<122>In trying the effect of those ‘new counsels’ with which the Commons had been so often threatened, Charles, it may be safely said, June 15.New counsels.had no intention of deliberately treading under foot the laws of England. Holding, as he did, that a few factious men had preferred their own ambitious schemes to the welfare of the country, he believed himself to be justified in putting forth for a time the powers of that undefined prerogative which was given him for use in special emergencies when the safety of the nation was at stake.
Charles’s first thought was to issue a proclamation for the establishing of the peace and quiet of the Church of England. On April 17 June 16.Proclamation for the peace of the Church.Pym had reported to the Lower House a long string of charges against Montague,[183] and, if time could have been found before the dissolution, his impeachment would doubtless have followed. In his proclamation Charles spoke of ‘questions and opinions’ lately broached in matters of doctrine, ‘which at first only being meant against the Papists, but afterwards by the sharp and indiscreet handling and maintaining by some of either parts, have given much offence to the sober and well-grounded readers and hearers of these late written books on both sides, which may justly be feared will raise some hopes in the professed enemies of our religion, the Romish Catholics, that by degrees the professors of our religion may be drawn into schism, and after to plain Popery.’
<123>Charles’s remedy for the evil was to reduce both parties to silence. No new opinions were to be introduced by tongue or pen; no innovation to be allowed in Church or State. As both Pym and Montague claimed to set forth the original doctrine of the Church of England, it was not unlikely they would both interpret the proclamation in their own favour. It was, however, probable that those who carried it into execution would interpret it in favour of Montague rather than of Pym.[184]
The next day a fresh proclamation was issued ordering the destruction of all copies of the remonstrance of the Commons.[185] June 17.Charles calls in the Remonstrance.Charles, however, took care not to inflict the slightest punishment upon the offending members of either House, with the exception of Bristol and Arundel; and he might fairly argue that if the two obnoxious Peers had committed faults at all, they were faults which had nothing to do with their position as members of the House of Lords. Commitment of Bristol and Arundel.Arundel was therefore relegated to confinement in his own house,[186] and Bristol was sent to the Tower, to prepare for a Star Chamber prosecution. If wrong was done, the wrong did not this time take the shape of a breach of privilege.
It was Charles’s intention that Buckingham was still to be allowed, in spite of the dissolution, to bring his defence to a triumphant issue. Buckingham’s case to be tried in the Star Chamber.Heath was accordingly directed to request the managers of the impeachment to carry on their case before the Star Chamber.[187] The plan broke down in consequence of June 19.The Parliamentary managers refuse to take part in the trial.the steady refusal of the managers to have anything to do with the matter. “We,” Eliot answered in their name, “entreat you to take knowledge that whatsoever was done by us in that business was done by the command of the House of Commons, and by their directions some proofs were delivered to the Lords with the charges, but what other proofs the House would have used, according to the liberty reserved to themselves, <124>either for the maintenance of their charge or upon their reply, June 20.Eliot’s defence of their refusal.we neither know nor can undertake to inform you.” The next day Eliot was pressed to give a better answer. “My first knowledge and intelligence,” he replied, “happening in Parliament, after discharge of mine own particular duties to the House, I remitted to that again wholly the memory and consideration thereof.” It was no private charge which he had brought. The accusation had sprung from the House of Commons, and if the King wished it to be carried further, he must provide for the resuscitation of Parliament. Charles, however, thought that he could carry on the accusation without having recourse to so formidable an instrument. The charges were formally repeated and formally answered, and the Star Chamber gave a sentence in favour of the Duke which inspired no confidence in anyone who was not already convinced of his innocence.[188]
Such sentences were easily obtainable. It was less easy to provide money for the war which Charles was resolved to carry on. The City refuses a loan.A loan of 100,000l., on the security of the Crown jewels, was demanded from the City; but the City firmly refused to lend, and it was only upon strong pressure from the King himself that the aldermen agreed personally to provide him with the fifth part of the sum named.[189]
More general measures were required if the Exchequer was to be filled. For some time rumours of a Spanish force gathering in the ports of Biscay had been rife in England, and Charles was well content to make more of these rumours than they were really worth. To meet the danger, a fleet of a hundred sail June 15.Plan for asking the freeholders to vote subsidies.was to be brought together to guard the coast, and another fleet of forty sail, with the assistance of a Dutch contingent, was to seek out the enemy in his own harbours.[190] In order to find means to support so large an expenditure, Charles’s first thought had been to <125>order the sheriffs to assemble the freeholders in the several counties, and to take their votes for a direct grant of the subsidies to which a factious Parliament had refused to agree.[191] The project was, however, abandoned in this hazardous form, and on July 7 July 7.A free gift proposed.letters were despatched to all justices of the peace, bidding them to acquaint their counties with the requirements of the State, and to exhort them that, as the House of Commons had judged four subsidies to be needed for the defence of the country, they should, in a case of such necessity, be a law to themselves, and should lovingly, freely, and voluntarily supply that which might have been levied by law if the Act had passed.[192] In order to show that, in calling on his subjects for contributions, he did not intend to spare his own courtiers, Charles gave orders that, for two years to come, no suits involving any charge on the revenue should be brought before him.[193]
If Charles was to extract money directly from his subjects’ purses, it was necessary for him to go through the form of asking their consent. July 8.Tonnage and poundage to be levied.Tonnage and poundage, according to the view taken by the Crown lawyers, could be levied without any such formality. Once more, as after the dissolution at Oxford, orders were given to continue the collection of the duties, the King declaring that he could not do without them, and that they must therefore be gathered in till Parliament had leisure to make the usual arrangements.[194]
Almost at the moment when Dismissal of justices of the peace.Charles was appealing to the people for a free gift, he purified the Commission of the Peace by the dismissal of those persons who were likely to oppose that measure. Eliot and Phelips, <126>Seymour and Alford, Mansell and Digges ceased to bear the honours of Wentworth amongst them.justice of the peace in their respective counties. On the list of those judged unworthy to serve the Crown stands the name of Sir Thomas Wentworth, once more associated with those of the leaders of the Opposition, as it had been upon the sheriffs’ list the year before.[195]
A Government which could alienate men so opposed to one another as Eliot and Wentworth must indeed have gone far astray. Eliot’s course Position of Wentworth.in the last Parliament was too decided to call for any additional explanation of the causes which made all further co-operation between him and Buckingham impossible. Wentworth stood on a very different footing with the Court. He was himself longing to enter the service of the Crown, and his frequent overtures to the governing powers have exposed him to the suspicion of those who misunderstand alike his character and his principles.
The reforming spirit was strong in Wentworth. To him England was a stage on which there was much to be done, Wentworth a reformer.many abuses to be overthrown, many interested and ignorant voices to be silenced. Since the days when Bacon had been a member of the House of Commons no man’s voice had been raised so frequently in favour of new legislation. Legislation was the only mode in which, as a member of the House of Commons, he could proceed to action. There could be little doubt, however, that he would prefer a shorter course. His desire for power.Power in his own hands would be very welcome to him, from whatever quarter it came. At first he was content to ask for local authority in his native Yorkshire. He had long ago driven his rival Sir John Savile from the post of <127>Custos Rotulorum of the West Riding. Having that dignity in his hands, he had, during the last years of James, been constantly seeking for higher employment.
A courtier in the ordinary sense of the word Wentworth never was,— never by any possibility could become. He could not learn, like the Conways and the Cokes, to bear a patron’s yoke. Whatever his heart conceived his mouth would speak. In any position occupied by him he was certain to magnify his office. If he had been in Becket’s place he would have striven for the King as Chancellor, and for the Church as Archbishop. Wentworth in earlier Parliaments.As a member of the Commons in 1621 he had rebelled against James’s attempt to refuse to the assembly of which he formed a part the right of giving counsel to its sovereign. In 1624 the tide of affairs seemed to have stranded him for ever. To his mind the King and the nation appeared to have gone mad together. What side was he to choose when all England rushed with one consent into war with Spain? All war, unless it were a war of defence, was hateful to Wentworth. He would leave the Continent to itself, to fight its own battles. England, he thought, had enough to do within her own borders. Whilst Buckingham was planning fantastic schemes, and Coke and Phelips were cheering him on to shed the blood of Englishmen like water, Wentworth could but stand aside and wait till the excitement had run its course, and till there was again time to think of legislation and reform for England.
In 1625 the tide had begun to ebb. If Wentworth had little sympathy with the leaders of the Opposition, yet his place was naturally 1625.He opposes Buckingham,by their side. Yet, if he was ready to join them in refusing or paring down the supplies which Buckingham needed for the war, he joined them as one who would gladly be spared the task of resisting the wishes of his sovereign.
Wentworth, in short, was with the Opposition, but not of it. Charles acknowledged the difference between his resistance and that of Seymour and Phelips. Though he took care to include him in the penal list of sheriffs, he spoke of him with kindness, as one who might yet be won. Wentworth justified the preference. <128>His objection was not against Charles’s system of government, but against the policy pursued by the King and his minister. Consequently, but is not thorough in his opposition.he refused to take measures to evade the restriction placed upon him. “My rule,” he said, “which I will never transgress, is never to contend with the prerogative out of Parliament, nor yet to contest with a king but when I am constrained thereunto or else make shipwreck of my peace of conscience, which I trust God will ever bless me with, and with courage too to preserve it.” He would for the present ‘fold himself up in a cold, silent forbearance, and wait expecting that happy night that the King shall cause his chronicles to be read, wherein he shall find the faithfulness of Mardocheus, the treason of his eunuchs, and then let Haman look to himself.’[196]
Even if Haman here meant Buckingham, the feeling thus expressed had nothing of the fierce earnestness which drove Eliot to track out the footsteps of misgovernment with the enduring steadfastness of a bloodhound. Nothing would induce Wentworth to make himself partaker in Haman’s misdeeds; but he had no objection to pay a stately court to Haman, or to accept from him 1626.Wentworth asks for the Presidency of the Council of the North.such favours as might be consistent with an honourable independence. In January 1626, before Parliament met, having heard a rumour that Lord Scrope was about to resign the Presidency of the Council of the North, he wrote to Conway to ask for the appointment.[197] In such a post there would be nothing to implicate him in the foreign policy which he disliked. The rumour proved false, and Wentworth gained nothing by his request. His overtures to Buckingham.Later in the spring, however, he drew still more closely to the Court. Whilst the Commons were bringing their charges against Buckingham, he came up to London and was introduced by his friend Weston to the Duke. Buckingham assured him of his desire ‘to contract a friendship with him.’[198]
Whether Wentworth meant anything more by these <129>overtures than that he was ready to conform to the custom of the time in paying his court to Buckingham, it is impossible to say; for, though Did he favour the impeachment?his friend Wandesford took a leading part in the Duke’s impeachment, it is by no means unlikely that he may have himself regarded the proceedings of the Commons with disfavour. That the Commons might give counsel to the King, and that, if that counsel were rejected, they might proceed to a refusal of subsidies, was a doctrine which Wentworth had advocated by word and action. But he had never shown any inclination to support the theory that the Commons had the right of meddling directly or indirectly with the King’s ministers; and though he would doubtless have been well pleased if Charles had dismissed Buckingham of his own motion, he may very well have refused his sympathy with an attempt to force him to dismiss his minister whether he wished it or not. Wentworth was just the man to doubt whether the King’s government could be carried on under such conditions.
The dissolution of Parliament in June had left Buckingham triumphant. It was speedily followed, on July 8, by a letter from July.Dismissal of Wentworth.the Lord Keeper dismissing Wentworth from the official position which he held in his own county. When it reached York, Wentworth was sitting as High Sheriff in his court. The letter was handed to him, and the proud, high-spirited man learnt that he was no longer to call himself a justice of the peace. The office of Custos Rotulorum, for which he had struggled so hard, was given to his detested rival, Sir John Savile.[199]
That Wentworth felt the insult keenly it is unnecessary to say; but he was not the man to betray weakness. In a few measured words he protested his loyalty to the King. He called Wentworth’s justification.those around him to witness that he had always loved justice. “Therefore,” he added, “shame be from henceforth to them that deserve it. For I am well assured now to enjoy within myself a lightsome quiet as <130>formerly. The world may well think I knew a way which would have kept my place. I confess indeed it had been too dear a purchase, and so I leave it.”[200]
The bystanders doubtless understood this language better than those who have, perhaps not unnaturally, seen in the attack made upon Wentworth the fountain of his opposition in the next Parliament. Explanation of his dismissal.If words mean anything, Wentworth was deprived of office because he was already in opposition. It was not a thunderbolt out of a clear sky which struck him. He distinctly intimated that he might have kept the place if he had chosen. There was something which he might have done, which he had refused to do.
What that was is entirely matter for conjecture; but it is highly probable that Wentworth had been asked to countenance the collection of the free gift, and that he had refused to do so. It is at all events certain that he could not possibly have used his official influence in its support without sacrificing his self-respect. The old doctrine of the constitution was that money needed for war must be voted by Parliament. Wentworth would feel probably more than any other man in England the importance of maintaining this doctrine intact. To spend money upon the war with Spain was, in his eyes, as bad as throwing it into the sea. Was he to become the tool of such a policy as this? Was he to go round amongst the freeholders, begging them to support the Crown in so ruinous an infatuation? Well may he have refused to demean himself so low.
It was the necessary consequence of the unhappy course which Charles was pursuing that he could not fail to alienate all who had it in their power to serve him best; yet he still believed himself July 8.Orders for the musters.to be possessed of the confidence of the people. On July 8, the very day on which the dismissal of the justices was resolved on, orders were issued for carrying on the usual musters with more than ordinary diligence. It looks as if Charles wished to appeal from a faction to the body of the nation.[201]
<131>In the hands of Charles such a policy was not likely to be successful, especially when it took the shape of a demand for money. The free gift in Middlesex.The first attempt to collect the free gift was made in Westminster Hall. Cries of “A Parliament, a Parliament!” were raised on every side, and only thirty persons, all of them known to be in the King’s service, agreed to pay. In the rest of Middlesex and in Kent similar failures were reported, and the Council was driven to gild the pill by a declaration explaining away the compulsory character of the demand. There was no intention, they said, of asking for four subsidies as if the Commons’ resolution had been in any way binding upon the nation. All that was meant had been to show what was the opinion of Parliament on the amount required for the defence of the country.[202]
In a few days answers to the demand made in this new fashion began to pour in. All through August and the first fortnight of September the tale of resistance went up with almost uniform monotony. Here and there a handful of loyalists offered a poor tribute of a few pounds. Here and there a county based its refusal on its poverty rather than on its disinclination to give; but the great majority of refusers spoke out clearly. They would give in Parliament. Out of Parliament they would not give at all. The figment of a nation passing by its representatives to fly to the support of its King was demonstrated to be without a shadow of foundation.[203]
After this, unless Charles was prepared either to make peace with Spain, or to summon another Parliament, one course only remained. Charles resolves to follow precedents.The English constitution had grown up round the belief that the King was in very truth the centre of the national life. Precedents as ancient, and to the full as continuous, as the protests against tyranny and misgovernment which had been quoted in the House of <132>Commons, told how the Kings of England had been accustomed to call, not in vain, upon their subjects, to put no strict construction upon their local or individual rights in times of national danger. In reality nothing could be more perilous than to gather up these precedents as a rule of government at a time when the spirit which had animated them was being violated at every turn. Yet this peril, apparently without the least suspicion that there was any peril at all, Charles was determined to confront.
One of these precedents had already been followed before the appeal for the free gift had been made. The fleet which had taken Cadiz in Elizabeth’s reign had been partly supplied with ships Ships to be found by the maritime counties.by a levy on the maritime counties. The same course had been adopted now, and the shires along the coast had been ordered to join the port towns in setting out a fleet of fifty-six ships.[204] Few of the shires were hardy enough to dispute the precedent, and most of them contented themselves with an effort to shift as much as possible of the burden upon their neighbours. The Dorsetshire magistrates, who took higher ground, were sharply reprimanded by the Council. “State occasions,” they were told, “and the defence of the kingdom in times of extraordinary danger, do not July 24.Resistance of the City of London.guide themselves by ordinary precedents.” The City of London, having ventured to argue that the twenty ships at which it was assessed were more than had been required in former times, was still more soundly rated. “Whereas,” Aug. 11.answered the Council, “they mention precedents, they may know that the precedents of former times were obedience and not direction, and that there are also precedents of punishment of those who disobey his Majesty’s commandments signified by the Board in the case of the preservation of the State, which they hope there shall be no occasion to let them more particularly understand.”
On the 15th the City gave way.[205] It would, however, be some <133>time before the ships thus obtained would be ready for sea. In the meanwhile Aug. 15.The City gives way.a fleet of thirty-nine ships had been gathering at Portsmouth, under the command of Lord Willoughby. It had been Aug. 12.Willoughby’s fleet at Portsmouth.given out that it would sail on August 12,[206] to fall upon the transports in the Biscay harbours, and if possible to intercept the Mexico fleet, and to succeed where Cecil had failed the year before. But August 12 came, and nothing was ready. Provisions for the voyage were not forthcoming, and the men, left without the necessaries of life, were deserting as fast as they could.[207] By Buckingham’s own confession the King was incurring a debt of 4,000l. a month because he could not lay his hand upon 14,000l. to discharge some utterly useless mariners by paying off their arrears.[208]
New efforts were therefore made to get money. On August 18 the Council directed the sale of 50,000 oz. of the King’s plate. Aug. 18.Sale of plate.On the 26th 20,000 oz. more were disposed of in the same way.[209] Even Buckingham, sanguine as he was, felt in some measure the seriousness of his position. Having broken hopelessly with the leaders of the Commons, he would do his best to attach the nobility to his cause. A marriage was contrived between his little daughter and another child, the son of Pembroke’s brother, Montgomery. Pembroke himself, incurring, if report spoke truly, no slight obloquy by his compliance with Buckingham’s wishes,[210] was raised to the dignity of Lord Steward, whilst Montgomery succeeded him as Chamberlain. The Earls of Dorset, Salisbury, and Bridgewater, who had supported Buckingham in the last session, were admitted to the Privy Council. If Arundel was still under a cloud, no attempt was made to press hardly upon him, and the advancement of Wallingford, the brother-in-law of the new Earl of Suffolk, to the Earldom of Banbury, may probably be regarded as an overture to the Howards.
<134>Buckingham and his master had need of more support than could be found in the House of Lords. Nothing had been done to improve the King’s relations with France. A commission had, indeed, been issued, to inquire into the law of prize,[211] but as the French were not convinced that Charles had any intention of withdrawing his extreme pretensions, a fresh collision might arise at any moment. This was the time chosen by Charles to effect a domestic revolution, perhaps justifiable in itself, but certain to cause bitter mortification to his wife and to exasperate her brother more than ever.
For months Charles had felt that, as long as the Queen’s French attendants were in England, he could hardly call his wife his own. June.Charles and the Queen’s French attendants.Her ladies taught her to look upon English men and women with distrust. Her priests taught her to display ostentatiously more than the ordinary humiliations which found favour with her Church. Her complaints of her husband’s broken promises met with a warm response in their sympathetic bosoms. When she was in private with her chosen companions she was merry enough, dancing and laughing as if no shadow of misfortune had ever crossed her path. She reserved her ill-humour for her husband, and in his presence bore herself as a martyr. The winter before he had thought of sending the whole company back to France; but the marriage contract was against him, and Quarrel about the jointure.he desisted for a time. Then came fresh disputes and recriminations. The Queen wished to name some amongst her French attendants to take charge of her jointure. Charles refused his permission. One night, after the pair were in bed, there were high words between them. “Take your lands to yourself,” said the offended wife. “If I have no power to put whom I will into those places, I will have neither lands nor houses of you. Give me what you think fit by way of pension.” Charles fell back upon his dignity. “Remember,” he said, “to whom you speak. You ought not to use me so.” In reply, she broke out into mere fretfulness. She was miserable, she said. She had no power to place servants, <135>and businesses succeeded the worse for her recommendation. She was not of that base quality to be used so ill. She ran on for some time, refusing to listen to her husband’s explanation. “Then,” wrote Charles afterwards, in giving an account of the scene, “I made her both hear me, and end that discourse.”[212]
Charles’s displeasure is not likely to have been softened by any real insight into his wife’s difficulties, or by sympathy with the poor child’s natural clinging to those who alone shared her feelings and her prejudices in a strange land. It was not long before a fresh cause of offence arose. On June 26[213] the Queen obtained leave to spend some time in retirement, in order to give herself to a special season of devotion. After a long day passed in attendance upon the services of her Church at the chapel at St. James’s, she strolled out with her attendants to breathe the fresh evening air in St. James’s Park. By-and-by she found her way into Hyde Park, and by accident or design The Queen at Tyburn.directed her steps towards Tyburn. In her position it was but natural that she should bethink herself of those who had suffered there as martyrs for that faith which she <136>had come to England to support. What wonder if her heart beat more quickly, and if some prayer for strength to bear her weary lot rose to her lips?
A week or two probably passed away before the tale reached Charles, exaggerated in its passage through the mouths of men. The story told to Charles.There was no compassion in him for the disappointment to which he had given rise in his young wife’s heart, by the promises which had been made only to be broken — a disappointment which was nonetheless real because she could frolic amongst her companions with all the gaiety of her nation and her age. The Queen of England, he was told, had been conducted on a pilgrimage to offer prayer to dead traitors who had suffered the just reward of their crimes. The cup of his displeasure was now full. Whatever the contract might say, those who had brought her to this should no longer remain in England.
Something, however, must be done to diminish the indignation with which the news would be received in France. An excuse was found for sending Carleton on a special embassy to Louis, in order that he might be at hand to explain everything away. As soon as it was known that Carleton was safely on the other side of the Channel, Charles proceeded to carry out his intentions.
On July 31 the King and Queen dined together at Whitehall. After dinner he conducted her into his private apartments, July 31.The dismissal of the French.locked the door upon her attendants, and told her that her servants must go. In the meanwhile Conway was informing the members of her household that the King expected them to remove to Somerset House, where they would learn his pleasure. The Bishop of Mende raised some objections, and the women ‘howled and lamented as if they had been going to execution.’ The yeomen of the guard interfered, and cleared the apartments.
Charles had a less easy task. As soon as the young Queen perceived what was being done, she flew to the window and The Queen’s anger.dashed to pieces the glass, that her voice might once more be heard by those who were bidding her adieu for the last time. Charles, it is said, dragged her back <137>into the room with her hands bleeding from the energy with which she clung to the bars. The next day Conway visited Somerset House and told the angry crowd that they must leave the country, with two or three exceptions which had been made at the Queen’s entreaty. Presents to the amount of 22,000l. were offered them, and they were told that if anything was owing to them it should be paid out of the remainder of the Queen’s portion, which had been detained in France in consequence of the misunderstanding between the Courts.[214]
They refused to obey, and clung to England as their right. For some days they remained at Somerset House, in spite of all orders to the contrary. Aug. 7.The French finally expelled.Charles lost his patience. “I command you,” he wrote to Buckingham, “to send all the French away to-morrow out of town; if you can, by fair means — but stick not long in disputing — otherwise force them away, driving them away like so many wild beasts until ye have shipped them, and so the Devil go with them.”
The King’s pleasure was executed. At first the French refused to move till they were ordered by their own King to do so. Aug. 8.The next morning the yeomen of the guard were marched down to Somerset House, and there was no more resistance. With the exception of a few personal attendants specially named, all the foreigners were conducted to Dover, and were there embarked for France as soon as the wind served.[215]
What would Louis say to this high-handed transaction? Carleton told his story in France as well as he could. The King Aug. 11.Resentment of Louis.answered him sharply. His sister, he said, had been treated cruelly. Charles had plainly broken his promise. An ambassador of his own, Marshal Bassompierre, should be sent to investigate the affair. When <138>he had received his report he would say what he would do. From this resolution Carleton was never able to move him, and was finally recalled to England, having effected nothing.[216]
It was a badly chosen moment to offend the King of France. The want of money was more crying every day. On August 17 some Distress for money.two hundred soldiers and sailors, hopeless of obtaining their pay at Portsmouth, flocked up to London, stopped the Duke’s coach, and presented their complaint. Buckingham promised to satisfy them later in the day, slipped home by water, and placed himself beyond their reach.[217]
All attempts, too, to fill the Exchequer were breaking down. The free gift had come to nothing. A resolution to issue Privy seals Proposal to debase the coin.in the old way was not persisted in.[218] For a time much was hoped from the issue of debased coin, and the Mint had been busy for some weeks in preparing the light pieces. The City merchants, however, remonstrated strongly, and Sir Robert Cotton was heard on their behalf before the Council. The King himself was present, and in spite, it is said, of the opposition of Buckingham, refused to agree to the iniquitous proposal. The new pieces were declared by proclamation not to be current coin of the realm.[219]
In the face of all these increasing difficulties, there were men at Court who held high language still. Dorset, who had completely High language at Court.thrown in his lot with the high prerogative doctrines which now found favour with Charles, talked of the impossibility of a rebellion in a country where there were no fortresses, and asserted that, as it was the duty of the people to maintain the war, the King would only have to take irregularly what he had failed to obtain from Parliament.[220]
In the midst of these perplexities, bad news arrived from Germany. To all outward appearance the position of the King <139>of Denmark at the opening of the campaign of 1626 was extremely strong. The campaign in Germany.He had one army under his own command in Lower Saxony. Another army under Mansfeld was on the east bank of the Elbe. Other troops were pushing forward in Westphalia. The peasants had risen in Austria. Bethlen Gabor had engaged to fall upon the Emperor’s hereditary dominions from the east. It was true that Christian had now to do with another enemy in addition to Tilly. Wallenstein had brought against him that strange army, self-supporting and self-governed, which, in the name of the Emperor, was so soon to become a power in the Empire almost independent of the Emperor himself. Yet it seemed not unlikely, judging from numbers alone, that Christian and his allies would be strong enough to make head against Tilly and Wallenstein combined. From the beginning, however, one circumstance was against him. His finances were inadequate to meet the strain. He had calculated that Charles would and could keep his word, and that 30,000l. a month would flow into his military chest from the English exchequer. Then had come the refusal of subsidies by Parliament. The payments, scarcely begun in May 1625, stopped altogether. Christian had levied soldiers on the faith of the English alliance, and his soldiers were clamouring for their pay.[221] To stand on the defensive, without money, was impossible, and there was no unity of command in the united armies. Mansfeld’s defeat.In May Mansfeld made a dash southwards, and was defeated by Wallenstein at the Bridge of Dessau. Before the summer ended he was hurrying through Silesia with Wallenstein hard upon his heels, hoping to combine with Bethlen Gabor for a joint attack upon Austria and Bohemia.
Then came the turn of Christian of Denmark. To him a defensive war was impossible without Charles’s money. An attempt to Aug. 17.Christian’s defeat at Lutter.slip past Tilly and to make his way towards Bethlen Gabor in Bohemia proved vain. Tilly, reinforced by some of Wallenstein’s regiments, started in pursuit and overtook him at Lutter. After a sanguinary <140>battle the Danish King was completely defeated, and North Germany lay open to the Imperialists.
The news of the disaster, for which the English Government was so largely responsible, reached Charles on September 12.[222] Now that Sept. 12.Charles receives the news.it was too late, he talked of raising 10,000 men for his uncle’s service, and ordered the sale of a large quantity of plate. He came at once to London, and sat for four hours in the Council, a feat which he had seldom performed before. When the Council was over he sent for the Danish Ambassador, and assured him that he would stake his crown and his life in his master’s defence. With the tears almost standing in his eyes, he reminded the Dane that he was in distress for his own personal needs.
The matter was discussed anxiously in the Council. The most feasible project seemed to be The four regiments in the Netherlands to go to Denmark.to send on the four volunteer regiments in the Netherlands, whose term of service would expire in November. There was, however, a difficulty in the way. The men, like most others in Charles’s service, had not been paid for some months, and how was money to be found?[223]
The first instinct of the Government was to apply to the City for a loan; but the Lord Mayor and Aldermen had not forgotten the sharp message about the ships, and closed their purses tightly.
<141>Such was the position of affairs when, on September 27, Bassompierre Sept. 27.Bassompierre’s arrival.arrived in London. Everything had been done by Charles, since the expulsion of the French, to soothe the injured feelings of the Queen. A new household of noble English ladies, amongst whom Buckingham’s wife and mother and sister were of course numbered, was Treatment of the Queen.formed to minister to her dignity. But the deprivation which she suffered from the absence of the old familiar faces, and the silence of the old familiar accents of her mother-tongue, weighed heavily upon her spirits, and, in spite of the sedulous attentions of her husband, a sullen melancholy pervaded her features.[224]
The King’s desire to please his wife did not extend to a desire to please her countrymen. To the Venetian ambassador he The King’s feeling about France.complained openly of the treachery and insincerity of the French. Buckingham was still more bitter. He gave orders that Bassompierre should be treated on his arrival with studied rudeness. He summoned Soubise to London, and talked with him for hours about the state of France.[225]
If any man was capable of smoothing away the difficulties in his course it was Bassompierre. He knew the world well, and he had that power of seizing upon the strong point of his opponent’s case which goes far to the making of a successful diplomatist. To the young Queen he gave the best possible advice; told her to make the best of her situation, and warned her against the folly of setting herself against the current ideas of the country in which she lived and of the man to whom she was married. In October.Bassompierre’s negotiation on the household.the question of the household he was at same time firm and conciliatory. He acknowledged that Charles had a genuine grievance, that the Queen would never be a real wife to him as long as she was taught by a circle of foreigners to regard herself as permanently a foreigner; whilst at the same time he spoke boldly of the breach of the contract which had been <142>committed. In the end he gained the confidence both of the King and of Buckingham, and with the assent of the King of France a new arrangement was agreed to, by which a certain number of French persons would be admitted to attend upon the Queen, whilst a great part of the household was to be formed of natives of England.
The maritime questions at issue were discussed by Bassompierre in the same spirit. He was ready to admit the reasonableness of the English On the commercial disputes.in objecting to a large trade being carried on between Spain and Flanders under the French flag; but he wished to see some arrangement come to by which the perpetual interference of the English cruisers could be obviated. But for events which occurred to exasperate both nations, a commercial treaty laying down the terms on which neutrals should be liable to arrest might perhaps have been the result of Bassompierre’s mission.[226]
Unfortunately Charles was not disposed to withdraw any one of his pretensions whilst the negotiations were pending. Willoughby’s fleet.In October Lord Willoughby’s fleet contrived at last to put to sea; but, having met with a severe storm in the Bay of Biscay, against which the ill-found vessels were incompetent to struggle, was driven back to the English ports without accomplishing anything. Sept. 18.Three French ships taken by Denbigh.Before it sailed, a squadron under Lord Denbigh had captured three Rouen vessels of immense value, on the suspicion that they were laden with Spanish property.[227] Public opinion in France was greatly excited, and a fresh Oct. 10.decree was issued by the Parliament of Rouen for the sequestration of English goods.[228] Yet the English Court did not contemplate the probability of a breach. In the beginning of November November.Goring to go to France.it was announced that Sir George Goring would go to France to clear up all difficulties. Buckingham was by this time once more in that frame of mind in which all things seemed <143>easy, all the more because he had reason to believe that the financial difficulties which had plagued him so long were at last at an end.
In the course of September some clever man, not improbably Sir Allen Apsley,[229] suggested that though the King had found The forced loan.difficulties in raising a so-called free gift, there might be less difficulty in the way of raising a forced loan. The Statute of Benevolences, it may have been urged, stood clearly in the way of any attempt to make the gift compulsory; but forced loans under the name of Privy seals were perfectly familiar to all Englishmen, and it would only be necessary to extend the system a little further. It is only due to Charles that he should be heard in defence of the proposal. Sept. 21.The King’s circular.In a letter which Abbot was required to circulate in all the dioceses of England, Charles called upon the Church to aid the necessities of the State. After dwelling at length upon the evil consequences of the defeat of Lutter, the King went over the old story how he had been led into war by the counsel of Parliament. “This,” he wrote, “upon their persuasions and promises of all assistance and supply we readily undertook and effected, and cannot now be left in that business but with the sin and shame of all men:— sin, because aid and supply for the defence of the kingdom and the like affairs of State, especially such as are advised by Parliamentary counsel, are due to the King from his people by all law both of God and men; and shame if they forsake the King while he pursues their own counsel just and honourable, and which could not, under God, but have been successful if he had been followed and supplied in time, as we desired and laboured for.” The greatest evil of Church and State, Charles went on to say, was the breach of unity. The clergy were to preach unity and charity, and to exhort the people to prayers for themselves and for the King of Denmark.[230]
<144>Two days after this letter was written, and before there was time to put it in circulation, a first attempt to collect the loan was made Sept. 23.The commission for Middlesex.in the county of Middlesex. The sum to be paid was fixed at five subsidies, an amount far greater than had ever been raised upon Privy seals. The Commissioners appointed to collect the loan were directed, first to lend money themselves, and then to summon before them all men rated in the subsidy books. Anyone who refused to lend was to be required to swear whether he had been prompted in his refusal by another person, and if he would neither lend nor swear, then to be bound over to answer for his contempt before the Privy Council.[231]
Westminster was chosen as the scene of the first meeting of the Commissioners. In the parishes of St. Margaret’s and St. Martin’s, October.Proceedings in Westminster.lying as they did under the very eye of the Court, little difficulty was made. In the parishes about the Strand there was more disturbance. When the inhabitants of the country parts of Middlesex were summoned, the majority of those who came agreed to pay, and the Government was thus encouraged to apply to the other counties in the neighbourhood of London.[232]
The moment when success seemed to be dawning upon Charles was chosen by him to deal a blow at the man who had done more than anyone else to frustrate his hopes. As soon as Eliot returned home, all the swarm of Buckingham’s adherents fell upon him. Foremost of all was Sir James Bagg, the man who coveted Eliot’s office, and who never signed a letter to the Duke without subscribing himself his ‘humble slave.’ Charges and complaints were easy to bring together when they were welcome to Oct. 25.Sequestration of Eliot’s Vice-Admiralty.those who received them, and on October 25 they were brought into such shape as to induce the Privy Council to pronounce Eliot unworthy any longer to exercise the duties of his office. The Vice-Admiralty of Devon was made over to Sir James Bagg, and to a kindred spirit, Sir John Drake.
Buckingham’s heart was again full of triumph. In the <145>beginning of November it had not only been finally decided to send the four regiments in Holland to the assistance of the King of Denmark, but arrangements had been made for paying them, at least for a time.[233] In his conversations with Bassompierre, Buckingham had much to say about the revival of the Nov. 5.The entertainment at York House.French alliance, and on November 5 he adroitly took the opportunity of a magnificent entertainment given by himself to the ambassador at York House to signify the hopes which he had founded on the renewal of amity with France. In the masque which the spectators were called upon to admire, Mary de Medicis was represented as enthroned in the midst of the celestial deities upon the sea which separated England and France, welcoming the Elector and Electress Palatine, as well as her three daughters, with their husbands the Kings of England and Spain and the Prince of Piedmont.[234] It was the old dream of 1623, with the substitution of Henrietta Maria for the Infanta. In his conversations with Bassompierre Buckingham talked freely of the difficulties caused by want of money, and something was said of an arrangement to be brought about in Germany by French influence.[235]
So smooth had the waters been running at home since Bassompierre’s arrival that everything seemed possible. The Queen — The Queen and Buckingham.with occasional outbursts of petulance — was at last on good terms with her husband, and was even carrying on friendly intercourse with the English ladies of her Court, and through them with Buckingham himself. But it was not easy to make amends for the want of foresight which had postponed so long the settlement of the Nov. 9.The merchants trading with France protest against the liberation of the prizes.maritime quarrel between the two countries. An angry crowd interested in the French trade had lately gathered round Bassompierre’s door, and had loaded the ambassador with insults. On November 9 a formal petition was presented to the Council by the merchants, asking for the further stay of the French prizes <146>till the goods sequestered at Rouen had been liberated.[236] Buckingham’s spirits only rose with the occasion. The knot was worthy of his own personal intervention. Bassompierre should go without the prizes. He should carry with him a few priests set free from prison, but the further concessions promised to the Catholics should for the present be postponed. Buckingham proposes to go to France.The extraordinary ambassador about to start for Paris should go to the heart of the difficulty, and propose a reasonable settlement of the law of prize, to be followed by a renewed understanding on the general affairs of Europe. Goring was no longer considered fit for a negotiation of such extended dimensions. There was but one man in England believed by Buckingham to be equal to the task, and that man was himself.[237]
Events were hurrying on too rapidly for Buckingham’s control. The example of the Rouen Parliament proved infectious. Fresh seizures at Rochelle.Four English vessels were stopped off Rochelle. Again the merchants flocked round the Council, begging for letters of marque against the French, and the Council was beginning to share in their excitement. Though, for the present, the King refused to issue letters of marque, orders were drawn up for a further seizure of French property in England. Fresh news might at any time provoke an act which would involve the two countries in war.[238]
Such news was already on its way.[239] The Duke of Epernon, Governor of Guienne, was one of the many amongst the French aristocracy who were opposed to Richelieu and his policy. If his motive was to frustrate that policy and to create a breach between France and England he could hardly have acted more <147>cleverly than he did. As a fleet of two hundred English and Scottish vessels, The wine fleet seized at Bordeaux.laden with the year’s supply of wine, was sailing from Bordeaux, he ordered the seizure of the whole. When the news reached England, it was regarded as a peculiar aggravation of the offence that he had waited till a new duty of four crowns a tun had been paid, and had thus secured both the money and the wine. This time not the merchants only, but all who drank wine were up in arms. It was known that the last year’s supply would soon be exhausted, and its price consequently went up rapidly.[240]
Even before these last tidings from Bordeaux reached Buckingham, he had discovered that others had not as much confidence Buckingham’s projected embassy.as himself in his diplomatic powers. Bassompierre hinted to him pretty plainly that his presence would not be acceptable in France — advice which may to some extent have been founded on the recollection of Buckingham’s insolent behaviour to the Queen, but which was fully justified by dislike of the impetuous character of the Duke. Nor was resistance wanting from Buckingham’s own family. His wife, his mother, and his sister threw themselves on their knees, imploring him to desist from so hazardous an enterprise.[241] When the news arrived from Bordeaux the enterprise became more hazardous still. The Council was in favour of instant retaliation. Buckingham himself began to partake of the general exasperation; but he was all the more convinced that his own personal intervention would clear away the difficulty. Dec. 4.Buckingham offers to go at once.Summoning back Bassompierre, who had already reached Dover on his return home, he went down to Canterbury to meet him, and offered to cross the Straits at once in his company, to set matters right. Bassompierre had some difficulty in persuading him to wait till an answer could be received from the French Court.[242]
<148>It was hardly likely that this overture would be favourably received. On December 3, Dec. 3.French ships and goods to be seized.before Buckingham started for Canterbury, an Order in Council was issued for the seizure of all French ships and goods in English waters.[243]
Yet even then Buckingham still talked of going to Paris, as if nothing had happened. He said that till he heard that the King of France had himself refused to see him, he would not believe that his overtures had been rejected. He may well have hesitated to acknowledge that war was inevitable. Every day he was receiving signs of the unpopularity of which he was the object. At Court it was believed that his only aim was to seek an opportunity of making love once more to the Queen of France; whilst reasonable men explained his desire to go to France by his eagerness to be out of England during the session of Parliament which was now naturally enough presumed to be inevitable. When he set out to meet Bassompierre at Canterbury, the mob followed him with curses, shouting after him, “Begone for ever!”[244]
Hard pressed as he was, Charles had not the slightest intention of meeting a Parliament. Yet the prospects of the loan were October.Prospects of the loan.far less favourable in December than they had been at the beginning of November. At first, when the money had been demanded only from the five counties nearest London, it seemed as if a little firmness would bear down all opposition. In Essex, Sir Francis Barrington and Sir William Masham were committed to prison for a few days for refusing to sit upon the commission, and thirteen poorer men were sent down to Portsmouth to serve on board the fleet, as a punishment for their refusal to pay, though they were November.allowed to go home again after a short detention. After this, little further resistance was made, and the Government, congratulating itself that its difficulties were at an <149>end, prepared to despatch to more distant shires the Privy Councillors who were to take part in the commissions in order that they might overawe the counties by their presence.
Suddenly opposition arose from an unexpected quarter. The judges had hitherto borne their share of Benevolences and Privy seals Resistance of the judges.without murmuring; but though they still expressed their readiness to pay their quota towards the new loan, they now unanimously refused to acknowledge its legality by putting their hands to paper to express their consent to the demand. Charles, Nov. 10.Dismissal of the Chief Justice.as soon as he heard the objection, hastily sent for the Chief Justice, Sir Randal Crew, and, finding that he would not give way, dismissed him on the spot from his office, as an example to the rest.[245]
If Charles expected to intimidate the other judges he was quickly undeceived. One and all they refused to give the required signatures unless they were allowed to add that they signed simply to please his Majesty, without any intention of giving their authority to the loan.[246]
A successor was easily found for Crew in Sir Nicholas Hyde, who had been the draftsman of Buckingham’s defence. The Chief Justiceship of the Common Pleas, which was vacant by Hobart’s death, was filled by Serjeant Richardson, who gave a pledge of his subserviency by marrying a kinswoman of the Duke before he was admitted to the Bench.[247] But the wound inflicted by Charles upon his own authority was not so easily healed. When at any future time he appealed to the <150>judges against what he regarded as the encroachments of the Commons, it would be remembered that they were no longer disinterested umpires, and that the highest of their number had been dismissed from office because he refused to say that to be legal which he believed to be illegal. The judges, in short, were to be appealed to as impartial arbiters when they were on the side of the Crown; but to be treated with scorn when they ventured to have opinions of their own.
The news that the judges had made objections spread like wildfire. Fifteen or sixteen of the Peers — amongst them Essex, Further refusals.Lincoln, Warwick, Clare, Bolingbroke, and Saye — refused to lend. In Hertfordshire a large number of persons who had already given their subscriptions, declared that Nov. 27.Debate in the Council.the opinion given by the judges had set them free. In the Council the fiery Dorset urged the immediate imprisonment of the recalcitrant Lords. The majority, however, was against him, and it was resolved to await the effect of the visits of the Privy Councillors to the counties.[248]
Not even the risk of a failure of the loan could induce Charles to change his policy towards France. On December 3, as has been seen, December.Fear of French maritime force.the order was issued for the seizure of French vessels. On the 8th Bassompierre left Dover with a promise to send back the message which would virtually imply peace or war.[249] In the meanwhile everything that passed in France was regarded with jealous scrutiny. The evident determination of Richelieu to make France a maritime nation, that she might no longer go a begging to foreign powers for the means of repressing rebellion amongst her own people, was treated at Whitehall as an insult to the English supremacy at sea, an encroachment upon Charles’s rights which Buckingham was bent on resisting by any means in his power.
A plan was soon formed. As in 1625, Pennington was entrusted with the secret. Of the twenty ships wrung from the <151>City with so much difficulty, some were now ready and were lying Dec. 22.The City ships.under Pennington’s command in the Downs. On the 22nd Charles wrote to Buckingham that six or eight ships purchased by the French King in the Low Countries were at Havre. As they were intended to be employed against England he was to see that they were sunk or taken.[250] Dec. 24.Buckingham orders them to attack French ships at Havre.Two days later Buckingham sent Pennington his instructions. “When you shall come where these ships ride,” he wrote, “you are, according to your best discretion to give the captains or commanders of them some occasion to fall out with you and to shoot at you; and thereupon presently, with the best force you can make, you are to repulse the assault, and so to set upon them with your own and all the ships of your fleet as that, having once begun with them, you may be sure, God willing, not to fail to take them, or, if they will not yield, to sink or fire them. If, because they are but a few ships, and, as I am informed, not well manned, they shall not dare, upon any occasion, to meddle first with you, then you are to take occasion to pick some quarrel with them upon some suspicion of their intent to lie there to colour enemy’s goods or countenance his ships, and so to assure or take them, or otherwise to sink them and fire them. In which you are, as you see occasion, to make as probable and just a ground of a quarrel as may be, and, if you can, to make it their quarrel, not yours. But howsoever, if you can meet with them you may not fail to take, sink, or fire them.”[251]
With his usual readiness to obey orders as soon as he understood what they meant, Pennington prepared to obey. He had ‘now fifteen ships altogether;’ Dec. 28.Pennington prepares to obey.but he complained that the Londoners had taken no trouble to make the vessels extorted from them worthy of his Majesty’s service. The ships themselves were ‘very mean things.’ They were undermanned, and those who had been sent on board were chiefly landsmen and boys. With two of the King’s ships he would undertake to beat the whole fleet.[252]
<152>The value of Pennington’s squadron was not to be tested this time. Buckingham had been completely misinformed. 1627.January.Pennington does nothing.Havre roads were empty, and after a few days’ cruise Pennington arrived at Falmouth, having done nothing at all, except that he had fired into ten Dutch men-of-war, believing them to be Dunkirkers. He was himself not well pleased with the result. “Consider,” he wrote to Buckingham, “what a desperate employment you put upon me, to be sent out at this time of year with three weeks’ victual, having long dark nights, base ships, and ill-fitted with munition and worse manned, so that if we come to any service it is almost impossible we can come off with honour or safety.”[253]
Whilst Pennington was still at sea, Louis’s final determination was placed in Charles’s hands.[254] Bassompierre’s plan for settling Final demands of France.the Queen’s household, which had been even more favourable to France than a scheme of which Louis had expressed his approval in October,[255] was now entirely disavowed. The King of France, Charles was to be informed, was unwilling to accept anything short of the complete execution of the marriage contract. Nevertheless, at his mother’s intercession, he would consent to some changes, though they were to be far fewer than those to which his ambassador had agreed. As for the ships, if the King of England would fix a day for liberating the French prizes, he would do the same on his side.
The answer was regarded in England as a personal affront. Buckingham informed Richelieu that his master now considered himself Their rejection.free from all former obligations about the household, and that France, having begun the seizure of the English vessels unjustly, must be the first to make reparation.[256]
Open war could hardly be averted much longer. The <153>marriage treaty of 1624, so fair in its promise, had borne its bitter fruits. Cause of the rupture with France.The attempt to bind too closely nations differing in policy and religion had failed. The English Government had made up its mind to involve Catholic France in a declared war in defence of Protestantism in Germany. The French Government had made up its mind to secure toleration for the English Catholics. When hopes that should never have been entertained failed to be realised, there was disappointment and irritation on both sides. Then came the interference of Charles on behalf of Rochelle, the quarrel about the prize goods, and the quarrel about the Queen’s household, all of them perhaps matters capable of settlement between Governments anxious to find points of agreement, but almost impossible of settlement between Governments already prepared to take umbrage at one another’s conduct.
How was a Government which had failed so signally in making war against Spain, to make war against France and Spain How was England to fight France and Spain?at the same time? Even at Charles’s Court it was acknowledged that, in the long run, the contest which had been provoked would be beyond the strength of England. Yet there were those who thought — and Buckingham was doubtless one of the number — that the English superiority at sea was so manifest that it would be possible to re-establish the independence of Rochelle and to drive the French commerce from the seas, before either France or Spain would be strong enough to make resistance.[257]
Was it certain, however, that even this temporary superiority at sea would be maintained? Again and again, during the autumn and winter, mobs of sailors had broken away from discipline, and had flocked up to London to demand their pay by battering at the doors of the Lord Admiral or the Treasurer of the Navy; and Mutiny in Pennington’s fleet.now Pennington’s crews were breaking out into open mutiny at Stokes Bay. The three months for which the City fleet had been lent were nearly at an end, and when orders were given to weigh anchor and to make sail for the westward, the men responded with <154>shouts of ‘Home! home!’ and refused to touch a rope unless they were assured that they would be allowed to return to the Downs.[258]
After the return of Willoughby’s fleet, the state of the Navy had at last compelled Charles to order a special commission of inquiry, and Commission of inquiry into the state of the Navy.the defects of the King’s ships were being daily dragged to light. The workmen at Chatham, the Commissioners discovered, had not received their wages for a year. The sailors on board some of the ships were in the greatest distress. They had neither clothes on their backs nor shoes on their feet, and they had no credit on shore to supply these deficiencies.[259]
Yet, in spite of all these disclosures, orders were given to prepare a great fleet of eighty ships for the summer. French prizes were now beginning to come in, and would doubtless meet part of the expense. The revenue had been anticipated to the amount of 236,000l.[260] The utmost economy was practised in the Royal household. If only the loan could be collected, all might yet be well for a season.
In January the Privy Councillors and other persons of note appointed to act as Commissioners for the loan started for the counties Progress of the loan.assigned to them. It was thought that men who had closed their purses tightly in the presence of the local Commissioners would be chary of offering a refusal to the Lords of the Council. In the majority of cases, the effect produced was doubtless great. Of the reports sent up in the first three months of the new year, the greater part of those preserved must have been tolerably satisfactory to the King. Berkshire made but little difficulty. The university and city of Oxford showed alacrity in the business. In Cheshire there was ready obedience.[261] In Somerset, Hereford, Shropshire, Stafford, Durham, all but a small number were ready to pay.[262] Nor does this afford matter for surprise. The immediate risk <155>was great. The refuser might be cast into prison, or sent to be knocked on the head in some chance skirmish in the German wars. Except for the most resolute and self-sacrificing, the temptation to escape the danger by the payment of a few shillings, or even a few pounds, was too strong to be resisted. Yet, small as the number of refusers was, the Government could not afford to pass lightly over their denial. It represented a vast amount of suppressed discontent, and the men from whom it proceeded were often in the enjoyment of high personal consideration in their respective neighbourhoods. In some counties Growing resistance.their example spread widely amongst all classes. In Essex some of the local Commissioners themselves refused to pay.[263] In Northamptonshire twenty-two of the principal gentry, followed by more than half the county, offered so decided a resistance that the itinerant Privy Councillors at once bound over the gentlemen to appear before the Board at Whitehall, and sent up a number of refractory persons of lesser quality to be mustered for service under the King of Denmark. In Gloucestershire twelve out of twenty-five Commissioners refused to pay, and the example thus given was widely followed.[264] In Lincolnshire, at the end of January, only two or three persons had given their consent.[265] The Council was in no great hurry to proceed to strong measures. Most of the members were absent from London as Commissioners, and during the greater part of February some twenty gentlemen were allowed to remain in confinement without receiving any summons to appear before the Board. When no signs of submission appeared they were called up and commanded to obey the King. The threat produced no impression on them. The flower of the English gentry refused to admit the justice of the <156>demand, and every one of the offenders was sent back to the restraint from which he had come.
The battle once engaged had to be fought out to the end. It would never do to accept payment from the weak and to allow the strong to go free. A fresh attempt to overcome the opposition in Lincolnshire ended somewhat better than the former one. Still there were sixty-eight recusants. Ten of them, who were Commissioners, were sent up to answer for their refusal before the Council. March.The Earl of Lincoln sent to the Tower.Others followed not long afterwards. The Earl of Lincoln was detected in agitating against the loan, and was sent to the Tower.[266]
Reports of the confusion which prevailed poured in from every side. Soldiers were wandering about the country, to the dismay of quiet householders. “And besides,” wrote Wimbledon to Secretary Coke, “there are many vagabonds that, in the name of soldiers, do outrages and thefts.” The laws seemed to be powerless against them, and yet “there was never time more needful to have such laws put in execution, in regard of the great liberty that people take, more than they were wont.” These obstructions to the well-being of the commonwealth must be cleared away ‘rather at this time than at any other, for that the world is something captious at all things that are commanded without a parliament.’ Wimbledon’s remedy was the appointment of a provost-marshal in every shire. This advice was adopted, and the men were thus brought under martial law.[267]
The spirit of resistance was abroad. On February 28 orders were given by the Council to press fifty of the Essex refusers for the King of Denmark; but February.Resistance of the poorer classes.the poorer classes were learning, from the example of the gentry, to stand upon their rights. With one consent the men refused to take the press-money, the reception of which would consign them to bondage. On March 16 there was March.a long debate on their case in the Privy Council, and some of its members, with more zeal than knowledge, recommended <157>that they should be hanged, under the authority of martial law. Coventry was too good a lawyer to admit this doctrine. Martial law, he explained, was applicable to soldiers only, and men who had not yet received press-money were not soldiers. The order given for sending these bold men of Essex to the slaughter was accordingly rescinded, and they were left to be dealt with — if they could be dealt with at all — in some other way.[268]
The names of these obscure men have been long ago forgotten; but that persons of no great repute should have been found on the list of those who were willing to suffer persecution for their rights as Englishmen is a thing not to be forgotten. It was the surest warrant that the resistance, though led by an aristocracy, was no merely aristocratic uprising. The cause concerned rich and poor alike, and rich and poor stepped forward to suffer for it — each class in its own way. The day would come, if they were pressed hard, when rich and poor would step forward to fight for it.
Amongst the names better known to the England of that day are to be found three which will never be forgotten as long as the English tongue Hampden, Eliot, and Wentworth.remains the language of civilised men. John Hampden, the young Buckinghamshire squire, known as yet merely as a diligent Member of Parliament, active in preparing the case against Buckingham in the last session,[269] but taking no part in the public debates, was amongst the foremost on the beadroll of honour to be called up to London, on January 29, to answer for his refusal to pay the loan. Eliot’s summons in May and his subsequent imprisonment need no explanation. With Hampden and Eliot and many another whose names are only less honoured than theirs, was Sir Thomas Wentworth.
If Wentworth had good reasons for opposing the free gift, he had still better reasons for Wentworth’s opposition.opposing the forced loan. Scarcely a shred was left of that freedom of choice which, at least in appearance, accompanied the <158>former demand. An attempt to draw money illegally from Wentworth’s purse was an insult which he would have been inclined to resent even if Charles had intended to employ it for purposes of which he approved. He knew that the present loan was to be employed for purposes of which he entirely disapproved. To talk to him about the patriotism of lending money for a war with Spain, and, for all he knew, for a war with France too, was adding mockery to the insult. What he wanted was to see the Crown and Parliament turning their attention to domestic improvement. Instead of that, Charles and Buckingham were ruining the sources of their influence by forcing the nation to support unwillingly an extravagant and ill-conducted war.
That the forced loan was not a loan in any true sense it was impossible to deny. There was no reasonable prospect of its repayment, and money thus given was a subsidy in all but name. That Parliament alone could grant a subsidy was a doctrine which no Englishman would be likely directly to deny, and which few Englishmen not living under the immediate shadow of the Court would be likely even indirectly to deny.
Wentworth, however, as usual contented himself with passive opposition. His old rival, Sir John Savile, threw himself into The forced loan in Yorkshire.the vacancy which Wentworth had made, and was able to report in April that the success of the loan in Yorkshire was entirely owing to his exertions.[270] For the present Wentworth was suffered to stand aloof, taking his ease at his ancestral manor of Wentworth Woodhouse. At last, as the summer wore on, he was summoned before the Council, answered courteously but firmly that he would not lend, and was placed under restraint. Before the end of June he was sent into confinement in Kent. The last resource of the King was to banish the leading opposers of the loan to counties as far away as possible from their own homes.[271]
At Court the views which prevailed on the subject of the <159>war with France were diametrically opposed to those which January.Charles’s opinion of the war with France.commended themselves to Wentworth. Charles did not indeed either abandon his wish to recover the Palatinate or conceal from himself the hindrance which a French war would be to the accomplishment of that design; but he was deeply persuaded that, whatever the consequences might be, he could not act otherwise than he had done. Believes Richelieu to be bought by the Pope,His explanation of the whole matter was very simple. Richelieu had at first meant well. But he was a priest after all. He had been bribed by the Court of Rome with an offer of the high position of Papal Legate in France, to set his whole mind upon the extirpation of the Huguenots.
If such an estimate of Richelieu’s character strikes those who hear of it at the present day as too monstrous to have been seriously entertained, it must not be forgotten that good judges of character are rare, and that Charles had neither the materials before him which are in our days accessible in profusion, nor the dispassionate judgment which would have enabled him and himself to have been always right.to extract the truth from what materials he had. On one point he was quite clear. He himself had been always in the right. The treaty between France and England had been directly violated by the seizures of English ships and goods in France. What had been done in England had been a necessity of State policy. The Queen’s household had intrigued with the English Catholics and had sown distrust between himself and his wife. Bassompierre had set matters straight, but had been disavowed by Louis in a fit of ill-temper.[272]
If Charles and his ministers misunderstood the motives and underrated the difficulties of the great statesman with whom they had to do, Has no doubt of the weakness of France.they were equally blind to the secret of his power. They watched the struggles of the inhabitants of Rochelle, and fancied that strength was there. They watched the seething discontent of the French <160>aristocracy, and fancied that strength was there. They thought that they had but to strike hard enough, and the overthrow of the Cardinal would be the work of a few months. They did not see that they were aiming, not at the abasement of a minister but at the disintegration of a nation, and that the effective strength of the nation would fly in the face of the audacious foreigners who based their calculations on its divisions.
In one point Charles was not deceived. The French had nothing afloat which could look the English Navy in the face. In March March.Pennington attacks the French shipping.Pennington was let loose upon the French shipping,[273] and English cruisers swept the seas from Calais to Bordeaux. The goods on board the prizes were sold without delay. The effect was instantaneous. In the winter sailors and soldiers alike had been on the verge of mutiny. Rioters had thronged the streets of London, crying out upon the Duke for the pay of which they had been defrauded. Before the summer came the preparations for the great expedition were going gaily forward. There was money in hand to pay the men for a time, and to buy provisions. France, it seemed, would provide the means for her own ruin.
Buckingham was this time to go himself in command. With the prospect of increased responsibility, February.Buckingham’s overtures to Spain.even he looked uneasily at the enormous forces of the two great monarchies which he and his master had provoked. He determined to make overtures to Spain.
The proposal was not to be made through any accredited agent of the Crown. In proportion as the policy of the English Government came to revolve round the favourite minister, there sprang up a new swarm of courtier-like diplomatists, whose chief qualification for employment was to be found in their dependence on the great Duke. Such a one was Edward Clarke, who had been employed on many a delicate mission by Buckingham, and who had been reprimanded by the Commons at Oxford on account of the indecent warmth with <161>which he defended his patron. Such a one too was Balthazar Gerbier, Gerbier and Rubens.architect and connoisseur, born in Zealand of French refugee parents,[274] and settled in England — a man at home in every nation and specially attached to none. In 1625 he had accompanied Buckingham to Paris, and had there met Rubens, who was engaged to paint Buckingham’s portrait, and who coveted the distinction of a diplomatist as well as that of a painter. Rubens then talked fluently to the Duke of the advantages to England of peace with Spain; but as yet the tongue of the great artist had no charm for Buckingham. The Cadiz expedition, with all its expected triumphs, was still before him.
In January, 1627, Gerbier was again in Paris, where he seems again to have met Rubens, 1627.January.who held much the same language as he had done two years before.[275] Buckingham, when he heard what had been said, resolved to avail himself of the opportunity offered to him, but, to do him justice, February.Buckingham hopes to gain everything from Spain.when he now sent Gerbier to Brussels to take up the broken thread of these conversations, it was no cowardly desertion of his allies which he was planning. Just as when he made war with Spain he was sanguine enough to suppose that he could get everything he wanted by plunging into war, so now that he was ready to make peace, he was sanguine enough to expect to get everything he wanted Gerbier’s proposals.for the mere asking. Gerbier was ostensibly to open negotiations for the purchase of a collection of pictures and antiques, but in reality to propose that a suspension of arms should be agreed upon with a view to peace. This suspension of arms was to include the Dutch Republic and the King of Denmark.
Such a proposal was doomed to rejection, unless Charles was ready to abandon the Dutch. With them Spain would make neither truce nor peace unless they would open the Scheldt, and tacitly abandon their claim to independence.[276] <162>Rubens, of course, by the direction of the Infanta Isabella, replied courteously to Gerbier; but Answer of Rubens.he assured him, with truth,[277] that the King of Spain had no longer any great influence in Germany, and could do nothing in a hurry about the King of Denmark. There would be a difficulty, too, about the Dutch, who insisted upon receiving the title of independent States. The best thing would be to treat for a separate peace between Spain and England. If Charles, in short, would throw over his allies he would then see what Spain would think fit to do for him.[278] The claims put forward by Spain, were, however, out of all proportion to her strength. The siege of Breda had completely exhausted the treasury. Never, wrote the Infanta, had she been in such straits for money. If the enemy took the field she saw no means to resist him.[279]
Before the end of February Gerbier was in London, telling his story to Buckingham. Baltimore, the Calvert of earlier days, was Gerbier returns to London.for the first time since his dismissal from office summoned to consultation with the favourite. Buckingham failed to see that, at a time when England had ceased to have any terrors for Spain, it was madness to expect to impose on her such a peace as he designed. He Joachimi informed.sent Carleton to acquaint the Dutch ambassador, Joachimi, with all that had passed. Joachimi was to be asked to consult the States-General, assuring them that nothing would be done without their consent.
Joachimi was frightened. He could not understand how Buckingham could seriously expect, under the circumstances, to bring about a general pacification in Germany and the Netherlands, and he not unnaturally fancied that the proposal made to him was only the prelude to a separate peace between England and Spain. He was the more uneasy as Charles was absent at Newmarket, and he supposed, whether correctly or <163>not cannot now be known, that Charles was to be kept in ignorance till it was too late for him to remonstrate. His suspicions were increased when he learned that Conway knew nothing about the matter, and that when that usually submissive Secretary was informed of what was passing, he burst out into angry talk, and actually called his ‘most excellent patron’ a Judas.
What Buckingham might have been induced to do, it is impossible to say. Most probably he had, as yet, no fixed design. Feb. 28.The King consulted.At all events, if he had meant to keep the secret from Charles, he was now obliged to abandon the idea. Taking Baltimore with him, he went to Newmarket, and invited all the Privy Councillors on the spot to discuss the matter in the King’s presence. Their opinions were not favourable to the chances of the negotiation. Charles himself, though he would not refuse to listen to anything that the Spaniards might have further to say, positively declined to abandon either his brother-in-law or the States-General. It was Terms on which the negotiation is to proceed.finally arranged that Carleton should go as ambassador to the Hague, upon a special mission for which it was easy to find an excuse. In reality he was to take the opportunity of persuading the Dutch to accept any reasonable offers of peace which might reach him from Brussels, and Gerbier was directed to inform Rubens that England would not treat apart from the States-General. The pacification of Germany might, however, be left to a separate negotiation.[280]
Whilst the Spanish Government was amusing England with negotiations which it had no expectation of being able bring to Agreement between France and Spain.a conclusion satisfactory to itself,[281] Olivares was making use of Buckingham’s overtures in another direction. He showed his letters from Brussels to the French ambassador at Madrid, and, by <164>holding up before his eyes the unwelcome prospect of peace between Spain and England, frightened him into signing an engagement March 16.between France and Spain for common action against England. This engagement was at once ratified in Paris.[282] It was so clearly against the political interests of Spain to support the growing power of France, that April 10.it has generally been supposed that the Spanish Government had no intention of fulfilling its promises. It has, however, been forgotten that at Madrid religious took precedence of political considerations. The letters written by Philip IV. at the time leave no doubt that he contemplated with delight the renewal of an alliance with a Catholic country, and that if he afterwards failed to assist Louis in his hour of danger, it was his poverty rather than his will that was at fault.[283]
Between Charles and Buckingham there was much in common. Both were ever sanguine of success, and inclined to The war in Germany.overlook the difficulties in their path. But whilst Buckingham was apt to fancy that he could create means to accomplish his ends, Charles was apt to fancy that he could accomplish his ends without creating means at all. In the midst of his preparations for war with France, he still thought it possible to intervene with effect in Germany. In the spring of 1627 there was indeed just a chance of retrieving Christian’s defeat at Lutter if Charles could have given efficient support to his uncle. With the merely nominal support which he was now able to give, there was practically no chance at all.
The one bright spot in Christian’s situation was that for a time he had to contend with Tilly alone. Wallenstein was away Wallenstein in Hungary.in Hungary, keeping Mansfeld and Bethlen Gabor at bay. Before long, however, he reduced Bethlen Gabor to sue for peace. Mansfeld, hopeless of success, directed his course towards Venice, and died on the way. Wallenstein, relieved from danger, was thus enabled to <165>bring back his troops to North Germany before the summer was over. Yet, if Charles had been an ally worth having at all, he would by that time have enabled Christian to strike a blow which might have changed the whole complexion of affairs.
Charles had at his disposal only the four regiments which had been sent to defend the Netherlands in 1624. Their The four regiments for the King of Denmark.term of service was now expired. The offer to place them at the King of Denmark’s service sounded like a mockery to Christian. He calculated that, by the treaty of the Hague, 600,000l. were now due to him from England, and Charles, who had no money to spare, offered to send him jewels instead. There was no demand for jewels in Denmark, and Christian complained bitterly. “Let God and the world,” he said, “judge whether this be answerable or Christianlike dealing.”[284] Even the four regiments were not what they ought to have been. They should have numbered 6,000 men, but April 7.their commander, Sir Charles Morgan, reported in April that when the men were mustered to go on board ship at Enkhuisen, only 2,472 answered to their names.[285] The others had fallen a prey to the general disorganisation of the English administration. The pay had come in slowly. Many of the officers knew nothing of military service, and were living in England whilst the soldiers were left to their own devices in the Netherlands.
Such as they were, the skeletons of the four regiments were shipped for the Elbe. From time to time recruits were sent from England They sail for the Elbe.to fill up their numbers. Men pressed against their will, and men sent abroad because they had refused to pay the loan, were expected to hold head against Tilly’s triumphant veterans. With all the efforts of the English Government the numbers never reached their full complement. On June 1, Morgan had not quite 5,000 under his command. Disease and desertion soon thinned the ranks, and it was found impossible to keep up even that number. A <166>jewel which Charles sent proved entirely useless. It was valued at 100,000l., but no one in Denmark would advance such a sum upon it.[286] One more failure was about to be added to the many which had baffled the sanguine hopes of Buckingham and his master.
[183] Fawsley Debates, App. 179.
[184] Rymer, xviii. 719.
[185] Ibid. 721.
[186] Salvetti’s News-Letter, June 16⁄26.
[187] Heath to Eliot and others, June 17; Forster, Sir J. Eliot, i. 350.
[188] Forster, Sir J. Eliot, i. 350.
[189] Rudyerd to Nethersole, July 9, S. P. Dom. xxxi. 39. Salvetti’s News-Letters, June 30⁄July 10, July 7⁄17. ——— to Meade, June 30, Court and Times, i. 116.
[190] Rusdorf to Oxenstjerna, June 15, Mem. ii. 190.
[191] Intended Proclamation, June 15, S. P. Dom. xxx. 2.
[192] The King to the Justices, July 7, ibid. xxxi. 30, 31. The official view of these proceedings is expressed in a letter from Sir John Coke. “His Majesty,” writes the Secretary, “had sought his assistance, resolving to take no violent or extraordinary way to levy monies, but in a common danger to rely upon a common care and affection, that all men must have that will not wilfully be guilty of abandoning their religion, Prince, and country, to the enemy’s power.” — Coke to Brooke, July 2, Melbourne MSS.
[193] Ibid.
[194] Act of Council, July 8, Council Register. Commission, July 26, Rymer, xviii. 737.
[195] Wentworth’s name is happily on the list in Coventry’s letter to the Clerk of the Crown, July 8 (Harl. MSS. 286, fol. 297), from which I have at last, after giving up the search entirely, been able to recover the date of his dismissal, and to bring the fact into connection with the known events of history. The list contains fifteen names for ten counties. It is manifestly imperfect, as we learn that Phelips was also dismissed from the Hist. MSS. Commission Reports, iii. 182.
[196] Wentworth to Wandesford, Dec. 5, 1625, Strafford Letters, i. 32.
[197] Wentworth to Conway, Jan. 20, S. P. Dom. xviii. 110.
[198] Wentworth to Weston, undated, 1626, Strafford Letters, i. 34.
[199] This we learn from a note to the list in Coventry’s letter; see p. 126. In the same way Sir D. Foulis succeeded Sir Thomas Hoby in the North Riding, and the Earl of Hertford Sir F. Seymour in Wiltshire.
[200] Wentworth’s speech, Strafford Letters, i. 36.
[201] Instructions for Musters, July 8, S. P. Dom. xxxi. 34.
[202] Meade to Stuteville, July 24, Court and Times, i. 130. Council Register, July 26.
[203] The answers will be found amongst the Domestic State Papers in August and September. Berkshire was the first to refuse, on August 5.
[204] List of ports charged with furnishing ships, June, S. P. Dom. xxx. 81.
[205] Proceedings in Council, July 24, Aug. 11, 15, Council Register.
[206] List of ships, S. P. Dom. xxxii. 74.
[207] Gyffard to Nicholas, Aug. 24, 27, S. P. Dom. xxxiv. 28, 39.
[208] Council Register, Aug. 23.
[209] Ibid. Aug. 18, 26.
[210] Advice from England, Sept. 12, Brussels MSS.
[211] Commission, July 11, Rymer, xviii. 730.
[212] Instructions for Carleton, printed in Ludlow’s Memoirs, (ed. 1751), 459. I rather suspect the date given as July 12, should be July 22, as the other instructions (S. P. France) are dated July 23.
[213] This date of the Jubilee is distinctly given in Salvetti’s letter, June 30⁄July 10, and is nearly in agreement with Bassompierre’s statement (Ambassade, 185) that more than six weeks passed between the visit to Tyburn and the notice taken of it on July 31. If the 26th of June was the day there would be exactly five weeks, and Bassompierre may be allowed a little exaggeration. Miss Strickland’s notion (Queens of England, 237) that the visit to Hyde Park took place in 1625, founded on a blunder in an English translation of Bassompierre’s speech, receives no countenance from the original (Ambassade, 185). If Miss Strickland consulted Pory’s letter in the Court and Times, in which the visit is said to have taken place on St. James’s Day last, its date as there given, July 1, may have confirmed her in her idea that ‘St. James’s Day last’ meant July 25, 1625. But the Queen was not in London at that date, and the date July 1 is a blunder of the editor. In the original it is July 5, as printed by Sir H. Ellis (ser. 1, iii. 244). Internal evidence, however, shows that it was really written on Aug. 5, and Pory must therefore have meant July 25, 1626, an impossible date. St. James’s Day perhaps arose out of some confusion with St. James’s Park.
[214] Pory to Meade, Aug. 5 (not July 5), Ellis, ser. 1, iii. 237. Private instructions to Carleton, July 23; Conway to Carleton, Aug. 9, S. P. France. Richelieu, Mémoires, iii. 176. Contarini to the Doge, Aug. 11⁄21, Ven. Transcripts, R.O.
[215] The King to Buckingham, Aug. 7; Pory to Meade, Aug. 11, 17; Ellis, ser. 1, iii. 244, 245, 247.
[216] Carleton to Conway, Aug. 13, S. P. France.
[217] Pory to Meade, Aug. 17, Ellis, ser. 1, iii. 247.
[218] The King to the Council, Aug. 14, S. P. Dom. xxxiii. 101.
[219] ——— to Meade, Sept. 8, Court and Times, i. 145.
[220] Contarini to the Doge, Aug. 25⁄Sept. 4, Ven. Transcripts, R.O.
[221] Anstruther’s despatches (S. P. Denmark) give a good insight into these financial difficulties.
[222] If, as seems almost certain, the following undated letter was written at this time, we get from it Buckingham’s feeling about the matter:— ‘My dear Master, — This noble lord hath this day behaved himself like your faithful servant. He is able to relate to you what hath passed. I will only say this, that already your brother and sister are thrust out of their inheritance. If the news be true that runs current here, your uncle is in a very ill estate. There is much difference between the cases. The one, with the help of your people, brought you into this business, and yourself brought the other. The times require something to be done and that speedily, and the more it appears to be yours, certainly the better success will follow. Strike while the iron is hot, and let your uncle at the least see you were touched with the news. So, in haste, I kiss your Majesty’s hands, as your humble slave, Steenie.’ Buckingham to the King, Harl. MSS. 6988, fol. 74.
[223] Contarini to the Doge, Sept. 15⁄25, Ven. Transcripts, R.O. ——— to Meade, Sept. 15, Court and Times, i. 148.
[224] Contarini to the Doge, Aug. 25⁄Sept. 4, Ven. Transcripts, R.O.
[225] Ibid. Sept. 23⁄Oct. 3.
[226] Ambassade de Bassompierre.
[227] Denbigh to Buckingham, Sept. 21, S. P. Dom. xxxvi. 31.
[228] An English merchant at Rouen to Ferrar, Oct. 11⁄21, S. P. France.
[229] At least he afterwards claimed to have been the cause of bringing 400,000l. to his Majesty. And though the loan produced less than 300,000l., I am at a loss to think of any other scheme which produced nearly so much. Apsley to Nicholas, Feb. 2, 1628, S. P. Dom. xcii. 18.
[230] The King to Abbot, Sept. 21, Wilkins, iv. 471.
[231] Commission and Instructions, Sept. 23, S. P. Dom. xxxvi. 42, 43.
[232] ——— to Meade, Oct. 6, 20, Court and Times, i. 154, 159.
[233] The King to the States-General, Nov. 3, Add. MSS. 17,677, L, fol. 292.
[234] Salvetti’s News-Letter, Nov. 10.
[235] Contarini to the Doge, Nov. 17⁄27, Ven. Transcripts, R.O.
[236] Petition, Nov. 9⁄19. Bassompierre to Herbault, Nov. 12⁄22, Neg. 257, 259.
[237] The Duke’s intention is mentioned by Bassompierre in his letter of Dec. 2⁄12, but Contarini knew of it on Nov. 17⁄27.
[238] Contarini to the Doge, Nov. 24⁄Dec. 4, Ven. Transcripts, R.O.
[239] It reached Bassompierre at Dover on the 24th of November, but was not known in London till later.
[240] Contarini to the Doge, Dec. 1⁄11, Ven. Transcripts, R.O. ——— to Meade, Dec. 9, Court and Times, i. 180.
[241] Bassompierre to Herbault, Nov. 30⁄Dec. 10, Neg. 297. Contarini to the Doge, Dec. 8⁄18, Ven. Transcripts, R.O.
[242] Bassompierre to Louis XIII., Dec. 10⁄20, Neg. 307.
[243] Order in Council, Dec. 3, S. P. Dom. xli. 15.
[244] Contarini to the Doge, Dec. 8⁄18, Ven. Transcripts, R.O. The idea about making love to the Queen is frequently mentioned by Contarini, but, I think, without much belief on his part.
[245] Meddus to Meade, Oct. 27, Nov. 4, Court and Times, i. 160, 165.
[246] “Sur ce refus, le Roy a envoyé quérir au principal des juges, lequel ayant refusé de signer, le Roy l’a desmis au mesme instant de sa charge, et puis a envoyé presenter ledit livre aux autres juges, lesquels y ont mis cette clause, que non pour donner exemple au peuple, ny le convier à faire la mesme chose, mais qu’estant interpellés et pressés, pour eviter de fascher sa Majesté ils ont souscrit.” Bassompierre, Neg. 263. Compare Contarini’s Despatch, Nov. 17⁄27; Meddus to Meade, Nov. 10, 17, Court and Times, i. 167, 170. Hyde’s formal appointment was on Feb. 5, 1627; Rymer, xviii. 835.
[247] Meddus to Meade, Dec. 1, Court and Times, i. 175.
[248] Meade to Stuteville, Nov. 25; Meddus to Meade, Dec. 1, Court and Times, i. 172, 175. Rudyerd to Nethersole, Dec. 1, S. P. Dom. xli. 3.
[249] Hippisley to Buckingham, Dec. 8, S. P. Dom. xli. 50.
[250] The King to Buckingham, Dec. 22, S. P. Dom. xlii. 67.
[251] Secret instructions from Buckingham to Pennington, Dec. 24, S. P. Dom. xlii. 81.
[252] Pennington to Buckingham, Dec. 28, ibid. xlii. 100.
[253] Pennington to Buckingham, Jan. 10, S. P. Dom. xlviii. 26.
[254] The letter in Bassompierre’s Negotiations (312) is undated, but was written in the end of December.
[255] Louis XIII. to Bassompierre, Oct. 21⁄31, Neg. 153.
[256] Buckingham to Richelieu, Jan. (?) 1627, Crowe’s History of France, iii. 515.
[257] This is the substance of an undated paper amongst the State Papers, France, which seems to have come from some one of authority.
[258] Philpot to Buckingham, Jan. 15, S. P. Dom. xlix. 37.
[259] Order of the Commissioners, Jan. 16, ibid. xlix. 68.
[260] Ibid. xlvii. 55.
[261] S. P. Dom. xlix. 12, 36; lvi. 72.
[262] Ibid. liii. 88, liv. 28, lvi. 89, lix. 6.
[263] S. P. Dom. liv. 47.
[264] Manchester, Exeter, and Coke to Buckingham, Jan. 12; Northampton and Bridgeman to the Council, Feb. 17, ibid. xlix. 8, liv. 28.
[265] Contarini to the Doge, Feb. 2⁄12, Ven. Transcripts, R.O. ——— to Meade, Feb. 2, Court and Times, i. 191. The story of the riot and attack on the house in which the Commissioners were sitting is contradicted by Meade on the evidence of a Lincolnshire gentleman. The rumours of the day contained in this correspondence must be received with great caution.
[266] S. P. Dom. lvi. 39. Meade to Stuteville, March 17, Court and Times, i. 207.
[267] Wimbledon to Coke, Feb. 23, Melbourne MSS.
[268] Meade to Stuteville, March 17, 24, Court and Times, i. 207, 208. This hearsay evidence is corroborated by the order in the Council Register, March 19, for rescinding the directions for the press.
[269] Forster, Sir J. Eliot, i. 290.
[270] Savile to Buckingham, April 4, 1627, S. P. Dom. lix. 35.
[271] Council Register, June 16, 20, 27, 29. Manchester to the King, July 5, S. P. Dom. lxx. 32.
[272] This is the main result of the language used by Holland to Contarini in giving an account of the opinion prevailing at Court. Contarini to the Doge, Jan. 26⁄Feb. 5 Ven. Transcripts, R.O.
[273] Instructions to Pennington, March 3, 11, 12, S. P. Dom. lvi. 18, 85, 90.
[274] Sainsbury, Papers relating to Rubens, 316.
[275] That the overture came from Rubens was afterwards stated by Buckingham, and is implied in an undated letter from Gerbier to Rubens in the Archives at Brussels.
[276] The Infanta Isabella to Philip IV., Feb. 18⁄28, Brussels MSS.
[277] The Infanta’s correspondence in the previous year, 1626, is full of accounts of an abortive attempt at an alliance with the Emperor.
[278] Sainsbury, 68–76.
[279] The Infanta Isabella to Philip IV., March 10⁄20, Brussels MSS.
[280] Joachimi to the States-General, March 3, 9⁄13, 19, Add. MSS. 17,677, M, fol. 43, 48. Contarini to the Doge, Feb. 27⁄March 9, March 9⁄19. Ven. Transcripts, R.O. Sainsbury, 76–80.
[281] Philip IV. to the Infanta Isabella, May 22⁄June 1, Brussels MSS.
[282] Philip IV. to the Infanta Isabella, April 1⁄11, May 22⁄June 1. Philip IV. to Mirabel, May 22⁄June 1, Brussels MSS.
[283] Richelieu, Mémoires, iii. 282; Siri, Mem. Rec. vi. 257.
[284] Statement by the King of Denmark, Feb. 26, S. P. Denmark.
[285] Morgan to Carleton, March 27; Memorial, April 7, S. P. Denmark.
[286] Anstruther to Conway, June 16, S. P. Denmark.