<24>Even if the Cadiz expedition had not ended in complete failure, the difficulties resulting from the French alliance would have been September.The French alliance.likely to cause Charles serious embarrassment. Every step which he had taken since the meeting of his first Parliament had been in the direction of a closer understanding with the Protestant powers. He had begun again to execute the penal laws. He had signed a treaty with the Dutch, and he was about to send Buckingham to the Hague to sign another treaty with the King of Denmark and the princes of North Germany. When Parliament met again, he hoped to be able to stand forth in the character of a leader of the Protestantism of Europe.
Such schemes as these were fatal to the French alliance. Louis’s idea of that alliance was evidently that of a man who wishes to Buckingham’s plans.play the first part. Buckingham wished to play the first part too. He resolved to cross over at once to Holland, and then, when the foundations of a great His proposed visit to France.Protestant alliance had been surely laid, to pass on to Paris. Once more he would summon the King of France to join England in open and avowed war against Spain and her allies, no longer, as he had done in May, as the representative of England alone, but as the leader of a mighty Protestant confederacy, offering to France the choice between the acceptance of English leadership or the isolation of neutrality.
<25>Buckingham, indeed, had no difficulty in persuading himself that the offer which he was about to make was worthy of the acceptance of Louis. The Spanish treasure of which Cecil had gone in search was already his by anticipation. When the fleet returned there would be enough money to keep up the war in Germany for many a year, and the Flemish ports, so long the objects of his desire, would at last be snatched from Spinola’s tenacious hold.[35]
There were reasons enough why the husband of Anne of Austria should be unwilling to receive a visit from the audacious upstart Objects of Louis.who had ventured to pay public court to the Queen of France; and Louis, as soon as he heard of the proposal, peremptorily instructed Blainville, the new ambassador whom he was despatching to England, to refuse permission to Buckingham to enter his kingdom.[36] Politics had <26>undoubtedly as much part as passion in the matter. Not only was the question between Louis and Buckingham the Demands to be made upon Louis.question of the leadership of half Europe, but Louis had reason to suspect that he would have to guard against the interference of England nearer home. Buckingham, in fact, was instructed, as soon as he reached Paris, to require the immediate restoration of the English ships which had been used at Rochelle,[37] and to ask that an end should at once be put to the unnatural war between the King and the Huguenots.
The demand, that Charles should be empowered to interfere between Louis and his subjects, was to be made in the most offensive way. Buckingham’s instructions ran in the following terms:— “To the end they,” that is to say, the French Protestants, “may not refuse the conditions offered them for the only doubt of not having them kept, you shall give them our Royal promise that we will interpose our mediation so far as that those conditions shall be kept with them; and if this will not satisfy them, you shall give them our kingly promise that if by mediation you cannot prevail for them, we will assist them and defend them.” In other words, when Louis had once given his promise to the Huguenots, it was to be considered as given to the King of England, so that if any disputes again arose between him and his subjects, Charles might be justified in intervening in their favour if he thought fit so to do.
Buckingham, in fact, not content with taking the lead in Germany, was to dictate to Louis the relations which were to exist between himself and his subjects; and that too at a moment when the English Government was fiercely repudiating a solemn contract on the ground that it did not become a king of England to allow a foreign sovereign to intervene between <27>himself and his people.[38] Before Buckingham left England, he had to learn that Louis had ideas of his own on the manner in which France was to co-operate with England. He was summoned back to Salisbury, where Charles halted on his return from reviewing the fleet at Plymouth, to hear what Blainville had to say.
On October 11 the new ambassador was admitted to an audience. He, indeed, had brought with him instructions to make proposals, Oct. 11.Blainville’s audience.The French overtures.if satisfaction could be given to Louis on other matters, which, as far as the war was concerned, ought not to have been unacceptable. Louis was ready to furnish 100,000l., payable in two years, to the King of Denmark. He also promised to join Charles in giving support to Mansfeld’s army, and consented to an arrangement, already in progress, for transferring that force to Germany, and placing Mansfeld under the command of the King of Denmark.[39] If Louis, however, was prepared to do as much as this, he was prepared to ask for something in return. He could hardly avoid asking for the fulfilment of Charles’s promise to free the English Catholics from the penal laws; and now that Soubise had been defeated he would be likely to press for the entire submission of Rochelle, though he was ready to promise that the Huguenots should enjoy religious liberty, a privilege, as he afterwards wrote to Blainville, which was not allowed to the Catholics in England. In speaking to Charles, the Frenchman began in the tone of complaint. To his remonstrances about the English Catholics, Charles at first replied that he had only promised to protect the Catholics as long as they behaved with moderation. It was for himself to interpret this promise, and he took upon himself to say that they had not so behaved. He then added the now familiar argument that the secret article had never been taken seriously, even by the French Government.
<28>The tone of the conversation grew warmer, and a fresh demand of the ambassador did not serve to moderate the excited feelings on either side. Soubise had brought with him The ‘St. John’ at Falmouth.to Falmouth the ‘St. John,’ a fine ship of the French navy, which he had seized at Blavet.[40] This Louis naturally claimed as his own property, which Charles was bound to restore. Charles, on the other hand, being afraid lest it should be used, as his own ships had been used, against Rochelle, hesitated and made excuses.
The state of the Queen’s household, too, ministered occasion of difference. Charles wished to add English officials to those who The Queen’s household.had been brought over from France, and he peremptorily refused to discuss the question with Blainville. He intended, he said, to be master in his own house. If he gave way, it would be from the love he bore to his wife, and for no other reason.
The next day the ambassador waited on Buckingham. The conversation was carried on in a more friendly tone than that of his conversation with Charles. Oct. 12.Blainville visits Buckingham.In other respects it was not more satisfactory. Buckingham treated all the subjects in dispute very lightly. If anything had gone wrong the fault was in the necessities of the time. Instead of troubling himself with such trifles, the King of France ought to treat at once for an offensive league against Spain. As for himself, he was said to have ruined himself for the sake of France. He was now going to the Hague to save himself by great and glorious actions. If France pleased, she might take her place in the league which would be there concluded. If she refused, England would have all the glory.
Buckingham, as Blainville pointed out, had two irreconcilable objects in view. On the one hand he wished to ingratiate himself with English public opinion by placing himself at the head of a Protestant League; on the other hand he wished to show, by driving France to follow his lead on the Continent, that his original overtures to that power had not been thrown away.[41]
<29>Neither Louis nor Richelieu was likely to stoop as low as was expected of them. Blainville was instructed to announce that Bearing of the French Government.the ‘Vanguard,’ as being Charles’s own property, should be given up, but that the merchant vessels, which had been expressly hired for eighteen months, would not be surrendered. He was to say that the Huguenots could not be allowed to carry on a rebellion against their lawful sovereign, and if Charles was so solicitous for religious liberty, he had better begin the experiment with his own Catholic subjects.[42] After this it was useless to lay before Charles the proposal for rendering assistance to Mansfeld which Blainville had been instructed to make under more favourable circumstances. Even the protest against Buckingham’s visit to France was left unuttered for the present.
Buckingham was too anxious to reach the Hague as soon as possible, to await the issue of September.The opposition Peers.these negotiations at Salisbury. But before he left the King, arrangements had been made for dealing in various ways with those Peers who had taken part in the opposition in the last Parliament. Of these Abbot might safely be disregarded. He had Abbot and Pembroke.nothing popular about him except his firm attachment to the Calvinistic doctrine, and he had long been left in the shadow by James, who had displayed a strong preference for the cleverness and common sense of Williams, as Charles displayed a strong preference for the sharp decision of Laud.[43] It was a different matter to deal with Pembroke, the richest nobleman in England,[44] who commanded numerous <30>seats in the House of Commons,[45] and whose influence was not to be measured by the votes thus acquired. At first, indeed, Charles’s temper had got the better of him, and on his journey to Plymouth he had treated Pembroke with marked disfavour. The Earl was not accustomed to be slighted, and replied with a counter-demonstration. As he passed through Sherborne he paid a formal visit to Bristol, who was still in disgrace. The significance of the step could not be misinterpreted, and Charles lost no time in renewing the old familiarity to which Pembroke was never insensible. Buckingham was with the King at Salisbury on his return journey, when he made an early call at Wilton; and, though Pembroke was still in bed and could not see him, it was afterwards understood that the temporary estrangement was at an end.[46]
Abbot and Pembroke belonged to that section of the Opposition which it was Buckingham’s object to conciliate. Arundel and Williams were Arundel and Williams.in different case. As a great nobleman, not mixing much in the business of government, Arundel could hardly be touched; but Williams had incurred Buckingham’s bitterest displeasure, and was easily assailable in his official position. His strong sense had led him to condemn alike the extravagances of the new reign and the shifts to which Charles had been driven in order to cover those extravagances from the popular view. He had shown a sad want of confidence in the success of those vast armaments in which Buckingham trusted, and he had been sufficiently uncourtierlike to dissuade the King from summoning the Commons to Oxford, and to suggest that if Charles had really given his word to the King of France that he would relax the penal laws, it was dangerous as well as impolitic to break it.
<31>It was easier to resolve to get rid of the Lord Keeper than to find an excuse for dismissing him. At first he had been charged with entering upon conferences at Oxford with the Oct. 25.Dismissal of Williams.leading members of the Opposition in the Commons. This charge, however, he was able to meet with a denial, though there is reason to believe that he was so convinced of Buckingham’s folly in pitting himself against the House of Commons that he had boasted that if he were turned out of office, all England would take up his cause.[47] Charles was highly displeased with this language, but it was hardly possible to disgrace a Lord Keeper on the mere ground that he had vaunted his own popularity. At last some courtier reminded the King that his father had entrusted the Great Seal to Williams for three years on probation, and that the time fixed had now expired. Charles caught at the suggestion, and Williams, unable to defend himself against a form of attack in which no direct imputation on his conduct was necessarily implied, surrendered his office. Charles, glad to be rid of him, spoke to him fairly at the last, but the tone amongst Buckingham’s followers was different. “May the like misfortune,” wrote one of them to his patron, “befall such as shall tread in his hateful path, and presume to lift their head against their maker!”[48]
With Lord Keeper Williams worldly wisdom departed from the councils of Charles. If he could never have ripened into a great or Greatness of the loss to Charles.a high-souled statesman, he had always at command a fund of strong common sense which saved him from the enormous blunders into which men more earnest and energetic than himself were ready to fall. <32>Government was to him a balance to be kept between extreme parties. War was distasteful to him, and he cared little or nothing for Continental politics. Dogmatism of all kinds he regarded with the utmost suspicion. He had no sympathy with the persecution of Laud’s friends by the House of Commons, and no sympathy with the coming persecution of the Puritans by Laud himself. Had Charles accepted him as an adviser, the reign would hardly have been eventful or heroic, but it would not have ended in disaster. England would have gained a great step on its way to liberty, by the permission which would, within certain broad limits, have been granted to the free development of thought and action. The last clerical Lord Keeper in English history was in reality less clerical than some of his successors.
The Great Seal was given to Coventry, whose legal knowledge and general ability were beyond dispute, and whose leanings were Coventry Lord Keeper.against all concessions to the Catholics. His accession to office therefore was one more announcement of the Protestant tendencies of Buckingham. “The Duke’s power with the King,” said a contemporary letter-writer, “for certain is exceeding great, and whom he will advance shall be advanced, and whom he doth but frown upon must be thrown down.”[49] Heath succeeded Coventry as Attorney-General; and, with far less excuse, Shilton, whose only distinction was that he had been employed by Buckingham in his private affairs, followed as Solicitor-General.
The meaning of the change was soon manifest, at least to the Catholics. The order for Treatment of the Catholics.banishing the priests, given immediately after the dissolution, had not been Oct. 5.Disarmament of the recusants.followed at once by any attempt to interfere with the laity. On October 5, directions were given for a general disarmament of the recusants; but it was not till Coventry succeeded Williams that any further step was taken. Nov. 3.The penal laws enforced.On November 3 the blow fell. A commission was issued to provide for the execution of the penal laws, with instructions to pay over the fines levied to a special fund to be employed in the defence of the <33>realm. On the 7th orders were given to prohibit all minors Nov. 7.from leaving England without licence from the King, and to silence all schoolmasters whose teaching was open to suspicion.[50]
Charles had probably an instinctive apprehension that the persecution of the Catholics would not alone be sufficient to secure for him the approbation of the next House of Commons; but he was never keen-sighted in discerning the real causes of popular dissatisfaction, and he ascribed the attack upon Buckingham at Oxford to a mere ebullition of factious spite. The inference was obvious. If by any means the assailants of his minister could be excluded from seats in the coming Parliament, the really loyal nature of Englishmen would find unimpeded expression. It was like Charles, too, to fancy that if only legal right were on his side no one could be justly dissatisfied. With this idea in his head, nothing could seem simpler than the course he adopted. A sheriff was bound to attend to his duties in his own county, and if the Opposition leaders were named sheriffs it was plain that they could not take their seats at Westminster. The Opposition leaders made sheriffs.Coke, Seymour, and Phelips were of course marked out for the unwelcome honour. With them were Alford, who had explained that the subsidies voted in 1624 had not been voted for the recovery of the Palatinate, and Sir Guy Palmes, who had referred unpleasantly to the fate of Empson and Dudley. To these five was added Wentworth’s peculiar position.a sixth, Sir Thomas Wentworth. It was not unknown to Charles that Wentworth had little in common with Seymour and Phelips. He was anxious, if possible, to obtain service under the Crown, and to exercise his undoubted powers of government; but the war, whether it was to be in Spain or Germany, was in his eyes sheer madness, and it was plain that he would be as cool about the King’s Protestant crusade in 1626 as he had been cool about his attack upon Spain in 1625. “Wentworth,” said Charles, as the names were read over to him, “is an honest gentleman.” <34>The reasons for his exclusion were equally valid whether he were honest or not.[51]
Such a manœuvre stands self-condemned by the very fact that it was a manœuvre. It had, however, at least one supporter amongst those who favoured the vigorous prosecution of the war. “The rank weeds of Parliament,” wrote Rudyerd, “are rooted up, so that we may expect a plentiful harvest the next. I pray God so temper the humours of our next assembly that out of it may result that inestimable harmony of agreement between the King and his people.”[52]
By this time Charles had hoped to receive news of great results from Buckingham’s diplomacy in the Netherlands: but though the Lord Admiral, taking the courtly Holland with him, had left Charles at Salisbury in the second week of October, his voyage had been sadly delayed. On the 13th a Oct. 13.The escape of the Dunkirk privateers.terrific storm swept over the Channel and the North Sea. The Dutch fleet before Dunkirk was driven from its port, and great was the alarm in England when it was told that twenty-two vessels, it was said with 4,000 soldiers on board, had escaped to sea. The blow, however, fell upon the Dutch fishing vessels, and the English coast was spared.[53]
With the Dunkirk privateers loose upon the world, the Lord Admiral could not cross without a convoy, and Buckingham’s voyage postponed.this was not easily to be found. The great fleet was still away at Cadiz, and three English ships had been cast away with all hands upon the cliffs between Calais and <35>Boulogne. What vessels were to be had must be hurried together for the defence of the country before the Duke’s convoy could be thought of.
At last, however, ships were found for the purpose. On November 9 Buckingham was at the Hague, and was astonishing Nov. 9.Buckingham at the Hague.the sober citizens of the Dutch capital by the lavish splendour of his dress and the gorgeous display of pearls and diamonds with which it was adorned. He soon allowed it to be known that he had brought with him no friendly feeling towards France. “I acknowledge,” he said, “the power of the King of France. But I doubt his good-will.”[54]
Buckingham had brought with him, too, his old plan for a joint attack with the Dutch upon Dunkirk. The effort, he told the Prince of Orange, Nov. 11.He proposes to attack Dunkirk.should be made at once, as the Spaniards were in no condition to defend the place. The wary Prince knew too much about war to relish the idea of a siege to be begun in November, and refused to entertain the proposition till the spring. Then Buckingham asked that Sluys should be put in his master’s hands, as a basis of operations for the English army which was to hem in the Flemish ports on the land side. The Prince met him with the same dilatory response. He was probably of opinion that the English army of which Buckingham spoke would never have any real existence;[55] and, even if it had been otherwise, he would certainly have been unwilling to confide to it the guardianship of so important a fortress.
The Congress of the Hague, when it met at last, was but a poor representation of that great anti-Spanish confederacy for which The Congress of the Hague.Gustavus had hoped when he first sketched out the plan. Though he was himself engaged in the Polish war, he had ordered his ambassador to take part in the assembly. Unhappily the ambassador fell ill, and died a few days before Buckingham’s arrival. Sweden <36>was therefore entirely unrepresented. The French minister stood aloof, and the North German princes took no share in the discussions. The representatives of the King of Denmark were there alone, to beg for money and men.
Christian IV. was indeed in sore need. Trusting to the promises made to him by Charles, he had gone to war. After the first month’s contribution Charles had no money to send, and he was in no better plight in November than he had been in June. Buckingham’s instructions, undoubtedly drawn up with his own concurrence, authorised him to acquaint the Danish ambassadors that the original offer of 30,000l. a month, or its equivalent in men, paid by the English exchequer, had only been made to give encouragement to the German princes. When those princes had once taken the field it was only to be expected that they would submit to provide a fair share of the expense. Buckingham was therefore to insist upon a large reduction of the monthly charge, though he was first to make sure that Christian was thoroughly embarked in the cause, lest by threatening to stop the supplies he might drive him to make his peace with the Emperor.[56]
It is probable that a little conversation with the Danish ambassadors convinced Buckingham that if the King of England thus withdrew from his engagements Christian would, without doubt, withdraw from the war. At all events nothing, Nov. 29.Treaty of the Hague.so far as we know, was heard of the proposed reduction. On November 29 the Treaty of the Hague was signed between England, Denmark, and the States-General.
The Dutch agreed to supply the Danes with 5,000l. a month, whilst Buckingham engaged more solemnly than ever that the 30,000l. a month originally promised from England should be really sent.
Large as the sum was, there is reason to suppose that the promise was now made in good faith. Parliament would soon meet, and, as Buckingham hoped, all difficulties would then be smoothed away. For the immediate future he could <37>trust to the Crown jewels, which would soon be pawned to the Dec. 5.Buckingham’s expectations.merchants of Amsterdam. The disaster at Cadiz was as yet unknown, and every day might bring the happy news of victory. A new fleet was to be speedily prepared to relieve Cecil’s force, and to take up the task of blockading the Spanish ports. The flood of mischief would thus be arrested at the fountain-head, as when gold no longer flowed from Spain, the armies by which Christian was assailed would break out into open mutiny.[57]
Proud of victories yet to be won, Buckingham had meditated a continuance of his journey to Paris, in order that he might add the name of the King of France to the signatures appended to the Treaty of the Hague. He is refused permission to enter France.His hopes were cut short by the French ambassador, who plainly told him that, till better satisfaction had been given to his master’s just demands in England, he would not be allowed to enter France.[58]
Buckingham therefore returned to England by the way that he had come. He was at once met by news of the failure at Cadiz and News of the failure at Cadiz.the return of the fleet. Alone, probably, of all Englishmen alive, Charles and Buckingham failed to realise the magnitude of the disaster, or the Dec. 16.Parliament summoned.influence which it would exercise upon the deliberations of the coming session.[59] On December 16 the Lord Keeper was directed to issue writs for a new Parliament.[60]
It was possible that Parliament might have work on hand even more serious than voting supplies for the King of Denmark. Prospect of war with France.It was by no means unlikely that by the time the members were collected at Westminster, England would be at open war with France. Charles had been seriously vexed at the failure of his effort to frustrate the <38>employment of English vessels at Rochelle, and the first resolution taken in Council after Buckingham’s return was that a new fleet should be sent out to succour Rochelle, and to bring home Dec. 16.the ships by force.[61] Orders were accordingly issued that the soldiers who had come back from Cadiz should be kept under their colours for future service.[62]
Nor were the differences relating to the fulfilment of the marriage treaty in a fairer way to an accommodation. Louis, indeed, Difficulties about the marriage treaty.had sent messages to Buckingham after his return, that if the English Catholics were relieved from ill-treatment, and if his sister’s household were permitted to remain as it had been arranged by the contract, he would make no further objection to receiving him in France.[63] On the first point Buckingham could not yield without alienating Parliament. On the second he could not yield without alienating the King.
Whilst Buckingham was still at the Hague, Charles’s exasperation at his wife’s French attendants had risen to fever heat. The Queen’s household.To their interference, and not at all to his own failure to keep his promises, he attributed his domestic troubles, and he threatened to send them all back to France. Dec. 25.More prudent counsels prevailed for a time, and he now contented himself with announcing to the Bishop of Mende, the Queen’s almoner, his intention of introducing English ladies into her household. A man, he repeated once more, ought to be master in his own house. The utmost to which he would agree was to wait a few days till his resolve had been communicated to the Court of France.[64]
To Richelieu the threatened breach between France and England, bringing with it a death-struggle with the Huguenots <39>of Rochelle, must have been infinitely displeasing. In spite of French offers to Buckingham.his master’s strong feeling that he had been ill-treated, he contrived to obtain permission to address fresh overtures to Buckingham, assuring him of a good reception in France if certain conditions, of which we have no particular information, were fulfilled. If he could not come on these terms, let him at least send confidential ambassadors to smooth away the differences between the two Crowns.[65]
The latter alternative was accepted. Holland was once more to go to Paris to make himself agreeable to the Queen Mother Embassy of Holland and Carleton.and the ladies of her court. The real business of the embassy was entrusted to Carleton, who had at last been recalled from the Hague, and was now Vice-Chamberlain and a Privy Councillor. A diligent, well-informed man, too dependent upon office to be likely to take a course of his own, and sympathising entirely with the movement against Spain without rising into any large view of contemporary politics, he was exactly suited for the service for which Buckingham required him, and was likely, as time went on, to establish himself firmly in his favour.
Carleton’s present work was to mediate a peace between the Objects of the mission.French Government and the Huguenots, and to persuade Louis to surrender the English ships and to join in the alliance of the Hague.[66]
The differences between the two Courts were serious enough in themselves. Unhappily there was a political difference which was more serious still. In September, whilst the Cadiz <40>fleet was still at Plymouth, a string of French prizes had been brought in, September.The neutrality of France.charged with carrying goods for the use of the Spanish Netherlands. Under ordinary circumstances it is hard to persuade neutrals and belligerents to take the same view of the law of prize, and there was in this case a special difficulty arising from the fact that at Whitehall French neutrality was regarded as an underhand contrivance for reaping the benefits of war without sharing its burdens.
There was clearly need of inquiry into the nature of the cargoes on board the vessels. Besides the French prizes, there were The French prizes.many of Dutch nationality, and a few from other parts of Europe. If they had on board goods which were the property of Spaniards, those goods, according to the ideas of the day, would be subject to immediate confiscation. Contraband of war.Contraband of war again, being carried to Spain or the Spanish Netherlands, would be liable to seizure, whether it were Spanish property or not; but it was by no means a matter of universal agreement what contraband of war was. In the Treaty of Southampton indeed, England and the States-General had recently agreed upon a sweeping definition, including in that category provisions and the precious metals as well as munitions of war and materials used in shipbuilding,[67] and had declared not only such articles, but even the ships and men engaged in the traffic, to be lawful prize. Such an interpretation of the customary maritime law was not likely to commend itself to a neutral seafaring nation.
Even if this knotty point had been settled, there was another behind it. What evidence was to be accepted that the contraband goods Proof of destination.were or were not destined for Spanish use? Every one of the eleven French vessels seized had sailed from a Spanish port, and all of them, with one exception, were owned by Calais merchants.[68] It was, however, notorious that there were men at Calais whose business it was to pass goods as soon as landed over the frontier into Flanders, <41>in much the same way as goods were passed over into Russia from Memel in the time of the Crimean war.[69]
It happened that Buckingham was at Plymouth when the prizes were brought in. Gold and silver being contraband of war, Sept. 27.The money on board sequestered.according to the view taken in England, he ordered 9,000l. or 10,000l. which were on board to be sequestered,[70] and the remainder of the goods to be placed in safe keeping. A few weeks later the cargoes were October.The prizes sent to London.stowed again on board, and the prizes brought up to London, to pass through a legal investigation before the Court of Admiralty. By the beginning of November the number of captured French vessels had increased to twenty-two.[71]
So far the French had no reasonable ground of complaint; but in the needy circumstances of the treasury the sequestered property was too tempting a bait to be long resisted. In October Buckingham had attempted to borrow 70,000l., in order that he might carry with him something to the Hague for the immediate supply of the armies of Christian IV. and Mansfeld. The security which Charles could offer fell short of the required sum by 20,000l., and Ley and Weston proposed to fill the gap by giving a lien upon the first sale of condemned prize goods. The suggestion in itself was innocent enough; but either Oct. 27.Prize money taken and goods ordered to be sold.it was not thought sufficient, or Charles fancied that he could do better. On October 27 the money already sequestered was taken to be spent on warlike preparations, and on November 5 orders were given to sell goods at once to the required value of 20,000l., without waiting for a sentence from the Court.[72]
<42>To Charles the difference may have seemed slight, as, if the decision of the Court were against him, he could refund the money. There was, however, another side of the question which Nov. 5.Blainville protests.he had forgotten to consider. Blainville reminded him that, as the cargoes had not been made up for the English market, they would not fetch anything like their full value on a compulsory sale in London.[73]
The impression produced by Charles’s hasty act was likely to be worse than the act itself would justify. It gave to the Admiralty Court the appearance of being merely an official instrument for enforcing confiscation for the benefit of the Crown. Nov. 8.Marten declines to support the seizure.Sir Henry Marten, the Judge of the Court, felt the indignity keenly. “For my part,” he wrote, in answer to an appeal from Conway for arguments in support of the course which had been taken, “I can profess to know no other disposition yet intended, but that all the goods should be landed, inventoried, and appraised; and, on Saturday next, all who pretend to any of those ships or goods to appear and propound their claims.”[74]
Before this remonstrance Charles gave way for a time. Buckingham was absent at the Hague, and there was a period of indecision Charles’s indecision.till the guiding spirit of the Government was once more in England. The Council took up the question, and on December 4 Dec. 4.fresh orders were given to proceed with the sale, orders which were retracted shortly afterwards.[75] Sir John Coke, who was eager for money to enable him to meet the expenses of the fleet, and whose official mind could not catch sight of the larger aspects of the case, was anxious for instant and sweeping action. “If you shall limit the sales,” he wrote to Conway, on hearing that some half-measure was in contemplation, “as I hear you intend, to goods which are out of question, I know not what goods can be sold; since there is neither ship nor particular goods therein to which no man doth pretend.”[76]
<43>Before Charles had made up his mind, the mere announcement of his intention had called forth reprisals in France. Villars, the governor of Havre, was himself interested in the ‘St. Peter’ of that port, and on December 7 he arrested two Dec. 7.Reprisals in France.English vessels lying at Rouen. A fortnight later it was known in London that the French authorities were contemplating a general embargo upon all English property in France, which was only delayed till there was some certain intelligence of the course finally adopted in England.
By this time Buckingham was again at Court, and the arrival of Richelieu’s overtures had opened a prospect of averting the impending quarrel. “It is necessary for me,” said Charles, “to preserve my friends and allies.” Just as Holland and Carleton were starting, an Order in Council was drawn up to form a basis for the settlement of the dispute.[77]
According to this order the ‘St. Peter’ of Havre de Grace, against which the presumptions were less than against vessels Dec. 28.Order in Council for the re-delivery of the ‘St. Peter.’belonging to the merchants of Calais, was to be delivered to its owners. Of the remaining ships and their cargoes, whatever was clearly French property should be given up at once. Against whatever was questionable proceedings should be taken, ‘without any further restraint of sale or other proceeding warrantable by law or the course of the Admiralty.’[78]
On January 11 the ambassadors had their first interview with Richelieu. He received them in the most friendly way; but Jan. 11.Conference between Richelieu and the ambassadors.he gave it to be understood that till the Huguenot rebellion was at an end there could be no open war with Spain, and that his master could not tolerate the interference of a foreign king between himself and his subjects. They might, however, rest assured that there was no intention of persecuting the Protestant religion in France. The ‘Vanguard’ would be restored as soon as the <44>prize taken by Soubise was given up. The other vessels had been hired from the merchants, and as long as Rochelle was in arms it was impossible to dispense with their services.
The irritation aroused at the French Court by the tone which Charles assumed was such as no minister, however Feeling of Louis XIII.anxious to avert war, could afford to disregard, and least of all was Richelieu likely to think lightly of the honour of his sovereign. Louis himself was particularly displeased at the proposal to include him in the treaty signed at the Hague without his concurrence. “The league,” he wrote to his ambassador in the Netherlands, “is not aimed at the liberty of the Empire or the abasement of Spain, but at the abasement of the Catholic religion and of all the princes who profess it, and particularly of myself.” One of his ministers expressed himself in much the same tone. “There is a great difference,” he wrote, “between proposing to the King things done or things to be done. To communicate a design and to wish to do nothing without his advice would oblige his Majesty, but to propose to him to take part in a matter already arranged would have the contrary effect.”[79]
In Louis’s place Charles would have felt precisely in the same manner; but he had not the tact to perceive that concession must be made to the feelings of others; and with the consciousness that he had himself contributed, or appeared to have contributed, to the misfortunes of Rochelle, he determined to support the town against its sovereign, at whatever cost to the interests of the rest of Europe. Pennington had for some time been getting ready a fleet at Plymouth, which was destined in case of necessity to escort Soubise with provisions for the blockaded Huguenots, and at a council held on January 20 Jan. 20.Charles determines to relieve Rochelle.it was resolved that the fleet should be at once despatched. In order to impart greater energy to the crews it was arranged that Buckingham should command in person. The deputies from the insurgent city, who were in England seeking for aid, were informed that the fleet would proceed to drive the <45>troops of the King of France out of Rhé and Oléron, if the Rochellese would consent to leave the islands at Charles’s disposal till the expenses of the undertaking had been repaid to him.
No secret was made of the resolution taken. Buckingham informed Blainville that his master could no longer remain neutral. Blainville informed.He had contributed to the ruin of the Protestants by the loan of his ships, and now, with one voice, his Council and his people called upon him to undertake the defence of those whom he had so deeply injured. If war were once declared he would show the world that he was not so destitute of men and money as was commonly supposed.[80]
The resolution thus taken at Court could not fail to have its effects on the prospects of the owners of the French prizes. As far as the ‘St. Peter’ was concerned, everything had proceeded regularly. Suspicion only attached to some hides and Order for the restoration of the ‘St. Peter.’a few other articles on board. Bonds were accepted in the Admiralty Court for the payment of their value, in case of their proving to be Spanish property, and on January 26 Marten gave orders for the delivery of ship and cargo to the owners.[81]
The proprietors of the other vessels had before this fancied that their difficulties were at an end. Soon after the Order in Council of December 28, goods to the value of 30,000l. were given up to them, as being beyond question legitimately French property. But when the news of the difficulties made in France about the surrender of the English vessels reached England, the Government Jan. 24.Sale of prize goods.took another tone. On January 24 the goods were again seized for the King, and out of that part of the cargo which was considered contraband by the Crown lawyers, though it had not yet been condemned by any court of law, property to the value of 7,000l. was sold by <46>auction. Having made up his mind to war, it would seem that Charles no longer thought it necessary to keep terms with the subjects of the King of France.[82]
With the King and Buckingham in this temper, it was not likely that even the ‘St. Peter’ would be allowed to escape. As soon as the order had been issued for its release, Apsley, the Lieutenant of the Tower, remonstrated with the Lord Admiral, assuring him that he could bring as good evidence against that vessel as against the others. To Apsley’s statements Buckingham gave too easy credence, and on February 4, having previously obtained the King’s consent, Feb. 4.The ‘St. Peter’ re-arrested.he ordered the detention of the ship. It is perhaps not an unreasonable conjecture that the real motive in these proceedings was the desire to detain as many pledges as possible for the English ships at Rochelle, the recovery of which had been the subject of repeated messages to the ambassadors at Paris. Buckingham might well doubt his chances of obtaining from the approaching Parliament a favourable consideration of his policy, if Louis were still engaged in an attack upon the Huguenots with the help of English vessels.
All this time the despatches sent to Paris had been growing more peremptory. On January 23 the ambassadors were ordered to Jan. 23.Negotiations in France.hasten home if the ships were not surrendered. On the 26th Charles was still unyielding. He had just received a letter from Holland and Carleton, telling him that Richelieu, in his master’s name, insisted on the maintenance of the King’s garrisons in Fort Louis and the islands of Rhé and Oléron, as well as on the right to send a Royal Intendant of Justice into Rochelle. The Huguenot deputies objected to all three points, and asked for the full execution of the treaty of Montpellier. After a time, however, they expressed their readiness to withdraw their demands. They would reluctantly agree to admit the Intendant, and to allow the garrisons to remain in the islands. Even <47>at Fort Louis they would not insist upon an immediate disarmament, if they could hope for its demolition in course of time.
The ambassadors were satisfied that peace was virtually made. Charles, however, was not satisfied. He thought that the The English ships to be positively demanded.conditions were insufficient for the safety of Rochelle. Nothing less than the terms of the Treaty of Montpellier should receive his assent. The ambassadors were also to ask for the immediate release of the ships, and if that were refused, they were to return at once to England.[83]
The error of Louis was coming home to him. If he had been faulty in appending to his sister’s marriage contract a condition Interference of Charles in French politics.which involved an interference with the administration of English law, Charles was now interfering far more incisively in French domestic politics. When once it was understood that the Huguenots were to owe their recovered independence to English help, a situation would be created which would be intolerable even to a king of France far less sensitive than Louis on all matters connected with his personal authority. In the preceding August Richelieu might wisely have argued that it would be better for the King to grant all the demands of his Protestant subjects, in order that he might turn his attention to external war. But it was one thing to grant such demands upon conviction; it was another thing to grant them to the menaces of the King of England. Rochelle, freed from the control of its own sovereign by Charles’s interposition, would practically be an independent republic, resting for security upon the support of England. The work of uniting France, handed down as the task of centuries from one generation of monarchs to another, would receive a blow from which it would be hard to recover. An English Rochelle would be a far more potent instrument of mischief than even an English Calais had ever been.
Such a view of the case was not likely to present itself to <48>Charles. All he saw was that, as his ships had been used for the defeat of Soubise, it was his business to take care that the Huguenots suffered no loss. By this time, moreover, he had a fresh grievance in his own domestic circle, which kept his mind in a state of irritation. He had arranged that his own coronation should take place before the opening of Parliament, and he fondly hoped that the Queen would be at his side on that solemn occasion. The Queen refuses to be crowned.To his surprise he found that his young wife had religious scruples about taking part in a Protestant ceremony, and he at once appealed to her brother to convince her that she was in the wrong. The coronation, Jan. 21.Conway wrote to the ambassadors, was but a form. “Yet,” he added, “it is a wonder, it is a disorder, it is a misfortune, so apparent a declaration of a difference in judgment, obedience, and conformity.” Charles got no help from Louis here. The view taken at the French Court was, that there would be no harm done if the Queen submitted to coronation, provided that none of the Protestant clergy took any part in the ceremony.[84]
As this was clearly inadmissible, Charles had to resign himself to be crowned alone. Such a consequence he ought to have foreseen when he decided upon marrying a Roman Catholic princess; but he was bitterly disappointed, and he Charles angry with Blainville.threw the whole blame upon the French ambassador. Blainville, according to him, had made it his business, since his coming into England, to stir up ill-will between himself and the Queen. Blainville was certainly not conciliatory in his dealings with a Government against which he had many and bitter grievances, and he had listened more sympathisingly to the Queen’s complaints than became an ambassador; but it is undeniable that Henrietta Maria’s troubles had their root in causes which existed before he set foot in England.
The day fixed for the coronation was the 2nd of February. The curtained seat which had been prepared for Henrietta <49>Maria at a time when it was still hoped that she might be Feb. 2.The Coronation.present as a spectator, if she would not take her part in the ceremony, was empty. Its emptiness must have reminded Charles bitterly of the misery of his home life and of the most conspicuous failure of his political life. Yet there was no want of loyalty in the hearty shout — the echo of that old cry which had once given to English kings their right to sit upon the throne — which greeted him as he stood in the pride of youthful dignity in the face of the assembled multitude. As yet, though the first enthusiasm which greeted his accession had passed away, no personal unpopularity had gathered round him. Whatever was ill-done was attributed to the influence of Buckingham.[85]
<50>The new king was thus, to use words spoken by his direction a few days later, married to his people. He chose on that day to be clothed in white,[86] as the sign of the virgin purity with which he came to play a bridegroom’s part, instead of in the purple robe of sovereignty. Amor civium, Regis præsidium was the motto which in trustful confidence he placed upon the coins which bore the Royal arms impressed upon the sails of a ship careering through the waves, the emblem doubtless of that great naval victory with which he hoped to illustrate the annals of his reign. If Cecil had failed at Cadiz, Buckingham, he might think, would hardly fail at Rochelle. Charles, indeed, so far as it is possible to judge by the indications which have reached us, was preparing to meet the new Parliament with all the buoyancy of hopefulness. Neither Coke, nor Phelips, nor Seymour would be there to distract the hearts of his faithful Commons with factious opposition. So little did the King New earldoms.suspect that he would meet with any difficulty in the Upper House that he neglected the opportunity which the coronation afforded of raising to the peerage persons in whom he could confide. No additional votes were gained by the earldoms which he distributed amongst members of the existing peerage, and it was only a matter of personal importance to themselves that Lord Ley, for instance, would for the future be known as Earl of Marlborough, Viscount Mandeville as Earl of Manchester, and Lord Carew as Earl of Totness.
There were yet a few days before the meeting of Parliament, and if Charles had been capable of rising into a statesmanlike Jan. 25.Negotiations between Louis XIII. and the Huguenots.view of his relations with France, he would have seized the opportunity of reconsidering his position which was then offered him. Holland and Carleton had left no stone unturned to bring about a pacification. The stumbling-block was Fort Louis. The French minister frankly averred that, unless the King kept up a garrison in it, he could have no security that when he was engaged in war abroad the Rochellese would not rise in <51>insurrection, as they had done the year before. With equal energy the Huguenot deputies argued that unless the fort were demolished, they could have no security for the freedom of their commerce. On the evening of January 25 it was believed on both sides that the negotiation was at an end.
The next morning a chosen number of the French clergy were to have an audience, to declare to the King their readiness to Jan. 26.An agreement come to.open their purses in support of the holy war which they had done their best to render imminent. They had, however, reckoned without the Cardinal. Seizing a pretext for deferring the audience for a time, he had proposed a compromise through the English ambassadors. When at last the deputation swept into the Royal presence they found that they were too late. The Huguenot deputies were already on their knees before the King, and the baffled priests came only to witness the reconciliation of their Sovereign with his Protestant subjects.
Unhappily the terms of reconciliation announced on the following day by the Chancellor, were such as by no means to preclude Terms of the agreement,the probability of a renewal of the strife at no distant future. Under pressure from Holland and Carleton, the deputies agreed to give up all the points at issue, including the demolition of Fort Louis. In return they were to have from the King an assurance that ‘by long services and continued obedience they might expect that which they most desired,’ and that ‘in fitting time he would listen to their supplications made with due respect and humility.’[87] Before the words were spoken a private exposition of their meaning was given by the French ministers, to the effect that they pointed to the eventual demolition of Fort Louis.[88]
Holland and Carleton had certainly taxed their authority <52>as mediators to the utmost. The deputies plainly told them that Jan. 29.accepted by the Huguenots through expectations of English support.they had agreed to the treaty ‘because they might now lawfully accept assistance from his Majesty.’ When the ambassadors attended the Protestant church at Charenton on the following Sunday, they found themselves the objects of universal enthusiasm. The preacher took for his text, “How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace.”
It was all very natural, but it was very dangerous. To thrust foreign mediation in the face of Louis was the very way to disgust him with the arrangement which had been made, and if Charles had been wise he would have kept his part in the treaty in the background. If the French Government were once engaged in earnest in the conflict with Spain, any renewal of persecution would be virtually impossible.
In such a course Charles would have had every assistance from Richelieu. The treaty was signed on the 28th, and the Cardinal Richelieu ready to take up the conflict against Spain.at once assured the ambassadors that the English ships would be speedily restored, and that his master would practically, if not in name, join England in the war in Germany. On the 29th Holland and Carleton reported that the French ministers dealt with them more freely than they expected, ‘for they have not denied those of the Religion any of their demands, so as all parties are satisfied.’[89]
On February 5 the ambassadors were able to write of offers still more definite. Richelieu had assured them that his master, besides Definite offers made by him.carrying on the war in Italy, was ready to create a diversion in favour of the King of Denmark by sending into Germany an army nominally commanded by some German prince, but in reality supported jointly by France and England. In addition he would give the aid already promised to the King of Denmark. An army maintained in this manner would not cost Charles a third of <53>the expense of the force which he had proposed to send against Dunkirk, whilst it would be of far greater advantage to the common cause.[90]
Whether Charles, after his numerous failures, would have been able to persuade the House of Commons to grant the supply Feb. 10.Satisfactory prospect.necessary for this or for any other enterprise, may well be doubted; but it was at least in his power to meet Parliament with the proposal of a definite joint action with France, which was the very object at which he had been so long driving. In a few days the English ships would have returned and the establishment of peace in France would have justified the policy upon which their loan had originally depended, whilst it might be taken for granted that when once England and France were actively co-operating in Germany, there would be no disposition on the part of the French Government to return to that system of annoyance of which the Huguenots had previously complained, nor even to scrutinise very closely Charles’s failure to observe the provisions of his marriage contract.
Such, however, was not the view which Charles took of the situation. On February 6, when the first news of the agreement had reached England, Feb. 6.Dissatisfaction of Charles.Conway was directed to write ironically to the ambassadors that his Majesty was confident that there must be in the treaty ‘some excellent good warrants and reservations provided that are not expressed.’[91] The next day Charles had an opportunity of Feb. 7.He complains of the agreement.reading the treaty itself. “It seems,” wrote Conway again, “something strange that your Lordships had concluded the peace with so little surety for those of the Religion, for aught appeared here; but his Majesty is persuaded — if your Lordships have, as it seems, placed the confidence of all those of the Religion and those of Rochelle upon him for the maintaining of their surety, — that you have some very good grounds that such underhand promises as may have been made, which appear not, shall be kept; or that, now that the King is satisfied in point of honour, of his goodness he will <54>presently withdraw all his forces from Rochelle, and will appoint a certain time when he will demolish the fort.
“His Majesty’s pleasure is that you protest to that King and his ministers that, under the hope and confidence of the The ambassadors to demand a recognition of Charles’s mediation.real and present performance of those things, you had employed your mediation, and had engaged the authority of his Majesty to move and almost constrain the deputies to accept the peace upon these conditions.
“And further, you are, by the advice of the deputies, to move for such conditions as may be for their surety, and so to carry that business betwixt that king and those of the Religion that, if his Majesty’s honour must be pledged for the due observation of the treaty, his Majesty may be called and admitted to that office by that king and those of the Religion; and that there may be some ground and possibility for such a surety to be in the power and possession of those of the Religion and those of Rochelle, in the strength of which they may subsist until such time as they may make their grievances known to his Majesty, and for him to apply his mediation and set his endeavours on work. But in these things his Majesty can give you no exact limits, but must leave you to that restraint or latitude your Lordships’ own wisdom will take in your own negotiation. But it is his Majesty’s precise commandment that you demand the present restitution of his Majesty’s ship, and of the merchants’ ships; and that in that point you admit no delay, but take a delay as a denial.”
Charles, in short, blind to the fact that the force of circumstances under Richelieu’s guidance was working for him, would be Charles’s mistake.content with nothing less than an open acknowledgment of his position as mediator between Louis and his subjects. A few more despatches such as that which had just been sent, would make even Richelieu powerless to preserve peace between France and England.
On the 11th the news of the French offer of co-operation in Germany had reached England. Sir John Coke was directed to answer as follows:—
“Concerning the raising of a new English-French army,— <55>which strange overture you have kept afoot by undertaking to Feb. 11.Charles persists in treating the offer of French co-operation with coolness.procure an answer from hence,— that this may not serve them for any pretence to colour their withdrawing of contribution from the King of Denmark and Mansfeld, you are to lay before them his Majesty’s great charges both by sea and land, and the impossibility of levying more armies of that kind; and further directly to profess that if that king perform not what he hath promised for the support of those forces, his Majesty in like manner will presently hold his hand and employ all his means for the strengthening of his fleet, which he well knoweth to be the best support of his own honour and state, all the rest having a principal relation to his allies. And, since the diversion in Germany concerneth chiefly the security of France, against which the Imperial forces were evidently designed, if the King of Denmark had sat still; you are to make them sensible of this interest and of his Majesty’s resolution to bear that burthen no longer, if that king shall cast it off, or not contribute at least in an equal proportion.”[92]
On such terms a working alliance was impossible. A foreign Government was to find now, as domestic parties were to find afterwards, that An alliance impossible on these conditions.it was not enough to give way to Charles in some things, unless it was prepared to give way to him in all. What he asked was that a high-spirited and sensitive nation should first submit its domestic affairs to his arbitration, and should then enter upon a war precisely in such a manner and on such conditions as it pleased him to prescribe.
If knowledge of character be worth anything, it is to Charles rather than to Buckingham that these unsatisfactory despatches are to be ascribed. Charles, too, had annoyances at home which may well have served to put him in a bad temper during the days in which they were dictated. His dissatisfaction with his wife had reached a crisis. Parliament was opened on February 6, and arrangements had been made for the Queen to witness the procession from one of the windows of the banqueting hall at Whitehall. Charles, however, always anxious to <56>separate her from her French attendants, and to bring her as much as possible Feb. 6.The Queen at the procession of the opening of Parliament.in communication with the ladies of the Villiers family, expressed a wish that she should take a seat in a balcony occupied by the old Countess of Buckingham. The Queen assented, but when the time came she either saw or fancied she saw that it was raining, and asked to be excused from going out into the street in the wet. Altercation with her husband.Charles, on the other hand, insisted that it did not rain, but finding that his words produced no impression, withdrew from the altercation. Dissatisfied at his rebuff, — so at least the French accounts of the affair assert, — he betook himself to Buckingham. “How can you expect,” said the favourite, “to be obeyed by your Parliament if you cannot secure the obedience of your wife?” Charles, conscious perhaps of his own inability to impress the Queen with sufficient awe of his commands, sent Buckingham to try his powers upon her. Buckingham rated her soundly for her disobedience, and as Blainville, who had perhaps objected originally to her showing herself in Lady Buckingham’s company, now advised submission, she took Buckingham’s hand, and was led across the street to the house from which his mother was to view the procession.
Even this act of submission caused fresh umbrage to Charles. The Queen, it would seem, would not obey him, but would obey the French ambassador. With some reminiscence, perhaps, of the ‘Taming of the Shrew,’ he sent orders to her to come down from the window at which she was now seated, and with these orders Henrietta Maria meekly complied.
For three days Charles kept entirely aloof from his wife, waiting sulkily till she should come to beg his pardon. At last, Ill-feeling between them.weary of his silence, she sought him out and asked in what she had offended him. He expected her, he answered, to acknowledge her error. She was unable, she said, to accuse herself of anything wrong. Would he not Feb. 10.A reconciliation.tell her what her fault had been? The question seemed to take him by surprise. After some hesitation he answered: “You told me that it rained when I said that it did not rain.” “I should never have <57>thought that to be an offence,” she replied; “but if you think so, I will think so too.” Pleased with such evidence of humility, Charles took his wife in his arms, and kissed her.[93]
The quarrel was over for the time. The Queen had perhaps begun to open her eyes to the truth that with such a character as Charles’s the outward appearance of complete and unreasoning obedience is the surest way to mastery in the end.
Unhappily this misunderstanding between man and wife became another element in the misunderstanding between two kingdoms. On the day after the offence was given, the courier who Feb. 7.Charles refuses to allow Blainville to appear at Court.carried the despatch expressive of Charles’s dissatisfaction with the Huguenot treaty, took with him a letter from Charles to Louis himself, asking for Blainville’s recall, on the ground that he had done everything in his power to bring about a misunderstanding between himself and the Queen. At the same time he directed Conway to inform the ambassador that he would no longer be permitted to appear at Court.[94]
Such were the conditions under which Charles met his second Parliament. A great French minister, amidst unexampled difficulties, Circumstances under which Charles meets Parliament.had steered the vessel of state on to the track along which it was hereafter to be borne to victory on behalf of a noble cause. In spite of the hesitations of Louis and of the opposition of the clergy and of a large portion of the aristocracy, Richelieu had firmly planted the banner of monarchical France on the basis <58>of toleration. He had gained his point by unwearied patience, by yielding in details whilst never losing sight of his main object, by the appearance of being but the servant of his king, whilst in reality he was bending the king and France itself to his own ends. One thing he yet wanted, that the ruler whom fortune had placed upon the English throne should be capable of understanding his meaning. As long as Charles was King of England no such good fortune was likely to be his.
[35] The views of the English Government may be gathered from a passage in the instructions drawn up as a guide to some one whom it was intended to send to Gustavus. “And because we are seated most properly and best furnished for maritime actions, we have undertaken that part, though it be of greatest cost, and which will, in a short time, by the grace of God, render all the land service easy and profitable to those that shall attempt it. And therefore we shall expect that both our dear uncle the King of Denmark and the King of Sweden will, upon your reasons heard, go on cheerfully for the stopping of the progress of the enemy’s conquests by land, without calling to us for contribution in that, wherein principally must be regarded the present conservation of all the sea towns which might any way give Spain a port of receipt for their ships that may come from thence that may be bought or built in these parts, or may correspond with the ports of Flanders. And it will not be amiss when you shall fall into deliberation with that king, to consult and consider with him the great importance of taking away the harbours of Flanders from the King of Spain, and to prove how far he might be moved to join with us, our uncle of Denmark, and the States, to make one year’s trial to thrust the King of Spain from the seacoasts of Flanders.” — Instructions for Sweden, Oct. 17, Rymer, xviii. 212.
[36] “Je me passionne de sorte pour votre contentement que je ne crains point de vous mander si franchement mon avis, et vous êtes assez du monde pour pénétrer ce qui ne me seroit pas bienséant d’écrire,” is Ville-aux-Clercs’ explanation on giving the orders to Blainville, Sept. 24⁄Oct. 4, King’s MSS. 137, p. 313.
[37] Coke, who knew nothing of the circumstances which had induced Buckingham to surrender the ships, answers Lord Brooke’s inquiries as follows: “For the French, I will excuse no error; nor can give you any good account how the instruction for the ships not to be employed against them of the religion was changed. Only this I can assure your Honour, that I had neither hand nor foreknowledge of it. Now, our eyes are opened, and we shall endeavour by all means to recover the ships as soon as is possible.” — Coke to Brooke, Nov. 5, Melbourne MSS.
[38] Conway to Carleton, Oct. 7, S. P. Holland. Instructions to Buckingham, Rymer, xviii.
[39] Louis XIII. to Blainville, Sept. 15⁄25; Blainville to Louis XIII. Oct. 6, 11⁄16, 21, King’s MSS. 137, pp. 274, 350, 385; Villermont, E. de Mansfeldt, ii. 321.
[40] See Vol. V. p. 304.
[41] Tillières, Mémoires, 105; Blainville to Louis XIII., Oct. 12, 16⁄22, 26, King’s MSS. 137, p. 409, 438.
[42] Memoir sent by De Vic, Oct. 16⁄26; Louis XIII. to Blainville, Oct. 29⁄Nov. 8, King’s MSS. 137, p. 470, 482.
[43] The idea, almost universal amongst historians, that Abbot was thrown into the shade by his accidental homicide in 1621, is not borne out by contemporary writers, and his want of influence may be easily accounted for from the causes mentioned above. Fuller is doubtless the original authority for the usual opinion, but Fuller’s story has long ago been shown by Hacket to have been based upon a misapprehension of the facts.
[44] To the first subsidy of the reign Pembroke paid 700l., standing alone; then came Northumberland, Rutland, and Devonshire, with 600l.; Buckingham, Derby, Cumberland, Hertford, Northampton, Petre, and <30>Robartes, with 400l. Book of the Subsidy of the Nobility, Oct. 2, S. P. Dom. vii. 6.
[45] Rudyerd to Nethersole, Feb. 3, 1626, S. P. Dom. xx. 23. ‘All my Lord’s letters were sent out,’ means Pembroke’s letters, not ‘the Duke’s,’ as given in the Calendar. See also a letter from Sir James Bagg, in S. P. Addenda.
[46] North to Leicester, Sept. 28, Oct. 17; Pembroke to Leicester, Sept. 29, Sydney Papers, ii. 360, 363.
[47] “Your Lordship, I know, hath full information of all proceedings concerning the change of the Keeper, but happily hath not heard, and will hardly believe, that he was so confident in his party and the opinion of his worth, that he vaunted, if he were deposed, that he could have intercession made for him, not only by the strongest mediators now remaining, but by the generality of the land. Yet it pleased the good Bishop rather to submit himself to his Majesty’s pleasure than to use his strength.” — Coke to Brooke, Nov. 5, Melbourne MSS. This extract must be compared with Rushworth’s story that Williams said that he meant to stand on his own legs.
[48] Not ‘their heel,’ as calendared. Suckling to Buckingham, Oct. 24; S. P. Dom. viii. 37.
[49] Ingram to Wentworth, Nov. 7, Strafford Letters, i. 28.
[50] Commission, Nov. 3, S. P. Dom. Sign Manuals, i. 87; the King to Buckingham, Nov. 7, S. P. Dom. Addenda.
[51] Ingram to Wentworth, Nov., Strafford Letters, i. 29. The name of Sir W. Fleetwood is here given as a seventh. He had not sat in the last Parliament, but in the Parliament of 1624. He was found ineligible for the shrievalty, and was neither a sheriff nor a member of the Commons in 1626. The first suggestion of making sheriffs in this way which I have met with, is in a letter from Sir G. Paul to Buckingham, Oct. 24; S. P. Dom. viii. 34.
[52] Rudyerd to Nethersole, Nov. 23, S. P. Dom. x. 16.
[53] Downing to the Navy Commissioners, Oct. 19; Pennington to Buckingham, Oct. 23, ibid. viii. 5, 28.
[54] Vreede, Inleiding tot eene Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Diplomatie, ii. 2, 83.
[55] Ibid. ii. 2, 85, Note 2; Carleton to Conway, Nov. 14, S. P. Holland.
[56] Instructions to Buckingham and Holland, Oct. 17, Rymer, xviii. 211.
[57] Buckingham to Christian IV., Dec. 5⁄15, S. P. Holland.
[58] Louis XIII. to Blainville, Dec. 4⁄14, King’s MSS. 137, p. 819.
[59] “Quod vero Regem et Buckinghamium attinet, illi non multum moventur aut indignantur.” Rusdorf to Oxenstjerna. Dec. Mémoires, ii. 138.
[60] Rymer, xviii. 245.
[61] Blainville to Louis XIII., Dec. 12⁄22, King’s MSS. 138, p. 948.
[62] Proclamations, Car. I., Dec. 16, No. 31, S. P. Dom.
[63] Louis XIII. to Blainville, Dec. 4⁄14; The Bishop of Mende to Ville-aux-Clercs, received Dec. 27⁄Jan. 6, King’s MSS. 138, p. 819, 1043.
[64] The King to Buckingham, Nov. 20, Hardwicke S. P. ii. 23. The Bishop of Mende to Louis XIII., Dec. 25⁄Jan. 4, King’s MSS. 138, p. 1056.
[65] “M. Bautru is on his way for England with letters from the Duke de Chevreuse and Marquis d’Effiat, but concerted with the Queen Mother and the Cardinal to invite my Lord Duke of Buckingham to come over, which many wish, but few hold it counselable.” — De Vic to Conway, Dec. 16⁄26. “We may not conceal what we understand, that what the Cardinal told us of Blainville’s revocation was conditional, in case the Lord Duke of Buckingham came over upon such invitements as were sent him.” — Holland and Carleton to Conway, Feb. 26, 1626, S. P. France. It can hardly be said, therefore, that Buckingham could not go to France without first declaring war.
[66] Instructions to Holland and Carleton, Dec. 30, S. P. France.
[67] Art. 20 of the Treaty; Dumont, v. 2, 480.
[68] Examinations of the masters of the prize ships, Sept. 29, S. P. Dom. vi. 120.
[69] Marten to Conway, Nov. 8; Joachimi to ———, S. P. Holland. ——— to Quester, S. P. France.
[70] Minutes by Nicholas, Feb. (?) 1626, S. P. Dom. xxi. 99.
[71] A minute of the replacing of the goods on board, is calendared in September, but should almost certainly be placed in October. Receipt by Marsh, Oct. 11, ibid. vi. 126; xxii. 12, 1. Blainville to Louis XIII., Nov. 6⁄16, King’s MSS. 138, p. 659.
[72] Coke to Conway, Oct. 27, S. P. Dom. viii. 26. Warrant, Nov. 5, Sign Manuals, i. 90.
[73] Blainville to Louis XIII., Nov. 6⁄16, King’s MSS. 138, p. 659.
[74] Conway to Marten, Nov. 7, Conway’s Letter Book; Marten to Conway, Nov. 8, S. P. Dom. ix. 32.
[75] Joachimi to ———, S. P. Holland.
[76] Coke to Conway, Dec. 17, S. P. Dom. xii. 1.
[77] Commons’ Journals, i. 823; Palloyseau to Hippisley, Dec. 23⁄Jan. 2, Harl. MSS. 1583, fol. 171; Joachimi to the States-General, Dec. 27⁄Jan. 6, Jan. 7⁄17, Add. MSS. 17,677 L. fol. 130, 119.
[78] Order in Council, Dec. 8, S. P. Dom. xii. 72.
[79] Extracts given by Vreede, Inleiding tot eene Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Diplomatie, ii. 2, 85, 87.
[80] Blainville to Louis XIII., Jan. 21, King’s MSS. 138, p. 1206. Conway to Holland and Carleton, Jan. 21, S. P. France. Buckingham to Pennington, Jan. 7; Pennington to Buckingham, Jan. 17, S. P. Dom. xviii. 18, 75.
[81] Order for taking bonds, Jan. 21, Book of Acts, Admiralty Court, 159 fol. 30 b. Order for release, Jan. 26, S. P. Dom. xix. 52.
[82] Joachimi to ———, S. P. Holland. Joachimi to the States-General, Feb. 8⁄18, Add. MSS. 17,677 L., fol. 143. Blainville to Louis XIII., Jan. 25⁄Feb. 4, King’s MSS. 138, p. 1270, 1273.
[83] Buckingham to Holland and Carleton, Jan. 23; Holland and Carleton to Conway, Jan. 23; Conway to Holland and Carleton, Jan. 19, S. P. France.
[84] Louis XIII. to Blainville, Jan. 15⁄25, King’s MSS. 138, p. 1121. Conway to Holland and Carleton, Jan. 21, S. P. France.
[85] Meade to Stuteville, Feb. 3; D’Ewes to Stuteville, Feb. 3, Ellis, ser. 1, iii. 220, 213. Mr. Forster is mistaken in supposing that the incident of Charles’s stumbling, and of his answering, ‘when Buckingham offered to assist him, “I have as much need to help you as you to assist me,”’ took place ‘when all was over, and the King and the Duke came wearily away.’ It really happened before the coronation, and D’Ewes adds that the words were spoken ‘with a smiling countenance.’ Charles doubtless merely meant that he was able to recover his footing without help. It would not have been worth while mentioning this, but for the doubt which I entertain whether Mr. Forster was right in attributing any sort of foreboding of coming evil to Charles. There is no evidence either way; but my impression, from what I know of Charles’s character and actions, is that he never foreboded evil, and that he was so convinced that he was always in the right, that the idea of Parliamentary opposition would not occur to him till he was called to face it.
As for the people not shouting at the coronation when Arundel first asked them to do so, I am content with D’Ewes’s explanation: “Whether some expected he should have spoken more, or others hearing not so well what he said, hindered those by questioning which might have heard, or that the newness and greatness of the action busied men’s thoughts, or the presence of so dear a thing drew admiring silence, or that those which were nearest doubted what to do, but not one word followed till my Lord of Arundel told them they should cry out, ‘God save King Charles!’ upon which, as ashamed of their first oversight, a little shouting followed. At the other sides where he presented himself there was not the like failing.” Joachimi, as Ranke has observed, has no hesitation to tell of. He says the answer was given ‘with great cry and shouting.’ — Joachimi to the States-General, Feb. 3⁄13 Add. MSS. 17,677 L, fol. 148.
[86] Heylin, Life of Laud, 144. After Charles’s death, this was pointed to as a presage of the innocence of martyrdom, as was also the text taken by the preacher, “I will give thee a crown of life.”
[87] Answer of the Chancellor in the name of the King of France, Jan. 27⁄Feb. 6, S. P. France. This date, however, must be merely that on which a written copy of the speech was delivered. It was spoken on Jan. 26⁄Feb. 5.
[88] Declaration by Holland and Carleton, Jan. 31⁄Feb. 10, S. P. France.
[89] Holland and Carleton to Conway, Jan. 27, 29; Declaration by Holland and Carleton, Jan. 31⁄Feb. 10; The state of Holland and Carleton’s negotiations, Aug. (?), S. P. France.
[90] Holland and Carleton to Conway, Feb. 5, S. P. France.
[92] Coke to Holland and Carleton, Feb. 11, S. P. France.
[93] Mémoires de Tillières. It seems so unlikely that Charles should have quarrelled with Blainville on this point, that it is as well to give the words of the English narrative: “In the meantime a difference that fell out about the place for the Queen to see the King ride to Parliament (she affecting to stand in the Banqueting House, or in the Privy Gallery, when the King had given reasons for her better sight in the house of the Countess, mother to the Duke of Buckingham, next the gate in King Street), was a subject for some discontent, and so far as the Ambassador Blainville, seeming to his Majesty to have been the causer of it, had the next day a message brought him by the Lord Conway.” Affair of Blainville, undated, S. P. France.
[94] Message sent to Blainville, Feb. 7. The King to Louis XIII., Feb. 7, S. P. France.