<59>Few and unimportant were the words which Charles addressed to the Houses at the opening of the session. “I mean to show,” he said, Feb. 6.Opening of the session.in excuse for this brevity, “what I should speak in actions.” Nor did the new Lord Keeper, who followed, add much to the knowledge of his hearers. He had nothing to say about the pressing wants of the Exchequer, nothing about the position which the King had taken up on the Continent; and, but for a passing allusion, no one would have gathered from Coventry’s language that England was at war with Spain, still less that she had entered upon a serious diplomatic contest with France.
And yet money was sorely needed. The Privy seals were coming in slowly, and eight weeks later they had produced less than 28,000l.[95] The hopes which had been placed upon Buckingham’s attempt to raise money in the Netherlands had proved still more fallacious. The Amsterdam merchants had refused to take the Crown jewels in pledge, unless they could also have security for their redemption within a limited period.[96]
When, on February 10, Rudyerd, the usual mouthpiece of the Government, rose to speak, he had still nothing to say about supply. Feb. 10.Rudyerd’s motion.He commended the King’s zeal for religion as evinced by his late proceedings against the Catholics, and moved for a committee to consider how to increase the livings of the poorer clergy, and how to <60>deal with ministers who were leading immoral lives. The motion was adopted with an amendment by Pym that the committee should be empowered to consider all matters relating to religion. Charles evidently intended to stand upon his Protestantism. If he no longer protected the Roman Catholics, if he was ready to carry out practical reforms in the English Church, and if he was in close alliance with the States, why should not the Commons vote him large supplies to carry out so popular a policy.
Why should they not? Phelips was not there, to say him nay; nor Coke, nor Seymour, nor even Wentworth; and Sir John Coke Supply suggested.could therefore rise hopefully to hint something about a grant of supply.[97] There was, however, one there who had been overlooked when the sheriffs had been pricked, Eliot’s position in the last Parliament.and from whom no opposition was expected, but who had something to say before a motion for supply was carried. Eliot’s last publicly spoken words at Oxford had been in defence of Buckingham’s personal integrity.[98] The refusal of the favourite to submit his actions to the judgment of independent councillors, and the contempt shown for the House of Commons by the hasty dissolution, had since thrown him entirely on the side of the Opposition.
Still Eliot was in no hurry to act. With a man of his warm and affectionate disposition the old personal ties which had bound him to Buckingham 1625.He watches events.must still have counted for much. In the interval between the two Parliaments he had been anxiously watching the course of events. As Vice-Admiral of Devon he had special opportunities for noting the miserable results of a policy which his head and his heart alike condemned. He had been present at the sailing <61>of the fleet, and when it sought refuge in Plymouth Sound from its unlucky voyage, he had been witness of the miseries to which those on board were doomed by a Government which had launched them into the midst of the hazards of war without sufficient means to provide for their daily wants. He knew well how the poor wretches, torn from their homes a few short months before, were wandering about the streets of Plymouth without food or money; how they were denied shelter by the inhabitants; and how, with nothing but their shirts on their backs to ward off the wintry cold, they were dropping down dead in the long December nights.[99]
Yet, whatever Eliot’s thoughts may have been, there was no open breach between him and the men in authority at Court. Does not break with the Government.At the end of December he appealed to Conway for the reduction of an exorbitant demand made upon his father-in-law by a Privy seal, and the wrong was immediately redressed by a special resolution of the Council.[100] A little later he wrote to request Pembroke, the Lord Lieutenant of Cornwall, for a deputy-lieutenancy which was reported to be vacant, and his request would have been immediately granted but for the discovery that there had been no foundation for the report.[101]
Plainly, therefore, there was no expectation of any opposition from Eliot; and it is possible that if Charles had met Parliament 1626.Feb. 10.Eliot in the new Parliament.in a different spirit — if he had made the slightest acknowledgment of error, and had courted inquiry instead of merely asking for money — Eliot’s first words in the new House might have been other than they were. As it was, his whole soul was moved by that which was passing before his eyes. To the high-hearted, patriotic man it was bad enough that the failures of the past should bring no warnings for the future; but it was still worse that <62>religion should be made the stalking-horse for political objects, and that Parliament should be asked to legislate for the Church as an inducement towards a grant of money.
When Eliot stood up, therefore, it was to ask that inquiry into past disasters should precede present supply. The accounts of Eliot demands inquiry into the Cadiz voyage,the expenditure of the subsidies voted in 1624 must be laid fully before the House. Then, rising with the occasion, and feeling that this would not be enough, “Sir,” he cried, “I beseech you cast your eyes about! View the state we are in! Consider the loss we have received! Weigh the wrecked and ruined honour of our nation! O the incomparable hopes of our most excellent sovereign checked in their first design! Search the preparation. Examine the going forth. Let your wisdoms travel through the whole action, to discern the fault, to know the faulty. For I presume to say, though no man undertook it, you would find the ancient genius of this kingdom rise up to be the accuser. Is the reputation and glory of our nation of a small value? Are the walls and bulwarks of our kingdom of no esteem? Are the numberless lives of our lost men not to be regarded? I know it cannot so harbour in an English thought. Our honour is ruined, our ships are sunk, our men perished; not by the sword, not by the enemy, not by chance, but, as the strongest predictions had discerned and made it apparent beforehand, by those we trust. Sir, I could lose myself in this complaint, the miseries, the calamities which our Western parts have both seen, and still feel, strike so strong an apprehension on me.”
At this point, remembering doubtless that the special circumstances which gave a right of inquiring into the expenditure of and into earlier disasters.the subsidies of 1624 did not convey a right of inquiry into the expenditure of any other money, Eliot paused for a moment, making, with the skill of a consummate orator, the half-retractation which he was about to utter an excuse for striking a yet harder blow. “Perchance, sir,” he proceeded, “it will be said that this concerns us not — that our money was long since spent in other actions. To prevent such objection I will make this answer, that I know <63>nothing so preposterous[102] or good in those former actions that may extenuate, much less excuse, the faults of this. Upon both particulars, therefore, I will contract my motion; this of the war account, and that of the King’s estate.”
These questions — in short, inquiry into the past and provision for the future — should be discussed in special committees. Till this had been done, nothing should be said about the King’s supply. The common cause must have the precedence.[103]
In spite, therefore, of the relegation of the leaders of the Opposition to their respective shires, a voice had been raised to Weight of the speech.resume the work which they had left unfinished. Instinctively Eliot had taken up ground which was unassailable. There was no personal attack upon Buckingham. The Lord Admiral’s name had not even been mentioned. But there had been a plain assertion of the right of the Commons to ascertain by every means in their power whether the money for which they were asked would be used for the benefit of the country. No doubt such an inquiry contained within itself the germs of a mighty revolution. The Commons had certainly not been accustomed thus to pry into the secret actions of Henry VIII. or Elizabeth; but, even if they were as yet hardly fitted to occupy the place of sovereignty, it was not their fault that circumstances had changed, or that there was good reason for withdrawing from Charles I. the confidence which their fathers had reposed in his predecessors.
It is possible that Eliot may have been irritated to some extent by the sermon preached by Laud at the opening of the session. “Jerusalem,” Feb. 6.Laud’s sermon.the Bishop of St. Davids had told his hearers, “is builded as a city that is compact together.” By unity alone could Church or State resist its foes. For the State the centre of unity was in the King. It was his to do judgment and justice, to appoint magistrates and to protect the oppressed. It was the part of the nation to surround him with loving reverence. “And never fear him,” he said of Charles, “for God is with him. He will not depart from God’s service nor from the honourable care <64>of his people; nor from[104] wise managing of his treasure; he will never undermine his own house, nor give his people just cause to be jealous of a shaking foundation.”[105]
Those who have been engaged in tracing out Charles’s errors and failures will find it hard to understand how such words Laud’s devotion to Charles.could be applied to him by any sane man. The difficulty, however, is not a great one. Laud was an ecclesiastic, not a statesman. He saw Charles’s conscious wish to do right, and he took it for granted that his conduct was as prudent as his intentions were upright. Having every reason to doubt the fairness of the House of Commons towards the clergy of his own opinions, he thought that they were equally unfair in their opposition concerning political matters.
Laud had been grieved at the resolution which the King had taken to withdraw his objection to the examination of Montague’s opinions by the Commons, on the ground that he was one of the Royal chaplains. On January 16 four bishops, amongst whom were Andrewes and Laud, who had been asked to investigate the question, had reported that Montague’s book was agreeable to the doctrine of the Church of England, and had recommended Charles to prohibit all further controversy on the disputed points.[106] Feb. 11.The conference about Montague’s book.On the 11th and 17th of the following month a conference was held at Buckingham’s house, in which Dr. Preston and Bishop Morton did their best to impugn the doctrines propounded in the incriminated books. Preston was a noted Puritan divine who had secured Buckingham’s good-will, and had, in 1622, become Master of Emmanuel College in the University of Cambridge through his patron’s influence. Buckingham had, however, for some time been pursuing courses which could not be agreeable to Preston, who had spoken with dislike of his advocacy of the French marriage, and of the concessions made in consequence to the Catholics. Preston now discovered that Buckingham repented of having offered his house for the purpose of the conference, and drew the inference that he had <65>placed himself in the hands of the Bishops, and was indifferent or hostile to the triumph of Gospel truth.[107]
As far as it is possible to judge from the accounts which have reached us, the assailants failed to make their points good, as in insisting on a complete accordance with the formulas of the Church, they, in many cases, substituted their own interpretation for the obvious meaning of the formulas themselves. Yet, in spite of his controversial success, Montague was left to the judgment of Parliament. As might have been expected, the House of Commons pronounced strongly against him; but the session was brought to an untimely end before the opinion of the Lords could be taken, and he therefore escaped punishment for a time.
These Church questions would before long attract universal attention. At present the management of the war and the relations between England and the Continental powers were of more immediate interest. The four sub-committees of the Committee for Grievances were hard at work, and the one over which The ‘St. Peter’ of Havre de Grace.Eliot presided was busily occupied in investigating the case of the ‘St. Peter’ of Havre de Grace, and in inquiring incidentally why England was on the verge of a war with France without any apparent reason.
The real history of the estrangement between the two Courts was known to but very few. Probably no one except Buckingham and one or two of his confidants had ever heard of the despatches by which Charles had met with icy coldness the overtures of Richelieu, or were acquainted with the course of the Feb. 8.Consternation of the English merchants at its re-seizure.dispute about the French prizes; but the re-seizure of the ‘St. Peter’ was a fact patent to all. The merchants trading wuth France were in terror lest reprisals should be made on the other side of the Channel, and the Lord Admiral and the Privy Council were besieged with petitions for the release of the ship.[108]
<66>When the ship had been seized, war with France had been imminent. As it was now known in England that the French civil war was at an end, and that the English vessels might soon be on their way home, Buckingham had no longer any interest in detaining the prize. He sent for Marten, and asked what he ought to do. Feb. 9.Marten consulted.Marten answered cautiously that the ship might be detained if there was fresh evidence against her, but that until he had seen the information on which Buckingham relied, he could not say whether it was sufficient or not. On the 15th the merchants’ petitions were considered in the Council, and an order was given that, if the owners would enter into bonds to abide by the decision of the Court of Admiralty, the ship should be at once released.[109] Release of the ‘St. Peter.’Soon after this it was discovered that the evidence alleged by Apsley was absolutely worthless, and all further proceedings were tacitly withdrawn. This step, however, was taken too late. Even before the news of the re-seizure of the ‘St. Peter’ had reached France, the owners of the prize goods which had been sold, being convinced that they had nothing to hope from English justice, had petitioned to their own courts for redress. On the 7th the Judge of Feb. 7.Reprisals in France.the Admiralty at Paris gave permission to all who had been wronged to seek redress by the seizure of English property in France, and Feb. 10.on the 10th a similar order was issued by the Parliament of Rouen.[110]
Through this thicket of confusion, Eliot and his committee did their best to cut their way. Was it strange if they did not Eliot’s committee considers the seizure to have been made for Buckingham’s private ends.succeed in discovering the truth? It was clear that there was something behind of which they knew nothing. The second detention of the ‘St. Peter’ required an explanation which had not been vouchsafed to them. How Eliot would have branded with scorn the blunder of selling the prize goods if only he had become aware of the importance which it had in the eyes <67>of the French, we can readily imagine; but the seizure of the ‘St. Peter’ was all that met his eye, and being in ignorance of the fact that England had been at the time on the brink of a war with France, he had to account for the mystery as best he might. What wonder if he fancied that the Duke had done it all for his own advantage? He knew that some of Buckingham’s officers had had charge of valuable articles which had been on board the ‘St. Peter,’ and that those articles had not been restored. The inference seemed obvious that they had gone to swell the Duke’s private fortune, and that, for the sake of his own personal enrichment, he was embroiling the kingdom in an uncalled-for war.
Yet this was far from the truth. It was indeed an unequal contest upon which Eliot had entered. So unwise was the alienation of that State which was ready to become the ally of England, that so true a patriot could not but seek to probe the mystery to the bottom. The mystery could not be so probed. Charles and Buckingham had veiled their actions in secrecy as with a cloud. What Eliot learned had to be dragged from unwilling witnesses, themselves knowing but little, and anxious to tell as small a portion of that little as they could. When, therefore, March 6.Heath’s defence.Attorney-General Heath appeared before the House to defend his patron, he had an easy task before him. He was able to assert that the ship had been seized by the King’s directions, and from public motives. It is ‘not now,’ he said, ‘a particular or personal cause, but a national controversy.’ It is true that he was not instructed to state what the grounds of that national controversy were; but he was able to add, with perfect truth, that the seizure of the ‘St. Peter’ had nothing whatever to do with the embargo at Rouen. Heath’s argument was successful with the Commons. By a small majority in a not very full House, they voted that the stay of the ‘St. Peter’ was not a grievance.[111]
Charles determined to strike while the iron was hot. On the very day on which Heath was pleading before the Commons, <68>the Lords were asked to take into consideration the state of the realm. Already in a quiet way the Peers had given signs that they had no intention of being Buckingham’s humble servants. Finding that the Duke held no less than thirteen proxies, Feb. 25.Order about proxies in the House of Lords.the independent Lords, after a debate in which almost every official member spoke on the of other side,[112] carried an order that for the future no peer should hold more than two proxies. Restlessness under Buckingham’s supremacy did not, however, as yet imply readiness to reject a proposal brought to them with the authority of the Crown, and the House at once appointed a committee to take into consideration the question propounded on the King’s behalf. March 7.The Peers consider the state of the realm.The next morning the committee reported that it was advisable to set forth one fleet against Spain, and another for the defence of the English coast, and to maintain the armies of Mansfeld and the King of Denmark.[113]
With this suggestion the Commons were at once asked to comply. At the conference Buckingham prudently kept himself in the background, and Pembroke and Abbot were put forward to induce the Lower House to assent to the demands of the Government. After detailing the necessities of the fleet and of the Danish army, Pembroke held out hopes that a virtual alliance would be brought about with France.[114]
In the evening an attempt was made to carry the opinion of the Commons by storm. A hopeful despatch had been received from News from France.the ambassadors at Paris. Edward Clarke, the confidential servant of the Duke, who, when Charles left Madrid, had been entrusted with the secret orders to Bristol for the postponement of the marriage ceremony, and who, in 1625, had been imprisoned by the Commons for the strong language which he had used in defence of his patron,[115] went about the streets spreading the news that all difficulties had been <69>removed, and that there was no longer any danger of a dispute with the King of France.[116]
It was not Richelieu’s fault that a good understanding had not long ago been effected. Though the news of Blainville’s Feb. 21.Negotiations at Paris.exclusion from Court had been very unwelcome to Louis, no hard language had been used, and Charles’s objections to the French scheme of a joint army having been taken into consideration, a fresh offer was made that the King of France should confine himself to operations in Italy, whilst aiding Charles with money to carry on the war in Germany. On the commercial difficulty the French Government was equally conciliatory. Feb. 26.Let the vessels seized on both sides, they said, be mutually restored, and then let there be some friendly arrangement to prevent disputes for the future.[117]
Charles’s wisest course would undoubtedly have been to accept the offer. Unfortunately he was punctilious and keen to March 3.Charles punctilious about the French reprisals.mark offences in others. The sense of injury caused in France by the sale of the prize goods he did not understand; and much less did it enter into his head that the strictness of the English law of prize might not commend itself to a neutral Government; but he discovered that, in the commercial treaty agreed on by Louis and his father, it was stated that embargoes were not to be laid on either side without previous notice, and he therefore demanded that France, by taking the first step in the restoration of vessels seized, should acknowledge herself to have been in the wrong. Conciliatory overtures in France.Even this was conceded to him, as Louis himself assured the ambassadors. “I will rely,” he said, “upon your promise, and in confidence thereof will ordain a present release; but if in England what you undertake be not faithfully executed, and that such as … may be present at the definitive sentence advertise me that my subjects’ goods are detained from them, the King my brother must not <70>take it ill if I do the like.” This offer Louis followed up by sending March 4.immediate directions to the Admiral at Rochelle, directing him to send home to England the English ships under his charge, and by promising that the order for removing the embargo should be issued the next morning.[118]
Such was the news which Clarke was spreading about the streets of London on the evening of March 7. Charles, however, was in a temper which tried the friendliness of the French Government to the utmost. In his anxiety to prove his Protestantism, he had inflicted a fresh blow upon Blainville which was not likely to make his relations easier with the ambassador’s master. Blainville’s lodgings were in Durham House, one of the mansions which in those days stood between the Strand and the river. It was the house where Raleigh had lived in the days of his splendour, and which was so extensive that the Bishop of Durham contented himself with occupying a small portion. The mass at Durham House.A large part was given over to the French embassy. Blainville had his private chapel, and the mass, when celebrated there, was attended by throngs of the Catholics of London. To this abuse, as he considered it to be, Interference with the attendance of English Catholics.Charles was determined to put an end. He gave orders to the Council to see that it was no longer tolerated, and on the morning of Sunday, February 26, a strong body of constables was posted at the gates, after mass had begun, with directions to seize all English subjects as they came out.
When the capture began it was impossible for the French gentlemen of the ambassador’s suite to restrain their impatience. Tumult which ensues.Charging upon the constables sword in hand, they rushed to the succour of their English friends. In the scuffle which ensued two men were injured, and one was dragged into the courtyard and borne in triumph before the window at which the ambassador was standing. By this time the noise of the tumult had attracted attention outside, and the population of the neighbourhood hurried up to take part in the fray. Fortunately the Bishop of Durham <71>arrived in time to part the combatants before further mischief was done.
Blainville of course was furious. “I wish,” he said to the Bishop, as soon as he caught sight of him, “that my followers had Blainville’s anger.killed the officers. The King my master will require reason for that which has been done against the law of nations.”[119]
As a matter of law, Charles was plainly within his rights. His prudence in raising so irritating a question was not so certain. In the beginning of March, the very days in which matters were taking a favourable turn at Paris, he contrived, probably unconsciously, again to give offence to the French Court. He had long regarded Arundel with suspicion. In the last Parliament the Earl had been suspected of taking part in the opposition against Buckingham, and, like Williams and Wentworth, he had no sympathy with the warlike ardour of the King March.Arundel’s opposition.and his chief adviser. At the opening of the new Parliament, alone amongst the Privy Councillors he had sided with the independent Peers in the affair of the proxies, and it was not long before Charles found him interfering with his wishes on a more personal question.
Arundel’s eldest son, Lord Maltravers, had fallen in love with Elizabeth Stuart, sister of the young Duke of Lennox, and niece of the Lord Steward of James I. His affection was warmly reciprocated. Charles had other views, and claimed, as head of the lady’s house, to dispose of her hand as he pleased. The Earl of Argyle, a professed Roman Catholic, had long been an exile from his native country, and had spent many years of his life in the military service of the King of Spain. His son and heir, Lord Lorne, who was one day to be Charles’s bitterest enemy as the Covenanting Marquis of Argyle, was not inclined to follow in his father’s steps; and Charles hoped that by marrying him into a family so closely connected with the Court as that of Lennox, he might acquire an influence over his future life. Whilst Charles was scheming, the lovers <72>were acting. Lady Arundel favoured her son’s pretensions, and His son’s marriage.she was not a woman accustomed to be thwarted. A clandestine marriage was hurried on, and, when it was too late to interfere, Arundel was told by his wife that he had better be himself the person to carry the news to the King, as he might safely assert that he had known nothing of the plot before it was carried into execution.[120]
Charles was at first not inclined to be very hard upon the Earl; but Arundel, or someone amongst his friends, thought it March 4.Arundel sequestered from the Council.worth while to enlist the Queen’s sympathy on his behalf. Either Charles was jealous of his wife’s interference, or he saw in it some fresh plot of the detested Blainville. He at once ordered that Arundel should no longer be admitted to the meetings of the Council; and a fresh application from the Queen was followed by March 5.Sent to the Tower.an order for his imprisonment in the Tower, whilst the ladies who had favoured the marriage were detained in various places of confinement.[121]
Charles’s continued jealousy of the Queen did not augur well for the chances of a better understanding with her brother. Charles, not Buckingham, the cause of the difficulties with France.Into the recesses of his councils indeed we have no means of penetrating; but the difficulties thrown in the way of the French alliance, the personal quarrel with Blainville, the punctilious hesitation about the release of the prizes, the demand to be recognised as a mediator between Louis and his subjects, all bear unmistakably the impress of Charles’s quickness to take offence and reluctance to forget a real or fancied injury. Buckingham was more likely to snatch at the chance of bringing a French army into the field; and the one glimpse which we have of him during these days shows him anxiously desiring permission to go as ambassador to France, no doubt to cement that <73>friendly understanding which his master was doing everything to thwart.[122]
Whatever the truth may have been, it would have been hard to persuade the Commons that Buckingham was not wholly at fault. March 3.Inquiry directed by the Commons to the council of war.Partly from motives of policy, still more perhaps from traditional loyalty of disposition, the maxim that the King could do no wrong was deeply imprinted on their hearts. If they had failed to extract the whole truth about the French prizes, they hoped to be more successful in extracting from the council of war the advice which its members had given about the disposal of the subsidies voted in 1624, wishing probably to know whether Mansfeld’s disastrous expedition had received the approbation of competent military authorities.[123]
The House was, however, destined to disappointment. Heath, having been consulted by the King, gave it as his opinion that though, Heath’s opinion.under the unusual provisions of the Act in question, the Commons would be justified in asking whether the council of war had issued warrants for any expenditure not provided for in the Act, they would not be justified in asking what advice any individual councillor had given, or to require him in any way to inculpate a third party by asking whether the advice given had or had not been followed. <74>The acts of the councillors, in short, were a fair subject for investigation, not their opinions.
The doctrine thus laid down is in our own day accepted by all parties in the State. It never occurs to the most inquisitive member of Parliament March 7.The councillors refuse to reply.to ask what advice has been given in the privacy of the Cabinet. But if it has become possible to cover advice with a wise secrecy, it is because all those who act have submitted to a complete responsibility to Parliament for their actions. It was not without reason that when the councillors answered in accordance with Heath’s opinion, the Commons felt that the partial satisfaction offered to them was illusory. In fact, the special stipulations of the Act of 1624 had been the beginning of a great change. It had recognised that certain special officials were to be responsible to Parliament as well as to the Crown. It had, however, effected either too much or too little, and the Commons were naturally of opinion that it had effected too little. If they came to the conclusion that the money had been spent on improper objects, how could they call to account the councillors, who might have acted under pressure or misrepresentation, whilst Buckingham was placed beyond inquiry?
The first thought of the Commons was to persist in their original demand. They informed each councillor that two days The Commons persist.would be granted him for consideration, and that he would then be called upon individually to reply to the questions put to him.[124]
So strong was the current of feeling, that the old Earl of Totness — who, as Sir George Carew, had been Lord President of Munster March 9.Interview between the King and Totness.in Elizabeth’s days, and who was now one of the members of the council of war — thought that it was better that he and his fellows should bear the displeasure of the Commons than that the King’s subsidies should be refused. “I beseech your Majesty,” he said, “to regard your own ends. For it is better that we should suffer imprisonment than be the occasion of missing necessary subsidies, or breed any difference between you and the House <75>of Commons: for we cannot do you better service.” It was well and bravely spoken; but Charles saw plainly that his own authority was at stake. “Let them do what they list,” he answered proudly. “You shall not go to the Tower. It is not you that they aim at, but it is me upon whom they make inquisition. And for subsidies, that will not hinder it. Gold may be bought too dear, and I thank you for your offer.”[125]
The council, therefore, returned much the same answer as before, and the Commons, finding that no further information March 11.Final answer of the council of war.was to be had, desisted from their inquiry.[126]
As was usually the case, Charles was right on the narrow technical view of the transaction. He was also right in perceiving that, if there was to be a general inquiry into the past, his own authority would suffer grievously. A complete revolution was implied in the demand made upon him. Yet, after all that had happened, after the disaster which had attended Mansfeld’s army, and the failure which had attended the expedition to Cadiz, after the French alliance, of which he had boasted so loudly, was changing, for some mysterious reason, into hardly-concealed hostility, was it reasonable to ask the Commons to entrust large sums to his wisdom and discretion, without that full and searching inquiry into the past, by which alone confidence once shaken could be restored?
This, however, was what Charles seriously proposed to do. <76>The announcement made by Pembroke on the 7th, and the rumours March 10.Supply demanded.spread abroad by Clarke in the same evening had produced no effect. On the 10th Weston delivered a message asking for an immediate supply for the necessities of State. The Commons were to vote the money, and to ask no questions.[127]
It was absolutely impossible that the Commons should accept the ignominious position thus assigned to them. Yet it was Difficult position of the Commons.hard to say what course they were to follow. Since the old turbulent days when an adverse vote in Parliament had been enforced by actual or possible insurrection, ministerial responsibility had been a thing unheard of. The officers of the Crown under the Tudors were simply the agents of the sovereign, responsible for their conduct to him alone.
It may be that the straightforward way would have been the best in the end, and that a simple address assuring the King that Two courses before them.no money could be voted till he could inspire the House with confidence that it would be wisely expended, would have placed the Commons in a position less logically assailable than any other. It was, however, certain that such a course would have given deep offence to Charles, and, on the other hand, a path was open which, strewed as it was with hidden dangers, appeared to offer a far more inviting prospect.
When men’s minds are in a state of tension, it often happens that the thought with which all are occupied rises to the lips of Clement Coke’s words.some insignificant person, less able than others to weigh the full import of his words. It was thus that when the supply proposed by Pembroke and Abbot[128] was being discussed, Coke’s son Clement, hitherto chiefly known for his quarrelsome disposition, flung out the taunt, “It is better to die by an enemy than to suffer at home.” Now that March 11.Dr. Turner’s queries.the King was pressing his demand by Weston, Dr. Turner, a man otherwise of no note, told the House that the cause of all their grievances was ‘that great man, the Duke of Buckingham.’ Common <77>fame had supplied him with certain queries which called for an answer. Had the Duke guarded the seas against pirates? Had he not, by the appointment of unworthy officers, caused the failure of the expedition to Cadiz? Had he not engrossed a large part of the Crown lands to himself, his friends, and his relations? Had he not sold places of judicature and titles of honour? Was he not dangerous to the State, his mother and his father-in-law being recusants? Was it fit that he should, in his own person, enjoy so many great offices?[129]
It has generally been supposed that the questions thus put had been placed in Turner’s mouth by others. However this may have been, it marks a change of front on the part of the Opposition. If there were no recent precedents for inquiring into the administrative acts of high officials, there were the precedents of Bacon and Middlesex for inquiring into their personal delinquencies. Personal attack upon Buckingham.For some days a multitude of facts damaging to Buckingham had been discovered by the various committees, and it may have seemed a more hopeful task to induce Charles to abandon a criminal of whose real character he had been ignorant, than to surrender a minister to whose policy he had given his constant approval.
If any such calculation as this passed over the minds of the leading members, if, in short, the step which they were prepared to take was March 14.Charles asks for justice.the fruit of anything more than an honest indignation against the man whom they had come to regard as a criminal indeed, they had not taken into account the extent to which Charles had given, not merely his name, but his cordial support, to Buckingham’s proceedings. The attack upon his friend roused him to indignation, and he sent to demand justice upon Coke and Turner. At the same time the Commons took their stand against the King on Tonnage and poundage.another most important principle. They directed the King’s Counsel in the House to bring in a Tonnage and Poundage Bill within a week, unless they wished to <78>see the farmers of the Customs called upon to explain by what authority those duties had been levied.[130]
It would evidently not be easy to establish ministerial responsibility. With a sovereign who does not pretend to govern or Question of ministerial responsibility.with a sovereign who is ready to make a scapegoat of an unpopular servant, it presents no difficulty. Charles at the same time claimed to rule the State and was too conscientious to throw over a minister whom he believed to have been unjustly accused. It needed two revolutions to make the doctrine current in England. Before the Commons could succeed in making ministers responsible, they had to re-establish in fact, if not in theory, the responsibility of the Crown.
Under Eliot’s guidance the House did its best to assure the King of its loyalty to himself. Coke and Turner were Loyal declarations of the Commons.ordered to explain their words, and the King was assured that there was no wish to deprive him of the means necessary for carrying on a war. The wish of the Commons was to make him ‘safe at home and feared abroad,’ but they claimed a right to search out the causes of his wants, and to propose such remedies as they might think fitting.[131]
The Commons had not long to wait for an answer. Summoning them to Whitehall, Charles spoke his mind plainly. March 15.The King’s answer.“Mr. Speaker,” he said, “here is much time spent in inquiring after grievances. I would have that last, and more time bestowed in preventing and redressing them. I thank you all for your kind offer of supply in general, but I desire you to descend to particulars, and consider of your time and measure. For it concerneth yourselves, who are like first to feel it, if it be too short.
“But some there are — I will not say all — that do make inquiry into the proceedings, not of any ordinary servant, but of one that is most near unto me. It hath been said, ‘What shall be done to the man whom the King delighteth to honour?’ <79>But now it is the labour of some to seek what may be done against the man whom the King thinks fit to be honoured.
“In a former time, when he was an instrument to break the treaties, you held him worthy of all that was conferred upon him by my father. Since that time he hath done nothing but in prosecution of what was then resolved on, and hath engaged himself, his friends, and his estate for my service, and hath done his uttermost to set it forwards; and yet you question him. And for some particulars wherewith he hath been pressed, however he hath made his answer, certain it is that I did command him to do what he hath done therein. I would not have the House to question my servants, much less one that is so near me. And therefore I hope I shall find justice at your hands to punish such as shall offend in that kind.”
He hoped, Charles concluded by saying, they would do him right with respect to Coke as well as to Turner. To their just grievances he would always be ready to listen.[132]
That the whole administration was one great grievance Charles could not be brought to understand. Yet this was March 17.Eliot’s counsel.precisely the belief to which the House was rapidly coming; and now Eliot took the lead in counselling that there should be no drawing back. “We have had a representation of great fear,” he cried, “but I hope it shall not darken our understandings.”[133] Coke might explain away his words; Turner, stricken with illness, perhaps the result of anxiety, might shrink back into the obscurity from which he had emerged for a moment;[134] but the thought which they had expressed had become the common property of the House.
During the following days the committees were busily at <80>work accumulating fresh evidence against Buckingham. Charles Supply again demanded.impatiently urged the immediate consideration of supply, and after the House had once more listened to an explanation of the necessities of the Exchequer from Sir John Coke,[135] the 27th was fixed as the day for taking the subject into consideration. On the 29th, Buckingham, if he wished, might make answer to the charges collecting against him.
On the 27th, after a persuasive speech from Rudyerd, Eliot rose. Commencing with a graceful allusion to the day, as the March 27.Eliot’s speech.first anniversary of the King’s accession, he threw aside the argument which had been so often the refuge of timid reasoners in the last Parliament, that the subject was unable to give. The only question, he justly argued, was whether the subject was willing to give. Yet how could Foreign miscarriages.men be willing when one miscarriage had followed another, and when these disastrous enterprises ‘were undertaken, if not planned and made, by that great lord the Duke of Buckingham.’
Nor were affairs at home much better. “What oppressions have been practised,” the orator continued, “are too visible; Domestic oppressions.not only oppressions of the subject, but oppressions on the King. His treasures are exhausted, his revenues are consumed, as well as the treasures and abilities of the subject; and though many hands are exercised, and divers have their gleanings, the harvest and great gathering comes to one. For he it is that must protect the rest. His countenance draws all others to him as his tributaries; and by that they are enforced not only to pillage for themselves but for him, and to the full proportion of his avarice and ambition. This makes the abuse and injury the greater. This cannot but dishearten, this cannot but discourage, all men well affected, all men well disposed to the advancement and happiness of the King. Nor, without some reformation in these things, do I know what wills or what abilities men can have to give a new supply.”
Yet it was not Eliot’s intention to dissuade the House from <81>granting supply. He had two precedents to quote. In the reign of Henry III., Precedents quoted.Hubert de Burgh, ‘a favourite never to be paralleled but now having been the only minion both to the King then living and to his father which was dead,’ had been removed from office, and supply, refused before, was at once granted. “The second precedent,” he then said, “was in 10th of Richard II.; and herein I shall desire you to observe the extraordinary likeness of some particulars. First, for the placing and displacing of great officers. Then, within the space of two years, the treasurer was changed twice, the chancellor thrice, and so of others; so that great officers could hardly sit to be warmed in their places. Now you can ask yourselves how it is at present, and how many shifts, changes, and re-changes this kingdom can instance in like time to parallel with that. Secondly, as to moneys. I find that then there had been moneys previously granted and not accounted for; and you know that so it is yet with us. Thirdly, there were new aids required and urged by means of a declaration of the King’s occasions and estate; and this likewise, as we know, agrees with our condition. Yet then, because of these and other exceptions made against De la Pole, the Earl of Suffolk, the minion of that time, of whom it was said that he misadvised the King, misemployed his treasures, and introverted his revenues, the supply demanded was refused, until, upon the petition of the Commons, he was removed both from his offices and the Court.”
Then, after a bitter reference to the Crown ‘jewels, the pride and glory of this kingdom,’ now offered in vain to the merchants of Amsterdam, Eliot concluded by proposing that the resolution for the three subsidies and three fifteenths asked for by Rudyerd should be passed, but that it should not be converted into a Bill till grievances had been redressed. The position thus pointed out was at once taken up by the House.[136]
It was the misfortune of the situation that unless Charles had been other than he was, he could not accept the hand thus <82>offered to him. Believing, and it may safely be added being Charles not to be won.justified in believing, that Buckingham’s character was not that compound of avarice and self-seeking which had been described by Eliot, his apprehension was too dull to realise the full meaning of the late disasters, or to understand the state of mind into which they would throw a patriotic Englishman anxious to fathom the causes of his country’s misfortunes. Evils, if they existed at all, if they were not the result of mere ill-luck or of the parsimony of former Parliaments, were to be brought before his notice in a respectful and decorous fashion. It never occurred to him that, if Buckingham was well-intentioned, he might be vain, rash, and incapable, still less, that his own ability for government was no greater than that of his minister.
To such a man it would seem a plain duty to hold his own. He knew enough of history to be aware that the fall of Hubert de Burgh had been followed by the insurrection of Simon de Montfort, and the fall of Michael de la Pole by the revolution which placed Henry IV. on the throne. He would take care to guard in another fashion the crown which he had received from his father. That the crown itself was attacked he had no doubt whatever. The leaders of the Commons, he fancied, were taking advantage of the necessities of the position into which their advice had brought him, to raise themselves above the throne.
With such thoughts in his mind, Charles summoned the Commons into his presence on the 29th, the day on which Buckingham had been March 29.Coventry’s declaration.invited to give an account of his proceedings to the House. As soon as they appeared they were addressed by Coventry. The King, said the Lord Keeper, would have them to understand the difference between liberty of counsel and liberty of control. Not only had they refrained from censuring Coke and Turner, but they had followed in the steps of the latter by founding their charges upon common fame. In their attack upon Buckingham they had assailed the honour of the King and of his father, and they had refused to trust him with the reformation of abuses. It was therefore his Majesty’s express command that they should <83>desist from this unparliamentary inquisition, and commit their real grievances to his wisdom and justice. Further, he was to say that the supply proposed was insufficient, and that the mode in which it had been offered was dishonouring to his Majesty. If they could not give a better answer in three days, he could not promise that the session would continue longer.
Charles had a few words of his own to add. “Now, that you have all things according to your wishes,” he said, after Additions by the King.reminding his hearers that he had entered upon the war in compliance with their advice, “and that I am so far engaged that you think there is no retreat, now you begin to set the dice, and make your own game; but I pray you to be not deceived; it is not a Parliamentary way, nor it is not a way to deal with a king. Mr. Coke told you it was better to be eaten up by a foreign enemy than to be destroyed at home. Indeed, I think it more honour for a king to be invaded and almost destroyed by a foreign enemy, than to be despised by his own subjects. Remember, that Parliaments are altogether in my power for their calling, sitting, and dissolution; therefore, as I find the fruits of them good or evil, they are to continue, or not to be.[137]
Not so! Precedent might be met by precedent, and the history of the Constitution might be ransacked for evidence that England had, Weakness of his position.at one time or another, been either almost a republic or almost an absolute monarchy; but the right of control, as opposed to the mere right of giving counsel, was not to be won or defended by such arguments as these. In the long run it would lie with those by whom it was best deserved.
The Commons, moved as they were by grave necessity, stood firm. At Eliot’s advice they resolved to draw up a remonstrance March 30.Eliot proposes a remonstrance.to explain their position to the King.[138] Before the resolution could take effect they were summoned to a conference to hear Buckingham explain away Charles’s threat of immediate dissolution, and <84>announce that a committee was to be selected by the King from both Houses to consider the state of the finances.
Buckingham did not stop here. With magnificent assurance he proceeded to draw a picture of his own actions in startling contrast with Buckingham vindicates himself.that which had been presented by Eliot three days before. He told the House of the eagerness with which, after his return from Spain, he had thrown himself into the business of the State, and of his unceasing efforts to carry out the warlike policy of Parliament, frustrated, alas! by accident, or by the faults of others. Then, after an assurance from Conway that nothing of all this had been done without counsel, Tells the truth about the ships.he again rose to tell the true story of the ships which had been used against Rochelle, revealing the secret that all the solemn orders and injunctions into which the Commons had been so laboriously inquiring were a mere farce. He had, he said, ‘proceeded with art,’ and had done his best to avert the surrender of the ships. If he had not succeeded in this, everything had turned out for the best for the Huguenots, ‘for the King of France, thereby breaking his word, gave just occasion for my master to intercede a peace for them, which is obtained, and our ships are coming home.’
After a few words from Pembroke, who added that at the time when the ships were surrendered it was believed that they would be Effect of this revelation.used against Genoa, the meeting came to an end.[139] Of the effect which this astounding revelation produced at the time we have no information; but as the Commons never took the slightest notice of what they had heard, it may be concluded that they disbelieved the entire story. How indeed could they be assured that the man who openly boasted that he had cheated the King of France, would not, April 4.Remonstrance of the Commons.on some future occasion, take credit for having cheated them. At all events they returned to their own House, resolved to vindicate, in the remonstrance which they were preparing, their claim to call in question the highest subjects who were found grievous to <85>the commonwealth. On April 4 the Remonstrance was presented to Charles, and at his request the Houses adjourned at once for the Easter recess, to give him time to re-consider his position.
When the Commons re-assembled on the 13th they found that no further obstacle was April 13.They are allowed to go on.to be opposed to their proceedings. The King advised them to lay aside lesser things for greater;[140] but further than that he did not go.
Charles’s motives for this change of language are mere matter of conjecture; but, on the whole, it is most probable that Probable motives of Charles.Buckingham’s speech in his own defence appeared to him to be so entirely conclusive that he fancied that, unless he provoked the Commons by opposition, it could not fail in having its fitting effect.[141]
In these expectations, if he ever entertained them, Charles was speedily to be undeceived. On the 17th a sub-committee April 17.Proceedings in the House.met to discover the cause of causes, or, in other words, to fix the grievances upon Buckingham, and on the 18th a Committee of the whole House was ordered to consider the evils, causes, and remedies.
In order that this Committee might be freed from the fear of an impending war with France, Carleton, who had just returned from his embassy, was April 18.Carleton’s narrative.directed to give an account of the position of affairs. Besides telling how the ‘Vanguard’ and its comrades would soon be back, and how the order for the release of the English ships and goods had been granted, he had to tell of the hope of co-operation with France upon the Continent. All now, he said, rested on his Majesty’s answer to the French King’s proposals, ‘and the King resteth upon the Parliament.’
Either, however, the Commons disbelieved Carleton’s story, <86>or they considered it irrelevant to the point at issue. They Persistence of the Commons.went steadily on with the charges against the Duke, and they replied to a fresh message demanding an increase of the subsidies voted, unless they wished his Majesty to ‘be driven to change his counsels,’ by a resolution that April 20.they would go on with the matter in hand forenoon and afternoon, so as to be able to take the King’s wish into consideration on the 25th.
By this time the charges against Buckingham were in so forward a state that it was necessary to clear the way for them by Proceeding on common fame.considering the objections which had been raised to the ground upon which they were based. For many weeks the whole band of courtiers had been sneering at those who were attacking a minister upon mere common fame, as if the House had based its action upon rumour alone. One morning’s debate sufficed to blow the fiction to the winds. Eliot and Pym were not the men to ask the House of Lords to accept the gossip of Paul’s Walk as evidence against the meanest Englishman alive. The difficulty, such as it was, was of a purely technical character. In the cases of Bacon and Middlesex inquiry had been preceded by the presentation of a petition from some person who felt himself aggrieved. The question was whether the House could institute an inquiry when no private person had complained. In either case the real justification of the action taken would be the inquiry conducted by the House, and, in deciding that a petition was unnecessary, the Commons undoubtedly decided in accordance with the dictates of common sense. “Else,” as Selden argued, “no great man shall, for fear of danger, be accused by any particular man.” If Buckingham could not be called in question till some one out of the House was hardy enough to appear against him, his opponents within the House might have waited long enough.[142]
When this point had once been settled, May 1.The charges voted.the charges were speedily voted, the one relating to the ‘St. Peter’ of Havre de Grace being replaced amongst them. In order to point out distinctly that no attack was intended <87>upon the King, the Commons passed a resolution for a Another subsidy voted.fourth subsidy, to be included in the Bill which was to be brought in as soon as grievances had been redressed.
Whatever Buckingham’s faults may have been, history cannot, like the House of Commons, turn away its eyes from the faults of Charles. Charles and the French alliance.During these weeks in which he had been struggling to defend his favourite, the French alliance, which he had risked so much to bring to pass, had been melting away before his eyes.
There can be very little doubt that in the beginning of March, Louis as well as Richelieu, meant honestly to co-operate with March 4.The French Government favourable to the English alliance.England on the Continent. The terms of the peace were accepted at Rochelle, and orders were sent to the King’s commanders to withdraw their troops from before the walls;[143] but there was a large party at the French Court which viewed with grave displeasure a peace with the Huguenots and a war with Spain, and this party had a useful instrument in Du Fargis, the French ambassador at Madrid.
Without instructions from his own Government, Du Fargis drew up, in concert with Olivares, the draft of a treaty putting Treaty with Spain prepared by Du Fargis.an end to the disputes existing between the two monarchies. When it reached Paris the question whether this treaty should be adopted or not formed the battle-field between Richelieu on the one side and the friends of the clergy on the other.
French historians have much to tell us of the strength of this clerical party, and of the hold which it gained upon the mind of the King. Question of its acceptance.All this, however, was as true in January as it was in March. If this party did not prevent Louis from signing the treaty with the Huguenots, why did it prevail upon him to sign the treaty with Spain? The answer is not very difficult to give. If Charles and England had been ready to support the French movement towards hostility with Spain, Du Fargis’s treaty would surely have been <88>rejected; but if Charles were lukewarm, or threatening to interfere on behalf of the King’s Protestant subjects, then its acceptance would become an act of imperative necessity, not only for Louis, but even for Richelieu himself. No French Government could prudently engage in war in Italy or Germany, leaving the great seaport on the Atlantic coast to the chances of a hostile occupation by the King of England.
All through March and April Charles was doing his best to throw Louis into the arms of Spain. On March 7 Holland and Carleton March 7.Charles’s treatment of the French Government.announced that, in addition to the orders despatched to restore the English ships and to withdraw the troops from Rochelle, a day was fixed for the consideration of the best way of assisting Mansfeld and the King of Denmark, and that, in spite of the clamour of the French merchants, directions had been given for removing the embargo on English property. The English ambassadors, on their part, had made some excuse for the seizure of the ‘St. Peter.’ “But,” they wrote, “for former proceedings in ill-treatment of the Frenchmen which were taken in those prizes, in embezzling and selling their goods, in suffering them to live in want and misery whilst their cause was in trial, in delay of justice after his Majesty had resolved of restitution of their goods at Hampton Court, we wish we had been better furnished with matter than we were to answer their complaints, which were made the cause of these reprisals, though not justifiable by the treaties.” Yet, in spite of his just ground of complaint, Louis, though asking that Blainville should be admitted to a formal audience, offered to recall him, and to appoint another ambassador of a more conciliatory disposition.[144]
The next day the ambassadors wrote again. They had been unable to accept the removal of the embargo, because it was March 8.Question of reciprocity in releasing goods seized.granted on condition that they would engage that the French prizes in England should be liberated within three weeks. Charles refused utterly to believe in the sincerity of the French Government. Instead of giving his ambassadors orders to show signs of friendliness, he <89>left them without instructions about the embargo or the assistance offered to Denmark, March 16.Charles’s suspicions.expressed his suspicion that the French meant to attack Rochelle, and finally recalled them. On March 28 Holland and Carleton left Paris.[145] So plain was the folly of such conduct that even the obsequious Conway, for once in his life, raised an objection to the proceedings of his master. He perceived, he informed Buckingham, ‘that, by the whole scope of the present estate of things, the French King hath no desire to fall in disorder with his Majesty, and that what had passed in Paris declared an intention rather to oppose the public enemy than to maintain the broils at home.’[146]
For a time it seemed that Conway’s advice would be taken. In the beginning of April, five ships were released in England. Blainville was April 19.Blainville received at an audience.received with all ceremony at an audience at which he was to take leave. The deputies of Rochelle, whose presence in England gave umbrage to Louis, were about to return home.[147] These bright hopes, however, were but of short continuance. There were fresh seizures of French vessels at sea, and the English goods were still detained in France till better news came from beyond the Channel.[148]
A few seizures more or less might easily have been got over, if there had been any desire to remove the cause of the evil but Charles maintained steadily that his view of the law of prize was right, and that the French view was wrong. There was no effort made to come to an understanding on this point, any more than any effort was made to come to an understanding about the German war. April 27.Doubts entertained in France of the English alliance.As the prospect of a close alliance with England faded away, the French Government became the more reluctant to fulfil the hopes which it had held out to the Huguenots when that alliance appeared to be attainable. One day the deputies from Rochelle <90>were told that Fort Louis could not be demolished, at all events not till new fortifications were erected on the Isle of Rhe. They appealed to Charles for aid, and Charles at once replied that he was ready to support them in their lawful demands.[149]
Even if there was to be no actual war with England, if there was to be nothing worse than coolness between the two Courts, it was April 30.The Peace of Barcelona.a pressing necessity for Louis to make up his quarrel with Spain. On April 30, Du Fargis’s draft was converted into the Treaty of Barcelona. Richelieu gave a consent, doubtless unwillingly enough, but it was a consent which was under the circumstances inevitable. To succeed in the policy which he had adopted, it was necessary that Charles should give to it his active support. As soon as it was beyond doubt that this support was not to be given, Richelieu, as prompt to seize the conditions of action as Charles was dull, faced round for a time, till he could pursue his own object again without the necessity of asking for the good word of so End of the French alliance.unintelligent an ally. The alliance between England and France was at an end. It was but too probable that a war between England and France would not be long in following.
[95] Breviates of the receipts of the Exchequer.
[96] D. Carleton to Conway, Jan. 22, S. P. Holland.
[97] Mr. Forster (Sir J. Eliot, i. 284) says — “The new secretary thereupon reminding the House of his Majesty’s hint as to time, and that unreasonable slowness might produce as ill effect as denial, Eliot promptly rose.” This is, I suppose, from the Port Eliot Notes, and must have referred to supply.
[98] The surprise at Eliot’s turning against Buckingham in this Parliament, noticed by the Venetian Ambassador, as quoted by Ranke, Engl. Gesch. ii. 103, is one more piece of evidence that he never uttered the speech attributed to him in the Negotium Posterorum.
[99] The Commissioners of Plymouth to the Council, Jan. 4, S. P. Dom. xviii. 7.
[100] Council Register, Jan. 5. Eliot’s letter to Conway, Dec. 31, S. P. Dom. xii. 95, is printed by Mr. Forster, Sir J. Eliot, i. 272.
[101] Eliot to his agent in London, Jan. 16, S. P. Dom. xviii. 68. Bagg to ———, March (?), Notes and Queries, 4th ser., x. 325.
[102] i.e. ‘so preferable or excellent.’
[103] Forster, Sir J. Eliot, i. 285.
[104] “for,” as printed, but surely it should be “from.”
[105] Sermon III., Laud’s Works, i. 63.
[106] Neile, Andrewes, &c. to Buckingham, Jan. 16, Harl. MSS. 7000, fol. 193.
[107] Ball’s Life of Preston in Clarke’s General Martyrology. ‘The sum and substance of the Conference.’ Cosin’s Works, ii. 17. Buckingham presided, and certainly showed great shrewdness and ability.
[108] Petition of the merchants, Feb. 8, S. P. Dom. xx. 51. Act of Council, Feb. 12, Council Register.
[109] Act of Council, Feb. 15, Council Register.
[110] List of proceedings about the ships, undated; Sentence of the Parliament of Rouen, Feb. 10⁄20, S. P. France. In the subsequent correspondence the seizure of the ‘St. Peter’ is scarcely mentioned as complained of by the French. The sale of the prize goods is the sore point.
[111] Commons’ Journals, i. 831.
[112] Elsing’s Notes, 1624–1626, 113.
[113] Lords’ Journals, iii. 517, 519.
[114] Speeches of Abbot and Pembroke, Harl. MSS. 4888, fol. 262.
[116] Blainville to Louis XIII., March 7⁄17, King’s MSS. 138, p. 1316.
[117] Holland and Carleton to Coke, Feb. 21; Holland and Carleton to Coke, Feb. 26, S. P. France.
[118] Holland and Carleton to Conway, March 3, 5, S. P. France.
[119] A true relation, &c., S. P. Dom. xxi. 6.
[120] Meddus to Meade, March 10, Court and Times, i. 86. D’Ewes to Stuteville, March, Harl. MSS. 383, fol. 26.
[121] Council Register, March 4, Arundel to Lady Maltravers, March 5, Harl. MSS. 1581, fol. 390. Blainville to Louis XIII., March 7⁄17; Blainville to the Bishop of Mende, March 7⁄17, King’s MSS. 138, pp. 1316, 1333.
[122] Holland to Buckingham, March 7⁄17, S. P. France.
[123] In the Eliot Notes the proceedings in committee are given usually without the speaker’s name; but the question of misemployment of the subsidies of 1624 is continually recurring in a way which fully bears out my view that the complaint was that they had been employed in too extensive warfare. Thus, on Feb. 27, “That the council of war may first satisfy the House what course hath been taken about the four ends, and what money hath been expended about fortifying our coasts.” On Feb. 28, a cause of the war is said to be ‘failing in the observation of the ratio [?] for the four ends in the statute 21° Ja.’ On the 6th of March some one said ‘that we gave our money for defence of our coasts.’ The questions on which the councillors of war were to be examined are, ‘Whether they met according to the Act, and how often, and when? What they advised and directed, and whether that advice were followed, or how hindered?’ Upon the 17th of March it was voted that ‘the misemploying of the money given 21 Ja., and the not employing it to the four ends, &c.’ a cause.
[124] Question and Answer, March 3 and 7; Heath’s opinion, March, S. P. Dom. xxii. 16, 17, 18, 19.
[125] Account by Totness, March 9, S. P. Dom. xxii. 51.
[126] It has hitherto been supposed that the King rested his objection simply on the impropriety of allowing the House to call his officers to account. Charles, however, acknowledged the right of the Commons to enquire into the employment of the money. “His Majesty,” so stands the form of answer finally agreed on, “hath given us leave to give an account of our warrants to the Treasurers for the disbursements of the subsidies given last in the time of his Royal Father, which is clearly warranted by the Act of Parliament. But concerning our counsels, and the following thereof, his Majesty hath directly forbidden us to give any account, as being against his service to divulge those secrets, and expressly against our oath as councillors of war.” Form of answer settled, with alterations, in Coke’s letter of March 10, S. P. Dom. xxii. 57, 60.
[127] Message, March 10, Harl. MSS. 161, fol. 49.
[129] I have abbreviated the Report in Add. MSS. 22,474, fol. 11, which looks more like words actually spoken than that given in Rushworth.
[130] Rushworth, i. 218; Add. MSS. 22,474, fol. 12. Commons’ Journals, i. 836.
[131] Rushworth, i. 216.
[132] I quote the speech from a copy in Add. MSS. 22,474, fol. 19, which again looks more like the words actually spoken than the form given by Rushworth.
[133] Mr. Forster (Sir J. Eliot, i. 500) has happily restored this exclamation to its proper place.
[134] I cannot share the opinion of those who speak disparagingly of Dr. Turner’s letter. It seems to me a manly and outspoken production. He was afterwards one of the Straffordians, so that he can hardly have been a timid man.
[135] Add. MSS. 22,474, fol. 13.
[136] Forster, Sir J. Eliot, i. 515.
[137] Parl. Hist. ii. 56.
[138] Forster, Sir J. Eliot, i. 529.
[139] Our knowledge of this conference has hitherto ended with Conway’s speech. But the whole can now be read in Add. MSS. 22,474, fol. 22 b–31 b.
[140] Weston’s message, Sloane MSS. 1710, fol. 289.
[141] “And for his own particular, the Duke gave so pertinent answers to those things which were cast upon him for faults, as I conceive the greatest part and most indifferent men went away well satisfied.” — Conway to Wake, April 14, S. P. Venice.
[142] Commons’ Journals, i. 844–848.
[143] Louis XIII. to Blainville, March 4⁄14, King’s MSS. 138, p. 1283.
[144] Holland and Carleton to Coke, March 7, S. P. France.
[145] Holland and Carleton to Conway, March 11; Coke to Holland and Carleton, March 16, 17, ibid.
[146] Conway to Buckingham, March, S. P. France.
[147] Blainville to Louis XIII., March 19⁄29, King’s MSS. 138, p. 1429.
[148] Louis to Conway, April 22, 27, S. P. France.
[149] Deputies of Rochelle in France to the Deputies in England, March 29⁄April 8, April 5⁄15; Instructions to Barrett, April 30, S. P. France.