shame, to the other it was to bring success and honour. Where James knew but how to dream, Richelieu knew how to act.
Of the various parts of the enterprise upon which James had embarked, the negotiation with the Protestant powers presented the least inherent difficulty. In the beginning of June, Sir <247>James Spens was despatched to the King of Sweden, and Sir Robert Anstruther to the King of Denmark and the North German Princes.[410] Embassies to Denmark and Sweden.If, when Parliament met in the winter, assurances could be given that a strong Protestant force was ready to take the field, the House of Commons might perhaps be induced to reconsider its determination against sharing in the German war; and, should this prove not to be the case, James would be clearly absolved from any engagement to carry on further a war which, with insufficient means, could end in nothing but disaster.
Far more difficult was the task of treating with the Catholic opponents of Spain. In nothing is diplomatic skill so necessary as The negotiation with France.in a negotiation between Governments whose general interests coincide, whilst each has particular objects in view. James was anxious to recover the Palatinate. France was anxious to recover the Valtelline. The danger was great lest the French Government should use England for its purposes, and then kick away the ladder by which it had risen. Yet the offer of French aid was too tempting to be rejected. The wisest policy was doubtless that which was laid down Views of Gustavus Adolphus.not many months afterwards by Gustavus Adolphus. The great Swedish King held that the attack upon the House of Austria should be made by a Protestant alliance. Those who had a common cause would be able without difficulty to stand shoulder to shoulder in the fight. There was no reason, however, that advantage should not be taken of the divisions amongst the Catholic States. Let France, Venice, and Savoy be invited to join, if they would, against Spain and the Emperor. But let not the union be too close. Rather let France and her Catholic allies be invited to fight in Italy or the south of Germany, whilst England and her Protestant allies were fighting in the north of Germany.[411]
If such a plan as this had been adopted, it is possible that the French alliance might have ended less disastrously than it <248>did. The military situation would have corresponded with the political situation. Account would have been taken of the Mission of Wake.prominent fact that the King of France and the Protestant sovereigns were only half agreed. The friction certain to ensue upon such co-operation would have been diminished to a minimum. Unhappily the three men who directed the course of affairs in England were notoriously inclined to close their eyes to unpleasant facts. Already Mansfeld had been despatched to France with proposals for a joint military undertaking. Then followed Sir Isaac Wake, on his way May 17.Carlisle sent to France.to Italy to stir up Venice and Savoy. On May 17 Carlisle set out for Paris to tie the knot between the kingdoms by the flowery bonds of a matrimonial alliance. James, Charles, and Buckingham agreed in looking for the closest possible unity of action between France and England.
[361] Kensington to Buckingham, Feb. 16, Feb. 26 (both letters printed without a date), Cabala, 290, 286. Kensington to Conway, March 4, S. P. France.
[362] We learn the Prince’s opinion from Kensington’s answer to Buckingham’s letter of March 3. It is dated March 9, S. P. France.
[363] Kensington to the Prince, March 9, Cabala, 288.
[364] Herbert to Calvert, Jan. 26, Feb. 6, March 10. Herbert to the King, April 13, S. P. France. Tillières to Ville-aux-Clercs, March 30⁄April 9, Harl. MSS. 4593, fol. 194 b.
[365] “Se non si trovasse modo d’aggiustare negotio della Valtellina dovera essere impiegato dalla Francia all’ invasione della Borgogna Contesa.” Siri, Mem. Rec. v. 526. Siri wrote from the despatch of the Florentine agent in Paris.
[366] This must be meant by his offer ‘d’attaquer les pais héréditaires de la Maison d’Autriche.’ Tillières to Ville-aux-Clercs, April 20⁄30, Harl. MSS. 4523, fol. 239.
[367] D. Carleton to Elizabeth, April 24, S. P. Dom. clxiii. 48.
[368] Mansfeld’s engagements, April 18, 24; the King’s Declaration, April 25, S. P. Germany. Rusdorf to Frederick, April, Mémoires de Rusdorf, i. 283.
[369] Rusdorf to Frederick, April 26⁄May 6, ibid. i. 289.
[370] Commission, April 15, S. P. Holland. Warrant, April 18, S. P. Dom. clxiii. 4.
[371] Warrant, April 21, S. P. Dom. clxiii. 18.
[372] Lafuente to Philip IV., May 10⁄20, Madrid Palace Library.
[373] Lords’ Journals, iii. 317.
[374] Nethersole to Carleton, April 25, S. P. Dom. clxiii. 50.
[375] Inojosa, in his despatch of May 5⁄15, refers to another one of the same date, which I have not seen, as containing a full account of his conversation with the King.
[376] Inojosa to Philip IV., May 5⁄15, Madrid Palace Library. Valaresso to the Doge, April 30⁄May 10, Ven. Transcripts. Conway’s note, April 25, S. P. Dom. clxiii. 51. Rusdorf to Frederick, April 26⁄May 6, May 2⁄12, Mémoires, i. 289, 294. Tillières to Ville-aux-Clercs, April 26⁄May 6, Harl. MSS. 4593, fol. 2, 65.
[377] Amongst Valaresso’s despatches is a copy of this paper in Latin, the language in which, as Lafuente states, in his letter of May 10⁄20, it was presented. Copies in different languages are to be found in almost all the archives of Europe. In the Cabala there is an English translation (ed. 1691, 252). In 1813, Mr. Lysons printed it again in the Archæologia, xviii. <228>280, fancying that it was probably drawn up by the Earl of Somerset, for the very insufficient reason that he found it amongst other papers connected with Somerset, and there may have been people who have been under the impression that there is, in this way, evidence in existence to show that Somerset was at this time trying to oust Buckingham from the King’s favour. The paper was drawn up by Lafuente, and a copy of it in Spanish is in the Madrid Palace Library.
[378] Locke to Carleton, May 8; D. Carleton to Carleton, May 21, S. P. Dom. clxiv. 53, clxv. 12; Salvetti’s News-Letter, May 7, 14⁄17, 24.
[379] D. Carleton to Carleton, May 3, S. P. Dom. clxiv. 12.
[380] Dillon’s Articles against Williams, 1634 (?), S. P. Dom. cclxxx. 77.
[381] Part of a letter, in the possession of Lord Buckhurst, which is thus abstracted in the fourth report of the Historical MSS. Commission, shows that there was afterwards a revulsion of feeling in his favour, grounded on the recollection of his services:— “Two days since, the Committee of Twelve being in examination what the Duke hath gotten out of the King’s revenue, Sir Robert Pye took occasion to inform them that Middlesex had gotten from the King in a short time 120,000l., and therefore moved that he might be likewise examined; to which Sir J. Eliot, being in the chair, answered that it might be true for aught he knew to the contrary; but that it was true that Middlesex had merited well of the King, and had done him that service that few had ever done, but they could find no such matter in the Duke.” Harman to Middlesex, May 3, 1626.
[382] Lords’ Journals, iii. 383. Valaresso to the Doge, April 10⁄20, Ven. Transcripts.
[383] Clarendon, i. 44.
[384] Elsing’s Notes, 1624–1626, 75–77, 86, 88.
[385] Preface to the Earl of Bristol’s defence in the Camden Miscellany, vi. pp. i–vii.
[386] Mr. Forster (Sir J. Eliot, 2nd edit. i. 89) has printed extracts from <234>a speech of Eliot’s on this subject, alleged to have been delivered in this session. From inquiries which he has kindly made for me at Port Eliot, it appears that the speech is not to be found in this place, and therefore, if spoken at all, it must have been spoken at some other time. There is no trace of it in any reports that I have seen of any of the four Parliaments with which this work is concerned. On May 20 Conway (S. P. Dom. clxv. 4) writes to Calvert that the House might probably fall upon ‘questions concerning impositions,’ and Calvert replies (ibid. 11) that all had gone well.
[387] Locke to Carleton, May 17, S. P. Dom. clxiv. 92.
[388] Report by E. Nicholas, ibid. clxv. 61.
[389] Bruce, Annals of the East India Company, i. 229; Purchas, ii. 1785.
[390] Consultas of the Councils of Portugal and of State, April 16, 17⁄26, 27, 1623, Egerton MSS. 1131, fol. 169.
[391] East India Company’s Court Minutes, July 23, 1623, vi. 24.
[392] Bruce, Annals of the East India Company, i. 242; Examinations, S. P. East Indies.
[393] East India Company’s Court Minutes, Feb. 18, 23, 27, 28, vi. 412, 425, 430, 435.
[394] Elsing’s Notes, 1624–26, 14; Commons’ Journals, i. 676; East India Company’s Court Minutes, March 5, vi. 439. The motion made by Buckingham is given by Elsing as part of a report from a committee. The notice of the fleet may therefore have been taken in the committee by some other person.
[395] Admiralty Court Records, No. 158; Book of Acts, fol. 204.
[396] East India Company’s Court Minutes, vi. 466–555. The receipt drawn up for Buckingham’s signature was ‘for 10,000l. to the Lord Admiral, in full satisfaction for all pretences of right as Lord Admiral, for all actions past in the Indies, by sea or land, to the 30th of April last.’ The King’s receipt was — ‘for 10,000l. now to be paid to the King, much challenged by his Majesty for freeing the Company’s servants out of prison, and the Company from the complaint of the Spanish ambassador, and the Company’s ships outward bound released, which were secured by order of Parliament, until upon promise thereof they were afterwards released.’ Buckingham afterwards stated that he had lent 9,800l. of the money for the equipment of the King’s fleet, and this is corroborated by a letter written by him to Conway on June 14, in which he says, “I hope this <241>morning will put an end to the business of the East India merchants for the moneys to be disposed to Mr. Oliver for the Navy.” Tanner MSS. lxxiii. 447. Besides, the exact sum appears on a warrant from the Council of War, dated July 31, and was then probably repaid to Buckingham.
[397] Conway to Aston, June 27, S. P. Spain.
[398] See Vol. III. p. 179, and Vol. IV. p. 407.
[399] Brockedon and others to the Company; E. I. C. Orig. Corr. 10, 11, 30; Purchas, ii. 1853.
[400] The treaty must be interpreted by the agreement between the Companies appended to it.
[401] Chamberlain to Carleton, June 5, June 19; D. Carleton to Carleton, June 26, S. P. Dom. clxvii. 16, clxviii. 8, 48; Dutch Commissioners to the States-General, June 6⁄16, Add. MSS. 17,677 k, fol. 369. As early as the 31st of May, we have a statement that ‘it is said that the Company is much blamed by some, for that now, in a time when his Majesty had resolved to aid the Dutch, the Company had published the putting of ten Englishmen to death.’ E. I. C. Court Minutes, x. 541.
[402] Caron to the States-General, July 16, Add. MSS. 17,677 k, fol. 576.
[403] Signet Office Docquets, May 19.
[404] Treaty, June 5, S. P. Holland.
[405] Coloma to the King, May 23⁄June 2. The King to Aston, June 26, S. P. Spain. Conway to Carleton, June 12, S. P. Holland. Salvetti’s News-Letters, June 11, 18⁄21, 28.
[406] Conway to Aston, June 27; Aston to Conway, July 1, S. P. Spain.
[407] Many of Coloma’s letters on the subject are in the State Papers (Spain), and there are frequent notices of it in the Domestic series, and amongst Salvetti’s News-Letters.
[408] Salvetti’s News-Letters, Oct. 8, 15⁄18, 25.
[409] Nethersole to Carlelon, S. P. Dom. clxvii. 28.
[410] Instructions to Spens, June 6, S. P. Sweden. Instructions to Anstruther, undated, S. P. Denmark.
[411] Oxenstjerna to Camerarius, Aug. 24, Moser, Patriotisches Archiv, v. 42.